1971-03-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada-Mr. MacGuigan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement concerning Home Oil Company Limited.
On the evening of Thursday, March 11, 1971, after the close of the stock markets, I advised the House that negotiations had begun that evening for the purpose of considering the possibility of acquiring from R. A. Brown, Jr., his controlling position in Cygnus Corporation Limited. I advised that I would give a further report in the event such negotiations reached a stage of firm understanding.
Negotiations have not reached such a stage, and we do not think it is either in Mr. Brown's interest or in the public interest for any statement to be made at this time regarding the details of these negotiations to date. The objective of the government throughout has been to retain Canadian majority ownership and full Canadian control of Home Oil. I believe this also was the clear consensus of this House as demonstrated by all parties in the debate of February 18 last.
The main effort of the government in past months has been to assist Mr. Brown to find a satisfactory transaction in the Canadian business sector. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on March 16, 1971, confirmed this position to the House. Mr. Brown has advised the government that he clearly understands the desire of the Canadian government. He has indicated to the government his intent to pursue the sale of his interest with interested Canadian private buyers who have now evinced an interest to purchase. This is in complete accord with the government's oft-stated objectives in the matter. The government will, to the end of these objectives, continue to keep the situation under surveillance.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this statement has been made, if only to put
an end to the cat and mouse game of late yesterday afternoon when it was stated that the minister would be making an announcement. I do not know if the purpose was just to titillate some people, but in any event we saw an unedifying tag game with the minister on this particular subject.
This statement is another clear indication of delay with respect to the government's oft-promised but as often delayed statement of its position with regard to foreign ownership. If we continue to get procrastination of the government with regard to this statement and continue to face ad hoc propositions it frankly creates an impossible situation for Canadian companies.
If the government is really interested in maintaining Canadian ownership of Home Oil, the best thing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can do is to get an undertaking from the Minister of Finance that the appropriate tax changes will be made which will put Canadian purchasers on an equal basis to that of American bidders. This is the biggest problem. It is no secret that there is a wide gap between the American and Canadian offers. This is mainly caused by the nonsensical position in which the changes in estate tax and in income tax, both personal and corporate, have placed Canadian industry and financiers in attempting to take over other Canadian industries.
We hope that present efforts wiU result in keeping Home Oil in Canada. On the other hand, there are some people who say that, because we have control of the marketing of oil and so on, the end of the world would not come if Home Oil did not remain in Canadian hands.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party are disappointed that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has not been able to work out a satisfactory deal with Mr. Brown, the president of Cygnus Corporation which in turn controls Home Oil. The minister said in his statement: "The objective of the government throughout has been to retain Canadian majority ownership and full Canadian control of Home Oil."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we support the minister and the government in this objective. Our whole purpose in raising this matter from time to time is to ensure that Home Oil will remain under Canadian ownership and control. Contrary to the views of the previous speaker, I think it would be a tragedy if the ownership of Home Oil passed out of Canadian hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Home Oil Company Negotiations


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is one of the few oil companies in Canada which is capable of becoming a major company. In my opinion, it is a tragedy for any country to have all of its oil production and processing in the hands of foreign corporations. It is a very poor indication of a country's national pride and sense of national identity.
The minister has not made it clear whether the federal government's offer has been withdrawn. He indicates that Mr. Brown has conveyed to the government the fact that he intends to pursue the sale of his interest in Home Oil with interested Canadian private buyers. If those negotiations are successful and the company is kept in Canadian hands we will be satisfied. If these negotiations do not result in a Canadian consortium acquiring ownership and control of Home Oil, I hope the minister can assure us that he will still endeavour to see that control of the company remains in Canada.
The minister may say, as he has on previous occasions, that he does not have the necessary power to ensure that ownership of this company does not pass out of Canadian hands. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the lack is not a lack of power; it is the lack of a government policy on foreign ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is over three years since a royal commission reported on this matter. All this time we have been waiting for the government to produce a policy on foreign ownership. The Minister of National Revenue, who is charged with this responsibility, has not yet produced a white paper and the government has not yet produced a policy. We shall continue to face problems like the problem of Home Oil Company until the government gets busy and produces a policy on foreign ownership in this country.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased by the government's cautious approach to the settlement of the Home Oil problem, even though negotiations may not be as satisfactory as the minister might have wished.
We also feel, as we have already mentioned here, that ownership of the oil industry in Canada should remain entirely in Canadian hands, while suggesting that, as other members have pointed out, there is some contradiction in the fact that, where American investments in Canada are concerned, it is unfortunately more profitable to be American than Canadian. That seems illogical to us and we trust that before long the government will be able to review its fiscal and customs policies concerning American investments in Canada, in order to allow Canadians who would like to negotiate in such circumstances to have at least the same opportunities. We are not asking more than that, in spite of the fact that we should have more than that.
I know the minister seems to want to make some efforts with a view to keeping the oil industry wholly Canadian, but I am not yet convinced that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), is very helpful in that regard.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. As the 97,000 people who are taking job training at present because they cannot find jobs, when added to the
675.000	who are listed as unemployed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, bring the total of unemployed to
772.000	for the month of February, or 7.1 per cent of the work force seasonally adjusted, the highest seasonally adjusted figure since the 1930's, would the Prime Minister advise the House if the government will not now reconsider its decision not to stimulate the economy and, by stimulating the economy, counteract this very serious trend which is causing great hardship and suffering throughout the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might know that we are in fact, stimulating the economy, that we began a series of stimulations last March and that they have been added to successively over the following months. The hon. member knows that these measures come into effect with a certain lead time, and the effect is being felt now. If he will look at the economic indicators he will see that actually the economy is being stimulated to a substantial degree.


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister not realize, having examined those figures, that those things which were supposed to be stimulated by the measures that the Prime Minister has referred to have not moved forward during the past 12 months at any greater pace than they moved in the preceding 12 months, and does he not therefore realize that the moves that the government claims to have made have been completely useless?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is not in accordance with the facts and therefore I do not "realize" this, as the hon. member says.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it is in accordance with the facts, and if the Prime Minister would take the trouble to study them he will find that this is so.



