1971-03-22

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
THIRD SESSION-TWENTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT 20 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
24081-1J
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 22, 1971


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As a result of the opposition motion I presented last week on behalf of my party, the Canadian Press, unintentionally, I am sure, published what I feel certain is an inaccurate and unfair report, and I quote:
The solution favoured by the Ralliement Cr6ditiste, on the contrary, would be abolishment of the Bank of Canada and granting to each citizen a national dividend proportionate to his needs.
I suggest what should have been reported is that the Creditistes, on the contrary, propose "using" the Bank of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member. At any rate, I take it for granted that he has stated his case with regard to the account given of a speech he made in the House last week. I wish to point out to the hon. member that the Chair has not received the notice required under our Standing Orders and, in the circumstances, the matter cannot be discussed further.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF 1971 EASTER SEAL &quot;TIMMY''

Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out the presence in the Gallery of Denis Lapalme, from my riding, who is Canada's 1971 "Timmy".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the doubt created by the annual report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, which suggests that full employment should not be sought because slack in the economy is necessary to keep inflationary pressures in check, and in view of the need for a clear commitment to a full employment policy by this House, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House affirms that full employment remains a priority economic goal for this country and that employment for all who are willing and able to work is a social right.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The motion, to be moved under Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous agreement. The motion cannot be put.



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

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I do so on account of the outrageous and inflammatory statement made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky, during last weekend, to wit that unemployment is a necessary evil to avoid price increases. This statement suggests that nothing will be done to find jobs for the unemployed and other persons seeking work. It is urgent to know what the government intends to do in that connection.
This is why I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault):
That the question of unemployment in Canada be submitted to the consideration of the proper committee and that the salary of the Governor of the Bank of Canada be reduced to the average income level of the unemployed and this until normal employment conditions are restored in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Abitibi. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent, so the motion cannot be put.

March 22, 1971

Recruitment of Francophones PUBLIC SERVICE



STATEMENT ON PROGRAM FOR HIRING FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES

["Mr. Speaker, the minister's return and the report he has just made, indicate that I had no reason to be concerned. Indeed, I was afraid the minister would venture much too far in the jungle and cause a revival of ancient and long-gone cannibalistic traditions.\nFrom what I can gather from his report, the minister merely visited the better developed African areas, met the authorities of those five countries that had made their requirements known and that thanked him for Canada's aid which is relatively recent at least with respect to the Francophone countries where it has been in existence only for the past few years.\nMr. Speaker, we followed the trip of the minister to that part of the world and we, of the Ralliement Credi-tiste, believe that Canada should not neglect any country in its international relations.\nHowever, we wish the minister and the government would have the same consideration for Canadian areas that are also underdeveloped and as such live now in poverty and misery.\nWe are aware that Canada is helping various countries, not to extend its rule over them as some others would, but for commendable motives, that is to promote among countries of those areas the peace we would like to see in other parts of the world such as Asia.\nMr. Speaker, we would like also to see peace assured in underdeveloped areas of Canada where there are today ferments of revolution caused by undeserved misery, in the midst of abundance. While maintaining our assistance to those countries as much as we can, I believe the government should pay more attention to our own undeveloped areas."]
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on January 26 of this year I gave assurance to the House that the hiring of Francophone university students would not be charged to contingency vote 5 of the Treasury Board without first advising the House.
I am pleased to advise the House that the government, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, has authorized the expansion of certain departmental programs and projects involving positions where French is the language of work. The total personnel costs of these programs will be approximately $2 million and the number of personnel involved will be 276.
I outlined in my statement to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee on March 9 the government's policy of making the Public Service progressively more representative of the two major linguistic communities of Canada. "In accordance with this policy, it is a basic goal of the government to assure equality of opportunity in the Public Service to both French-speaking and Englishspeaking Canadians."
I went on to say that this would be achieved through the progressive identification of positions as requiring a proficiency in both languages or a proficiency in French or in English, through increasing and improving the language training facilities for both Anglophones and Francophones, and through "the accelerated recruitment of Francophones to the Public Service and development of those already in it."
I noted that, to achieve these goals, departments would have to adopt carefully elaborated manpower development plans.
This program represents a step in the direction of achieving the objective of a more representative Public Service. Specifically, the government proposes to allocate $2 million among ten departments which have submitted proposals for extending certain programs which, at one and the same time, would contribute to the realization of program objectives and would involve positions in areas of the Public Service where French is normally used. The experimental French language units to which I made reference in my statement on March 9 will not be involved since none has yet been established. Of the 276 positions, 128 will be administrative trainees, and the balance will be junior positions in the social science, biophysical sciences and applied science fields.
It is proposed that the program extensions involved, and specifically, the increase in the numbers of positions in the Public Service, be financed out of the contingency fund.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the President of the Treasury Board for providing me with a copy of his statement in advance.
I accept, of course, the principle of equality of French and English in the Public Service and the importance of the Public Service representing the reality of the country.
I have said before and I say now that this or any government must be careful in attaining that representation that it does so in such a way that there will be no sense of injustice on the part of any group within the Public Service.
The confusion and secrecy that surrounded this particular program when it first became known was a perfect example of how not to proceed in matters concerning bilingualism in the Public Service. The present statement by the minister is at least an improvement in that regard in that it is frank and open except that, with regard to the number of persons and the cost of their employment the minister's statement is still vague.
I think that the people of Canada, and the Francophone graduates involved will want assurances that this program does not involve make-work projects. As the minister pointed out, it does not involve any experimental unilingual units because he says that none of these has yet been established. However, it does involve the expansion of existing programs and projects which involve positions where French is the language of work. In other words, the inference will be drawn that there may be other projects equally as meritorious as those that are being expanded but that these have been chosen because French is the language of work in these projects. Language of work will appear to many Canadians to be a rather new and curious principle upon which the Treasury Board recommends the establishment of particular projects.
I must tell the minister that the timing of the program is, in economic terms, unfortunate. In addition to the mass unemployment that prevails across Canada, it is public knowledge that it has been the policy of the government over the past year or more to cut back on the numbers of federal public servants. To what extent has this policy been changed and what is the policy now? In other words, if this is a program purely and simply to hire French-speaking Canadians without reference or relation to the government program in general, then I suggest it will not be acceptable to Canadians and it will not be acceptable to French-speaking Canadians.
The question we must ask ourselves is whether such a program really serves either Canadian unity or the legitimate Francophone presence in the federal Public Service. We must recognize the fact that there will be suspicion among non-Francophone Canadians. In the interests of harmony I think the government must allay that suspicion. That is why I suggest to the minister and to the government that it as quickly as possible present all available details of the programs involved.
I note that the minister says that in the ten departments concerned new employees and additional work on already existing programs will be involved and that their work will more effectively contribute to the goals that these programs are designed to achieve. That may be a

March 22, 1971

welcome assurance but I hope the minister will be able to tell us in the near future what departments are involved in the interest of national unity and in the genuine interests of the extension of Francophone participation in the Public Service.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think no one will quarrel with the minister's statement that it is desirable to make the Public Service progressively more representative of the two major linguistic communities of Canada. Nor can anyone quarrel with the statement that the government wants to assure equality of opportunity in the Public Service. Nevertheless, neither the statement the minister made today nor the statements he has made previously have cleared up a number of very important questions. On January 25 the minister's office issued a press release, a copy of which I have in my hand. It begins by saying:
Treasury Board President, Honourable C. M. Drury, stated that recent press stories purporting to reveal a secret government fund of $2 million for special hiring of Francophones for the Public Service have been seriously misleading.
The statement goes on to say:
It is understood the government expects to recruit some 1,250 post-secondary graduates during 1971 and these Francophone positions would be part of that total if the departmental proposals were approved.
"So far as the $2 million is concerned", the Minister said, "this has not been allocated to any specific program ..."
The question which arises in my mind is, if the government has in mind hiring 1,250 post-graduate students in 1971, why would Francophone graduates be treated any differently from the others? It seems to me that there should be no difficulty in the government advertising for 1,250 positions and stipulating that 276, or whatever number the government feels is a fair percentage of the applicants, must be Francophones, and that the other merit qualifications will apply to all positions, whether the persons concerned are Anglophones or Francophones. Why is it not possible to deal with all graduates on the same basis while at the same time specifying those who must have French as their mother tongue. I find it very difficult to understand this difference in treatment and I think the public will find it very difficult to understand.
We are not opposed to having a fair percentage of Francophones in the Public Service. What we are anxious about is to guarantee that the merit system will continue to apply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has not dealt with that point at all. Will the only qualifying criterion for these 276 be that French is their mother tongue?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If they are appointed to positions when they apply for these jobs, will they be required to go through the Public Service in the usual way if these jobs become vacant? In other words, I think the House and the country want an assurance from the minister that the merit principles laid down in the Public Service Act are
Recruitment of Francophones not being bypassed in some way. When the government picks out 276 and provides for them under the contingency vote, while the balance of the 1,250 university graduates are to be hired through departments, naturally, there is some concern whether or not the merit principle is being preserved. I hope the minister will seek the earliest occasion possible to make a statement telling us how the merit principle is going to be preserved.
From what I can gather from press reports, another reason for misunderstanding is the fact that the Public Service Alliance have not been consulted about this matter. If they have been consulted more recently, I hope the minister will inform us. Those who are concerned about the security of the positions of those who are in the Public Service, those who are concerned about maintaining the merit system, ought to be allowed to discuss this matter with the government so they can be assured that what the government is doing is simply guaranteeing that there will be a reasonable percentage of Frenchspeaking persons in the Public Service and that in so doing the government is not in any way abusing or bypassing the merit system which all of us want to see preserved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the partial achievement of the basic goal to assure equality of opportunity in the public service for both French and English speaking Canadians would make us feel very elated if in so doing, we could at least achieve the true equality that all Quebecers long for.
Mr. Speaker, the remarks that we have just heard from the leaders of the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Parties leave us wondering as to the possibilities of reaching, in a near future, this equality hoped for by all French Canadians. We are so far from this hoped for equality that this timid effort looks like a revolution to some of our colleagues, while to us, from Quebec, this is but a first step toward the establishment of a beginning of justice.
Mr. Speaker, I do say, a first step and a very timid one, particularly when we read the minister's statement that the $2 million earmarked for the purpose will be distributed to only ten departments. Does this mean that the French Canadians have no interest whatsoever in the other departments which have submitted projects to extend certain programs and that those who have not submitted a project are not serving French Canadians? I would be inclined to think about that. Now we can see how very timid and weak this step is.
How can anyone take exception, how can the majority of this country, which should represent the opposition, talk about being unfair towards Anglophones?
A little further, it is said:
-would contribute to the realization of programme objectives and will involve positions in areas of the Public Service where French is normally used.
In other words, wherever there are crying injustices, wherever French is not used, nothing will be improved

March 22, 1971
Minister's Report on Visit to Africa
since it is said that improvements will be made where French is normally used.
Mr. Speaker, all this goes to prove that this is a very timid step. This is a beginning, a very slow evolution, and in fact the core of the problem does not really involve linguistics but an active participation of Frenchspeaking Canadians not only in legislative debates, but also in drafting these pieces of legislation and administrating this country that one would wish bilingual and bicultural.
The time has now come to stop procrastinating on this matter and start acting. Action will have to be stepped up considerably if these objectives are to be realized before Quebecers decide to do so themselves without the help of the nine other provinces.



Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House briefly on my recent African trip, in the course of which I visited the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania and Zambia.
This was the first series of visits by a Canadian foreign minister to Africa south of the Sahara. It enabled me to learn something, but all too little, of the countries visited. It gave me an opportunity to emphasize to the various governments the depth and continuing quality of the Canadian commitment to Africa, of which I saw convincing evidence through my meetings with more than 1,000 Canadians actively engaged in co-operative development projects-missionaries, CIDA people, CUSO volunteers and, of course, the personnel of our diplomatic missions. I also arranged for our ambassadors and high commissioners in the countries I could not visit to join us at various places in Africa in order that I might profit from their advice.
Development assistance is and will remain the largest element in our activities in Africa. This is at once a measure of the need of the developing countries there and of the opportunity Canada has to contribute its resources, human and material, operating equally in English and in French. In certain of the countries visited, I was able to give formal effect to aid arrangements worked out over the last year or so, some of which will have an immediate beneficial impact on our domestic economy.
I also visited the headquarters of the East African Community, which is a form of common market composed of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. I learned at first hand of development plans from the African leaders, and saw how Canadian assistance programs fit into these plans and the part they may be expected to play in the future. In all five countries, I was assured that Canadian involvement in black Africa is welcome and expansion of our present efforts is sought. African leaders in the countries I visited told me that the Canadians there were doing an excellent job and that the countries concerned could not get enough Canadian manpower. In Tanzania, for example, President Nyerere indicated that he would be delighted to receive thousands of Canadians, compared to the few hundreds there now. The Canadians I saw confirmed, for their part, the need for continued Canadian presence in Africa. It became clearer to me from day to day that our involvement has raised the expectations of our African friends and that we must continue and strengthen our partnership with them in the development of their countries.
During my two weeks in Africa I found the governments preoccupied with the intractable problems of Southern Africa. These issues have been fully explored in Commonwealth conferences, most recently at Singapore in January. I urged upon the African governments our view that the Commonwealth is an essential forum for discussing the difficult matter of racial discrimination and its repercussions.
In all five countries, Canada's stand on Southern African issues was well understood and accepted. African leaders I met expressed their satisfaction with Canada's position on these problems as expressed by our public statements and our voting record at the United Nations.
In my discussions with African leaders, I emphasized the need for a peaceful solution to the problems of Southern Africa. Large-scale hostilities in Africa could only bring about the ruin of the economy of the black nations and destroy any hope for the betterment of the life of their peoples. Such hostilities would inevitably involve outside powers and threaten a new conflict equal in magnitude to the tragedy of the Middle East or Viet Nam.
I think we should realize and accept that our capacity to influence the white racist minorities in Southern Africa is limited and can best be exercised multilaterally through the United Nations and the Commonwealth. What we can do ourselves is to offer economic and political support for the developing countries of black Africa. In this way, we can make a positive contribution to the solution of the deep-seated problems of Africa, and it is here that our energies should be focused. This is bound to be more rewarding for Africans and Canadians alike than wasting our energies in empty gestures designed to tell the world of our moral rectitude on racial questions.

I discussed the question of La Francophonie with members of the governments in the Congo and the Ivory Coast, and explained Canada's position concerning this group of countries which are united by the French language and culture.
I assured them that Canada was completely committed to co-operation with French-speaking countries in general and particularly to the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation of which we are full members. I took this occasion to express our hope that the African countries would be participating equally fully in this organization to promote understanding and mutual assistance. In my opinion such full participation will permit more

March 22, 1971

rapid and complete development of all the people concerned.
I also remarked that although our assistance to Frenchspeaking African countries had begun slowly and modestly, it was our intention, now that it has reached the same level as our assistance to the Commonwealth African countries, to continue it not only for the benefit of the receiving countries but also to reaffirm Canada's bicultural character.

My tour of Africa, while all too brief, left me with a number of warm and deep impressions.
First, Canada is highly regarded and its name stands very high in Africa. Africans have given us their confidence, and it is this trust which creates an obligation on our part to share with them some of our resources by participating as partners in their programs for economic and social development. This can be achieved by offering to Africa the best in Canada from those fields where Canadians have achieved excellence and special expertise.
Such a joint venture will benefit not only Africans but Canadians. The Canadians serving in various capacities over the continent, old or young, missionaries or volunteers, CIDA personnel or businessmen, are engaged in useful, constructive and essential projects. On their return to Canada, what they have learned about the common human condition will stand them in good stead and will help us all to a better understanding of the world we live in. If one is seeking economic justification for external aid, as development proceeds, African countries will become markets for Canadian products, particularly capital goods, and mutually beneficial trade should increase. Already, in some of the larger countries like Nigeria and the Congo interesting commercial aspects are arising.
Our co-operation with and assistance to Africa can become among the best and most realistic expressions of our national character. Canada and Africa have been enriched by two great European cultures and languages; both Canada and the African countries I visited are engaged in the strengthening of their national unity and sovereignty; like the countries of Africa, Canada is still in the course of development, and, along with our African friends, Canadians abhor the immoral and inhuman policies implemented by the white minority regimes of Southern Africa.
I return from my tour with the conviction that we must continue and increase over time our contribution to the economic development programs of our African friends. Our co-operation with Anglophone and Francophone countries of Africa reflects our own national personality. Our participation in the harmonious economic development of African countries constitutes, I believe, the best way of promoting peace through social justice and the most effective response to the challenge of racial inequality in Southern Africa.
On my way through London to Africa, I met with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Arnold Smith, and on my return journey I gave him some of my
Minister's Report on Visit to Africa
impressions which I thought might interest him in his official capacity.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I must begin, as I am happy to begin, by welcoming the minister back. We followed with interest his pilgrimage across Africa. We noted his activities. He was at a zoo. I hope he got along there as well as his chief did in another place.
I want to assure the hon. gentleman that while he was away the Acting Secretary of State, the President of the Treasury Board, did not let him down at all by giving away any information on any question he was asked.
The statement the minister has just made is not an earthshaking statement. It is, rather, one of those comforting and comfortable documents to which I find it impossible, even if it were my wont, to take violent exception. Perhaps it was somewhat less interesting than the very good press reports we read of his journey. He started in the Ivory Coast where he was reported so favourably impressed with the views of the president of that country. I was wondering whether he embraced the views of that gentleman on the Middle East war and its correlation with the South Africa situation.
Then there seemed to be a change as he continued his journey and moved toward a position that has become so common in the Canadian voting pattern in the United Nations, something of an abstention. The minister also abstained on a very important matter about which I hoped he would make an announcement during his tour, namely, the opening of a diplomatic mission in Zambia, a country that is so vitally concerned in the grave problems and terrible assaults on human dignity now troubling southern Africa. I would say to the minister that I am convinced that the opening of a mission in that country would have been more valuable and vital than any of the gifts that he dispensed or announced. I hope that some day he will be able to convince the President of the Treasury Board that we should open a mission in Zambia as well as one in Algeria. Or is it the case that austerity can be broken for Algeria but not for Zambia?
I was impressed with the minister's statement in reference to moral rectitude and agree with what he said. The minister spoke of abandoning the practice of wasting our energies in empty gestures designed to tell the world of our moral rectitude on racial questions. I am profoundly in agreement with this. For so long have we practised this. There was a time when Canada was regarded as a sort of omnipresent saviour of the world everywhere we were expected to go. Now I fear there is a tendency to become the cloistered saint, but we do not give up our preachments because we sometimes avoid our commitments. It will be a mark of maturity if we drop our pious preaching of pusillanimous platitudes and move on to accept those commitments that we can meet and are prepared to meet. I salute the minister for his statement and I admire his precepts, but he might well become his own first convert to that very fine exhortation.
4456

March 22, 1971
Minister's Report on Visit to Africa
I was impressed too with the non-reference to the freeing of the inhibitions on our aid. When the minister was in Africa I read that he said to the President of the Ivory Coast, I believe it was, that Canada would adopt a more flexible attitude on the question of tied aid. However, I saw nothing in his announcement and heard nothing in the television programs over the weekend to indicate this.
I agree wholeheartedly with what the minister said in his statement-indeed, he made this point twice-about the Canadian volunteers, the CIDA-CUSO people. He did not mention the CESO people who are sometimes called the "paunch corps", which of course is most unkind! These are the people who, in my opinion, are the real ambassadors of this country, and I am so glad that the minister reported on their behalf. Many of these people, young and old, before they go out to foreign fields are briefed by the minister's department, I believe quite well, but I have never heard of any of them being debriefed when they come back. When we send hundreds of young people to various parts of the world, are they not a magnificent store of information, a group of sensitive and informed people? I believe that the minister's department should make contact with them and thereby broaden their knowledge and Canada's capacity for doing good work. That is a suggestion I would make.
There may be, indeed there are, many questions which should be gone into, this having been a very important tour on the part of the minister. Therefore I hope he will be with us in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that we may have time to discuss these questions. We have had too many months elapse without an external affairs debate in the House, and I might say I am very upset about that. Perhaps at least in committee we can look more fully into the visit to this great continent, a continent that has been silent for so long and which only in our own time has moved into the international scene. It is a vital part of the world, one massive in its geography, immense in its problems and magnificent in its possibilities. Let me assure the minister that I, and I am sure I speak for my colleagues, agree with him that we must continue our partnership with the people of this great continent from which he has just returned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to welcome the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) back to the House from his trip to Africa. We are very pleased that he is the first Canadian minister of external affairs to visit Africa. We think his visit coincides with a growing interest in Canada in the problems of Africa. I am certain that the minister's visit to that continent will enable the Canadian government to formulate policies which will be of benefit to the continent of Africa.
We support the minister in his statement that we must both continue and increase our contributions to the economic development programs of our African friends. We also agree with his statement that we in Canada look with abhorrence upon the inhuman policies of the white minority governments in Africa.
While the minister has made these statements, with which we all concur, there are a number of things that happened during his trip about which I hope the minister will make a statement; they are not included in the statement he made today. I might make reference to the plea of Mr. Kaunda of Zambia that a Canadian mission be opened in Lusaka. I know that the minister could not make a statement to that effect while he was in Africa without the concurrence of the cabinet. I think we will all await with great interest the result of the minister's consultation with his colleagues, which I hope will be a decision to have a Canadian High Commission in Zambia.
I would also have welcomed a statement from the minister on Mr. Kaunda'^ plea in regard to the Canadian government trying to persuade the Aluminum Company of Canada to stop supplying material for the Cabora Bassa dam in Mozambique. One Swedish firm has already withdrawn because it had some reason to believe that this aluminum would be processed in Rhodesia and consequently might violate Sweden's commitment to observe the economic boycott of that country. I hope the minister will look into this matter and, if he finds that this aluminum is going to be processed in Salisbury, Rhodesia, that Canada will not allow the Aluminum Company of Canada, or any other company, by subterfuge make Canada violate its commitments regarding the boycott of Rhodesia.
One of the matters that disturbed some of us who followed the reports of the minister's visit was the somewhat equivocal stand that he took with respect to the white minority governments in Africa. It is true that he spoke out with plenty of rectitude about the inhuman policies that they are pursuing, but I noticed that after agreeing with the president of the Ivory Coast he ran into some difficulty when he was in Nigeria. The press reports General Yakubu Gowon as saying:
Gowon gave Sharp a hard line on southern Africa yesterday, rejecting the "dialogue" approach to solving the racial issue.
In an interview shortly after an hour long meeting with Sharp, Gowon said the white minority government of South Africa wants to "lure" top black African leaders into a dialogue over the racial question.
South Africa would treat these leaders well and offer them "chicken-feed economic aid," he said. But having pacified its neighbours, South Africa would then do nothing about the plight of its own black subjects.
"To me, that thinking stinks," Gowon said.
I hope we will not be equivocal in our stand with respect to the white minority governments in southern Africa but will make it abundantly clear, not only by the platitudes uttered by the minister but by our actions, that we stand with the black people of Africa who are seeking to obtain democratic rights for their people without relation to race, colour or creed.
The only other thing I should like to say is that I notice the minister said that Canada stands ready to help fly maize into Zambia if the white minority governments in Africa continue to block imports of that country's staple food. This, of course, would require a very heavy expen-
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
March 22, 1971

diture by the Canadian government, but it would be the kind of gesture the people of black Africa would understand. I hope we will have a statement from the minister fairly soon as to just how he is prepared to carry through that offer and whether the Canadian government is prepared to fly food into Zambia if as at present that country is thwarted in its efforts to feed its own people because of the actions of the white minority governments in southern Africa.
We welcome the minister's statement. We approve of the ideas he has put forward with regard to aid to Africa and his abhorrence of the policies pursued by the white minority governments in Africa. All we ask now is that the minister put these fine statements and this excellent rhetoric into practice by some hard government policies.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the minister's return and the report he has just made, indicate that I had no reason to be concerned. Indeed, I was afraid the minister would venture much too far in the jungle and cause a revival of ancient and long-gone cannibalistic traditions.
From what I can gather from his report, the minister merely visited the better developed African areas, met the authorities of those five countries that had made their requirements known and that thanked him for Canada's aid which is relatively recent at least with respect to the Francophone countries where it has been in existence only for the past few years.
Mr. Speaker, we followed the trip of the minister to that part of the world and we, of the Ralliement Credi-tiste, believe that Canada should not neglect any country in its international relations.
However, we wish the minister and the government would have the same consideration for Canadian areas that are also underdeveloped and as such live now in poverty and misery.
We are aware that Canada is helping various countries, not to extend its rule over them as some others would, but for commendable motives, that is to promote among countries of those areas the peace we would like to see in other parts of the world such as Asia.
Mr. Speaker, we would like also to see peace assured in underdeveloped areas of Canada where there are today ferments of revolution caused by undeserved misery, in the midst of abundance. While maintaining our assistance to those countries as much as we can, I believe the government should pay more attention to our own undeveloped areas.



CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES ACT


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-232, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Questions



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT. 1952 AMENDMENT TO INCREASE TABLE AND CEILING OF ALLOWANCES

Jean-Eudes Dubé: for leave to introduce Bill C-233, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.



PENSION ACT


Jean-Eudes Dubé: for leave to introduce Bill C-234, to amend the Pension Act. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Coates: What action was taken by the Prime Minister with regard to the letter he received from Lucien Saulnier, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the City of Montreal, on March 17, 1969, with regard to activities of the Company of Young Canadians and what Ministers of the government were given responsibility by the Prime Minister as a result of this letter and were reports made available to the Prime Minister on the actions that were taken in relation to this letter?


Mr. Barnetl J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: This question seeks information with respect to the assignment in a specific instance of responsibility within the Cabinet, and of the manner in which that particular responsibility was discharged. It has long been recognized that the arrangements made by the Cabinet for the discharge of business for which it is collectively responsible are not customarily disclosed.


ACTION TAKEN BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY MONTREAL
Mr. Coales: What Ministers of the federal government were specifically designated by the Prime Minister to take action on the evidence presented to the government by officers of the City of Montreal on October 29, 1969, and were reports prepared and presented to the Prime Minister on the basis of this evidence and, if so, what action was taken as a result of these reports?


Barnett Jerome Danson: This question seeks information with respect to the assignment in a specific instance of responsibility within the Cabinet, and of the manner in
24081-2J

March 22, 1971
Questions
which that particular responsibility was discharged. It has long been recognized that the arrangements made by the Cabinet for the discharge of business for which it is collectively responsible are not customarily disclosed.


TOBACCO-RESEARCH OF HARMFUL EFFECTS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of requiring the tobacco industry to pay 1% of gross earnings into research of the harmful effects of tobacco?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The government's policy on tobacco will be announced in due course. This suggestion, along with all others, will be taken into consideration.


CANADA'S GRAIN MARKETING SYSTEM
Mr. Soulham: 1.	(a) On what date was the special market review committee appointed by the Canadian Wheat Board to look into Canada's grain marketing system and Wheat Board operations set up (b) what were the names of these members, their qualifications and addresses (c) who was the chairman of this committee (d) what was the salary in each case?
2.	(a) Did this ''review committee" travel to other countries and, if so, to which ones (b) what was the total cost of this exercise to date (c) who pays the cost of this undertaking?
3.	(a) Has the committee's report been released to the Wheat Board as yet (b) will it be released to the general public and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a) July 6th, 1970. (b) Dr. M. W. Menzies, President, M. W. Menzie Group Limited, Winnipeg. Dr. John Schnittker, Professor of Economics, Kansas State University, and formerly Undersecretary of Agriculture in the United States Government. A. P. Van Stolk, President, Van Stolk's Koninklijke Commissiehan-del, Rotterdam, and a grain market advisor to the European Economic Community. Vernon Lester, President of
Powell-Lester, a Vancouver based grain exporting firm. A. T. Baker, former general-manager of the Alberta Wheat Pool, one of Canada's major grain handling companies. Dr. J. L. Leibfried, Executive Assistant to The Canadian Wheat Board, (c) Dr. M. W. Menzies. (d) Chairman, $200 per diem. Others $175 per diem except Dr. J. Leibfried an employee of The Canadian Wheat Board.
2.	(a) Belgium, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States, (b) $108,158.55. (c) The Canadian Wheat Board.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes. When additional copies have been printed and the translation completed.


RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS
Mr. Reid: 1.	Are radioactivity levels checked monthly and, if so, what were the levels in October, November, December, 1970, and January, 1971 at (a) Thunder Bay (b) Atikokan (c) Fort Frances (d) Rainy River (all in Ontario) and (e) Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	Were the levels checked following a leak from an underground atomic explosion in Nevada in December, 1970 and, if so, what were the levels?


John Carr Munro: 1. Radioactivity levels are checked weekly in air, monthly in precipitation, and monthly in milk for Thunder Bay, Ontario and Winnipeg, Manitoba. Levels are not measured at Atikokan, Fort Frances or Rainy River. The results for October, November, December 1970, and January 1971, are given in the attached table.
2.	The radioactivity levels in air were checked daily during the period December 24-31, 1970. The results for these days are given in the following table along with weekly value for the weeks before and after the period of increased surveillance. Small increases in air radioactivity from a normal background level of 0.1-0.3 picocuries per cubic meter to 0.5-0.7 picocuries per cubic meter were noted at Toronto and Windsor on December 25 and 26, 1970.
Radioactivity Levels at Winnipeg and Thunder Bay
Medium and Location	October 1970	November 1970	December 1970	January 1971Total beta activity in air, Thunder Bay (Picocuries per cubic meter)	. ... 0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1Total beta activity in air, Winnipeg (pCi/m3)	.... 0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1Total beta activity in precipitation, Thunder Bay (Millicuries per square kilometer)	.... 6.1	2.1	0.8	2.1Total beta activity in precipitation, Winnipeg (mCi/km2)	.... 1.5	1.7	0.4	0.33Cesium-137 in milk, Thunder Bay (picocuries per litre)	.... 27	29	22	28Cesium-137 in milk, Winnipeg (pCi/1)	.... 26	23	21	21

March 22, 1971

Questions
Radioactivity Levels in Air December 10, 1970 to January 21, 1971
Sampling Period December 10-December 17, 1970	 December 17-December 24		Winnipeg	Thunder Bay 0.1
December 24-December 25			
December 25-December 26			
December 26-December 27			
December 27-December 28			
December 28-December 29			
December 29-December 30			
December 30-December 31			
December 31-January 7, 1971			
January 7-January 14			
January 14-January 21			0.1


INFORMATION CANADA PERSONNEL
Mr. Coates: With respect to the answer to Question Number 685 at page 2933 of Hansard, February 1, 1971, are there persons in the employ of Information Canada who are not salaried employees but have a contractual arrangement with Information Canada and, if so (a) what are the names of these individuals in each specific
case (b) what are their responsibilities (c) in each case, what are the contractual terms for services rendered?


Hon. Robert Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: As
of March 1, 1971, there are 17 persons in the employ of Information Canada who are not salaried employees but have a contractual arrangement with Information Canada. The names, responsibilities and contractual terms of services rendered in each are as follows:
(a) Name
(b) Fee
Period
(c) Responsibilities
Biolley, Mrs. K. L.. Boileau, Mr. Gerard Brown, Mr. Jerry...
Callahan, Mrs. C___
Delanoe, Mr. G	
Dennis, Mr. E	
Downes, Mrs. M. L.. Ford, Mr. T	
$25 per day	
$1,200 per mo	
$4.89 per hr	
$5.47 per hr	
$2,333.33 plus $10 per diem living expenses $2,666.66
$40 per day $5,000	
$5,000	
Feb. 1/71-Mar. 26/71 Feb. 22/71-Mar. 31/71 Feb. 15/71-Mar. 31/71 Feb. 22/71-Mar. 31/71 Feb. 1/71-Mar. 31/71
Feb. 1/71-Mar. 31/71 Mar. 1/71-Mar. 19/71 Jan. 1/71-Mar. 31/71
Forget, Mr. G	
Fortin, Mr. Paul... Gaudreault, Mr. A. Gionet, Mr. N	
Hanington, Mrs. M, Houzer, Mrs. E....
$175 per day for maximum of 15 days
$25 per day	
$1,500 per mo	
$3 per hr. to maximum of 18 hrs. per week
$40 per day	
$75 per day	
Feb. 3/71-Mar. 31/71
Feb. 16/71-Mar. 17/71 Jan. 11/71-Apr. 11/71 Jan. 25/71-Mar. 31/71
Mar. 1/71-Mar. 19/71 Jan. 25/71-Mar. 31/71
Hughes, Mr. G	 $7.35 per hr...
Kelly, Mr. R. A. D	 $1,200 per mo.
Senecal, Mrs. A	 $1,500 per mo.
Feb. 8/71-Mar. 31/71 Feb. 8/71-Mar. 31/71 Jan. 25/71-Mar. 31/71
Project Researcher and Writer
Project Coordinator and Pavillion Manager
Exhibit Designer
Exhibit Designer
Information Consultant
Communications Researcher Researcher and Writer
Special Planning Adviser (Projects and Priorities)
Information Services Consultant
Project Administrator
Information Researcher and Consultant
Enquiry Assistant
Researcher and Writer
Coordinator and Producer of Research and Writing
Exhibit Designer
Project Administrator and Coordinator Recruiting Assistant

March 22, 1971
Questions


CMHC-LOANS METROPOLITAN TORONTO IN EXCESS OF $100,000, 1968, 1969 AND 1970
[Stage Direction]
the Metropolitan Toronto area of over $100,000 each and what is the name and address of the recipient?
Mr. Robinson: How many CMHC loans were made in 1968, 1969 and 1970 in Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):
CMHC Loans of $100,000 and over approved under the National Housing Act Metropolitan Toronto, 1968-1970
						Hostel	
Item	Loans	Units	Beds	$000Low Rental	1968	i	-	138	5001969	4	324	279	6,2101970	23	5,783	464	78,808Public Housing	1968	16	4,507	160	52,2911969	9	3,499	-	36,4141970	20	4,940	-	67,602Student Housing	1968 1969	11 2	176 329	2,565 588	17,336 7,9771970	1	-	276	1,629Home Owner and Rental	1968	-	-	-	-1969	-	-	-	-1970	2	153	2,642Sewage Treatment	1968 1969	11 13	-	-	11,229 10,1461970	10	7,446
The names and addresses of borrowers are generally considered to be of a confidential nature.


FEDERAL GRANTS FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Does the government make any grants to the Council for the Social Development of Northwestern Quebec and, if so, what total amount has been given to this organization?
2 Who are the members of this organization?
3.	Is a federal public servant a member of this organization and, if so (a) what is his name (b) what are his duties (c) what is his salary (d) since when has he been performing these duties?


John Carr Munro: 1. The federal government has recently approved a grant under the National Welfare Grants program for a demonstration project to the Conseil de De-veloppement Social du Nord-Ouest Quebecois Incorporated. The grant for the current fiscal year is $22,265. The first phase of the project will last eighteen months and it is anticipated the total financial requirement will be approximately $100,000. The actual amounts will depend on budgetary needs.
[Mr. Stanbury.l
2.	The members of this organization are agencies involved in the health and welfare field in the Northwest region of Quebec and interested individuals. This Department does not have a list of the membership of this organization.
3.	This Department is not aware of any federal public servant who is a member of the organization. However, it is possible that some interested federal public servant may have taken out an individual membership of his own. If this is so, it would be in the capacity of a private citizen and not in any official capacity as a public servant.


MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT-INDIAN HUNTING FOR FOOD ON RESERVES
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	Will an announcement be made that no Indian hunting for food on a Reserve or unoccupied Crown Land shall be prosecuted under the provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and, if so, on what date?
2.	Will discussions be held between representatives of the Indian people and the Government of Canada with the objective of preparing an amendment to the Migratory Birds Convention Act and, if so, on what date?
3.	During the National Conference on the Indian Act April 28-May 2, 1969, did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development promise to "make known the views of the gov-
March 22, 1971

ernment concerning the problem of Migratory Birds in June ol 1969"?
4.	On what date can an announcement be expected outlining the government's views on this subject?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. No such announcement is possible at present because no such decision has been made.
2.	Several discussions have already been held with representatives of the Indian people but no decisions relative to those discussions have yet been reached.
3.	Yes.
4.	No firm date can be given at this time but an announcement will be made after decisions have been taken.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of External Affairs is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliameniary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Department of External Affairs has no supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 918
Mr. Robinson:: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 are designated as follows: (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) Nil. (d) Nil. (e) Extension of General Adjustment Assistance Program to include manufacturers in Canada of textile and clothing goods and of footwear, 100%. (f) Nil.


Mr. McIntosh: 1.	What is the sum total of contributions to foreign countries announced by the Prime Minister on his recent South East Asia tour in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference?
2.	What is the amount promised to each country, and in each case, what is the purpose of the contribution?


André Ouellet: At the Singapore Conference, Heads of Government supported the establishment of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-
Questions
operation. The Prime Minister announced that Canada would contribute to the Fund the lesser of 40 % or $350,000 each year for the first three years. The Prime Minister also announced that Canada would contribute a fair share up to $2 million per year in a five year period to the Fund, if there is sufficient support for an over-all $5 million level or similar target, and as capacities to utilize the enlarged funding are developed.
In Indonesia, the Prime Minister announced a Canadian commodity assistance program of $4.0 million. Its purpose is to permit importation from Canada of various industrial raw, semi-processed or processed commodities required in support of Indonesia's development plans. Fertilizers for the agricultural sector would also be eligible.
In Ceylon, the Prime Minister signed a $4.5 million loan for a forestry project. The loan will provide Canadian equipment and engineering services for a mechanized logging operation.
While in the region, the Prime Minister also announced a contribution of $13.0 thousand for emergency relief assistance to Malaysia. This contribution was in response to severe flooding in the country, and a need for clothing and medicines for refugees from the floods.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What has been Caanda's contribution to the African Development Bank since its inception?
2.	What other countries are involved in the African Development Bank and what has been the financial contribution of each since the bank was set up?


André Ouellet: 1. As the capital of the African Development Bank is not open to non-regional participation, Canada is not a member. Canadian officials have, however, received Cabinet's approval of a contribution to the Special Fund of the Bank of US $15 million over five year period. This contribution would be made out of the International Development Assistance Vote. Canada has contributed US $150,000 to the Bank to be used for technical assistance.
2. Subscriptions to the Capital stock of the African Development Bank have been made in the following amount by the 31 member nations of the Bank. One-half of each subscription is paid-in and one-half is callable. All figures are in millions of US dollars.
Algeria, $24.50; Burundi, $1.20; Cameroon, $4.00; Chad, $1.60; Congo (Brazzaville), $1.50; Congo (Kinshasa), $13.00; Dahomey, $1.40; Ethiopia, $10.30; Ghana, $12.80; Guinea, $2.50; Ivory Coast, $6.00; Kenya, $6,00; Liberia, $2.60; Malawi, $2.00; Mali, $2.30; Mauritania, $1.10; Morocco, $15.10; Niger, $1.60; Nigeria, $24.10; Rivanda, $1.20; Senegal, $5.50; Sierra Leone, $2.10; Somalia, $2.20; Sudan, $10.10; Tanzania, $6.30; Togo, $1.00; Tunisia, $6.90; Uganda, $4.60; United Arab Rep., $30.00; Upper Volta, $1.30; Zambia, $13.00.
In addition, several developed countries have indicated an interest to participate in the Bank's Special Fund when it is set up.

March 22, 1971
Questions


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What has been Canada's contribution to the Caribbean Regional Development Bank since its inception?
2.	What other countries are involved in the Caribbean Regional Development Bank and what has been the financial contribution of each since the bank was set up?


André Ouellet: 1. Canada's subscription to the capital stock of the Caribbean Regional Development Bank is US $10 million, one-half of which is paid-in and one-half callable. Canada has also pledged the equivalent of US $5 million over a five year period to the Special Fund of the C.R.D.B.
2. Subscriptions to the capital stock of the Bank by each of its members are shown below. One-half of each subscription is callable and one-half is paid-in. All figures are in millions of US dollars.
Jamaica, $11.20; Trinidad & Tobago, $7.70; Bahamas, $3.30; Guyana, $2.40; Barbados, $1.40; British Honduras, $.50; Grenada, $.50; St. Lucia, $.50; Antigua, $.50; St. Vincent, $.50; Dominica, $.50; St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, $.50; Montserrat, British Virgin Isis., Cayman Islands, and Turks and Caicos Isis., $.50; United Kingdom, $10; Canada, $10.
In addition, the United Kingdom has pledged US $5 million to the Special Fund of the Bank and the United States has agreed to make a US $10 million loan to the Bank to be used for Special Fund operations.


Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Public Works is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: (a) 100
per cent. Budgetary provision in the Supplementary Estimates is in respect of planned expenditures to March 31, 1971 on newly-initiated projects, (b) 100 per cent. The provision is part of a general plan to stimulate the economy and thereby generate additional employment opportunities. (c) Nil. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. The provision is for additional activity within existing programmes, not for new programs, (f) Departmental staff was supplemented by 110 casual employees in the Administrative support areas. In addition 162 contracts were awarded to consultant firms for professional services in carrying out design and engineering work.


Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What are the names of the persons who were employed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism?
2.	What amount did each employee receive in salary and for how many hours of work?
3.	What amounts were paid to each employee for travelling expenses and how many hours of work were involved?
4.	What expenditures were made by the Commission for stationery?
5.	What expenditures were made by the Commission for translation purposes, how many persons were involved and what was the average salary of the translators so employed?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism have provided the following answer: 1, 2 and 3. It is regretted that it is not possible to provide detailed answers concerning the staff of the Commission as all records have been deposited with the Public Archives for safe keeping. Additional staff would have to be hired to retrieve the information requested. It is possible, however, to state that a total of 515 personnel were employed with a total expenditure of $4,456,553 for salaries and $313,722 for travelling expenses to February 28, 1971.
4.	Total expenditures for stationery are $75,828.
5.	The Commission has not kept specific records of translation costs as a great deal of the work was performed by the Translation Bureau of the Department of the Secretary of State. Additional work was included in the editorial and revision work on various studies and reports for which no cost breakdown is available.


Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the feasibility and advisability of recommending that computers be used for testing of drugs rather than animals for research purposes?


John Carr Munro: Officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare are fully aware of the fact that non-sentient systems including computers, which do not include the use of living animals, are of great value in medical research. Such systems are used wherever applicable in the research and regulatory programs of the Department.


Mrs. Maclnnisr: With respect to the answer to Question Number 103 at page 3235 of Hansard, February 10, 1971, what is the protein content per ounce for each of the cereals listed?


John Carr Munro: Cereal	Protein (grams)
Special "K"	6.0
Cherrios	3.6
Shredded Wheat	3.1
Muffets	3.6
Rolled Oats	3.9
Red River Cereal	4.1
High Protein Pablum	10.2
Gerber's High Protein Cereal	10.2

March 22, 1971


Mr. Valade: Does the Dominion Bureau of Statistics consider persons who take retraining courses as unemployed, and (a) if so, are such persons included in statistics concerning the unemployed (b) if not, under what category are such persons included?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: In the labour force survey, persons on training courses are counted as going to school, and hence are not included in the employed or the unemployed totals. This treatment applies to persons who had no labour force activity in the reference week. If a person on training also worked for part of the week, he would be counted as employed.


Mr. MacRae: Is it the intention of the government to construct a federal building to house the post office and other federal departments in the Town of Oromocto, New Brunswick?


Arthur Laing: Consideration is now being given to improving the quality of accommodation for the Post Office Department in Oromocto. No decision has yet been taken as to whether or not a new building will be constructed.


Mr. Deakon: What percentage of overall funds, held by insurance companies doing business in Canada and having Head offices in the United States, are invested in Canada?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: At the end
of 1969 United States insurance companies transacting insurance in Canada held assets in Canada amounting to $3,105 million. Such assets represented 1.8% of the total assets of such companies. Of the assets held in Canada, more than 99 % represent investments in Canada.


Mr. Forresiall: What is the ratio of promotion in the Armed Forces (with the exception of corporal) between technical tradesmen, operational personnel and administrative personnel?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Promotions are based on a need to fill establishment positions at various rank levels. There is no numerical ratio for promotion between technical tradesmen, operational and administrative personnel as some of the establishment positions may be filled by any of these categories.
Questions


Mr. Robinson: Do horse owners and gamblers pay income tax on earnings obtained from racing and gambling operations or games of chance and, if not, will the government consider amending the Income Tax Act?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, if these activities are of such a character and extent that they constitute a business as distinct from a hobby or pastime.


Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the federal revenue from spirits, beer and wine in 1970?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Spirits-Matured	$189,932,723.16
Unmatured	4,800,225.16
Beer	139,353,060.13
Wine	6,990,586.05
In addition, the general sales tax applies to these items but statistics are not available as to the revenue which has resulted from the sale of individual products.


Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Treasury Board (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Treasury Board Secretariat does not provide computer services to: (a) other departments; (b) industry; (c) provincial government departments; (d) municipalities.


Mr. Mazankowski: Have any grants or loans been made available by the Secretary of State to francophone countries during the fiscal years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 and, if so, (a) to which countries (b) in what amounts (c) for which projects?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: No.


Mr. McQuaid: 1. How many industries have been established or assisted under the Regional Development Incentives Act in the Province of Prince Edward Island?

March 22, 1971
Questions
2. What are the names and locations of the companies so established or assisted and in what Industrial enterprise is each one involved?
3 What is the amount paid to each industry and is the payment by way of grant or loan?
4.	What is the expected number of additional employees to be employed by each of the industrial companies which have been assisted?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Sixteen.
2 and 4. See table following.
3. The Act makes no provision for loans. The estimated amounts of the incentive grants are shown in the table.
Regional Economic Expansion Regional Development Incentives Act Prince Edward Island Approved Projects Inception to February 28, 1971
Name	Location
Maritime Motor Supply	 Charlottetown___
Hypro Seafoods Ltd	 Souris	
Sonier Bros. Co. Ltd	 Summerside	
Bruce Stewart Ltd	 Charlottetown___
Douglas G. Cockburn	 Mount Stewart D,
Delhi Foundry & Farm Machinery Ltd	 Montague	
National Sea Products	 Summerside	
Island Potato Growers	 Souris	
Acadian Fishermen's Co-op Assoc. Ltd.... Abrams Village..,
Langley Fruit Packers Ltd	 Montague	
Seabrook Farms Frozen Foods Ltd	 New Annan	
Eric Robinson Inc	 Albany	
Prince Edward Food Products	 Summerside	
P.E.I. Vegetable Growers Co-op Assoc.... Sherwood	
Ben Livington & Sons Ltd	 Charlottetown____
F. J. Shea & Son Ltd	 St. Louis	
	Estimated	Estimated
	No. of	Amount of
Type of Industry	New Jobs	IncentiveRebuilding engine parts	
7	15,000Fishmeal & oil	
19	121,394Fish processing	
30	32,010Tobacco drying eqpt	
17	45,000Tobacco	
5	11,530Farm machinery	
15	71,047Fish processing	
80	178,677Potato processing	
32	169,300Gourmet food	
60	315,400French fries	
14	22,060Packaging frozen food	
Nil	11,140Potato processing	
46	81,544Canned juices & vegetables	
10	49,250Turnips & strawberries	
12	43,200Steel pipes, cylinders, etc	
9	26,250Potato packaging & grading	
28	40,250


Mr. Foriin: 1.	How many persons were registered full-time for an adult training course given by the Department of Manpower and Immigration at the end of (a) December, 1969 (b) January, 1970 (c) December, 1970 (d) January, 1971 (e) February, 1971?
2.	How many persons completed a training course in 1970?
3.	How many of these persons were unemployed when they began taking the course?
4.	What percentage of those, who took this course in 1970, have been able to find employment on completion of their course?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) 52,759, (b) 68,496, (c) 57,849, and (d) 83,712, excluding workers being trained by employers under contract with the Department of Manpower and Immigration. (e) Information not yet available.
2.	176,582 trainees completed courses under the Canada Manpower Training Program in 1970, excluding parttime trainees, and workers trained by their employers under contract with the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
3.	52.2 % of those referred to full-time training in 196970 were unemployed at the time of referral.
4.	Information for 1970 is not yet available. However, of some 154,000 full-time trainees who completed their
training in 1969-70, 38,600 were apprentices, nearly all of whom, under the terms of their apprenticeship, expected to return to work for their employers immediately upon completion of their courses. Of the remainder, a sample survey indicates that 74% of respondents were employed three to four months after completing all of their course work.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	(a) What firms in the Province of Newfoundland submitted applications for Regional Development Incentive grants and were turned down (b) what were the reasons in each case?
2.	Has DREE completed the study of the Regional Development Incentives Act programs in the Province of Newfoundland and, if so, what were the findings?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Applications for incentives are confidential business information, unless and until an offer is made and accepted by the company.
2. The study presumably referred to is an industrial opportunity study. It is in progress.
[Mr. McQuaid.l
March 22, 1971

CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-OFFICER REQUIREMENTS Question No. 1,108


Mr. Forresiall:: What is the current requirement per year of new officers in the Armed Forces and, of these, how many at university graduate level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In 1971-72, 749. Of these 358 will be graduating from subsidized university training plans and 140 will be commissioned from the ranks. Of the remaining 251 it is hoped as many as possible will be university graduates, or, as a minimum, hold a diploma from an accredited technological institute. Any additional requirements may be met by enrolling high school matriculants through the Officer Candidate Training Plan. Once the current force reduction has been accomplished it is estimated that the annual requirement for officers will be approximately 1,100 per year, 60% of whom we hope will be university graduates.


