1971-01-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table herewith the report of the International Joint Commission on pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence River. This report is also being released in Washington today by the government of the United States.
The final report represents the culmination of six years of work following upon a request in October, 1964, as supplemented by a further request in 1969 to the IJC by the two governments for an inquiry into the extent, causes and locations of pollution in these waters.
The breadth and scope of this report shatters all precedents. It deals with the most extensive water pollution studies undertaken anywhere to date. The report provides guidelines that can be an inspiration to the peoples of Canada and the United States in the critical period ahead to deal with the Great Lakes pollution problem. It provides a basis for the concrete action that is now already under way with the assistance of the interim reports that the commission has made to the two governments over the period of the entire study.
In this report the IJC states that:
1.	The waters are being seriously polluted on both sides of the boundary to the detriment of both countries to an extent that is causing injury to health and property.
2.	The polluted waters are lakewide in extent; the principal causes are wastes discharged into the boundary waters and their tributaries by municipalities and industries.
3.	Urgent remedial measures are required; these are set out in specific recommendations for action by the two governments and all responsible jurisdictions in both countries. Programs to be agreed upon to meet the water quality objectives are set out in the report. These are aimed to bring about immediate reduction of the phosphorus content in detergents, the prompt implementation of vigorous programs to treat municipal and industrial waste, and the reduction of phosphorus inputs into these waters. The report also contains programs to deal with problems caused by oil spills, mercury, radioactive substances and other hazardous material entering these waters.
The need for urgent action is based on the commission's findings that Lake Erie, particularly its western basin, is in an advanced state of eutrophication, and that accelerated eutrophication is taking place in Lake Ontario.
The report recognizes that governments will have to enter into agreements for the carrying out of programs and of measures and schedules to achieve them. The report recommends that the commission be given the authority, responsibility and means for co-ordinating and ensuring the necessary surveillance and monitoring of water quality and of the effectiveness of pollution abatement programs. It further recommends that the reference of October, 1964, be extended to authorize it to investigate pollution in the remaining boundary waters in the Great Lakes system and waters flowing into it.
A meeting with the United States at the ministerial level in Ottawa last June initiated discussions which are now continuing between the two countries aimed at more effective co-operative action to control pollution and water quality in the Great Lakes.
The June meeting, at which Canada was represented by members of the federal and Ontario governments, established a joint Canada-United States working group to study various ways of creating a more effective basis for co-operation to deal with Great Lakes pollution in light of the findings and recommendations to be contained in the final IJC report as now presented.
The joint working group met in Washington in September and organized ten subgroups to examine in detail particular aspects of the problem. On the Canadian side, some 100 experts from several federal government departments and from Ontario government departments and agencies are involved, together with a corresponding number of officials from United States federal departments and Great Lakes States' governments.
The joint working group will report to a second ministerial meeting on Great Lakes pollution planned to take place later this year. Decisions taken at this second ministerial meeting will provide for concerted programs aimed to achieve agreed water quality objectives and the means to put such programs into action. These programs will include a commitment to implement other recommendations contained in the report and to establish effective mechanisms to perform the necessary surveillance functions.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the many people in Canada and the United States who have contributed to the work behind this important report. In particular, I would like, on behalf of the government and the people of Canada, to thank Mr. Christian Herter, chairman of the United States section. As members will know, the chairman of the Canadian section for the past eight years was the late Arnold Heeney. His contribution to the work

January 14, 1971
Great Lakes Pollution
of the IJC was perhaps the crowning achievement of a life devoted to the public service of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I would also like to acknowledge with appreciation the help and support of the public in both Canada and the United States by participation at the commission's public hearings and in other ways. Without such public support this great undertaking, to overcome the Great Lakes water pollution problem, cannot succeed.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to extend the thanks of my party for the courtesy of the minister in making a copy of his statement available to us prior to this afternoon's sitting.
What we have heard this afternoon contains both good news and bad news. I should like to deal with the good news first. It is good news that the minister made a short statement on the matter and that after six years the report has been tabled.
Now for the bad news. What we have before us in this report is a compilation of facts that were evident six years ago. I pay due respect to those who compiled the report because I am certain they did everything they could within the guidelines and regulations laid down for them. Nevertheless, as long as six years ago it was estimated that industrially, privately and commercially along the shores of the Great Lakes 2,800 commissions, agencies and bodies were studying pollution in the Great Lakes system.
The report contains some recommendations which, if implemented, will perhaps improve the situation. Unfortunately however, this government, like other governments before it, still seems to base everything on reaction rather than action. It talks of setting up even more committees, making more analyses, conducting more studies and giving the matter more consideration. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have that much time left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: Coming as I do from the shores of Lake Erie I see at first hand the tremendous problems that are caused by pollution. They are not simple because as a result of the actions of this government, the government of the United States, state governments and provincial governments the operations of some of our great industries have come to a halt. The fishing industry has been greatly curtailed because we are not certain whether the fish are contaminated, and until we have established the necessary standards and are certain the taking and using of certain fish is prohibited.
The tourist industry is also affected. People of the world will not come to Canada to enjoy the fishing and recreation in its waters if they feel the waters are polluted. Even worse, expansion of the agricultural industry is being impeded because we do not know what regulations will be established regarding the effluent from cattle feed lots which have become so prevalent because of the rearing of animals in confinement.
There will also be no expansion in the construction of atomic power units or in the development of lumber processing and of steel complexes until the government lays down guidelines and regulations which will enable long term investment in these primary industries. As an indication of how important this is, I point out that while we are delaying in this country the laying down of regulations, Canadian experts are developing a steel complex in Turkey, an atomic plant in India and lumbering in France. We are spending millions of dollars all round the world, money which we need right here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement which, like an old law of physics, is a self-evident truth. No matter how many words or how much verbiage are used, the fact still remains that committees, discussions and studies will not solve the problem. It is evident that to solve it millions and millions of dollars must be expended. Governments on both sides of the water system must be willing to spend such sums now to deal with the problem of pollution and clean up the waters of the Great Lakes.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we too regard the minister's statement and the report that has been tabled as being of the utmost importance and urgency. The report demands a high priority of attention on the part of this and other governments. It concerns Lake Ontario, upon which my constituency abuts and which, to put the words of the report in plain English, is dying. It concerns Lake Erie which is already dead. But its importance extends to all the freshwater resources of Canada upon which the livelihood of many Canadians and the quality of life of many others depend.
The findings of the report are not new but they are clear. First, there is serious pollution on both sides of the boundary. Second, this is caused by wastes discharged in boundary waters and their tributaries by municipalities and industries on either side of the boundary. Third, urgent remedial measures are required. What is now required, Mr. Speaker, is not words but action, concerted action on the international, federal, and indeed provincial levels.
As I have said, the situation is not a new development. In 1909 Article IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty solemnly engaged the high contracting parties, as they were called, that the boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary should not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other. This solemn engagement, made 60 years ago, has not been observed' properly by either side.
In 1950, 20 years ago, the International Joint Commission produced a report on this very subject, which I have on my desk. The conclusions of the commission at that time were expressed in language almost identical with that of the present report. It said that the waters on both sides of the boundary were then being polluted.
With the treaty clear and the facts clear, what has been the reason for inaction? It has been due to lack of

January 14, 1971

determination to take adequate measures of enforcement on both sides of the boundary. I suggest there is a new feature now that perhaps will result in a more genuine effort in the future. It is the weapon of public opinion. Public opinion is becoming aroused by this situation and is demanding action. I know that many of my constituents, particularly of the younger generation, are deeply concerned.
The statement refers to a second ministerial meeting on Great Lakes pollution arranged to take place later this year to plan concerted programs and put them into action. The minister's statement does not reveal when this meeting is to take place. I suggest that if it is not to be held at an early date consideration be given to updating it, in consultation with the United States government authorities, in order to get early action. Both sides have wasted too much time and words. The day for effective enforcement and action is long overdue.
May I conclude by paying my personal tribute to Mr. Arnold Heeney who is mentioned in the statement.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the subject of pollution of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario brings no news to the members and the citizens who are familiar with our country and particularly with the Great Lakes area.
Since industry has been pouring waste into those two lakes for so many years, their waters have been polluted for quite a while. For several years, all levels of government have been aware of raw sewage being discharged directly into the lakes.
In fact, 25 years ago the federal government was already aware of the problem raised by pollution of the Great Lakes and of the majority of our rivers, but in those days they were not courageous enough to propose solutions to cure it.
Today, we must face the facts, that is: pollution. While we have been afraid to take measures when it was time, we must now spend millions of dollars to control efficiently pollution of the Great Lakes. And yet, we have found no solution.
We are told: Lake Erie is polluted, and so will Lake Ontario be in a short while, as well as Lake Superior. We have organized meetings, ten years ago, between the representatives of the U.S. and Canadian governments, to find out that these lakes were becoming more and more polluted, and, six months ago, to find out again that they were still polluted. We are looking for solutions.
It is said that it will cost a lot to the citizens to improve the situation, but if we had had the courage to take our responsibilities when there was still time, we would not have to face this problem today. Which does not mean that we should not do anything to improve the situation. On the contrary, it is time, for instance, to forbid big factories to spill their waste into the waters of the Great Lakes, and to forbid municipalities to send
Dairying Industry
their sewage into these lakes, and then to take the necessary steps to clean these waters.
The same problem will crop up with regard to other waterways among which the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers. Today there is even mention of pollution in the far North.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel that before we have to repair the damage we should pass legislation designed to prevent altogether pollution of our pure Canadian waters.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House that an agreement was signed at 12.30 p.m. today between the Canadian Dairy Commission, on behalf of the federal government, and the milk marketing agencies of Quebec and Ontario, bringing into effect a market sharing system for industrial milk in these two provinces which together produce 80 per cent of the total Canadian milk production. It is expected that the marketing agencies in other provinces will join the plan in the near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure whether spokesmen for the opposition parties have received a copy of this statement. If they have not-


An hon. Member:: We have it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is fine, then. I need say no more about that.
The agreement establishes, as of December 1, 1970, a supply management program for milk used in the manufacture of dairy products and is designed to keep production in balance with domestic requirements on a butter-fat basis. It applies to all milk used for manufacturing purposes, whether from industrial or fluid milk producers.
The producer's market quotas will be based on his deliveries between April 1, 1969 and March 31, 1970, or on his subsidy eligibility quota if that is greater than his deliveries.
Each producer will receive a market price related to Canadian price support levels for deliveries up to his market sharing quota. Prices for deliveries over market quota will be related to world prices for surplus dairy products.
The Canadian Dairy Commission has been deducting a holdback from subsidy payments and using this money to offset costs in disposing of surplus products, but will discontinue deducting this holdback from producers' subsidy payments on their eligibility quota in Ontario and

January 14, 1971
Dairying Industry
Quebec on their last December deliveries. Producers in those two provinces will receive the full rate of the subsidy of $1.25 per 100 pounds of milk on the basis of their subsidy eligibility quota.
In place of the holdback from the subsidy there will be a levy on the market price paid to producers up to March 31, 1971, of 26 cents per 100 pounds of milk on deliveries by a producer to his market quota and a levy of $2.40 per 100 pounds of milk on deliveries in excess of his market quota. These levies will be collected by the provincial agencies and the funds remitted to the Canadian Dairy Commission to offset costs in disposing of surplus products.
The agreement also applies to cream shippers in Quebec. The levy on cream to be collected is 1 cent per pound butterfat on deliveries up to the producer's market quota and 50.28 cents per pound on deliveries in excess of his market quota.
Although the agreement now covers only Quebec and Ontario, other provinces are considering entering into a similar program and the present agreement provides for replacement by another which would be open to participation by the appropriate agencies of any province.
I wish to congratulate the provincial marketing agencies of these two provinces and the Canadian Dairy Commission on achieving this agreement as well as the farm organizations which have fostered and supported the plan. It is an example of how a co-ordinated approach by national and provincial agencies and producers can operate for the benefit of farmers and their industry. It is our hope that this type of co-operation will be extended to other areas of agriculture through the national marketing bill now before the House.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say, on behalf of my colleagues, that we consider the minister's statement as being a very valuable and a very fortunate one for the producers of Quebec and Ontario.
I also wish to congratulate provincial marketing agencies which did their best so that, as long last, this agreement could be signed. In fact, I believe that this will be done today.
I have received a copy of the statement a few minutes ago and I would like to comment briefly on it.
Undoutedly, this statement is in itself a good thing, but it would be erroneous to think that it will bring about better days for all milk producers.
It might be well to go back to last year, at a time when dairy policies had been quite stormily discussed. I well remember adverse criticism of the "penalization" which, according to the minister's statement, is finally being abolished, a penalization which was fatal for a number of producers both in Ontario and in Quebec. That is certainly good news for those still involved in the dairy industry.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I still regret that no assurance was given to dairy producers that there would be free distribution of milk in schools and shelters ensuring additional consumption of our surplus production.
We had hoped that a pension scheme might be established for older farmers forced to give up dairy production, and also retraining courses for younger ones who want to earn their living in another field because their operation is not profitable enough.
In the light of the current increase in the cost of living and in costs, I would have hoped that the support price would be raised to $10.
I trust that these few comments will be considered by the minister and that following this excellent news our milk producers will also be able to expect to fare better, which can only be achieved through the enactment of a policy which is more human than the previous one. This government must do away with the disincentive policy which resulted in a large number of milk producers being forced out of business and who have been on welfare for year or two.
I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), being aware of such problems, will shortly announce a new policy in the best interests of milk producers, not only in Ontario and Quebec, but throughout the country.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, as the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the producer organizations concur in the program which has been developed, I assume that it is reasonably satisfactory to the producers in those provinces. This may be too much to assume in that similar programs introduced in the past have later proved to be unsatisfactory to a considerable number of producers.
The minister's statement implies that other provinces will participate in this program on the basis of this agreement. It seems to me that the other provinces, particularly those in the west, will be faced with the situation of two major provinces having reached agreement on a pattern and the other provinces being called upon to sign a protocol. I am not sure whether the protocol will serve these other provinces well.
It is not made clear what deduction will apply to cream shippers in other provinces if they participate in a similar agreement. In fact, the situation of the cream shippers in other provinces is not necessarily the same. What will happen to the cream shippers in Saskatchewan who, in desperation, have been producing cream without benefit of the subsidy because they have no other way of obtaining funds? What will be the amount of their deduction if they come into the plan? The minister stated that another agreement will be signed and we do not know what that agreement is.
The minister also stated "It is our hope that this type of co-operation will be extended to other areas of agriculture through the national marketing bill now before the House." If the national marketing bill is

January 14, 1971

passed, I hope this agreement will not set the pattern. Many members from other parts of Canada will insist that the two major provinces should not set the pattern for the sale and subsidization of agricultural products in other parts of Canada. There must be negotiation with all the provinces concerned before an agreement is signed and approved by the government.
I do not think this agreement is good enough. I appreciate the difficulties, but I have strong reservations about the minister's statement that, because an agreement has been reached between the government and the two largest provinces, possibly in due time the other provinces will enter into the same or a similar agreement. The day before yesterday a cream shipper in my province spoke to me about the size of the deductions. The livelihood of many people depends on this policy. I hope serious consideration will be given to the producers of the other provinces. Although the two provinces that have signed the agreement represent 80 per cent of the production, the other 20 per cent is very important to a large number of farmers.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the statement which the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has just made. I had been looking forward to hearing this statement for a number of weeks in the hope that it would announce changes in the area of collection. In short we are just changing collectors since instead of the Canadian Dairy Commission boards and producer organizations are going to do the collecting.
I had also hoped for improvements in price levels.
For three years the dairy industry has been the subject of many discussions between the producers on one side and the government on the other side, not only the present government but also its predecessors as well as the provincial governments.
A lot has also been written about this important industry. For a long while, we have had to contend with the writings of some newspapermen like, for instance, Mr. Jean Simoneau, of the Sherbrooke Tribune. This man was making statements even before the House could learn about the issues and this was absolutely against the rules. This same man has disparaged all of us federal members. We were dragged out into the streets like dirty pigs, like headless animals, during the demonstration which took place in Sherbrooke. Yet, God knows how earnestly we exerted ourselves to improve the lot of industrial milk producers. We worked hard to have certain regulations passed, to obtain a better legislation, to extend the consumer markets wherever possible. People do not seem to be aware of the efforts we made with a view to improving the situation.
Mr. Speaker, the dairy industry is vital to the province of Quebec, even though a lot of farmers-thousands in fact-have been obliged to give it up because of the lack of income. Today, we were hoping for a statement on an improvement in the field of prices.
Dairying Industry
I remember that for several weeks the Committee on Agriculture has been studying this important question of the dairy industry. We heard knowledgeable witnesses Serious briefs were submitted and interesting suggestions were made which we might implement. All this has been put aside; we let time slip by with the idea that things would settle, so that small producers disappeared one after the other. Our organizations, our industrial milk producers had undertaken to reduce production even in the face of an increased demand by the consumers. Since consumption is tied to the purchasing power of the public, the demand is smaller. So our producers have accepted with difficulty and reluctantly to lower production in line with purchasing power of the masses and the possibilities of the market. At that time we get the promise that, if we could reduce production down to the suggested level, there would be an improvement in prices.
In his statement, the minister said that the agreement signed today would be effective as of December 1, 1970. In my opinion, it would have been possible-and I make the request while it is not too late-considering improvements in the field of exports and the reduced production, to make it retroactive to April 1, 1970. The milk production for the full year 1970-71 would have been covered and there could have been considerable improvements in the revenue as well as a smaller penalty against those who had surplesses.
In any event, I urge the Minister of Agriculture to keep on working to improve the situation so that the few producers who are still active get the greater returns to which they are entitled. I insist because I know the situation. Every day I get letters in my office from people asking that everything possible be done to improve the situation.
I would like, contrary to my habit, make a slight digression, Mr. Speaker, if you allow me-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member makes his digression, I must remind him that under the rules, the remarks of a party spokesman, following a minister's statement, must be brief. The hon. member stated at the beginning that he would speak briefly. He indicated then and there that he might be out of order. I would invite him to conclude his remarks as soon as possible.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I usually follow your advice and I shall do so today. I am respectful of the standing orders.
The digression is this, and I make it without malice. It happens that members of my party represent rural ridings. Some organizers with or without malice say that the dairy industry is in a fix, it is because those ridings are represented by Creditistes. Now, the Minister of Agriculture himself is a Creditiste-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I take it for granted that the hon. member has finished his digression and is about to conclude his remarks.

January 14, 1971
The Canadian Economy



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion. I base my reason for so doing on the following facts.
During December, unemployment in Canada rose from
476,000	to 538,000 and reached 6.6 per cent of the work force, seasonally adjusted. It was 155,000 higher than in December a year ago. What is particularly alarming is the refusal of the government to introduce measures to stimulate sales of Canadian products and thus increase production and produce more jobs. The government has refused specifically to lower income taxes to stimulate purchasing power and thus increase sales, production and jobs, to lower business taxes to reduce production costs and selling prices, thus increasing production and producing more jobs;-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should indicate what the motion is that he intends to propose under the terms of Standing Order 43.


George Harris Hees: I have just about arrived at that point, Mr. Speaker-and to introduce tax incentives to increase productivity, thereby lowering costs and selling prices and increasing production and jobs.
The reason I move this motion is the government's persistence in adopting the kind of measures that have proved totally inadequate during the past three years while unemployment has been steadily rising. Therefore I move under Standing Order 43:
That the government immediately convene a meeting of representatives of the provinces, municipalities, organized labour and industry to consider and recommend adequate measures to be taken without delay to stimulate the economy and thereby combat serious and rising unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion that would be proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



AIR CANADA


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I ask the consent of the House to move the following motion:
That the problem arising as a result of the announcement by Air Canada that 415 employees are to be laid off almost immediately be referred for investigation to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in view of the fact
that this announcement comes at a time when unemployment in Canada is higher than it has been during any period in the last ten years.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, of which he has just apprised the House, requires unanimous consent. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the Chair must inquire whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent forthcoming and the motion cannot be put.



BAY OF FUNDY TIDES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesler North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43, requesting that immediate action be taken by the government to refer the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board report to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated his willingness to review the findings of this board if requested to do so by the governments of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In view of the fact that such a request has not been made by these governments, I therefore move:
That this House urges the government to refer immediately the report of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board to the Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works, coupled with all other pertinent information presently available and with the power to call witnesses and introduce evidence that pertains to this proposed development.