PIPELINES-AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT TO PROVIDE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ECOLOGICAL STUDIES IN PROCESSING APPLICATIONS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the statement of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry to the effect that the National Energy Board Act should be amended to provide that pipeline companies must present not only engineering and economic data but ecological data as well. Since this is in line with a statement the minister made



in answer to a question of mine a couple of weeks ago, can he assure the House that some amendment to the National Energy Board Act will be brought in at this session to provide that ecological studies will be part of the process when the National Energy Board is discussing applications for the construction of pipelines?


John James Greene: In my understanding, Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has construed the Act as meaning that they do this at the present time. But as the hon. member properly pointed out in the House, it merely refers to public interest or public good and does not specify ecological research as such. The suggestion made in the House by the hon. member is under active consideration. I hope to have some report to make in that regard in the very near future.



PIPELINES-PROVISION OF VETO POWER OR DELAYING CAPABILITY TO PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of his statement during the same interview to the effect that the new department of the environment ought to have either veto power or delaying capability with respect to the construction of pipelines, does the minister intend to introduce an amendment to the government organization bill, which is now before the House, to give to the new department this veto power or delaying capability?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no intention of amending the legislation. I think it is appropriate as it stands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister does not intend to introduce an amendment, where will this new department get the power which the minister has said is most essential?



INDICATIONS THAT TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE WILL NOT BE PROCEEDED WITH

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister or any member of the government received any communication from the United States government, the government of the state of Alaska or any other source that the proposed TAPS pipeline will not be proceeded with?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any communication that it will not be proceeded with. However, I have noted the reports of the various environmental committees. I have noted the report of the United States Department of Defence and, within the last day or two, the report of the United States Department of Agriculture, all of which are critical of the construction of such a pipeline. Certainly this lends moment to the question of an alternative route, and it is extremely important that we in Canada consider the potential of the alternative route in light of these opposing factions to the TAPS line.
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-MEETING WITH COMPANY PRESIDENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: have a supplementary question. I understand that the minister was supposed to meet with the oil interests yesterday, and I have not seen anything to the contrary. Is it tomorrow? If the minister or officials of his department have met with these people, what position did the government take? If they have not yet met, what position will they take?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and myself, the ministers who, by the guidelines, are to be contacted in the event of a possible application, are meeting tomorrow with the oil company presidents. These are exploratory discussions to ascertain the position of the companies vis-a-vis the potential alternative route and to determine what research has been done by them. They are strictly in the nature of exploratory discussions. No firm position will be taken at these meetings.
PIPELINES-EXPERIMENT AT INUVIK-TYPE OF STUDY_______



REPORT ON FINDINGS

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabaska):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is with reference to the experimental pipeline at Inuvik where a private group of the oil industry is studying the effects of a hot pipeline on permafrost. Can the minister indicate what kind of a study this is? Is it an engineering study, is an ecologist attached to the study group, and has the government received any report on the findings of this group so far?


John James Greene: This is a test pipeline. There are two pipelines there, one suspended above ground and the other on a gravel berm. These are in the second winter of testing the flow of hot oil through the pipeline. Our officials, as well as those of various government departments, have had full access to all information and have been permitted to attend on site whenever they wish to take part in the experiments themselves. I do not believe there has been a report as such to date, but access to all technical and scientific information has been available to all departments of government.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister did not say whether there was an ecologist attached to this study.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-REPORTED POTENTIAL LOSS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHING INDUSTRY

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It relates to a question I put to his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, last week. Can the minister tell us whether he or his department have under assessment and review a report from a source within the Department of Com-


Inquiries of the Ministry
merce of the United States that the construction of a pipeline and the operation of an oil tanker route down the Pacific coast could mean the loss of $100 million a year to the west coast fisheries?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, it is under review from an environmental point of view.
sjs *	*



MANPOWER


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
A few days ago, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration announced that seasonal workers from the West Indies would be hired this summer to help in picking and canning fruits and vegetables in Ontario. Could the Prime Minister then consider the possibility of assigning this work to our unemployed or to our students who for the most part will not find jobs this summer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a perennial problem and it must be recognized that this is a type of work that very often students or unemployed will not do. This is why the Department of Manpower and Immigration is admitting foreign workers on our labour market. Should students be willing to undertake this work, they would certainly have the preference.
I am not cognizant with the specific case the hon. member is referring to, but I know that this is a problem which comes up year after year with respect to certain types of work.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Would the Prime Minister consider inviting the young people to do that work during the holidays, not only in Ontario where fruit and vegetables are grown, but in every province? This would be much more efficient than having them travel.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member on that score. The purpose of the Manpower Centres is to send the unemployed or the students to take part in this work. But, once again, facts reveal that there are in Canada some types of work which the unemployed and the students refuse to do; this proves, by the way, that the rate of unemployment is at times somewhat artificial.



PROVISION OF WORK FOR CANADIANS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieiie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of these opportunities to receive unemployed people from abroad, whether the Canadian government has any agreements to enable Canadians to work in foreign countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is another series of programs concerning international exchanges. We send a number of students to work abroad, and in return foreign students come to work in Canada.
But this is a different matter from that raised by the member of the Ralliement Creditiste, and where indeed there has been no exchange, where there is work which could not be done if workers from the Caribbean countries were not admitted to Canada.


Roch La Salle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the statement by the Prime Minister to the effect that some unemployed people would refuse to perform such work, would the Prime Minister consider compelling Canadians to work if they receive any social benefits?
Would the government favour legislation requiring any government pension recipient to work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the government will not commandeer the work force. The whole political philosophy of the government is based on freedom of choice for citizens to work where they want.



USE OF UNEMPLOYED AND STUDENTS INSTEAD OF WEST INDIANS TO PICK FRUIT

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has agreed that he would prefer to see young Canadians working in the fruit picking industry rather than wasting money on travel, would he consider subsidizing the wages of fruit pickers beyond the level the fruit industry is prepared to pay?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this is a very constructive solution. It is a type of work with which students and some unemployed persons do not want to occupy themselves.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has a supplementary and I will recognize him, also the hon. member for Broadview; if he will kindly resume his seat I will recognize him. I bring to the attention of hon. members that we are not moving very quickly. We have spent quite a bit of time on two questions and I would urge hon. members to allow the Chair to pass on to the next question. For the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Donald MacInnis: A further supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has agreed with the idea of young Canadians working in this industry but says it is not too attractive, does he not think that the money to be spent on travel should be used to subsidize the wages paid in order to make the work attractive enough for all young Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary is submitted in the form of an argument in support of his point of view. The hon. member for Broadview.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Has the Prime Minister given a formal reply to the mayor of the city of Toronto and Metro officials in regard to their reasonable plans for coping with unemployment, namely, by direct or shared-cost grants and also by extending the date for the expiry of seasonal unemployment insurance benefits?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have sent no letter to the mayor of Toronto since my meeting with him some days ago, but I cannot say whether other ministers have corresponded with him.