Mr. Forresiall: What is the ratio (numerical rather than fractional) of recruits as to enlisted personnel required in the Armed Forces to maintain an adequate complement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Approximately one to eight.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Carter: 1. By province, what CMHC grants and loans, of all kinds, were made during the years 1968, 1969 and 1970?
2 How was the $200 million dollar special fund announced in 1970 for experimental and innovation in new housing techniques distributed?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning unemployment, perhaps especially in the province of Quebec. In view of the importance the government of the province of Quebec is attaching to foreign investment in the creation of badly needed employment in that province and, indeed, has been looking as much to New York as to Ottawa in that regard, is it the policy of the government to encourage such foreign investment or is it the intention of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
government to restrict such foreign investment in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend knows that there are very few restrictions on foreign investment in Canada at present and that the government's future policy with respect to foreign investment is being studied by my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. The government will be making a general statement in this regard in due course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether he proposes to remove the uncertainties existing in the minds of foreign investors with regard to policies of ownership and taxation, and can the minister indicate whether there is any way in which a foreign investor can get an answer today from the government of Canada with respect to either of these questions?


Edgar John Benson: With respect to the problem of foreign investment in Canada there are, as my hon. friend knows, very few limitations on foreign investment in Canada. With respect to the matter of future tax policy in the country, we have undertaken to bring forward legislation with respect to tax reform in the near future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the retroactive measures that the government has adopted, that assurance may not be of any comfort to anybody. I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Development whether, in view of what can properly be described as the failure of his policies in areas of slow growth such as the Gaspe and others, he proposes to do anything to remove these uncertainties, and in particular whether he proposes to introduce any new measures to encourage such areas of slow growth?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that a question couched in such terms is not in order, but the matter being of wide general interest the minister might wish to reply to the question.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I feel the hon. leader of the opposition should perhaps look at the statistics on the results of the programs adopted by the department; he would then see how many jobs have been created and how much money has been spent, specifically in his province. However, that does not meet the needs of the economy generally speaking, and simply stating without any reservations whatsoever that our programs have been a failure is really akin to irresponsibility-



FINANCE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to direct a question to the Minister of

March 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Finance. In view of the statements made by certain bank presidents in New York criticizing the government of Canada for interfering with certain foreign takeovers, I should like to ask the minister if the Canadian Bankers Association or the two bank presidents in question have ever made any representations to the government asking the government to remove the exemption which protects the banking fraternity against foreign takeovers?


Edgar John Benson: I heard some reference to this government in exile speaking over the weekend. I have asked for a transcript of what was said.



INCREASE IN CHARTERED BANK SERVICE CHARGES- AMENDMENT OF COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the banks, in toto, are going to raise the charges to their customers by very large amounts, and in view of the fact that both the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Finance have said they have no jurisdiction over the banks in this regard, is the government planning to bring in any legislation which would bring the chartered banks of Canada within the ambit of the Combines Investigation Act?


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: It is usual for the House to wait for the bill to be introduced to know what it will contain. I cannot add anything to what was said the other day by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that this matter was being looked into as the result of the study on combines which was made by the Economic Council of Canada.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Was the parliamentary secretary reflecting government policy when he said that perhaps we should be considering nationalizing the banks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order.



ALLEGED DISCOURAGEMENT OF BUSINESS EXPANSION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement by the heads of Canadian chartered banks in New York last week to the effect that the activities of the federal government in nine specific economic fields have discouraged Canadian businessmen from making the decisions which are necessary for the satisfactory expansion of their operations, is the government reconsidering its policies in these fields so that it may help rather than hinder this expansion which is so necessary to fight unemployment?


Edgar John Benson: I think my friend should also ask for a transcript of what was said.
It was not a statement by eight presidents of chartered banks but rather various statements by one or two about various aspects of the Canadian economy.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister aware of the fact that the following expression appears in quotes in the statement, that the Canadian government is scaring the daylights out of business and that they are not going ahead, therefore, to make the decisions that are necessary?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Oza  Telraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether he intends to take efficient steps against unemployment in contrast to the request made by the head of high finance, the Governor of the Bank of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has rejected fiscal or monetary policies as a way to attack unemployment.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister has quite understood the question of the hon. member for Villeneuve who did not mention the Governor General of Canada but the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Could the Prime Minister say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gérard Laprise: Here is my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Prime Minister say whether the statement by the Governor of the Bank of Canada was made at the request of the Prime Minister and of the Canadian government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course not, Mr. Speaker, except that the law obliges the Governor to submit an annual report and as required under the act he did submit it to the Minister of Finance. Obviously, neither the Minister of Finance nor any other cabinet member have dictated this report to the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In view of the minister's statement dealing with unemployment in Canada, is the Prime Minister ready to tell us if, following the statement of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we can expect the government not to heed the requests of the Canadian public to solve, once and for all, this problem of unemployment in Canada?

March 22, 1971



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It has to do with an application made by the government of Saskatchewan for some $12 million for the building of a major undertaking in northern Saskatchewan, which will constitute the largest pulp mill in Canada, in which Parsons and Whittemore of New York, have the largest interest with the government of Saskatchewan having a small interest. The application was made some time ago and the delay is making it very difficult to get the work under way, as it should be, before the break-up in the spring. The matter has been before the minister for some time. Will he tell the House what the present position is?


Jean Marchand: The application is being processed by the department. I think it will be forwarded to the Treasury Board in the coming days. As soon as it is approved by the cabinet, we will give an answer to the company.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister do something about rushing this matter? It has been before his department since January and it is the largest industry for which Saskatchewan has ever applied. With assistance going to other parts of Canada, Saskatchewan would like to be included.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: My question is for the
Minister of Justice. Can he inform the House whether he has received any communication either from the Attorney General or the Premier of Quebec pursuant to a cabinet meeting which is supposed to have taken place last Friday to discuss the possible extension or perhaps the natural expiry of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No, Sir, I have not.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of previous answers given to this and similar questions, can the minister inform the House whether it is the intention of the federal government to act automatically on the request of the government of Quebec, or whether prior to any such request being received either he or the Prime Minister will take a position on this important matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the government of Quebec is only one of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
factors which the government will take into consideration.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of that answer by the Minister of Justice I wonder when either he or the Prime Minister will make a statement on motions indicating what other factors will be taken into consideration in the making of this decision?


John Napier Turner: Parliament will be taken into our confidence very soon, Mr. Speaker.



STEPS TO COUNTERACT PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA AGAINST USE OF GENERIC DRUGS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What steps does the Food and Drugs Directorate intend to take to counteract pharmaceutical industry propaganda against the use of properly tested generic drugs?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have noticed the announcement concerning the actions we are taking. One is that we are giving quality assurance with respect to many drugs. This has been going on for several months. We are advising the doctors, and everyone else on our mailing list, of our investigations so they can use their own discretion and thereby put more emphasis on low-cost drugs.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: May I ask when the first reports will be available on the directorate's testing of all brands of the 25 top selling drugs on the Canadian market?


John Carr Munro: Progressively over a period of a year. As we test them, gradually we make the results known.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Does the Minister of Labour intend to see that the 10 per cent increase in UIC benefits, granted in January, will be paid to the miners and not to Devco?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think the idea is a good one, but the question should be put to the proper minister, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Donald MacInnis: As a supplementary question I would ask the Minister of Labour why he is deliberately deceiving me on this question?

March 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well he cannot suggest that another member is deliberately deceiving him or deceiving the House, or deliberately deceiving any person. I am sure that the hon. member, who has had numerous exchanges with the Minister of Labour in this regard, would not want to impute that there is an attempt on the part of the minister, or of any member of this House, to deceive him deliberately in this or any other regard.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I stand here in this House and confirm that the truth is stronger than our rules. To support this question of privilege I quote from the minister's own handwriting which reads:
If you ask me if Devco will absorb increase of 10 per cent of UIC benefits effective January 1/70-
He should have said January 3, 1971.
-I will answer that I intend to make certain that this extra monies go to the people it was intended for-the people and not the company.
The miners, and not the company. I am sick and tired of having the minister in charge of UIC benefits trying to pass on questions within his jurisdiction to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who has no business at all dealing with the UIC. I repeat that the minister has deliberately deceived me on this.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not permitted to say that.


Donald MacInnis: I have said it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has some obligation, as do all other members of this House, to respect the rules and the practices of the House. Even if a member feels very strongly about a matter, even if he feels he should go as far as he can to promote a cause, he has no right to violate the rules of the House which command hon. members not to accuse another member of the House of deliberately deceiving him. Perhaps the minister might like to reply.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the letter which was described as in my own handwriting, and I stand by that letter. I do think that the unemployment insurance increase of 10 per cent should go to the miners and not to Devco. I challenge the hon. member to put a question to the appropriate minister-he may be surprised by the answer-if he is not just interested in making political propaganda out of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At the same time the minister is deserving of a suggestion from the Chair. He has no right to suggest that another member is asking a question or is making a statement with motives. I also suggest that the minister and the hon. member should have a conference about this matter. 1 realize that they have been discussing it together from time to time, but there should be some way in which the matter can be resolved.
Some months ago, by unanimous consent, the House agreed to send this very serious matter to a committee of
the House, and I was hoping that the very difficult situation might be resolved before now. However, that still does not make it possible for the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond to say that another member has deceived him deliberately, and that it does not make it possible for the minister to impute motives to another member. I hope both hon. members will find it possible to indicate that they did not intend to make such statements.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask for a ruling on whether any minister can shift the responsibility for answering questions on matters which come under his jurisdiction to another minister? In other words, are we now permitted to ask any minister in the House questions on any subject, or should questions be restricted to the jurisdiction of a minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot ask for a ruling in general or in theory. The hon. member knows, as do all hon. members, that a ruling was made a long time ago that questions can be answered only by ministers who have responsibility for specific fields of administrative duty. I have made that ruling myself on a number of occasions. I make it again today.
Sometimes it is very difficult for the Chair to determine which minister has a particular responsibility, but I think the Chair is entitled to accept the word of a member of the cabinet that a certain question does not fall under his jurisdiction. If a minister makes that kind of statement, I think the Chair is authorized to assume that it does not come under his jurisdiction. This is the ruling which I am making, and which has been made previously by the Chair on a number of occasions.


Mr. Norman A. Caiik (Ontario):: Supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. member's contribution is supplementary to the point of order, the question of privilege, or the question raised originally by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, and I would like to direct it to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Will the minister assure the House that the full benefits of the unemployment insurance increase will, in fact, be made available to the Devco workers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there has been a meeting of the Board of Directors of Devco these last few days, and it has been decided to grant full benefits to retired workers. There was never a question of deducting from workers' pay cheques any amount whatever from unemployment insurance. There has merely been a question of deducting from the contribution to the pension fund by Devco the supplementary amount paid by the Unemployment Insur-

March 22, 1971

ance Commission. That is why the matter comes under the jurisdiction of my department.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, before I put my supplementary I would very much like to thank the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion for the statement he has made with respect to full benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member asks a question I think he has a responsibility to this House, and to the Chair, to recognize that his words have gone a little too far in accusing a minister of deliberately deceiving him. In 100 years of parliamentary history that has never been accepted as a parliamentary term. It should be possible for the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and amend his suggestion. It has always been possible to suggest that an hon. member has misled a member or has misled the House. I would suggest that perhaps the hon. member might give some thought to making a distinction on that basis.


Donald MacInnis: I would like to follow up the supplementary question I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has no right to ask a supplementary until he has indicated whether he intends to accept the suggestion the Chair has made, which is a very reasonable suggestion. The hon. member knows that an attempt is made by the Chair at all times to co-operate with hon. members and to make it easy for them to make their points when they are representative of the views of the people they represent. I suggest very candidly, honestly, and with all good will to the hon. member, that it would be very easy for him at this point to indicate that perhaps his words went a little too far and that he would be satisfied to say that, although he has been misled, or the House has been misled, he has not been misled intentionally or deliberately.


Donald MacInnis: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely apologize to you for putting you on what might be considered a very touchy spot. Nevertheless, I know you will handle it properly and I will probably wind up before a committee of this House, but I stand here now and maintain that the truth is stronger than any rules of this House.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not hear too well over here but I found nothing particularly offensive in the hon. gentleman's remarks. The Scots and the Irish have mental telepathy, and I understand that the hon. gentleman's main concern has been the miners of Devco. He has communicated with me on half a dozen occasions, both verbally and in writing and I am quite satisfied with the turn of events. The important thing is that the workers of Devco, through my representations to my colleague and representation by other members, will receive, although there is no legal obligation on the part of Devco, the 10 per cent increase in unemployment insurance benefits. I am quite prepared and happy to let the matter rest there.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not entirely satisfied with the suggestion made by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I really do not think it is for the minister or the person who perhaps has been aggrieved to say that he will not pursue the matter. It is not the minister who has been offended, it is the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether we can allow this kind of incident to go without notice. It certainly is most unpleasant for the Chair. The hon. member has always been kind to the Chair and has co-operated with me, but at the same time he must realize that there are limitations to what can be done and what cannot be done.
I have invited the hon. member to co-operate with me. I wonder whether the hon. member might not like to take into account the words of peace extended by the minister. The minister has indicated that he is prepared to forget the incident. It seems to me this is a good basis on which we might forget about the matter. If the hon. member were to take the same generous position as the minister, I think we could go on to pursue the business of the House. I would invite the hon. member to give this some thought. I am sure he has it in his heart to be as generous in this regard as the minister has been. I would invite him to do this.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to resist your appeal and on the basis of the words of the Speaker I would apologize to the Chair. I hope that this apology will stir the committee into meeting on this very serious matter in Cape Breton. There have been only two committee meetings since the petition was put before the House. That petition having been accepted by the House, I think it is time this government gave justice to the miners of Cape Breton because I have been pursuing this matter for three years.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has been generous enough to tender an apology, and I doubt whether we should go any further. I realize it is not easy, when an hon. member feels he is really fighting as objectively and strongly as he can for the people he represents, to go further than the hon. member has done in this instance. I can assure the hon. member and the House that I am satisfied, but I hope he will keep it in mind that if the same words are repeated, and the same incident happens, I will have to take the same stand and ask for withdrawal, apology or rectification, which the hon. member has been generous enough to make.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF GUIDELINES AND APPLICATION FORMS-NUMBER TO BE EMPLOYED

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the

March 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
guidelines and application forms necessary for those interested in participating in the Opportunities for Youth program are ready? Have they been made available to prospective applicants in the various cities of Canada and, if so, can they be made public by the minister today?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Besides, information concerning this program and the conditions for participating will be made known to hon. members within a few hours.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he can give the House an estimate of the number of students who will be employed this summer under the program and the length of such employment. Has the government calculated this?


Gérard Pelletier: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give an estimate concerning the Opportunities for Youth program, due to the fact that on the one hand, some people will be involved in this program as mere participants while on the other hand, some young workers will be paid to accelerate, improve and promote this participation. It would not be therefore without some misgivings that I would at this time attempt to give an estimate the inaccuracy of which could justifiably be criticized by the hon. member should my projection happen to be false.



PLANS RESPECTING PROVISION OF SUMMER HOSTELS FOR TRANSIENTS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement that the government will support local initiative in connection with youth hostels, can the minister give the House any more details of the government's plans regarding summer hostels for young transients?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, an objective of 200,000 bed nights was mentioned, and this objective will be achieved through local, municipal and provincial initiative, with the help of special funds provided for this purpose in this year's summer employment program.



TIME LIMIT ON APPLICATIONS UNDER OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether there is a fixed
time limit for applications under the Opportunities for Youth program to be filed in Ottawa?
1Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there is no set date, but for those who wish to submit projects, the best time would be "as soon as possible, if not sooner", as the saying goes, and certainly not later, at any rate, than April 15 next.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the April 15 deadline was the date I was going to suggest. I thank the minister.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-METHOD OF ALLOCATING FUNDS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister state whether the moneys available for the Opportunities for Youth program will be allotted on a first-come, first-served basis or on a regional basis? Are there regional ceilings or provincial ceilings on the moneys available or will this aspect be covered in the press release?


Gérard Pelletier: I have not heard the last words spoken by the hon. member. To his first question, my answer is that all the factors he mentioned will be taken into consideration, according to some order of priority, but not necessarily the order in which they were listed by the hon. member.



PLANS RESPECTING PROVISION OF SUMMER HOSTEL FOR TRANSIENTS

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. Secretary of State a question concerning his hostel program for transient youth. Could he tell the House whether he has met with Quebec authorities with regard to this hostel program for transient youth which, it would seem, is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction since it is connected with education?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, we have not had a special meeting devoted to the matter of young people's hostels, but we have had meetings where this matter was brought up. The government of the province of Quebec has agreed, as we were agreed before, that hostels for transient youth providing studying, education and folklore training facilities, etc., may and in fact do come under provincial authority at the present time. But the provinces, Quebec included, also admitted that federal authorities are responsible for setting up shelter-type hostels where the stay is limited to one or two nights and which would allow all young Canadians to travel across the country.

March 22, 1971



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-PUBLICIZING OF INFORMATION IN ISOLATED AREAS

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State arising from the statement he made that applications for summer employment should be in by April 15. Can he say whether, in this regard, his department is conferring with any other department, such as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in order to bring this information to people in isolated areas who may not learn of it by April 15 unless it is brought to their attention by one of those departments?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. After 15 months of negotiations between the railway companies and the locomotive engineers, has the minister received news that the railway companies have turned down the recent report of the conciliation board? If so, will the minister state what action his department is taking to bring the parties together?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, a report has been made by the conciliation board which has been released. It places the unions in a strike position within a reasonable period, about a week, and the companies in a lockout position. I would anticipate the next step to be mediation.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Justice. It arises out of the question I asked him last week. Has he, since then, read the decision handed down by the Manitoba Court of Appeal with regard to the interpretation of section 121 of the British North America Act, and is he now prepared to say whether he will permit a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the interpretation of that section?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have, but I am not in a position, until I have received further advice from the officials of the department, to say what action we are going to take. The position, as I see it at the moment, does not differ from the statement that I made earlier to the House, that in order for there to be a successful reference to the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Supreme Court of Canada there must be agreement not only on what questions of law are to be determined by the court but there must also be agreement on the facts. Speaking to the latter situation, we have no satisfactory statement of agreed facts.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware of the old saying that where there is a will there is a way? If he does not act, western Canada will become convinced that there is no will.



FINANCE


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the great concern being voiced by the public and members of the House of Commons about the increase in service charges by the chartered banks of Canada, would he refer this issue to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think, really, that it would be proper to make such a reference, but I will be glad to consider the matter.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is considering this question, would he also consider asking the committee to look into the behaviour of the banks in terms of making irresponsible statements on government policy?



INQUIRY AS TO POLICY RESPECTING FARM STORAGE

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Since he is advocating that 200 million bushels of wheat less should be held in commercial positions and that a comparable amount of barley should be on hand for potential sales and since there will be an increase in rape grown, thus creating a storage problem for farmers, will the minister be announcing a policy dealing with farm storage?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the amount of grain in storage at the present time may not necessarily increase. The hon. member is right in referring to some indications that we probably could have a larger inventory of barley compared with our overly large inventory of wheat for sales in future, but the total situation need not worsen.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Despite the assurances by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, will the minister consider reducing the 12 per cent sales tax and, in addition, introducing legislation which will provide for low interest rates in connection with farm storage which will become necessary?

March 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand the purport of the question. If my hon. friend is asking that I abolish the general sales tax in Canada, I may say that it is not our intention to do so.



PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION PLAN-REPAYMENT OF CASH ADVANCES FROM TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Does the minister intend to force farmers to pay back outstanding cash advances from the $100 million payment which is to be made and which he announced last week?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it might be ordinary practice to require any defaults to be taken into consideration, but certainly ordinary, outstanding indebtedness under cash advances will not be offset against the payments.
* SfS sfc



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is he now in a position to answer the question I asked last Thursday, which the Prime Minister took as notice on his behalf, regarding any request from the government of Prince Edward Island to renegotiate the comprehensive development plan operating in that province in light of the very high level of unemployment existing there which is now, I believe, above 13 per cent?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the program concerning Prince Edward Island is under constant review to keep up with new developments. We are always in touch with that government and after all it is rather encouraging to see that this year the unemployment rate is lower in Prince Edward Island in spite of the situation in Canada in general.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question that is supplementary to the original question. I think, first of all, that the minister's information is wrong. Unemployment is higher-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for just a few seconds. We are fast reaching the end of the question period.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the clearly stated implications that the plan would be renegotiated shortly, as agreed when the plan was originally signed, may I ask what provision the minister is making for public submis-

sions from the people of Prince Edward Island with respect to the effectiveness of the plan and possible alterations in it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if both governments have agreed to hear the parties concerned. I will inquire about it. As for myself, I have no objection.



REPORT OF ATLANTIC ADVISORY COUNCIL ON OPERATION OF ACT

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since unemployment in one province is substantially higher, can the minister say if he has received the report of the Atlantic Advisory Council and its review of the Regional Development Incentives Act which was intended to try to upgrade the effectiveness of that Act in one province in eastern Canada? If not, can he say when we will receive the report?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the department has received this report which is now under consideration. As soon as we are in a position to draw conclusions, we will inform the House accordingly.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. May I ask if he has had time to consider the proposals put before him by the Canadian Publishing Association on March 2? If so, when may we expect a statement in the House about proposed government action relating to those recommendations?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I can only answer that the conclusions drawn from those consultations are still under consideration, but I cannot say when a statement will be made on motions.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Has the minister requested the Humanities Research Council and the Canada Council to consider ways and means of assisting the publishers of scholarly and artistic works in Canada, and enhancing that assistance?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, both councils took part in our consultations with the publishers, so they are perfectly aware of both updated requirements and available resources.
March 22, 1971



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will the $2 million referred to for the program within the ten departments be spent on all 1,250 recruits for the Public Service or only on the one-quarter who are Francophone?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. The sum in question relates entirely to the 276 Francophone persons I have mentioned.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. For some time now the minister has been promising the House a white paper on immigration and matters dealing with the Immigration Appeal Board. From time to time he has told us that this will be forthcoming. Is the minister now in a position to tell the House when this document will be forthcoming?


