1971-01-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, as of this moment I still have the honour of presenting the second report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



POST OFFICE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I base my reason for so doing on the imminent threat of a series of rotating strikes in the Post Office Department similar to those which cost the economy of the country so dearly last spring and summer, and which are now being threatened by the bypassing of the union's national executive in dealing with current issues, in contravention of the minister's pledge when he took over his duties that he would improve labour relations within the department. I therefore move under Standing Order 43:
That the question of labour relations within the Post Office Department be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour. Manpower and Immigration for investigation and recommendation for correction in the national interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Has-tings. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimity, regretfully I have to advise the hon. member that the motion cannot be put at this time.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and immediate necessity which arises from the report that areas of Wood Buffalo National Park are being stripped of timber at an accelerating rate by logging companies, with no provision for reforestation, thereby doing almost irreparable damage to large areas of the park, which is a complete negation of the whole concept of the national parks trust. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
That immediate steps be taken to repatriate to the public realm all areas of Wood Buffalo National Park alienated under timber lease agreements, and that a program of reforestation be instituted in those areas already logged.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent that the motion be put?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous agreement, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.



LOGGING PRACTICES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with a matter under motions. Inasmuch as the government is not interested in repatriating-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should indicate immediately what he has in mind. Under motions he can only have the floor for the purpose of moving a motion under Standing Order 43. If he proposes to do this he should indicate that intention to the Chair immediately. No debate can be allowed on the motion put forward earlier by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Frank Howard: I was not seeking to enter into a debate, Mr. Speaker. For the valid and cogent reasons set out by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and inasmuch as the government is not prepared to accept that

January 13, 1971
Canadian Labour (Standards) Code proposal, may I, with the consent of the House, move the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That the subject matter of logging practices in national parks and in particular Wood Buffalo National Park, and government policies with respect thereto, including any agreements or other arrangements which might exist, be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt as to the regularity of the motion proposed by the hon. member. Hon. members must realize that even under the terms of Standing Order 43 a motion before it is put to the House must be in order. I have the impression that the House has expressed its views regarding the matter raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. It may be that this motion is somewhat different from the motion previously proposed by that hon. member, but I thought I should make these remarks to caution hon. members that under Standing Order 43 we should not have a series of motions dealing substantially with the same matter. Having said that, and hon. members having heard the motion to be proposed by the hon. member for Skeena asking that the matter be referred to a committee of the House, I have to inquire whether there is unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the hon. member that there is not unanimity and therefore the motion cannot be put.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING LAY-OFFS OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-216, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require that there be no lay-offs of persons employed in federal industries, where a person has been employed for one month, without six months' written notice, and no mass lay-offs of ten or more employees in such industries without six months' written notice.
The bill would recognize the property right of an employee in his job where he has not been guilty of wilful misconduct and would protect this right. There have been many recent examples in industries of mass lay-offs with inadequate notice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but he knows that under the terms of
Standing Order 68(2)-would the hon. member kindly resume his seat-he can only give a very succinct explanation. He cannot argue his case. I have the impression he is launching into an argument. He should indicate briefly what the purpose of the bill is and not argue the merits of the bill at this time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I had come to the last sentence and was going to say that the bill would prevent the consequent disruption of the lives of employees and their families.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What is the population in the constituency of Skeena with an indication of the date upon which such census or estimate was made?
2.	What is the population of Indians, by census count or estimate, in the constituency of Skeena with an indication of the date upon which such census or estimate was made?
3.	How many (a) male (b) female Indians in the constituency of Skeena have completed (i) grade 10 (ii) grade 12?
4.	How many Indians are employed by the federal government in the constituency of Skeena?
5.	How many Indians in the constituency of Skeena earn more than $3,600.00 per year?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. The latest population count available for the Skeena constituency is that of the 1966 Census when the population amounted to 73,682.
2.	Statistics maintained in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicate that the population of Indians in the Constituency of Skeena as of December 31, 1969 was approximately 13,100.
3.	Information is not available on the total number of Indians in the constituency of Skeena who have completed Grade 10 and Grade 12. Records indicate that during the past five years the following number of Indian students have completed grade 10 and 12. (a) (i) 15; (ii) 5. (b) (i) 13; (ii) 6.
4. There are 50 Indians employed in classified positions, and 33 Indians are employed on projects on a casual basis by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
[Mr. Howard (Skeena) .1
January 13, 1971

5.	It is difficult to provide specific information in this regard. However, according to Survey conducted in 1969, approximately 1,019 Indians earned more than $3,000 of which approximately 720 Indians earned more than $4,000.


PANARCTIC OILS LIMITED-EXPLORATION AND DRILLING
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Has Panarctic Oils Limited farmed out any of its land to other companies for exploration and drilling purposes and, if so (a) what companies (b) are they foreign or Canadian controlled?
2.	What are the specific arrangements agreed to between Panarctic Oils Limited and the companies involved in the farm-out arrangement?
3.	Has Panarctic Oils Limited agreed to any arrangements in exploration and drilling on land owned by other companies and, if so (a) what companies (b) are they foreign or Canadian controlled?
4.	What specific arrangements have been agreed to between Panarctic Oil and the land-owning companies?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	Yes, Sun Oil Company (U.S.A. controlled); B.P. Oil and Gas Ltd. (U.K. controlled); Deminex Canada Ltd. (West Germany controlled).
2.	The specific details and terms of the agreements have not been officially disclosed, and are not on record in the Department.
3.	Yes. Canadian Homestead Oils Limited (Canadian); Troy Oils Ltd. (Canadian); Toltec Mines Ltd. (Canadian).
4.	The permits held by these companies were assigned directly to Panarctic Oils Ltd. by unconditional transfer, and details of agreements leading to the transfers were between the companies concerned and have not been officially disclosed.


PUBLIC SERVICE-POSITION OF MR. PERRY ANGLIN
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has Mr. Perry Anglin left the position of Executive Assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, if so (a) has he entered the federal Public Service (b) in what capacity and in which department (c) at what level and salary?
2.	Did he enter and win a Public Service competition for this position and, if not, what was the basis for his appointment?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) Yes. (b) He has been appointed to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and selected for a special 10-month course at the United Kingdom Treasury, (c) Administrative Services Level 7, Salary range $17,400-$19,800.
2.	Mr. Anglin was appointed by the Public Service Commission by a process of selection other than competition as provided for by Section 10 of the Public Service Employment Act. Mr. Anglin was interviewed by a duly constituted Selection Board of the Public Service Commission on July 13, 1970.
Questions


NATIONAL FILM BOARD PUBLICATION ''CHALLENGE FOR CHANGE&quot;
Mr. Downey: 1.	What is the total circulation of the National Film Board publication "Challenge for Change"?
2.	How often is it published?
3.	What is the annual budget for the publication?
4.	Is there a full list in each issue of the films available on loan or rental from NFB with a short explanation as to the content of the films and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Are lists published in each issue of selected films rather than a full list and, if so, who makes the selections?
6.	Is the publication used in any way to reflect the views of NFB management (or other NFB personnel) with regard to desired channels of social expression?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. 25,000 copies.
2.	Irregularly: 1969-1970, one issue; 1970-1971, three issues.
3.	1970-1971, $10,000.
4.	No. The purpose of the newsletter is to review the activities of the program.
5.	Lists, with short explanations as to the content of the films, appear in the NFB's film catalogue, and information is available at any of the NFB offices.
6.	The newsletter reflects the philosophy and activities of the program which is carried out by the NFB under the direction of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Challenge for Change-Societe Nouvelle.


ARGENTIA NAVAL BASE
Mr. Carter: Has the government made representations to the United States Government with a view to having certain recently vacated buildings, facilities etc. owned by that Government and situated at the Argentia Naval Base made available for use by the Government of Canada, the Newfoundland provincial Government or private interest and, if so, when were representations made and what were the results?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: The government has not made representations to the United States government on this subject but the matter has been discussed with U.S. officials by representatives of federal and provincial departments. These discussions have not yet indicated that there are any available buildings or facilities which could readily be put to productive use, although further studies of longterm development prospects are being made.


SALT COD FISH PRODUCTION
Mr. Carter: What was the total production of salt cod fish in (a) Newfoundland (b) the other Atlantic Provinces for the years 196768-70?

January 13, 1971
Questions


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: (A)	(B)
	(Light dry	(dry basis
	basis equivalent)	equivalent)
1967	48,400,000 lb.	21,400,000 lb.1968	39,600,000 lb.	19,700,000 lb.1970	21,400,000 lb.	16,600,000 lb.
(end Oct. only)


STATUTORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO URANIUM INDUSTRY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the Honourable the Prime Minister state on November 20, 1970 that there was statutory authority to cover the action taken by the government with respect to the Denison Mines and, if so, under which statute was such action taken?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to bring in special legislation regarding the foreign ownership and control of the Uranium industry?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: 1. Presumably the reference in the question to action taken by the government with respect to Denison Mines concerns the declaration on March 2, 1970 of the government's intention to prevent the transfer to non-Canadian hands of control of this company, if necessary by introducing an amendment to the Atomic Energy Control Act to take effect as of that date. On November 20, 1970, addressing the Liberal Policy Convention in Ottawa, the Prime Minister said in part: "We had on our statute books under the constitution the power to do something about the uranium industry because, as you know, it has been declared to be under federal jurisdiction and we had in our statutes something which permitted us to make the decision we did last spring concerning Denison Mines, to prevent the majority of our uranium resources from-the largest part of our uranium resources-from going into foreign control." This statement drew attention to two facts relevant to the government's declared intention: (a) The Atomic Energy Control Act as in force at that time might provide statutory authority for giving effect to the government's intention, (b) If not, the federal government had jurisdiction, as evidenced by that Act, to legislate with respect to the uranium industry.
2. Yes.


CENSUS COMMISSIONERS AND CENSUS TAKERS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What method will be used to select the Census Commissioner for each division in the forthcoming census?
2.	What method will be used in selecting the Census takers?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliameniary Secretary io Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that the commissioners for the 1971 census will be appointed under the authority of the Statistics Act by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The answer to the second part of the question is that the commissioners will select, on behalf of the minister, the census takers (enumerators) required in their respective census districts.


ENERGY-TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE AND REQUIREMENTS OF ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. Thomson: 1.	At what percentage of capacity does the Trans-Canada gas pipeline operate?
2.	What percentage of the energy requirements (heat, light, power) of Ontario and Quebec are supplied by (a) natural gas (b) oil (c) coal (d) water power (e) atomic energy?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In so far as National Energy Board is concerned: 1. Percentage capacity related to the ratio of the actual gas volume transported in the pipe line to its capability between the Alberta-Saskatchewan border and Toronto is approximately 98 per cent for the contract year from November 1, 1969 to October 31, 1970.
2.	Ontario	Quebec	(a)	Natural Gas	21.7	per	cent	4.6	per	cent(b)	Petroleum	46.3	per	cent	73.5	per	cent(c)	Coal	23.7	per	cent	3.7	per	cent(d)	Hydro Electricity	8.2	per	cent	18.2	per	cent(e)	Nuclear Electricity	0.1	per	cent	NIL



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: Who are the employees and staff of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and in each case (a) what was each employee's salary or wage in his previous employment (b) what was the former source of employment, i.e. public service, university, industry, etc. (c) what was the exact date of commencing work for the Commission (d) what salary or wage was offered and accepted by each employee when joining the Commission (e) what was the percentage increase or decrease in salary levels compared to his former source of employment (f) what salary or wage increases, if any, in amounts and percentage increases were received by the employees, and the reasons for such increases (g) what employees were hired on a contract basis and, in each case, what is the time limit and specific provisions regarding basic salary and future increments?
Return tabled.


COMPLAINTS REGARDING MISLEADING ADVERTISING
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	For the fiscal year 1969/70, how many complaints were received by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding misleading advertising in Canada?
2.	How many of these complaints were subject to an investigation by the Department?

January 13, 1971

3.	In each case, what were the results of the investigation and what were the criteria used by the Department regarding further action in the courts?
4.	How many complaints did the Department send to the Department of Justice for prosecution?
5.	How many prosecutions did the Department of Justice undertake and, in each case, what was the result?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONTRACT COVERING CONSTRUCTION OF POSTAL STATION VANIER
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-05735 covering construction of Postal Station Vanier and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5 Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONTRACT COVERING ALTERATIONS TO LANGUAGE CENTRE, CARSON'S ROAD
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract OC-00154 covering alterations to Building "D", Phase 2, The Language Centre, Carson's Road, and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5 Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No.
Motions for Papers
172 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the governments concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary is it the pleasure of the House that motion 172 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SOUTHEY, SASKATCHEWAN-MAIL SERVICE CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 172-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and other documents concerning the tender and contract for mail service on R.R.l, Southey, Saskatchewan, and other correspondence and documents concerning the operation of said mail service since its inception.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 11, 14, 15, 19, 41, 73, 81, 94, 109, 110 and 165?



PRIMARY DISTRIBUTORS OF GOVERNMENT OF CANADA SECURITIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Salisman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of (a) the approximately 200 primary distributors of Government of Canada marketable securities, and (b) the primary distributors who are at present eligible to enter into purchase and resale agreements with the Bank of Canada, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 65 and reported in Hansard of December 17, 1969, at page 2067.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a similar motion during the last session it was explained that publication of these lists as at a certain date could lead to unfair reflection on a firm which happened to be omitted at that particular time, that it could be prejudicial to the banker-client relationship involved and that it was not considered in the public interest to publish the lists requested. In the circumstances, it is hoped that the hon. member will agree to withdraw the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS-CORRESPONDENCE PROVIDED BY UNITED STATES ON ANTI-COMBINE MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Saltsman:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., provided to the Department of
[Stage Direction]
January 13, 1971
Motions for Papers
Consumer and Corporate Affairs by the United States Justice Department on anti-combines matters related to auto manufacturers and a conspiracy to delay development of anti-smog devices.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: It would not be in the public interest to disclose confidential communications between my department and the United States justice department relative to anti-combines matters because such disclosure would prejudice inquiries in either or both countries. In the circumstances, therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the hon. member would not like to have his motion withdrawn.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



STUDIES ON IMPACT OF DEFERRED CAPITAL ALLOWANCES, AIR FARE TAXES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the studies on the impact of deferred capital allowances, taxes on air fares, speed-ups, in bringing about the final three stages of the Kennedy Round tariff reductions and any other reports, studies, or reviews etc. prepared for the June Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the last spring budget was brought down in March of 1970; the budget to which the motion refers must have been that of June, 1969. In both instances, budget papers were tabled. Other papers, reports, reviews, etc., were internal memoranda prepared by officials for the consideration of ministers. It has not been the practice and is not considered to be in the public interest to make such confidential communications public. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



STUDY ON EFFECTS OF CANADA-U.S. WAGE PARITY UPON COST STRUCTURE OF CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by economist David F. Smith of the Mechanical Transport Branch, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on "The Effects of Canada-United States Wage Parity Upon the Cost Structure of the Canadian Automotive Industries''.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that in response to his previous motion the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was unable to comply with his request as the study in question is an internal departmental document containing information received in confidence from the industry and therefore cannot be tabled. I would ask the hon. member to kindly reconsider and withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES ON &quot;MANHATTAN&quot; PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Thomson:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Department of External Affairs and the United States Government in relation to the Manhattan project.
Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this material is part of confidential communications between governments and cannot, therefore, be made public. In the circumstances, I wonder if the hon. member would agree to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Thomson:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CONSULTANT REPORT ON DATA ON SUBSIDIARIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 73-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by H. R. Kemp on data on subsidiaries in Canada undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce hopes that the hon. member will again reconsider his request for this study in view of the circumstances described previously by the minister. The hon. member will recall the minister's response that the consultant had passed away during the time he was commissioned to conduct the study and that the report is in a draft form, he would ask the hon. member to withdraw his request.