John Gilbert: Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to give a formal reply to the mayor of the city of Toronto and Metro officials concerning their request?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, unless that formal reply has already been given by some other minister, which I do not know.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the statement that he read today concerning Home Oil, did the minister intend to advise the House in the labyrinth of words in which it was embalmed, that Mr. Brown was not going ahead with any transaction and had refused to accept the offers, or suggestions of offers and negotiations, made by the government of Canada respecting the sale of the shares in question?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I stated in one paragraph, and advisedly so, that I did not think it would be either in the public interest or in fairness to Mr. Brown, who is negotiating with Canadian companies, to disclose the tenor of any negotiations between the government and himself, and I do not propose to do so at the present time. I can only reiterate the statement that it is the purpose and desire of the government that this company remain, both in majority ownership and control, a Canadian company.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister will make no revelation in regard to the negotiations by answering the simple question: Has Brown told the Canadian government to take a jump in the lake in so far as its offers are concerned? Is Mr. Brown now enabled, if he so chooses, to sell and dispose of the shares as he deems fit to American interests, and what control has the govem-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ment of Canada over any prospective sale that he may determine?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in so far as jumping in the lake is concerned, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that if the government were to jump in the lake it would certainly jump into Diefenbaker Lake.


Mr. Horner:: Then that would pollute it.


John James Greene: As I have indicated, Mr. Brown has clearly understood the government's desire, and he has conveyed to us the information that he is accordingly negotiating with Canadian companies.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has referred to Diefenbaker Lake I would point out that it is up to the Gardiner Dam and is unpolluted. May I ask the minister this simple question: Has Mr. Brown refused the offers of the Canadian government? Surely there is no difficulty about answering that. Second, may he now, if he so wishes, sell his interests to Americans?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question and asks for a conclusion of law which my right hon. friend, as a learned parliamentarian and lawyer, I know would not wish me to state here. I did say, however, that Mr. Brown clearly understands the desires of the government and has conveyed to the government his intention to negotiate with Canadian companies, which I think would certainly be in keeping with the intent of the government and I think the intent of the House as displayed in the debate on this subject.



HOME OIL COMPANY-POSITION OF ASHLAND OIL COMPANY RESPECTING ACQUISITION

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to direct to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the minister will not discuss the negotiations with Mr. Brown, can he say whether he has received any communication or has any understanding that the Ashland Oil Company has indicated to the government that it would no longer be interested in a deal in face of government opposition, and therefore Mr. Brown does not have any choice but to sell either to a private Canadian company or to the Canadian government?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as far as the communications between the Ashland company and myself are concerned, I should like to treat them as confidential for the time being at least. If the intervention of the government, with its financial resources, in this matter as a negotiating party has resulted either in American companies realizing the intention of the government to maintain this company as a Canadian company or has brought forth other Canadian companies that are interested, then I think the government has very properly used its responsibility and its powers in this regard.


Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



BORDEN-CAPE TORMENTINE-RETENTION OF &quot;JOHN HAMILTON GRAY&quot; IN FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN OCTOBER AND MAY

Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the honourable and learned Minister of Transport on a matter causing great disquiet at this time to the people of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, namely, the proposed transfer of the John Hamilton Gray to parts beyond P.E.I. and New Brunswick. Is the minister now in a position to assure the House and the government of Prince Edward Island that the John Hamilton Gray will be on the Cape Tormentine-Borden run between October and May annually?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not altogether certain of the dates but I would like to make this suggestion. I had a very lengthy conversation with the premier of Prince Edward Island yesterday and I have undertaken to and have prepared a complete time schedule, in a sense, in regard to the utilization of the vessels. I have also indicated my answers to various questions that have been raised by my hon. friend and others. This information will be sent to the premier tomorrow morning, I believe, and I am sure he will have no objection to my making it available to all interested members. I think it covers all of the questions asked.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of concern being expressed throughout the world about the results caused by supersonic planes flying over and landing in countries, will the minister say whether Canada has made clear to all other countries its position on the use of our air space and landing at Canadian airports?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is generally known-certainly I have repeated it often enough-that at the moment there is a prohibition against the flight of any aircraft at supersonic speed over Canadian territory. I have certainly made that known, for example, to the United States. As to whether this information has been formally conveyed to other countries I am not sure; I have not done so personally.


John Leroy Skoberg: Would the minister say whether he would formally convey that expression of opinion, which I heartily support, to the other countries of the world now engaged in supersonic aircraft programs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is in the form of a suggestion or representation.



BANKRUPTCY


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On December 18 the minister tabled the report of the committee on bankruptcy. On January 19 he told me that he hoped to introduce legislation after hearing representations from the public soon after the end of January. Can he now tell us when he proposes to introduce the legislation to amend the Bankruptcy Act?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are working on the report I tabled in December. I am still receiving representations from people who wish to comment on the report, so it is a little difficult for me to say, but I am hopeful of introducing a bill some time during the course of this session. That, however, depends on the nature of the representations made and their extent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the minister would read his answer of January 19 he would see it was a little different. However, in anticipation of the legislation and in an effort to have widespread publicity and examination, since the minister would not send the report to the appropriate house committee, could he hurry up the legislation so that we might have a good long look at it before we have to deal with it?


Mr. Speaker:: 

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice but as he is not here I shall direct it to the Solicitor General. Did the minister approve of the censorship exercised by the 30 Coles book stores in Canada in removing the publication, "The Unholy Land", written by Reverend A. C. Forrest, editor of the United Church Observer, from their book shelves, and has the minister in any way restricted this publication being published by McClelland and Stewart Limited?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that comments on the matter are up to the Attorney General of the province involved.