Otto Emil Lang: That was not exactly the way or what I have been promising, Mr. Speaker. I hope that legislation dealing with the Immigration Appeal Board and some related amendments will be before the House before long.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Of the 1,250 post-secondary graduates the minister referred to in his statement of October 25, including the 276 who are to be looked after by a special contingency vote, how are the balance to be provided for?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The balance will be part of the main estimates, Mr. Speaker. Provision will be made through the main estimates for the approximately 1,000 which it was contemplated earlier would be recruited in the Public Service this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre apparently has a supplementary question. With the consent of the House, he will be recognized. I suggest that further questions might be asked tomorrow.
Textile and Clothing Board Act PROGRAM FOR HIRING FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-LANGUAGE QUALIFICATION


Edmund Boyd Osler: Will completely bilingual applicants of merit be recruited for the 276 jobs referred to or only those whose mother tongue is French?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made clear that preference will be given to those whose mother tongue is French. What is being sought is a twofold objective: one, to increase the representation of the French-speaking linguistic community in the Public Service and, two, an ability to efficiently work creatively in the French language.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 18, consideration of Bill C-215, to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 (Mr. Horner). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said
motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion, will
please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

March 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce) moved motion No. 3:
That Bill C-215, An Act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other Acts in consequence thereof, be amended by striking out lines 45 to 48, inclusive, in subclause (2) of Clause 17 at page 7 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"an interim basis pending its evaluation of the plans.''; and by adding immediately after sub-clause (2) of Clause 17 at page 7 the following:
Full	"(3) Where the Board makes a report under
report	subsection (2) recommending that special measures
to follow	of protection be implemented immediately, the
Board shall, not later than one hundred and eighty days after the making of that report, make a written report to the Minister as required under subsection (1) containing its recommendations with respect to the textile and clothing goods that were the subject matter of the report under subsection (2) and by renumbering subsequent subclauses accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. Since this amendment has been proposed, as you said, by me, it is normal that it be the subject of certain explanations on my part.
The first part of the amendment reads as follows, in English:

-an interim basis pending its evaluation of the plan.

That is just going back to the original wording of the clause.
The second part, i.e. new Clause 17(3) is an amendment to implement more directly and slightly alter the concept or intention the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had in mind when submitting his amendment which was adopted by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The hon. member said at that time that it mattered little to him whether the period were to be 90 days or more. Besides, I have already consulted the hon. member for Edmonton West about our amendment and I am under the impression that he was in agreement with our proposal: a limit of 180 days instead of 90 days, to keep in line with the time limit prescribed for application of the surtax under Section 7(1)A of the Customs Tariff. The surtax could be one of the instruments resorted to in case of emergency, as described in Clause 17(2).
We believe that this amendment which reflects the ideas of the hon. member for Edmonton West is a good one and I thank him for it. It states that a final report should be presented, prepared within one hundred and eighty days following an interim report and that interim measures will be taken only under unusual circumstances and not to delay the recommendation of the government's Board.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the comments of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), I must thank him for his co-operation with regard to this clause, although I
[Mr. Speaker.)
would like to elaborate on why I insisted on a ninety-day delay at the beginning.
The hon. minister used another criterion based on customs tariff, while I based my argument on the Antidumping Act. Actually, we are dealing with two parallel situations. According to the Anti-dumping Act, the tribunal has 90 days to complete its report, if abuse is involved; in fact, the duty of the textile board or advisory committee is of the same nature-to determine if there is abuse. And there are probably surveys now being taken about other plans.
I have no intention of quarrelling with the minister, but I would like to show him why I did relate the time period to the Anti-dumping Act instead of the customs tariff.
As to that, I think that the objective has been reached and that there will be no endless waiting period; on the contrary, a deadline will be established and the Board will have to hurry and complete its work or at least advance it rapidly enough.
So, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this new amendment from the minister now that we both have had an opportunity to let our thoughts mature.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion no. 3 (Mr. Pepin) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), on behalf of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) moves motion No. 4 as follows:
That Bill C-215, to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other Acts in consequence thereof, be amended by deleting the word "may" from Clause 24 in line 19 at page 11 and substituting therefor the word "shall".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am holding the fort. This amendment was put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) after his attendance in committee. What he is actually leading to is, rather than merely having a permissive power in so far as the actions of the board are concerned, it shall be mandatory.
I was not expecting to speak on this particular motion, Mr. Speaker. I have been advised that the hon. member for Crowfoot was attending a meeting of the Agriculture Committee which in its wisdom, I would say nonsense, insisted, upon the motion of the government majority that that meetings be held at this time when we are engaged on the report stage of this bill. He has to come over from the Committee on Agriculture, and I will hold the fort until he does.
Clause 24 reads as follows:
Reports of the Board to the Minister made under section 16 or 17, modified in such manner as in the opinion of the Board is necessary to give effect to section 23, may be published with the approval of the Minister.
It is important that one should pay attention to the particular wording. After all, clause 23 deals with confl-
March 22, 1971

dential information, and therefore the board has it within its power to amend any confidential information. Clause 23 reads as follows:
Where information that is in its nature confidential, relating to the business or affairs of any person, firm or corporation is given or elicited in the course of any inquiry, the information shall not be made public in such a manner as to be available for the use of any business competitor or rival of the person, firm or corporation.
I think we would all agree with this. I am surprised the minister was not prepared to accept in committee the position taken by my hon. friend from Crowfoot in this regard because, after all, clause 23 is mandatory, so the board's report cannot contain any confidential information. The effect is, therefore, that the report to the board has already been cleaned up or has had removed from it anything which might be offensive to clause 23. What possible objection could there be in these circumstances to publication, and why should publication not be made mandatory?
The best the minister might say is that an enlightened minister would publish all reports which are prepared in the light of the wording of clause 24, because under clause 24 the board cannot include in its report any confidential information. The effect of clause 24 as now drafted is therefore, that there are two screens. First, the board may say: well, no, we are not going to present it for publication. Second, the minister may withhold his approval for publication of the report. In other words, there are two possibilities of withholding the report which conform with clause 23. The fact is, though, that I do not feel there should be this double obstacle. If the amendment of my hon. friend from Crowfoot is accepted, it means that the board would be directed to publish but the minister will still have some right of review to make sure that the information conforms with clause 23. It seems to me that while it may be said that this is not a particularly important point my hon. friend does have a good point here and I am quite prepared to support him. I did not say anything about it in committee, but since my hon. friend has raised the point now I can see that on balance, in the combination of clauses 23 and 24, the amendment makes eminent sense and I would so move.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I apologize for being a few minutes late, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for moving the amendment in my absence.
The essence of my submission here is contained in the old adage that it is not enough to be just, one must appear to be just. The question is, how can the public really determine whether the degree of protection advocated by the minister on the recommendation of the board has been correctly assessed unless the report itself is made public? If we read this bill carefully, we realize that provision is already made for the exclusion of confidential information. The minister also has a prerogative in this respect. In these circumstances, why is publication of the report being withheld? It is obviously not possible for the public to judge whether the minister has acted correctly on the basis of the report from the board unless
Textile and Clothing Board Act
the facts are available. As reported at page 15 of Committee Report No. 22, the minister had this to say:
Let me answer in four parts. First of all, I will remind you what the powers of the Board are. The Board has final authority in determining injury, or threat of injury and in determining the value of the plans. When it comes to the degree of protection needed or not needed, they make recommendations to the Minister, and the Minister takes the ball from there.
Then, he went on to say:
Dealing with your second point, during the research, during the inquiry the Board is making, I do not think the Minister will have contact with the Board-
He is really saying, here, that the inquiry will be carried out in an unbiased manner.
As reported on the following page, page 16, the minister outlines the Board's duties at length. Then, he goes on to say:
Then I defend in public whatever decision the government takes. I am quite sure that I will not be able to escape that and I have no intention of doing so, either. Whatever the decision is, the associations, the groups that have taken a certain position during the inquiry, will either bless the government or attack it for the decision it has taken. So I presume my job will be to justify the decision of the government.
How can the public determine whether the minister was justified in reaching the decision he did if they are not given the facts? Suppose, for instance, the board were to recommend that certain imports be held up for a period of one month until further examination could be made to determine whether or not a section of the industry really did possess a viable international market. Suppose the board makes a lukewarm or hesitant recommendation involving some degree of protection, and the minister comes out blatantly for wholehearted protection for a longer period than the board itself had recommended. How can we know the real strength of the board's recommendation to the minister unless its recommendations are made public? Must we judge in the dark or shall we be able to judge from knowledge? Surely, any government which seeks to project a concept that it is dealing with educated people would wish to make the facts known so that the public could judge whether or not the minister was acting in a correct manner. I see the minister nodding his head in approval. I take it that perhaps he will accept my amendment to clause 24.
There is no specific reference in the amendment to confidential reports; it has reference to the publication of reports and whether a minister will make public published reports. The protection of certain industries in Canada may prove harmful to trade, and in most cases the minister will attempt to protect his decision making authority, I suppose, by making reports public only a long time after the issue in question has died, though the minister shakes his head. Since he is so concerned, I should like to read to the House a little more from the committee report because this point was brought up over and over again. In committee proceedings No. 15, the hon.

March 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre), as reported at page 15:17, put this question:
Would you permit a supplementary here? Is there any provision in this bill which obliges the board to make public the fact that it is about to give consideration to a matter and is there any provision for it to advertise its hearings so that interested parties may attend?
In other words, the hon. member is really posing two questions. Firstly, he wants the hearings to be advertised so that interested parties can attend, and he is also asking whether there is any provision that obliges the board to make the facts public. Then, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) said:
There is provision for the board to make reports. There is one problem in the kind of detailed reports that are made, and that is that much of the information that is gathered is of a private commercial nature.
I am not advocating that reports of a private and confidential nature be published but that published reports be made public; it is as simple as that. Following a similar line of thought, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), after a lengthy argument over this concept, as reported at page 21:6 of committee proceedings No. 21 said:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I tend to agree with the argument you make about the board receiving submissions from all interested parties, that the general rule be public hearings for each inquiry and that the decisions and the reasons be made public.
Those are two quotations from Liberal and NDP members. The minister nods his head in approval from time to time. Surely, we can reach a consensus on the issue that decisions of boards appointed by the government should, wherever possible, be made public, particularly in a touchy situation where, in effect, you are deciding that some industries shall survive and others shall die. Some industries need protection, and as I say that protection may well affect the export of other goods, particularly when protection is continually being asked for against goods brought in from what I might call the low cost producers, the Pacific rim countries that are buying so much of Canada's raw materials.
It may even be the case that tariffs will be raised for short periods. Unless the public is informed of the duration the minister may, even unknowingly, extend the protection for a longer period than the board intended. If the public is informed it can quickly draw to the minister's attention the fact the period recommended by the board has expired. If the minister believes in an informed public, he should accept this amendment.
The acceptance of this amendment would mean that we, as representatives of the people, would know of the board's recommendations and of the action the minister is taking. We could then judge whether those decisions and actions are based on sound recommendations, or whether they are narrow-minded policy decisions that are geared to protecting rather than expanding Canadian markets or to saving sick and ailing industries that the minister says he is not prepared to protect himself. We should be in a position to examine the reports of the board in order to determine whether, in our opinion,
these industries are sick and ailing or, rather, viable industries that are capable of forming part of the hub of industries that trade internationally in textiles.
This bill revolves around the principle of greater rationalization in the textile industry. If we are to determine whether the decisions of the minister are based on rationalization rather than protectionism, we must have the reports of the board. These reports must be made public so that we can make a fair and accurate assessment of those reports and the minister's decisions.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my support for this simple but I think important amendment. Many of the duties of members of Parliament have now been assigned to committees and many of our public and civic responsibilities have been handed over to boards. This is why it seems to me imperative that we know what these boards are doing. Although I realize perfectly well that the final responsibility lies in the executive, it is very difficult for us to tailor the law so we are kept up to date with the multitude of regulations and decisions made by boards without full disclosure of the facts.
Although the committee system is supposed to streamline Parliament, in actual fact it means that a very small number of members of Parliament are intimately connected with many decisions that me made. It is true that the committee system should tend to streamline Parliament, but in the streamlining process I think we are tending to hamstring ourselves. Many times we in the House are told that legislation has passed committee. But the very strength of the parliamentary system lies in the fact that 264 members are able to probe the wisdom of the executive and of government appointed boards. If we had an all-knowing government, an all-knowing civil service and an all-knowing slate of boards, then we would not need a Parliament; but for well over 1000 years our people have found that the only answer to governments is an alert public, and we happen to be the representatives of that alert public.
We want to know on what recommendations decisions of the executive are based. It seems to me that this simple amendment now before the House strikes at the very heart of the democratic process. Although it is a privilege carefully to scrutinize the actions of boards and ministers, and of departments which have stripped us of a great many of our powers, it is impossible for us to keep a finger on everything that is taking place in this country unless reports of government appointed boards are published. These reports are prepared at public expense, often at great public expense, and many times the executive takes action on these reports having less intimate knowledge of the facts than the backbenchers of this House.
Often, the final decision is not ours at all. After a matter has been threshed out in committee and the committee has made its report, some board makes the final decision according to law. I might mention a few exam-

March 22, 1971
commons DEBATES
pies. In respect of the Board of Transport Commissioners what do we have to say about such things as changes in freight rates, changes in air fares or the elimination of services? Such decisions are made by the Bcard of Transport Commissioners. If this board, in certain instances, should make recommendations to the executive I believe we should know on what basis those recommendations are made. As the last speaker said, it is not good enough to have justice done. The public has a right to know it is being done and what the weighing process is. They want to know what tipped the scales in favour of this or that decision. As I said, it is not just our privilege to dig into these matters but our right. We intend to do this. I have no hesitation in supporting this particular amendment, and I would add what small voice I have to that of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the amendment moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in respect of Clause 24 is a perfectly reasonable amendment. I intend to support the amendment and urge the government to go along with this change in the legislation. It may be a relatively small point in terms of the over-all framework of the bill, but nevertheless we think it involves some important questions. From the debate which has taken place on this bill, in the House, in the committee and now at the report stage, it is perfectly obvious that we are dealing with a very sensitive area of the Canadian economy. As legislators we are faced with a conflict of interest involving our need to promote export trade on the one hand, and the needs of the Canadian economy on the other hand. In addition, we must consider the needs of the 200,000 or so people who are dependent upon this industry for a livelihood. We do have a conflict of interest to resolve which poses some very difficult problems for the government, and which will pose very difficult problems for the board.
As has been noted, clause 24 gives the minister powers in respect of the publication of the report. A discretionary power is given to the minister to publish a report which may be abridged, as is considered necessary, to delete any confidential material. In respect of the proviso which is now contained in clause 24, which protects any information the minister may consider to be confidential, I believe it would be in the public interest, or in the interest of all concerned with this legislation, to ensure that there shall be reports and that the publication of the reports in whatever form shall be mandatory. I suggest this would assist the government in carrying through the principle of this bill, and in fact would lend itself to a greater degree of public confidence in the bill and in the operations of the board. Therefore, I would urge the minister to seriously consider this amendment and go along with other parties in approving it, thus improving the bill.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate those who took part in this short debate for the high quality of their intervention. I do not know how the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) spent his weekend, but his
Textile and Clothing Board Act contribution was a great improvement over his performance of last Thursday. I say that with a smile and I know he can take it in a similar way.
It is difficult for me to answer the points raised because one is uneasy when he finds himself in the position of appearing to be against providing information to educate the public. If I am still in that position, it is after reflection, and I hope my argument will be accepted by my hon. friends.
First of all, may I repeat what I said on a number of occasions before the committee. It is the intention to publish all reports made under clauses 16 and 17 as soon as it will be possible to do so. It is the intention to publish them whenever it is possible to do so. There might be cases in which it would not be wise to do so. Let me give a couple of examples.
There might be situations, for example, in which the reports have been overtaken by events. This could very well happen. A report could be brought in and then events could develop which would make the report unnecessary. In this case, there would seem to be no purpose to be achieved in publishing the said report. Another example might be a situation in which there would be so much confidentiality in the report that, without the confidential material, it would be of little assistance. I might comfort my western friends on this point by saying that a similar situation occurs in respect of the National Energy Board which deals with a good western commodity, as we all know.
In any event this is my first line of defence for the position I take, which is one of opposition to the amendment. I have another point to make. The change suggested by the amendment from "may" to "shall" would not change anything unless a specific number of days were attached to the word "shall". If we were to say that the minister shall publish the report this would leave me as free not to publish it as if we said "the minister may". The change in words does not change anything in reality.
The only way to achieve a real change would be to say the minister shall publish the report in 190 days, 180 days or 90 days, which is a favoured period of my hon. friend from Edmonton West. If the suggestion should be that a specific number of days be indicated, then I would say that cannot be done for a number of reasons. Two situations might be created. The board might recommend to the government protection or non-protection. If the government should recommend non-protection, that nonprotection may be given or may not be given by means of a decrease in the tariff. As Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I would want to bargain this concession with our trading partners. If the other countries with which I am trying to bargain know there is a recommendation to that effect from the textile and clothing board, I am not in a particularly good bargaining position.
If it should be the other way around, and the board should recommend protection for a period of time and of a certain type, then if this were known to foreign exporters and to Canadian importers, they might try their best to swamp the market fast enough to avoid

March 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
whatever decision in respect of protection the government might wish to take.
I have done my best to convince hon. members that the clause in the bill on publication of reports is not immoral and while being respectful of the axiom that Caesar's wife must not only be pure but appear to be pure, I have to anticipate the sort of problems which might occur.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on amendment No. 4, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast-Chilcolin):: I move:
That Bill C-215 an act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, be amended by inserting immediately after clause 25 at page 11 the following:
"26. The minister shall, within ninety days after the coming into force of this act and every ninety days thereafter, or, if parliament is not in session, on any of the first thirty days thereafter that parliament be sitting, submit to parliament a report respecting the administration of the act." and by renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.
The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is similar to that of the amendment just preceding it. Essentially, it is disclosure. It is not my purpose to prolong this debate. For one thing, we are aware that there are already quite a few jobless people in many parts of Canada as a result of a sag in the textile industry. The longer this bill is delayed, the longer the beneficial aspects of its provisions for the jobless will be delayed.
In speaking to the motion, I will also take into account statements made last Thursday regarding relevancy.
However, in order to explain why I feel that there should be frequent and continuing disclosures, which this amendment would oblige, it is necessary for me to deal
in general terms with this bill because I find that in some ways it is a rather strange piece of legislation. There is no doubt that its purpose is admirable, that being the rationalization of the Canadian textile industry, the winnowing out of inefficient sections of that industry, and the diversion of portions of the industry from unproductive lines into productive lines. I have heard no disagreement from any spokesmen of any parties as to the general desirability for this, and the minister will hear no argument from me against rationalization. In fact, I might say the same thing in other terms. I would suggest that it is essential for the good health of Canada, not only that efficient industries should have the chance to develop but that inefficient industries or industries which cannot adapt to changed conditions should retain that basic free enterprise right, which is the right to go broke.
So the ostensible purpose of this bill is supported by all the parties, if only because it represents an improvement over what we now have, and no doubt it will pass quite readily on third reading. I, myself, intend to vote for it on the basis that some improvement is better than none.
Nevertheless, I find it a curious piece of legislation and one which could be subject to much abuse, if not by this government then by governments to come. For t his reason, I suggest to the House that it is not a piece of legislation which we should permit to be tucked cosily, neatly and quietly into the statute books. The actions which may be taken under this legislation should be constantly on view before the general public of Canada, because the general public will pay the bill for protection if protectionism is invoked. The consumer pays for protection. He pays just as surely, if not as directly, as if he were being taxed to support an industry. Every tariff increase, every import quota or voluntary export quota negotiated with a foreign government, every surtax, every action of any kind to choke off the flow of cheaper consumer goods into this nation, is a charge against the Canadian consumer.
Of course, restrictions on imports may be necessary from time to time. Not even those who most ardently support the principle of free trade have ever suggested that it can be introduced overnight, and no one in this debate has suggested that the textile and clothing industry of Canada should be suddenly stripped of the protection under which it has grown and its tens of thousands of workers thrown out on the street. This would be savagery.
However, disclosure,-and that is what the amendment deals with-a system of regular public disclosure of how this legislation is being used, is another matter. It is necessary, if the Canadian consumer is to get some idea of how much he is paying to preserve portions of the clothing and textile industries. Usually, the consumer does not know how much he pays. However, in a study for the Gordon Commission, Mr. J. H. Young made an estimate that Canadians paid about $1 billion a year for protectionist policies, which in 1956 represented about 4 per cent of the gross national product. I wonder what the figure would be today if it could be calculated.

March 22, 1971

During the committee hearings I had hoped to get some reassurance from the minister about Bill C-215. I had hoped that he would be able to reassure me and others that this legislation was not an instrument under which continued protection might be given to sections of that industry which were not earning their right to existence. But there was not sufficient assurance from him. Time and again the effect of the minister's answers was that Bill C-215 was not necessarily protectionism, but protectionism if necessary.
Let us see how far that protection might be made to extend. Clause 18 lists five matters to be taken into consideration by the textile and clothing board in making recommendations to the minister. I will not take the time of the House to read those five considerations, but I suggest that the terms are broad enough, particularly in subclause (a) regarding manpower and regional considerations, that Canadian governments under such a bill could still be protecting the manufacture of buggy whips and butter churns in this country.
The minister was at great pains to tell the committee- and I have no doubt that he will tell the House again today-that he is not going to use this legislation as an instrument to shield inefficient industries from the natural consequence of their actions. He spoke more than once in answer to my questions, and I will not take the time of the House to read from the committee's report, about the value of precedent in our Canadian system. The precedent, he said, will be set by board decisions in the direction of practical measures for the rationalization of faltering sections of the industry.
I suggest that these reassurances by the minister are not enough. This is no reflection on the minister. I know he recognizes the importance of international trade for this country and knows that we cannot afford to badly damage our image in the international community by actions which retard trade. I know that he has an abundant store of common sense, although he sometimes cloaks it under an urbane wit, but I suggest that this has almost nothing to do with this piece of legislation because what have the assurances of this or any other minister to do with a question of law?
Ministers come and go and the law goes on without them. Once on the books, the law goes on almost as immovable and unchangeable as the civil service. If it is a law that can be used by the government of the day when it chooses, if it is a broad law such as this one, who is to say whether this piece of legislation in the future will be a powerful, straight protectionist piece of legislation in its application?
I have said that ministers come and go. Governments come and go. We all come and go. We are all here in this House temporarily; in fact, the records show that we are here for very brief periods. There is about a 30 per cent turnover of members of the House at each election.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That sounds like St. Augustine.