Mr. Skoberg:: I think that the draft study may contain some information or data regarding subsidiaries in

January 13, 1971

Canada. If that can be provided, I would be satisfied to receive it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



STUDY OF PERSONS WHO RECEIVED GRANTS UNDER THE MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 81-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Kates, Peat and Marwick, Company, a study of persons and families who have moved and received grants under the Manpower Mobility Program, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration, in the fiscal year 196768, as mentioned in Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, we think the hon. member for Moose Jaw is prepared to
withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the department's heart has softened to the extent of supplying me with a copy, I withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REPORT ON LOBBYING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on Lobbying prepared for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The reply is the same as that given to a nearly identical motion made in the last session. The material is part of a continuing study which was never intended for other than internal use by officials of my department and me. In view of this, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the name of participatory democracy I ask that the question be put.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON APPLICABILITY OF METRIC SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 109-Mr. Peters:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interdepartmental committee report on the applicability of metric measurement in Canada as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,706 as reported in Hansard on October 22, 1969, page 11702.
Motions for Papers
Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I wish to inform the hon. member that the report of the interdepartmental committee is a report to ministers which includes recommendations and is in consequence an internal memorandum and thereby privileged. The white paper on metric conversion tabled last January sets forth the conclusions of the government. In view of this, I wish to repeat my request of January 21 last and ask the hon. member to withdraw his request.


Mr. Peters:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



GOLD MINING-POLICY RESPECTING GRANTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. Peters:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on gold mining operations undertaken in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as mentioned by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and reported in Hansard of January 23, 1970, at page 2738.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the study called for in this motion is an internal working document used by departmental officials for the purpose of investigating the alternative courses of action with respect to extension or termination of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Because of the confidential nature of the document, and in view of the evidence presented to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works during its consideration of Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, I believe the hon. member has indicated his agreement to withdraw the motion.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ECONOMIC STUDY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF IRON ORE DEPOSITS ON BAFFIN ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 165-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the economic study undertaken in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding the development of iron ore deposits on Baffin Island.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has requested a copy of the economic study regarding the development of iron ore deposits on Baffin Island. The material involved has been developed as background for discussions to be held between the federal government and Baffinland Iron

January 13, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mines Limited to determine the nature of possible federal assistance to the company. As such it would not be in the public interest to release the papers concerned. Under the circumstances I would hope that the hon. member would withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in my view the public interest calls for the motion to be put.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the motion be put?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister based upon the serious statement reported to have been made by the Prime Minister in Singapore to the effect that if a number of other countries withdraw from the Commonwealth perhaps Canada will also do so to prove its purity. Can the Acting Prime Minister advise if it is Canadian policy to depart from the Commonwealth by reason of the reduction of membership in that organization and, if so, can he advise the number of departees which would be required to prompt such withdrawal action by this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the purpose of this government, and certainly it has been the purpose of the Prime Minister in recent weeks, to reinforce the unity of the Commonwealth.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, can the House and the country be assured by the government that Canada's membership in organizations in which it once served usefully will not be withdrawn by Prime Ministerial fiat but only after discussion in this parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do hope, and I am sure the hon. member agrees with me, that there will be no
withdrawals from the Commonwealth on this occasion but, as the Prime Minister said, if the Commonwealth were to fall apart then I do not think the hon. member would suggest we should remain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would not be facetious on a matter such as this. Will he repudiate once and for all the egregious nonsense that is reported to have been uttered by the Prime Minister, or is this another step in the erosion of our relations within the Commonwealth?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the most egregious nonsense I read yesterday was a statement by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I now ask the Acting Prime Minister to repudiate this frightful statement which indicates that the government would act without regard to the wishes of the Canadian people in order to bring about the end of the Commonwealth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the government's view, when arriving at its policy concerning the supplying of naval arms to South Africa by the United Kingdom, that Soviet naval penetration of the Indian Ocean is of little or no consequence to the political and military balance of the world?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is directing his question in a general way. He is inviting the Acting Prime Minister or the minister speaking on behalf of the government to express an opinion. I would not think that the question as asked is in order. The hon. member may wish to rephrase it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry, Your Honour, if it seemed to be a vague question. I thought it was a direct question. May I put it this way: is it the government's view that the Soviet military penetration of the Indian Ocean is of no consequence to the world's political and military balance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I quite understand the implication of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Is the hon. gentleman intending to suggest that we should not comply with the Security Council resolution on the supply of arms to South Africa?


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

January 13, 1971


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the Acting Prime Minister is incapable of understanding simple English. Would he answer the question, and not do what his former colleague, Mr. Gardiner, used to do? When he was asked about milk, he would answer about cheese.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POST OFFICE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General which arises out of statements by the officials of the Letter Carriers Union indicating the possibility of wildcat strikes across the country. In view of the complaint *of the union that there has been decentralization in the Post Office without the union being consulted, resulting in actions being taken regarding hours of work, load limits and transportation in violation of the collective agreement, may I ask the minister whether he has had any consultations with the national executive of the Letter Carriers Union? If not, will he undertake to meet with them in order to prevent a repetition of the rotating strikes we experienced last year?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, may I say first that I read the statement which was issued yesterday by the Letter Carriers Union. On the second page I see that they say they do not want repetition of what happened in the May to August, 1970, period. So I think that some newspapers have misinterpreted what the union said.
There have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, on most or all of the items involved, and the department admits that the decentralization of the Post Office administration creates certain problems. Many problems will have to be solved at the local level. I was told that all the decisions that will have a national implication will be discussed or have been discussed at the national level. I therefore feel very sorry that such a statement has been issued, especially when we are trying to bring back confidence in the Post Office and when we are trying to improve service.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, although the minister may feel sorry that the statement has been issued, the fact is that it has been issued and it indicates a very serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he is entitled under the rules to ask a supplementary question and he should do so without commenting on the minister's reply.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the very serious charge that has been levelled by the union against the minister's department, may I repeat my request. Will the minister himself undertake to meet with the officials of the union in an endeavour to straighten out the difficulties, which he says he regrets, in order to
Inquiries of the Ministry
prevent a repetition of the type of strikes we experienced last year?


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have already had many meetings with Union officials, and especially with Mr. Decarie last month. I was surprised that an official communique was issued, because we had long meetings. While this communique was being issued the president of the association was meeting with the director of personnel. He met with him twice last week, once on Monday and Tuesday of this week. This morning he was in the Deputy Minister's office at 8.30. I have said repeatedly that they are welcome to speak to me any time they wish. There have been certain accusations that the contract between the union and the department has been broken. I am having those accusations reviewed. We will certainly look at them and might have to make corrections. Right now I am asking my officials to give me all available information regarding the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question either to the Acting Prime Minister or to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the situation which has arisen in the Post Office and can arise from time to time with respect to alleged violations of existing agreements, does the government propose to set up any machinery to adjudicate on alleged violations of agreements which exist between various departments of government and the employees concerned in order to prevent repetitions of the type of situation which has existed in the Post Office and now threatens to arise again?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House is very well aware of the most satisfactory services provided by the Public Service Staff Relations Board in this respect. Its task is to adjudicate on matters in dispute between the employees and the employer in the government service.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Since he pledged, when he took over his new duties, that he would do everything in his power to improve employer-employee relations within the Post Office Department and since members of the union's national executive are now reported to be saying that employer-employee relations are considerably worse than they were under his predecessor, will he look into this matter and get it straightened out so that we will not experience serious rotating strikes such as we had last spring and summer?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this matter will be straightened out. I can say that there have never before been so many consultations between department and union officials at the national level and at the local level.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. I wonder if it is not possible for the minister to do something about those people who are marching on Parliament Hill every day? Not only is it extremely cold outside but surely we do not have to have people marching on Parliament Hill every day of the year.

January 13, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



AIR CANADA


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Yesterday the minister said that Air Canada had borrowed some 30 and a half million dollars in Great Britain in exchange for Rolls Royce engines. Did the minister try to get back from Britain before the apparently imminent collapse of the Commonwealth 30 and a half million dollars as part repayment of the amount of more than two billion dollars it owes us since the second World War?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Could the minister tell us if the government, either through him or through the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the National Capital Commission, has received from the government of Ontario, directly or indirectly, representations from the Ottawa-Carleton regional government concerning an upward revision of municipal grants so as to assist in the very serious financial problem that the greater municipality of Ottawa-Carleton is facing?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no such representations have come to my attention.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister say whether the government would be prepared to listen to representations in this regard, since the matter concerns the whole of the national capital area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that the question to some extent is hypothetical in view of the minister's reply.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have directed my question to the Minister of Justice but, in his absence I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that our laws to control possession of handguns and concealed weapons have not prevented criminals and so-called urban guerillas from acquiring whole arsenals of deadly weapons, is the government giving consideration to taking further

restrictive measures to curb the proliferation of weaponry which is seriously threatening our society?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, answering on behalf of the Minister of Justice, I will take the question as notice.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the widespread concern about the conservation and protection of our environment and our resources, can the minister say whether he plans to increase the number of personnel in our river protection services following the drastic reduction of last year?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think this question should be placed on the Order Paper, but I may be wrong; perhaps there is an urgency which is not readily apparent. If there is urgency the hon. member might wish to raise the question at the time of the adjournment and have an opportunity to make a longer statement then.



FINANCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance which in his absence last Monday I asked of the Acting Prime Minister. Would the minister undertake to make a statement on motions to inform the House more fully-I realize a press release has been issued-concerning the new arrangements which he and the governmemnt have made with the Mercantile Bank regarding a fourfold increase in its capitalization and consequently a fourfold increase in the business it may carry on, and requiring that the holdings by the First Citibank of New York-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is making a statement himself. It is my understanding he asked the minister to indicate whether a statement would be made by him. Perhaps the form of the question is a little lengthy.


David Lewis: I am sorry it is a little lengthy. I wanted to make sure the minister would deal with all the matters involved in the question.


Edgar John Benson: The press release which was tabled in the House explains the situation. It is simply a situation in which the Mercantile Bank is applying for an increase in capital as it is entitled to do under the Bank Act. We, as a government, have indicated we shall not authorize an increase in capital unless they move to a large degree of Canadian ownership and guarantee that this will happen.
January 13, 1971


David Lewis: I understand the minister is refusing to make a general statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: In view of the fact that as soon as the Mercantile Bank reaches the 25 per cent target in foreign ownership it will be able to increase its business without statutory limitation and in view of the fact that 25 per cent ownership would place complete control in the hands of a giant foreign bank, would the minister consider making a statement to the House to explain why it is necessary to expand foreign ownership in so critical an area in Canada as banking?


Edgar John Benson: What is really happening is that the last bank in Canada which is owned by foreigners is going to be 75 per cent Canadian-owned ten years from now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: In light of the generous and extraordinary provisions accorded to the Mercantile Bank, can the minister indicate what particular benefits are being offered by the bank to Canadians in return?


Edgar John Benson: There are no generous benefits at all. Any bank can ask for authorization of an increase in capital. As a matter of fact, no bank has ever been refused such an application by a minister of finance. What is happening here is that rather than merely approve an increase in capital we have asked for a guarantee from the Mercantile Bank that they will move toward 75 per cent Canadian ownership within ten years before they can get it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POST OFFICE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question from the hon. Minister of Labour but since he is not here, I shall ask it from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Post Office Department.
The former employees of G. Lapalme Inc. are still marching in front of the Parliament Buildings today and this has now been going on for several weeks. Would the hon. minister tell the House and the population of Canada how long this is expected to last? Why not come to a satisfactory settlement with this group of taxpayers who are pleading democratically and peacefully for the government's consideration?
Is it necessary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but my impression is that this question was asked yesterday, that it was reiterated a short while ago by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley), and that, moreover, it has been answered by the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has taken any new action following recent representations about the urgent need to reunify spouses and immediate families? I should also like to ask whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has replied to requests arising from the recent events in Poland?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government has been actively engaged in trying to reunite Canadians with their families from eastern Europe. We have never given up in our efforts. We continue on almost a daily and weekly basis. We are now looking at the situation in Poland to see whether there is anything useful we can do.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesler North):: should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the blackmailing tactics used on Czechoslovaks who came to this country after the insurrection there have come to his attention and whether his department is taking any action to assist these people in the face of these blackmailing tactics by the government of that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: I take it the hon. member is referring to some recent letters which have come from Czechoslovakia. Tonight in Toronto a meeting is being held at which a number of government officials will be meeting with members of the Czechoslovak-Canadian community to discuss the best way of dealing with this situation. I can assure the hon. member we have this very actively in hand.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour or, in his absence, for his Parliamentary Secretary. Can the hon. gentleman inform the House and the country as to the state of the negotiations between the various unions and the Lakehead Terminal Elevators Association.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: If the hon. member is referring to the Canadian Lake Carriers Association and the dispute with the Seafarers' International Union, I have some information on that subject. G. R. Doucet, the conciliation officer in this dispute, has just wired to say that an agreement was reached between the parties at 5.30 a.m. this morning. Details of the settlement are to follow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!