POLLUTION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Perhaps the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry might like to take note of it or even participate in the answer. It relates to a question asked a week ago by my colleague the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: -the member for Hillsborough. Just a future slip, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the sudden appearance along the northern shore of Prince Edward Island of oil globules that it is feared may be from the Irving Whale which sunk off the coast of Prince Edward Island last September. In view of the continuing concern and fear of possible pollution by the Irving Whale of Prince Edward Island beaches, can the minister advise whether his department has looked into this immediate problem and can he indicate what steps will be taken to remove the essential danger of the Irving Whale?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we have conducted investigations to the extent it is possible while ice and snow remain on the beaches. In the first instance I think I can say without any qualification that the quantities involved in terms of what has come ashore are relatively small. A contingency plan is in hand to clean up any that may be present after the ice and snow leave the beaches.
On the matter of the ultimate disposition of the Irving Whale, this becomes a question of what is the most appropriate time to do it. We will certainly not do it unless there is complete agreement with the ideas of the government and the people of Prince Edward Island. I can also say in reassurance that investigations conducted recently indicate there is no oil at this time coming out of the hulk and that what has come ashore apparently has been the residue of what was actually spilled last autumn.



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Is the government considering rescinding the federal tax of 11 per cent on building materials, as requested by the Canadian Builders Association?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that this question was asked a few days ago. If the Prime Minister wants to answer it, I have no objection, but I suggest to the hon. member that this question, having been put several times in the last few days, should not be asked again today.
Inquiries of the Ministry



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board. It is in two parts and concerns statements on motion, one he made yesterday and one I hope he will make. So far as the one made yesterday is concerned, will he assure the House that, notwithstanding the use of funds from the contingency vote, the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act will apply and, specifically, that the merit system will apply in respect of both employment and promotion? So far as the statement I hope he will make is concerned, can he say, as the minister responsible for the Science Council, whether there has been any discussion with the Science Council in respect of reporting to the House on the implications and ramifications of the Brinco announcement related to an enriched uranium process and how this might affect the federal governments' commitment in respect of the heavy water process?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the first question I can reassure the hon. gentleman that the merit principle will apply in its totality in relation to the announcement I made yesterday concerning the hiring of some 276 Francophones.
In respect of the second question I do not know that the Science Council is going to undertake the kind of rather extensive study suggested by the hon. member, but I shall make inquiries.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that his question was asked in a rather unusual way. If hon. members are allowed to ask two questions at the same time dealing with entirely different matters, this may expand quickly to three or four questions asked by an hon. member on three or four different subjects. We are in a position now where the hon. member's supplementary may refer to either the first question or the second question raised by the hon. member. This is highly irregular. I do not think such a practice should be allowed. The hon. member, however, could ask one supplementary about one of the two questions he has asked.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. I was just trying to expand the subject matter of questions. This question is to the Prime Minister. As a matter of government policy, is there or will there be a review, in conjunction with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, of the implications or ramifications of the Brinco announcement in respect of an enriched uranium process and how this may affect the federal commitment to the heavy water process?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is proper to call it a review


Inquiries of the Ministry
but there has been some correspondence with me on this subject and I have referred the matter to the appropriate minister. Of course he is studying the implications of the proposed project in respect of other governmental programs.



CONTINUATION OF SPEAKER IN POSITION FOLLOWING NEXT ELECTION-SUGGESTED DISCUSSION BY PARTY OR HOUSE LEADERS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman consider holding discussions with the leaders of the other parties in the House, or ask the House Leaders to hold such discussions, concerning the possibility of our taking appropriate steps so that after the next election we will still have as Speaker of this Ifouse, on a continuing basis, the distinguished gentleman who now occupies the Chair?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax
East.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, so that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will not feel neglected today, may I ask him if he is in a position to say what assistance the government intends to offer Catalina Explorations of Calgary and Halifax to avoid a likely takeover by American interests and the loss of some 300 jobs a little later this week?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, my department has no program that could be used in this instance. A number of ministers have consulted on this question quite extensively in recent days. I am sorry to say there appears to be nothing in our program at the moment which would provide the rather large sum of money this company would need at this time to remain operative.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister or some other member of the government could indicate whether or not they are aware of the representations which were made over the weekend? Are any steps being taken to correct the situation that has led to the difficulties in which the company finds itself, particularly the specific difficulty caused by United States vessels coming within our three-mile limit to do seismic work when there are Canadian companies with ships adequate for this task? If they are aware of these reports, have investigations been initiated?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps I might attempt to answer the question. The issue of whether or not foreign-owned vessels may participate in this kind of activity was one of the subjects considered by the special commission on coastal shipping. Within recent days I have had that report examined and have extrapolated from it the references to the whole issue that we are now discussing. I am examining these to see if they would be of any benefit in these circumstances.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of the hon. member that there are only six minutes left before the end of the question period. I ask for the co-operation of hon. members in asking short questions and of ministers in giving brief answers. I also ask that as few supplementary questions as possible be put.


J. Michael Forrestall: Could the minister indicate whether or
not Canadian companies involved in seismic operations off our coast will continue to have the protection that now exists in the statute of being assured that work as opposed to it being given to United States ships or ships of other countries or of other registry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In view of your admonition, Mr. Speaker, I can simply say that certainly protection will not be any less. What we are seeking to do is to see whether we can expand the level of protection.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants in a moment but first I will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the resolutions passed at the Ontario Hog Marketing Board meeting on March 17 and 18, the minister is giving consideration to their suggestion that the deficiency payment program under the Agricultural Stabilization Act be amended to determine deficiency payments on a quarterly basis, and that the terminal market average weighted price be 100 per cent of the previous five-year average instead of 80 per cent as at present?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we always take very seriously the resolutions that are passed at meetings such as this one, but I do not believe that we are at present taking action to revise the Agricultural Stabilization Act in the very near future.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on reflection I think the hon. member tor Dartmouth-Halifax East covered the subject I was interested in.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Further to what the Minister of Agriculture said, in view of the fact that the agricultural price support program is giving no support or no relief to hog producers under the present very serious circumstances, is the minister prepared to consider some course of action which would make the support price relevant to the present circumstances?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Of course we are considering that and we are very keenly aware of the seriousness of the situation. But the reason that the Agricultural Stabilization Act has not been invoked in this situation is that for a time up to less than a year ago when the hog producers were enjoying the highest prices-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive a telegram from the MLA for Grey-Bruce informing him that he had a sure-fire plan by way of a crash program to solve unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that this kind of question is hardly in order.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Justice. In view of the recently expressed frustration of our police forces because of the cabinet's lack of compliance in support of the law courts in implementing the death penalty for apprehended capital murderers and in view of the rise in the incidence of capital crime.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask a direction in those terms. I suggest that he ask the question directly.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Will the minister henceforth admonish the cabinet, when considering their prerogatives, to support the full penalty of the law for first degree capital murder when dealing with the all too frequent instances of this kind?
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