Mr. Speaker:: Again this is a motion which requires the unanimous consent of the House and the Chair must inquire whether there is unanimity in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of bills:
December 19, 1970-The Minister of Finance-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and to amend an Act to amend that Act.
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether this notice could be dropped from the Order Paper for the time being?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Speaker.!
January 14, 1971



MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 THE CANADIAN ECONOMY INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, perhaps I should indicate that notice of a motion under Standing Order 26 has been received from the hon. member who is now seeking the floor and also from the hon. member for Spadina. They are on the same subject and I would assume that the same ruling, one way or the other, would apply to both motions. Perhaps the Chair should allow both hon. members to state the substance of their proposal, after which the Chair can give a ruling.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the present national crisis arising out of the alarming increase in unemployment showing the number of unemployed in December, 1970 as 538,000, the highest in the last decade, an increase of 155,000 over December of the previous year and an increase of 62,000 over the preceding month. Moreover, preliminary surveys show that unemployment for this month will be approximately 100,000 higher than the December figure, thus necessitating an immediate emergency debate so that the government may indicate what steps it intends to take to reduce the human misery involved in this disastrous situation.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I also ask leave to make a motion under Standing Order 26 for the adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.
There can be no matter more important and more urgent for discussion in this House today than the unemployment figures released today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, when considered in light of the social unrest in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated a moment ago, both the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Spadina gave the required notice under Standing Order 26. The Chair has given the matter very serious consideration in the meantime.
As the House also knows, motions under Standing Order 26 dealing with the unemployment situation in Canada have been proposed on a number of occasions since the beginning of the current session, usually following publication of Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports. The last such motion was proposed on December 10, 1970, by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, and on that occasion the Chair made the following ruling:
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has given the required notice of his intention to move the motion to which he has just alluded. As the House knows, similar motions have been proposed from time to time following the publication of DBS monthly reports. The rulings of the Chair have consistently indicated that Standing Order 26 is not applicable in such circumstances.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I should add that since the House still has before it consideration of the budget, including an amendment on the subject of unemployment, I must rule that it would not be in order to initiate a new discussion at this time, under Standing Order 26.
I should think the same ruling would have to be made in the present circumstances. The subject matter of the motions is of the greatest importance; it is one of urgency and of concern to all members of the House. At the same time, because of the continuing nature of the problem it is difficult to see how a debate could take place by virtue of Standing Order 26. It is particularly relevant that there is still before the House, as there was when the motion by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate was proposed about a month ago, an amendment to the budget motion proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West which deals specifically with the subject matter of unemployment. The fact that the problem is now before the House and that there will be an opportunity to discuss the subject matter of the motions proposed by the two hon. members leads me to the conclusion that the motions ought not to be put at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. In view of the fact that your Honour has made a ruling denying an emergency debate on unemployment at the present time on the ground that the budget debate has been adjourned, it would seem to be appropriate to inquire whether the government would be willing to resume the adjourned debate either today or within the next two or three days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that this is hardly a question of privilege. It is a valid question and perhaps it might be asked by the hon. member of the House Leader. When we reach the question period in a few minutes I will then recognize the hon. member for that purpose.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the unemployment statistics alluded to today, as released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the manpower department, showing the critical unemployment situation across Canada, especially among breadwinners whose ranks have swollen by 56,000 in a one-month period, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the government has any new emergency or middle-term programs which will at least halt the direction of the unemployment trend in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, 1 share, as does the government, the hon. member's concern about the unemployment situation in Canada. As has already been said in the House, the

January 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
government has brought forward a series of measures which are still under discussion in the House in connection with the budget debate. Indeed, there has been a very rapid shift in government policy toward stimulation of the economy. I would welcome at any time on behalf of the government on this important subject and I would be happy to see a debate take place in the next few days.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED RESCINDING OF INCOME TAX SURCHARGE AND BUILDING MATERIALS SALES TAX

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the very serious statistics which have just been produced regarding mounting unemployment in the country, is he now prepared to revise the position he took when he presented his budget in December? Is he giving any consideration to rescinding the 3 per cent income tax surcharge and removing the sales tax on building materials with a view to stimulating the economy and creating effective demand as one of the best means of helping to solve the unemployment problem?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated by the Acting Prime Minister, the government is continuously concerned about unemployment in this country. As a matter of fact, the government's fiscal position has switched almost to the tune of $2 billion since last March. In this regard I should like to point out to hon. members today -


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lewis:: Don't be so darned complacent about it!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor and should be allowed to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, far from being complacent about it, the government has changed its fiscal position completely over the past year in this regard. I should also like to indicate that in respect of one of the budget measures, which provides $150 million for provincial projects, we have now been in touch with all of the provinces. They have all indicated their willingness to take these funds and proceed immediately with the expenditure of the $150 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know there are a number of supplementaries, but in fairness at this point I think the Chair should first recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR RESUMPTION OF BUDGET DEBATE TO DISCUSS PROBLEM

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Privy Council. I should like to ask him whether he would schedule, as the first item of business for Monday, the continuation of the budget debate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the representation. The program for the business of the House is laid out and members are prepared for it, but I will consider a resumption of the debate at least for a day at an early opportunity.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED WORKS PROGRAM AND REBATE OF BUILDING MATERIALS SALES TAX IN WINTER MONTHS

Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Acting Prime Minister as the first question was directed to him. As there are now 50,000 persons on relief and thousands more unemployed in Toronto alone, would the government consider a crash program of winter works and a rebate of the 11 per cent tax on building materials for construction in the winter months?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is now a very large expenditure program under way as a result of the measures introduced by the government and particularly by the Minister of Finance. I really think this is a time for constructive measures to deal with the underlying causes of unemployment which are very complicated in North America. As the Minister of Finance said, this government, far from taking a complacent view, has switched its fiscal position by $2 billion within a few months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see that a number of hon. members are seeking the floor for supplementaries. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South and return to hon. members who seek to ask questions on the matters.



UNEMPLOYMENT-MANPOWER RETRAINING-REMOVAL OF PROVISION REQUIRING THREE YEARS IN WORK FORCE

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the hope that he will not be as satisfied with the situation as other ministers are. In view of the fact that a very large number of the unemployed are young people, 218,000 out of 538,000, has the minister given further consideration, as he promised last December 10 he would, to the possibility of amending the requirement in the regulations or in the Act of three years in the work force before a trainee may be entitled to allowances? Is he ready to announce such a change at the earliest opportunity?


Hon. Olto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the training programs of the Department of Manpower of course are extremely useful in providing upgrading for people who are unemployed. The three-year rule is designed to put emphasis on the training and upgrading of those who have been in the work force, and who are not simply regularly in the education process, as well as those who are most likely to be vulnerable to unemployment of a long term nature. It is not the view of the government at this time that these directions should be changed.

January 14, 1971



UNEMPLOYMENT-SPECIAL MEASURES TO ASSIST QUEBEC TO PROVIDE NEW JOBS

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a supplementary?


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that in the province of Quebec in particular 42 per cent of the unemployed are under 25 years of age and that the main objective of the provincial government is to create 100,000 jobs, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether serious and specific discussions are presently underway between the federal government and the government of Quebec with a view to finding a quick and specific solution to the serious problem now facing this province by making sure that these
100,000	jobs are actually created?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I indicated in my budget speech that many of the measures would be of great assistance to Quebec and, as a matter of fact, of the loan fund of $150 million I mentioned a few moments ago about $68 million will go to the province of Quebec. That province has indicated it is ready to let tenders now and proceed with providing jobs out of this amount of money.



UNEMPLOYMENT-INCOME AND BUSINESS TAX REDUCTIONS, PRODUCTIVITY INCENTIVES

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the very serious unemployment situation and the forecast that it will grow worse before it becomes better, is the government giving consideration to reducing income taxes and business taxes, as well as granting tax incentives to increase productivity?
Hon E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, we have of course considered these particular matters. I do not think that reducing the income tax would provide an immediate reduction in unemployment in Canada, as is advocated by the leader of the Opposition who is travelling across the country. As a matter of fact, the reduction in income tax he has suggested would cost over a billion dollars.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my understanding of rule 15 (3) is that ministers need not reply but when they do their replies should be responsive, intelligent and relevant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I regret the hon. member's suggestions that what the Leader of the Opposition says across the country is irrelevant.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is also seeking the floor on a question of privilege. I have a suspicion that perhaps it, too, is not a question of privilege. Perhaps I am wrong and should first hear the hon. member. I feel we are dealing with a very important matter, and a number of members are seeking an opportunity to ask supplemen-taries, but I will first hear the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the snide remarks made by the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member initiates his remarks by saying that he is replying to the minister's statement. As I have already indicated to the House, there was no question of privilege in the matter raised by the Minister of Finance and therefore it should not be pursued.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PROVISION OF JOBS FOR UNIVERSITY GRADUATES AND STUDENTS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that soon there will be graduates and some 100,000 undergraduates of universities who will have no opportunity for employment this summer, outside of being sent around the country in buses, has the government any program for them at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply briefly, but I doubt whether the House would want the minister to give a general reply to the question at this time.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question seems to involve some confusion between long-term programs for employment and programs for summer employment for students who have not yet completed their courses. The indications, of course, are that the economy will be improving in 1971 and hopefully many graduates will find jobs as they enter the labour force. On the question of summer employment, I think this question was asked yesterday and I indicated that possibilities are being considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North seeks the floor for a supplementary question, but there are seven or eight other hon. members who should be allowed to ask their questions before we get into the second round. I think at this point the Chair should recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ACCELERATION OF SPECIAL AREA ECONOMIC EXPANSION PROGRAM TO PROVIDE JOBS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the critically high unemployment in certain areas of the country, would he consider accelerating the special area provisions in his

January 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
regional economic expansion program, in order to accelerate employment in these areas, especially since the program is slow in getting started in areas of critically high unemployment?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we are already doing it and, wherever possible, we will speed up the work.



UNEMPLOYMENT-APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF NEW JOBS IN QUEBEC IN 1971

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
In view of the fact that estimates set at 50,000 the increase in 1971 of the labour force in the province of Quebec, can he give us an idea of the number of jobs his department will create during the year?
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I doubt that I can give exact numbers at the present time.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PLANS TO ASSIST WEST COAST FISHERMEN

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Inasmuch as his licence limitation program for salmon fishing has driven fishermen out of the industry and into the ranks of the unemployed, and inasmuch as the minister is not willing to go to Prince Rupert or at least Vancouver to discuss the matter and face the fishermen whom he is driving out of the industry, would he be prepared-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member recognizes that the form of the question is not in order. Perhaps he might come to the question.


Frank Howard: The form of the question was most necessary, Mr. Speaker, in order to put the matter in perspective. Would the minister be prepared, even if we have to wait until Monday, to stay here and engage in a debate during which he could outline what plans his department has to cope with the chaos that has been created?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. W. C. Scoff (Victoria-Haliburlon):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. According to the roster he was to be present in the House today, but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member asking a supplementary question?


William C. Scott: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there are still a number of supplementary questions. I appreciate that hon. members have other matters they would like to raise but perhaps we might have a few more supplementary questions first.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SPECIAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE JOBS IN ATLANTIC REGION

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the above average increase in unemployment in the Atlantic region between November and December as reported by DBS, and also in view of the possible diminution of the special areas program for expansion, can the minister indicate whether his department will in fact implement special programs to deal with the abnormally high rate of unemployment in the Atlantic region?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the very object of the program is to create jobs in the Maritimes in particular, and also in Quebec.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ASSURANCE THAT LOAN TO QUEBEC WILL BE USED TO PROVIDE JOBS

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
In answer to my colleague of Lotbiniere, he stated a moment ago that amounts of $150 million and $68 million would be paid to Quebec to help that province fight unemployment. Now, I would like to know whether the minister is sure that Quebec will use this money to create new jobs and not to make up the deficit of its Department of Education.


Edgar John Benson: Of course, I cannot accept all the facts which the hon. member put forward because I am not sure whether they are correct. I question reliability of his information. However, I should indicate that our information from the province of Quebec is that they will use the $68 million to proceed immediately with work with which otherwise they might not be able to proceed with.



UNEMPLOYMENT-EFFECT OF SEAL QUOTA SYSTEM

Mr. Waller C. Carter (Si. John's West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and it concerns unemployment. Would the minister consider eliminating the discriminatory quota system which allows the Norwegians to take 100,000 seals as opposed to the Canadian quota of 50,000, thereby putting Canadians on an unequal footing with the Norwegians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we are getting somewhat away from the original question. But I note that the hon. member has an important question to ask, and I will come to him in a moment.

January 14, 1971



UNEMPLOYMENT-TORONTO-EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM

Sylvester Perry Ryan: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister resulting from his answer to my first question. Will the time lag on the government's construction program to which he referred be less than three months, and how will the program help the Toronto area in the winter months?



UNEMPLOYMENT-EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR WELFARE BENEFITS UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

David Lewis: I should like to ask the
Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question. On December 10 I asked the Prime Minister a question relating to the disastrous increase in welfare costs to the municipalities and communities in Canada arising from increasing unemployment. At that time, the Prime Minister said that the problem was being considered. Can the Acting Prime Minister now say whether the government has considered the possibility of discussing with the provinces the expansion of rights and eligibility for social welfare assistance coming under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the
hon. member probably knows, a meeting is scheduled for later this month with the provincial welfare ministers, at which time I am sure this question will be raised.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON FORECASTS

John Howard Lundrigan: My supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government's forecasting machinery has gone seriously awry, has the government made any new estimates and forecasts of the expected unemployment parameters? Would the Acting Prime Minister be prepared, in co-operation with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to make these estimates available to the Canadian people and members of the House of Commons?


Mitchell William Sharp: As 1
recollect, the Minister of Finance in his budget speech forecast the course of events. He forecast a steady reduction in seasonally adjusted unemployment during 1971. We have no reason to change this forecast.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate on a point of order, but I suggest that perhaps we might give other hon. members an opportunity to take part in the question period after I have recognized the hon. member.


John Howard Lundrigan: I would like to say for the record that the Minister of Finance did say that the unemployment picture-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a point of debate, not a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member now wishes to rise on a question of privilege, I understand.


John Howard Lundrigan: The Acting Prime Minister, in giving information to the House, is certainly misrepresenting the words of the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ACCELERATION OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. I wish to ask the hon. gentleman whether anything has been placed in the Public Works coffers since December 15 in view of the very serious unemployment situation?


An hon. Member:: Wake him up.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, a sum of $23 million has been made available. In addition, we are accelerating the work under way not only in the Maritimes and in Quebec; we are also bringing forward in the Prairie Provinces and in the province of British Columbia work which we had intended to do later.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear. That is the only responsible answer we have received today.



UNEMPLOYMENT-FORECAST FOR MARCH, 1971

David Orlikow: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the estimate by responsible academic economists that the number of unemployed by March of this year will be over 750,000, could the Minister of Finance indicate to the House whether the estimates prepared by his department confirm or reject this estimate?


Edgar John Benson: This question was raised a little earlier. In my budget speech I said that I felt seasonally adjusted unemployment had peaked and would gradually work downwards. I also said that there may be month to month fluctuations from the trend, and one-tenth of one per cent represents a month to month fluctuation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we should now give an opportunity to the hon. member for Victoria-Halibur-ton.



REPORTED REJECTION BY ONTARIO OF CERTAIN DRUGS APPROVED BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENT

['Hear, hear!']
William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the minister answering for the

January 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns reports that the Ontario health department's Parcost program has been rejecting drugs for use in Ontario that have previously been approved by the federal department of health. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of this practice, and whether or not he has had discussions with the Ontario provincial Minister of Health with a view to clarifying the situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice for the minister and get an answer for the hon. member.
[DOT]f*



Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I move to another topic arising out of questions that were asked yesterday in connection with the sale of arms to South Africa. Would the Acting Prime Minister say whether or not Canada, as one of the member nations of the Francophone organization, has taken up the question and objected to the Republic of France selling arms to South Africa during recent months? In particular, have any direct representations in this regard been made to France, which today is one of the leading merchants of death?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, the Francophone organization is concerned wholely with cultural, educational and technical matters. It does not have, as does the Commonwealth, any political ties and it would not be appropriate to raise in the Francophone organization questions of this kind. But may I say that in the United Nations Canada has made its position quite plain on this issue, and I join with the right hon. gentleman in expressing the hope that no country will supply arms to South Africa.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall not answer the misinterpretation placed on my words by the minister because, after all, deception under the new rules has become a rule in which some of the ministers are proficient. I ask the minister directly. In view of the interest of Canada in assuring that South Africa shall not receive arms, have representations been made to the Republic of France against the large sales that are being made by it, not only to South Africa but to other countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I have said we have joined in the United Nations in opposing France, as well as all other countries supplying arms to South Africa. I have no hesitation in associating myself with the right hon. gentleman on this, and I hope he associates himself with the government's position in opposing the action of the British government if they decide to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the right hon. gentleman is seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I am not used to having brush-offs, and I ask the minister specifically, have representations been made to the government of France? Isn't that a simple question?


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


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since he mentioned earlier that our position has been made clear at the United Nations, could he indicate if this was the reason for our abstention from a number of votes on this question in October?


Mitchell William Sharp: It was
the reason that, with the approval of this Parliament, Canada decided not to supply any arms to South Africa, notwithstanding some of the resent representations I have heard by some members of the hon. member's party to the effect that we should resume shipment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FINANCE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the reported willingness of the provinces to make use of the loan fund announced in the budget, and in view of the fact that a seasonal upturn in unemployment rates of .1 means some 60,000 to 70,000 jobs, will the minister consider an increase in the moneys allocated to this fund, and will he consider making a portion of the payments from this fund in the form of grants?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the size and the amount of the fund were clearly outlined in the budget speech. I should indicate that the amount of money involved in this fund is about six times what used to be spent annually on winter works.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, have any of the provinces made a request for allocation of a larger amount of funds than was announced in the budget?


Edgar John Benson: The allocation was made on the basis announced in the budget speech. Officials of the Department of Finance and of other departments have been in touch with the provinces, and most of the provinces have indicated exactly how they will use the funds.
January 14, 1971



the census



METHOD OF RECRUITING COMMISSIONERS

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As 1971 is national census year, what procedure will be adopted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to choose the district commissioners who will be responsible for the census in every constituency?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that this question could be placed on the order paper. If it is urgent, the House would be willing to consider it at the time of adjournment.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot ask a supplementary to a question which was ruled out of order. However, the hon. member might perhaps ask another question.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is the following: Since the government will certainly appoint commissioners to take the census, could he tell the House what qualifications will be required of them as how they will be appointed? I consider this matter as an urgent one, because, according to my information, this will be done shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is an emergency, as the hon. member suggests, it might be useful to discuss the matter at the time of adjournment, if the hon. member would kindly give me notice of it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
* H:	*



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. Since reports indicate that there are 15 members from the CBC and five from Weekend News Magazine accompanying the Prime Minister on his trip abroad to report on the Prime Minister's numerous frolics, has Information Canada any members accompanying the Prime Minister? If so, are they wearing their maple leaves as described yesterday by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent?


Hon. Robert Slanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: The
answer in both cases, Mr. Speaker, is no.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC WORKS



BRIDGEWATER, N.S.-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statement made today by the Minister of Public Works concerning work projects being moved ahead, could he indicate when the public building promised by his predecessor for Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, in 1968, will be built?



FINANCE


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In light of the unacceptable climate of slow growth and uncertainty in the economy, is the minister prepared to state on motions the government's specific intentions in the area of tax reform?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker,
very recently I stated in the budget, which is still under debate-I understand we are going to have another day's debate on it very soon-the government's outlook with respect to the economy and economic policy. In the area of tax reform, which will not result in any additional revenue for the federal government, I have indicated a system of reforming taxation which I would hope to bring forward next spring.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it will assist the minister if I ask a supplementary question. In order to stimulate the housing industry, is the minister now prepared to drop publicly the idea of a capital gains tax with a five-year re-evaluation clause applying to housing?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there never was a capital
gains tax with a five-year re-evaluation clause applying to housing in the white paper.
* *



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a very simple question. In light of the fact that the budget proposals advanced by the minister responsible for fluctuations have not been effective, has the Prime Minister or the government any intention of discussing with the provincial governments and other people an immediate crash program to deal with the very serious unemployment situation that now exists and will continue for the next three or four months at least?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing with the provinces, as the Minister of Finance has said, the implementation of

January 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the proposals that are already under discussion. I do think, if I may so suggest, that the time to have this debate is not the question period but during the debate on the budget, which I hope will be very soon.


Gerald William Baldwin: 

FISHERIES


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, may I again direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I do so with great respect to your earlier ruling. I contend that the question concerns unemployment because the regulations of the department which are being imposed by the minister are having the effect of preventing a number of people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor not for the purpose of disputing the Chair's ruling but for the purpose of asking a question.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister or to his Parliamentary Secretary. Would the minister give consideration to removing the discriminatory quota which allows the Norwegians to double their harvest of seals from the Canadian front as opposed to our own sealers?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the minister may wish to give that matter consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why is the minister not here?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order as a result of a remark made by the Acting Prime Minister and the ruling you just made. When the hon. member for St. John's West asked his question Your Honour said that he could not dispute the Chair's ruling. The Acting Prime Minister has reflected on the decorum of the House and on the Speaker by saying that a debate was going on during the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for
Saskatoon-Biggar.



WHEAT-SECURING OF FULL SHARE OF MARKETS FOR CANADA IN NEGOTIATING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the
Wheat Board. In view of the statement made by Dr. Shebeski, the eminent crop scientist at the University of Manitoba, while speaking in Saskatoon, that Canada had lost a substantial percentage of its share of the international wheat market, can the minister assure the House that in the coming negotiations in Geneva for a new international wheat agreement, Canada will make every attempt to negotiate an agreement which will permit us to recover our full share of the international wheat market?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement to which reference has been made. Of course, it could have been accurate about a situation which has long since passed. Since then, exports of wheat and other grains from Canada have shown very substantial increases. Canada again has a very significant share of world markets not only in wheat but in other grains, and there have been record rates of exports of barley and rapeseed.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
According to a statement made this morning in Montreal, eavesdropping devices are reported to have been connected to telephone lines of a Montreal daily, and I would ask the minister whether he can tell us if this was done by a police force, federal or provincial. If not, is the minister in a position to assure the House that he will investigate the matter?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a statement. However, I believe it is recognized here that any question covering national security is one to which replies must be restricted, and I am definitely not implying by this statement that such activities are believed to exist.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I see that his seat is now very much closer to me, for which I am very pleased. In view of the very serious unemployment situation on Cape Breton Island, may I ask the minister how soon we can expect a statement either from him or from officials of the Cape Breton Development Corporation regarding that corporation's future plans for Cape Breton, with particular emphasis on creating employment?
[Mr. Sharp.)
January 14, 1971


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that there is a branch of DEVCO whose responsibility it is to promote the industrial development of Cape Breton. So, I urge this company to undertake industrial development projects in as many directions and as quickly as possible; but this is not something that can be done overnight.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if it is correct that there is a large-scale plan on his desk awaiting his approval at the moment? If so, how soon will he approve this plan? Also, how soon will he appoint a vice-president in charge of industrial development, a post that has been vacant for many months?


Jean Marchand: 

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Further to my question of December 16 to the Minister of Justice concerning the alleged planting of drugs in a residence in a small Saskatchewan city by police officials, may I ask if the Solicitor General can say if the RCMP have as yet completed their investigation into these alleged drug planting attempts? Also, will he give some assurances, if that body has not completed the investigation, that a public inquiry will be initiated, to investigate whether there is any substance to the allegations concerning drug planting attempts?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I shall certainly look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and see what it is all about.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Labour or to his Parliamentary Secretary. Are the unemployment insurance offices in Toronto so small that applicants for unemployment insurance must stand in line outside, or, is the picture in Time magazine not what it purports to be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that the question as asked is in order. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase his question.
23786-11$
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I feel the question is urgent. Are the facilities not adequate? These men are pictured as standing outside, and it is cold. May I ask whether the offices are adequate to meet the needs in Toronto?


John George Diefenbaker: To be adequate, they would have to
be as large as skyscrapers.


Mr. Ray Perrauli (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that there are no line-ups outside any UIC offices in this country and that the picture in Time magazine purporting to show a lineup outside a UIC building in Toronto is misleading in that the building is not a UIC building in that city.


Gerald William Baldwin: Where is it then? In Vancouver?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question but I am not quite sure how to proceed. Perhaps Your Honour could advise me whether it should be put as a point of order or as a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The problem is that several weeks ago I put a question on the order paper seeking certain statistical information from the Minister of Agriculture. One part of the several parts of the question was:
What are the names and addresses of the vendors of herds-
I might say that the question refers to certain transfers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Just a minute, now. I wish to be accurate, Your Honour, and I had a little difficulty seeing without my spectacles. The question related to the transfer of milk quotas. There were eight parts to the question, only three of which are relevant...