Paul St. Pierre: I wonder, and I am sure the minister will be interested in this, how this legislation will be
Textile and Clothing Board Act used in the year 1990, by which time the Conservative party might have bound up its wounds and regained power under the direction of the boys from Bay Street in Toronto? How might they use this legislation?
I had originally intended to move an amendment to put a life term on this bill, to have it automatically expire after ten or 15 years. But it seemed to me that this would make it lame duck legislation because obviously if the bill were to expire in, say, 1981, we could scarcely expect a manufacturer to undertake a new, high cost five or ten year development program under the terms of the act in 1978 or 1979.
What I am endeavouring to do by this amendment instead is to ensure that the consumers, the Canadian public, shall not remain in ignorance of what actions their government is undertaking, at their expense, to protect an industry. It does not, of course, suggest that the trade secrets of any plant should be revealed to competitors. That is taken care of in another clause of the bill. In any case, secrecy of information is at least dealt with in one part of the bill and, if I recall correctly, it is dealt with twice in the bill.
But what the amendment does attempt to do is to ensure that there will be regular public reports of what action the government takes under the terms of the legislation. Incidentally, the amendment is modelled on provisions in the Regional Development Incentives Act, which require the minister to.submit monthly reports on the actions of his department. I think it would be unreasonable to expect a monthly report on this legislation. Probably in most months there would be nothing to report. At least many of us would devoutly hope that would be the case. But quarterly reports to the public, while Parliament is in session, seem to me desirable, and I would say a necessary safeguard in the interests of the general public.
I wonder if here, Mr. Speaker, I might anticipate some objections from the minister. Perhaps he has none and will joyfully welcome my amendment, but I must face the possibility that he will not. It may be said that the amendment to clause 25, which requires publication in the Canada Gazette of all regulations, is a sufficient safeguard. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, and I have suggested it before, that the death of kings could be hidden if the news were published only in the Canada Gazette. But I am not going to pursue that argument.
After all, the Canada Gazette is available to everyone, and hopefully organizations and concerned members of the public will come to subscribe to it, and to check regularly upon it. It is at least a public record. But clause 24 deals with regulations, and not all the measures available to the government to protect the textile industry will necessarily be put into practice by regulation. I will deal with one important example. It is the arrangement of a voluntary export quota with one of our trading partners. We know how this is done. I think we know exactly how gladly other nations volunteer to restrict their sales into Canada. In effect, our trade minister of the day twists their arm until they volunteer. And, as with other forms of restriction on cheap imports into
4480

March 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act Canada, the Canadian consumer foots the bill by paying higher prices.
I submit that under this bill as it is now written, there is no requirement that this action be made public. The Canadian public would have no way of knowing to what extent voluntary export quotas were restricting the flow of goods into Canada. We do not know to what extent these are operative today.
Further, it may well be that many countries would prefer that such agreements with the Canadian government be kept secret. That might suit their convenience. But I suggest it does not well suit the convenience of the Canadian consumer, and in the balance I suggest the rights of our own citizens in this case must be paramount.
Unlike the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), I do not object to Clause 24. I feel that the minister does need discretion in negotiating with other nations on trade matters, and we should not deprive him of this right to secret negotiations. Someone said, I think it was Gracian, "To play with all the cards exposed is not only bad tactics but bad taste." And I know this minister would never be guilty of either. But when negotiations have been completed, when agreements have been concluded, then I suggest it is the right of the Canadian public to know within a reasonable period of time what those agreements were. This legislation should never be far removed from the scrutiny of the Canadian public.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued to hear some of the statements made by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre). I think he decided to stake up and down both sides of the rink and see how many shots he could take at both goals. On the one hand, he was saying that the textile industry had to be protected and on the other hand, was saying that every time imports were curtailed in any way the Canadian consumer had to pay more money. He cannot have it both ways. I do not know which would cause the greater misery.
All of us know of towns in which textile manufacturers or converters had to close their plants due to a heavy infusion of imports. I need only mention one particular town, and I apologize to Mr. Speaker for doing so. We have only to look at the city of Cornwall and the massive body blows it was dealt as the result of low cost textile imports. My own city of Edmonton has had a record of highly fluctuating employment in the textile converting industry over a period of years. In fact it is a good, budding industry in my city and produces excellent goods. But in the face of unrestricted cheap imports, not one Canadian plant could continue to keep its doors open.
Who can argue in favour of closing down a plant, selling its equipment, disposing of management and laying off 2,500 operatives? Just look at the cost to the nation in employment retraining alone. I agree it should not be the policy of the government to support inefficient industry with tariffs and quotas. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin was right when he said that if a person goes into business that gives him the privilege of losing money. On the other hand, in past years we have seen

some towns totally destroyed as the result of selective massive textile imports.
I agree with the hon. member that publicity is necessary, but I do not know what actual purpose is served by the 90 day reports emanating from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, unless it is just like tossing up a ball. You show that one province is getting massive aid, and you wonder why this is being done. You wonder what strings are being attached to such massive financial assistance. How many of these plans will still be in operation in two years? In many cases the assistance given under the act is merely delaying what should have been a merciful death.
In committee I disagreed with the hon. member on the 90 day provision. I feel that a report of an advisory board such as this should be no more frequent than that of a review board. It is all very well to make commissions and boards prepare reports and to table them, but what do we do with them then? I would say that a good 60 per cent of these reports end up in the waste baskets. Indeed, some members do not even see them because they have given instructions to their secretaries to throw them away. I would much rather the provision were for one year than 90 days. But even on this point the bill was completely silent, unless the act comes under the regulation requiring an annual report to Parliament. But there is no such provision in the bill.
As I say, I do not like the 90 day provision, but since the hon. member put in a section which requires a report to Parliament on the operation of the act I will support his amendment.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity of serving on the committee that considered this bill clause by clause. I would not pretend that I am an expert on the textile industry, and certainly I am no economic expert when it comes to dealing with free trade. However, I think it is very symptomatic of modern government that we are delegating a great deal of political power and authority to endless numbers of boards, commissions, Crown corporations and other agencies.
I recognize that the complexity of modern government demands this. Certainly, many who view modern government believe that Parliamentary institutions cannot function alone without appropriate delegation of their powers to other agencies. Sometimes, however, the delegation of authority from Parliament has political connotations, which can bring about disastrous results. You can have boards and commissions which in substance are acting in a political manner, such as the Canadian Transport Commission to a certain extent and the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission to a certain extent. Such Boards can move absolutely contrary to what might be recommended if the problem they were considering were before the House. In my opinion, some of the decisions of those boards have been questionable. I do not want my words to suggest that the boards were not motivated in
March 22, 1971

their decisions by what was good tor the country, but I find that there is very little that can be done to change those decisions.
This bill before us seems to introduce the delegation-to-a-board principle into the textile industry. Certainly, there is some difference from the normal delegation of power in that this is an advisory board only. That is to say, it does not have the power to act. Nevertheless, it is difficult to conceive a situation where a minister of the Crown would act ^ontrary to the recommendation of an advisory board appointed for the express purpose of relieving the minister from the difficulties and complexities of looking into a particular subject. My concern, therefore, is not that I do not think it is necessary. I think the minister's remarks throughout the course of debate in the House and committee should be accepted in good faith. He has said that this provision is for the benefit of Canadian industry.
My concern is twofold. First of all, as I read this bill it can serve the people of Canada in the way the minister suggests. It can be a very good thing, moving us progressively toward free trade with other nations, but it could also go in exactly the opposite direction. This measure could result in more protection for Canadian industry. Certainly, it could serve the protectionists within the country and not Canadian citizens generally. To ensure that the work of this board is in accordance with the principles enunciated by the minister, I think it is quite rational that there should be a report to this House from time to time. Such a report would also ensure that the aims and objectives of this piece of legislation were known to the public, thus enabling the public to determine whether or not the action taken was within the purview of what was intended in the first instance.
The amendment merely suggests that every 90 days the minister shall file a report to this House. It does not say that he shall reveal delicate and confidential negotiations which may affect our trade relationships with other countries. Indeed, clause 23 prohibits this; it merely says that he shall file a report. This report would merely cover what steps were being taken, what recommendations were being made and where we stood on the question of progressing toward free trade. Rationalization is a very good thing, but it can serve the principles of protectionism just as well. From time to time, I should like to see a report on how we are getting along. The minister defends himself on the basis that he cannot reveal these things, but I say that he is not compelled to reveal them by the nature of this particular amendment.
I fully support the amendment of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre). I think it would be a good provision to have in the legislation with respect to this type of board. I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that if such a report is not made by the minister, then he could surely be asked questions at the time the estimates of his department are reviewed. All matters could be gone into extensively there. The excuses he used for not providing by way of statute that the report be made public are blown away when you consider that this information could be brought out by that technique if Parliament had the time.
Textile and Clothing Board Act


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion, I want to make it clear that I do not accept some of the philosophy expressed by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) in support of his amendment. Nevertheless, on examination of this amendment I feel that it does have some merit and that the House should give it serious consideration. As has been noted, there is no provision for a report on the operation of the board in the bill. After all, this is a board which is being established not by any action of the government through its executive functions, but by this Parliament through the bill now before us.
It seems to me that Parliament has some right to expect a report on the operations of an agency which it establishes and to which it gives certain powers. On first thought, it might have been considered that subclause 2 of clause 25, which refers to the publication of regulations in the Canada Gazette, would have covered some of the concerns of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin. I think it has been rightly pointed out that there are other matters upon which the board will have to conduct studies, as it is empowered to by this bill, upon which it will not be required to make any report whatsoever. I can quite appreciate that confidential matters will be considered by the board and that, in many cases, voluntary restraint dictates that there must be some measure of confidentiality with respect to what is undertaken. Nevertheless, I see no problem in the government providing Parliament with some report on the operations of the board.
For instance, one has only to look at certain reports which are tabled by the government. One report which I saw the other day was the report of the anti-dumping tribunal. That certainly was a skeleton report if ever I saw one. It gave a skeleton type of outline of the operations of the anti-dumping tribunal. Of course, any action taken by that body is expressed in the form of a regulation published in the Canada Gazette, so that one would not encounter some of the problems in that case which might exist with respect to the board we are establishing under this bill.
I do not think a minister exhibiting the qualities shown by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would have any difficulty in dealing with any of the sensitive problems that may arise as a result of this amendment. After all, the minister has demonstrated on many occasions that he is the master of obscurantism. He has no difficulty in obscuring things when he so desires. He can embelish his presentation in a sea of words. Really, I must congratulate him on his talent and his facility in doing this whenever he wants to do so. He does it when it suits his purposes. Thus, I would say that it would not be difficult for the minister to ensure that the reports submitted to Parliament, as provided for in this amendment, are worded in such a way as to protect any matter which the minister might have to take into consideration. Thus, I hope that the minister will give some consideration to this motion and that we can have this change made in the bill before us.

March 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, to be consistent, I must support this amendment as well. The art of being a good parliamentarian lies in one's being willing to compromise. It is refreshing to hear a Liberal espousing something that sounds like the concept of free trade. The last time I remember free trade being espoused was in the Dunning budget, almost two generations ago. I believe that anybody, in any corner of this House, who supports free trade will have little difficulty in finding support in Western Canada. Western Canada has only gone ahead twice. The first time was under a Liberal administration, led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when the matter of reciprocity with the United States was discussed. After that, western Canada went ahead on sporadic occasions when this country sought free trade in the markets of the world.
I should like to see more free trade, because I have seen what it can mean. At this time Chemcell has thought it necessary to lay off between 325 and 350 breadwinners in my constituency. The firm is keeping open that part of its factory that is producing textiles. I think we ought to look more closely at this. A third of the factory is busy producing textiles from petrochemicals and artificial fibres. If we cannot compete, in areas like the production of so-called Irish linen made in Red China, then perhaps we could concentrate on making materials in which we have the upper hand, materials made from cheap petrochemicals. I conclude in this category wood products. It is in these areas that an alert government of a progressive nation such as Canada could make headway, and it is here that we could bring about the rationalization of which the minister spoke eloquently when introducing this bill. I certainly support free trade, and I say without hesitation that I would support any group in Canada which espoused the concept of free trade. I believe that free trade and free enterprise is the only basis on which we can have a free world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The question is on Motion No. 5, in the name of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word about the forthcoming group of deferred votes? There has been some discussion on this and I think there is agreement along these lines: there should be an order of the House that these votes are to be deferred until the first item of business tomorrow. This would be of advantage to a committee that is not sitting in Ottawa today, the members of which could be here tomorrow.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, we confirm that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. In that case further consideration of Government Order No. 50 is to be adjourned until tomorrow's sitting of the House and, pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the deferred votes shall be taken forthwith upon the calling of Government Orders. Is that agreed?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker, I hope it is recognized that there will be a vote on the motion which we have just considered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Yes. In connection with the request made by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin, may I say that the vote on Motion No. 5 in his name stands deferred until tomorrow, when we shall take the votes on the other motions.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask if it is correct to assume that the business for tonight will be, first, the government organization bill, to be followed by the young offenders bill. Am I correct in that regard?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. 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 Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs.	Maclnnis)-Citizenshiprequest for report on charges by Alex Bandy of Falsehood, deception and inefficiency; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Government organization-Proposed ministries of state; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Finance, Student loans-Suggested change in repayment requirements.
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.
March 22, 1971



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley Easi) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of making regulations, pursuant to paragraph (r) of section 273 of the Customs Act, so as to facilitate airplane tourist traffic at Canadian airports of entry by providing for the deputizing of qualified personnel now employed at management or administrative officers to handle customs clearance of such tourist traffic.
He said: Mr. Speaker, about a year ago I was privileged to present this resolution to the House. Although no opposition was forthcoming during the hour devoted to private members' bills, no direct action was taken to get Parliamentary approval. During the past year I have met with representative groups within the general aviation industry. On several occasions I have been encouraged by them to resubmit my resolution and continue the debate.
At page 897 of Hansard for November 17, 1969, my speech is recorded in which I endeavoured to explain the problems of general aviation as related to customs clearance for aircraft tourist traffic at ports of entry in Canada. I do not propose to repeat the explanation today. I am sure that most hon. members are familiar with the problems. I know that many members have received letters from aviation enthusiasts, businessmen and associations with regard to the problem relating to customs clearance for tourist traffic at airports.
I will attempt to suggest evidence which will hopefully provide the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) with sufficient proof to influence a new and realistic approach to this subject. However, I feel it is incumbent upon me to reiterate my remarks pertaining to the confidence of the travelling public in our customs and immigrations officials, especially their conduct in handling airplane tourist traffic. I suggest no criticism with regard to these officials in the performance of their duty.
Airports of entry differ from automobile ports because they are not located at the exact point of entry into Canada. Airports accommodating international passenger and commercial traffic are properly designated to serve the travelling public and in many instances are located two to three hundreds miles north of the Canada-USA border. Full time customs and immigration officers and offices are, of course, permanently located at international airports regardless of location. Light plane traffic is still permitted to use international airports of entry, and in fact, under existing regulations are encouraged to take advantage of this round-the-clock service, even though there is some doubt as to the advisability of mixing fast jet traffic with the slower light planes.
This resolution is designed to lend assistance and expedite customs clearance for light plane tourist traffic at smaller airports of entry located close to the border. Most
Customs Act
of the smaller airports of entry are no longer provided with service beyond regular working hours, as well as weekends and holidays. I would like to qualify that statement inasmuch as some still have adequate service, but most are denied the service which allows for the convenience of the tourist traffic using aircraft. The system automatically causes inconvenience to customs officers as well as airplane operators.
I am pleased to extend the appreciation of dozens of pilots I have talked to, as well as organizations which have only compliments to hand out as far as courteous treatment is concerned. I'm sure the time involved in travelling to and from these smaller airports of entry create time consuming inconveniences to customs officers, especially where an office is staffed by one officer.
A study of the recent re-organization of district and area administrations indicates the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Immigration have improved the efficiency of service to Canadian communities without adding cost to the tax-payers. The temporary employment of university students during peak traffic periods during the summer is highly commendable and I am sure is appreciated by both the tourists and the students. Each year community airports are being improved and light plane traffic is gradually increasing. More and more people are taking advantage of the convenience provided by new sophisticated equipment found in modern light airplanes and small airports. They are able to avoid the congested highway traffic and get above the polluted air into the blue sky.
In Canada today there are more than 10,000 registered aircraft. Light aircraft account for all but a few hundred, and I include airline transports in this figure. I repeat, of the 10,000 aircraft, and I am referring to all aircraft apart from the military, light aircraft accounts for all but a few hundred. Our real tourist potential is most impressive. There are 700,000 licensed pilots in the United States. Out of 130,000 registered airplanes in the United States, 98 per cent are owned by non-airline people. The Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S. estimates that 50 per cent of all air passengers in the United States are carried by non-airlines aircraft. Therefore, flying tourist traffic offers great potential, but lack of customs clearance assurance at many Canadian ports of entry discourages our American friends from travelling to Canada in light aircraft.
The concept that only the idle rich can afford private airplanes is no longer valid. Canadians and Americans in all walks of life are registered owners and pilots. Literally thousands of farmers on both sides of the border utilize various types of aircraft to facilitate emergency trips to centres for repair parts, fence inspections, aids to round up of cattle, crop spraying and so on. The farmers like to be tourists as well. However, most airports are located some distance from our urban centres, hence the general public is unaware of the ever increasing light plane traffic. I suggest that those who are interested should visit their local airport, especially on the weekend when there is not convenient customs clearance, and count the number of airplanes. In fact, light plane traffic

March 22, 1971
Customs Act
has been increasing so rapidly during the past few years that governments, in their wisdom, have been endeavouring to entice light airplane traffic away from major international airports in the interests of easing congestion. Governments have also been increasing aid for development of smaller airports in both rural and urban areas. Light plane pilots appreciate the concern of the Ministry of Transport and are happy to co-operate by utilizing airports outside the busy traffic patterns and corridors used by high flying, pressurized transports.
The resolution under debate at the present time has been criticized on the grounds that responsible airport managers or assistants would have difficulty in mastering the techniques relating to the duties of customs officers as established by existing criteria. It has been suggested that a conflict of interest might exist by virtue of the desire of airport managers to place priority on service to the travelling air tourists above the responsibilities of customs officers. This argument might have possessed some validity in days gone by when the gas boy operated the airport. Only in a very few isolated cases does it apply today. The airports which might qualify under the terms of reference of this resolution are usually owned outright by municipalities and operated by duly appointed airport boards under the able management of responsible citizens. Airport managers and their assistants for the most part are charged nowadays with the responsibility of administering strict rules as prescribed by the airport board and air regulations. Private operators handle gas concessions and engineering services.
I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all existing small airports of entry in Canada would qualify. I am sure there are probably a sizeable number which would not expect to qualify under this resolution. But I do say there are many airports of entry which could and should qualify if the Minister of National Revenue were to establish criteria based on a fair approach to the situation. I am not sufficiently presumptuous to attempt to set forth essential requirements but perhaps I might make a few suggestions for consideration.
First, the effect of this resolution, if it is adopted, might apply only to airports of entry within reasonable proximity of existing customs offices. Second, applicants would be required to enter upon a period of training acceptable to the Department of National Revenue. Third, tourist traffic only would be handled by the deputized officers, and this would be done in the same way as students handle seasonal duties. There is considerable experience in this regard. Many commercial flights today cannot be handled at airports of entry and customs officers must make special arrangements for commercial entries. If there is dutiable merchandise of a kind not ordinarily carried by tourists, it must be taken to the downtown customs office, and so on. Thus, the separation of tourists from commercial traffic is not entirely new. Fourth, deputized officers would be responsible to local customs officers and would be called upon to provide essential reports on a regular basis as required. Finally, a
small user charge would be imposed in order to eliminate any cost to the taxpayers as a whole.
You might feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is a generous statement to make on behalf of the various airport operators of Canada, but I can assure you there is a great need for traffic development at these airports in which municipalities, the business community and the flyers themselves have invested heavily to assist in the growth of the aviation pattern. I am confident that if criteria were established, together with a small user charge prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue, the airport managers and those who qualify to become deputized officers would be happy to co-operate in levying the charge; they would be glad to operate within the budget which might be made available, without cost to the taxpayer.
The greatest concern of the flying public centres on the fact that at many airports of entry after 5 p.m. on weekdays, all day Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, no service exists. This is unrealistic. Tourist traffic reaches its peak between Friday afternoon and Sunday evening. Service at weekends and after 5 p.m. is available at most airports of tourist destination only on payment of heavy travelling fees, anywhere from $12 to $30. The time taken to clear an airplane arriving with tourists is about 10 or 15 minutes.
In closing, I plead with the House to permit the referral of my resolution to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I respectfully suggest that the proposition is practicable and worthy of further consideration. If the Minister of National Revenue, after committee hearings, could establish a pilot project I am sure the aviation industry would be grateful and only too happy to render all possible assistance to the department as well as to the customs collection officers, so that we could eliminate the serious problem to which I have referred, one which is confronting general aviation today when people are travelling in Canada as tourists.


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in rising to support the ideal behind this motion. I have not had the opportunity to travel extensively by private aircraft but the complaints the hon. member has mentioned have been forcibly brought to my attention over the years by the operator of a small boat in a border area of southwestern Ontario. Getting properly passed through customs often poses a considerable problem, particularly at weekends when customs offices are open short hours at ports of entry which are operated on a seasonal basis.
As far as the customs officers themselves are concerned, may I go on record as stating that in most instances they are most co-operative. With plans properly made out in advance, customs inspection should not normally present any serious difficulty. I am more concerned about the situation where a large group of passengers arrive at one of our airports and some 100 or so people are subjected to delays that in this type of operation are literally abominable. These passengers do not know where their baggage is and they have to stand around waiting. This is where consternation reigns supreme.

March 22, 1971

An honest appraisal of the situation would lead almost anybody to the conclusion that these delays are definitely not caused by customs or immigration officials but, in my humble opinion, are caused by the administration and operation of the airport itself. Eventually, people's bags are found, though sometimes a report comes through that the bags of people who are in Ottawa are on their way to Winnipeg. However, my point is that delays at airports are primarily not the fault of customs inspectors.
I suggest that some streamlining of procedures, as is the case in other jurisdictions, could be made to assist the situation. For example, travellers could be placed on their honour to exit through one door if they have nothing to declare and to go another way if they do have something to declare. This procedure would be much better, it seems to me, than deputizing management or administrative officers, particularly at large airports, having full regard to the suggestions the hon. member made in connection with smaller airports.
For example, what management would be deputized at a large international airport? The manager of the cafeteria, the manager of the bar, the administrative officers, or whom? If these people cannot do a better job of effecting entry of tourists into this country than they do of sorting baggage, then I suggest that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), who is in the House, better stick to the tried and true method of the trained and qualified customs examiners. I am all in favour of speeding up procedures adopted by administrative officers at our large airports, since they have not set any records in the handling of my luggage, but I submit that most customs officers are pretty efficient and surely their specialized training is worth something in this instance.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the notice of motion before the House, may I say I have great pleasure in suggesting that such a term of reference for the Standing Committee on Transport and communications would make for good debate. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) could elaborate on his motion in committee to a greater extent than he has been able to do in the House. However, I believe there is good reason for supporting the notice of motion in view of certain things that need attention, and of which I am sure the hon. member is aware. Regardless of how much we would like to believe that there is sufficient staff available at all times to effect speedy customs clearance, the fact remains that there are occasions when deputies are required. In this regard, one of the areas that bears considerable examination, in my humble opinion, is the method of handling the jumbo jets. Since we are just about to enter the jumbo jet age, I feel we should have some extra facilities and manpower to handle the increased number of passengers carried by these aircraft.
I was concerned the other day to discover that Air Canada is considering discontinuing two of its normal flights to Vancouver when the jumbo jets are introduced so that these large aircraft will be filled. To me this is a further indication that the arrival of a jumbo jet will require extra personnel to handle customs clearance, lug-
Customs Act
gage, and passengers generally. At the present time we have a fairly efficient system of handling passengers at our airports. Yet we are bringing in the jumbo jet service without giving any consideration at all to the way we will handle their cargoes.
Further, it strikes me that the first image a tourist or visitor to Canada gets of this country is in the way he is treated at the port of entry. Unless we have sufficient facilities to cope with these visitors and to greet them properly, I am afraid our image is going to suffer.
I think the notice of motion introduced by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East at least opens the door to further consideration of this question in committee. Perhaps the government will think of other ways to handle the problem at that time, but surely at the present time we should allow this notice of motion to go forward to committee for discussion with a view to effecting speedy customs clearance. Even though there may be reservations about the mechanics of the notice of motion, we have no hesitation in giving our support to sending the motion forward to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by commending the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) for his initiative in putting forward for consideration the important matter raised in his notice of motion. I think I can say that this action on his part is typical of his continuing efforts as an effective and constructive member, not only on behalf of his constituents but also with respect to matters of public interest in general. I think I can inform the House that prior to the presentation of his motion today I arranged for the hon. member to discuss the proposal with senior officials of the customs and excise division as a way of aiding its meaningful consideration.
With reference to the remarks made by the last two speakers, I would certainly be pleased to hear from hon. members with regard to any problems they feel exist in relation to customs service in their areas so that I can have them looked into. Also, while the motion itself does not pertain directly to the matter of handling passengers from jumbo jets, I think I can say that planning to provide adequate customs service on arrival of jumbo jets has been carried out with the aim of ensuring that this kind of service is in fact available. I have been pleased to hear the compliments extended by hon. members to customs officers for the manner in which they have carried out their duties.
Let me now make a few comments on the subject matter of the motion itself. As some hon. members are probably aware, for many years prior to 1968 customs service for the clearance of non-commercial tourist air traffic in Canada was provided at all times without charge. The only cost to the parties accommodated was the payment of any transportation expense which departmental officers might incur in providing the service. Before 1968, call-out customs service was provided to