MID-CANADA PROGRAM ON &quot;WEEKEND&quot;-ACTION TO RECTIFY ALLEGED DISHONEST PRESENTATION

Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: My question is for the
Secretary of State or, in his absence, the minister responsible. Following the absurdly distorted and derogatory mid-Canada program on CBC Weekend of March 14 and the subsequent numerous bitter representations to the CBC and CRTC, would the minister or his parliamentary secretary make inquiries and report as to what action both bodies intend to take in order to rectify this completely dishonest representation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take notice of the question on behalf of the minister who unfortunately is away.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for my friend, the Minister of Transport. In light of reports over the weekend from the port of Vancouver that because of the trainmen's work slowdown grain elevators are only working at greatly reduced capacity and when ships arrive the grain they are to load is not available, will the minister, in co-operation with his colleagues, the Minister of Labour and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, move to rectify this problem with a view to increasing our grain movements to full volume?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, not only in co-operation with the parties concerned but also in co-operation with the leadership of the unions who, I understand, is very much opposed to the actions which have been taken by some of the workers in this case.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INTEREST ON DEBT

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority paid only $12 million in interest on the $18 million due in 1970, can the minister indicate whether he intends to recommend to the Canadian government to do what the American government has done and stop collecting interest on the debt of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can
only answer that in the manner that I have on previous occasions. The report of Carr and Associates with regard to the future of the seaway has been published with a view to getting the widest possible cross-section of representations. When these have been received I will consider them and at that time decide what kind of recommendations to make.
24081-5J


Inquiries of the Ministry



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer the question which the hon. member for Athabasca asked me last week.
Following an investigation conducted by the members of the Hay River detachment of the R.C.M.P. after a bomb had exploded in the U.S. Traffic Co-ordinating Office building on February 13, 1971, a vehicle and all its contents belonging to the Yellowknife branch of the Company of Young Canadians were seized by the R.C.M.P. in Yellowknife on February 17, 1971, under a search warrant.
The vehicle and contents are being held following an order to hold seized objects issued at Yellowknife on February 18, 1971, pursuant to section 432 of the Criminal Code. The matter is being investigated.



AIRPORTS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Is the proposed meeting between he and the premier of Ontario scheduled for Thursday concerning the proposed new site for the airport outside of Toronto, and if this meeting is held Thursday will he report to the House on the following day, Friday?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Without being in the least facetious may I say that the meeting was held last Thursday. The outcome of the meeting was that I delivered to Prime Minister Davis a set of proposals, some ideas I had as to how we might proceed and move ahead with this project. The Prime Minister asked for a period of two to three weeks during which he and his new cabinet colleagues, or his colleagues in their new positions, could have a chance to examine them. I indicated that I would be available as soon as they contacted me for a supplementary meeting.


Mr. Danson:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister could ask his supplementary question tomorrow, although with the consent of the House the parliamentary secretary might be allowed to ask his question now provided we also agree that the hon. member for Churchill, whom I was going to recognize, be allowed to ask his question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the right hon. Prime Minister.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should be rising
on a point of order, but I do want to ask the Minister of Transport if he was referring to the Prime Minister or the Premier of Ontario?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With reference to the government's negotiations to purchase Home Oil shares, is the minister in a position to say whether one of the reasons Mr. Brown turned down the government's offer was the minister's insistence on naming a specific person to the board of directors, as reported on television news this morning?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I really cannot be responsible for what goes on on television in this country, and I think if I disclosed any portion of the negotiations my contention that they should be confidential would hardly remain valid.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member might ask his supplementary tomorrow. I tender apologies to the hon. member for Joliette, the hon. member for Bat-tleford-Kindersley and the hon. member for Charlevoix, who have been rising with diligence throughout the question period. When reading Hansard I shall try to remember that they should be given some precedence tomorrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to suggest to the President of the Privy Council that if he were prepared to call second reading of three veterans bills which were introduced yesterday, we in the Official Opposition would be prepared to give them second reading without debate. The government might see fit to call them after the votes which are scheduled to take place have been concluded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is our view as well. These bills having been placed before us in the proper way, we are prepared to give them second reading without debate so that they can be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and if that is the general view of the House why not do it now?


Mr. MacEachen:: Let us do it now, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-232, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


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

Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-233, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-234, to amend the Pension Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 22, 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:: Pursuant to special order made on Monday, March 22, the House will now revert to the deferred divisions in relation to the proposed amendments to Bill C-215. The motions will be called in the order in which they were considered by the House.
Division
The text of motions Nos. 1, 6, 7, 2, 4 and 5 appear at page iii appended to today's Order Paper. Call in the members.
The House will now proceed to the deferred division on motion No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now proceed to the deferred division on Motion No. 6, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now proceed to the deferred division on Motion No. 7, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