An hon. Member:: To what?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Relevant to this point of order, at least. The relevant parts refer to the names and addresses of the vendors of herds, and the relevant dates are between April, 1970 and December, 1970. The next part asks, what are the names and addresses of the transferees in each case and, third, what, in each case, is the amount of the quota transferred? I might say, Your Honour, that this information is required, under the rules of the Department of Agriculture, to be registered with the department. The reply that came from the minister's office, or presumably from his office, said that it would take 700 man-hours to provide this very brief information which must be kept in the department's ledgers. May I ask the minister why it would take 700 man-hours, which I frankly do not believe, to provide this information which is required under the Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the transfer of subsidy eligibility quotas, of course, can take place only between the person who holds that

January 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
quota and someone who purchases the herd. The quota goes along with the herd, or any part of the herd.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is that what causes trafficking in quotas?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: From the way the hon. member put his question, and I will be glad to review it, I understand that all this information relating to all the transfers would have to be taken out of the records. That is where the 700 hours come in. These records are kept by us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I imagine that the matter might be further reviewed elsewhere between the hon. member and the minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to assure the House that India is not producing and has not produced any weapon grade plutonium PU-239 since it was supplied with the Canada-India reactor in 1960?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a very technical question. I would like to find out exactly what this product is before answering the question. I will take it as notice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question which the hon. member for Peace River asked Tuesday to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the hon. Minister of Justice in order to allay his concern over the shortage of judges in the province of Ontario.
The Department of Justice is currently drafting amendments to the Judges Act which will substantially increase the number of judges in that province.

lEnglish]



IMMIGRATION


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wish to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Yesterday the minister was asked about the admission to Canada of a gentleman named Abbie Hoffman for the purpose of some program. At that time he replied he had not ruled on that matter. I understand that since then this gentleman has been refused admission to Canada. What is the reason for this action? Also, does this represent a change in policy on the part of the department?
[Mr. Olson 1


Otto Emil Lang: I will not repeat my answer of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, since it is on the record. I do not think it is necessarily what the hon. member suggests. I can report a little further on the case. Mr. Hoffman subsequently presented himself at a port of entry. He was examined in accordance with the Immigration Act. He was found to be in a prohibited class under Section 5D of the Act and was ordered deported. He did not appeal.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the minister state whether advice was sought from the Department of Justice on whether the offence of which he was convicted in the United States is a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of the Immigration Act?


Otto Emil Lang: I will have to check to see whether specific advice was sought with regard to this particular offence. Of course, there would be general consultations between the departments with regard to the question of how these words should be interpreted over a period of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period expired some minutes ago. Perhaps the matter raised by the hon. member for Greenwood might be continued tomorrow by the hon. member and the hon. member for Egmont. For the moment, perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton Centre might be permitted to ask a question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because of the iniquitous roster system it will not be possible to continue this matter tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the circumstances referred to by the hon. member for Egmont, perhaps he might be allowed to ask a supplementary.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the minister indicate the reason why this ruling was different from that of the present House Leader when last September this gentleman was admitted to Canada for a brief period? Has there been a change in policy since the September admittance?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a question of privilege. A moment ago I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration the reason for the change of policy. The minister was not permitted to answer. I wonder whether the minister might be permitted to answer because I believe it forms an important part of the inquiry at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: When hon. members ask questions such as why a decision is different from what it was before, that is a debating point rather than a legitimate question. This is the reason I interrupted the minister before he had a chance to reply. I am not certain whether he wished to reply. If it is the wish of the House to conclude the matter in some way, the minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: The decision does not reflect any change of policy. Each particular case, of course, has to be examined on its own merits. Obviously, differences of time and circumstances can affect a particular decision.
January 14, 1971



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: In the
absence of the Minister of Labour I will address my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. In light of the increasing levels of unemployment, and particularly the increase of 32,000 unemployed persons between the ages of 18 and 24, is the government now going to introduce emergency amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide greater access and assistance for the young and hard-core unemployed?


Raymond J. Perrault: I am sure the hon. member is aware that extensive changes in the unemployment insurance regulations are pending. We look forward to his enthusiastic support when the legislation is brought before the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I hope we will get them right away instead of in 1972.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the President of the Privy Council as to the business for the balance of this week and next week. Possibly by now he has been able to consider the matter of the budget debate. If it is not going to be resumed soon, will the minister take the advice of the Acting Prime Minister and find some means by which the House can discuss the problem of unemployment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give the business of the House and deal with the question of the resumption of the budget debate. We hope to continue today with the young offenders bill. This will be followed by the crop insurance bill, the Northern Canada Power Commission Act amendments, Yukon minerals, the textile legislation, statutory instruments bill and the Canadian National Railway and Air Canada financing bill and then the government organization bill. I have been calling legislation rather than the budget debate in order to get as much legislation as possible before the committees.
In view of the representations made by hon. members and the desirability of dealing with the issue that has been raised, if it is agreeable I propose to interrupt this program, call the budget debate on Monday, have one day on the budget debate and then resume the normal business.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister consider extending the debate to two days? At the end of the second day, a vote could be taken on the very reasonable amendment moved by this party. We could then ascertain the views of the government with regard to unemployment. Could there be a two-day debate rather than one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For the moment, Mr. Speaker, I think that the opportunity of a full day's debate on unemployment is much more advantageous to the opposition than
Young Offenders Act
if Your Honour had accepted their proposal today, which would provide for a debate after the dinner hour. We might review the situation on Monday evening to see whether there would be any profit in resuming the debate on Tuesday.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to review this matter very seriously. It is not a case of a concession being made to the opposition. The rules permit six days debate on the budget. We have only had two days debate. There must be a further four days. I think that the suggestion that there be at least two days debate on this question at this time is reasonable and that the government should agree to it.


Frank Howard: I suggest to the Government House Leader that it might assist in getting some of the legislation he mentioned dealt with rather quickly if he were to withdraw the young offenders bill and not further offend the House with it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it seems that a two-day debate should take place on the question of unemployment, in view of the differences of opinion which are now obvious. It would perhaps be advisable before the President of the Privy Council takes a decision that he should call together the House Leader of each party in order to discuss this matter and come to a decision which would be acceptable to all parties concerned.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer that Bill C-192 respecting young offenders and repealing the Juvenile Delinquents Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and the amendment of Mr. Woolliams (p. 2381).
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment yesterday, I was speaking about the problem of young offenders and especially about Bill C-192 introduced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer). I then raised several points which I found unfortunate in that bill.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I said things and made criticisms that I think are valuable and I hope the Solicitor General will consider them carefully and find there food for thought in order to improve the bill that is before us.
Before closing my remarks, I think it is my duty to suggest to the government some ways to improve the most regrettable aspects of this bill, and, some day, we will have to agree there are many, beginning with the title.

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
While speaking to the House yesterday, the Solicitor General extolled in every way the merits of this bill, and I quote:
In short, those definitions which describe the young person as a juvenile delinquent have been removed. This shows the intention on the part of the legislator to remove the stigma of some traditional concepts and also to change the application of federal legislation regarding the age limit.
Mr. Speaker, in the title of the bill, we find the contradiction in this philosophy of the Solicitor General, and I quote:
An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
The minister himself said yesterday that we had to modernize the definitions used to refer to the young person. He said that we had to eliminate the odious aspect of some traditional concepts in the old 1929 act. But the minister is not inordinately logical and continues to favour the use of negative and odious concepts and expressions.
Let me now quote the recommendations No. 5 and No. 6 at page 283 of the report of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on juvenile delinquency. I quote:
The term "juvenile delinquent" should be abandoned as a form of legal designation and the term "child offender" and "young offender" should be adopted.
Recommendation No 6 reads as follows:
The title of the "Juvenile Delinquents Act" should be changed to "Children and Young persons Act".
Some might think those recommendations are secondary and unimportant. If the minister had had the slightest logic, when he introduced the bill, he would not have hesitated to change those terms which prove that nothing has been done and that the youth is still submitted to an atmosphere of terror.
We realize that the Solicitor General has limited intentions. His bill is a step backwards. It would have been an improvement if he had at least dared take his inspiration from the legislation of Britain or the Scandinavian countries where the emphasis is not put on the act or offence to condemn or treat the young offender as if he were a criminal, as we shall do if the bill before us is passed, but where there is concern to understand and help the individual himself. They try to give young people moral, physical and spiritual help. In Canada, we sentence them and pile them up in utterly inadequate houses of detention.
Mr. Speaker, the countries I have mentioned are applying methods designed to further young people's education so that these poor fellows are welcomed by society with understanding, love and support.
In Canada, we just herd them together, delinquents and pre-delinquents, alike, morally abandoned children with perversed children so that in the end they come out even worse than before.
Young people need help and understanding, not a disdainful judgement and sentence. If at least justice was fair and not of the kind that the Solicitor General is trying to impose through this bill!
Judges in general, and I am very sorry to have to say this, are not qualified in such matters. They have neither specialized knowledge nor proper training in this field, most of them having been appointed through political patronage as a reward or in order to stop them from hindering politics.
Mr. Speaker, it is the young offender who has to pay the price for this shortsighted policy which benefits only some politicians instead of insuring the development of man.
Now, the problem is much more serious than one would think. Mr. Speaker, may I point out that in the social welfare courts of Quebec alone, incompetent judges-and the solicitor general is well aware of this- have passed judgment on 25,133 young offenders, and, in 1967, on over 28,277.
Mr. Speaker, this represents an annual increase of ' more than 3,000 cases of teen-agers which have been caught red-handed and to whom no pity is granted. They are thrown in some hangars, jails or completely inadequate homes, with results such as can be seen at the Corporation Berthelet-Saint-Vallier.
When one realizes that henceforth, under the federal legislation under consideration, no distinction shall be made anymore between a 10 year-old child and a 17 or 18 year-old one, one can rightly wonder how far this inhuman system will go.
Mr. Speaker, one must not be surprised if, as of tomorrow, the problem of youngsters who do not integrate in society keeps worsening. We must establish consultation machinery by using the competent services of psychologists, doctors, psychoanalysts, social workers and teachers.
It is urgent that we set up shelters where young people will find peace, security, respect, moral support and understanding. It is urgent that we establish detection and protection services instead of relying on certain irresponsible parents who are anxious to be rid of their children and leave them in charge of welfare courts, saying: Look after them!
Detection services would make it possible to get hold of the adolescent before he becomes delinquent rather than having to try and recuperate him once the case has become practically desperate.
Mr. Speaker, retraining services for judges should also be set up in co-operation with universities so that they may acquire greater competence instead of be'ng political slaves. Also, more judges should be appointed, in order that these cases should no longer be made to drag on, resulting in the rotting away of young people in absolutely unsanitary conditions.
Mr. Speaker, a distinction should also be made between age groups, so that 10 to 14-year olds are not dealt with in the same way as 14 to 18-year olds, since the responsibilities, concepts and experience of life of the latter group are not those of the former.
It is also necessary that the principle of a minimum or maximum sentence of two or three years, which is tantamount to dealing with criminals, be removed from the bill now before us. When a young person appears before

January 14, 1971

the judge, he is subjected to cross-examination. Furthermore, he has been photographed and fingerprinted. This is absolutely heinous, since he is treated like an out-and-out criminal. And, accordingly, the judge hands down his decision saying: This young person will be confined to such and such a place for two years at the least and three years at the most.
As I pointed out the minister yesterday, there will be cases where young people will be tried twice because of their age if and when this legislation is passed.
It should be kept in mind while we consider this bill that it is not the young offender himself who wished for this unfortunate situation to develop, but our society is responsible for it has rejected him, it has failed to understand him, and has never given him the chances he needed.
Knowing, for instance, that 42 per cent of the unemployed in Quebec are less than 25 years of age, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves whether the younger brothers of these jobless young men and women, realizing the situation which the latter have to face, are not giving up all hope saying there is nothing for them to look forward to. And what do they do then? They try to build a society of their own. This is in fact our problem today.
Bill C-192 is indeed a marvellous tool that will allow the Solicitor general and the judges to sentence and to judge young people for an offence for which they are not responsible.
These young people are victims. They are not guilty as the Solicitor General would like us to believe. According to the bill these young people are young offenders. As far as we are concerned we would like them to be considered as young victims. By considering these young people as offenders we punish them. We would like them to be understood, assisted and given a chance. It might be the only opportunity, the first opportunity these young people will have had in their lives.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Champlain (Mr. Matte) pointed out yesterday, owing to the baleful influence of some irresponsible parents, of certain authorities which do not give a good example, of certain persons who administer justice just like they were sweeping a floor, by simply getting rid of young delinquents or criminals, those youth lose confidence in the future, in the society which adults have erected, in the concepts of understanding, help and hospitality, they lose confidence in the concepts of human respect. If we throw them in rotten foster centers, we will not make decent men and women out of them, only derelicts.
When one reads the report of the Prevost Commission which was set up by the Quebec government to consider this situation, one sees that this study represents a merciless reproof of whatever is going on in this area. On reading the voluminous reports of the Prevost Commission, one realizes that everything remains to be done in the field of juvenile delinquency.
Young Offenders Act
I am astounded to see that the federal government is aware of these things, yet does not act accordingly; they are quite content to introduce a bill to crush the young delinquents further by treating them like so much dirt. Moreover, to hide their inaction or incompetence, they are quite content to nurture the conflicts of jurisdiction between provincial governments.
As hon. member of the NDP said yesterday that the age limit for young people varies according to the provinces.
No uniformity prevails in the administration of justice for a young offender so that in one province he will be convicted whereas, for a similar offence, in another province, he will not be.
Mr. Speaker, one wonders therefore what is the exact purpose of Bill C-192 at a time when everything has to start from scratch, when undertakings should be built on solid ground, when legislation should be based on the humanitarian principles which alone can insure self-fulfillment among young persons.
Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I see the hon. Solicitor General going for this legislation. Now, in 1971, the most acute problem for Canada is that of its young people for whom we seem to have no use. In fact they are let to vegetate because they were misleadingly told: Do study, do get diplomas, do improve on your qualifications. Today these young people outvie each other with their diplomas, but they have nothing to do for there are no jobs available to them.
Mr. Speaker, youths aged 10 to 18, aware of the situation, are not interested in falling into the trap and undertake studies. Nor are they interested in integrating into this society which denies some happiness, respect and security to their parents. Those young people lack comprehension and have no luck. However-and this is the most dramatic point-it is those youths who will be at the controls of our country tomorrow and it is on them that we rely for building Canada and fulfilling her ideal.
Mr. Speaker, they have been lured in the past and now they will be downgraded by Bill C-192. If in building this country the government fails to use this enormous potential of our youth, if it fails to understand them and give them a sound opportunity to participate really in our country's economy and its socialization, tomorrow we shall have an upset society and past Quebec troubles will keep on aggravating.
It is extremely important that the hon. minister should adopt new ideas, withdraw this pernicious bill, reexamine his concepts, draw inspiration from the new British law and the legislation of the Scandinavian countries since he is a young man. Let him prove it by showing us he understands young people. I have no doubt that if the minister were to put himself in the place of one of those young people huddled up like garbage in reception centres-rejection centres would be more like it-he would immediately throw the bill into the garbage can. Like the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), he would say: Enough nonsense. If the nonsense is over, let us be realis-

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
tic and give young people a chance to build this country as our forefathers did.
But if we keep on rejecting young people as we do now in the economic, social and political fields, if we keep on deluding them by saying: Get educated and you will find a position, and that in the end they discover they have nothing, it will be a tragic tomorrow and I say it is this government that will have to bear full responsibility for such a situation.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I urge the minister to reexamine his position, to forget he is a liberal member and to try to forget that we are in the opposition. I hope in his new function of Solicitor General he will serve all Canadians and not the interest of the Liberal party and will realize that this bill should serve the interest of the young people. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if he can get across the narrow political barrier, young people will be happy.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister. He is a young man who is well trained in the law. Unlike previous speakers, including the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), I do not believe the minister is not sincerely behind this bill or that it is something he inherited and, therefore, as a good civil servant or a minister he has to go along with it. I have known the hon. gentleman for ten years and he is not that kind of man. I think he is telling us the situation as it is. This is not a perfect bill but it is as good a bill as we could have at this time, and it is a lot better than the Juvenile Delinquents Act now in existence.
After listening to the speakers who preceded me one might think we were discussing a bill in respect of the conduct of young gentlemen and ladies in our social environment, or a bill which might be entitled, how to educate and accustom people to live in our society. What we are dealing with here, and I am looking at the title again, is an act respecting young offenders. In other words, this relates to a part of the Criminal Code.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Like the young man who loses his driver's licence.


Steven Otto: Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary North will just listen and hear me out. We have a very small and confined sphere in which we, as Parliament, can act. I am sure we could have a bill that extended to all the corners in respect of treatment, care and mental health of young people. I am sure the hon. member for Lotbiniere would not support this government if it were to usurp the jurisdictions of others. What we are saying here is that we have the jurisdiction to draft a criminal code. We are also saying that young people should not be subjected to the severity of the Criminal Code. We are saying the Juvenile Delinquents Act is not doing the job, after so many years, in respect of young people because
of the caprice of juvenile court judges. Time and time again, this has been pointed out. So, we have a revision of the law. We hope it is better and I believe it will be proven to be better.
The objections seem to have centred around three points. The one in respect of the name I believe I can dispose of very quickly. In fact, I believe the briefs I have read complained about this bill being called an act respecting young offenders. It does not matter very much what it is called. Should we call it the Juvenile Delinquents Act? The connotation now is bad. We call this legislation the Young Offenders Act. This is the effect of it since we are dealing with young people who have committed an offence against official mores. Therefore, I do not believe the argument really has much bearing. We are not dealing with the behaviour or the social environment of children. We are not dealing with parental responsibilities in respect of children. Neither are we attempting to control their environment. We are dealing with a very narrow sphere.
I should like to deal with the objections in respect of a clause in the bill which would give very broad powers to a judge. Dealing with clause 30, I believe the hon. member for Calgary North outlined the awesome tribulations which would confront young people and the great power the courts would wield. One would think there could be absolutely no area in which these judges could be circumscribed. The hon. member referred to subclause (1) (k) of clause 30. I should like to paraphrase clause 30 since I believe it should be placed on the record. It is a broad clause. It provides that the judge shall consider the predisposition report, if any, made under section 35 and any other relevant and material information, and may then make any one of a number of dispositions. We are not giving the judge the absolute authority he has had in some cases under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. We circumscribe his power within these broad clauses. Subclause (1) (a) reads:
where he Is of the opinion that the appearance of the young person before the court is all that is necessary to render it unlikely that the young person will commit further offences, he may discharge the young person absolutely;
In other words, if in the judge's opinion there is no chance of repetition of the criminal activity he can discharge the person immediately. There is nothing wrong with that. Another discretion on the part of the judge is that he may adjourn the hearing for a period not exceeding two months if the young person and, in the discretion of the judge, a parent of the young person, agree to follow a course of action directed by the judge. Then, there are several subclauses. The judge may decide to proceed under a provincial act. He may impose a fine. He may order the person to pay a certain amount of money by way of compensation. This power is very narrow and he can do this only under certain terms and in respect of a certain amount. He may place the young person on probation. He may direct him to go to a foster home or to a group home. This, again, is restricted to a period of two

January 14, 1971

years. It is not in perpetuity or for a period of five or six years. The young person has some protection. The judge must consider the predisposition report. He may place the child in the care of the children's aid society or in the care of the superintendent in some cases. He may commit the young person to a training school.
Now, we come to subclause (1) (k) which has aroused so much ire. Subclause (k) reads:
where he 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 as a minimum sentence-
That narrowly limits it to capital crimes. The judge must use his discretion. He may commit the young person to a training school and so on, but first he would have to consider the predisposition report prepared by the staff. So, it is not an entirely mandatory thing; it is permissive. It is up to the judge to decide what he will do.
Then, we come to subclause (4) in respect of which there has been objection. This subclause reads:
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 before which he, but for this act, might have been indicted under Part XVII of the Criminal Code; and that court shall thereupon sentence or otherwise deal with him-
That means he can be released. There is no mandatory duty on the part of a judge to sentence him again. He can be dealt with as if he had then and there been convicted of the offence. Then it goes on to state that the superior court shall have regard to the period of the detention he has undergone under paragraph (k) of subsection (1). So, indeed the comments made in this House that clause 30 is a very severe clause do not stand the test of careful scrutiny. We must circumscribe the judges' powers in some way but they certainly could not be looser than they are here. I believe that a careful examination would show there is no other way in which we could have dealt with this clause, and the circumstances which caused it to be there.
Now, I wish to deal with the subject of reform, because the minister has been accused of not being reform minded. I take it from the comments made in this House that the idea of reform held by many members is that it must be a constant movement toward permissiveness. Also, in other political ways, the idea of reform seems to be a continual movement to the left. This may be the opinion of some people in respect of reform but it is not my opinion. To me, reform means an examination of the facts as they currently exist. After an examination of the facts and the results of certain pieces of legislation, reform is the introduction of new methods and new techniques in accordance with those results and is not merely a constant movement toward permissiveness.
From the gist of the conversations that I have heard on the other side, it would seem that in all cases hon. members are very impressed with the fact that there
Young Offenders Act
really is no criminal intent among young people who commit an offence. Indeed, it is said that the only answer for a child or a young person who has run afoul of the law is education and a change in environment because this is a psychiatric problem. The prevalent idea is that criminal activity is unnatural and that the normal young person would never get involved in the theft of a car or a similar offence. This has been the conventional thinking up to now and we have gone along with it for 50 years. If we are going to pay any attention at all to the new psychologists and writers on these subjects, we should reconsider our approach. I might bring to the attention of the House writers such as Lionel Tiger, Desmond Morris, both of whom have now become fairly respectable, Mr. Robin Fox, Mr. L. Berkowitz and Dr. Konrad Lorenz. All of these authors are studying and researching the instincts of men and their reactions in society and to society. Let me quote from Mr. Tiger's book entitled "Man Aggression, and Men", in which he speaks of the reason for violence. He also speaks of the criminal conduct of certain individuals. He says:
that the process which leads finally to violence is the same process which underlies a predictable, biologically "normal" pattern of social aggregation.
He says further that the emergence of violence depends on a number of facilitating circumstances which are social in expression and variable from place to place, time to time and group to group. All of these writers indicate that a young person who commits a criminal act is not necessarily abnormal. In fact, often he is quite normal. The only thing he wants to gain is a position of dominance and prestige by a short cut. Instead of going about it in the normal, conventional way which society dictates, he takes the short cut.
We say that this young man is not really committing a criminal act but rather that he is off his rocker. That is not so. He is probably much more normal and his psychological reaction is much more normal than that of many other people. There is nothing abnormal about the desire to gain a position in society among one's peers, except that this young man does not go about it in the conventional way. I say to you that many people are prone to park their cars in prohibited areas or to speed, even though they know it is not the right thing to do, but they want to get there first and they want to park their cars more conveniently. They will do it so long as they feel they can get away with it. All of us in society decide among ourselves which norms we are going to follow. So, the argument expressed by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that all these young offenders are really not criminals, but that what they really need is psychiatric treatment-


Mr. Gilbert:: I did not say that.