March 22, 1971
Customs Act
what are known as health or pleasure flights arriving at any airport approved for customs entry. This meant that customs officers were on call during the hours of operation of these airports. Since service to these flights was not subject to special service charges, the Customs and Excise Division was obliged to compensate officers with overtime pay for providing clearances after their regular hours of duty.
I should like to point out, however, that current regulations do not permit the charging of special services other than for the transportation of an officer when pleasure craft clearances are involved. This meant that before 1968 a situation existed in respect of service at small tourist airports whereby operators were receiving service which far exceeded that accorded any other form of transportation and that the cost of providing such service was being absorbed by the taxpaying public generally. I think I can best illustrate the point by referring to the facilities available at certain highway offices on the Canada-U.S.A. border where service is provided during specific hours and persons wishing to enter Canada outside those hours must do so at points of entry where extended or 24-hour service is available, and this has been the case for some time.
During 1968 it was recognized that the financial obligations of the government under contract with its employee groups about pay for call-out duties had become quite significant. It was considered that if this trend was continued as a result of future negotiations, costs in providing after-hours service to tourist air traffic would be completely out of proportion to the cost of service rendered to the travelling public as a whole. In view of this, and because of the budgetary and manpower restrictions placed on government operations at that time, it became necessary to review this function to ensure effective operation within the budgetary means available to the department.
Therefore, a revised policy governing hours of service at customs airports for the clearance of pleasure aircraft was put in effect in the late summer of 1969. Under this new system certain airports were designated, in network fashion, throughout all regions of Canada at which aircraft arriving with destinations in Canada could report inward for customs purposes. All other small airports would be confined to regular port hours, Monday through Friday. The aim was to encourage operators of aircraft to make their after-hours clearances at the specially designated airports I mentioned.
Generally speaking, after-hours service continued to be available for any air traffic entering Canada in need of it, although not always at each individual landing strip or airfield in the country. It was realized that this network approach would not be completely acceptable to pleasure air traffic in all instances and that we could still expect requests for clearances at other hours at certain airports. Such additional call-out service could, under present regulations, only be provided on an advance notice basis and then, in effect, at the expense of the taxpayer at large.
As one can well appreciate, the necessary curtailment of hours at certain airports, which over the years had given unlimited service, has given rise to a series of representations by individuals and organizations as well as in the form of this private member's motion calling for legislation authorizing the appointment of persons other than regular customs officers to perform the customs duties after regular hours at small airports. While the motion has been given a lot of thought and in-depth study, I regret that it is not felt this proposal can be accepted, at least in its present form.
I am advised that the only existing exception to the present situation with regard to use of regular customs officers is in respect of certain remote locations in the Arctic where Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers are normally used as customs officers or, when none are available, other government officials are used. But I am informed that ordinary civilians are never used for the position of part-time or temporary officer in the Arctic area. So, as I have said, I think it could be argued that the hon. member's motion, at least in the form in which it has been presented today, is not acceptable for a number of reasons. Let me list some of these reasons for the consideration of the House. The department, in order to demand proper service, of course would be obliged to adequately compensate such persons for performing the additional duties, and this would likely be on the same basis as payment to regular officers for such service. However, it is felt the service provided would not likely be up to the standard required by the law the department administers, and departmental requirements.
Another point is that it could well be that questions might be raised concerning how the proposal would fit into the collective bargaining arrangements between the government and its employees. Also, it should not be overlooked that customs officers assigned to the clearance of aircraft are responsible not only for the administration and enforcement of customs laws and regulations but must also act on behalf of many other departments, such as Manpower and Immigration, National Health and Welfare, Agriculture and the Air Transport Committee, to name just a few. I have some doubt that my colleagues who head these other departments or are responsible for some of the other agencies concerned would want to have what essentially would be untrained and part-time personnel to carry out the duties required by these departments and agencies. I think the consent of these departments and agencies would be necessary in respect of any changes along the lines proposed by the hon. member. Of course, as I have suggested, persons outside the customs service certainly could not be expected to perform the work of the customs officers or work on behalf of the other departments concerned without appropriate periods of training.
With specific reference to the hon. member's proposal for the employment of airport management or administrative personnel as part-time customs officers, situations could arise where the airport attendant would be endeavouring to sell his services to the aircraft operator and, on the other hand, causing the operator to present

March 22, 1971

himself, his aircraft and baggage for inspection. He would be called upon to question the operator relative to compliance with immigration regulations, to collect duties and taxes which may be applicable, and possibly would be required to initiate seizure action because of violations detected. I think it could be argued that such an arrangement could result in a conflict of interest on the part of the deputized individual.
Also, one could ask whether the general public would have sufficient respect for someone who was not truly a departmental officer. I say all this recognizing full well the positive development of local and municipal airports and the development of their staffs in recent years. I should say that as a result of the consideration of representations from the hon. member and others I have instructed senior officials of the department to re-examine and re-assess the whole subject of customs services to the travelling and importing public after normal hours at smaller airports throughout Canada. A very comprehensive study is being carried out covering the entire country from coast to coast and in the north.
At the moment, of a total of 138 airports, 67 or almost half are provided with customs service on an extended basis. That is to say, the services given are beyond the normal 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday business hours and vary according to the volume of traffic from 24 hours a day, seven days a week, down to the provision of service from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday to Thursday and 8 a.m. to midnight Friday to Sunday. An example of the latter is the airport at Regina. The remaining half of the total airports are provided with service from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday with a few receiving slightly longer hours of service.
One-third of all customs airports are located at or near the Canada-U.S.A. border and give extended service to the public, while another third are too far inland to be reached by most pleasure aircraft. Aircraft, therefore, must also pass a number of airports providing adequate service en route to their destination in the remote areas. The balance of our ports are in the limited service category where requests for extended service cannot be justified under any circumstances.
The hon. member had previously suggested to me directly that more extended service is necessary at eight airports, namely, Goderich, Ontario, St. Jean, Quebec, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Moncton, New Brunswick, Digby, Nova Scotia, Weyburn, Saskatchewan, Pitt Meadows, British Columbia and Chilliwack, British Columbia. As a result, I asked that a study be made by the department of the total need for customs service at these and other airports throughout the various regions of Canada. With respect to the eight airports in question, the study to date appears to reveal that of these airports only Fredericton would be likely to qualify for additional service. The Fredericton situation is presently being looked into with a view to seeing exactly what changes could be made to provide more flexible service there.
Also, an extension of service in this way through greater flexibility has recently been put into effect in the
Customs Act
Prairie region of Canada. It was recognized that existing circumstances differ somewhat from those in other regions in that the distance to be travelled can be quite significant, and also there was recognition of the fact that the Prairies had relatively few places where extended hours of service were available. This is similar to steps recently taken with regard to the Kitchener-Waterloo airport after it became apparent that the need for a form of extended service existed.
Accordingly, I recently met with representatives of the airport commission to discuss this matter after receiving representations from various members, particularly the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Hymmen). Pending completion of the comprehensive study I have mentioned earlier, a study which involves further discussions with other government departments concerned, I have asked Customs and Excise officials to interpret and apply the existing regulations with respect to service after normal hours at the Waterloo-Wellington airport and other similar smaller airports in the most flexible possible manner in order to accommodate the needs of the travelling and importing public who use such airports.
In conclusion, may I say that subject to the results that might arise from the further consultation and the studies now under way that I have just mentioned, the evidence presently available to the department does not indicate a clear need for additional designations of customs airports with extended hours of service. Also, the question of authorizing private and municipal airport personnel as special, part-time customs agents appears to present a number of practical difficulties, some of which I have outlined and which I think can well lead to the conclusion that the hon. member's proposal, at least in the form he has presented it-although the aims of the hon. member are understood and appreciated-cannot presently be accepted.
Let me assure the House and the hon. member that if our continuing studies lead to the conclusion that additional service is required, then the Customs and Excise division will certainly attempt, consistent with the resources available to it, to provide such service. I wish again to assure the hon. member that the important issue raised in his motion is under active study and I commend him for his initiative in presenting his motion, a step which assists us in the consideration being given to the important question raised by it.


Mr, William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part briefly in this debate and to support the hon. member's motion. In my remarks I wish to broaden the subject somewhat. Perhaps you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I discuss the clearing of tourists and visitors to Canada through customs and extend it to those people who arrive by boat, by yacht and by pleasure craft in the Great Lakes area. I shall only take a minute.
Since the minister is in a mood to hear representations and maintain an open mind on the subject, I would ask him to give very serious consideration to a representation that has already been made to his department by letter. This matter concerns clearing of pleasure craft on the
4488

March 22, 1971
Customs Act
north shore of Lake Erie, particularly in Long Point Bay and the inner bay: The particular spot is Booth's Harbour. The Customs Department last year saw fit to extend, on a seasonal basis, a clearing station at this local marina where, by the way, very extensive facilities are being provided and extended to take care of American tourists.
The minister's department knows full well that this is an expanding business on the Great Lakes. The extension of the service on a seasonal basis last year was much appreciated. I understand it was done on a trial basis. This year the local marina at Booth's Harbour has been advised that the service is being withdrawn after only one year. Since the service and the marina are, as I have stated, in the process of expansion, I think it is only fair that the department should take another look at this service and give it at least a two-year trial to determine whether or not it is worth while, because this manner of visiting Canada is being used increasingly by pleasure craft through Lake Erie.
While I am on this subject I would like to express my personal gratitude for the way in which the minister's department a number of years ago handled a rather unpleasant incident in Port Dover, where U.S. visitors were given rather shabby treatment when they attempted to obtain customs clearance. This problem has been cleared up to the satisfaction of the community. I trust the minister will give the same consideration to the representation I now make to him, which I have already placed on paper by means of a letter to his department with respect to seasonal service in Booth's Harbour. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me broaden the topic and make this representation to the minister.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, no one can listen except with sympathy to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) when he puts a case as cogently as he did here this afternoon. I was very happy therefore to hear the minister responding in a sympathetic way as indeed I feel he has impressed all of us in the House with the strength of the case he made for improved customs services for aircraft for tourism purposes.
However, and in spite of the fact that I think our feeling of sympathy is increased by knowledge of the member's own experience, flying not only for pleasure but for business, and in spite of the fact that most of us appreciate that general aviation in Canada has been neglected in the basic services it requires in favour of interest in very large hub airports, like the international airports and major airports in other cities, I think the case he is making really has to be made elsewhere than to the minister responsible for customs and excise.
To me, a very important consideration is a national airport system that will put the case for general aircraft facilities and service into perspective, so that this traffic will increase in keeping with improved ground and operational facilities and will so increase that the pressure on

the customs people will be great enough to justify the additional expense of providing customs officers as suggested by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). 1 make this comment in light of some of the statistics which are available. I would like to refer particularly to a recent report of the Central Ontario Aviation Council which draws attention to this neglect of general aviation facilities, including those for tourist aircraft. For example, it points out that in North America there are some 3,000 commercial airliners, but they compete for airport space and indeed for air space with 154,000 general aviation aircraft. Among the latter are aircraft flying for pleasure. That is to say, there is a 50 to 1 proportion in which general aviation aircraft have a preponderance over the major airliners, and it is expected that by the end of this decade that proportion will be more in the order of 100 to one in favour of general aviation aircraft. Therefore, I suggest that the problem which the hon. member has put so cogently in front of us is going to intensify and that this will require the federal government-I think in this case, in collaboration with other governments in Canada-to come up with a national air transportation policy.
Such a policy should include the development of regional, subregional and area airports, not only to cope with this impending traffic but also to encourage its expansion for the economic benefits which it is bound to bring. So I suggest to the hon. member that I think the problem, which is going to intensify, will bring its own solution in its train-that is to say, the build-up in traffic will tend to justify the customs costs which the minister has indicated at present would not be justified.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) outlined very clearly the changes and improvements that have been made in the customs service to date. I took note of some of them as he went along. I was encouraged, as I am sure the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was, to note that there have been specific improvements along the line of his hopes since 1968. These included changes that brought increased customs services to a certain number of airports where they could be justified. They included changes that made emergency landings open to customs services without additional charges, and a very broad interpretation of emergency services was given. However, I think the problems which the minister mentioned are very formidable, particularly with respect to the solution that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was putting forward, and for this reason I cannot support the specific proposals of the hon. member in this motion.
In addition to the problems of costs, I do not see how one can get around the problem of deputizing important customs functions to non-customs officers and, in fact, to civilians. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but customs officers are also obliged to act on behalf of other departments of government when performing their duties, for example, for the Department of Manpower and Immigration, for the Department of National Health and Welfare and also for other departments.
So, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the high cost of supplying after-hours customs services, it seems to me that the hon. member's proposal meets these other formidable
March 22, 1971

objections. It would be a downgrading of customs services. It would be offering a service that really is not adequate in a responsible sense. I suggest that the best solution is likely to be found by pursuing the present course, which is a continually close examination of the situation across Canada, adding after-hours customs services where and when they appear to be justified.
I suggest, therefore, to the hon. member that he should seek other proposals to put forward, because obviously the minister is looking at the matter very sympathetically. I wonder if a bonding system would make sense, so that a pleasure aircraft arriving for tourist purposes might be bonded at a regional airport and then be able to land at a more distant and isolated one where the officials at the airport, not being customs official at the time of landing, might be able to cope with the situation. I am sure that the hon. member, resourceful as he is, will come forward with other proposals that do not raise such formidable objections as have been raised to this current proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair.

I am encouraged to observe that hon. members are becoming a little more convinced that short speeches can contribute to a more effective exchange of different views among a greater number of hon. members, at least during private members' hour.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
consent of the House, at report stage and before we reach third reading.
Mr. Speaker:: This can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Your Honour, this is an amendment which I circulated in an informal way to all parties. It was brought on at a late stage as a result of a delegation of judges of the provincial court and of the court of sessions in the province of Quebec. I should like, with the unanimous consent of the House, to read the amendment into the record. If consent is given, perhaps Your Honour would put the amendment to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: My colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) moves:
That Bill C-218, an act to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the release from custody of accused persons before trial or pending appeal, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 23 on page 4 thereof and substituting the following:
(ii) in the province of Quebec, a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction of the province or three judges of the sessions of the peace or of the provincial court.
I can give this amendment to the Table. I have already distributed it to members of all parties. I should like to explain it, for the record, to the House at the report stage. This amendment would provide the accused and the prosecutor in the province of Quebec with an alternative method of obtaining a review of the decision of a justice as to the pre-trial release or detention of an accused under proposed section 445A. The difficulty is that in the province of Quebec there are no county or district judges as we know them in other provinces, so this amendment is to provide an equivalent type of review.
In those provinces which have a county or district court, the party applying for the review could, under sections 445F or 445G as proposed in the bill, choose to have the hearing either before a judge of that court or before a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction in the province. As there are no county or district judges in the province of Quebec, the review jurisdiction, under the present formulation of the bill, is vested only in a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-218,	.
to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to
the release from custody of accused persons before trial in certain respects, jurisdiction under the Criminal or pending appeal, as reported (with amendments) from	Code of a judge of the sessions of the peace or a
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.	judge of the provincial court in the province of Quebec is
similar to the criminal jurisdiction that is exercised in Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice): I rise on a	other provinces by judges of county or district courts,
point of order, Mr. Speaker. If at all possible, I should	For example, by virtue of section 466(a) (ii) of the Crimilike to introduce an amendment, if I could have the	nal Code, a judge of the sessions of the peace or a judge
24081-ih

March 22, 1971
Criminal Code
of the provincial court has jurisdiction to try an accused person who elects to be tried by judge without a jury under part XVI of the Code.
However, because in the province of Quebec a judge of the sessions of the peace and a judge of the provincial court fall within the definition of "Justice" and are therefore empowered to make the original decision as to pretrial release or detention of an accused-unlike country or district court judges in other provinces-it would not be proper to invest a single judge of the same court with review jurisdiction. In these circumstances, as an alternative to a review by a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction in the province of Quebec, the amendment would invest jurisdiction for review in three judges of the sessions of the peace or three judges of the provincial court.
This amendment, which was supported by a number of judges concerned in the province of Quebec, would make it easier for a review to be carried out in the more isolated areas of that province, because the applicant would not be required either to make his application in Montreal or Quebec City or await the sittings of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction in his own area.
I put the amendment to the House and suggest that it is really a technical one to overcome differences between court structures in Quebec and those in the other provinces.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seize the opportunity provided by the introduction of this amendment to ask the minister whether he has received representations from certain Quebec justices, including Mr. Justice Fabien, with respect to certain clauses of this bill providing that a police officer may decide for himself when making an arrest without warrant to release the person without bail? Has he contacted Mr. Justice Fabien and does he intend amending this clause in order to avoid unnecessary difficulties for police officers who, although highly qualified, may not always have the required training to make such decisions which heretofore were reserved to judges, in Quebec at least-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We must take it for granted that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) still has the floor, and that the question directed to him by the hon. member for Abitibi allows him to continue his speech, because the minister obviously cannot take the floor twice in support of that amendment.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the question of the hon. member is only remotely connected to the amendement under consideration, and it should have normally been asked to the minister on third reading. At any rate, since the question has been asked, the minister might want to answer it.


John Napier Turner: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. We met with a delegation of provincial judges and judges of the sessions of the peace. In my opinion, judges are now satisfied with this amendment and with the specific question asked by the hon. member on this matter.

Last week, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, amendments have been moved which were approved not only by provincial judges, but also by the Police Association of the Province of Quebec and other associations. I think that all those people are satisfied, and I just wrote to the judges and to the representatives of the Police Association on that matter. I believe that this will do it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice? It illustrates, if I may say so, some of the problems we face in discussing a bill in connection with which there are no amendments on the Order Paper at the report stage. There is little opportunity for hon. members to ask questions until one reaches third reading stage, when it is really too late.
Hon. members who perhaps have read the transcript of evidence taken before the committee and yet still wish to ask a question for explanation are in this difficulty, as I am at present. This amendment deals with the definition of "court" for review purposes. What will be the effect of this amendment, in the minister's opinion, on those provinces which are changing the titles of certain of their courts? Instead of magistrates courts, we are now getting provincial judges. Actually, we are reaching the level that exists in the province of Quebec where you have a sessions judge and a provincial judge. In the province of Alberta, for instance, as of January 1 magistrates will become provincial judges, as they are in Ontario. Bearing in mind the definition of a judge and that the equivalent of a magistrate exists in the province of Quebec, and bearing in mind that judges may have the opportunity of sitting "en banc" to review an application for bail from the lower court, will the same privilege be granted to other provincial judges to sit "en banc" in review?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is solved by the fact that the definition is limited here to the province of Quebec, to take care of the particular situation there. As I understand it, in those provinces which are now reorganizing their courts and calling their magistrates provincial judges, there is in the legislation a clause saying that provincial judges, for the purposes of the Criminal Code, shall exercise the jurisdiction of a magistrate. Therefore, the problem alluded to does not arise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I only want to say three or four words. Even though we have stretched the rules a bit, I trust that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is glad that we now have the report stage.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have always been content with the report stage and have always been generously treated by the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the wording of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Maren 22, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-218, to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the release from custody of accused persons before trial or pending appeal, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


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


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, an interesting bill is before us and I hope my few words will be acceptable to the House. I think the bill embodies two propositions and I will put them into my own brand of English. One is: Don't put people in jail; putting people behind bars is a Canadian habit we should all try to discourage. My second colloquial proposition is: Just because they're broke doesn't mean they are criminals; or, people can be poor and honest. That is my way of looking at it. The minister put it in somewhat more refined English in the press release or communique which invariably comes out when a bill is read the first time in the House, dated January 22, 1971. He put it this way:
The basic philosophy of the bill is that a police officer should not arrest a suspect if the public interest can be secured by proceeding otherwise; and that if a suspect is arrested and detained, his financial means should not be the determining factor in deciding whether or not he is released on bail pending his trial. The bill provides that the onus should be on the authorities to establish why bail should not be granted.
Perhaps because of that last statement several police officers' associations expressed concern to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Their point was graphically made by a cartoon which appeared in an American publication. It depicts an American police officer standing in front of his desk sergeant. The police officer is saying, "I just made an arrest and I would like to call my lawyer."
Some of us are aware of the difficulties that police officers have encountered in an age where some rather important changes have been made to the law. I think I speak for members of the committee when I say that despite the protestations of police associations and some very distinguished police officers, they did not really make their case. However, because they were concerned about it, it would be worthwhile to request that after this law has received a fair trial of possibly one or two years the minister and his department keep an open mind on whether the fears of the police officers are justified. If police officers are being inhibited in their treatment of
Criminal Code
people they apprehend, some remedy should be sought in the future.
I wish to deal with the reason why police officers are concerned about the changes proposed in the bill we are now considering on third reading. I wish to quote from the 9th issue of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. At page 15 I directed a question to Mr. Robert Brown, the associate vice-president of the Canadian Police Association. This man is from Toronto. I quote:
You seem to lay great stress on the danger of taking somebody who has been charged from the site of the arrest to a police station.
There are provisions that instead of the police officer trundling the accused to the police station, he may give him notice on the street that there will be court proceedings, and allow the man to continue on his way. I will give examples of this later. The police felt there was the danger of being open to some kind of civil action if they in fact took an accused to the station. I asked:
Do you think it would be an inhibiting factor on police officers?
Mr. Brown replied:
I think the way the bill is worded it would be because if that officer erred in judgment and found he had taken the wrong person to the police station, had taken a particular individual who should not have been taken to the police station, and that individual turned around and successfully sued him, there would be ramifications throughout all police departments across the country.
As a result of that and other evidence, changes were proposed which were satisfactory to the peace officers. They were in connection with what I call the power of non-arrest where someone is stopped and given notice that he is faced with a criminal charge but is not taken to the police station. Clause 436(2) of the reprinted and amended bill reads:
(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for
(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 467_
I will deal with that in a moment. The clause continues:
. an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction or	'
(c)	an offence punishable on summary conviction, in anv case where
(d)	he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to
(i)	establish the identity of the person,
(ii)	secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
(iii)	prevent the constituation or repetition of the offence or
the commission of another offence,
may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and
(e)	he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend in court in order to be dealt with according to law.
That is quite a mouthful. I would like to be hidden in the cloakroom of the police academy when someone is


Russell Clayton Honey: On the discretion of the officer?
Mb. Turner: On the discretion of the officer. He has that discretion now, Mr. Chairman. This bill converts the discretion into a duty not to arrest and we are talking in this amendment as to what offences this duty not to arrest ought to be attached to.
Under the bill as it now stands the duty not to arrest includes all offences except for murder. Under the suggested amendment, the duty not to arrest would be restricted to summary offences, and there are about 100 of those, the offences for which there is an option to proceed by way of indictment or summary proceedings and those offences under the absolute jurisdiction of a magistrate.
Some of the police officers presented a good picture of the difference between the problems facing a police officer in a metropolitan area and those facing him in a rural area. I think the point was thoughtful and I should like to put some of the argument on record. The point comes from Mr. Brown, president of the Canadian Police Association of Toronto. He talked about the heavy onus which falls upon police officers in the street under the terms of sections 437 and 438.
We Intend to show, by exhibit, a number of items which could cause the officer on the street to accept certain identification as proof in dealing with a suspect. These identification documents. however, are either fraudulent or stolen. It is suggested that this is an urban police problem as opposed to rural.
Then they came in with a glittering array of documents, credit cards, student passes, train passes you name it-anything which anybody can open up their billfold and look at; all the cards they amass there. All these cards are the subject of forgery or fraudulent reproduction. The point Mr. Brown was making is that the police officer probably does not know the person he is stopping for crime in a big city, but likely would know him if he stopped him for crime in a small town. In a big city the one thing he would want, anyway, would be some identification of the accused before he would let him go under his own power; and Mr. Brown points out it is easy for a person of criminal bent to have all kinds of false documentation upon his person.
Well, time alone will tell whether this ready access to forged or otherwise fraudulent identification is an inhibiting factor for police. Perhaps there will be cases where public outrage will be raised because of the ability to obtain forged documents of identity and the like. But to me that is not really an inhibiting factor. I do not think it is a difficulty in the bill; I think it is just one of the reasons for our having a whole lot of police forces. Another point the same Mr. Brown makes is with regard to the principle of persons attending for identification purposes. Persons released may not appear to be the ones who attend an identification parade. This comes from the 9th issue of the deliberations of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Different suggestions have been made regarding the mechanics of such a change in procedure. These have included obtaining a thumb print of the accused at the time of apprehension which would be the most definite form of future identification. We must consider the larger forces who process a number of prisoners each day. An officer may apprehend a female with short hair but when she arrives for identification she may be wearing a wig which would change her whole appearance. A police officer may