January 13, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS FOR FORAGE

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: My question is addressed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Has the government any other forage program than the one under Lift and how much money does the government estimate will be spent for forage development under the Lift program?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I do not have a complete statistical breakdown concerning the amount of forage applied for under Lift and the payments which will be made under that program, although preliminary indications are that it will be fairly close to the original target figure. The earlier part of the hon. member's question may refer to the future plans which were indicated in the proposals tabled in the House on October 28. I presume he has those clearly in mind.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What was the earlier target figure for the forage part of Lift?


Otto Emil Lang: We spoke of about two million acres.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege. The minister has given figures at this time and at other times in the House of Commons with regard to forage expenditure under Lift and the total expenditure under Lift. In a recent article in a magazine issued in January, 1971, in the course of a question and answer series he stated categorically that there would be $80 million paid under Lift in respect of wheat and $40 million in respect of forage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring it to the attention of the hon. member that though he may have a point of debate with the minister as to what the facts are I doubt very much that this can be considered a question of privilege. It is essentially a matter of debate and I do not think it can be raised now as a question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order concerning my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister has on different occasions stated what would probably be paid in connection with the forage part of Lift and on one occasion in January of this year, as found in the magazine to which I have referred, he stated that $40 million would be paid under Lift. This is a direct deception, a deliberate-


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


William Arnold Peters: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the announcement
that the CNR intends to remove trains Nos. 7 and 8 as of January 31, will the minister provide an opportunity for the users of these services to be heard at a public hearing before the removal of these passenger trains is permitted?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows that the decision as to a public hearing or no is not one for the minister to make. However, I did indicate to the House some time ago the communication that I had received from the Canadian Transport Commission to the effect that there would be no train withdrawals without a public hearing, and I assume that that will apply in this case.


William Arnold Peters: In view of the fact that the general manager has now circulated to members concerned the new train schedule, will the minister look into the matter and see that the decision of the board is implemented in the form of a hearing?



AIR CANADA


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and has to do with the orders that have been issued for a reduction in the work force in Ottawa of airline employees to the extent of 33 per cent. Representations have been made by the airline employees. Indeed, a series of questions have been asked by them which appear to be reasonable and ought to be answered. Have they made a request to the minister, in whom they have a great deal of trust, to meet with the minister so that they may secure from him the answers to these ten questions and others? This would do a great deal for the morale of the employees-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman has asked a question and I am sure the minister is prepared to reply to it at this time.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as a result of earlier questions on this or a related subject posed, I believe, by the hon. member for York South, I got in touch with Air Canada subsequent to yesterday afternoon's session. In the first instance I was advised that they are meeting with the union, today, I believe. I also asked the officials of Air Canada to meet with me on Monday of next week so I may at least have a full briefing in preparation for the statement that I undertook to make as early as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think that indicates that the statement I was about to make has some basis in fact, namely, that the members of the union want a meeting with the minister. They want to talk with him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister whether he would so meet them.
[Mr. Perrault.l
January 13, 1971


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate that the right hon. gentleman has a supplementary, and I observe that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings also has a supplementary. However, I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will shortly be running out of time, and I count on their co-operation. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I now ask the minister whether, in order to assist in keeping up the morale of the airline employees, he himself will meet them? They do not want to meet with the officials of Air Canada because they get no consideration from them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will not answer.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think I got the gist of the question. I would be very pleased to meet with any group that-


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking the minister to meet with the union.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I wish the right hon. gentleman would let me answer his question because I would be glad to. I said I would be happy to meet with any group, but the question is whether it would be more appropriate, as I indicated earlier, for them to meet with the company first. To this moment, to my own personal knowledge I have not had a request for a meeting with the union. It may have reached my office but it has not reached me.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the hon. Minister of Labour, but in his absence I should like to direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Could he say whether the Department of Labour is now dealing with the problem created by the conflict between the longshoremen in Montreal harbour and their employer? If so, is he expecting an early agreement between the two parties?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that our expert mediator, Mr. Charles Poirier, has sent me a communication to the effect that union and management representatives met this morning in the Department of Labour office and that as a result of Mr. Poirier's mediation, the employees are now going back to work.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how many notes he had to write in order to provide that answer?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that there are at present 5,000 people drawing unemployment insurance benefits in Sydney compared with 1,500 a year ago, what steps are going to be taken to provide employment for these workers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the manpower office in Sydney is making its services available in the most effective way possible to those people who seek them.


Robert Muir: Is the minister suggesting that these 5,000 people are not seeking employment?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence I direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. Would the minister make a statement on motions on the natural gas blowout on King Christian Island which has now meant a loss of over four billion cubic feet of natural gas and is having a serious ecological effect in Canada's northland?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister has already dealt with this question but I would be happy to bring it to his attention again.


Randolph Harding: Would the minister consider a moratorium on natural gas and oil exploration in Canada's north until the results of the present investigation have been evaluated and presented to the House?



MANPOWER


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the unprecedented numbers of

January 13, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
young Canadians seeking employment, would the minister indicate at an early opportunity what proportion of those receiving training under his department are under 30? Can the minister also at the same time supply the House with the number of those who have applied for training and the number of those who have been rejected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that statistical information of this type ought normally to be given the House by way of a written reply to a question. Perhaps the hon. member would consider putting the question on the order paper.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I shall do so at an early date.



IMMIGRATION


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I wonder whether I might ask another question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is irresistible.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So are you. My question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerns a gentleman by the name of Abbie Hoffman. Can the minister explain on what grounds Abbie Hoffman was barred from entering Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hate to inject myself into this exchange and I also have some hesitancy in speaking about an individual case, but perhaps I should say that so far as I know Mr. Hoffman has not presented himself for entry at this moment in time. As a result, he has not been barred. If, of course, he does present himself, the normal procedures will follow.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I realize he is not the type that we want in Canada, but I just want to know whether, if there has been such a decision, it indicates a change in government policy.



GOVERNMENT PROPERTY


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the continued protest of the Vancouver Parks Board against the granting of a lease to the Four Seasons Hotel because such a project would destroy a great part of the beauty of the approach to internationally known Stanley Park, what action is the government taking in regard to approving or refusing the lease?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to insist that the delightful hon. member-


Mr. Baldwin:: Also irresistible.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: -revert to her former status, because I cannot even hear what she is saying.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am not going to take it off to please you, but I will repeat my question.


Some hon. Members:: Take it off, take it off!


Malcolm MacInnis: As soon as hon. members simmer down, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Malcolm MacInnis: In view of the continued protests of the Vancouver Parks Board against the granting of a lease to the Four Seasons Hotel, because such a project would destroy a great part of the beauty of the approach to the internationally known Stanley Park, what action is the government taking in regard to approving or refusing the lease?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that this question could be placed on the Order Paper.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there is urgency we could all return at ten o'clock to consider it.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to let you
know, if it is not already known to you, that this is a very urgent question in Vancouver. It is now at the point of being decided, and I have asked that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I have misjudged the question. I find that the hon. gentleman is also irresistible, so we might allow the minister to reply to the question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the best offer I have had today is to meet with the hon. member at ten o'clock. I want to assure the hon. member that the matter is being given urgent attention at this time, to the extent that the National Harbours Board is involved in it, and no decision has been made at the moment. I have asked for additional information.



WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION-FORAGE PROGRAM FOR 1971-72

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a question asked earlier of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is in charge of the Wheat Board. My question concerns the forage program for 1971-72. Does the minister propose to go forward with the program for 1971-72 and, if so, will it be tied to wheat acreage reduction as it was in 1970?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, formal announcement of the program will be made after a final decision has been taken. In that regard, as is known to hon. members, the proposal is that up to $40 million will be offered to the producers in the prairie region over a three-year period for additional forage crops of up to four million acres.

January 13, 1971



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Robert N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the refusal of immigration authorities at Fort Erie to admit an African clergyman by the name of Reverend Joshua Dube, who carried a Rhodesian passport and was coming to Canada to take part in Christmas services, can the minister inform the House whether it is the policy of his department to refuse admittance to Canada of any persons holding Rhodesian passports?


Otto Emil Lang: That is not the policy, Mr. Speaker. In so far as the particular case is concerned, I will have to take the question as notice and investigate.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister in charge of Information Canada. It has reference to a poster which his department has recently brought out. So he will know what I am talking about, let me point out that the poster I have in mind carries the caption "Our country is at the beginning". It has a picture of a male and a female-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask his question as we are running short of time.


Mr. McCuicheon:: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to be sure the minister knew what I was referring to. It is the poster with the two nudes, one with a maple leaf pointing up and the other with a maple leaf pointing down. Information Canada indicates on the poster that it depicts the basic truths about our country. My question is, and I finally get to it, what is the basic truth involved here?


Mr. Speaker:: That question could be placed on the Order Paper.



POLLUTION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the many pollution problems in Canada, is it his intention to make a statement on motions concerning the extremely significant conclusion of the Quebec Royal Commission on Health regarding the need for the federal government to establish national standards for pollution control?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of establishing national standards for pollution abatement.



SHARING BY GOVERNMENT OF COST OF STORAGE

['Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there are some discussions along these lines going on with the United States government, but I will follow up that suggestion.']
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of representations by representatives of the farm organizations concerning the storage of the six major grains, can he say whether or not the government has decided to share the cost of storage of some basic amount of these six major grains, or is the government at least considering such a policy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, discussions are going on with the producers in respect of many things related to the proposals which were put forward. It is not my intention to speculate on the results of these discussions until a full announcement can be made.



Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he undertake to make representations to the United States government with a view to having certain facilities at Argentia, vacated by them, transferred to the Canadian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there are some discussions along these lines going on with the United States government, but I will follow up that suggestion.



MANPOWER


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can the hon. gentleman tell the House whether his department's estimates to create summer jobs for students have been concurred in? If so, can he give us the assurance that a relevant statement will be made in order to reassure students?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of possible programs is indeed under consideration by the government and any decision on possible programs will be taken and made known in due course.

January 13, 1971
Young Offenders Act FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF TAX REFORM LEGISLATION

Mr. Frank Moores (Bonavisia-Trinily-Conceplion):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the decision by Wabush Mines to shelve plans for a three million ton expansion of its iron ore production in Labrador because of tax uncertainty, and in view of Brinco's reluctance to develop the Lower Churchill Falls power project for the same reason, can the minister say when he will present his tax reform legislation to the House?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, do not agree with the preamble to the question. As a matter of fact, I understand that Wabush Mines is proceeding with its development in Labrador and Northern Quebec. In respect of tax reform, it is our intention to present this legislation some time this spring.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Sollicilor General) moved: that Bill C-192, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to submit for second reading a very important bill. It concerns young persons, those who need special assistance and protection from society. Our young people represent our future generations, the fate of our country depends on them. The Juvenile Delinquents Act has been in substantially the same form since 1929, and it may no longer reflect a number of contemporary concerns.
The recommendations for reform of the Act have required a great deal of effort and careful reflection, which explains why it is only in 1971 that the necessary amendments are brought before the House.

Before I outline the policy of Bill C-192 I wish to pay tribute to the work of my predecessor the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcllraith). Many years and much expertise has gone into this bill, but it was the efforts of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre which resulted in the bill being put in final form and introduced here on November 16, 1970. My colleagues I am sure will want to join me in applauding the hon. member's decision to carry on as a Member of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In this way Canadians will be able to continue to take advantage of his parliamentary experience and they are not likely to forget the services he has rendered to this country throughout the years, not only as a conscientious Member of Parliament but also as a minister holding different portfolios.

In outlining the research and work in preparation for this bill, I will mention only a few of the stages through which it has passed.
On November 6, 1961, a Department of Justice committee was set up to study the problem of juvenile delinquency in Canada; the committee's report was tabled in Parliament on February 7, 1966. The implementation of its recommendations required consultation with the provinces and a Federal-Provincial Conference was held in Ottawa in January, 1968.
It became clear from the beginning that provincial delegates would have to examine the proposed Bill in light of their existing social legislation and administrative structures. Cooperation was required to arrive at acceptable compromises.
One of the main problems was that of the maximum age limit for jurisdiction; another was the kind of offence to be dealt with under the proposed legislation.
As stated in the brief submitted to the Justice Department committee by the Canadian Corrections Association (now known as the Canadian Criminology and Corrections Association) the existing Act created a new kind of all-encompassing offence, that of "delinquency". This is an offence unknown at common law. No matter how a child is before a juvenile court, he can be tried and found to be in a state of delinquency. No legal distinction is made, between the young person who has committed a serious crime like armed robbery, and one guilty of an offence under municipal by-law, such as riding a bicycle without a licence.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to read this quotation because representative of the attitude of a number of public bodies to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and emphasize the need for the reforms proposed in this bill. On this point, I should also point out that delegates from all provinces agreed that offences under provincial or municipal legislation should no longer be dealt with under federal law. The Juvenile Delinquents Act, which is in effect criminal legislation, should be applied only to clearly defined offences. Nevertheless, unanimity could not be achieved on all the proposed reforms, and some compromise solutions had to be adopted in order to win approval by a majority of the delegates. Consequently, and I wish to make this clear right from the beginning, the bill which I am submitting to you today for second reading is certainly not perfect. It does however ensure greater homogeneity in the treatment of young people appearing before courts across the country, and it does uphold certain provisions which attempt to eliminate, as far as is possible, arbitrary treatment.
As I have already said, the Juvenile Delinquents Act has not been changed significantly since 1929. However, during this long period of forty-two years, provincial and municipal legislation has evolved in varying degrees in the general direction of greater precision, and often of
January 13, 1971