Steven Otto: That is what I understood the hon. member to say. He may want to look over Hansard, but this is the gist of what he said as I understood it. I also understood other hon. members to say that there is something abnormal about these people and that it is our job to treat
2412

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
them. I do not think they need treatment. For hundreds of years, when judging these people, the common law approach was to decide whether they knew right from wrong. On that basis, we continued year after year and decade after decade. The common law approach later changed somewhat to the extent that a determination had to be made whether or not a young offender knew the consequences of his action. We proceeded on that basis for a long time. For the past 50 years we have taken the approach that minors who act criminally should be treated differently from adults. This is the purpose of the bill. However, this does not mean that we should forget completely about the fact that a criminal act has been committed against society which laid down a certain code for the conduct of all people so that society can continue.
I do not think that reform means more permissiveness. I think it is time we reviewed the conduct of young people in society and also the whole question of deterrence. Some time ago we debated capital punishment in this House and whether or not capital punishment was a deterrent. We accepted the idea that punishment of any kind was never a deterrent of any consequence. The fact is that we argued in a very narrow field, and what we said in the House was that a person who does not contemplate murder but who commits murder is not deterred by capital punishment. That is true, but society does not yet say that the threat of punishment is not a deterrent. I think it still continues to be a deterrent and that young people who are taught a code of behaviour are aware of the consequences of their actions. This is indeed the role of the Criminal Code. If you want to say that this bill is the criminal code for young people, I cannot see much objection to that.


John Gilbert: Shame.


Steven Otto: The hon. member for Broadview finds this objectionable, but it does not matter what you call the bill, it is a criminal code and that is a fact. I think hon. members should reconsider their points of view.


Frank Howard: Especially your minister.


Steven Otto: No, I say hon. members should reconsider their points of view and consider carefully whether, first, this House should get involved with every aspect of a child's upbringing, education and environment. If that is the case, then we must consider a completely new constitution and a new confederation because our laws do not cover all those aspects. I would not be exactly in favour of it. This is not a country like the United Kingdom. Education is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government but of the provinces. Therefore, if hon. members would consider the very narrow field in which we have to work, I think they would find that the bill is a good one. The bill could be better if we had a little more freedom of movement, but we do not have it. We have the right to pass a criminal code, and we are now replacing the Juvenile Delinquents Act with much better legislation which gives the minor more rights, more protection, and indeed gives the minor the protection of the law which he did not have in the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject of the treatment of children in trouble. It is a subject I suggest which, to fully understand, requires many years of training and experience. The thing that alarms me about this legislation is that as far as I can make out anyone who has had training and experience in this field rejects the philosophy of the bill and rejects many of the details in this Young Offenders Act, Bill C-192. It is for this reason that I propose to vote against the bill, and to support the amendments.
The bill has been described by Judge William Little, who is Chairman of the Ontario Juvenile Court Judges, as frightening. It sets the clock back 60 years. Judge Little says the reason for that is it strips children of the special protection of the existing law which says they are not to be treated as criminals.
The bill has been attacked by the Canadian Mental Health Association. The Canadian Corrections Association has made critical submissions. The John Howard Society of Ontario is deeply disturbed, and a large number of qualified individuals have expressed their fears. It is my submission that it would be irresponsible for this House to proceed with the enactment of the bill without giving people representing these and other similar institutions, with years of experience and concern in the specialized field of dealing with children in trouble, the right to make representations, preferably before second reading when the bill is adopted in principle.
Someone already in this debate, I think it was the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), referred to an article in the Toronto Telegram of December 29 last by Yvonne Crittenden. In it she describes the barrage of criticism directed against the legislation in the following terms, "a half-pint Criminal Code," "inhuman and intolerable," and "a frightening piece of legislation."
The bill is full of legalistic terminology. It appears to be the work of old fashioned lawyers, who may indeed be conscientious and who may be seeking to give protection of the legal criminal rules to children in trouble, but who seem to be unaware of the basic need for flexibility and individual treatment, and the need of getting the case out of the criminal atmosphere of the criminal courts.
Nor is it sufficient to say, as the former solicitor general has said in a letter to members of this House-I think the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) was hinting at the same thing-that because the constitutional justification for Parliament legislating in this field is criminal law, the legislation must reflect the fundamental concepts of the criminal law. Such a statement begs the question, "What are the fundamental concepts of the criminal law?" Are they, as this bill implies, punitive, or are they remedial? Even in dealing with adult criminals, the

January 14, 1971

remedial aspects of law are regarded in modern criminology as more important than the punitive and deterrent. How much more should this be so in the case of children?
In a publication of the Home Office in Great Britain, presented in April, 1968, to the British parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, entitled "Children in Trouble," it is stated that juvenile delinquency has no single cause, manifestation or cure, and the range of behaviour which it covers is equally wide. At some point it merges almost imperceptibly with behaviour which does not contravene the law. The child's behaviour is influenced by genetic, emotional and intellectual factors, his maturity, and his family, school, neighbourhood and wider social setting. It is probably a minority of children who grow up without ever misbehaving in ways which may be contrary to the law. Frequently such behaviour is no more than an incident in the pattern of a child's normal development. But sometimes it is a response to unsatisfactory family or social circumstances, a result of boredom in and out of school, and indication of maladjustment or immaturity, or possibly a symptom of a deviant, damaged or abnormal personality. Early recognition and full assessment are particularly important in these more serious cases.
This report says, and I want to stress that this is at the very core of my argument, that variety and flexibility in the measures that can be taken are equally important if society is to deal effectively and appropriately with these manifold aspects of delinquency. The social consequences of juvenile delinquency range from minor nuisance to considerable damage and suffering for the community. An important object of the criminal law is to protect society against such consequences, but the community also recognizes the importance of caring for those who are too young to protect themselves. In recent years these two quite distinct grounds for action by society in relation to young people have been moving steadily closer together.
It has become increasingly clear that social control of harmful behaviour by the young, and social measures to help and protect the young are not distinct and separate processes. The aims of protecting society from juvenile delinquency, and of helping children in trouble to grow up into mature and law-abiding persons, are complementary and not contradictory. It is my complaint that in the present legislation before us, according to the best advice I can get, these principles are overlooked. Emphasis is on the protection of society by means of criminal law, and imposition of penalties or other punitive measures.
The present system, despite its defects, is flexible enough to deal with individual cases under indeterminate provisions for probation and detention in training schools. This enables the social measures to help and protect the young, as well as the interests of society, to be taken into account and the remedy to be fitted to the individual case. If a person is adjudged ready to be released from training school in three months, he is released in three months. If he is adjudged not ready to be released he can be detained, if necessary, for another
Young Offenders Act
six months. The present legislation would require that detention be for a fixed, determinate term, and I say that the most retrogressive feature in this legislation is this return to determinate sentences. I understand the reasons for the change suggested. I believe that it is to try to encourage uniformity of sentences, which may be desirable in dealing with adults but is entirely inappropriate when dealing with children.
I have had the advantage, Mr. Speaker, of consultation with Professor Stuart Ryan, Q.C., of the Department of Law at Queen's University. He has pointed out what he feels to be a lack of sufficient attention to the experience in other countries in the drafting of this bill. In West Germany the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 14, and in Sweden it is 15. The Kilbrandon Committee report, now implemented by legislation, forbids prosecution of a child under 16 in Scotland, except for homicide.
The committee report upon which the legislation before us is based seems to have been greatly influenced by the fact that in England children were charged with specific offences. Perhaps that is why it recommends specific offences here. Up to the time of the preparation of the committee's report, no indication of intention to change this practice had been given in England. But later, in August, 1965, a white paper entitled "The Child, the Family and The Young Offender" announced a change in policy. It was proposed to remove young people as far as possible from the penal jurisdiction of the courts, and to authorize local authorities to appoint local "family councils" to deal with each case, as far as possible, in consultation and agreement with parents, and with the power of reference to family courts where agreement could not be reached.
After more than two years of review and criticism of this proposal a new white paper in England entitled "Children in Trouble," to which I have already referred, was published in August, 1968. This paper proposed that no criminal or penal proceedings should be taken against a child under the age of 14. No proceedings should be taken against a young person between 14 and 17, without a special order to be made by a Justice of the Peace after hearing an application to show cause why a prosecution should be commenced. This proposal has been implemented by the Children and Young Persons Act of 1969, United Kingdom Statutes, Chapter 54.
I say that whereas the British, both in England and Scotland, having clung so long to the legalistic "young criminal" approach to the misconduct of children, have now completely abandoned that principle in England for children under 14, except for homicide, and almost completely abandoned it in Scotland, it seems strange that we in Canada are being asked to turn the clock back and pick up a method of dealing with the problem that has been cast aside. At the very least, if the new bill is accepted, the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be placed at 14, and children under that age should be dealt with under provincial care and protection legislation. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to
23786-12}

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
provide lor uniformity of treatment and penal responsibility for all children between the ages of 10 and 17. Adolescence creates a barrier between the two groups within that range, and the fourteenth birthday may be a convenient barrier.
I want to speak about another aspect of this legislation that has already been dealt with in a number of speeches. I wish to speak about the combined effect of clause 31(a) and clause 34. Mr. Speaker, the combined effect of clauses 31(a) and 34 of the bill is grotesque. It appears that under these provisions a juvenile court judge can either prevent a superior court judge from sentencing a young offender or compel him to do so, as if he were convicted on his twenty first birthday. Does that mean that if the young offender is convicted of a murder which he committed at the age of ten, and if he has been detained until he has reached the age of 21 and is now before a supreme court judge, that that judge should now sentence him to life imprisonment, or to six months, or to four years or put him on probation? This provision should be entirely omitted, since it offends against the Bill of Rights as interpreted in the famous Drybones case, and because it imposes discriminations among classes of Canadians. It discriminates against young Canadians. I say that this is wrong and should be removed from the bill. If we believe that we should be punitive or retributive about homicide, why not do as the British legislation does and have the child tried in the criminal courts from the beginning for offences of that nature?
The other provisions, Mr. Speaker, will have to be dealt with in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and there are a great many of them. One extraordinary provision found in clause 31(a) and 32(l)(a) indicates that a judge may in certain cases prohibit the driving of a motor vehicle or the operating of a power boat for life. Imagine taking a child of 10 or 12 and saying, "You have driven a car or boat negligently, and therefore you cannot drive one again for the rest of your life." I suggest that this is obviously grotesque and ridiculous. There should be a limitation of three years; that should be the maximum limitation.
The stated principles of the new bill are all very well. Clause 4 reads:
This Act shall he 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.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the rest of the bill, by the rigidity of its provisions, distorts these very principles and makes them difficult of application. I have had an opportunity of discussing this bill with those who are actually in this field in the province of Ontario. I have discussed it with people who have the responsibility of looking after children in trouble. They are alarmed and depressed about the pi oposals of this bill.

One can assume that when a bill is introduced under our parliamentary system, the prestige of the government depends on the bill being passed. For this reason, I suppose that an appeal to the government and to the minister to take a further look at the bill and either oppose it or withdraw it at second reading may be an illusory gesture. It is difficult to imagine a subject with such social consequences as this which ought less to be a matter of partisan considerations and of a vote along party fines. However, bearing in mind the way we do things in this House, I suppose the vote on the bill will be on party lines. I appeal to the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer), if he cannot and will not withdraw the bill at this stage, to insist that the process of revision in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be broad enough and non partisan enough to enable the rethinking of the bill as a whole. If the principle of the bill is embodied in clause 4, which I have already recounted then, in my view, substantial amendment must be made to the bill to make it consistent with this admirable statement of principle.
I hope that the new Solicitor General, to whom I wish the best of luck in his new responsibilities, will accept the criticisms of the bill which have been made by opposition speakers. These criticisms do not always embody their own views only. They are the views of people experienced in this field. We hope that he will accept these criticisms, and if he cannot withdraw the bill, that he will at least ensure the approval and consideration of a substantial number of amendments in the committee.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to add my congratulations to those of the previous speaker. I congratulate the new minister and wish him every success in his new field. I enter this debate, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that although many good things have been said on the other side of the House about this bill, I, like my friend from York East (Mr. Otto), do not think it is a perfect bill. Many changes will have to be made or discussed in committee. Nevertheless, I feel that some of the criticisms which have been levelled at it from the opposition side of the House have been highly unfair and highly inaccurate.
I am referring particularly, Mr. Speaker, to certain comments that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) made in his speech yesterday. I notice that he is not in the House at this time. I feel that I must draw the attention of the House to some of the serious errors wich appear in the comments he made yesterday. He began by saying, as recorded at page 2374 of Hansard, that he hoped the minister would read the bill thoroughly. That was a fair comment, because a few sentences later he said, "... may I say that I have examined the bill carefully." He suggested that the minister had not been briefed properly. If the minister had not been briefed properly by the member of his department, then may I suggest in all earnestness and fairness that, in view of what he said, the hon. member for Calgary North must have been briefed by the writers of "Laugh-in" or of the "Red Skelton Show". At page 2374 of Hansard the hon.
January 14, 1971

member is reported as having referred to the Criminal Code. He read section 12, which reads as follows:
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.
Then, he read section 13 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows:
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.
Next he said, "I had hoped that the bill would have done something to amend these sections." Well, on page 63 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, appear the two amendments to which the hon. member had not referred. Apparently, he could not find them; but they are in the bill at page 63. I just thought I would draw those amendments to his attention.
In the next paragraph there is a statement which is one of the greatest non sequitors I have ever seen. He said:
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.
I admit that a good many college graduates are unemployed at this time. However, I fail to see how this situation can be corrected by the contents of a bill dealing with young offenders, persons under the age of 17.


Mr. Benjamin:: Get to the main point.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I will get to the main point. The specific mistakes begin appearing at the bottom of page 2375 of Hansard and I quote:
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,-
I know that the hon. member is a very competent counsel. As such, I expect that he knows the intent and meaning of the words he uses. However, in this case he obviously must have been mistaken, misled or misinformed. He leaves the distinct impression that in the situation he describes it is mandatory under the terms of the bill for the juvenile court judge to send a young offender to training school until he is 21. As has already been pointed out, a reading of the section shows that is not the case at all. It is a discretionary power of the judge. He then said:
-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 he 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
Young Offenders Act
amount, rape, and so on. Then, he would be sentenced as if he had been tried on that day. What would be the sentence? It would be life imprisonment,-
Nothing could be further from the truth under the terms of this bill. It could be life imprisonment. It could equally be an absolute discharge or a suspension of sentence without one further day being served. The hon. member seems to have overlooked that aspect of the bill. The hon. member maintains that he carefully examined the bill, but somehow must have missed that particular section. I continue quoting:
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.
Again I say balderdash. The bill says nothing of the kind. It is less than fair for the hon. member to attempt to leave that impression before the House. The next mistake appears at 2376:
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.
That is not the case. As I read the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code which appears at page 63 of the Bill, the exact opposite is true. I will not take the time of the House to read the amendment. It states, in effect, that if the young lad did not know the nature and the consequences of the act and if the act occurred between the ages of 10 and 14, he could not be convicted of the offence. That is exactly opposite to what the hon. member stated in his speech yesterday. He further states as recorded at page 2376:
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.
That is absolutely contrary to the contents of this bill. If a lad is brought before a court at age 21 for sentencing, if he is not discharged or put on probation, the bill specifically provides that the sentencing judge should take into consideration the time spent in training school. I do not know how the hon. member arrived at some of these conclusions. I feel they should be corrected. I quote from page 2378:
All the lawyers, academies, psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists I have talked to support this idea.
On two occasions in his speech the hon. members quoted letters. At page 2374 he quoted the letter from Dr. B. D. Frost. I presume he is one of the academic, intellectual, professional people to whom the hon. member referred. At page 2375 of Hansard he quoted excerpts from a letter from Professor Price of Queen's University. I gather he is one of the professionals with whom the hon. member talked. Both of these gentlemen recommended that the matter go before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. They made no mention

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
of a task force as proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. I believe that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is quite competent and capable to deal with the problems raised in this bill.


John Gilbert: Nonsense.


Charles Terrence Murphy: You do not have the faith in that committee that I do.


John Gilbert: I am a member and I do not have faith.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I feel that the members of that committee can call and interrogate witnesses as intelligently as any task force which might be appointed. The final insult is at page 2378 where the hon. member is recorded as saying:
Let me point out that there is not much difference between a training school and a penitentiary.
I do not know whether the hon. member has ever visited training schools. According to his speech, he has visited penitentiaries. I point out to him that nothing is further from the truth. He winds up by saying:
In fact, I think the old law was just as good. Perhaps in some ways it was better.
The hon. member refused to recognize some of the major differences. Under the old law it was not possible for the juvenile court judge to give an absolute discharge to a person appearing before him. This will now be possible under clause 30 of the bill. Under the old law, there was no maximum term of commitment to a training school. A child aged 12 could be committed until he was 21, at the pleasure of the school. Under the present law, the maximum is three years. That is a maximum, not a minimum. Under the old law there was no provision for disposal of a case without a hearing. There is such a provision under the new law. The juvenile court judge, under clause 23, has the power to dispose without a hearing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. X must interrupt the hon. member.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Airports-Provision of rapid transit ground facilities; the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin)-Oil-Possible review of National Energy Board policy; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)-Wheat Board-Production and receipts policy- Statement in budget respecting stabilization payments.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Notices of Motions (Papers); No. 115- Mrs. Maclnnis-October 28, 1970:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by Le Centre de Planification Familiale, Montreal, in the fiscal year 1970-71, funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Projet de recherche aupres du milieu defavorise urbain Quebecois".
Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I might say there have been discussions with the hon. member who is the sponsor not only of motion No. 115 but the several notices of motions that follow it. It will be observed that these several notices of motions are directed to the Department of National Efealth and Welfare and pertain to certain studies they have conducted.
These motions can be grouped under headings dealing with birth control, family planning and genetic counselling. Because of the fact that they are grouped in this way, and also because it is obvious that, in view of the position these notices of motion enjoy on the Order Paper, many other members on the opposite side of the House would be deprived of the opportunity of bringing forward the subject matter of their particular notices of motions, the hon. member has very kindly agreed to drop from the Order Paper notices of motions Nos. 115 through 120, and today she will proceed with notice of motion No. 121. Then, subsequently one of the remaining group dealing with genetic counselling will be selected by her and proceeded with. Thereafter, the remainder of these will be dropped as well.
I think the hon. member will confirm that, and for these reasons we are prepared to proceed in that manner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give unanimous consent to the dropping of notices of motions 115 to 120 inclusive appearing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and to the proceeding to notice of motion No. 121?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions dropped and orders discharged.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Winona Grace MacInnis: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study "Causes et consequences demographiques economiques et so-ciales de la pratique de la methode thermique de regulation des naissances" funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the fiscal year 1969-70.
January 14, 1971

She said: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Parliamentary Secretary has explained the matter before us very well. I have no wish to prevent other members from having their turn. I am not dropping these requests because I am satisfied to go without them, but because I feel it would be exceedingly unfair to hold up the House when there are other members waiting.
Last session, and on October 28, 1970 of this session, I placed a number of requests on the Order Paper for the production of papers. The government has been unwilling to produce the reports requested, basically on the ground that these reports were made under private arrangements with researchers and that the government was not at liberty to divulge their contents. I think that is the basis for the government's refusal in the case of these reports.
In this motion today, I am asking that an order of the House do issue for a copy of the study "Causes et consequences demographiques economiques et social de la pratique de la methode thermique de regulation des nais-sances". I do not think this should be a subject kept under wraps privately by thei department. On a former occasion, I quoted the remarks of someone who had engaged in research projects for the Department of National Health and Welfare who said he felt that most people doing research would be only too glad to have the public informed of their findings. He said he felt that most researchers felt exactly that way. Therefore, I should like to suggest that in future the department, and the government as a whole, consider changing the ground rules relating to disclosure of these reports. I think the government should lay down the general rule that researchers are told that, under ordinary circumstances, their reports will be available to the public. There is no reason under heaven that I can possibly see for withholding this report.
In the meantime, as long as the present ground rules obtain I think the government-in this case the Department of National Health and Welfare-should at least inquire whether or not there is any objection on the part of those who did the research work or headed up the research team to making these reports public. Quite frankly, I think the government is in a very vulnerable position in this regard. It is using taxpayers' money to get this sort of work done by scientists and others who have every interest in giving the facts to the public, yet the government is refusing to make these facts known. I believe this is particularly the case with regard to the resolutions standing in my name, since most of them have to do with the business of family planning or family counselling, with contraceptive methods, and with the effects, social, economic and otherwise, of, in this case, the thermic method of regulating birth control. The thermic method is, of course, used in connection with the rhythm method of birth control. I think the people of this country have a right to be told the effects of this method of birth control.
I am glad to see that in another regard the department is beginning to loosen up a little. Back in April, I asked for a report that had just been made by a special committee appointed by the Minister of National Health and
Birth Control Methods
Welfare (Mr. Munro) which was to advise the Food and Drug Directorate with regard to all aspects of the safety and efficacy of oral contraceptives marketed in Canada. I asked for the report in April and we received it before Christmas, which is not too bad. I suggest that if a report of this importance can be made available, then some of the other reports which do not cover so wide a field also ought to be made available to the public at a time when it is imperative that we examine birth control methods and contraceptives in as full a way as possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: They have a long period of gestation for reporting.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Perhaps they do, but ordinary women do not. Pregnancy does not take all that length of time and cannot wait. This is exactly the point I want to make.
The thermic method used in the rhythm method has to do with temperature, and there are three or four different ways of working that out with the period of ovulation and so on. I will spare hon. members from going into all the fine details at this time. There will be other opportunities to do this, I am confident, particularly if the government insists on keeping so much of this information from us.
In the bulletin that was published by the Food and Drug Directorate embodying the report of the special committee on oral contraceptives, there is this paragraph dealing with the rhythm method:
The contraceptive effectiveness of the rhythm method if correctly taught, understood and consistently practiced, especially if the temperature rhythm method is used, could achieve a low pregnancy rate of 1.8 per 100 women per year. However, statistics show that, possibly because of irregular cycles, or inexpert and careless timing, the result is a pregnancy rate of 25 per 100 women per year.
This represents an effective failure rate of 25 per cent. This is a very serious failure rate and means that there are going to be a great many unwanted births for those people who use the rhythm method. As I say, I have nothing against people using the rhythm method if it is in accordance with their religious beliefs, but I think these women ought to be told that among women who use the rhythm method one out of four will become pregnant. This method is at the bottom of the efficiency scale of effective methods of birth control.
This is not unconnected with the estimate made just before Christmas by the head of the Family Planning Association of Montreal, Dr. Serge Mongeau that in the preceding calendar year there were between 5,000 and
10,000	illegal abortions in the province of Quebec alone. I use this figure only because I happen to have it in respect of that one province. Let me point out that because we have not approached the birth control situation in the way we should have, by getting the information to the people through enough clinics, along with birth control devices, we have this vast number of illegal abortions. They take place in every province.