March 22, 1971

encounter some difficulty verifying the photograph as that of a woman he had previously apprehended, perhaps days before her identification appearance. The same could apply to a male with a beard and long hair who shows up clean-shaven and with a haircut. It would be almost impossible to identify the person from a photograph. We must also consider the number of persons a police officer contacts during his normal tour of duty.
I suppose that problem points up the tact that when in doubt the police officer will haul the fellow down to the jail for identification. That will be the big problem the minister will face because, let us face it, the minister is trying to cut down arrests and the arbitrary bundling off of people to put them behind bars for the night and let them argue for bail in the morning. In short, the minister is trying to achieve a more humane practice, but I suspect that unless you are stopped by your friendly, neighbourhood police officer who knows you, if you are arrested in a large city in Canada, 99.9 per cent of the time you will go to the jail and will have to argue your case before the desk sergeant.
I have two quick points to make before concluding. The first deals with guidelines for the detention of an accused in custody as laid down in new section 445A(7), which is to be found at page 24. I have already tried this one for size on some of my friends in the judiciary in Nova Scotia, and they found it vague. I do not know whether it can be any stronger than that which the minister and his drafters have brought before us, but for the record it deals with the detention of an accused in custody as justified on one of the two following grounds. In other words, it is an attempt to lay down guidelines for the direction of the judge or other persons who are dealing with bail.
(a) on the primary ground that his detention is necessary to assure his attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law; and (b) on the secondary ground (the applicability of which shall be determined only in the event that and after it is determined that his detention is not justified on the primary ground referred to in paragraph (a)) that his detention is necessary in the public interest or for the protection or safety of the public, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if he is released from custody, commit a criminal offence involving serious harm or an intereference with the administration of justice.
That is, Mr. Speaker, if he is going to run out and try to "get at" Crown witnesses and suborn their testimony. But I think it does not express principles as quickly or efficaciously as Moses found when he brought those tablets back with him. The fact is that it does offer a primary and secondary line which judges should follow, and it may be worth while to look at again in a couple of years in light of the experience the minister finds the courts have in dealing with this problem. At least, to my mind it seems a reasonable direction.
Finally one is faced with the problem where a policeman has said; If you keep this man out of jail awaiting trial, he may go around committing other crimes. That is a pretty pertinent question, is it not? The Ouimet report, on which the bill is partly based, suggested having a registry in each province. In today's electronic age I am sure it would be possible to establish close liaison between the registries of each province so that police officers, judges or Crown attorneys could obtain very
Criminal Code
quick reports on subjects who had been apprehended and ascertain whether there was any likelihood of the person in question continuing to live a life of crime if given freedom.
Since I raised this point on second reading and it remained unanswered, may I just refer to Minutes of Proceedings No. 8 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, where as reported at page 30 I made the following remarks:
My first question relates to a suggestion within the Ouimet committee report that there be a registry system established within each province so that a judge faced with the question- a police officer, I presume, too-whether a person should be allowed at large or kept in custody to await trial would have some quick way of finding out about that person. This seemed to be a point on which Ouimet relied heavily but is, of course, absent from the bill. In fairness to that report perhaps the minister should be allowed to say why it is not in there.
The minister replied:
I agree with that suggestion of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, known as the Ouimet committee, but it is an administrative matter rather than a legislative one-and it is an administrative one depending on voluntary co-operation by the provinces. Under the Criminal Code the enforcement of the criminal law has been delegated to the provinces. It is their joint responsibility and I will undertake, as I already have undertaken to the hon. member, to transmit the Ouimet committee report recommendation to the effect that a central registry for bail applications be set up if at all possible. It might well be one of the matters that could be submitted to the uniformity conference next year, and I will undertake to do that.
I continued:
I suppose, Mr. Chairman, to carry the point further, there even could be co-operation, in this communications age, in respect of one central registry-
The minister replied:
Yes, and I imagine it will be done on the computer system now set up which handles a number of offences in a statistical way, automobile offences and so on, and the bail application problem could be put on the same system of computers.
I am sorry to have taken up the time of the House to make these three or four points on the bill, but I thought they should be on the public record, more especially since we had fairly good representation before the committee from those who will either make or break this bill. There is no doubt that it is the police officer on the beat who will prove either that we have been indulging in a great act of wisdom or in an act of optimism that has no basis whatever in reality. It would be my hope-I think I also express the hopes of my colleagues-that this legislation will do exactly what is hoped of it.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill. We had a healthy debate on second reading and a good discussion at the committee stage, so I shall confine myself to making just a few remarks. The test of the adequacy and strength of the bail reform bill will be shown when its measures are applied by an arresting officer, the officer in charge at a police station, magistrates, justices of the peace and provincial judges. The bill gives very wide discretion to an arresting officer, to an officer in charge and to justices of

March 22, 1971
Criminal Code
the peace. This will probably be a good thing because it will place on these people the onus of exercising good, common sense in regard to making arrests and permitting people to be released on bail.
In its present legislative form, the bill looks like a step forward. The principle that the financial means of a person who has been arrested and detained should not be the determining factor in deciding whether or not he should be released on bail pending trial is a step forward, as is the principle that the onus of establishing why bail should not be granted is on the authorities concerned. The test now in legislative form is whether an accused is likely to turn up for his trial. This test has been stated in many cases, and since we now have it in legislative form this is certainly another step forward.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister introduced the first bail reform bill in June he imposed on an arresting officer the duty of establishing reasonable grounds for justifying the arrest; no other grounds for arrest were adequate. The minister indicated at that time that any unjustifiable arrest might leave an arresting officer open to civil liability. Following conversations and discussions with police associations across the country, the minister made a substantial change in the bill which he later introduced. He has now set forth guidelines to assist a police officer who is making an arrest without warrant. These guidelines are to be found in section 436 (1) and (2). The police officer is also protected by the law, because the bill states that he shall be deemed to be acting lawfully and in the execution of his duty.
The fact that 90 per cent of all arrests are without warrant indicates the heavy duty imposed on an arresting officer in regard to offences under the Criminal Code. The law is now in the same position that it was in prior to the introduction of the bill-the onus will be on the person arrested to show the arrest was unlawful in order for him to succeed in a civil action. I am not being severely critical of the minister for his making that change. He has had the opportunity of speaking to police officers across the country, so we shall have to await the test of time to determine the adequacy and fairness of this provision.
I recall when we were in committee asking detective Syd Brown whether he had heard of any successful civil actions for unlawful arrest. If my memory serves me correctly, he said that in his 20 or 24 years' experience he had heard of no such successful action. There was certain apprehension on the part of the police in regard to the stringent sections in the Code prior to the second bill that was introduced by the minister. I think the minister will have to give some direction to arresting officers in regard to what they should do when making an arrest. The minister will probably have to set forth some of the charges in connection with which an arrest can be made, so the officer can issue the appearance notice at the time of arrest. I also think the minister will have to give similar indication to the officer in charge of a station before any issuance of a promise to appear on notice.
Time will indicate the effectiveness of these measures. We have given an arresting officer wide discretion, and I
expect that in the application of the new law there will be wide variations of application. We shall constantly have to scrutinize the behaviour of arresting officers in relation to charges brought under the Criminal Code.
I am very pleased the minister has included a clause in the bill which gives a magistrate the opportunity, when imposing a sentence, to take into account the time an accused person has spent in jail while awaiting trial. This has been very important in the past when sentence had to be passed. One situation which comes to mind concerns a second offence of driving while impaired. Under the Code, if a person was found guilty of a second offence of driving while impaired the magistrate had no discretion; he had to impose a jail sentence of 14 days minimum or a maximum of 3 months. If such a person did not have bail money it meant that he could spend upward of a month in jail and then would have to serve the mandatory 14 days jail term required by the Code. The provision which gives the magistrate an opportunity to take into account the time in jail spent by an accused while awaiting trial is a great step forward.
My last point is rather important. We have permitted an accused cash bail or other security in cases where he does not ordinarily reside more than 100 miles from the place where he is in custody, with the onus on Crown counsel to demonstrate that none of the other methods are satisfactory. I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) did some mental wrestling in respect of this particular provision and has come up with something which he believes adequate, reasonable and fair. I should like to remind the minister of the question I posed to him the other day concerning students, young people, who will be travelling across Canada during the summer. I can picture many of these young people perhaps getting into trouble with the municipal police and finding themselves in a position of being 100 miles away from their ordinary residence.
It may be that Crown counsel will try to demonstrate there is no satisfactory method of releasing such a person. We heard of cases last summer where a number of students were detained under the vagrancy sections of the Criminal Code. It seems to me we should not continue this practice of harassing young people and students who travel across the country. The only way out in this regard is for the Minister of Justice to rescind the vagrancy sections of the Criminal Code. This would take away from the municipal police the power of harassment in respect of students or young people who travel across Canada. Therefore, I again plead with the Minister of Justice, in my awkward but persuasive style, to bring forward an immediate amendment to the Criminal Code to delete the vagrancy sections and stop police harassment of students who travel across the country in the summer.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I said the test of this bill is dependent on the wise discretion exercised by the arresting officer at the scene of the arrest, or by the officer at the station, the justice of the peace, the magis-
[Mr. Gilbert.)
March 22, 1971

trate or the provincial judge in court. I should like to think the minister has taken a bold step forward with regard to protecting people from unlawful arrest and long detention while awaiting trial. I will probably have to wait at least a year to see whether I should throw accolades to the minister or continue the constructive criticism which from time to time I impose on him.
At this stage I am prepared to give the minister credit for this bill. I would say again that it is a mini-step forward with regard to our criminal law processes. I thought the minister took a big step forward in respect of the omnibus bill amendments to the Criminal Code. Now he has taken a mini-step. I should like to see him take another giant step by bringing forward another omnibus bill to take into consideration vagrancy, uniformity of sentencing and many other features with which I am sure he is anxious to proceed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to put a short question to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


John Napier Turner: When the hon. member has an opportunity to cast his persuasive mind into the law, would he be good enough to look into the burden of proof that is cast upon someone who is arrested, in establishing a case of false arrest? He will find that the burden of proof has not shifted. Under this bill, the burden of proof remains with the police officer, if the arrest is not justified, to show reasonable and probable cause at the time. I believe the hon. member will find the burden of proof has not shifted.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether that is a question. Hansard, I trust, will not forget to put a question mark at the end of that statement.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to have a lecture from the Minister of Justice because, as you know, I have not practised law for four or five years and have become a little rusty. I may have misread that clause, but I await the first successful action in respect of unlawful arrest. When Mr. Brown tells me there has not been such a case in 25 years, I cannot hold my breath while waiting for a successful action.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the bill reach this stage. Reform of bail procedures is long overdue. Many anxious parents have wondered where a wandering boy has been, only to find some 24 hours later that he had become involved with the law. In many cases this has not been without cause, because sometimes young people have done something which, if not warranting arrest, warrants their being brought before a justice in order to give an account of themselves.
However, particularly in respect of a young person who has not done anything very serious, who has no record of previous brushes with the law and is a resident of the town concerned, it is particularly distressing for someone to have to go down to the jail and dig him out.
Criminal Code
It is always distressing. Also, when a young person is a long way from home and is trying to be independent, he does not like to have to phone home to mother the first time he has an extra bottle of beer or breaks an obscure section of the traffic act and finds himself arrested by an overzealous policeman.
I believe I know whereof I speak in this regard because at one time I was a green young policeman anxious for promotion. Sometimes the young green policeman who does not know his job is a little overzealous. He thinks it is easy for the young person to shrug off the fact that he has been arrested or detained. Such a situation is distressing to any well-meaning young person and certainly to all those who are near and dear to him and who have his best interests at heart. So I am glad to see this long overdue improvement made in respect of bail and the laws of arrest. I think, however, that an ounce of prevention-to be trite-is worth a pound of cure. I do not think that even with the law as it was there would have been very many arrests if all our police officers had been well trained in their duties.
Therefore I would appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), because I know this subject is dear to his heart, to see that our police forces are adequately staffed. At present all municipalities are seeking money for low-cost housing, for anti-pollution, and for all sorts of improvements, and I think that the adequate staffing of police forces often takes low priority. I know the minister will use his best offices to encourage our municipalities, provinces and jurisdictions in which the federal government holds sway to ensure that police forces have the proper personnel. It is also very important to give our police forces proper training. I would like to see more facilities provided for our police colleges, not only to train young fellows on the beat but also to train higher ranks and to retrain some of the senior officers who set the tone of the whole police force.
On some occasions-rare, I hope-our police forces have been used as revenue men. Promotions are sometimes based on the number of prosecutions made. If this practice is allowed to go unchecked, a great barrier will be built up between the public and the police. Under no circumstances should we foster the belief that the police are anything but the servants of the public, in the highest sense. They are there for the protection of the public. The police, above all others, should be working to keep our young people out of trouble, rather than to lay traps for them or involve them in unecessary brushes with the law.
Until I read the bill carefully I thought there was a shift of onus which would put policemen on the spot and perhaps involve them in unecessary law suits. But as I read the legislation it seems that very little change is anticipated in this regard, and where a policeman has reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed, his powers will be very much as they were before, except for certain specific instances. He is given the same discretion if he acts in good faith,

March 22, 1971
Criminal Code
comes before the court at the correct time and explains the reasons for the arrest.
I never had any difficulty in this regard; 1 never arrested a member of the public without having reasonable grounds for doing so. Only too often the grounds are there. A well-meaning policeman, properly trained in the law, should have no difficulty whatsoever in establishing that he was acting in the best public interest, for the people and not against them. I do not think the onus which is put upon the accused or the person who thinks he has been subject to unlawful arrest is very great. Under section 436(3)(b) it appears that the onus is on the accused to establish a case against the policeman. But I think it is right that all he would have to do is allege that the policeman had in fact arrested him falsely, and I am sure that any justice worthy of the name would have the police officer come forward and explain why he thought it was in the best interests of the public to arrest the person.
I was also a little worried that this might be a technical act which would prevent the policeman doing his job while on extended duties, perhaps in the Arctic or in outlying districts where a justice of the peace was not available. However, I see that the onus is not necessarily on the policeman to bring the accused before a justice of the peace in the usual 24-hour period: the usual common sense of the Canadian public will prevail and he can bring the accused before the court within reasonable time. Here again, I do not think it would be difficult for the policeman to show the justice of the peace that it was necessary to bring the accused by dog-team from the Arctic Islands to the officer in charge in Aklavik, Coronation, or some such place where there was an effective or efficient justice of the peace.
So by and large I am pleased to see this long-awaited improvement to the Criminal Code in these two aspects. I have had considerable correspondence on this matter, perhaps because I have been a police officer. I will conclude after making one more request of the Minister of Justice, and that is that I think we are pitifully short of justices of the peace. I think that, particularly in cities, we should have justices of the peace on duty 24 hours a day so that in middle of the night persons arrested, particularly those from out of town, can come before a justice of the peace almost immediately.
With radio-equipped cars and the facilities we now have it should be a simple matter for a policeman to bring an accused before a justice of the peace and put the case before him briefly as to whether or not it is necessary to hold the man in custody. I think that particularly in our cities we should have justices of the peace on call so that these cases could be disposed of and so the onus of keeping the man in custody would not be upon the police. This would help to maintain the excellent relationship we have learned to expect between the police and the public. If the onus of keeping the accused in custody were taken off the police officer on the beat, he would then merely be a fact-finding man. In many cases the policeman is expected to use judicial discretion because the public thinks he is a fact-finder, judge, jury and court of appeal all in one.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, January 14, 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 of Mr. Woolliams (page 2381).
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, a great many people across Canada are deeply concerned about this bill, the Young Offenders Act as it is called. Perhaps nothing could more effectively emphasize their concern or the need for modern legislation to deal with children and young people who have committed offences against society than the tragic case raised in this House last Friday by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It was the case of a 14-year old boy sentenced to six years in penitentiary for the fatal beating last August of a 14-year old girl near Hope in the Fraser Valley. The boy was high on LSD at the time. It was all a terrible matter-but how was it handled? The judge, sending the boy off for six years to the penitentiary, said he hoped the boy would be sent to a minimum security institution. In other words, it was a case of out of sight, out of mind. What happens to that boy now? My colleague said he thought it was shocking that the boy should be sent to an institution which was nothing less than a school for crime.
The people of the country ask what will happen to this boy when he graduates from that school for crime? We have had a number of cases in my province-and I know there have been similar cases in other provinces-where young people, having been released from such institutions have committed even more dreadful crimes. This was because they had not been given the proper treatment or handled in a way that would guarantee their safe return to society. The case I have cited is an illustration of the failure of our method of dealing with young persons who have committed offences. It also points to the concern which people now have when they are faced with this new legislation.
Clause 4 of the bill reads:
This act shall be liberally construed to the end that where a young person is found under section 29 to have committed an offence, he will be dealt with as a misdirected and misguided young person requiring help, guidance, encouragement, treatment and supervision and to the end that the care, custody and

March 22, 1971

discipline of that young person will approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by such a young person's parents.
But having given this lip service to the parenthood that was never extended to these delinquent young people, the bill forgets all about how successful parenthood works. In fact, it has been described by one official of the John Howard Society as a charter for young criminals. Any hope of providing the guidance and direction that such young people need, if they are to return safely to society, is doomed from the start. The bill starts out by paying lip service to the idea of rehabilitating young people, but then descends to a collection of legal terminology, spelling out the punishment that is to be given to a young person. The most damning criticism of the bill has come in a letter to members of Parliament and Senators from the Canadian Mental Health Association, in these words:
It is, in fact, a criminal code for children, which is distasteful in its terminology, legalistic in its approach and punitive in its effect.
In other words, the bill is clearly based on the old, outmoded concept of crime and punishment rather than on the new thinking of rehabilitation and redirection. Police techniques spelled out in the bill, such as fingerprinting, photographing and the establishment of criminal records that can only be removed under the criminal record act, surely have no place in legislation designed to approximate as nearly as may be the care, custody and discipline of young offenders by parents. If parents were to start out by fingerprinting, photographing and undertaking all these other legalistic things, very shortly they would have less, rather than more, influence over their children.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, we believe that the title of the bill is wrong. It refers to young offenders. We think this should read, as is the case in Britain, the Children and Young Persons Act, or simply the Young Persons Act. But that is the least of our concern. What is more seriously lacking in the bill is provision for an indeterminate sentence for children who have departed from the line of acceptable behaviour in society. How can a judge measure the exact amount of time required for treatment in the case of each individual? People's backgrounds, temperaments and requirements vary tremendously. I notice that Judge Little, chairman of the Ontario Juvenile Court Judges' Committee on Delinquency, commented:
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.
The Canadian Mental Health Association is even more explicit in this regard. It has stated:
A Criminal Code based on the notion that specific offences merit a specified range of punitive procedures may be appropriate for adults but definitely not for children. A particular offence may be committed by two children of the same age. In one case the total social, emotional and intellectual needs of one child may require only a suspended sentence; while the other child an indefinite and probably prolonged period of re-education, treatment and retraining may be required.
Young Offenders Act
The experience in my province, Mr. Speaker, is that an indeterminate sentence is much better than establishing a time limit, because it allows the people who are dealing with the child to determine, as the child progresses, much more exactly how much time is required. Young people change very greatly during the age range covered by this bill. That brings up another point, Mr. Speaker. We are unhappy about that age range. The bill covers the age from 10 to 17 years. We think that the United Kingdom approach, where 14 is specified as the minimum age, is better; and we believe that 18 years should be set as the upper limit. This is in line with the kind of treatment that is being given in Holland and Sweden, countries which are using a far more flexible method of dealing with young people than that laid out in the legalities of this bill.
What is also lacking in the bill is any provision for after-care and rehabilitation following release. It seems to me that there is not very much sense in holding a young person in custody for months or years and then throwing him back into the same circumstances which caused the commission of the offence in the first place. If this bill is designed to rehabilitate young people and restore them safely to society, provision must be made for after-care and rehabilitation. It is no wonder that Dr. Marcilio, until very recently head of the Toronto Family Court psychiatric unit, was moved to comment:
These children are not young offenders. They are victims of situations, of phychiatric situations and emotional deprivation. Eighty-five per cent of the children who come to the courts need psychiatric understanding, he says, but the proposed bill would disregard a child's need for help.
And Judge William T. Little, chairman of the Ontario Juvenile Court Judges' Committee on Delinquency was quite specific in his criticism of the bill when he said:
The intent of the original act (the Juvenile Delinquents Act) was to have a social objective of the rehabilitation of children. It seems to me this intent has been lost in the new bill.
But it does not come out as rehabilitation and redirection; it comes out into a crime and punishment deal all over again. The minister said that the new bill will treat young people as more responsible beings. Surely, like the rest of us, he ought to know that young delinquents are not responsible, and cannot be responsible, unless we are prepared to provide a whole range of resources to help them. They would not have committed unacceptable social behaviour if they had been responsible human beings. It is useless to expect that by the fact of arrest and committal they will suddenly become responsible human beings.
It seems to me that with this sort of approach we have not learned very much over the last few years. If a whole generation, and perhaps more, of young people is not to be lost under this bill I think we must bring its provisions into line with modern scientific knowledge and thought. I realize that satisfying society's feeling of outrage and guilt by punitive legislation against young offenders might be sufficient for some people: they might

March 22, 1971
Young Offenders Act
think that this should be the purpose of such legislation. But it is certainly no way to help the young people of today to find their road through this time of confusion and change.
I do not want to minimize the fact that these young people have committed acts which are socially unacceptable. We cannot shut our eyes to that. They have to be treated and rehabilitated, not only so that they come out as human beings able to stand on their own feet but come out safe enough that they can be turned loose in society. They have to come out as responsible human beings. I realize that there are no proper institutions in the provinces at the moment but I think the federal government would be doing what it should if it helped in the financing and staffing of such institutions in order to give young people a chance to become rehabilitated and rebuilt into good citizens.
The Canadian Mental Health Association has said:
In other words, legislation of this kind should be designed with the interests of this child as its primary concern rather than the seriousness of the offence.
Such legislation should be flexible. It should have in mind that these youngsters should not be forgotten by this legislation when it gets beyond clause 4 which reads:
This act shall be liberally construed to the end that where a young person is found under section 29 to have committed an offence, he will be dealt with as a misdirected and misguided young person requiring help, guidance, encouragement, treatment and supervision-
These are the ingredients which must go into any program which will help rehabilitate young people. Serious people who have been dealing with young offenders claim that these ingredients are not found in this new bill. In its recommendations, the Canadian Corrections Association stated as follows:
The decision on whether a child goes to an institution and when he is to leave should rest with the child welfare authorities. Whether a particular child requires placement in an institution, and in which institution, is such a technical decision that it should be made by the child welfare authorities, not by the court. When the court thinks a child cannot be dealt with to advantage on probation, he should make him a ward of the provincial director of child welfare, or appropriate official, who will then make the decision whether foster home placement will meet the requirements of the case or whether an institutional placement is necessary. If institutional placement is indicated, the director of child welfare should decide which institution will best fit the particular child.
Also, the decision as to when the child is ready to leave the institution can be made properly only by the child welfare officials who are in constant contact with his progress in the institution. The consent of the court for the child's removal should not be required.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with very flexible, changing and sensitive organisms when we are dealing with young people who have been bent and twisted, in many cases, by their home environment and the ignorance and neglect of the people who happen to be their parents. This happens all too frequently. If we are to use our best knowledge to try and help young people recover from the early twistings and distortions in their lives, we will have to be a great deal more flexible
in our approach and less legalistic than is the case in this legislation.
I should like to reiterate the recommendation made in opening this debate by my colleague from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), that we should seriously consider giving this legislation a hoist. We should allow the committee to go across the country and talk with people who have had experience in these fields, rather than some lawyers in ivory towers here in Ottawa. Lawyers do not always inhabit ivory towers, but probably too many of them had a hand in drafting this legislation. We have seen that the Canadian Corrections Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association and people like Judge Little in juvenile and family courts across the country are against this legislation because they think it is stiff and punitive.
It is a pity to put ourselves into a legal strait jacket when dealing with flexible human beings in a time of great change. Let us hoist the legislation until such time as we can bring modern thinking and modern penal procedures to the shaping and training of these youngsters.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-192 purports to improve the penal law affecting young people. I think it is trying to do too much too fast. It is like motherhood-we are all for it. We must be very careful when redefining the criminal law that is to affect young people below legal age, and I use the term "legal age" in anticipation of changes to the bill that will be made either immediately or when the bill goes back to committee.
We are trying to say in this bill that children not of legal age need not accept their full responsibilities in this field: they are not fully responsible in connection with other fields and activities. That does not mean that there is no evil-doing among young people. We make a big mistake if we think that with the stroke of a pen, by changing legalistic terms, we can rid ourselves of evil among human beings who are below legal age. We must be hard headed about this and say when something is wrong. Only by adopting a down to earth approach to these things when they come to our attention can we do something about them.
I trust that we have left the Dark Ages far behind. I hope it will not be necessary for me to speak tonight against the imposition of corporal punishment. I hope that has gone. I do not countenance it, nor do other progressive, well-educated, civilized men.