Young Offenders Act
(i)	in order that the case may proceed instead under that act, or
(ii)	in order to proceed himself under that Act if he has jurisdiction thereunder.
In my opinion, these sections are very important tools, so that court judges in juvenile court are able to choose the act under which they consider it desirable to proceed, even in cases where an offence has been established. This clause clearly shows the desire on the part of the government that young persons should have available social and educational measures for their rehabilitation. This is a far cry from the strict application of punitive justice.
Unlike the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the proposed legislation offers a procedural framework with clearly defined limits. It is a question of protecting the interests of the young person and at the same time of providing him with all necessary legal safeguards.
In the traditional scheme of things, the juvenile was considered incapable of understanding his real interest, and for this reason the act did not confer upon him the formal protection enjoyed by offenders tried in other courts. The new act, therefore, is more in line with the present change in the attitude of the authorities towards young people. Paternalistic and authoritarian theories are being abandoned and an attempt is being made to develop a greater sense of individual responsibility among young people and even children.
This sense of responsiblity, however, cannot be developed unless the individual is brought to a full awareness of his duties and responsiblities towards society and of the protection in the form of certain basic guarantees which society owes him in return.
Since at this stage I cannot possibly provide a detailed review of the procedural framework proposed, I shall simply comment on it in broad outline, placing particular emphasis upon the more obvious effects of the innovations.
The proposed legislation authorizes the young person, if he indicates his intention to admit the offence, to have the disposition imposed in the jurisdiction where he resides. This right likewise applies to the choice of judicial district within a given province.
It is in fact laid down in sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause 22 that the young person may claim this right in the case of all offences with the exception of those mentioned in subsection (2) of section 413 of the Criminal Code relating to treason, inciting to mutiny, sedition, piracy or murder. This is one of a group of rights all aimed at ensuring assistance from his community for a young person appearing before a judge.
The new legislation includes the stipulation that the judge, justice or clerk of the court shall not issue a warrant unless he has reasonable and probable ground to believe that it is necessary in the public interest to issue a warrant rather than a summons. This measure is obviously aimed at limiting the number of arrests ordered by the court.
The warrant as well as the summons is to include a statement of the alleged offence and a notice that the young person to whom it is directed is entitled to
representation by counsel of his own choosing. Furthermore, the court must not accept an admission of an offence alleged in an information laid against a young person unless he is assisted by counsel or a parent or some adult who in the opinion of the judge is capable of advising the young person.
One of the legislation's most important innovations is undoubtedly its intention to relieve certain young offenders from a court appearance or from any formal proceedings. Clause 23 in fact authorizes the judge to designate a person to confer with the person who laid the information with a view to disposal of the case without a hearing.
However, this procedure may be adopted only on condition that the attorney general of the province has no objection. The clause provides that the person designated must draw up and present written recommendations before the expiration of two months; such an informal adjustment prevents the institution of new proceedings for the particular offence, once the judge has ordered acceptance of a recommendation for informal adjustment.
This is indisputably a course which would enable social welfare and child protection agencies centralized at regional level, as advocated by a number of people including Judge Marcel Trahan of the Montreal Social Welfare Court, to co-operate with the magistrates in seeking adjustment of all cases where the formal appearance of the young person is not necessary or desirable. In other words, officers of the regional social services would cooperate with the judges and relieve congestion in the courts by eliminating certain appearances.
At this point we should focus on the other aspect of the proposed legislation-that of its flexibility with respect to the legal handling of different types of cases. In each alternative mentioned, the law in addition protects the young person's rights by ensuring mandatory assistance from his family counsel or some other trustworthy person.
When we adopt the precise rules of procedure as for adults and the same right of appeal we clearly demonstrate the important role of juvenile courts and equal status is conferred on the juvenile court judge with that of other judges.
To end this brief description of the protection of the rights of juveniles under the previous act, I would like to mention that, under the new bill, a representative of the information media has the right, except in certain instances, to attend a hearing.
He is chosen by the judge who may also authorize the presence of one or two other representatives chosen by him. Newspapermen will not however have the right to publish any account which might lead to the identification of the child in question and result in future suffering. Their presence at the hearing is an additional guarantee of the young person's rights before the court.
I fully realize that this proposition may infringe on the freedom of the press. On the other hand, it would be irresponsible on our part not to take into account another

January 13, 1971

right, that of the adolescent not to carry a stigma for the rest of his life. Is there a better solution? I urge newspapermen who might have suggestions in this regard to pass them along to and discuss them with the members of the parliamentary committee.
It is obvious that the measures aimed at protecting the young person's rights before the law are not in themselves sufficient to ensure treatment in accordance with his needs. This treatment will depend on the judge's decision. At this point the crucial question arises: Is he to decide on the basis of the offence or in terms of the total situation of the young person and his personality? The present act stipulates that: "Where a child is adjudged to have committed a delinquency he shall be dealt with, not as an offender, but as one in a condition of delinquency and therefore requiring help and guidance and proper supervision." This already shows the concern of the federal government to take account of the conditions under which the child lives. The proposed legislation clearly implies that we must go beyond that basic consideration and it defines the forms of help that the judge should require from parents and probation officers before deciding on the appropriate disposition.
When a summons is issued to a young person or when he is arrested, the parents must be advised of their obligation to appear with him and if they are not present they can be found in contempt of court. Furthermore the clerk must notify a probation officer assigned to the court within a reasonable time so that he may be present in court.
This does not mean that the judge must in all cases have a pre-disposition report, but it does constitute a formal recognition of the importance of the probation officers assistance. In all cases where consideration is given to ordering transfer of a young person over fourteen to a criminal court, a probation order is mandatory. The judge must, prior to making an order for transfer, and I quote from the bill:
cause an investigation to be conducted under his supervision into the background of the young person and the circumstances of the alleged offence, and for the purposes thereof, he may order any social, medical, psychological or psychiatric examination or inquiry that he thinks desirable.
Thus Bill C-192 lays the foundation for applying progressive theories according to which, once the gravity of the offence has been established and evaluated, treatment should not only relate to the seriousness of the offence, but also and above all to the personality and environment of the young person before the court.
The terms of the disposition provided in the bill aim at forging closer links between criminal justice properly so called and social laws protecting children and young people, as formulated and administered by the provinces. This collaboration is indispensable, as it forms the basis for a concerted action regarding the restructuring of intake, education and treatment services.
In this connection, it should be noted that in carrying out the educational or punitive treatment imposed, the same concern for the protection of the young person's rights in establishing certain procedures relating to the hearing of the case, is shown.
Young Offenders Act
The judge after considering the pre-disposition report, determines the maximum time during which a young person may be removed from his home. However, it is open to the provincial authorities to release him earlier, should they think it advisable. On the the other hand if he has not become rehabilitated within the time fixed by the judge, the young person should be detained under provincial law as a social welfare measure.
This legislation looks to the needs of the young persons while not losing sight of their right to just treatment. Nevertheless the proposals will be carefully considered in committee and amendments may be made, since this is its duty.
Furthermore, it is obvious that the effects of the proposed new legislation can only be judged after it has been in force for some time, and even then, not only in a general way, but also in terms of each province; the effects will vary from province to province because their social and legal services may be at differing stages of development.
In other words, although the aim of Bill C-192 is to offer a young person better protection of his legal rights, it is probable that such protection can be fully assured only insofar as provincial structures are standardized at the same time. This observation also applies to all the reforms relating to concurrent penal and social authorities.
The provinces must be concerned with this problem and I would like to offer them assistance and encouragement to define their thoughts on the role of their probation offices or foster and treatment institutions, from the welfare or legal point of view. If such dialogue is established progress will be made towards uniformity in distribution and application of funds. This is our hope.
Now, one of the objectives of Bill C-192 is to ensure that all young offenders receive like treatment; to attain this goal, reforms other than just legislative or federal ones must be made.
The philosophy underlying Bill C-192 is that the imposition of penalties for their deterrent effect alone may not work nor should penalties be imposed for pre-delinquent or quasi-delinquent behaviour. By the proposed legislation we are therefore undertaking to cease stigmatizing deviant, but non-criminal behaviour in young persons and to recognize only offences for which penalties are imposed when committed by adults.
It is all the more unrealistic, then, to consider that criminal law should or could control the wave of predelinquent or quasi-delinquent behaviour.
In short, and it is on this general observation I wish to conclude, Bill C-192 is only a legal framework for the treatment of a proportion of young persons in need of protection and supervision, but this framework must be complemented by the formulation of social measures for which responsibility lies with the provinces.
9 (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, since these are my first words spoken in the chamber in:

January 13, 1971
Young Offenders Act
the new year, may I extend to you and to all members of the House best wishes for 1971. I join in the remarks of the minister who has just spoken concerning the long association that many of us have enjoyed with the former solicitor general. We shall miss him in that capacity. I am happy that he is still a Member of Parliament. I trust that he will give some guidance to the department and to the government on these questions.
I also wish to extend my congratulations to the new minister, a young lawyer. He has accepted a portfolio which gives great scope for reform, and especially for reform affecting our young people.
Having said that, I am sorry that I cannot be as optimistic as the minister was in his speech. Before this debate ends I hope that he will read the bill thoroughly. His knowledge of it should extend beyond the facts contained in the department's brief to the government. When I have finished speaking I intend, on behalf of my party, to move a motion. That is how serious we think this bill is. At the outset, may I say that I have examined the bill carefully. I have received letters from various academics of universities, from lawyers, professors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and from people engaged in social welfare work. Of course, all of us received the brief from the Canadian Mental Health Association. None of the people I have mentioned are very happy about this bill.
Let me say at the outset that I hope to be able to prove and to document very carefully the argument I am about to present. In my opinion-and these are hard words-this bill will continue in force those sections of the Criminal Code dealing with the conviction of persons seven years of age and over. I think I ought to put the relevant sections onto the record. Section 12 of the Criminal Code reads:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.
I shall have something to say about that section in a moment. I tried to move an amendment to that part of the code, but it was talked out by various members of the Liberal party, I think at the suggestion of the former solicitor general. Section 13 reads:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of fourteen years, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong.
I had hoped that the bill would have done something to amend these sections. The new bill is most archaic. It is the most punitive, enslaving, vicious and tyrannical piece of legislation that has ever come out of the legislative grist mill. Professors, academics from across the country and members of welfare organizations came to my home because they knew I was to take part in this debate. What they said substantiates what I have said about this bill.
At this time many of our people are unemployed. Many university graduates and college students cannot get jobs. With that in mind, surely the government could have come forward with a better bill than this. Let us
see what some people are saying about the bill. First of all, may I read a letter that comes from my home city. It is from Professor Frost of the Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Psychology. He says:
Dear Mr. Woolliams,
Re: The Young Offenders Act, 1970
Because the juvenile courts, which have jurisdiction over children aged 10-17 need many choices open to them and maximum flexibility in order to make decisions that consider the total needs of the child who is before the court:
I support the recommendations of the CELDIC Report,-
I will refer to this later. I continue:
-"One Million Children" that the services of health, education, welfare and corrections should not segregate a child but should, wherever possible, provide help to his family, his school and within his own community;
I oppose the Young Offenders Act-
That is what Dr. B. P. Frost, Associate Professor and Head of the Division of Clinical Diagnosis and Special Education says. I continue reading:
I oppose the Young Offenders Act because it is designed to segregate the child who breaks the law. It deals only with his behavior and does not consider his total needs nor his resources. It is inflexible and legalistic and it severely limits the discretion of the judge and the supporting staff and agencies that he calls upon to help the child.
In effect, the Young Offenders Bill is a Criminal Code for children.
We are bringing in a new Criminal Code for children. That is what the government is bringing forward at a time when there are so many young people unemployed that we shall see a crime wave, which may have already begun, more serious than any we have seen since the 1930's. The letter continues:
I urge you as my Member of Parliament to oppose this new bill, the Young Offenders Act, and to recommend that, in the interests of the children of Canada, the Bill be returned to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-
This bill will go to that committee only under certain conditions, if I have anything to do with it. Of course, the government has an overwhelming majority in the House and after the bill has been discussed for second reading, it will be sent to the committee. We know what is likely to happen. The committee is chaired by a government supporter, and the majority of committee members are also government supporters. Except for a few innocuous amendments, this bill will be presented almost unchanged for third reading. If I have any power to do so, I shall see that the bill as it now stands will never reach the committee. I intend to move a motion so that when the bill, after some changes, reaches the committee, it can be discussed intelligently, in order that we may do something beneficial for the greatest resource of Canada, our youth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The letter ends by saying:
I urge you as my Member of Parliament to oppose this new bill, the Young Offenders Act, and to recommend that, in the interests of the children of Canada, the Bill be returned to the

January 13, 1971

Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for revision and that in this process opportunity is provided for public submissions and discussion before the Bill, in amended form, comes again before the House.
If the bill reaches the committee, the government may treat it as it treated the federal court bill. The committee will not want to hear witnesses. They will say, "We will hear two or three witnesses, and then we will wrap it up." The committee certainly will try to wrap it up.
Let us see what other people say about the bill. I have here another letter from another man. I asked him to come to my office in Calgary. I said, "Let us organize a meeting." After that about 30 people came to my home; approximately 15 or 16 of them were academics representing various social agencies of the city. Others were young lawyers. After studying the act they characterized it with the words I used earlier. That is where they were first suggested to me, actually. May I point out that many of our young lawyers wish to help our young men and women who are involved with penal institutions. Here, in this bill, we talk about training schools, yet there are not enough training schools in the country to meet the need.
You know, Mr. Speaker, this is a government of "highs". We have high unemployment and the highest murder rate we have ever had. As a result of drugs and other problems, we have the highest number of young people ever incarcerated in our penal institutions. That is another high. Let us take a look now at what Professor Price from Queen's University has to say. I want to prove this case, since I have used language as strong as I have used. The minister has read out a little essay written by his staff but it is time we exploded the impression contained in it. I am here this afternoon to explode what I think amounts to a complete deception and to emphasize that the act we are dealing with represents a backward step. This is what Professor Price has to say:
Dear Mr. Woolliams,
You may remember that we met at the conference this Spring of the Ontario Association of Corrections and Criminology at Cedar Glen. I understand that you are the critic of the Progressive Conservative Party on matters relating to criminal justice and corrections, and it is in this connection that I am writing to you.
As you know, Bill C-192, the proposed new Young Offenders Act, was given first reading in the House this past week. I am writing to urge that this bill be referred to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. I perhaps should mention at this point that I served as Secretary to the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, and was the principal author of its report entitled "Juvenile Delinquency in Canada". The proposed new legislation has its origins in that report.
I think it is most important that interested groups and individuals have an opportunity to make formal submissions in the manner in which Committee hearings would permit. In my view, legislation of this importance should not be enacted without full public hearings.
Apart from the general matter of principle, I would suggest that there is a particular reason why this bill should be referred to the committee. Recently I made a tour to a number of cities in Western Canada in connection with a study that I am doing of The Canadian Law of Criminal Correction. I heard quite a number of complaints that interested groups, such as Juvenile Court Judges and Probation Departments, had not been consulted in connection with the draft Children and Young Persons Act.
Young Offenders Act
I pause there. Wherever you go in this country you find that the government, or the Department of the Solicitor General did not consult with the provinces, did not consult with the agencies which are doing this work and who understand the psychological problems of young people who run afoul of the law. This is why the writer of this letter says there must be a full hearing. I know why this bill is before us in its present form. I read in the newspapers that the government was so busy getting the public order legislation drafted that they only had a small amount of legislation ready. This bill happened to be one that was ready for Teddy, and here it is.
Professor Price continues:
Some that had been consulted wanted a further opportunity to follow up an initial brief contact. Apparently the Government of Canada was careful to consult with the provincial governments as such but many of the provincial governments took a very narrow approach-
I do not need to read any more of that. Let us see what the provinces are saying. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of November 18. Ontario took the same position as we are taking out in Alberta.
Two Ontario cabinet ministers attacked the federal government's proposed Young Offenders' Act Tuesday, saying it had tremendous implications for the provinces.
The bill introduced in Parliament Monday, suggests that "juvenile delinquency" be abolished as a special criminal status. It also would repeal the federal Juvenile Delinquent Act.
It defines a young offender as a youth between 10 and 21 years of age. At the same time it raises by one year in seven provinces the maximum age of children to be tried in family courts rather than in ordinary criminal courts.
One of the ministers went on to say he doubted whether Ottawa would help finance the extra training schools which would be needed if the bill were passed. The responsibility for creating the training schools is being thrust on the provincial governments without any commitment being made for their financing by the federal government. This is typical.
Now, take a look at what the Canadian Mental Health Association has to say about this bill. They use some pretty strong language, too. They say the bill is, in fact, "a Criminal Code for children". I would think that in 1971 we could do something better that that. The Association describes the bill as being "distasteful in its terminology, legalistic in its approach and punitive in its effect."
I intend to deal with some of the clauses, and with one of them in particular. Suppose a child aged 11 or 12 had, in some circumstances, committed murder. What would happen to him under the terms of this bill? It is so easy, under this bill. A child can come forward and say: "I am guilty". There is a clause which says you do not have to plead. You say "I am guilty of all this". However, if an offender were found guilty he would go to a training school until he was 21, with this offence hanging over him all the time. Then, at 21 he would be brought before a court like an adult under part 17 of the Code which deals with indictable, serious offences like murder, robbery with violence, manslaughter, theft of more than a certain amount, rape, and so on. Then, he would be sentenced as