January 14, 1971
Birth Control Methods
For this reason, we must get busy on birth control methods. If we want to avoid a great number of abortions, illegal and otherwise, we must get busy disseminating birth control information and contraceptives. As I have said over and over again, abortion is not the first line of defence against unwanted pregnancies. The first line of defence should be effective contraceptives used consistently and diligently. People do not have the information they should have on how to use these contraceptives or which ones are effective. The physical and mental suffering from so many illegal or legal abortions, would be quite unnecessary if we had proper birth control information available throughout this country.
In this connection, I want to refer to the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. The sooner the government gets busy dealing with this report the sooner they will stop hearing from us over here on this subject, because we are determined to make sure the government has clearly before it the various important sections of this report. The supplying of birth control information is now legal, but as the report on the status of women points out, for 40 years before the law was amended few people dared to operate birth control centres because of the risk of being prosecuted. Since the ban was lifted a number of centres are being planned, but there are still relatively few in Canada. In 1969 it was estimated there were approximately 38 centres, including seven family planning clinics under the Family Planning Federation of Canada, eight public health clinics and 23 hospital clinics. The need for more facilities is obvious. In 1968 there were 4,378,000 women of childbearing age, that is between 15 and 45 years, in Canada, yet according to their own estimate, one of the family planning clinics in Toronto could process only 1,250 calls in one year.
At the present time only about 23 of the 948 general hospitals in Canada have family planning clinics attached to them. I know that the Vancouver General Hospital is one of them. When I visited that hospital during the Christmas recess one of the doctors told me with great pride that the family planning clinic at the Vancouver General, one of 23 attached to hospitals in Canada, was the very first outside clinic which had been permitted in the Vancouver General.
The status of women report recommends that birth control information be available to everyone, and recommends that the Department of National Health and Welfare should be prepared to offer birth control information free of charge to provincial and territorial authorities, organizations, associations and individuals, and to give financial assistance through health grants to train health and welfare workers in family planning. The report further recommends that the provincial departments of health organize family planning clinics in each public health unit to ensure that everyone has access to information, medical assistance, birth control devices and drugs.
It also recommends that the provincial departments should provide medical clinics where they are needed, particularly in remote areas. I may say that in Britain

today there are mobile clinics which travel around and operate in conjunction with metropolitan and civic health centres. The people in charge of these units find out from social workers and other people where the women are who want birth control information and devices. The doctor and nurse in charge of the unit visit these areas to make sure that this information and these devices are provided.
If you had encountered as many women in various income groups as I have who, if they had known how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, might have avoided abortions, I think you would realize that this country should move ahead at a faster rate than it is moving now. Those people who are opposed to abortion, whether legal or illegal, would do well to help cut down the incidence, and the only way to cut down the incidence of abortion is to provide people with other means of preventing unwanted pregnancies.
I think it is far better to deal with birth control measures than to wait until you have to deal with an abortion. I do not deny that the Family Planning Association is a good organization, and I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is working through that organization. However, I do not think the Family Planning Association would claim that by itself it can handle the need which exists today. This whole matter of birth control should be a part of our health department machinery in cities and large towns. These mobile clinics should travel under the auspices of our metropolitan and municipal health authorities. The federal Department of National Health and Welfare should provide funds and information to assist in establishing these clinics across Canada.
In looking across the chamber I think I can anticipate who is going to reply. I believe it is the minister who is in charge of designated areas. I hope it will be he because I wanted to indicate to him that the whole of Canada is a designated area as far as this matter is concerned. Let me indicate to whichever member does reply that in his constituency, as in mine, there is a great need for the implementation of these recommendations of the report on the status of women. This implementation should be carried out with the least possible delay.
I urge upon the Department of National Health and Welfare and other government departments the need to get away from their present vulnerable position of keeping these research studies secret. These departments should do everything they can, using material available, to help forward the campaign of birth control that the minister is so anxious to see brought to a successful stage of development.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is wrong to begin by anticipating, as the hon. member who just completed her remarks did, who may be speaking from the opposite side, but I notice that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) has some notes in front of him. With his medical background, surely his contribution to this debate will be more productive than mine, if
January 14, 1971

"productive" is the right word in this context. I certainly look forward to listening to his contribution.
First of all, in respect of what the hon. member has just said, I feel there is absolutely no doubt about the merits of many of the points she has made. It is an unfortunate commentary on the procedure that private members, under the existing rules of this chamber, must go through such a tortuous route in order to comment on subjects which are of importance. Often we are trapped by somewhat archaic parliamentary procedures into having to comment on subjects of importance by the most circuitous route. The hon. member addressed herself to the relationship of family planning to the report on the status of women, to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and to the situation so far as abortion is concerned. In this regard, her remarks had a great deal of merit. I would perhaps go further than she has. I am one of those who have a fundamental difficulty in principle in respect of the idea of abortion, and particularly the idea of abortion on demand, simply because I hold the belief that a human life begins at the moment of conception and accordingly we do not have the right to take that human life for the convenience of other human beings.
Be that as it may, I believe that something should be done in respect of the terrible tragedy involved in attempts to terminate unwanted pregnancies and the dangers involved in the carrying out of abortive procedures in hazardous circumstances and by surreptitious procedures. The hon. member has frequently delivered weighty arguments on this subject, and I agree that a great deal can and should be done in this regard. I feel the positive action which should be taken in respect of this danger and evil which exists in our society is not by liberalizing the laws in respect of abortion, but rather by doing two things. One of these I believe is a good deal more possible than the other. The first thing I have in mind is counselling on family planning and contraception. The second is, if I am correct in the theory that we must protect human life when it begins, notwithstanding the fact that it begins in circumstances which may inconvenience the parent or parents, that we should be taking steps to eliminate the social stigma we place upon children born out of wedlock.
Of these two steps, expanded counselling and family planning in respect of contraception certainly is within our grasp. This is a realistic possibility and certainly is a positive step which could be taken in an attempt to encourage a social climate which would eliminate the pressures we place upon unwed mothers and children born out of wedlock. This is by no means a project which is easy to achieve because obviously there are so many areas and factors which influence people's opinions, prejudices and views on morality and on the proprieties of such things. So, leaving that as an area which presents enormous difficulties and turning to the area with which the hon. member is concerned in this particular discussion, I endorse the idea of expanded information and clinics because I continue to be amazed, as I believe most
Birth Control Methods
mature people are, by the frequency of the total ignorance of people who are fairly mature otherwise concerning the basic fundamentals of gestation, conception or the nature of childbirth and everything connected with it. When we see these terrible examples of young girls who have found themselves in circumstances which for one reason or another have driven them to abortion, frequently we find they are astonishingly ignorant of the basic principles of conception and the birth of a child. So, I totally endorse the idea of expanded information in that regard through clinics such as we are talking about.
Returning to the subject matter of the notice of motion, I lament the fact that hon. members are forced to follow this procedure in order to discuss a subject in which there is a great deal of interest. However, we cannot forget the fact that this is being done through the device of a notice of motion for the production of documents. It is not here and now a question of whether or not the government endorses the kind of policies the hon. member is bringing forward. I believe it is fair to say the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has been as active in this field as he has been in all others which embrace his huge portfolio. It is well established that he is a progressive individual and is forward-thinking. I do not doubt for a moment that he would welcome an opportunity to discuss the kind of clinics the hon. member suggests and 1 am sure his department is working actively on this.
We are all hopeful that such work can go forward. So, the question we are debating here really is not the merit or lack of it of this subject but rather whether the government is right in failing to produce the studies it has commissioned on this subject. On that aspect of the matter, I shall address myself to three brief headings. First, I believe we must all agree it is desirable that this or any other government attempt to get outside of its own bureaucracy and outside of its own so often stiff and stultified machinery. The use of such research projects and studies gives the government the opportunity for flexibility by having other agencies working and studying subjects so far as possible away from the identification of government and officialdom. If it is desirable that the government proceed in this way to inform itself concerning problems of depth and frequency, then surely the hon. member will go one step further and agree that the freedom and flexibility desired in connection with such a study would be seriously impaired if every study commissioned by the government on this or on any other subject had to be done with the knowledge that it would be published as part of the government record and become a public document.
In respect of the report, for example, on the status of women concerning which it was known from the beginning the document would be public, we know very well that the kind of work that went into it had to be much more careful, prolonged and all-embracing in an official way. In such a case we know there must be safeguards and steps taken to see that everyone wishing to present views has an opportunity to do so, and that everyone who wants to contribute to an official public study should have an opportunity to do so. That might be fine for the

January 14, 1971
Birth Control Methods
kind ol study that gave rise to the report on the status of women, but I am sure the hon. member would agree that not every study would benefit from such an official atmosphere.
The ease of establishing a group to work quietly in an unofficial and anonymous way and to get to the heart of the problem that faces us in this or any other field is an advantage well worth retaining. But in order to do that, there must be assurance that the study which is being prepared is of a confidential nature. That is so, whether it be in private industry or for the government. If this were not so, every one of these studies would have to be undertaken by way of a public inquiry. As soon as that is done, I submit that much of the value of research and study will be lost.
Accordingly, the pressure that would be on the government to insist that every study be carried out so that no one could say that such and such a group did not have an opportunity to appear, to insist that all hearings be conducted in public and all inquiries conducted officially, the pressure that would be put on researchers to conduct their function in a public and open way and, finally, the position in which the government would be put, would seriously restrict the value of the research.
This leads us to the conclusion that there are many studies, and in fact the long list of the hon. member's notices of motion covering many different studies indicates that each one may have dealt with a different aspect of the work and may have been able to explore just one aspect in one part of the country. Indeed, it may have benefited from being done in a quiet and unobtrusive way. The length of the list testifies to the fact that it is an advantage to carry out studies in this way.
That being the case, we come to the point where the hon. member is suggesting that all these studies should be released and tabled, becoming public information. I come back to my original point. I do not blame the hon. member for taking advantage of private members' hour to put forward the excellent views she has on the important subject of family planning. But I say it is a pity that our system necessitates adopting this procedure in order for the hon. member to put her views on the record. Personally, I am hopeful that in this session the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization will have an opportunity to review not only this aspect of private members' business but, indeed, all aspects of it and of the use of this valuable time of the House so that it can become more meaningful and productive. It may well be that the hon. member, having examined some of these studies, would be the first to agree that it would be detrimental to publish them and that she has had to use this procedure to press for this kind of disclosure simply to get her views on the record, when she should have had many other opportunities to do the same thing.
So from the procedural point of view, I endorse the substantive remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I regret, however, that this procedure had to be used. At the same time, I endorse
completely the government's refusal to disclose these studies, because to do that would, in my opinion, virtually destroy their usefulness.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who preceded me, I find myself in substantial agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). It is unfortunate in many respects that there is only one representative of her sex in this House. We are delighted to have her here, but obviously the House would reflect Canada's problems much better if it had more representatives of her sex.
The motion she has placed before us and the tenor of her remarks today deal with some of the problems that are of great concern to women in society. I found myself in almost total agreement with what she said today. In this respect I dissociate my personal opinions from those of the previous speaker, my colleague on this side of the House, with regard to the abortion legislation. But I agree with the argument he put forward that we should re-examine our procedures.
In putting forward this motion, the hon. member has used the device of a motion for the production of papers to put forward substantive arguments for changes in a wide variety of public policies and legislation. I recall when in 1964 as a member of this House I had the privilege of introducing a second private member's bill dealing with family planning. The first member of the House to introduce a bill on this subject was a gentleman who is no longer here and who now, I believe, is the mayor of Burnaby in British Columbia.
These were the first of a number of bills on this subject which eventually led to the amendment of Criminal Code provisions which many of us believed were unjustified and unduly restrictive. I could not help but feel, as I listened to the first two speeches in this debate, how great the change has been in public opinion in seven years and in opinions expressed in this place. We have made a great deal of progress.
The hon. lady quoted from a number of documents that have been put into the public domain. One of the first from which she quoted was the report of the royal commission on contraception, which was produced a matter of weeks ago. I think she must give credit to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) for his initiative and for his consistent interest in this matter. I know that her quotations from the report were favourable ones. I detected from her remarks-she can easily correct me if I am wrong-that she thought the report was a good one and that by and large it was the kind of document that should be repeated, dealing with a number of subjects in this general area.
The hon. lady also quoted from the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. I may say that occasionally telephone calls have come to my house asking if there is a Miss Anne Francis in our household. We are not in any way related. But I agree with the hon. member that many parts of this document are worthy of serious consideration. There is no question that this document came as a result of a public inquiry initiated by the

January 14, 1971

government which I have the honour to support. The inquiry was very far-ranging and complete. Many of the recommendations have stirred public debate. There is by no means unanimous agreement, but there is agreement that it was a very original type of investigation, a very thorough and competent investigation which will certainly have an impact upon social thinking. We hope it will result in legislation.
As the hon. member who preceded me pointed out, this kind of document is based upon a number of investigations. It is based upon the work of not one person but of many people who work in a team. Similarly, in the whole area of family planning and genetic counselling, a large number of research documents have been created, as the hon. member has been able to determine. This is evidence of the initiative of the government in the matter. But research into physical science problems and social science problems in the twentieth century is much more complicated than it was before.
Any one of these documents standing by itself, produced as a public record, could be misinterpreted. I have not seen them. I doubt whether the hon. lady who moved the motion has seen many, if indeed she has seen any of them. But the fact that investigations are undertaken by individuals, in most cases, is part of the process of major investigations. It is the kind of thing that was undertaken for the inquiry into the status of women. These documents do not stand, each and every one of them, alone. They have to be assessed and correlated. They have to be verified. The pattern that emerges may suggest further inquiries, further investigations, and at the appropriate point a series of carefully prepared public documents must come forward.
The report on oral contraceptives is a very good example of the kind of document which can take into account a wide range of investigations involving a number of different circumstances, with the carefully balanced judgment of scientific and professional investigators able to make a determination within the freedom of their own, shall I say, academic considerations. I use "academic" in the best sense of the word.
Mr. Speaker, there is no other way in which this kind of research can be undertaken properly and flourish within the framework of government grants. The requirement that any single document should be, at any particular moment when it is produced, put into the public domain would have an inhibiting effect. I repeat that in this area it will have an inhibiting effect upon the conduct of this kind of research. I wonder whether the hon. lady felt that every one of these documents should be put into the public domain, or whether she was moved in her purpose, which I commend very heartily, of using this device to call attention to the need for more research, the need for more information and the need for more reports. The basic information is required in order that we who sit in this place can determine what type of legislation and what kind of policies are most appropriate to be enacted.
Birth Control Methods
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is proper that every investigation of this nature should be put into the public domain at a predetermined time. I do not believe it should be a condition of grants by the federal department of health that every one of these reports should be made public. I think the effect of such a requirement-if I understand the hon. lady correctly, I think she made that suggestion-would be to inhibit and change the nature of the reports. If every report that comes to government in the form of a document is made public and has to stand the test of sensational reporting that occasionally takes place, and misinterpretation of premature results which have not been properly assessed in relation to factors not yet understood, not yet even guessed at, I think we will not be serving the people of Canada well.
I believe that changes in public policy that are to come are absolutely necessary. We have taken a step forward in the amendments to the Criminal Code in relation to abortion. This kind of step has come about as the result of public debate, further investigation, better knowledge and understanding. The concern I have at this point is the uneven character of the application of the law. In some parts of the country a number of hospitals are cooperating. The required committees are established, and abortions do take place. In other parts of Canada the hospitals and the medical profession are not co-operating in this respect. Those who live in some parts of Canada can take advantage of the changes in the law, and those who live in other parts cannot.
The evidence is abundantly clear that a number of lives are lost and a number of people are maimed as a result of the illegal and improper abortions that are continually taking place. The law has failed to come to grips fundamentally with what we all recognize was an evil. But the question we have to face is, what is the next step in the law? What is the stage at which public opinion is prepared to accept further change, and what is the further change that the public of Canada are prepared to accept? We live in a world of what is possible and, as many people have said, politics is the art of the possible. Changes in the law have come hand in hand with changes in public understanding and public opinion. These are based in no small part upon investigation, research and knowledge. But research, Mr. Speaker, must be done within the discipline of those capable of doing it, without undue inhibitions or arbitrary requirements for premature public disclosure, with every opportunity for assessment and further investigation and probing that is indicated by the recommendations of those who have done the research.
There has to be confidence in the professional integrity and responsibility of those in charge of the over-all research direction, that at the appropriate time the proper documents will be produced and will be put into the public domain. I offer as evidence of this the report on oral contraceptives, the report on the status of women and the numerous other investigations that have taken place.
I think the hon. lady will have to be satisfied with the fact that there is much initiative, much interest and

January 14, 1971
Birth Control Methods
much support in this field. I am sure she would not want to defeat the purposes of such investigations by a restriction that would place upon them any inhibition and thus destory the net effect we hope to achieve.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I must first compliment the mover of the motion. It is a bilingual motion, but in spite of the fact that I have been taking lessons for some time, the meaning of some of the French words escapes me. I believe I understand the gist of the motion, but if I stray slightly from the subject I hope you, Sir, will appreciate that this is the reason.
I concur with the mover of the motion that the public should be informed. An informed public is a much more constructive and understanding public. Quite often, when governments move in particular areas and endeavour to do something, the cry goes up, "Why has it taken so long?" or, "Why are we spending so much money on it?" But when the public knows all the facts, it can understand the reasons why decisions are sometimes made that leave certain people out of programs in the interest of helping those who really need assistance.
As I look at this motion, I believe it calls for ground rules that would reverse what seems to be the present trend. Nowadays, when studies are prepared for the consideration of government the tendency is for government to want to get as comprehensive, factual, honest and true reports as possible. Preparation of these reports should not be inhibited by a requirement that they be disclosed perhaps prematurely. Publication of reports out of context may damage the kind of reports that should be made to government. As the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) has said, premature disclosure might have an inhibiting effect. As has also been mentioned, Mr. Speaker, sometimes five or six reports are considered together before conclusions are reached. If an individual had only one report available to him and based his total argument on that, he might mislead the public and to great disservice.
When I look at the title of the report mentioned in the motion of the hon. member, I think I must agree with her that there is no reason under heaven why its contents should not be revealed. On the face of it, just reading the title, it seems to be innocuous and not something that will damage public morality. Apparently government members who have read the report have decided otherwise. I shall be interested in hearing other government supporters tell us why this motion should not be carried. I am waiting to be convinced. Unfortunately, nothing the hon. member said convinced me that the report should be produced. However, having used my intelligence, such as it is, and having read the title of the report, I cannot see that the report would be particularly damaging to the public interest.
a (5:50 p.m.)
I think this government must be congratulated, rather than condemned, for the kind of information it has made available to the opposition and to the general public, because for the first time in history funds have been
given to opposition parties so they can retain suitable personnel and undertake studies that will enable them to reach correct decisions.
The study that the hon. member wishes to be produced covers a wide variety of subjects. One of the areas that has been of particular interest to me-it is an area that my wife has researched more thoroughly than I have-is important to all married people. I refer to the matter mentioned by the government whip, genetic counselling. The World Health Organization set up what is called an expert committee on human genetics. The sad part of genetic counselling, Mr. Speaker, is that people most often come for this kind of counselling after a defect has been discovered in a child. More information must go out to the public so that people will be aware that genetic counselling services are available.
This committee of the World Health Organization brought forward a report. The deputy director general said that genetic counselling is the most immediate and practical service that can be rendered in medicine and in surgery. He said it is probable that in all countries 4 per cent of live births suffer from some genetic condition which could benefit from genetic counselling, either in relation to repercussions on the family or to successful diagnosis and treatment of hereditary diseases. That is the point I have emphasized before. The report then notes that the experience of existing genetic counselling services shows that about 90 per cent of inquiries are from parents whose offspring are suffering from some disorder. It is the fear of recurrence that prompts them to seek advice. The bulk of the remaining 10 per cent of inquiries relates to the concern that an abnormality in the family may be passed on to future generations.
In some parts of the world there are special genetic problems. It is therefore proper that the World Health Organization saw fit to set up the special committee to study this particular aspect of health. It came to the conclusion that during the past 15 years great advances have been made in the field of human psychogenetics. Those advances have made it possible for us to provide, in many cases, effective genetic counselling. Those who have dealt with retarded children and helped them probably appreciate much better than others the necessity of proper genetic counselling. According to the research that I undertook in the subject-most of it was done before I came to the House of Commons-many places in Canada provide this service. Locally, the department of paediatrics of the University of Ottawa provides such a service. The advances made have also served to stimulate lay as well as medical interest in the field of genetic counselling. It is important that information should be available not only to doctors but to lay persons as well. Not only must this kind of information be imparted to laymen and others, but our communities must know there are genetic counselling agencies which may be used particularly by young people and young married couples.
It seems to me that the report the hon. member asks to be produced is innocuous and I cannot see any great harm in producing it. I shall be interested in hearing

January 14, 1971

what other government supporters have to say about this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of my colleagues on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).


John Leroy Skoberg: The hon. member has three minutes left.


M. Ervin Pringle: I must agree with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. More consideration must be given to those who are responsible not only for the formation of certain reports but for their distribution. It is vital for the people of Canada that we are not hindered in any way in obtaining all necessary information. Sometimes it is essential for us to withhold some information which has been submitted in report form. Hon. members should understand this. This point relates to the motion being considered.
I regret that I do not have more time in which to express some of my thoughts. I believe that when we have talked about amendments to the Criminal Code and matters relating to abortion, too much emphasis has been placed on permissive attitudes, on the reproduction of the human race, and not enough on family life and the moral approach to this question. We should give more consideration to preventive methods and to family planning, to the use of oral contraceptives, if you like, which according to the Food and Drug Directorate constitute the safest and, until now, the best method of birth control. However, we are a long way from the termination of any exhaustive research with regard to oral contraceptives.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer that Bill C-192, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Woolliams.
Young Offenders Act
Charles Terrence Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue the remarks I was making at five o'clock. I was dealing with the differences between the proposed legislation, the young offenders act, and the provisions of the old act, the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I was pointing out the improvements in the new act. One difference that I did not mention at that time is that which exists for the young offender, under the provisions of the proposed act, who is charged with an offence for which he might be imprisoned for life or sentenced to hang. Under the act which is now in force, a young man under the age of 15 who is convicted of murder or where it is found that he has-committed the offence of murder-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the same thing, is it not?