John Gilbert: That is right.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The first speech I made in this House was on the subject of corporal punishment. I said 13 years ago- and I have had no reason to change my mind-that nobody, but nobody, has the right to inflict corporal punishment on any person unless it is done through love, meaning one's parents. No legally-constituted group or authority, whether composed of psychologists, prison

March 22, 1971

wardens or anybody else, has the right to punish me bodily. If we must err, let us err on the side of humanity because unless done with love, corporal punishment does no good whatever. I am in some doubt even about the value of corporal punishment by one's parents. Sometimes as a last resort when she has tried all other psychological means of persuasion, mother applies her hand to that portion of the body which the Lord provided for it. But in society there is no love and, therefore, we must rule out corporal punishment.
When we talk about correction we mean that we must discipline a person. Here, presumably, that means taking away some part or all of one's liberty. I do not understand how in that area this bill takes a forward step. No matter what you call it, under this bill you will take away young people of tender years, lock them up and keep them away from the various sources of love which they most need. Apparently, in this society everything that is worthwhile costs money. I suggest that we must be prepared to pay if we are to be helpful in this field. To begin with, I think we might devote a sum-I take this figure out of my hat-of $20 million, which is only $1 for every man, woman and child in Canada, and set the money aside for proper research and groundwork in this subject. It is no good setting up institutions, reforming our laws and bringing in well-meaning changes if we do not know exactly what we are doing.
I do not think all our psychologists, social workers, policemen, lawyers, judges and members of Parliament put together can come up with a plan which will eliminate juvenile delinquency or criminal actions among young people. On the other hand, we must take a positive step now; it is long overdue, because thousands of lives have been broken as the result of our neglect in this important field. There are not enough psychologists, sociologists and allied workers in this field, and as a result I suppose we shall be forced to segregate these young people in institutions from other, so-called normal children. We must have a plan in this field.
I think this bill is hasty. If I may use a lawyer's term, I think we are putting these young offenders, or these young people who have made mistakes, in double jeopardy. We say we will not make criminals out of them, but the logic of this bill seems to indicate that we will take away their liberty and put them in the custody of people who in many cases are not trained in this field and are not willing to give the attention, technical care and skill that these young people require. They need highly skilled care.
We are expressing a pious wish when we say these institutions will give the young people concerned the kind of care a child may expect from his parents. I presume we mean good parents when we say that. In the present complicated society in which we are trying to raise children in concrete tanks instead of natural surroundings, it is not easy to raise children who are happy and well adjusted. Yet presumably we will incarcerate these young people in institutions and leave them in the care of untrained persons who will not provide the kind of care that, in our pious hope, we wish for. They will
Young Offenders Act
not take the place of parents and it is patently impossible for them to do so at present. I say that we must act, even though it may now be too late, and spend money to train the necessary personnel. We must be very careful to make sure that the groundwork is done.
The bill suggests, Mr. Speaker, that we treat these young offenders as persons who will be locked up until they reach the age of 21, or legal age-which may be 18 by the time the act is amended. We are to keep them locked up until they reach legal age and then, in some cases, try them for their previous crimes as fully-grown criminals. The trial might be 11 years after the crime, misdemeanour or breach of society's rules: it does not matter what nice name one wants to call it. Ten or 11 years after the crime committed by the child, the fully-grown person will be tried. What kind of necromancy will take place in connection with a person who grows up in an institution, facing a trial for something which he committed half a generation ago? During those 10 or 11 years he is expected to grow like a well-watered flower in the greenhouse.
What kind of personality do you think a child will develop if for 11 years he lives under the shadow of delayed justice and does not know what will happen to him? If he is charged with a capital offence, he might be sentenced to another ten years in custody. Then you will find a person of 30 leaving jail and trying to adjust to society. It is not necessary to be a psychologist to know what kind of a twisted human being we will have in those circumstances.
I have had experience with the law. The best way to prevent a crime or misdemeanour is to convince a young person that there is a better way of life. He must be shown that if he does something wrong, justice will be swift: it may not be fierce, but it will be sure, fair and swift. He must be convinced that the sooner he starts back on the right road, the better. In a civilized society, rehabilitation is the only excuse for having anything to do with these people. They must be brought back into productive society as quickly as possible, with little emphasis on revenge and much emphasis on understanding and forgiveness. There should be no suggestion of a ten-year delay in getting at the root of the problem. A young person must be convinced that there is a proper place for him in society. He must be told that he is a person who counts, who will fit in and will come into contact with the love of the human race.
We must go out on the highways and into the hedges to locate those who like young people. We must not only attract them by high wages: we require well trained, dedicated people to take charge of young offenders. Even with such people it will be impossible to replace parents, family, race, religion and persuasion. These people must be given the same start in life which many of us had by the accident of birth.
This all boils down to the fact that we are leaving out one of the most important elements-the willingness of

March 22, 1971
Young Offenders Act
the Canadian people to pay. This cannot be done easily. What kind of institutions are they going to be put in? Are they going to be put in places like Bordeaux jail, well-meaning orphanages or industrial schools? The people who operate these institutions are no doubt wellmeaning, but it is shocking to know how often corporal punishment is administered. Corporal punishment which is administered, without love and understanding, to a child is completely wasted. The results inevitably bend the stick in the wrong direction. To beat a child you do not love will make him more hateful than before he committed the offence, midsdemeanour or whatever polite name it may be called when he does something of which we disapprove.
More social workers, psychologists and nurses must be trained. A great deal more than that is necessary. People are also required to look after recreation, including such things as teaching young offenders to play football. The people who staff our institutions are of a very high moral order. It is no exaggeration to say that a young male may be put in jail for three or four years for statutory rape. Statutory rape is committed when a boy of 16, for example, takes full responsibility for experimenting sexually. Where is the benefit of the doubt here? In Alberta, a boy of 16 can be jailed for contributing to juvenile delinquency because he had relations with a girl 24 hours short of her eighteenth birthday. Where is the benefit of the doubt there? If he is guilty of this offence, he may spend four or five of his difficult adolescent years in jail under homosexual guards-and certainly under the great threat of homosexual inmates.
The people looking after this young person should have the wisdom of Solomon and the integrity of a Roman mother. Where will we find such people? If we do not find such people, these young people will return to society after four or five years in such an institution so badly twisted that they will never become normal citizens. This will not be accomplished by this bill, the pious hope that we have done all we can for our young people because we no longer call them criminals. We are treating them like criminals; in fact, we are placing them in double jeopardy.
I do not suggest that the bill was not introduced with the best intentions. It has often been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Are the good intentions to put young people into inadequate institutions, improperly staffed and subject them to the vagaries of sadistic guards or people who will use half-baked psychology upon them in an attempt to turn them into well adjusted, well trained, happy citizens? It is an impossibility! The members of organizations such as the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society can do something significant. Their funds should be enormously implemented. These dedicated people are now working to the best of their ability in institutions in which people are called criminals. How much more would they be willing to extend their facilities if we put a little money into their care and trained more of the same kind of people to move in with these young people to make a home as closely as possibly to a normal home? I am not
necessarily speaking of people with university degrees, but people brought out of such societies as I have mentioned, the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society, men and women with a degree of common sense.
The work they have already done in connection with paroles is wonderful, and I suggest that the emphasis should be on parole. The emphasis should be on getting these young people outside the prison walls as fast as we can and into surroundings as normal, happy and homelike as we can. The whole emphasis should be on de-institu-tionalizing the whole process.
As my experience has been for most of my life with delinquents, both of legal age and under legal age, I am not suggesting we should not hold hearings. I am not suggesting we should not bring to the attention of young people the fact that society is not happy with the way they sometimes behave. On the contrary, we need more staff, we need more and better trained policemen, more knowledgeable magistrates to see that these young people get a proper hearing.
Only a few months ago I was talking about bail and an improvement in the bail laws so that we do not confine young people unnecessarily in jail, not even for an hour, if there is any way of making sure that they are not deprived of their liberty and if they can be brought before a justice of the peace or a justice of the court and have their case explained on neutral ground. As a former police officer, I would have been delighted at any time to have shared the responsibility for an arrest and the judicial part of the judgment with a reasonable man in the community respected at all levels of society, a man who had no axe to grind, no promotion to expect, a man who in many cases had an intimate knowledge of young people. He should be such a person. He should be a person who knows the young people in the community, and he should be able to say, "In my opinion this young man need not be kept in custody." That is the kind of person we need on the bench. It is people of this kind who should screen our children of tender years, the most important natural resource we have, and it is with this original judgment that the whole future of this child and/or his family should be determined.
Improvements in the law will be an empty gesture unless we have enough people who make it their business to see that these young people are not damaged and that young people who have already been damaged are not further damaged by the well-meaning custody of people who are inadequately trained to look after them or help them once we have taken them out of circulation. It is ridiculous to try to set rules for treating ten-year old children in exactly the same way as you would treat a 17-year old. This act must be more flexible than it is in its present state.
Again I come back to the idea that we must have men of common sense and training to decide that a child must be treated as a child. When a boy is getting to be 16 or 17 years of age-when he should be, and certainly could

March 22, 1971

be, a man-he must not be treated as if he were a child of tender years. He must be shown that he owes it to himself and to society to accept some of the responsibility for his own rehabilitation. It would be ridiculous to take a boy of 16, in many cases fully capable of earning his own living, fully capable of fighting his way as a physical specimen through the world, and treat him as if he were a child just out of his mother's arms.
This bill should be divided into two parts so that we could get our thinking straight. One of those parts should be, if you like, a bill of rights for young people. We could put in it all the wishes, all the fine hopes for what we would do with young people. On the other hand, we should reform the criminal law in such a manner that a real effort would be made to set these young people on the road to recovery and to self-improvement. The only way of doing this is to completely forget any talk of punishment and revenue. The emphasis must be on providing an atmosphere which is closest to a happy home. An understanding of a child's needs should begin the day the authorities are aware that he has done something of which they disapprove. He must have competent help from social workers, psychologists, doctors and many people who do not fit into professional categories but who should be encouraged to give of their time and attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being ten o'clock a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the Minister without Portfolio in charge of citizenship if he would make a full report to the House in connection with charges of falsehood, deception and inefficiency levelled against the citizenship branch by a man in its employ, Alex Bandy of Vancouver.
The minister evaded a direct reply by indicating that the matter could be raised in the committee studying his estimates, and that as a member of this House I could discuss it there. I do not think this is good enough. The hiring and firing of Alex Bandy has raised a number of important questions involving government and public alike. Tonight I propose to ask some of these questions in the hope that this time the minister will realize the need for answers to be given in the House.
Why was Alex Bandy hired in the first place? As one of the leading figures at the poor people's conference from January 7-10, he was obviously acceptable to and trusted by low-income people on the west coast. Indeed,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
he had been the secretary of the Unemployed Citizens Welfare Improvement Council in Vancouver for some time. The citizenship branch hired him on January 15, five days after the conference ended. Why did they hire him? According to Marian Bruce, in the Vancouver Sun of March 15, he believed his job was to discuss with low-income groups the possibility of government funding for community service projects initiated by the organizations. But in February, he said, he was ordered to start gathering information about the groups, how strong each organization was and what each group's make-up was in terms of age, ethnic background and militancy.
Meanwhile, from the moment of his appointment on January 15 he was under fire, first from British Columbia rehabilitation minister Philip Gaglardi and other Social Crediters in the B.C. legislature. They were joined by Liberal MPs from British Columbia, one of whom declared that the appointment of "aggressive demonstrators" like Bandy was unacceptable to British Columbia's 15 Liberal MPs. Apparently there was little or no consideration given to the fact that he was accepted by British Columbia's low-income groups.
Up to this point Alex Bandy had refrained from public comment, partly, he said, because Ottawa ordered him to remain silent. But the avalanche of political criticism, plus what he regarded as the political investigation he was ordered to conduct into low-income groups, proved too much. He spoke out vigorously, attacking the project on which he was employed as a "pacification project" designed to pacify and control poor people's organizations. He said the $44,000 spent on the project was a waste of taxpayers' money; that it could have been spent much better in direct funding to citizen groups. From the point of view of helping poor people, this money had been wasted, and so he was fired by the citizenship branch. I suppose technically his contract ran out.
A story by John Clarke, of British Columbia, in the Globe and Mail of March 20 says that according to federal officials Alex Bandy's project was part of an over-all scheme by Ottawa to help poor people's groups to develop a stronger voice in influencing national policies. It was meant to give the poor as much chance as business, labour and other groups to influence government programs. If this is so, why did the government crack down on Alex Bandy when he started to criticize the direction the project was taking, which according to him was not the direction it was taking when he was first employed? The government certainly knew that Alex Bandy was an outspoken person. Was that why they hired him-so that he could articulate what the poor people were thinking? Or did they hire him with the idea that they could silence him when his opinion differed from that of the government? Is the government now going to give up trying to help poor people organize themselves? Or will it look for more "Uncle Toms" to be grateful to be taken on staff-grateful and silenced?
These are all questions that need answering. I believe the minister owes it to the taxpayers, and the low-income

March 22, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion groups particularly, to give us a full account of the Alex Bandy affair.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the reply on behalf of the minister reads as follows. The federal government knew the risk it was running in appointing Alex Bandy to organize low-income groups outside the lower mainland. But to the federal government he had one thing going for him: he apparently could identify with the poor and the underprivileged. It obviously felt he could be a point of contact with the poor in its action, its research and stimulation of an employment project that was meant to help give them a voice in national policy development in the same way as business, labour and other groups. He has now thrown the job back in Ottawa's face with a confession that betrays the trust the government had placed in him and exposes a lack of understanding of the job. He says, "The idea of sending poor people out to research after poor people is giving some people a vested interest in poverty".
This is unworthy of a daring and imaginative proposal to get the picture of poverty from the inside, from those who suffer from it rather than from an army of social workers and statisticians. Surely, the government was saying, "We know about poverty from the outside; let's hear from the inside." To characterize it as a political subterfuge is misunderstanding the program's purpose and may deny the poor access to the one institution that can really help them, the government.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION-PROPOSED MINISTRIES OF STATE

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on March 17, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dealt with the appointment of a science ministry. As recorded at page 4347 of Hansard, the right hon. gentleman stated:
As soon as the House sees fit to pass the government reorganization bill we shall consider the appointment of a minister to deal with science matters.
I followed with a supplementary question in which I asked, in part, whether he would undertake to tell us, when the appropriate stage of the reorganization bill is reached in committee of the whole House, what other ministries of state, in addition to science, he proposes to set up in the near future. The Prime Minister replied:
Indication has already been given that we would wish to have a minister of state designated for the purpose of looking at housing and urban affairs. That is one other area.
He then mentioned environment, but environment is specifically mentioned in the organization bill. Then later he said:
-obviously I cannot foretell which areas might have to be covered by special ministers in the future. I have just mentioned two and it seems to me this clearly indicates the urgency attached to the passing of this bill by the House.
That is his argument. I thereupon looked back at the Throne Speech debate to see how the Throne Speech
(Mrs. Maclnnis.l
dealt with the ministries of state. I found these specific references:
To foster co-ordination of the activities of all levels of government, and to contribute to sound urban growth and development, the government proposes the reorganization of its urban activities under the direction of a minister of state for urban affairs and housing.
In the next paragraph there is this reference:
-the government will consider with care measures recommended by the Senate Committee on Science Policy and the Science Council of Canada.
Several paragraphs later we find this:
There will be proposed the establishment of a department to be concerned with the environment and the husbanding of those renewable resources that are part of and dependent upon it, with a mandate for the protection of the biosphere.
There, Mr. Speaker, are the references to the guts of the matter of reorganization. Perhaps it should be noted that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), who speaks for the government on housing, mentioned in the special one-day debate on the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women that perhaps there would be a minister responsible for that as well. So we are probably being told by the government there will be a ministry of science, a ministry to deal with urban affairs and perhaps a ministry to deal with women. The Prime Minister suggests these can be established very quickly by the passage of his organization bill.
I am here tonight because I believe it must be made abundantly clear to the Prime Minister and his colleagues, if they do not know it now, that there are members on the opposition side and indeed on the government side who would like to make suggestions concerning what a minister of urban affairs should do; that there are members on all sides who would like to make known to the government what they believe any organization concerned with science matters should do; and that there are any number of members, if we are to have a minister responsible for the affairs and problems of the ladies of Canada, who I am sure would like to acquaint that person with their views concerning what his responsibilities should be and how they should be established.
So by laying out on Hansard the answer he did, the Prime Minister has in effect let a very large cat out of the bag. It is impossible now to take the organization bill and go through it quickly, because we know that when we come to the matter of the creation of these ministries of state we will have to put forward our views on urban affairs, on science policy and on the problems set out in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. That will be our only opportunity to do so. If we do not speak on the organization bill we will suddenly find ourselves presented by the Prime Minister and the government with a fait accompli and the people will ask where we dunces were and why we had no suggestions or ideas to present to the government in setting up these ministries.
e (10:10 p.m.)
So if the government did not realize what problem existed before with regard to its organization bill, let me
March 22, 1971

tell them that now they know and they had better get it divided first if they want some of the things like environment put into operation quickly, because I am afraid these other things will take a long, long time.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer my friend, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Perhaps his closing words are the best reason for passing this bill as rapidly as possible, because it presents the dilemma of trying to speed up the work of this House to try to obtain the apparatus of government which will allow us to deal with very important matters. Yet we see some very small issues on which the business of the House can be tied up for a great length of time.
The ministry for housing and urban affairs has been mentioned and it is quite clear to everyone that it is a priority for this government, as is the ministry of science. As was mentioned by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing (Mr. Andras), the establishment of a ministry concerned with the status of women is another possibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: But the bill itself does give this flexibility to move. However, it raises the dilemma, which the hon. member mentioned, of how much debate we can stand and yet get along with the business of the House, with the things which we must do: what is the proper balance of debate that is essential to get the full expression of views from all sides of the House? It does give the government the flexibility to move without having to present a whole new reorganization bill each time it proves desirable for new ministries to be established. The concept of the ministries as policy-making groups, to avoid setting up a large bureaucracy and to have research and study in fields in which we are all concerned, is not in dispute. But it is impossible at this time to specify what additional ministries there might be if indeed they are ever filled.
The purpose is to give flexibility at that time. The three ministries which have been mentioned certainly have high priority for all of us in the House, particularly the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and others who are concerned about these three very vital matters to our country.



FINANCE-STUDENT LOANS-SUGGESTED CHANGE IN REPAYMENT REQUIRED

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on March 8 I asked a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) regarding the repayment of student loans. My question was as follows:
In view of the present and expected high rate of student unemployment, will the minister consider making amendments to the student loan regulations so that students will not have to commence repayment of loans until six months after obtaining employment rather than six months after completion of studies, as is the case today?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In reply, the Minister of Finance said:
Mr. Speaker, this matter comes up for discussion each year between the provinces and ourselves. Of course, my hon. friend knows that where special circumstances exist the lending institutions can make provision whereby the repayment of a loan is deferred until the student is employed. Indeed, the repayment period can be extended up to ten years: the specified starting date can be varied by the lending institution.
Concern about this matter was first brought to my attention by one or two students who were concerned about finding employment upon graduation. As you know, today in Canada there are many students, not only those with B.A's but those who have Master's degrees and even Ph.D's who cannot And employment. Many of these students run up very large bills in student loans. This is also a concern of those who are not graduating from university, who for one reason or another have quit their studies. One of the reasons may have been lack of funds to finance their university education. In any case, Mr. Speaker, there is concern among many students about repayment of student loans.
Of course, all students want to repay these loans as soon as they can, but many of them cannot find jobs. If they cannot work out an arrangement with the bank or lending institution, they are in a real bind. The Minister of Finance said that special arrangements can be made with lending institutions. I would like to see provision for this written into the regulations, so that if a student cannot find a job he will not have to commence repayment of his loan.
Another matter which has been brought to my attention is that if a lending institution allows deferment of payment until the student has obtained employment, the student cannot obtain the same privilege that he had with regard to interest on the loan. If the government does consider amending the regulations, it should also take into consideration the matter of interest on student loans.
The reason this question comes to the fore today is that there is a great deal of unemployment in Canada. I do not want to get into a debate on that, except to say that possibly we have the highest unemployment rate in the industrial world. Some 8.1 per cent of our work force is unemployed. The government says this will be augmented by 1.8 million students, high school students, university students and post-graduate students this summer. When this happens, many students will have great difficulty finding employment. Even without taking students into account, the young people of Canada are bearing the brunt of the unemployment crisis because nearly half the unemployed are under the age of 25 years.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to give serious consideration tonight to this very small, piecemeal change or amendment to the student loans regulations, which would help students who will not be able to find jobs this summer and, more particularly, those who cannot find jobs upon completion of their university studies. I realize this would be only a very small step, but it would be better than nothing.
In the meantime, I hope the government will begin re-thinking its whole philosophy with respect to educa-

March 22, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tion, because I do not think the financial background of a student's parents or of a student himself should be the determining factor in deciding whether or not he can continue his studies at the post-secondary educational level. I ask the parliamentary secretary to use his influence with the minister to amend the regulations and not leave it up to the financial institutions. I would also like him to persuade the minister that interest rates be considered when talking about deferred payment of loans. This would be one small step that would help many students as they fight to obtain university or post-secondary education.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should indicate that the government does not accept the forecast the hon. member has made regarding the consequences of students coming on the labour force, whether permanently or on a temporary basis, this year. There is certainly no admission or acknowledgement by the government that there are likely to be 1.8 million more unemployed people in Canada when the students come out of school this summer, as the hon. member would have us believe.
However, to deal specifically with the question he has asked, under the present legislation a student is not required to pay interest on a Canada student loan while he is a full-time student at an institution of learning that
offers courses at the post-secondary level and which is so designated by the province concerned. For a further period of six months after he ceases to be a full-time student, he is not required to pay any interest nor is he obligated to make any payments on the principal of the loan.
The regulations under the Canada Student Loans Act contemplate circumstances when a borrower may encounter temporary difficulties which will result in undue hardship if he must repay his loan under the terms originally agreed with the bank. Accordingly, provision is made for the bank, in consultation with the borrower, to revise any or all terms of repayment. I should emphasize that any revision is a matter for decision by the banks, subject to the overriding requirement of the act that any loan must be repaid in full within a maximum period of ten years. Repayment terms may, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, be revised to include for a period of time the payment of interest only and, in exceptional circumstances, for no payment at all.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Tuesday, March 23, 1971