January 13, 1971
Young Offenders Act
if he had been tried on that day. What would be the sentence? It would be life imprisonment, or 21 years. From the time he was charged he would be incarcerated in a training school: He would put in eight or nine years there, and afterward he would put in 21 years unless the parole board leniently interfered with the sentence. And this is supposed to be a beautiful reform at the beginning of 1971.
What does the Canadian Mental Health Association say about this bill? Section 30(l)(k) reads:
Where he (the Judge) finds that the young person committed an offence for which he might, if he had been tried by indictment, have been sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life-he (the judge) may commit the young person to a training school until he has reached the age of twenty-one years, to be thereupon dealt with under subsection (4)-
That, as I have pointed out, is one of the worst features, right there. Suppose a child aged ten did not understand the consequences of his act. He could still be sent to a training school and then, when he was 21, even though he did not know what he had done when he was ten it would be presumed he would then, all of a sudden, become aware retrospectively of what he had done when he was ten. That is quite a reform. The section further states:
A person who has been committed to a training school under paragraph (k) of subsection (1) shall, on reaching the age of twenty-one years, be taken before a superior court of criminal jurisdiction . . ., and that court shall thereupon sentence or otherwise deal with him as if he had then and there been convicted of the offence that he was found to have committed and as if he were thereupon liable to imprisonment for life.
In other words, after he has been trotted out at the age of 21 he gets the same penalty as if he had committed the offence at the age of 21, regardless of the fact that he has served all those years in a training school. Yet this is supposed to be a reform. This is supposed to be the beginning of a brand new day for the young people I saw in hundreds and thousands across this country when I drove home this summer. I picked up a lot of them between Ottawa and Calgary-that is only 2,500 miles- and every mile of the road was packed with young people looking for jobs.
I turn to Section 30(l)(f) which provides that a judge may place a young person on probation for a period not exceeding two years. The following paragraph provides he may place a young person-
(i)	in the charge of a children's aid society established under an Act of the legislature of the province-
(ii)	in any municipality where there is no children's aid society, in the charge of the superintendent, for a period not exceeding two years...
Section 30(1) (i) provides that he may commit the young person to a training school for a period up to three years. Here comes a dandy. If a young person under the age of 17 happens to be impaired, is charged with the offence and loses his driver's licence, what do you think happens when he gets caught under this new bill? He will be liable to two years in prison. There is no provision in the Code that treats an adult in that way. So this
[Mr. Woolliams.)
is the great reform, the beginning of a new age for our children!


An hon. Member:: It is also against the Bill of Rights.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, someone says it is against the Bill of Rights. It is without doubt in conflict with civil rights. One trouble with the government is that it got so tied up with the War Measures Act that, psychologically, it is still feeling the effects of the act.
I should now like to deal with what the Canadian Mental Health Association has to say. Clause 35(6) provides that:
In addition to the persons mentioned in subsection (4), a predisposition report made under this section shall be made available to-
Then, one of the recipients of the report is the National Parole Board if the young person applies for a pardon under the Criminal Records Act. In other words, there is a discretion, but he will still have a record. These young people would have to make application under the new act. In other words, they would be met by a large bureaucracy. With regard to a young person who had committed an offence at the age of 15 or 16 and who is applying for a job at the age of 21, the Mental Health Association has this to say, and these are not my words:
A 14-year-old who is adjudged to have murdered his grandmother is committed to a Training School until he is 21-for seven years he has to wait, conscious of the fact that at the end of that time he will be sentenced by the Court for an offence committed seven years earlier. This is totally inhuman and intolerable; it completely ignores the fact that the child may have changed drastically long before he is 21.
These sections ignore the fact that at the time the child is before the Court, it is impossible to state how long his case supervision and treatment should continue. Form 12 (ix) makes it apparent that a child is committed to a Training School for a definite period-a period which may seem appropriate at the time but which may be too long or too short.
Even under the old law that I have complained about, what generally happened when a child appeared charged before the high court was this. I am not, of course, talking about cases of murder, because in such cases the law makes mandatory provision; but if he were charged with a first offence which called for a sentence of less than five years, the court would generally suspend sentence or remand the case for six months or a year in order to find out how the lad or the girl concerned has behaved. If his or her record is clean, then that ends the matter and there is no sentence. We already have this law. This new law is a retrograde step. The Canadian Mental Health Association go on to say:
Any doubt that the young person is in fact being dealt with as a criminal is removed by these sections which make it clear that his "offence" will be recorded and could be used at a later date unless he seeks a pardon.
So, we are using a computer. We will soon be able to press a button and find out whether a young person has committed an offence. If he has, then we can find him guilty. In a serious case, we will be able to hold him until

January 13, 1971

21 and sentence him as if he were convicted as of that date. As a result, a bonding company or a corporation would regard him as a bad boy and he would not get a job with them. The Association goes on:
The Court is given the power, in cases where it wishes to do so, to order the child to be fingerprinted and photographed- records of which are forwarded to the R.C.M.P.
There have been several cases like the example given. Murder is an act which is rarely repeated by adults. Even more rarely is it repeated by children. In most cases where this act has been committed by a child, his remorse is great and his potential for rehabilitation is such that he is usually returned to the community before he is 18.
So, under this bill we will be able to hold the offence in abeyance until a person is 21. Then, he could be sentenced as if he had committed the offence at the age of 21. This is to be his 21st birthday present, yet we hear these people saying: "Look what we are doing for the young people"!
The child is made a ward of the C.A.S. or of the Training School for an indefinite period. In actual fact, his normal period in a Training School is less than a year but his wardship is maintained so that he can be given after-care supervision and help in the community. The present bill makes no mention of or provision for after-care; presumably the child is left to fend for himself.
Pausing there, this is a problem even with adults. I have been in practically every penitentiary in Canada- as a visitor, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker-and I have found that generally there is not sufficient staff, there are insufficient courses, classrooms and equipment. It is nonsense to say that we are going to have a great big rehabilitation program. Even if this were a good bill, we still do not have sufficient training schools to take care of the situation. I continue quoting:
The child is not dealt with as a criminal. As he has been adjudged delinquent and not considered a criminal, his "record" is confidential and cannot be used against him at a later date.
Let us now see what one of these other fellows said. This is how seriously he felt about this.
On Friday, October 16, 1970, at the request of the Quebec Provincial Government, the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, outlawed the Front de Liberation du Quebec, and invoked the War Measures Act. This act gave the police powers of search and arrest without warrant, allowing them to detain all suspects picked up for a period of twenty-one days without preferring charges against them. The above action was deemed necessary after the October 5 kidnapping of British Diplomat James (Jasper) Cross and the October 10 kidnap and subsequent murder of Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte by F.L.Q. terrorists.
Although I was personally in favour of the action taken by the Prime Minister of Canada, public protest against the operation of regulations under the War Measures Act was voiced by lawyers, labour leaders, academics, students, and politicians many of which cried out that it violated the Canadian Bill of Rights. However, unknown to many Canadians, there is another act in existence today that is just as potent as the War Measures Act. I refer specifically to the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Then, he refers to this new bill and I am not going to deal fully with that. I do not want to take too long to show what a bad piece of legislation this is. He simply
Young Offenders Act
says that the government must have got itself in this position as a result of some psychological cause.
I know, of course, what kind of amendments you can request. We asked the government to set up a review board similar to one which existed during the last war, but we were told: "Don't worry, the Attorney General of Quebec will take care of things". I read last week that one of the jails in Quebec had to be closed because of mistreatment of people who had not been charged and were awaiting trial. This is also going to happen to our youth in our training schools, and I want to say something about our training schools in a few minutes.
Let me read some words of Pierre Burton, who put the case in a nutshell in an article on Canadian Justice in the Star Weekly magazine for July 18, 1964. He was talking about young people being sentenced to training school and to the penitentiary. He says:
One byproduct was homosexuality. Since young offenders were often dumped into prison compounds with old and hardened men-
Pausing there, our training schools are going to be full of people who have run afoul of different sections of the Code. A young person who has stolen an automobile, or a young man who has indecently assaulted some girl at school, or someone who has stolen goods from a store are all going to be lumped together in one big, happy training school. I know the sort of courses that they will be taking and I know the kind of diploma with which they will graduate. I continue to quote what Pierre Burton said:
-it was almost axiomatic that any youth entering prison (and there were children as young as 13 in Canadian penitentiaries in the 1960's) be forced into a homosexual alliance that could scar him for life.
The same system of mixing the young and the old, the novices and the veterans, which was prevalent in many parts of Canada as late as 1964, made it easy for youths to learn the fine points of criminal technique before they were once more dumped, with few resources, upon an unforgiving society.
I have stood in my place this last couple of years and recited the growing number of convictions in cases involving drug offences. Two years ago, the courts were sending to prison for three or four years people found guilty of possession of drugs and of trafficking in drugs among kids at school. The courts are taking a little better view of this whole situation today. Many of these people are young university scholars. The parole board has done a tremendous job. On many occasions when I have written the board about a deserving case they have allowed a young person to go to school during the daytime and return to his place of incarceration in the evening. Very often the board allows a young person out of jail for a period of six months in order to see how he can get along. I think this is a tremendous attitude.
Because of the basic function of our courts and our laws, we have in many cases been creating crime factories. Possession of marijuana is against the law as is trafficking in marijuana or any other drug. Under our

January 13, 1971
Young Offenders Act
present laws this is a crime and a judge must pass sentence. Even when these young offenders are put in training schools they are forced to associate with a criminal element. A young man may have been smoking marijuana. He may be placed in prison in association with other young men who have run afoul of the law. As a result, we are manufacturing crimes. This is the breeding ground of criminal activity. For this reason, there is no way I can go along with this bill.
Professors of various universities and the Canadian Mental Health Association have suggested a solution to this problem. They say we should set up a task force to study this whole matter. We have had many task forces in the past. We are now dealing with youth, Canada's greatest resource. In spite of that we are being asked to rush this mad bill through in order to create more crime factories. All the lawyers, academics, psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists I have talked to support this idea.
The government likes to refer to the support it received in respect of the War Measures Act. We live in a country of regions where people sometimes are happy because the government is kicking someone out of a province, such as it did in Quebec. I am thankful I am not one of those Canadians who share that viewpoint. In any event, that is why the government was so popular. People do not become concerned about many of these things until their own sons and daughters become involved. I received a very sad letter this week. I cannot say much more about it than the fact it refers to 13 young men under age 21 who were convicted of murder by a jury in Calgary. The jury was shocked when they received life sentences.
After reading the appeal books, the only thing I could find against one of these young individuals was that he happened to arrive at a house at a wrong time. He was asked to go for a ride to drink some wine. These people have all been placed in the one unhappy basket. My point is that no one worries very much about these things until their own sons and daughters become involved. They are not really concerned and that is why we have to raise our voices against this type of legislation. If this is the kind of situation we are going to face, I can only say it is not the normal situation I have encountered.
What is the present population of young people in jails in Canada? In 1968, there were 2 under the age of 15 years; 10 under the age of 16 years; 136 who were 17 years of age; 236 who were 18 years of age, and 364 who were 19 years of age. Let me point out that there is not much difference between a training school and a penitentiary. Many young people are incarcerated in one of the new young offender institutions in the city of Drumhell-er, Alberta. I suggest these institutions are nothing more than child penitentiaries.
What is the situation as far as this bill is concerned? It does not seem to accomplish very much. In fact, I think the old law was just as good. Perhaps in some ways it was better. It has been my experience that the higher the

court the greater justice prevails. The high court trial judge uses some discretion on the question of sentence. In most cases they ask for pre-sentence reports and relate the sentence to the possibility of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, many cases are handled by magistrates who are forced to deal with hundreds of cases each week. These cases are all rushed through the courts and these authorities have little or no opportunity to deal with them individually.
The point I am making is that judges can suspend sentence and send these young people home or put them under the care of a guardian. It is useless in most cases to send these people to these training schools or child penitentiaries where the doors are locked and there is loneliness and a relationship with criminals of every kind. I have never seen anyone, whatever the situation, who has come out a better person as a result of being in prison.
I am shocked that our swinging Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is saving the empire, would permit such a measure to come before the House. After all, he is the author of the just society. Surely, this measure must have gone before cabinet. Members on the government side I am sure have received many letters from academics and others on this subject. At least these professional people have time in their world to think about these matters. Businessmen and lawyers very often do not have that time because they are busy making money to pay the rent. These academics have expressed the opinion I have put forward. This is the opinion of the scholars of Canada.
In view of this situation, I would ask the few members who are present on the other side of the House to take this bill back to the cabinet. The new Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) has inherited a very bad package and he has my sympathy. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-192 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a task force appointed under the Inquiries Act by the Governor in Council after consultation with the leaders of the opposition parties of this House".
We should also have a bill of rights for the young people of Canada, because that is what they need.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the next speaker I might read the amendment. I do so without accepting it because I should like to have an opportunity to consider it at greater length. I have some doubts as to its acceptability in view of the reference to consultation with the leaders of opposition parties. With the permission of the House, I will read the amendment which is as follows:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-192 be not now read a second time; but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a task force appointed under the Inquiries Act by the Governor in Council after consultation with the leaders of the opposition parties of this House".
January 13, 1971