Charles Terrence Murphy: It is probably the same. If he were convicted in the criminal court and sentenced to life imprisonment, there would be no way in which the minimum sentence would be reviewed for a period of at least ten years, even by the Parole Board. Even if the Parole Board after ten years recommended that the person should be let out immediately or at an early date, as the law now stands that decisions would have to be approved by the governor in council, or the cabinet. Under the new legislation, a young man convicted at the age of 15 could be-not would be-detained in a training school until the age of 21 and then brought before a supreme court judge. At that time the supreme court judge could deal with him in whatever way he thought fit, having regard to the circumstances existing at the time and the background of the case. He could conceivably discharge that young man at that time, with no further problem.
That advantage far surpasses the possible disadvantages mentioned by some opposition members, particularly the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). The hon. member for Greenwood referred to this provision. He thought that it would be discriminatory in respect of the young person. I cannot follow his reasoning on that point. It is discriminatory in the sense that the young person could be dealt with more leniently than an adult offender. I feel that discrimination in this way is not adverse to the young person.
I had the impression from the comments this afternoon of the hon. member for Greenwood that he felt the discrimination would be too adverse to the interests of the young offender. I cannot agree with him. So there we have another difference between the present legislation and the proposed legislation which I think is a distinct improvement.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) during the course of his speech in this debate suggested that we in this country might follow the English system or even the Scandinavian system of dealing with youthful offenders. In some respects I do not disagree; no doubt we might consider some aspects of the English system and beneficially adapt them to our system. However, we cannot simply say that the British system is much better

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
than ours because it does this, that and the other and our system does not. The hon. member knows as well as I that the English system of government is different from that which prevails in Canada. Theirs is a unitary system of government and the Parliament at Westminster has jurisdiction to pass all types of legislation, be it social legislation or otherwise, with impunity. It is the duty of that Parliament to do so.
On the other hand, as the hon. member knows, we in Canada have a federal system, and the jurisdictional limitations placed on this Parliament are considerably different from any that might be placed on the British Parliament. For that reason we cannot go into the social aspects of many questions, into fields that are by the British North America Act handed over holus-bolus exclusively to the provinces.
The hon. member also referred to the Scandinavian system of establishing panels that determine the outcome of a charge that might be made against a youthful offender. These panels are comprised of elected representatives as well as representatives of unions, teachers, the professions, businessmen, and so on. This is quite true. But what the hon. member neglected to point out is that these panels deal with youthful offenders in a paternalistic way, one that would be quite incongruous in Canada. For example, the panel sits to consider a case and the youthful offender concerned does not even have the opportunity of appearing before the panel. Decisions are made, so to speak, in a vacuum, in the absence of the accused. Neither does the accused have an opportunity to confront those who are levelling accusations against him. That is the way the panel system in Scandinavia operates. If that is what the hon. member is suggesting we adopt in this country, I can only disagree with him most wholeheartedly.


John Gilbert: The hon. member would rather be punitive with our young men.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I would rather have the young man given an opportunity to stand up and confront his accusers than be tried in absentia, definitely. In conclusion, may I say that basically I think we have a good bill here. The structure of the bill is good though it is not perfect. There are some changes that can and should be made, and I say they will be made.


John Gilbert: Such as?


Charles Terrence Murphy: I refer in particular to some points that have not been picked up by members of the opposition. If they look at the provisions of clause 14, I think they might find some things in there that are much more objectionable than some of the criticisms they have levelled at other clauses. There are also those provisions referred to by members of the opposition relating to the potentially heavier punishments for young offenders as opposed to those meted out to adults who commit the same offence and are found guilty in court in the regular way. I say that these provisions can and will be looked at.
If the opposition is serious and wants to obtain amendments, and if the opposition is serious in inviting the support of the government members of the House and of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, let me ask opposition members why they do not base their arguments on truths rather than on misstatements of fact, as has been the case in many instances during the course of this debate. Why do they not base their arguments on truths instead of half-truths, as has been happening so far? Let them give us logical arguments. Let them give us reason we can follow and believe. If they do, they may find that we will believe them. But do not give us the type of balderdash known as "Eldonbull" any more, because we are not interested in it. We will listen to facts and we will end up with a good bill.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Charles Terrence Murphy: Yes.


David Orlikow: Since the hon. member is suggesting that the arguments which have been presented are not the truth, may I ask him whether he is telling the members of this House that the criticisms of the bill made by organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association, which has taken very serious objection to major provisions in the bill, are based on untruths?


Charles Terrence Murphy: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been in the House this afternoon to listen to the examples of misstatements of fact cited by me earlier in my comments, he would have discovered that those examples were taken from a speech made by a member of this House. I am not referring to excerpts from representations made by organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association, and so on, although I could have gone into a few of their comments as well. However, time did not permit. When I talk of misstatements of fact and reliance on half-truths and innuendo, I am referring to particular statements quoted by me this afternoon from a speech made by a member of the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize the hon. member, and also the hon. member for Broadview wish to ask the hon. gentleman a question, but they can do so only if the hon. member who had the floor consents.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I have no objection.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I read the hon. member's remarks before supper and I know what he said. In my speech I made reference to the remarks of a number of academics and to representations made by various associations. Is the hon. member suggesting to this House that it is he who has all the truths, that he has the right interpretation to be placed on this legislation? As a lawyer, is he going as far as saying that it is he who is interpreting the bill with truth; that the law is such an exact science that he alone has the answers?

January 14, 1971


Charles Terrence Murphy: If I may answer that, Mr. Speaker, let me say no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad of that. I knew you would say no.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I agree with two of the people quoted by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), Dr. Frost and Professor Price, and I mentioned that in my remarks this afternoon. They recommended that the whole question be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study, and I agree with that course. I do not agree with the proposition of the hon. member for Calgary North that a special task force should be set up to deal with the matter.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would consider the case of a young man between the age of 10 and 14. Should a young man within that age bracket be charged with an offence under the Criminal Code-with the possible exception of homicide-and if convicted be faced with the possibility of being fingerprinted and photographed or should we follow the English act which says that no youngster under the age of 14 years should be charged with any criminal offence with the exception of homicide?


Charles Terrence Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has touched upon a very interesting point. Personally, I am not locked in with any age, 10 years or 14 years. I am willing to discuss this and listen to argument about it. All this bill does is give the juvenile court judge certain power. It does not say the individual shall be fingerprinted or shall be photographed. This is a discretionary power given to the juvenile court judge which may or may not be exercised. I am open to argument on this point and no doubt we will be discussing it at a later date.
I cannot speak for the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer), but a number of recommendations have been made. If the hon. member will read the minutes of the special committee which studied this problem and filed its report in this House in 1966, he will see that the limits varied from age 10 to age 14. The provinces have other ideas on this matter and they will have to be considered as well.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not first of all congrulate the new Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) on his appointment and wish him well in his new responsibilities. Many people who are concerned with the administration of justice in this country must be pleased that a relatively young man has assumed this important portfolio in government. In offering these congratulations, I think they must also be tinged with sorrow because I feel somewhat sorry for the Solicitor General in that he has to pilot, as his first piece of legislation, this bill through the House of Commons.
I know from the record of the Solicitor General that before assuming his portfolio in this government he had an outstanding career in his native province. He has from time to time espoused a most progressive cause, and I am sure it must be difficult if not painful for him to have to be identified in this initial period with what I call a most
Young Offenders Act
reactionary piece of legislation. The minister is faced with a bill that was given first reading in this House on November 16. He could not have known, neither could anyone else, that within a very few weeks he would be appointed to the post of Solicitor General, charged with putting this bill before the House on second reading and piloting it through the legislative process.
I think what other hon. members have said is in fact the case. We see reflected in this bill an attitude and concept in respect of crime and criminal offences which is not only out of date but completely removed from all the understanding and research which have come to play a very large role in our understanding of justice and crime in society. I think the best one can say for this piece of legislation is that it is a fine seventeenth century approach to what are some very pressing twentieth century problems.
It is provided as follows in clause 4 of this bill, which has been referred to by other hon. members:
This act shall he 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.
I would doubt that if a quick canvass were to be made we would find much, if any, disagreement with that statement. It is contradicted at every turn, however, by the succeeding clauses which categorize, restrict and, in fact, in some cases punish those who in certain instances could hardly be aware that they had committed am offence. That passage, if it were kept and a new bill constructed, might indeed show some leadership as well as enlightened understanding of the problems that confront young people who run afoul of the law. Instead, we are faced with this weighty document of 85 clauses which has already been referred to as the criminal code for young people.
How disillusioning it must be for any young people in our country who still believe that this government, under the leadership of the man who is Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has a special understanding of youth when in fact they read the retrograde, regressive and reactionary approach that is being taken toward children, really, between the ages of 10 and 17 years who commit what may be defined as a criminal offence. If there is any doubt left that this government does not have leadership or the sensitivity to understand the particular problems of youth, I think this bill will be extremely convincing.
We have here an attempt to put forward in a new dress an approach to young people who commit crime. The approach fails because, even though the dress is new, when you remove the veneer the approach is just as reactionary and just as punitive as that which has existed in the law to this date. In fact, certain aspects of it are even worse than in the present situation.
It has already been said that an adult in our society who commits an offence for which the sentence may be life imprisonment or capital punishment knows that the process of law will take place. However, in regard to a

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
person under the age of 21 who commits an offence-we are thinking here of an offence that involves capital punishment or life imprisonment, not just narrowly defined as homicide, but a number of other things defined in the Criminal Code as warranting this severe penalty-can it be said that he understands the process of law?
There are other offences which according to the code warrant these penalties, including rape, sedition and treason. I am sure if we examined the Criminal Code closely, we might find others. Are we, then, saying that children who commit these crimes must in the first instance be detained for a period of time that may be as long as 11 years, whereupon when they have reached the age of 21 they are to be tried and sentenced for the crime which they committed earlier but to which they may not have been able to give sufficient recognition? That is certainly not the law as it applies or will apply to adults. Are we prepared to bring that law into force for children?
One can take this kind of legislative provision to its extreme to illustrate the utter unreality of this proposition in law. We have gone through a very difficult and serious time in respect of the crisis in the province of Quebec. At the moment we have a public order bill which, hopefully, will shortly expire. Under that bill we are told that people can be arrested for membersip in or attendance at meetings of a certain organization. What would be the position in law under this new measure if an 11-year old walked in off the street and, through chance, took part in a casual way in a meeting of the FLQ or like clandestine organization? Under this bill, I presume he would not only be detained but after a period of some years, perhaps until he reached age 21, he might be sentenced and then serve his time. How utterly foolish and ridiculous that is. That demonstrates how utterly foolish and ridiculous is this particular provision in the legislation.
The legislation attempts to be a screen giving, in essence, a sense of being fair-minded, positive and progressive. But when this screen is removed and the veneer is scraped away, we discover underneath that there is a heavy punitive element. For instance, we are told in one clause of this bill having to do with young people who may commit an offence under section 387 of the Criminal Code, which would be the abuse of animals, that the judge in the disposition he makes of the case may prohibit the young person from owning or having custody or control of the animal or bird during any period not exceeding two years.
We might consider the example of a young person who at the age of 11 or 12 may, without knowing it is more than a childhood prank, carry out some form of cruel activity which if committed by an adult would be considered to be criminally sadistic. This might not be the case, however, in respect of an imaginative youth of 11 or 12 years of age. This bill would remove any imagination in respect of the positive rehabilitation of a child, such as guidance, counselling and the establishment of relations

with the child and his parents and, perhaps, with members of the animal kingdom.
There is no recognition in this legislation of the positive value of trying to redress the aberrations or perhaps fears which may exist in a child's mind. Throughout this bill it would seem that the drafters of the legislation have attempted to narrowly define the limits under which justice can be served, to the extent that one would think that in a sense they have entered the world of Lilliput and are following Gulliver in one of his travels, and that in dealing with children who commit acts regarded as offences by adults, they consider these children to be pigmy sized adults who in the final analysis are to be treated in that manner.
There is no recognition of the process of growing up or of maturity which, surely, is one of the most basic processes of life itself. There is no awareness, in the concept of this legislation, that relationships, particularly basic relationships in family and community, are vital to the healthy development of young people between ages 10 and 17. There would appear to be a stereotyped concept in this legislation. One wonders, in fact, whether the drafters of the legislation were ever children themselves or whether they had much acquaintance with children.


An hon. Member:: That is a sick argument.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is a sick argument, an hon. member says. It is a sick argument, perhaps, in response to a sick bill and the sooner members recognize that and remove this legislation the better off we will be.


An hon. Member:: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is laughing.


Mr. Drury:: He sure is.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am not so much worried about members being in their second childhood as I am that they have forgotten their first. In dealing with youngsters there must be a recognition, in respect of offences regarded as crimes by society, that there is a process of maturing or growing which is not absolute and which is not predictable. There is nothing absolute about one child at age 10, 11, 16 or 17 and his ability to recognize and make moral judgments in respect of the acts he performs. I have not heard, and I know I will not hear, from the minister any categorical statement concerning how anyone can define with precision the ability of a young person aged 13 or 15 to judge the worthiness or unworthiness of his acts. There is no real indication of a desire to recognize that in this bill.
I do not question the sincerity but, rather, the judgment of the people who drafted this legislation. We are not just dealing here with young people between the ages of 10 and 17 and their relationship with the law. Really, we are dealing with what could well be regarded as the foundation stone for the relationship between the mature adult, his society and the law. If our prisons and penitentiaries are repeatedly filled with what we often refer to as chronic offenders or high-rate recidivists, it is because
January 14, 1971

we have not been realistic at the point at which crime becomes a part of the psyche of an individual.
If we do not realistically recognize this fact in respect of our young people, how can we ever face the situation realistically in respect of adults. The time to make these changes and be responsible and realistic is when we bring in changes and amendments in respect of the law and youth. It is doubly tragic, therefore, that we will be doing a disservice not only to children and young people but to the adults they will eventually become. One can only shudder to think that we will continue to make an enormous payment, not only in terms of the money we spend annually to detain people and to carry on the expensive business of arrest and surveillance but in the even more enormous payment in human lives and in the wastage of human potential that very often comes as a direct result of a backward and punitive approach to those who are no longer able to handle themselves in society.
In looking at this legislation one would think that the drafters-not the minister, because he did not really participate in the drafting-did not hear or read anything regarding human understanding in this century. I wonder, in heaven's name, where they have been. Have they not heard that in these enlightened periods we have discovered; new and better ways to deal with criminal offences, particularly in the early stages? No one will argue that men who have already entered upon a long and determined life of crime are very difficult to rehabilitate. In many cases it is well nigh impossible. But all of us believe, and all of us hope, that in respect of a child of 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16 years of age who commits a criminal offence there is a tremendous possibility for rehabilitation and reform.
Where is that presented in this legislation? Where is there a realistic approach to the individual differences and the individual difficulties encountered by young people? The difficulties are growing, rather than lessening. Because our society is becoming increasingly complex, because the demands of society require more and more laws which often restrict and prohibit individual judgments and decisions of men, we know it will not be easy for young people in the future to be sure they are not committing a crime. Therefore, if we are to redress the balance of increasing bureaucracy and restrictive laws of this nature, we must attempt to deal in a realistic fashion with young people who in many cases are unaware of or unable to control the actions they enter into.
There is so much in this legislation that is reprehensible in my view that I shall not take the time to go into it in detail. The fact, for instance, that there are references to the young person who runs afoul of the law as if he were a pint sized adult is so shocking as almost not to need reference. The fact, for instance, that on the discretion of a judge the same records can be kept for young offenders that are now being kept for adult offenders is in itself most shocking. Also, the fact of the process by which a young person might retain legal counsel, something on which he may not himself be able to make a judgment, is in itself putting the cart before the horse.
Young Offenders Act
When taking this legislation in total, one is almost faced with the proposition that surely those who drafted this bill have looked at the whole process of law as it operates today, have passed judgment on it and then have said, "Well and' good. Now, where can we fit the young person into this process, because we feel kind of embarrassed that he does not seem to fit in very well?" Perhaps we have too many people who are too satisfied with the way in which those processes operate, and not enough people willing to question their basic operation. Perhaps it is not so much a matter of fitting the child or the young person to the system; perhaps it is high time the situation was reversed and we asked ourselves what kind of system is needed' to help those young people who are unable to help themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: This legislation refers to offences, but I find this legislation offensive. I do not like to think that in an enlightened society, for which I hope we are at least striving in this country, we can refer with equanimity to 11-year olds as inmates and offenders. Surely, that must be offensive to every member of this House. Surely, those 11-year olds who do things which we regard in adult society as crimes are not now to be regarded as prisoners and felons in the normal sense. Surely, there is reason to think that those who have drafted this bill must be sent packing until they can present something to us that is worthy of both this House and this country.
It seems to me there are some basic aspects that are simply not accounted for in this legislation. Surely, there is a fundamental requirement that when young people or children have committed a criminal act, the basic questions related to home, community and environment must be attended to. These are certainly basic to the development of the child. Instead of that, we have this legislation proposing that the parole officer be some form of undercover policeman. I think the act refers to him as a peace officer, which some hon. members will remember has a pretty wide connotation in the administration of the law-a person who in fact can give the kind of evidence given by a police officer and act in a police officer's capacity. Is this the concept of rehabilitation that we have for young people whom we are trying to somehow put back positively and in a healthy way into society? Surely not. Yet that is the definition found in this legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is too bad the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) is not here.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Recently the government received a task force report on youth. I wonder if that task force has had a chance to study this bill. I know a few of the individuals who have given a great deal of their time and energy in trying to advise the government, in a positive way, on how the federal authority can more positively assist the growth and maturing of youth in this

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
country. I think the members of this task force would, frankly, be shocked that a government would be putting before this legislature the kind of recommendations found in this bill. Surely, there is a responsibility laid upon them to ask that group for their frank and objective opinion of these kind of measures in law.
An earlier speaker suggested, in reference to some of the comments from this side of the House, that we were asking for more permissive legislation. I am sorry that the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) did not go on to indicate what he meant by that remark. I presume he meant a kind of laissez faire approach to those who do not want to follow the law as well as those who commit what are called crimes. I think he was not listening very closely to what was being said from this side of the House, because what we request is not permissiveness but understanding. That, in the first instance, is what is needed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: He does not know the meaning of that word.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: One fails to find in this bill a genuine understanding of what the problems are today with respect to the treatment of young people and children who commit crimes. Surely, what is needed in the first instance is understanding. Coupled with understanding there is a need for realism. Again, there is no realism in this bill which would suggest that by this approach the government will be able to substantially lessen the number of young people who eventually accelerate their way into hard-core crime. Third, it seems to me that the government has to accept some measure of responsibility, and I see very little of it here except in the drafting of suggestions which other people may have to implement.
We have already heard from the largest province in this country about the expense that will be incurred to even begin to put into effect some of the suggestions in this bill. Yet there is no obvious intention so far indicated by the government that they are prepared to give that kind of leadership, not only to the wealthiest province which has already indicated the cost that will be put upon them but to many of the other provinces which have not nearly enough resources to try to change their methods of rehabilitating young people.
In spite of what I have said this evening, I retain some measure of optimism about the government's behaviour in this matter. I would not have said this two or three months ago but, frankly, I was surprised and pleased when not too many weeks ago the government willingly dropped their measure attempting to restrict the power of the Auditor General. It was an important gesture when the government, realizing that it had put forward an unwarranted and unacceptable measure, willingly let it drop.
I feel that for the second time in this session of Parliament we have a similar piece of legislation. There is an amazingly high degree of unanimity among people, running the gamut from those who are concerned with the social welfare aspects of young people and their criminal behaviour to those who must administer the law in the courts and elsewhere. Almost to a man they have said that this is bad legislation and that it can do nothing but harm to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I appeal to the minister and to the government to listen to these voices, not just the voices of those of us who are speaking from the opposition but of those who speak from the various positions that they hold in public life and who say: Please reconsider these serious measures. This country needs leadership, but the leadership that is being placed before us now can only take us back to the dim, dark recesses of the past.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, to the newly-appointed Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer), who is well fitted for his position, I should like to convey my congratulations and express the hope that he will enjoy success in his portfolio which holds a great deal more responsibility today than it did a few years ago.
To my friend of many years, the former Solicitor General, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcllraith), I express my regret that he has found it necessary for personal reasons to resign from the cabinet. He was a cabinet member whose views often appeared to be closer to my own than the views of some others in the cabinet. He has been an excellent House leader, has graced his ministership, and retires from the cabinet respected for his accomplishments. I do not think he had very much to do with the drafting and launching of Bill C-192, Mr. Speaker. I suspect it came up from below at a time when he was too busily engaged with public order and other problems.
Neither do I believe that the lawyers in the cabinet committee, nor the cabinet itself, have given much screening to the bill, otherwise they would have rewritten or revised it thoroughly. If the amendment is defeated, then either the cabinet must rewrite the bill or hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will revise it sufficiently to make it at least palatable. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the bill is written, like so many of the government's bills, in too verbose and vague a fashion. The idea seems to be to fill bills with verbiage to give the impression of great accomplishment. But for practising lawyers, administrators, social workers and members of the judiciary, long, confusing codes cause chaotic cases and unnecessary appeals. The fact is that this bill is just about twice as long as the act it repeals, the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1929, and it is not half as good as that act.
Some reform is needed, but not in the way Bill C-192 is conceived and worded. Section 38 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1929 reads almost the same as clause 4 of this bill, but the old act specifically said that juve-

January 14, 1971

nile delinquents must not be treated as criminals. The new bill omits this caution and gives a very vague notion of how some parental guidance is to be given in new reformatories to the committed offender.
Clause 7 of the bill reads:
No person shall arrest a young person without warrant where he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the public interest may be secured by proceeding otherwise than by arrest without warrant, unless, in his opinion, it is in the best interest of the young person that he be arrested immediately.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the second part of this clause completely cancels out the effect of the first part. The arresting officer is the sole judge. It is his opinion that counts as to whether he makes the arrest or not. So, I ask, why have the clause at all? I submit that this is another example of verbiage. There is a little note to one side saying, "Limitation on arrest without warrant." But where is the limitation? Is this not just a futile attempt to give the appearance of a special deal for a young person, when there is no special consideration there at all? The old act had nothing like that in it. In my opinion, the old act is much better in this case, because it does not do a young offender any harm at all to be picked up by a police officer and taken to a juvenile court. Sometimes a good scare is all that is needed to straighten out a young lad or a young girl. The police officer is usually a very kindly fellow. The child comes before the judge and is admonished. In most cases he is promptly released to go home and there is no more problem with him.
In some cases a child cannot be dealt with in this way, but I found as a practising lawyer and Big Brother, working in the Toronto area for 20 years with the juvenile and family courts, that there was seldom need to have a child or young offender represented by a lawyer in juvenile court unless it were a very serious case. However, under the provisions of this bill there will be great need for consideration by lawyers of the charges involved. No longer will you be able to rely upon the judge and probation officer when the judge has the right to have a child fingerprinted and has the power to have him photographed if he happens to get particularly alarmed about an alleged offence.
Under clause 16(5) there is a new penalty in this bill, with provision for a fine of $100 or 90 days in jail for failure of parents to appear if found guilty, on the basis of contempt of court after having been notified. In my opinion, the 90-day provision is too severe. I submit it should be reduced to ten days for a first offence. I am not altogether against the provision, but I do think it is too severe.
With respect to clause 24(1), if I read it correctly, a young person over 14 may have his case transferred to a regular court at any time before the verdict of a juvenile court is finalized. Thus he, his witnesses and his family may be subjected to two almost complete trials or hearings, possibly lasting many days. This is a bad feature. It means more work for lawyers in juvenile cases, work they are not particularly seeking.
Young Offenders Act
Then there is clause 30(l)(k) which, along with clause 30(4), has been either conceived unintelligently or written in an inconceivable fashion. It gives power to hold young persons in certain serious cases until they are 21 years of age and sentence them to a possible life sentence, which is 21 years in practice and probably ten years in effect. Many other hon. members have spoken about this and I do not want to pursue the matter further. These portions of clause 30 should be reconsidered and revised, if not discarded completely.
In Ontario in the past, Mr. Speaker, parents were always responsible for the support of their children until they reached the age of 16 years. But under clause 15 and clause 16 of this bill they can be forced to appear on behalf of young persons until they have reached the age of 18, and in some cases 21, or else be held in contempt of court. I think this should be limited to the age of 17 and that subpoenas should be used in other cases because, after all, the voting age is going to be lowered to 18.
By raising the age limits in the definition of "child" from 16 to 17, and 18 in some cases, the government puts a laurel wreath on its own head but a heavy burden on all the provinces. The Hon. Allan Grossman, Minister for Correctional Services in Ontario, points this out. He says that this factor in the bill, and others such as fixed sentences, will cost his province $20 million for additional training schools and they are not ready for that kind of forced virtue, particularly when they believe that their way is much more flexible for the young offender and for all concerned. If enacted in its present form, the bill may be largely ignored for some time in this respect. Of course, grants for the extra training schools could sweeten the picture, but there is no mention of these or of other kinds of similar assistance from the government.
Under present legislation in Ontario, a child's record is confidential and cannot be used against him on a later charge. A judge cannot make an order under the Identification of Criminals Act, which involves finger-printing and photographing for RCMP records. But under this bill a judge can make such an order if he sees fit, and the record is there presumably for future use in evidence if the child is ever again in trouble.
Mr. Speaker, a child has not needed to have his record pardoned in the past, but some will need to have theirs pardoned in future if the bill is enacted as it now reads. With this feature in it, more lawyers will be retained to advise parents to let or not let their children go unrepresented in court. This, in my opinion, is a very bad power. I hope the Solicitor General will look at this provision very, very carefully before supporting it further.
In Ontario at the present time, children are confined in institutions for indefinite periods, which is far more satisfactory than fixed terms. I say this on the basis of my own experience. All concerned about the welfare of the child can determine in such cases when to hold him further or when to release him. It is almost invariably in