John Angus MacLean: I rise on a point of order. Since the previous motion was defeated, I suggest that we consider this motion defeated on division.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimity with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member. In consequence thereof, we will have to proceed with calling the division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	Gendron	Ny stromThe House will now proceed to deferred	motion	Gervais	O'ConnellNo. 2 in the name of	the hon. member for Crowfoot	Gilbert	Orange(Mr. Horner).	Gillespie	OrlikowThe House divided	Penneron motion No. 2 (Mr.	Horner)	Gleave	Pepinwhich was negatived on the following division:	Godin	PetersGoode	PortelanceYEAS	Goyer	PringleMessrs:	Gray Greene	Prud'homme ReidAlkenbrack	MacLean	Groos	RichardAsselin	Macquarrie	Guay (Lfrvis)	RichardsonBell	McCleave	Guilbault	RobertsBigg	McCutcheon	Haidasz	RobinsonCoates	McIntosh	Harding	RochonCode	McKinley	Hogarth	RockComeau	McQuaid	Hopkins	RodrigueDanforth	Monteith	Howard	RondeauDiefenbaker	Moore	(Okanagan Boundary)	RowlandDinsdale	Murta	Hymmen	Roy (Timmins)Downey	Nesbitt	Isabelle	Roy (Laval)Fairweather	Nielsen	Jamieson	SaltsmanFlemming	Noble	Jerome	SerreForrestall	Nowlan	Kaplan	SharpGrills	Paproski	Kierans	SkobergHales	Peddle	Knowles (Winnipeg	Smith (Saint-Jean)Harkness	Ricard	North Centre)	StaffordHees	Ritchie	Lachance	StanburyHomer	Rynard	Laflamme	StewartKnowles (Norfolk-	Schumacher	Laing	(Okanagan-Kootenay)Haldimand)	Scott	(Vancouver South)	St. PierreKorchinski	Simpson	Lang (Saskatoon-	SullivanLambert	Southam	Humboldt)	Thomas(Edmonton West)	Stewart (Marquette)	Langlois	(Maisonneuve-La Salle	Thomas (Moncton)	Laprise	Rosemont)Lundrigan	Valade	Latulippe	ThomsonMacDonald (Egmont)	Yewchuk-53.	Leblanc (Laurier)	(Battleford-Kindersley)Maclnnis (Cape	LeBlanc (Rimouski)	TolmieBreton-East Richmond)	Legault	TrudeauLessard (LaSalle)	Turner (London East)NAYS	Lind	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)Messrs:	Loiselle	WatsonMacdonald (Rosedale)	WeatherheadAllmand	Burton	MacEachen	WhelanBadanai	Caccia	MacGuigan	WhicherBarnett	Cafik	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Yanakis-148.Basford	Chappell	Beaudoin	Chretien	Bechard Beer	Clermont	Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost. The House will	Cobbe	now proceed to the	deferred division on Motion No. 4Benson	Corbin	in the name of the	hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Blair	Corriveau	Horner).	Blouin	the House that this be called onBoulanger	C6te (Longueuil)	Is it the wish of	Breau	Crossman	division?	Broadbent	Cullen	Brown	Cyr	Buchanan	Danson	Some hon. Members: No.	March 23, 1971	COMMONS DEBATES	4519DivisionThe House divided on	the motion (Mr. Horner) which	Messrs:was negatived on the following division:	Howard	Orange(Okanagan Boundary)	PennerYEAS	Hymmen	PepinMessrs:	Isabelle	PortelanceJamieson	PringleAlkenbrack	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Jerome	Prud'hommeBarnett	MacLean	Kaplan	ReidBell	Macquarrie	Kierans	RichardBenjamin	McCleave	Lachance	RichardsonBigg	McCutcheon	Laflamme	RobertsBroadbent	McIntosh	Laing	RobinsonBurton	McKinley	(Vancouver South)	RochonCoates	McQuaid	Lang (Saskatoon-	RockCode	Mather	Humboldt)	RodrigueComeau	Monteith	Langlois	RondeauDanforth	Moore	Laprise	Roy (Timmins)Diefenbaker	Murta	Latulippe	Roy (Laval)Dmsdale	Nesbitt	Leblanc (Laurier)	SerreDouglas	Nielsen	LeBlanc (Rimouski)	SharpDowney	Noble	Legault	Smith (Saint-Jean)Fairweather	Nowlan	Lessard (LaSalle)	StaffordFlemming	Nystrom	Lind	StanburyForrestall	Orlikow	Loiselle	StewartGilbert	Pap ro ski	Macdonald (Rosedale)	(Okanagan-Kootenay)Gleave	Peddle	MacEachen	St. PierreGrills	Peters	MacGuigan	SullivanHales	Ricard	Mackasey	ThomasHarding	Ritchie	Mcllraith	(Maisonneuve-Harkness	Rowland	McNulty	Rosemont)Hees	Rynard	Mahoney	TolmieHomer	Saltsman	Marceau	TrudeauKnowles (Winnipeg	Schumacher	Marchand	Turner (London East)North Centre)	Scott	(Langelier)	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)Knowles (Norfolk-	Simpson	Matte	WatsonHaldimand)	Skoberg	Morison	WeatherheadKorchinski	Southam	Munro	WhelanLambert	Stewart (Marquette)	Noel	Whicher(Edmonton West)	Thomas (Moncton)	O'Connell	Yanakis-128.La Salle	Thomson	Olson	Lundrigan	(Battleford-Kindersley)	MacDonald (Egmont)	Valade	Maclnnis (Cape	Yewchuk-70.	Breton-East Richmond)	Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.	NAYS	The House will now proceed to the deferred division	Messrs:	on motion No. 5.	Allmand	De Bane Dionne Drury	The House divided	on motion No. 5 (Mr. St. Pierre)Basford	which was negatived	on the following division:Beaudoin	Dupras	Bechard	Duquet	YEASBeer Benson	Emard Ethier	Messrs:Blair	Faulkner	Alkenbrack	GauthierBlouin	Forest	Asselin	GilbertBoulanger	Forget	Barnett	GleaveBreau	Fortin	Beaudoin	GodinBrown	Francis	BeU	GoodeBuchanan	Gauthier	Benjamin	GrillsCaccia	Gendron	Bigg	HalesCafik	Gervais	Broadbent	HardingChappell	Gibson	Burton	HarknessChretien	Gillespie	Coates	HeesClermont	Givens	Code	HogarthCobbe	Godin	Comeau	HornerComtois	Goode	Danforth	Knowles (WinnipegCorbin	Goyer	Diefenbaker	North Centre)Corriveau	Gray	Dinsdale	Knowles (Norfolk-C6te (Richelieu)	Greene	Dionne	Haldimand)Cote (Longueuil)	Groos	Douglas	KorchinskiCrossman	Guay (Levis)	Downey	LambertCullen	Guilbault	Fairweather	(Edmonton West)Cyr	Haidasz	Flemming	LapriseDanson	Hogarth	Forrestall	La SalleDavis	Hopkins	Fortin	Latulippe
4520