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am prepared, along with other hon. members, to argue as to the validity of the amendment. I am not sure that Your Honour wants to hear argument at this time. It might well be that after an examination of this amendment the Chair will be satisfied that it is valid and should be accepted. I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I would ask that before any decision is made by the Chair we be given the opportunity to make representations. Perhaps the Chair could indicate to the House the nature of those reservations. We are prepared to argue in support of the validity of the amendment, but there is a question of timing involved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would be pleased to hear from those hon. members who may wish to make submissions as to the acceptability of the amendment. As I indicated earlier, it does seem to me that the amendment may not be in order because of the reference to the setting up of a task force to be appointed under the Inquiries Act by the Governor in Council, and my concern is that this be done after consultation with the leaders of the oppostion parties of this House. It would seem to me, in so far as the matter of consultation is concerned, this chamber is the place where the debate concerning the adoption or nonadoption of motions for second reading should take place. Therefore, my reservation really is in respect of whether or not the referral to a task force after such consultation would be in order. If hon. members have arguments to present on that, I would be very pleased to hear them.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think that point may be one which we could consider, but certainly the precedents have been well established concerning the principle of opposition being taken to the principle of a bill by means of an amendment which seeks, in the first instance, that the bill be not read a second time. I would refer Your Honour to citation 386 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. This is a citation which has been cited by myself and by other hon. members quite frequently. It reads:
On the second reading of a bill, the House may decide to refer the subject matter thereof to a commission although the bill could not be referred to a committee of the House before its second reading. (The subject matter of a bill and the bill itself are two different things.) On the 17th April, 1934, the following amendment was moved to the second reading of a bill to amend the Railway Act in respect of rates on grain: "That the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada." This amendment was as much a declaration of policy as if it stated that the question of adjusting the railway rates on grain should be investigated by the railway board.
Last year an amendment moved in this House by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) was dealt with by Mr. Speaker as recorded at page 1621 of Hansard, Volume 2, the first session of the 28th Parliament. The mover of the amendment, the hon. member for Hillsborough, used a little different wording. Rather than saying in his amendment that the bill be not read a second time, he said that further consideration of this bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a
Young Offenders Act
referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada. I pointed out in argument-and other hon. members including the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) participated in this argument at that time-that the circumstances did not differ from a precedent in the fourth edition of Beauchesne recorded at page 396 as No. 93. The wording in the motion moved by the hon. member for Hillsborough was a little different and the Speaker referred to that. He said on that basis the hon. member might well like to change his wording to the more acceptable wording which is the wording used today by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).
Amendment No. 93, which is offered by Beauchesnes as an acceptable form of amendment on second reading, reads:
The further consideration of this bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada.
The hon. member for Calgary North has been a lot more specific. He said, let us set up a task force and refer the subject matter of the bill to this task force. Now, if Your Honour has reservations on the question of the task force being one in respect of which there must be consultation with the leaders of the other parties, I am sure we might be able to consider modifying it in this respect. Certainly, it would be hoped that in respect of a task force as important as this, there would be that form of consultation and that such a task force, if set up by the government, would be set up only after the fullest discussion with the leaders of all opposition parties in the House. If this constitutes, in the mind of Your Honour, an obstacle to the acceptance of this amendment, I am sure this is something we could discuss. Knowing that the hon. member for Calgary North is always a very reasonable man-I am in close contact with him and am aware how reasonable he is-I am sure he might well be happy to modify that particular aspect of it.
Apart from that, I suggest the wording is in a form which has been accepted in this Parliament on a great many occasions. The only addition involves the words "after consultation". If that is the obstacle, I am sure we can discuss that. However, the precedents are there. I have cited the more obvious ones and shall leave it at this stage for Your Honour's further consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair might ask whether there are any other members who would like to contribute to the point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might add a brief word or two to what has been said by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I would invite Your Honour to read not only the first paragraph of citation 386, which has been drawn to your attention, but also paragraphs 2 and 3 of that citation. This citation is in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. The paragraph has already been read which indicates that it is in order on second reading to move a reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners for
2380

January 13, 1971
Young Offenders Act
Canada, which was the name ol the board at the time this edition was published. Paragraph 2 points out that it is in order to refer the subject matter of a bill to a select committee. So there do seem to be indications that there are various kinds of other bodies to which the subject natter of a bill may be referred instead of giving it second reading. I believe it is also useful to read paragraph 3 of citation 386 because, in saying what cannot be done, it would seem to me to make clear what can be done.
Paragraph 3 says that you cannot have it both ways. It states that you cannot refer just some clauses of a bill to a committee and have a vote on second reading itself. It has to be all or none. The last words are that the House "shall have to make its choice". So, since the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North does not try to split hairs, or in other words does not refer just some clauses but says no to the second reading of the bill in its entirety and that its subject matter should be referred for study by another body, I suggest it is in order. I am sure if the problem in respect of this amendment is the consultation with leaders of the opposition parties, the hon. member for Calgary North would be prepared to modify his motion in that respect. It does seem to me the reference to a task force appointed under the Inquiries Act should not present any difficulty. I recognize that the citations we are reading do not refer to task forces appointed under the Inquiries Act but they do refer to bodies other than this House of Commons. In one case, the reference was to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and in another case it was to a select committee. It would seem to me, therefore, that Your Honour should give favourable consideration to the proposed amendment.
While I am on my feet I wonder if I might anticipate something I know my colleague the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) wishes to do. I think in the circumstances, since there is some doubt concerning how Your Honour will rule, we should have the whole story.
My friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), has an amendment on second reading. It is also a reasoned amendment which would do something else than give the bill second reading. If the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is in order, then my friend will not be able to move his amendment at this time but will have to wait for another round. But if perchance the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North is ruled out of order, then I think at that point the hon. member for Broadview should be permitted to present his amendment. Perhaps in the course of his speech he can indicate what his amendment is and Your Honour can rule on both of them. If Your Honour rules that the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North is in order, my colleague will have to wait, but if Your Honour rules that the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North is not in order, then Your Honour would be in a position to rule on my colleague's amendment.
Despite my obvious interest in seeing the amendment of the hon. member for Broadview moved as early as possible, I think Your Honour should look with favour on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will not speak at this time on the point of order regarding whether my amendment is or is not in order, but I would like to make a suggestion. Following consultation with my colleagues, I wonder whether my amendment can stand until tomorrow which would give me an opportunity to consider whether it might be modified by the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). At that time, I may be able to submit some authorities which I am not able to do now because I was not prepared for Your Honour raising the narrow issue-and I say so with respect-regarding consultation with leaders of the opposition parties. It may be that when I take a look at the amendment, and discuss it with my colleagues, we might conclude tomorrow that it would have to be modified.
I go along with the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that his colleagues should be permitted to put forward his amendment so that if my amendment fails, his could be considered. I am sure we would get the agreement of the House in that regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to thank hon. members who have assisted me on the procedural point. I indicated initially that the reservation I had was with respect to the provision in the hon. member's amendment that the action under the Inquiries Act be taken after consultation with the leaders of the opposition parties of this House. That is the only reservation I had. This doubt would be removed if, as the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Calgary North have indicated, they would consider modifying the amendment. I wonder, and I put this to the hon. member who moved the amendment so that we can proceed and also so that the Chair will have no doubts as to the procedural acceptability of the amendment, whether the mover of the motion might agree to put a period after the words "Inquiries Act" and delete the rest of the amendment. The amendment would then be in order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think both the hon. member for Calgary North and I would support this. The hon. member has put forward his proposition. I am sure that the House would give unanimous consent to altering the amendment in that respect. The hon. member for Calgary North has made his proposal. If in its wisdom the House agreed to this sensible and reasonable amendment, we would hope the minister would bring it to the attention of his colleagues so that a task force may be established to deal with this extremely serious matter. So that there would be a form of consultation, which a democratic institution such as this would demand, we would ask that discussion take place with leaders of other parties.

January 13, 1971


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your graciousness and, with the consent of the House, I would like to delete that part of the motion which you felt in your discretion was somewhat objectionable. I have discussed it with my seconder, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), and he has agreed to this change.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement of the House that the motion be amended as proposed by the hon. member? If there is agreement, I will put the motion as amended in a formal way.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment now reads:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-192 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a task force appointed under the Inquiries Act.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I would like to preface my remarks on Bill C-192 by congratulating the new Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) on his appointment and wishing him well in the work to come. I fully appreciate that the youth of Canada is in his hands and the hands of the cabinet. I hope he will exercise wisdom and judgment with regard to this matter.
I should like also to commend the former solicitor general for his good work during his years in service. I hope that his health continues to improve and that he will be with us for some time to come to perform his parliamentary duties.
With regard to the amendment that was just moved, and that has now been ruled in order, let me say that I had intended to move an amendment, to be seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which would have read: "That this bill be not now read a second time but that this House affirms that young persons should not be treated as criminals and that the principle of flexibility of treatment of young persons should be emphasized rather than the legal technicalities of the criminal law. I will move this amendment at a later time to be voted on by members of the House.
I am particularly delighted this afternoon to see so many lawyers, members of the Liberal party in the House, many of whom have had litigation experience and know the consequences of the contents of this bill. I will attempt to persuade them to go back tomorrow morning to their party members, after listening to the persuasive arguments of the members of the opposition, and ask for a free vote on this particular matter. If we could have a free vote on the question of capital punishment, surely we can have a free vote with regard to an act that affects young people in Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
23786-10J
Young Offenders Act


John Gilbert: I would appreciate their help, assistance and persuasiveness in requesting that there be a free vote on this important matter.
Every time I read Bill C-192 I wonder who is responsible for this criminal law monstrosity, this caveman's approach to young people, this bill of legal rights for social wrongs, this simplistic Spiro Agnew approach to young people's problems. I ask myself, is it the young persons involved who are responsible for this bill? The answer is no. Is it the juvenile court judges? No. Is it the social workers? No. Is it the probation officers? No. Is it the superintendents of training schools across the country? No. Is it the directors of children's aid societies across the country? No. Is it the managers of foster homes across the country? No. Is it the sociologists, the psychiatrists or the psychologists? The answer is no. I would further add that these people have never been consulted with regard to Bill C-192. I ask myself, is it the former solicitor general who is responsible for this bill? My answer is, I doubt it. Is it the present Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) who is responsible for this bill? I would be amazed and shocked if it were. How could a man so young in age, in dress and in appearance be responsible for such backward and oppressive ideas? Who is responsible? It must be the Solicitor General's officials. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are responsible for this civil servant approach, this cold, unconcerned, legalistic, punitive, unsympathetic, letter-of-the-law approach.
I ask myself who is supporting this bill? When I read the criticisms that have been voiced across the country I find little or no support for it. I recall reading in the Telegram of December 29 some of those criticisms recorded by Yvonne Crittenden, who is a writer for the Telegram. Here are some of the criticisms set forth by responsible bodies. It is called, "A Half-Pint Criminal Code for Children," "Inhuman and Intolerable," "A frightening piece of legislation," "The Title is Misleading, Inappropriate and a Step Backward," "Its legalistic terminology-offender, offences, inmates, finger printing, pardon, criminal records-make it a junior Criminal Code," "The approach is punitive," and "Classifying a ten year old an offender is ludicrous."
Where did we get the title "Young Offenders Act"? The old act was the Juvenile Delinquents Act. When a study was launched in 1961 on improvement in the act, a study which was tabled in 1966, I understand that the people concerned drew up a draft bill on juvenile delinquency which they called "The Children and Young Persons Act." What has happened to that draft bill? What do they call such legislation in England? They call it precisely the same name, "The Children and Young Persons Act, 1969." It is striking, Mr. Speaker, that the English bill was passed in October, 1970, and is taking effect in January, 1971.
If we must have a name for this bill I will suggest one to the Solicitor General. I suggest we call it "The Young

"the above circumstances have been satisfied to another member of his household."
Then, come the following subparagraphs:
(c)	he is exposed to moral danger
(d)	he is beyond the control of his parent or guardians
(e)	he is not receiving efficient full-time education
Next follows the subparagraph I wish to emphasize:
(f)	he is guilty of an offence excluding homicide.
As the Solicitor General pointed out, the basis of this bill is that it defines an offence. The big difference between the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act is that in the latter piece of legislation an offence is deemed to be an offence committed under a federal statute, probably the Criminal Code. May I remind the Solicitor General that in the English act there is a clear distinction. It indicates that no young person will be charged with a summary offence. We have summary and indictable offences, yet in England no charge will be laid against any person under 14 years old; secondly, no charge involving a summary offence will be laid against a young person. The offence must be an indictable offence; otherwise, the young person cannot be brought before the court.
I always recall the lecture given by the late Dr. William Blatz in Toronto, 25 years ago, when I was a law student. He was an eminent psychiatrist in the field of treating children especially. He asked us all one simple question. He said, "Is there any student in this class who has never stolen anything? If so, will he please raise his hand." There were 30 students in the class, and not one raised his hand, not one. If I were to ask that question of members who are present in the chamber this afternoon, I dare say that the answer would be the same and that not one would raise his hand.


John James Greene: I never stole anything.


John Gilbert: -with the exception of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). If I asked the members of the press gallery that question, I doubt if any one of them would put up his hand.


Gerald William Baldwin: Elections have been stolen, you know.