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
his interest that this be the case, although he may not think so at the time. This is the solution that is much preferred by the Canadian Mental Health Association which, as we know, has a very poor regard for the effort demonstrated by this bill. Mr. Crossman suggested that a review board be set up which would from time to time review the cases of all children confined in training schools, in order to make sure that no child is being incarcerated unreasonably. I think this is an excellent suggestion.
I think the government is making a bad mistake in lowering the age from 12 to 10 years, as will be the case in Ontario. That will be the fact if this measure passes, and I think the government will be making a bad mistake. No matter how nicely you skate around it, the 10-year old and 11-year old child will be charged with an offence. Mr. Speaker, why does the government ignore years of experience and knowledge in the handling of young offenders, for the sake of an image that I submit will prove to be false? If a bill like this is enacted into law, young offenders will need friends. I submit that the amendment should carry.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate I wish to join other members in congratulating the new minister on his appointment, wishing him well yet expressing my regret that he has begun his important task as a minister by bringing in a bill which, so far as I can tell, has met with the almost unanimous condemnation of everyone who does not work for the federal government but works in organizations active in dealing with young people unfortunate enough to get into difficulties with the law. That is not surprising. As we look at the record of the Canadian approach to crime and to correction over the past number of years, we see a country which has more people, per thousand of population, in prison than any other country in the western world-2J or three times as many people in prison as is the case in Great Britain.
We see a country which has consistently over the years taken the view, openly or through failure to act, that the way to deal with crime, the way to deal with people who break our law, is to send them to prison, to send them to some kind of correctional institution, training school or whatever else you may want to call it. When we made progress in recent years, it was as a result of the insistent demands and tremendous work of public education carried on by organizations such as the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, the Canadian Corrections Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association and other organizations too numerous to mention.
As one looks at their reaction to this bill, one finds almost unanimous rejection of its entire proposals. I say "almost unanimous' because I want to protect myself; I have not heard all the people who have commented on the bill, nor have I read all the literature on it. But I say to the minister that everything I have read, all the reaction I have witnessed, all the reports I have seen and all the comments are adverse to it. I have yet to see one report which does not suggest that this bill contains such serious defects as to make it unworthy of being rejected
in toto or being sent back for the most fundamental and searching scrutiny.
I want to put on record some of the comments which have been made, because at least one report that I saw last week in a newspaper which is read, I suppose, by more English-speaking Members of Parliament than any other in the country-it is my impression that the reporter obtained his information from the public relations officer, or someone similar, in the minister's department-indicates that there is no real objection to this bill except those objections which might come from the Ontario Department of Corrections and its minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. I want to put on record some of the comments of individuals and organizations which have had more experience than any member of this House, including the minister, in connection with the difficulties and problems involved when young people get into trouble.
Other members have already spoken about objections of the Canadian Mental Health Association to this bill. If I have time, I will come back to that subject later. That body has objected vehemently and in a manner which I have seldom heard in connection with any question it has dealt with in recent years. Judge William Little, chairman of the Ontario Juvenile Court Judges' Committee on Delinquency, has taken serious objection to this bill. I shall quote a few sentences from a statement Judge Little made. He said in part:
"The intent of the original act (the Juvenile Delinquents Act) was to have a social objective of the rehabilitation of children," he said. "It seems to me this intent has been lost in the new bill"-
"They (federal legislators) have turned the focus from treatment to an attempt to make the Juvenile Delinquents Act consistent with the Criminal Code. They are assuming that a judge can measure the required amount of treatment. With a time limit, it's like taking a person out of hospital in the middle of treatment."
Don Sinclair, executive director of institutions in the Ontario Department of Corrections, according to an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram of December 29, 1970, said flatly that if the act is adopted as it stands, Canada would be taking a backward step. The metropolitan Toronto Children's Aid Society sent a telegram to the former Solicitor General asking that it and other agencies be given ample opportunity to comment on the bill before it obtained final passage. The Children's Aid Society of Toronto is preparing a brief, I presume, to the Standing Committee. The director of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, Lloyd Richardson, was horrified at many aspects of the bill. He said:
The framers of this new act asked for and got a great deal of expert advice and opinion ... Unfortunately, not many of their ideas seem to have been incorporated.
That is consistent with other actions of this department. For example, it went ahead and built a maximum security institution which was universally condemned because it had no windows. In response to a telephone call, I received a letter from the director of juvenile corrections and metro probation, Department of Health and Social Development, of Winnipeg, dated November

[Mr. Ryan.J
January 14, 1971

27, 1970. I want to put this on record so the minister will know it is not only a tew people in the city of Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario who are angry with his department and are opposed to this bill. I wish to quote part of what was said by the director of corrections and probation in Manitoba:
The act on first reading impresses one as being a Criminal Code for juveniles. Despite an attempt in section 4 to establish a philosophical base, the act contains so much procedural detail as to overshadow its intent. Furthermore, it is important, it seems to me, that an act which establishes a general approach for the handling and treatment of children in conflict with the law (a matter that can touch any individual or family) should be comprehensible to the lay reader. Only those whose responsibilities require an intimate working knowledge of the act are likely to develop a clear understanding of its basic philosophy and operation.
One stated objective of the new legislation is to eliminate the terms "delinquency" and "delinquent," which it has been suggested impose a stigma on a child brought before a juvenile court. However, what is in fact gained when the terminology that has been substituted is copied from adult court practices, for example, "arrest," "offence" and "offender"? It does not seem particularly appropriate to call a 10-year old a young offender.
That is what the bill states, Mr. Speaker. I continue quoting:
It may be that upon more thorough study of the act, section by section, that enlightened practices may be possible. Be that as it may, one would like to have seen in the act greater recognition of the variety of programs and approaches now being used in the juvenile field, as well as greater encouragement to pioneer new approaches. The act tends to suggest a stereotyped approach. For example, the details which are to be included in a probation order imply a stereotyped idea of probation, and fail to recognize the irreversible trend in the field toward the development of an array of services between probation and institutional placement, which combine-where appropriate-features of both-
The act appears to place undue authority and responsibility on juvenile court judges without saying anything about qualifications for appointment to judgeships. Neither does the act offer any guidance or ensure that the court will have available to it the services of suitably qualified people to conduct enquiries into the background of children appearing before the court, to propose treatment plans for the court's consideration, or to provide treatment. Without such services, a juvenile court is little more than an adult court.
I could quote Dr. Dewait's letter in more detail; however, I think I have read enough to clearly show that in the province of Manitoba there are serious objections to the proposals of the government. If the minister and the department wanted a philosophical basis on which to deal with young people, they did not have far to go.
In Ottawa we have Dr. Charles Roberts. Dr. Roberts is professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry, University of Ottawa, and psychiatrist in chief of the Royal Ottawa Hospital. He was formerly executive director of the Clarke institute of psychiatry, University of Toronto. Dr. Roberts, together with Dr. Denis Lazure, the executive director and medical superintendent of the Hopital Riviere-des-Prairies, Montreal, was co-chairman of the committee sponsored by a very impersonal group of organizations working in the field of children and
Young Offenders Act
young people. This study was sponsored by the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, the Canadian Education Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled and the Canadian Welfare Council. The result of this study was published more than a year ago. It is entitled "One Million Children."
If the minister or his department had referred to that section of the volume which deals with the child as an offender, and had read the relatively short analysis of the problems of young people who get into trouble, they would have read a philosophy which completely rejects the approach embodied in the bill brought forward by the minister. The report points out that what is required is informal and timely handling of minor offences. This could be extended by the development of youth bureaux, as recommended in the 1969 report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. Instead of informal and timely handling, we will have formal, legalistic, detailed judgments by judges rather than by people who are experts in rehabilitation.
The report points out that children who appear in the courts as offenders are oftentimes children for whom the community can find no other placement. These children have had difficulties more than once and have frequently been seen by many agencies. Often they are sent to training schools because there is no other place for them. That is what we have had until now. Will we have anything different when this bill is passed? Not really. The government is proposing to examine the actual crime much more formally. The bill does not contain anything with regard to the cause of the crime or how to deal with a child of 10, 11, 12 or 13 who has committed an offence and is brought into court.
The report points out that probation officers and clinical personnel working with the courts, report that there is not adequate staff to deal with the problems of children who are brought before the courts. The whole area of care and treatment for juvenile offenders is given low priority by those handling funds for education, health, welfare and manpower services. That is an indictment of municipal, provincial and federal governments. Some years ago we were willing to embark on a program which would have cost the people of Canada $100 million. New institutions were to be built to help adults convicted of crime. We have not indicated to the provinces that if they will extend their probation services the federal government will pay one-tenth of the cost. We are willing to pay to lock up people. We are not willing to find ways to treat people so they will not commit crimes in the future.
In 1966, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported that over 20,000 juveniles under 16 years of age were charged with being delinquent. Of those charged, 90 per cent were found to be delinquent. I refuse to believe that in a country the size of Canada 20,000 young people were branded as criminals in the year 1966 by the police, prosecuting authorities, and courts. It is not true. We have not adopted modern methods which may eliminate

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
the causes of young people getting into difficulty. In the report "One Million Children," Dr. Eoberts and Dr. Lazure sum up their approach to the problems of young people as follows:
We believe that the process of labelling a juvenile as delinquent, and the associated names-incorrigible, truant, sexually immoral, vagrant, is unsupportable because the effect is to increase the alienation of the child from society by defining him in a derogatory way and isolating him from his normal social environment.
If it is wrong to label young people delinquents, it is just as wrong to label them offenders, because the two terms are in fact synonymous. The report is critical of the use of detention during the pre-hearing period and in the period between trial or hearing and the day the judge disposes of the case. It points out that there are few institutions which accept delinquents for a course of real treatment, because these courses are difficult to carry out. They present a demanding task requiring highly trained staff, which we do not have. They wind up their relatively short section on the child as offender by making a number of recommendations that I should like to put on the record. One realizes, on listening to the recommendations, how far short this bill falls in meeting the recommendations which Dr. Roberts and Dr. Lazure propose. The report recommends:
That the juvenile courts/tribunals for minors be restricted to the 14 to 18-year age group.
This bill provides that the act, which defined a child offender as someone over the age of seven, will be amended, so the age is raised to ten. I suggest that nobody aged' 10, 11 or 12 should be labelled a juvenile delinquent, a child delinquent or an offender. The report also recommends:
That children under the age of 14 be brought before the courts only under child protection legislation.
That provision is not made in the bill, either. The report recommends:
That only violations of the Criminal Code or provincial or municipal statutes be classed as delinquent behaviour requiring appearance in juvenile court.
That legal counsel be easily and freely available to the offender appearing before the juvenile court and to the parents accused of neglect of a child who is alleged to be in need of protection.
That professional schools training personnel for work with children and adolescents or for the administration of justice include delinquency in their curriculum.
That juvenile courts and training schools encourage the participation of individuals and community groups in the planning and operation of existing programs to increase the community understanding and support for the needs of the juvenile delinquent.
My colleague from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said that this method is being used in Great Britain, and I think my colleague from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said it was also being used in Sweden. Instead of this, we are more and more to rely upon a very legalistic approach, more and more to rely, if this legislation is passed in its present form, upon a judge to make the decision as to
what shall be done in a given case. The report also recommends:
That the personnel working with the young offender have access to a variety of community, education, health and welfare services.
That all juvenile courts use specialists in child and adolescent behaviour to assist in the diagnosis of the problems and needs of the young offender and to formulate rehabilitation programs.
That aftercare services for delinquents be given budget priority to increase the number of staff involved in this function and to improve their training.
I have read those recommendations into the record to show just how much we have ignored such proposals and just how far we have gone in the direction of a much more rigid, more legalistic and punitive approach to those young people who get into difficulty and break our laws.
I want to spend a few moments to put on the record arguments advanced in opposition to the bill by the Canadian Mental Health Association. I do so because to my knowledge no organization has made a greater contribution to a better understanding of the problems of people who get into difficulties, be they adults or the young, than has this organization. This organization has over the years called for greater concentration on rational methods of dealing with people who find themselves in this sort of difficulty. This is an organization that has called again and again for governments to stop using punitive measures and to begin adopting humane approaches which will have positive effects in assisting those who have fallen afoul of the law. In a letter that the Canadian Mental Health Association sent to all members of this House and to the members of the other place, the following paragraph appears:
To appreciate the significance of our association's strong objection to this act, it must be recognized that the psychological and physical needs of children are different from those of adults... 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-
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 aftercare. The former should be considered to be a matter of due process-
In other words, considered by the court.
-while the latter deals with decisions concerning the particular needs of the child with a special emphasis on his rehabilitation. For this reason, decisions concerning the disposition of the child should be for an indefinite period with his civil rights fully protected by provisions of an independent external review board for review at stated intervals-
What this bill provides is exactly the opposite; it provides that judges shall impose sentences for specific periods of time. The Mental Health Association goes on to say:
With these principles in mind, it is obvious that the proposed legislation limits the options of the court for making disposition for the child. No provision whatever is made for after-care and rehabilitation-and the suggestion that a child would benefit by being "sentenced" to become a ward of the Children's Aid Society for a period "not exceeding two years" is not only impractical-it is ridiculous.

January 14, 1971

The letter concludes with this paragraph:
It is the hope of the Canadian Mental Health Association that Bill C-192 will either be defeated or drastically amended and that in the event of it passing second reading, it be referred to the chairman of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with the recommendation that provision be made for receiving submissions from concerned organizations and from the general public.
I am reasonably certain that submissions will be called for, but I want to say a few words in response to a speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) who rejected almost in toto the arguments made on this side. I think he implied that the arguments were being made for political and partisan reasons only, and the hon. member refused to deal with the arguments put forward by some of the organizations and persons to whom I have referred. The hon. member suggested we ought to pass the bill, and he said that he and other members-I presume he was talking about government members-would be quite open-minded in regard to amendments when the bill received clause by clause consideration in the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. What the hon. member conveniently forgot to say was that once this bill is given second reading, the House has in fact adopted its provisions in principle.
In the news story I referred to earlier, which appeared in the Globe and Mail and which obviously came from sources within the department, it was made very clear that while the government would be prepared to consider certain minor amendments, there was no disposition to consider any major revisions or amendments to the bill. Under those circumstances, I do not see how members on this side of the House or on the government side can vote for a bill which has been condemned, criticized, attacked in whole or in part by almost every authority and organization interested in the field of child welfare.
I should like to close by putting on the record, although I know this has already been done, some of the specific objections made by the Canadian Mental Health Association to clauses of this bill. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, other government members and the minister did not deal in detail with the specific objections to the bill which have been made both inside and outside the House. I hope that at the committee stage government members and the minister will deal with the specific objections which have been made by the Canadian Mental Health Association, other groups and associations.
The Canadian Mental Health Association pointed out in a pamphlet they circulated under the title "The Young Offenders Act and the Children of Canada" a number of objections to this bill. They pointed out that under proposed section 35 (6) a person over the age of ten is in fact being dealt with, under the provisions of this bill, as a criminal. This proposed section makes it clear that his fingerprints and photograph will be taken and placed in the records for use at a later date unless the individual seeks a pardon.
The association also points out that in proposed section 74 (1) power is given to the court, when it wishes to
Young Offenders Act
exercise that power, to order a child to be fingerprinted and photographed, with the record being forwarded to the RCMP and kept in the central files of that organization. I submit there is something monstrously wrong with a proposal which would suggest that a child of 10 or 11 years of age, having committed an offence, is subject not only to punishment for the offence committed at a very young age but also the stigma of having his fingerprints and photographs placed on record for the rest of his life.
The pamphlet points out that a 14-year-old who has been judged to have committed murder could be committed, under the provisions of proposed section 30(1) (k), to a training school until he reaches 21 years of age-in other words, for seven years-and then could be brought before the courts and sentenced possibly to life imprisonment. The pamphlet suggests this is totally inhuman and intolerable. I think these are mild words to describe that kind of provision.
The last proposed section I wish to refer to is section 30(1) (f) which, as is pointed out in the pamphlet, ignores 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. The form it calls for 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. In order words, it takes away that flexibility which is required and which the present act provides.
I have tried to list some of the difficulties which people who have worked in the field, people who have practical knowledge and have seen the inadequacies of our court system, our training school system and with the very large number of young people incarcerated, see in the proposed bill. The difficulties which have been pointed out are so serious and so numerous that I could not vote for this bill. I hope when the bill goes to committee-I have been here long enough to be practical and to realize that since this bill was brought forward by the minister, it will pass second reading and be referred to the committee no matter what members of the opposition say- the minister, who has not had his ministerial post long enough to have any personal responsibility for this bill, will be willing to call as witnesses Dr. Roberts and others, including some of our judges, social workers, correctional officers, probation officers and representatives of organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association, the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society and a host of others who already have indicated they are unhappy with the bill. I hope the minister will be willing to call these people before the committee and listen to them with an open mind.
If what some of us on this side have reported to be our feelings proves correct, and if these people make the kind of objections we have listedi, I hope the minister will be big enough to listen to the objections of people who have an interest in young people, as I think members on all sides of this House have, and rewrite the bill with the spirit and motivation we have expressed, in order to improve the law for young people. The motivations on the part of people who have worked in this field have

January 14, 1971
Young Offenders Act
already been made very clear, but they are not found in the bill as presently worded.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to congratulate the new Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) on his appointment. I have listened to many criticisms in respect of the bill he brought in and explained so thoroughly to this House in his address. Somewhere along the line there was a bad slip-up, because I am sure the previous Solicitor General, who is and has been a member of this House since I came here, did not see the bill before it reached the present Solicitor General. If there was not any doubt in the minister's mind that he had a bad bill, I think he should now know that it is a bad bill and should withdraw it.
I am not going to deal with all the legal implications of the bill because this has been done very well by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and others. It has been rightly named the criminal code for children. I am wondering why it was not labelled in the same way as the English act, which has been referred to in the House as the Children and Young Persons' Act. I am also wondering why, during the 64 years since this measure was put into the Criminal Code, it was not changed to parallel the English law which has mercifully concluded that age 14 is an early enough age, rather than age ten. In Great Britain no one under 14 years of age can be charged with an offence. Under this bill, however, they may be charged at age ten.
From a humanitarian standpoint, and from the standpoint of plain ordinary common sense, I ask how many members of this House when they were in the age bracket between 10 and 17 did not do something for which they could have been charged had the authorities been present at the right time. All of us have done something wrong, and some of us more than others. Yet we escape scot-free. I think we should bear this in mind. He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. I do not think the people who drafted this bill thought about their own past.