Division
Lundrigan
MacDonald (Egmont) Maclnnls (Cape Breton-East Richmond) Maclnnis (Mrs.)
MacLean
Macquarrie
McCleave
McCutcheon
McIntosh
McKinley
McQuaid
Mather
Matte
Monteith
Moore
Murta
Nesbitt
Nielsen
Noble
Nowlan
Nystrom
Orange
Orlikow
Allmand
Badanai
Basford
Bechard
Beer
Benson
Blair
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Brown
Buchanan
Caccia
Cafik
Chretien
Clermont
Cobbe
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
C6te (Richelieu)
Cfltd (Longueuil)
Crossman
Cullen
Cyr
Danson
Davis
De Band
Drury
Dupras
Duquet
Emard
Ethier
Faulkner
Forest
Forget
Francis
Gendron
Gervais
Gibson
Gillespie
Givens
Goyer
Gray
Greene
Groos
Guay (Levis) Guilbault
Messrs:
Paproski
Peddle
Peters
Reid
Ricard
Ritchie
Rodrigue
Rondeau
Rowland
Rynard
Saltsman
Schumacher
Scott
Simpson
Skoberg
Southam
Stewart (Marquette)
St. Pierre Thomas (Moncton) Thomson
(Battlef ord-Kindersley) Valade Yewchuk-86.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Haidasz
Hopkins
Howard
(Okanagan Boundary) Hymmen Isabelle Jamieson Jerome Kaplan Kierans Lachance Laflamme Laing
(Vancouver South) Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldt)
Langlois
Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Legault
Lessard (LaSalle)
Lind
Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey Mcllraith McNulty Mahoney Marceau Marchand (Langelier)
Morison
Munro
Noel
O'Connell
Olson
Penner
Pepin
Portelance
Pringle
Prud'homme
Richard
Richardson
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Serre
Sharp
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Sullivan
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Messrs:
Tolmie
Trudeau
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whicher
Yanakis-111.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce) moved that 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, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now. An hon. Member: Never.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the House.
* *
*



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer that Bill C-192, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Woolliams (page 2381).
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, last evening I was not able to conclude my speech because we reached the adjournment hour. I do not hesitate to continue today because this young offenders bill has been considered by many responsible groups across Canada and, although they welcome certain features in it, most groups believe it to be a hasty measure. It is believed that many, if not all, clauses should be redrafted by a committee before we consider putting the bill into statute form. Many groups have expressed a desire to appear to state their views. Since these groups represent experts in certain fields, I believe they certainly should be asked to appear before we amateurs give final approval to this legislation.
One group to which I refer is the Canadian Bar Association. The Canadian Bar Association has attacked the bill from a legal point of view, citing the difficulties experienced by members of the bench, members of the bar and jurists all across the country. This association has



presented a very short brief. On page two, the association asks to be allowed to appear in order to give us the benefit of the years of experience of its members both on the bench and at the bar. The Canadian Bar Association points out the difficulty under our constitution of bringing in an omnibus bill which would solve most of our problems. As I pointed out last evening, it would be very difficult to accomplish many of the things proposed in this bill unless we have the necessary plant. We need more proficient magistrates and policemen, and we need the physical plant. Anyone who has visited the jails, the penitentiaries, the industrial schools or the shelters which I believe they are called, for young females, knows these institutions leave much to be desired, not only in respect of the physical plant but also in respect of the personnel.
Members of this House would be shocked if they were aware of some of the corrective methods employed in these institutions. I wonder how many members know that in the industrial schools it is not uncommon for corporal punishment to be inflicted upon children ranging in age from eight years to 16 years. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine anything worse than a so-called official spanking being administered to a boy eight years of age who has no home, no friends and so far as he can see no future. It is bad enough for a boy to be locked up and deprived of his liberty, but it is even worse when someone who cares little for him, or if he does care does not understand him, inflicts corporal punishment upon him. Surely, it is not necessary for me to labour this point. When we add the suggestions contained in this bill in respect of indeterminate sentences and no final disposal of a case until the person reaches age 21 or perhaps age 18, as I hope will be the case, it is obvious that the accused person will suffer the worst kind of agony, mental agony.
Again I make the appeal that large sums be set aside for proper research in respect of all these matters. I know this bill is not yet law and, therefore, I appeal to the House and the minister to see that it is not rushed through. Although some of the provisions in this bill are needed very badly, the bill should be given full scrutiny. We should hear from such experts as there are in these fields. The John Howard Society, which has proven itself to be a friend of those on the wrong side of the law, with whom it comes in contact, wishes to appear. That society has many progressive ideas but it is pitifully short of funds to do the research work and provide the necessary personnel even for the jobs it is undertaking. At the present time, the John Howard Society is endeavouring to keep in contact not only with the young people but also the older citizens who are incarcerated in our institutions.
I do not think I am soft when I suggest that everyone connected with these unfortunate people should avoid using harsh treatment as much as possible. It is bad enough to be on the wrong track without also being called a criminal. I suggest that the preamble to the bill is very progressive, and I go along with it 100 per cent. I even go further. I say we must generate not only in our institutions but also in the minds of all Canadians the humanitarian approach, the progressive approach and the
Young Offenders Act
civilized approach. This will require a good deal of cooperation with our provincial authorities. Here, I might mention Alberta. An experiment is being carried on in Alberta at the present time. That province is experimenting with minimal security institutions. Rather than concentrating on any form of punishment for its own sake, or for the sake of revenge on the part of society, from the moment a young person or older person becomes involved with the law the accent is now placed on rehabilitation.
Under this Alberta program, as soon as possible the young person is put in healthy surroundings, working out in the fresh air with progressive minded people where the emphasis is on teaching him the joy of labour, which is surely an entirely new approach. Instead of sentencing a man to hard labour, he is given an opportunity to work, to learn something, to become progressive and to go out into the society of other young men. Instead of using work as a punishment, it is used as a road back.
I recommend to the committee that they invite some members of the corrective institutions in Alberta to come and tell us of the success they are having with these young people. The percentage of repeaters is dropping very remarkably and rapidly under this sort of treatment, which proves that the humane attitude is the only one which society can afford to take.
This is the only sensible approach, because anything short of this positive attitude is a waste of human beings. I agree with one of the previous speakers who said that he had never known anybody who came out of jail the better for having been in jail. In other words, the punishment of being locked up never did anybody any good at all. It may be that you have given the young offender time to think things over and hopefully steered him in the right direction, that you have put him into contact with people even in jail who really had his best interests at heart, which puts him on the right track. It is this contact with someone who cares that turns him back toward being a useful member of society. It is only the positive approach that does him any good. It is not the jail but it is the hand of friendship put out to him, perhaps by some member of the John Howard Society or by the magistrate who sentenced him to the loss of his freedom in the first place, that rehabilitates him. I am convinced, having had some experience in the enforcement of law, that in so far as the policeman who arrests him and the magistrate who sentences him are concerned, if they can convince him that they have faith in him he will start back on the road back to a normal life.
In many cases a person who has broken the law has not done anything worse than many of us who have never come to court. As soon as we can convince him that we are charitable and that we recognize he is not that much different from the rest of us, as soon as we show that we have faith in him and that people do change, that people can live down the mistakes of the past, he will start back on the road to a normal life almost before sentence is passed upon him.
4522