John Gilbert: A person ten years old or over could be charged with an offence under the young offenders act. I suppose we can count ourselves fortunate in not having been caught and charged under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. That merely shows you how enlightened and progressive the English are. Under their law, no offence can be charged against a person unless he is 14 years old and over, up to a certain age it must be an indictable offence.
I have mentioned the conditions under which young people in England can be brought before the courts. Once a young person is before the court, the court may make an order "requiring his parent or guardian to enter into a recognizance to take proper care of him and exercise proper control over him." Or, it may make a supervision
Young Offenders Act
order, or a care order, or a hospital order, or a guardianship order. What a comparison there is between our new act and the new English act which has just come into force. The English act concerns itself with care and treatment. Our act is one of punishment. It will brand young persons as criminals.
The Solicitor General would have a perfect right to say to me, "What would you do under the circumstances, if you were the solicitor general?" Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would do is accept the definition and the age concept pertaining to child and young person as contained in the English act. In other words, I would accept the definition that a child is a person 14 years of age and under, and that a young person is a person between the ages of 14 years and 17 years. Actually, I would take it a step farther and make the upper age limit 18 years. On the matter of problems involving young people under the age of 14 years, surely we could work out with the provinces the machinery for dealing with them. It is very bad, Mr. Speaker, to tag young people under 14 as either offenders or criminals, which our present act would do.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would accept the philosophy of the report on juvenile delinquents which says that it is still our duty to make our young people law abiding citizens and that our treatment ought to be so disposed as to further their education and readjustment. When I speak of education, Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking merely of academic education; I am also speaking of social, moral and spiritual education. You know, we of the New Democratic Party do not believe in pushing tough kids around; we do not think that is the answer to delinquency. Many of us are tired of seeing troubled kids go through the revolving doors of social service agencies, training schools and foster homes and end up in reformatories, mental hospitals, or detention homes. We should use the entire resources of the neighbourhood; this means that we must work with the parents, schools, trade unions, businessmen, youth organizations, social clubs and social agencies of the neighbourhood.
We of the NDP believe that such explanations relating to juvenile delinquents as those involving slum living, broken homes, films, deprivation, the frustrations of growing young people, and intense industrialization indicate the complexity of the problem and call for an all-out community effort. We believe that the guilt aspect of the complex ought to be a secondary consideration. We believe that the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender ought to be our primary object. His care and treatment is our concern. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend a panel system for dealing with these problems. Such panels ought to be composed of judges, psychiatrists, trade union officials, psychologists, business representatives, church ministers, social workers, parents and school teachers. Such people ought to compose a panel for dealing with the problems confronting our youth. You cannot look at the particular act of the individual in isolation; you must look at his whole background if you want to bring forward an answer. If you look at the individual and not at the offence, you will first and foremost prescribe treatment and not punishment. You know, if we do not take this approach the

January 13, 1971
Young Offenders Act
Canadian dream of the just society will end up as a nightmare. This is one battle we must win. What we shall do in this area will be just as important as anything we do with regard to any other social problem facing us today.
I would remind the Solicitor General, and the lawyers on the other side, that this approach has been taken by Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. They have adopted the panel system and rather than have a judge alone determine the offence and the treatment, a panel of judges attaches secondary importance to the act committed and primary importance to the care and treatment of offenders. In Sweden they have a volunteer system concerned with the treatment of young offenders. There is citizen participation and two-thirds of all members of the Swedish parliament are volunteers when it comes to taking care of young offenders. These people are paid $10 i month in return for the time and attention they give.
There are four other serious criticisms of this bill. I have dealt with the philosophy behind the bill and our answer to it. When I read the provisions with regard to fingerprinting and photographing they just make me cringe, they are so horrible when applied to young people. When I read the inflexible sentencing provisions, two years with regard to a suspended sentence, two years with regard to a commitment to a children's aid home and three years for a training school, I can uderstand why the social agencies across the country have raised such a furore. They realize the necessity for flexibility with respect to the treatment of these people. Surely, the Solicitor General is young enough and flexible enough to know that we can introduce a mechanism for review of these sentences.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) gave us a vivid and excellent description of what would happen in connection with the provision under which life sentences could be imposed, where a young person is sentenced to serve in a training school until he is 21 and then made to appear before an adult court to receive his sentence. Surely, the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) is a man with some vision, some concern, and would not recommend a provision like this.
Another area of criticism concerns age differences. The government pounds its breast with regard to changing the age from 16 to 17. May I remind the House that raising the age to 17 affects only Ontario, the Maritimes, Saskatchewan and male offenders in Alberta. British Columbia and Newfoundland have already passed legislation fixing the age at 17. Quebec and Manitoba have raised the age for both boys and girls to 18. I wonder why we cannot get uniformity across the country by fixing the age at 18. As things stand, a boy of 18 in Ontario charged with car theft appears in the adult court. A boy of 18 charged with the same offence in Quebec or Manitoba appears in the Juvenile Court. Does this make sense? Is this the just society we are trying to create? I am sure the minister would agree that the age should be uniform and that it should be 18. Would it not
be sensible to appeal to the provinces to make 18 the age universally, and to provide some resources for the training schools and other institutions which are necessary?
May I give some humble advice to the Solicitor General? First, I would recommend that he withdraw the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Burn it.


John Gilbert: Why does he not set up a committee composed of judges, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, trade union officials, employers, church representatives and representatives of youth organizations. Let this committee travel across the country to hear the views of different organizations. Let it visit training schools and talk to young offenders; let it visit children's aid homes and foster homes and get the point of view of these people. Let it go to Europe, go to England and study the Children and Young Persons Act there; let it go to Sweden and Denmark and other Scandinavian countries, study their enlightened approach to this problem and then report to the government. We do not want a bill that is worse than the Juvenile Delinquents Act. We want one that is better. We certainly do not want this young offenders act. I might recommend that the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should do the same work as the committee or task force to which I have just referred. But as a member of that committee I would say that our approach would be too narrow, too legalistic. Our training makes us this way. We need men from all orders of society to study this question and help us solve it.
There is an old proverb which says it is easy to say a tulip grows but that it is not easy to make one grow. It is easy to say a young boy grows but it is not easy to make him into a responsible, law-abiding citizen. I would remind hon. members that 80 per cent of all juvenile deliquents are first offenders and that less than 20 per cent return to court during their lifetime. We need the help of all Canadians. Let us not fail in our duty by passing this bad legislation and approving a young offenders act which is worse in philosophy and in practice than the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that this bill to repeal the old Juvenile Delinquents Act and adopt new regulations with regard to those same delinquents reveals true concern about the moral health of our youth.
At first glance, I believe in the efficiency of this bill. It is high time we pause to better protect our young citizens, who have to face the judiciary who, in their eyes, too often constitute an adversary which cannot be trusted.
Unfortunately, obsolete and inadequate sections in the old act at times proved them right.

January 13, 1971

Our young people, under 18 years of age, are intelligent, resourceful and dynamic, but the potential those excellent qualities represent does not alter the fact that, at that age, they often lack a certain sense of responsibility. There is no reason to hold it against them, particularly since the influence of adults has much to do with delinquent agitation. In fact it we look for the cause, we find out that in most cases, it is the malevolent, not to say diabolical, action of unconscionable and evil-minded adults.
The education that is provided to our young people in these troubled times lacks conviction, vitality and authority. Too many adults are indifferent; too many parents give up; too many leaders show incompetence.
So, we should not be surprised to see that our young people are unstable, apathetic and sometimes discouraged and inclined to use this false safety valve: committing every kind of offence they can.
It is therefore appropriate to rejoice since under this bill, the so-called delinquent seems to retain his dignity as a human being.
Clause 4 on page 5 is eloquent enough in this connection and I would like, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to quote it:
This act shall be liberally construed to the end that where a young person is found under section 29 to have committed an offence, he will be dealt with as a misdirected and misguided young person requiring help, guidance, encouragement, treatment and supervision and to the end that the care, custody and discipline of that young person will approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by such a young person's parents.
To my mind, other clauses of the bill under discussion constitute good points and should help a great deal to improve our young people's behaviour.
Under clause 14, an adolescent must be judged by a juvenile court, even though he might have appeared before a regular court. This will prevent incidents such as have often been witnessed in court where people under 18 years of age were brought to regular courts and considered as adults. This was bound to bring in the end a drifting towards gangsterism and underworld life with all possible implications.
Clause 15 should also be quoted:
(1)	Where
(a)	a summons is issued to a young person, or
(b)	a young person is arrested,
notice thereof shall be given to a parent or parents of the young person by the person who issues the summons or by the clerk of the court before which the young person will appear, as the case may be.
(2)	Where the whereabouts of the parents of a young person to whom a summons is issued or who is arrested are not known or it appears that he has no parents, a notice referred to in subsection (1) may be given to one or more relatives or friends of the young person.
Mr. Speaker, this clause will allow all responsible persons, when any offence has been commited, and I do say "all responsible persons", since parents who have to see
Young Offenders Act
to the education and guidance of their children are always directly and sometimes indirectly responsible, to find that, by this clause, parents or guardians are involved. I think this clause will greatly help to convert these young persons who sometimes go a little too far.
Even though this may seem like paternalism that some would consider in bad taste, I believe it is a reasonable and equitable measure.
Clause 16 clearly indicates the proceeding in the clause I just quoted, but I would make some reservations as far as subsection (3) is concerned, which reads as follows:
(3)	Where In the opinion of a judge a requirement to a parent to whom a notice is given under subsection (1) of section 15 to appear before the court would impose an undue hardship on the parent, such requirement may be omitted from the notice and the notice may state that any parent, relative or friend of the young person may appear with him.
Mr. Speaker, is it not true that there could be abuses regarding this matter? How many parents could find a thousand and one reasons to avoid taking their responsibilities! Snobbery and undue deference for public opinion still exist. I wonder whether it is necessary to make this restriction.
I would also note the soundness of clause 23 which states:
Where an information is laid against a young person and a judge is of the opinion that there are reasonable and probable grounds for laying the information, but that the case may be a proper one for disposal without a hearing, he may, instead of proceeding under section 26, direct that the information not be acted on for the time being and designate a person to confer with the person who laid the information, the young person, a parent of the young person and any other person interested in or willing to take an interest in the young person, with a view to disposal of the case without a hearing.
That point seems important to me. It will prevent hearings from being lengthy and will also be psychologically more helpful to teenagers involved in offences of any kind.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I could not bring this brief statement to a close without expressing my apprehensions at the thought that at the very time when we are anxious to help our young people develop in the right way, behave properly and receive additional training, our society tolerates laws that are stupid and inefficient, and it is expected that future legislation will be even more so.
I would not like to make unwarranted statements here, but how can we persuade young people to behave well when, because our laws are too lax or too harsh or our legal machinery is heavy and cumbersome, the Mafia, for instance, is allowed to flourish within our society?
However, Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, a certain Minister of Justice was even heard to say in the Parliament of Quebec that we must not use the war measures to fight the underworld because, he said, that would be unfair.
Mr. Speaker, if legislation is designed to protect us, how can someone as responsible as a minister of justice state that one can be unfair to the underworld? And God knows that the members of the underworld

January 13, 1971
Young Offenders Act
know how to use the law in order better to reach their aims.
Mr. Speaker, while we are not correcting those situations and while we are proposing to cure the ills of our young offenders, we should remember that we shall achieve nothing really effective through this bill unless we withdraw from the eyes of our young people these laws which in my opinion Eire often scandalous.
How for instance could we urge our youth to behave decently when Parliament passed legislation legalizing homosexuality from the age of 21?
How could we urge our youth to be honest and to try and set high ideals for themselves when we are in the process of passing legislation legalizing certain drugs such as marijuana?
If through our laws we are fostering some vices amongst our young people, let us not then try and impose guidelines upon them. This is why it is difficult to rebuke the young, to have them walk the straight and narrow path while, alas, through our own example, we have them straying from it.
This is why at the same time we are drafting legislation in order to strengthen the moral fibre of our children, we should render all laws sound, for they are not always.
And above all, undertakings such as legalization on abortion on request, the unrestricted use of some drugs, etc., will have to be blocked. Should we allow all these to go through, then with the licentiousness which unfortunately is now rampant, again and on all sides, this commendable bill will be of no avail, will prove to be absolutely futile, whereas in my opinion it does contain tremendously positive intentions.
Also to provide it with real efficiency, consideration should be given to amending all the other legislation which as I have already said is much to tolerant and sometimes in spite of its excessive severity, prompts and challenges our young people, sanctions the existence of underworld organizations and parasites who operate systematically outside of the law.
Mr. Speaker, after we pass this bill, I wish we would also try and find solutions to the problems which are at the root of juvenile delinquency.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow the traditional pattern when a new minister is involved in legislation in the House by wishing him well in the execution of his duties. I can do that in this case because we in the official opposition do not really feel that the minister is responsible for the legislation now before us. If I thought he had anything to do with it my words would be at the least of greater warmth. Since he is a new minister, and in view of his attitude toward penitentiary matters, he is obviously an earnest minister and I can wish him well. I hope his very first act to show that he means well in his office will be to march in on his colleagues tomorrow and suggest that

they have a long second look at this legislation, that it be withdrawn or that the government accept the amendment of the official opposition. Perhaps in this way a whole new approach could be taken to this matter which would reflect the minister's philosophy. Perhaps the minister does not realize at this time, but I am sure he will tomorrow, that he is getting himself involved in a hornet's nest by presenting this bill to the House of Commons. With these caveats, I again wish the minister well in his duties. I suggest that he take his new broom and begin to beat some new shape into this legislation, Bill C-192.
It is significant that there are no explanatory notes anywhere throughout this very lengthy piece of legislation. I suppose this is partly so because the bill is wrapped up in as much mystery as legal draftsmanship could devise. Perhaps it is because no one wants to put in simple language what this is all about. There are some very complicated features in this measure. In any event, it is a bill that is in a sense unique in that it has nothing in it to help a Member of Parliament understand its philosophy or meaning, except in the words of the bill itself. It is an unjust bill for two reasons. It is unjust in its attitude towards those it deals with, and it is unjust to those who administer it, namely the provinces of Canada. I shall attempt to prove this during my speech.
I note, as other hon. members have noted before, that the obvious weakness in the bill is the threat of punishment hanging over the heads of young Canadian boys and girls. This is a threat which could last for up to 11 years. I suggest that if anyone here thought that some Canadian should undergo up to 11 years imprisonment before knowing the ultimate punishment that was to be assessed, he would wonder about the type of legislation a powerful Parliament was being asked to pass. For that reason, and because of the harshness this measure could work, admittedly in extreme cases, we have to take a long and hard look at what we are being asked to do. This 11 year provision is a sort of Damocles sword hanging over the heads of young people. In a few moments I will go into this in greater detail.
We should ask ourselves what the philosophy is that should be borne in mind in dealing with measures such as this which relate to young people who find themselves in difficulty with the law. The Canadian Mental Health Association made a submission to us, and while I do not necessarily agree with the paragraph I want to place on record, I think it at least sets the guide to an approach which would commend itself more than the approach taken by Her Majesty's advisers in this case.
Let me quote from the submission by the Canadian Mental Health Association dated December 7, last year. I quote from the second paragraph on the first page as follows:
The purpose of legislation directly concerning children and young persons whose behaviour is unacceptable to society, is surely to provide the best means possible to promote growth and development of a healthy personality and of acceptable, responsible, mature behaviour. This must be the main objective.
January 13, 1971