An hon. Member:: They forgot that.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I think the problem is that they have forgotten the humanitarian way of life. Our aim should always be to direct and readjust young people so they can remain on the road to good citizenship. It is not unfair to ask a child to accept responsibility for actions which may be more serious than the signing of a legal document? Although, since he is a minor, he may not sign a legal document, we hold him responsible for his acts. Is this not an example of foolishness?
In this bill the emphasis is on punishment. The drafters have entirely forgotten about prevention and rehabilitation. They have forgotten to specify that in each case there should be a medical and physical examination and an examination by a trained psychiatrist. The home of such a child should be investigated.
The other day a young man 19 years of age came to me. I would point out that never have so many people
approached me hungry and in need of help as during this holiday season. This young man came to me and told me he had no money. He said he was trying to live with his mother but that she did not have any money. I checked with the employment agency in an effort to find out why he was unemployed. I was told that he had not been very successful in his last couple of jobs. When I asked the people in the agency why he had not been successful in this employment they told me he was not a very responsible person and was untrained. Since he did not have a trade, they had sent him to a school. This is a school for which we as taxpayers pay. He remained there for three months and then he was let out without any money.
I had the impression that he was not a bad boy. When I began questioning him I found that he had spent six months in the Penetang institution, which is an institution for disoriented people. Then he was sent out to find his way in everyday life as being fit and capable of looking after himself. He went to school for three months through Manpower and was then advised that he was not capable of taking training. Then I asked him about his home life. I asked how many brothers and sisters he had, and he said he had one sister. When I asked him where she was, he told me she was at school. He said she was in grade 8 and was 14 years of age. When I asked if she was living with her mother, he told me she was in the correctional school at Guelph.
I asked this lad what had happened to his sister, and he said she had been convicted for using drugs. I asked him what she had used, and he said marijuana. Then I went a little further and asked how many children there were in the family. He told me he had a brother ten years old who was home with his mother. I discovered that this family had bought a home but were losing it. The mother had been working part-time but could not earn enough to look after the home and the children. This boy told me his father had died when he was ten years of age. When I asked him what had happened to his father, he told me his father was an alcoholic. This lad was ten years of age when his father died, and what he remembers are the beatings he and his mother received. Who is responsible for this boy and the girl who is in a training school? Not this boy who is 19 years of age and without a job, or the girl who is in a training school. We, society, are responsible for these people.
Fortunately there is a quality of mercy. I have taken this matter up with the authorities and am hopeful that a suitable home and some welfare can be provided for this mother so that she will have enough to live on. This woman has only a grade 5 education and is unable to do anything but unskilled work. The responsibility is ours. I think of the drug question and the girl being put away because of using marijuana. We might ask where she obtained the marijuana, and who is responsible. Then I think about the way we treat our young people, discredit them and say they use drugs. Then I look at the statistics in Canada concerning the number of alcoholics. Mr. Speaker, the statistics in respect of alcoholics show that there are half a million people involved. I am sure that if alcohol were a new drug today, it would be outlawed

January 14, 1971

because of the damage it does to human beings. Because of the use of drugs our young people are branded as criminals and now, with the social security number, they carry a record for as long as they live.
This is not fair and it is not right. I think everyone in the House is aware that some children develop later than others. I have seen teenagers of 17 or 18 who were considered pretty stupid, only to find them later on in their thirties and forties much smarter than the kids they were compared with when they were younger. I remember that even in my own field of medicine there was a fellow who was not considered the brightest scholar. He had sups year after year. But there was a humanity in the world then that does not seem to exist today. That student was carried along by professors who believed in him. Finally, he came to his last year and graduated. He was a fine fellow morally and spiritually, but he had to be carried along.
Such a course would not be considered today. We have lost contact with the great principles that count for so much. Today, materialistic things count more than anything else and people would be looking at his marks and at nothing else. However, that medical student became a doctor. Twenty years later I was in another country and saw his name up on the blackboard announcing that this top-flight medical man was coming to address a meeting two weeks hence. I point this out to show you the mistake that can be made regarding youngsters between ten and 17 or even older. People do not mature at the same age and kids are not all the same, as has been pointed out over and over again. You can consider two kids who have committed the same offence-one needs no treatment and the other needs a period of supervision to keep him under control and to guide him.
If we follow the statistics, we find this proven over and over again. Eighty per cent of young offenders never come back to the courts; they only commit one offence. Is it fair, then, to label that 80 per cent for the rest of their lives, or to bring them up for trial when they are 21 years of age for acts which they committed when they were not responsible, when we would not accept their signature on legal document's as minors under our law?
As I have said, some young people develop much later than others. There is also the question of differences in intelligence, experience and judgment. We have seen people who are quite intelligent but who have poor judgment. If this is the just society, let us change the meaning of the term. The hon. member for Calgary North spoke very well indeed. I think most of us who heard his speech in the House heard a very excellent exposition of this bill. He referred to a young teenager who might be convicted for driving while impaired, who drives again and again is caught. That fellow can get a two-year sentence, but the same thing will not apply to an adult. Obviously this is unfair.
Young Offenders Act
The same thing would apply in the case of murder. A young fellow can be arrested at the age of 12, 13 or 14 and, as the hon. member for Calgary North and others have pointed out, when he is 21 years of age he will again stand trial, after which he may receive a life sentence for an offence which he committed when 14, an jdfence-jvhich is probably only dimly remembered by
..'him and for which he can hardly be held responsible. If
the government now complains that their bill is misunderstood, I do not think they have anyone but themselves to blame. I read from a letter I have received, one of many:
Dear Dr. Rynard:
I am writing to request your support in protest of the proposed new young offenders act, recently given first reading in parliament. It is to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act now in effect in Canada. As a supervisor of juveniles with the Ontario Department of Correctional Services, I feel that this is a definite step backwards in the rehabilitation of juveniles. The new act proposed appears to be shifting the major orientation of training school programs away from treatment, toward custody and punishment. The terminology alone, as "inmates" and "sentence", testifies to this. Such labelling in young persons is bound to have a backlash effect; the terms will become selffulfilling in producing a deeper negative self-image and in perpetuating anti-social behaviour. Juveniles are not hardened criminals; they are still capable of being rehabilitated if given encouragement and a flexible program geared to their individual needs ... Fingerprinting, RCMP photos, and set sentences are not good basics for effective juvenile treatment, and I feel certain that the rate of recidivists will soar if this proposal is accepted.
That is just one example of letters that we are receiving. Now the government complains. If it is anybody's fault, it is theirs that they have not been able to explain their own bill. The Globe and Mail puts the finger on it when it writes as follows:
But the basis of the act, the concepts upon which it is built, have been so thoroughly undermined by qualified criticism that, in the absence of adequate replies by federal officials, we can no longer accept it as a progressive document. No doubt it would improve the situation in some provinces. But the conviction is growing that in many key areas it would be a retrogressive piece of legislation-
The trouble so far has been that federal officials have refused to answer the criticisms. Refused even to discuss them. And government spokesmen give every indication that although they will accept changes to the bill, they will not accept any that touch upon basic issues.
The most damning criticism of the proposed act is that "it is, in fact, a criminal code for children, which is distasteful in its terminology, legalistic in its approach, and punitive in its effect". It is a criticism often voiced.
But it is one that is still to be answered. In conclusion, I say that this bill should be withdrawn. I believe that in this House we have able and capable people who have been active in the field of sociology and who are quite capable of advising the government of changes that should be made to this bill. However, it is such a bad bill that it will have to be withdrawn. Let us start again and write a new bill of rights for the children and young people of this country.
2436

January 14, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the adjournment debate I would ask the President of the Privy Council to confirm, for the benefit of all members, the items to be placed before the House tomorrow. Would he also confirm the understanding that we will continue the budget debate on Monday and, hopefully, Tuesday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I confirm the order of legislation which I announced today, with the change that instead of continuing with the bill that has been before the House today, tomorrow we will take the crop insurance legislation and continue the order of business as announced. On Monday we will take the budget, definitely. Perhaps the quality of speeches will be so persuasive on Monday that a debate on Tuesday will only be redundant. We will only know that on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the information that the minister has given us. May I ask him whether the fact that we are not proceeding with the young offenders bill tomorrow means the government is giving consideration to the possibility of withdrawing it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. We want to give consideration to the two days' debate on the bill, but not for the purpose of withdrawing it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question involves comments on a reply received from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) when I asked a question on November 17 regarding provision of rapid facilities on the proposed bridge to serve the Vancouver international airport. All of us are aware of the dangers to humanity of the internal combustion engine, and of the fact that many large urban centres are suffering from emissions from it. In fact, some large cities are slowly strangling to death.
We all know that the oil companies are trying to capitalize on the knowledge of the people and the resultant popular apprehension by a vigorous advertising campaign directed to selling low-lead or no-lead gasolines. Whether these new products are just advertising gimmicks and the people who buy them just willing suckers, or whether they are real scientific advances is not for me to say since I do not have the expertise; but I strongly suspect that the former is true.
The point is that for the past quarter of a century our cities have become slaves to the automobile and we cannot build freeways and bridges fast enough to meet the demand. As our freeways develop and spread into
suburbia, people move farther out into the suburbs, ultimately putting more traffic in the arteries we have developed. The traffic density which grows, prevents the freeways from accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish and they do not provide much in the way of transportation efficiency for very long.
Collaterally, many of our urban cores have become large parking lots. Sometimes these are tax havens. Anyway, our city cores are hollow in the centre and devoid of those characteristics that make up a balanced, viable community. People do not live there anymore; they get out of these areas as fast as possible. The construction of freeways is something like a dog chasing its tail. The construction of freeways and urban core disintegration are coincidental. But, Mr. Speaker, people will not put up with this situation forever. One need only look at Ottawa and its Queensway during rush hours to appreciate what I am saying. The Queensway is packed with automobiles from one end to the other during rush hours, each vehicle usually containing one driver only, grimly attempting to get to work and return home again without developing ulcers because of the tie-up frustrations and without developing lung cancer from exhaust emissions.
Even if we built another Queensway I do not think it would help a great deal. The result would not be less traffic on the present one, but more farmland would be gobbled up, so we would have the same situation of one driver in each car driving more miles every day to get to one more downtown parking lot. We have all heard about the Spadina expressway in Toronto. That story further documents the fact that people are beginning to react and are not just accepting these things. There is no such thing any more as a cowed electorate, and that is a good thing.
Some Members of Parliament, notably the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), have been extremely critical of the chairman of the National Capital Commission, Mr. Douglas Fullerton. In my opinion, his comments on automobiles and expressways and his criticism of the depredations of the automobile, with their resultant social disintegration, are bang on. His speeches on the subject are certainly worth reading. This all started, as I said earlier, on November 17 when I asked the Minister of Transport a question which was supplementary to one asked by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). The minister assured the hon. member that he was indeed very well aware of the need for rapid transit systems in cities. I asked this supplementary question on the subject of rapid transit systems, as reported at page 1235 of Hansard:
In view of the discussions on this question, could the minister advise the House why in his consideration of rapid transit systems to and from airports in major cities there has been no provision for rapid transit facilities in respect of the new bridge to serve Vancouver airport?
The minister replied:
For the simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that a number of authorities on the matter, excluding the authority of (the) hon. gentleman opposite-

January 14, 1971

The minister was referring to me.
-do not believe this is the best way to proceed on this question. That is why a full and detailed study is being undertaken.
It may be undertaken; yet the point is that there is no provision for rapid transit facilities on that bridge. I must have nettled the minister. He is usually quite affable and friendly. I do not know what I did to upset him, but his reaction seems to suggest that he thought I was questioning his experts. I did not suggest his experts were wrong. My purpose in asking the question was merely to ascertain whether, in spite of his fine words, the minister was really sincere about the future of rapid transit in any city. I have decided that he is not.
We are about to spend $21 million of public money on this bridge over the Fraser River, to serve principally the Vancouver international airport on Sea Island. Since this bridge may have a lifetime of 50 years or more, and the recent greater Vancouver transportation study-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mark Willson Rose: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, since a few points of order were raised just before I began, I wonder if I might be allowed the extra time that was taken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has taken into consideration the two minutes taken up that way after ten o'clock. The hon. member began just about two minutes after ten. All I can do now is ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Duquet) to reply.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) has raised the subject of rapid transit systems and their potential as a future form of transportation in Vancouver. I know from listening to the hon. member that he has acquired a more than adequate knowledge of this very complex subject. I join him in expressing concern about the need to provide fast-moving transit systems in our larger cities, including Vancouver. It is something we should be looking at now, and I am pleased to note that in fact close consultation is under way with many major cities.
On the question of a rapid transit system to the Vancouver airport, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), in his answer to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) on December 17, explained why it was not possible to become involved at the present time in the general form of rapid transit which was being proposed for the greater Vancouver area. Within the Ministry of Transport there has been established an urban transportation development division. It is responsible for a program of research and development, and it is in constant communication with interested groups across the country on the complex subject of public transportation.
I wish to assure all members that a great deal of work is being done on this matter, and I am advised that the subject is being studied intensely by all three levels of
23786-13*
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
government. I would be pleased to inform the minister of the several additional points the hon. member raised this evening.



OIL-POSSIBLE REVIEW OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD POLICY

Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, on November 26 last, I asked the following question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since the Caloil Company of Montreal announced it was dropping plans to build a refinery in St. Augustin in the Portneuf riding, because the National Energy Board has refused to allow it to sell imported oil west of the Ottawa Valley, could the minister say whether the policy will be reviewed and amended as required?
Here is what the minister said in reply:
No consideration is being given to changing it because it is felt that it was adopted in the interest of the whole country.
This prompted me to ask the following supplementary question:
Does the minister know that the trade barrier put up by the National Energy Board between Quebec and Ontario is a oneway barrier since Ontario can still sell oil in Quebec?
The minister kept to his seat preferring not to answer any further.
Mr. Speaker, because I had mentioned that I wanted this matter to be discussed, my name was put on the list for Tuesday, December 1st. This list, as everybody knows, becomes official only at 5 p.m. when it is read by you. But hear this: at 4.45 that same day I received a telephone call from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who had been asked to answer for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who was not in attendance. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was merely asking me whether I would not be kind enough to postpone the discussion to a later date because, he said, he did not quite know what to reply.
Mr. Speaker, the reason I feel that the policy of the National Energy Board is in need of revision is that with the population of Quebec I realize the government is trying to direct the refining and petro-chemical industries toward Ontario, which is a sabotage of the development of a peak sector in Quebec.
It is true that the Supreme Court did pronounce a judgment recently but it is also true that the companies involved were represented there by their lawyers, who believed they were right.
In short, even if we recognize the judge's authority to dismiss a case, this does mean that his verdict is always fair.
Allegedly to protect western oil, whose free access to the United States is now announced, very high prices for oil are allowed to be maintained in Ontario, thus increasing profits from these operations and attracting in the province maximum investments in the refining industry.
In order to continue this game, even the smallest quantities of oil must be kept out because, if sold at a lower

January 14, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion price, they would attract public attention and cause the public to make comparisons.
On May 7, 1970, the National Energy Board and the Department of Energy Advisory Council (made up exclusively of major companies' representatives) caused the federal government to adopt rules concerning the transportation to Ontario of oil imported from Quebec. On the following day, the barrier raised between the two areas was closed.
The Caloil Company of Quebec having been prohibited by the National Energy Board from distributing west of the Ottawa Valley the oil that it imports from overseas, this prohibition having been confirmed by the Supreme Court, the company is thus deprived of half of its market and is unable to build a refinery near Quebec City where it owns land valued at $300,000. The land owned by the company, which was incorporated in 1963 pursuant to the Quebec Companies Act, is located at the limits of the municipalities of Saint-Augustin and Neuville. Bordered on the south by the St. Lawrence and on the north by the C.P., this land, across which can be found Hydro-Quebec transmission lines, C.N. tracks and part of Highway No. 2, will also include part of the Northern Highway.
All the company's investigations have confirmed the fact that the site has all the necessary requisites to be an economically valid choice in all respects.
Furthermore, this land is located 13 miles from the Quebec bridge, 60 miles from Trois-Rivieres and 110 miles from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.
The setting up of that refinery in Portneuf was announced in 1966 by the former Quebec premier, Mr. Jean Lesage. The project had been part of the electoral platform of liberal candidate Paul-Emile Duplain in the provincial campaign of June 1966. Then, when the federal elections of June 1968 came up, the candidate Jules Lapierre, a friend of the member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand), also included the project in his program. More recently still, in April 1970, during the last Quebec elections, the project was part of the program of Mr. Andre Sauvageau, liberal candidate for Portneuf.
The regional Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Council of Portneuf have also continuously supported the project. Through the years the company had managed to develop a market for the distribution of imported gasoline and its by-products. That market extended as well in the province of Quebec as throughout Ontario, and annual sales were $35 million, including $18 million in the western part of the Ottawa River.
These last few months, Caloil Company multiplied its representations in an attempt to arrive at a compromise. It suggested for instance that for two years and a half it be granted an imported oil sales quota for Ontario.
Afterwards, it would have sold the neighbour province only oil refined in Quebec. That was refused. It also asked for a quota that would apply only for a few months until it could conclude an agreement with one of the refineries established in Quebec, pending the construction of its own facilities. That was also denied to the company.

This discrimination will have serious consequences for Caloil which, with a daily capacity of 10,000 barrels, could consider building its own refinery. Not only will Caloil be prevented to do so but the president does not dismiss the possibility of layoffs among its 2,000 employees. All that on account of new regulations.
But the most revolting thing is that the trade barrier raised by the Board between Quebec and Ontario is one-sided and the National Energy Board representatives were even overbearing when they stated to the company spokesmen and I quote:
If you wanted to establish a refinery in Ontario, our attitude would be quite different.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I ask whether the Supreme Court is authorized to rule in favour of Ontario and if I am here as a member of the Ontario legislature or the Canadian Parliament.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has attempted to relate the national oil policy to some sort of dispute between Quebec and Ontario, when in fact the national oil policy has been designed and maintained by the present government of Canada and by previous governments of Canada in the interests of Canada as a whole.
Our national oil policy reserves certain Ontario oil markets for products refined from western crude oil. The government has made it clear to all companies planning refinery construction and expansion in eastern Canada that their planning should not be based on completely free access to Ontario markets. This caused neither surprise nor protest; after all, the oil policy is nearly ten years old. And it has not prevented other companies from proceeding with projects that have included a large refinery at Quebec City, built with federal assistance and due to come on stream shortly.
The claim that sales in the central Ontario market are a precondition for Caloil's refinery project is difficult to understand. A refinery at Quebec City today has access to an eastern Canadian market which is bigger and faster growing than that of Ontario. Moreover, there are large imports of petroleum products to this market which new refineries could displace. The government categorically rejects any suggestion that the national oil policy adversely affects Quebec. Rather, Quebec has been a primary beneficiary of this policy. Quebec's free access to imported oil has given it the lowest petroleum product prices in the country. Industrial development, including the petrochemical industry, has been encouraged, and private consumers have paid less for their oil. At the same time, Quebec has benefited from western Canadian purchases of oil industry equipment and from the use of Alberta natural gas.
As to refining, more crude oil is processed in Quebec than in any other province. There are six refineries in Montreal with a capacity of 450,000 barrels a day. Three refineries in Sarnia producing 205,000 barrels a day and four in Toronto producing 162,000 barrels a day rank next. More crude oil is processed in Quebec than in any
January 14, 1971

other province. In 1969, Quebec processed 395,000 barrels a day, compared with 343,000 barrels a day in Ontario and 111,000 barrels a day in Alberta. Out of Quebec
66,000	barrels a day of refined products moved mostly to Ontario, comprising all grades of products to the Ottawa Valley, fuel oils and other products to central Ontario. About 8,000 barrels a day of motor gasoline was shipped into Ontario, contrary to the national oil policy.
Ontario is a large net recipient of products, mostly from Quebec and some from the west. The Atlantic provinces ship to Quebec a net volume of 7,000 barrels a day, while Alberta ships most of its refined products to British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and eastward as far as Ontario.



WHEAT BOARD-PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-STATEMENT IN BUDGET RESPECTING STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House a situation in the rapeseed market which is working to the disadvantage of the producer, and to ask questions of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who has not been prepared to answer them in the House up to this time.
Cn December 7 I asked the minister whether he would accede to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool's policy of bringing this grain under the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. I received, to say the least, an equivocal answer. On December 8 I asked the same minister whether he would investigate the manipulation and rigging of the rapeseed market, and his answer was that he would make inquiries of the Winnipeg grain exchange as to the situation that then existed.
On December 17 I asked the minister if he would report to the House the result of his inquiries, and his answer was that he had nothing to report to the House at that time. Let me report to this House that the market was rigged. I must inform the House that I know of no other product in respect of which there are two futures markets operating in Canada for one product-one futures market at Winnipeg and the other at Thunder Bay.
I should like to report to this House the spreads of the futures, comparing Vancouver with Thunder Bay. I use as my source the Winnipeg Free Press of October 1. The spreads were 1-1/4 cents on October 1, 3/4 of a cent on October 8, 4 cents on October 15, 1-3/8 cents on October 22, 5-1/2 cents on October 29, and then all at once on November 5 there was a 49-cent difference between these two near futures markets. On November 12 it stayed at 41-1/2 cents and finally, on November 19, it stayed at 45-1/4 cents. This spread continued during a time when maximum deliveries from farmers were starting to come from the new crop, and they have narrowed since. In addition to this, one can compare the difference between points in Saskatchewan such as Maidstone and Lloydmin-ster. A farmer will receive 6 to 15 cents more for rape-seed at Lloydminster than a farmer will receive at Maidstone. A similar situation exists at other points which are
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
close together. The price is higher on the Alberta side of the border.
I maintain there is not, and has not been for this period of time, a market which accurately reflects the value of the product. I maintain that the producer has been paid one price in western Canada on the local market, and the purchaser who wished to purchase rape-seed for future delivery at the west coast has been held up as to price. This took place at a time when there were 2 million bushels in storage on the west coast and 2 million bushels in storage at Thunder Bay.
I maintain that these two futures prices, if they were working properly, would reflect only the additional cost of keeping rapeseed in storage at the port of Thunder Bay over the winter season. The spread of 45-1/2 cents does not reflect this cost of storage but reflects, rather, the ability of certain interests in the trade to manipulate the price to their own advantage. Under these circumstances, the minister should report to this House the result of his conversations with the grain exchange in Winnipeg. If he is going to involve himself at all, he should take action to correct this situation. After all, the minister involved himself by going to Thunder Bay and officiating at the opening of the second futures market there.
I do not know how two future markets can operate for a single product in western Canada. I think the producer has suffered as a result of the two futures markets and the manipulation which has occurred. The plea of those who handled rapeseed a year ago was that there was not enough at Vancouver to meet the market. This year, I submit, there was enough of this product to meet the market and while that product was there those who controlled it used their control to their own personal advantage and to the disadvantage of both the producer and the purchaser who wanted to come into Vancouver and purchase rapeseed for future delivery.
I believe it is about time the minister responsible, if he wants to call himself responsible, replied to this House. If he wishes to divest himself of responsibility, he can do so. It is an open-market operation. However, in his answer to me he did not divest himself of responsibility; he said he would investigate the circumstances that existed. I think at this time it is up to the minister to report to this House, not only what he found but also the steps he is prepared to take to correct the situation which I have documented and which existed. I would tell the minister I have spoken to people I know in the grain exchange who are knowledgeable about this situation, and they tell me the situation should not occur.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, close to a year ago a committee was set up primarily to look into the situation in respect of rapeseed in Canada and to report on a number of matters to which the hon. member referred. I shall not go into all the items they recommended, but I would point out to the hon. member in particular that this committee, composed of two well known producers of rapeseed in the Prairies and a distinguished member of the rapeseed association, recommended that a second futures market

January 14, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
be opened. Subsequently this was done. I was happy to be present in Winnipeg at the opening of the Thunder Bay futures market. This will allow the permanent extension of prices for rapeseed which is properly moved out of the east into European and eastern Canadian markets, which we hope to see increasing very much in the future.
I would point out to the hon. member that the existence of the two futures markets can occur because, as he will have noticed, the futures used in the two places involve different months in order to avoid any particular problems. A long time ago I was also concerned about the matter of inverted prices and the spread of price between street and nearby futures. This is one of the matters I asked the rapeseed committee to look into. They made suggestions and some of these were acted upon. Following that it continued to be a matter of concern to me that these situations existed. As well, in October I followed the suggestion of the rapeseed committee to invite the grain exchange to examine these practices.
I would point out to the hon. member that prices in this country are set as a result of discussions between elevator companies involved, particularly the pools, as well as other companies. The grain exchange's reply to
my inquiry, after a very thorough investigation, was mailed in a letter to me dated January 8 which came to my hand today. I did have in mind making this reply available to hon. members and I shall take an early opportunity to do so. It suggests a number of things which may allow the removal of the inverted price situation, and several other things which they believe may deal with the spread between the country price and nearby futures.
This spread, of course, is essentially the result of a squeeze on the rapeseed available for immediate delivery in Vancouver, and one recommendation from the grain exchange, made also to the Wheat Board, was that there be no idea at all of a fixed limit on rapeseed in Vancouver. This has already been acted upon by the Wheat Board, and much larger supplies are present there. After seeing the reply from the grain exchange, I am still concerned about the availability of clean rapeseed, in the hands of a variety of people, readily available for shipment to Vancouver and I will be looking into that matter in the future.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Friday, January 15, 1971