The safeguarding of the civil liberties and social rights of a child or young person and the provision of a code of appropriate procedures and consequences which relate to specific unacceptable behaviour may be important and helpful to the court but, in the case of children and young persons, they are of less importance than the provision of legal machinery for meeting their particular needs. A Criminal Code based on the notion that specific offences merit a specified range of punitive procedures may be appropriate for adults but definitely not for children. A particular offence may be committed by two children of the same age. In one case the total social, emotional and intellectual needs of one child may require only a suspended sentence; while with the other child an indefinite and probably prolonged period of re-education, treatment and retraining may be required.
Another sentence immediately following reads:
Basically it is the position of this association that there should be a separation between the judicial process and the process of determining appropriate treatment, training, supervision and after-care.
Those are good, commendable objectives. At the outset of my remarks, I mentioned that the legislation we are considering, because of certain provisions in it and more particularly the notorious clause on pages 26 and 27 dealing with postponement of sentencing, could provide an adverse effect in respect of a young person for up to a period of 11 years. I refer, of course, to the difference between age 21 when the sentence could be imposed and age 10, which amounts to 11 years. That is a long time to wait, although I presume the offence for which the person was being detained would be of a very substantial nature indeed, such as murder.
When the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wol-liams) referred to the motorcycle cases, I was reminded of the rather strange thing that could happen under the suggested law in the case of someone just under 17 years of age who was involved in a misadventure in the course of which a policeman was killed. If two persons were involved in this misadventure it could happen that the more hardened of the two, the one with perhaps a greater responsibility for the killing of the policeman, would have his case adjudicated immediately and perhaps the cabinet in its wisdom would decide his sentence should be commuted. The other person, being under age 17, would have to wait until he was 21 years of age before there would be any disposition of his case. He might be an entirely different person by then. At the time of arrest, he might have been perfectly capable of rehabilitation, of remorse for his crime and of adopting a whole new attitude toward his responsibility in society. But he must wait until he is 21 years of age. God knows where he would be located in the meantime, but since I have had to make certain assumptions for the purpose of my argument let me assume he would be confined with people who would not help reform him in any way. His jailors may wish to reform him but he may be with a group of hardened people who only set him more in his antisocial attitude.
So, being an amenable person before reaching age 17, he is now at age 21 faced with a crime he committed at age 17. Where are his legal rights? The court may deal
Young Offenders Act
with him as if he had been then and there convicted of the offence, to which has was found guilty at 17. Perhaps
I	niggle too much when I look at those words, but it seems to me we then take a man at age 21 and decide to deal with him as if he had committed the offence at that time rather than at some time in the past. Because of his attitude at this time, largely induced by being in prison, I suggest this man could be found guilty of a capital offence, such as capital murder, in which case he might be hanged. We have these two persons, both involved in a crime, one of whom being a few days older than the other knows of his punishment, which may involve commutation of sentence, while the other person must wait four years and a few days until he is age 21. His attitude at this time may be entirely different. For this reason, I believe this is a very dangerous approach and one to which we, as Members of Parliament, should give very earnest consideration. We might wonder whether we should be looking at this type of delayed sentencing at all or whether we should take some entirely different attitude.
This is the reason I reject the philosophy of the legislation which is now before us. I say it is wrong in our enlightened society, and in what we profess to call a civilization, to have a threat of punishment hanging so long over people's heads, in some cases up to a period of
II	years and in many cases for a period of at least four years. What is this supposed to produce? Is it intended to produce a person who will absolutely bow to whatever whim his jailors impose on him? They may tell him not to be fractious because it would have an affect on the judgment given. He is not dealing with parole. He is appearing before a judge who takes the reports and then determines what punishment he should receive. So, I believe it is dangerous in this regard alone. I do not think it helps, because for one thing the rehabilitation period is put off, I presume, until after the time of sentencing. I believe these circumstances alone should make us take a long hard look at what we are being asked to do.
Then, I see things such as clause 4. The previous speaker could not find it, so I shall place it on the record. It has been read by others who have taken part in the debate. At page 5 of the bill under the heading "How Young Person Dealt With", we find this:
This act shall be liberally construed to the end that where a young person is found under section 29 to have committed an offence, he will be dealt with as a misdirected and misguided young person requiring help, guidance, encouragement, treatment and supervision and to the end that the care, custody and discipline of that young person will approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by such a young person's parents.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest those words are novel words, but if they have any meaning in a bill such as this they would probably be better placed in a preamble or in some pious statement rather than being given the purported sanction of law. I suggest that they are so general as to be almost meaningless. No two judges and no two courts could determine exactly what is meant by these words. With everybody being put in the position of a young person's parents, this would mean there would be

January 13, 1971
Young Offenders Act
that many different opinions concerning what sort of treatment, guidance, care, custody or discipline should be given to a young person. I suggest in this sense the words are meaningless. Their first cousin is clause 7 which deals with the limitation on arrest without warrant. I would like to see that clause couched in different terms.
Earlier I mentioned the objections of the provinces to it. A strong objection has come from Mr. Grossman of the province of Ontario, who is their correctional services minister. He said that his department would have to provide about $20 million worth of new accommodation if the federal bill were passed. He said, and I quote from a Canadian Press dispatch in the Ottawa Journal of November 18:
He said he doubted if Ottawa would help finance the extra training schools. It was a situation where the federal government drafts legislation the provinces have to pay for.
I think he is quite right. There is no financial help for the provinces in this legislation because I notice that we do not have the resolution that normally accompanies legislation when there is a payment out of the public purse. So, I assume that Mr. Grossman's objection is correct. He also makes the objection-and I referred to it in part earlier-that the bill labels children as criminals and that it would return the judge to the legal strait jacket of giving a determinate sentence. He said that research by his department has shown that legislation "should create a suitable framework for positive action to be taken on behalf of the child rather than against the child". Here I am quoting what Mr. Grossman is alleged to have said as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of December 10. So, on two separate occasions this responsible minister in our most populous province has voiced his objections to the bill. I suggest he has pretty serious reservations to it.
One would like to take a measure such as this, particularly one that is piloted by a rookie minister, and refer it to a committee so that the bugs in it could be ironed out and so that we could come up with a bill that commends itself. But once in a while we have to take a more drastic approach to proposed legislation and we have to reject it out of hand, even at the second reading stage, and say that it is so unworthy of the time of Parliament and its philosophy is so unjust that it cannot be acceped.
That is the reason my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), moved his amendment and the reason that I seconded it. I think the bill, in the words of that amendment, should not now be read a second time but the subject matter thereof be referred to a task force appointed under the Inquiries Act. Surely, Canadian youth not only expects better but should be given something better than what has been placed before us.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the technical problems, I shall begin. I wish to speak on
Bill C-192 respecting young offenders, which was long in coming.
Indeed, the last legislation on the subject goes back to about 1929, if my memory serves me well. Nothing much has been done since and today in 1971, we have before us a bill which raises a general outcry from coast to coast, we must admit it, although it contains some good points.
Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset of my remarks to make a review of the main provisions of this bill that I find especially pernicious, and whereby instead of making progress, of becoming more humane, of improving things, we keep on treating juvenile delinquents a little like dirt. I am sorry to say that, but that is the way I see it.
Under the existing Juvenile Delinquents Act a teenager up to 16 or 17 years of age, that depends on the province, can be found guilty only of juvenile delinquency. Now under the provisions of Bill C-192, a young person could be found guilty of any, and I quote:
-offence created by an Act of the Parliament of Canada or by any ordinance made thereunder-
I am now referring to clause 2.
Mr. Speaker, clause 2 puts in another light the problem of the young delinquent, who is practically without any protection at the responsibility level, insofar as the breach of any federal law is concerned. From now on, the young person who transgresses any law of Canada can become a criminal and be considered as such.
Secondly, the procedure of the court before which the young person will appear, once he is charged, will be under Bill C-192 much more formal, and here I refer to clauses 26 and 28.
Let us point out the presence of a lawyer to advise the young person and the elements of a real trial, including the cross-examination of witnesses, as well as the sentence set by the judge, if the latter finds the young person guilty of an offence.
None of these elements is to be found in the old act, but according to the bill proposed today, the young person, the young offender, will be put in the same overwhelming atmosphere as adults guilty of any offence under the Criminal Code.
The young person who knows practically nothing of life, whose experience of life will have been nothing but unhappy, of whom one often says that he is not directly responsible, finds himself in a world of adults where his future is at stake while he, very often, does not really understand how it is that he has ended up there.
We, adults, who want to help the young, give so much importance to their situation that they feel that everybody is against them instead of helping them.
What the young people need is not a court, not a cross-examination of witnesses, not sentencing, not a judge; instead they need more understanding, more human feelings and above all rehabilitation.

January 13, 1971

One clause of Bill C-192 state that a young person shall be, and I quote,
-dealt with as a misdirected and misguided young person requiring help, guidance, encouragement, treatment and supervision,-
The bill is in fact a miniature Criminal Code.
The same philosophy still prevails in other clauses of the Bill.
If the hon. minister, on the one hand, seeks to modernize legislation in this field it is obvious that his actions go much farther than his thoughts and, in fact, he puts young persons who have been found guilty of an offence in a situation where they will not be considered as juvenile delinquents but rather as juvenile criminals, a feature which stems from the bill now before us.
For instance, under clause 30 (4), a young person found guilty of an offence for which the minimum sentence is death or life imprisonment can be committed to a training school till age 21. Then, he shall be taken before a Superior Court which shall sentence him as if he had then and there been convicted of the offence that he was found to have committed. Otherwise, the young offender will be struck twice: the first time being committed to a training school-we should rather say a breaking-in school, as for animals-until he is 21, and the second time, at 21, when receiving a sentence now imposed by the Superior Court.
Mr. Speaker, this bill creates not only a criminal condition, but proves harsher for the young person found to have committed an offence than for the adult recognized as such under the Criminal Code.
I am now continuing my analysis and shall refer to clause 74. In fact, according to clause 74 of the proposed legislation, if the judge so orders, the Identification of Criminals Act can apply to a young person. In other words, the police can photograph the young person, take his fingerprints and bully him without the consideration due to a human being, as is still done today for adults.
Mr. Speaker, here again, a de tacts situation is created, the young person is being upset and no effort is made to understand him.
May I be allowed, on the conclusion of this analysis, to revert to this particular point.
According to paragraph (3) of clause 19, and I quote:
-a young person apparently over the age of fourteen years who cannot, in the opinion of the judge or the clerk of the court, be detained safely in any other available place, may be detained in a place where adults are detained pending his first appearance in court or during an adjournment of his hearing.
So, Mr. Speaker, not only is the young person immerged in a noxious legal situation, but still the society will not succeed in rehabilitating him, not even in understanding him. Not only will he be judged, not only will he be condemned, not only will he be sent forcibly to a reformatory, but in addition he will be thrown in prison with adult criminals, with men often perverted in
Young Offenders Act
their minds or acts, so that when the youth comes out he will be twice as bad, if I may use the expression, as before.
Under clause 30 (1), the judge may place the adolescent on probation, or place him in a foster home or group home, or again, place him under the care of a children's aid society for a period of two years at the most, which point is important. I am inclined to think that the minister did not dwell on that point, that he did not deal with both sides of the matter with regard to that period "not exceeding two years" during which the judge can still send the adolescent to a training school for a period of three years at the most.
Mr. Speaker, all this boils down to a sentence imposed by the judge for a minimum as well as a maximum period, exactly as is the case with criminals.
Under the present legislation the judge does not have that sentencing power. He commits the young person to one of the above-mentioned institutions until he is rehabilitated. Under the bill for which the minister seeks approval, the judge gives the young person a sentence of two or three years. It is a matter of "take it or leave it." No maximum or minimum sentence is imposed under the existing legislation but under the proposed measure there are definite sentences-for instance two or three years- against a youth depending on how serious the offence or whether the judge is competent or not.
Mr. Speaker, there is no clause in that bill dealing with the delinquent's rehabilitation nor with the humanization of his condition. If a young person has reached the point where he can be considered as young delinquent, in most cases it is because his family or school circle have not shown enough understanding, have forgotten or rejected him. Feeling psychologically rejected, he has reacted and has attempted to create his own society. This is the problem of our youth. Since society does not give him the opportunity to integrate and live like others, the youth breaks away and attacks that society which considers him guilty of offences.
Finally, our society, which is responsible for the situation of the teenager, condemns him because it is stronger. Under the pretext of improving the situation, the minister makes it more serious by considering it as criminal.
Mr. Speaker, reformatories for young offenders have long been considered as coercive institutes. The so-called Saint-Vallier Home, which is operated by the Corporation Berthelet-Saint-Vallier, has become a dump where more than 250 children and teen-agers are thrown together.
What is the minister doing? Absolutely nothing! But at the same time he considers the young offender as a criminal. Will he change this situation? No, Mr. Speaker. He will show obstinacy, he will argue with Quebec about who is responsible. There is the conflict of jurisdiction!
Mr. Speaker, for a long time we have confused the predelinquent and the delinquent as we still do today. Some delinquents are very dangerous individuals and yet

January 13, 1971
Young Offenders Act
we confuse them with the mentally deficient and youngsters who are simply unhappy or abandoned, so that in the end they are all together and irrecuperable as their situation has deteriorated and we have been unable, I will not say to list them, but at least to understand them and their personal problems.
These adolescents literally rot without proper care. The bill under consideration will contribute to aggravate the problem if the government does not decide to invest the necessary suns of money towards the fulfilment of the human person.
Mr. Speaker, assuring sound fulfilment to the human person, particularly to helpless people, is priceless. It is not a matter of money, it should be a matter of time. This matter should be dealt with; it is of great urgency.
The report of the Prevost Commission of Quebec is a charge against the judiciary system, including legislation, social welfare courts, judges of juvenile courts, government inefficiency, jurisdictional conflicts, juvenile reception and detention centres, and also against the citizenry's refusal to carry out its responsibilities towards the forsaken young.
Mr. Speaker, no account is taken of the findings of the Prevost Commission when-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but, as it is six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 14, 1971