Young Offenders Act


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. The hon. member can continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief. I cannot hope to cover all the points which I know will be discussed in committee. Before I resume my seat, however, I should like to appeal to the House to send this bill to committee so that each and every organization in Canada which has particular knowledge of these matters, such as the psychologists, the medical doctors, the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society, the attorney generals' departments of the provinces, can be asked to present briefs. A measure to deal with young offenders has to be a joint effort because it is something which is more important than the constitution itself. I think the provinces might well bend to federal plans for such legislation. We are trying to have uniformity and we are trying to teach our young people that we are treating them all alike. This means we are approaching the whole problem with justice tempered with mercy.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Samia-Lambion):: Mr. Speaker, I was extremely pleased when the Throne Speech indicated that the government intended to bring in legislation to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act. This decision followed many years of fact finding, study and decision by a special committee. I think the conclusion was correct, namely, that changes were necessary.
Attitudes concerning young people who get into difficulty by breaking the laws of the land have run the whole gamut of reason and emotion. They have also run [DOT]the full gamut regarding who is to blame when a child runs afoul of the law. For example, attitudes range between the fault being totally that of our society or totally that of the young person who breaks the law. Surely, somewhere between the two, and not necessarily right in the middle, and we must look for the answer.
At one end of the attitude spectrum is Dr. M. P. Marcilio who said:
They are victims of situations, of psychiatric situations and emotional deprivation.
At the other end of the scale we hear people saying, as did Mary McMorrow of Scarborough, when writing in the Globe and Mail:
Such an approach-
Referring to Dr. Marcilio.
-has probably caused more problems than it has cured. Even when this paternalistic sympathy and excusing is justified, is it a good reason to suit the laws to the weakest and least re-sponible in our society.
She also wrote:
We spend millions nurturing responsibility through education and probably more pandering to irresponsibility through our laws. Any new law which would change this ridiculous situation is well worth trying.
Of course, she refers to the Young Offenders Act.
Another approach was that adopted by Mr. George Hendry of Highland Creek who also wrote in the Globe and Mail on this subject:
A respectable kind of legislation dealing with crimes by youths will be, among other things, a law in which being young will not be a crime-that is nothing will be a crime for a youth which is not a crime for an adult and one in which youths will be guaranteed neither more nor fewer rights than adults. By and large, punishment should be for doing, not being.
With respect to this young offenders bill, in response to criticism by the Canadian Mental Health Association I gave the bill a more careful reading. I must confess that, having studied it clause by clause, I had to give some clauses more than passing attention because of the gnawing feeling that changes were necessary. On the whole, however, it is a first rate piece of legislation. I now find that my opinion has the backing of the Canadian Bar Association. They support the principle of the bill and make recommendations for some changes that may very well be acceptable to the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer).
I am not unfamiliar with the practice under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, having spent many years in Sarnia dealing with young people who ran afoul of the law, who were found guilty and thus, by definition, became juvenile delinquents. Some of their actions which resulted in these charges seemed to me to be absolutely stupid. I remember on more than one occasion asking these young clients "why did you do this thing?" I received more often than not their completely honest reply "I really do not know". Sometimes their course of action was dictated by revenge for some wrong, imagined or real. There were times when things were done on a dare, in order to be one of the boys. There were times when established authorities were not as reasonable as they might have been and when youths overreacted to a situation, as they might have been expected to do, but unhappily they ended up branded juvenile delinquents.
In addition to this practical experience, having read the bill and the criticisms of it by the Canadian Mental Health Association and others, and having read the ten page response written by the then solicitor general, the Hon. George Mcllraith, as well as having made a point of being present for all of the debate-with the exception of two addresses which I subsequently read in Hansard-I am still satisfied that this is a good piece of legislation. With a few changes, it can be looked upon not as a criminal code for young people but as a bill of rights for young people.
When the Canadian Mental Health Association criticized this legislation, the role taken by some members of the opposition was predictable. They figured they had a good thing going and proceeded to the application of hyperbole in condemning the bill. Unfortunately for these few members of the opposition, the electorate are just a little too sophisticated to swallow the kind of criticism that they had for the bill. The Ottawa Citizen of Satur-



day, January 26, contained an editorial under the heading, "Critics Overdo It", which reads:
The scatter-gun attacks by the opposition against the Young Offenders Act are wide of the mark.
Improvements can be made. But to describe it as the "most punitive, enslaving, vicious and tyrannical piece of legislation that has ever come out of the legislative grist mill", as one member did, is melodramatic nonsense.
Another part of the editorial reads:
There are also references to the Criminal Code as applicable to the new act. Maybe they were made for the sake of brevity: after all, a driving offence by a 16-year old is similar to one by an adult. But if the Criminal Code references offend, the wording could be changed. And if some experts object to the law's name, it could be changed to the Misguided Youth Act. That should satisfy them.
I listened very carefully and read the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) because I was surprised at the totality of his attack on this bill. Knowing that he had probably represented many clients under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, I thought he would have welcomed this bill as a major step forward. I would not have been surprised if he had attacked particular clauses in a general way, but he seemed to be suggesting that the young offenders bill was all bad. That really is not in accord with the facts.
I would have thought that the hon. member, or at least the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), would have discussed the bill with Mr. John Brown, the New Democratic Party member for Beaches Woodbine in the Ontario legislature. Mr. Brown is a founder of camps for emotionally disturbed children, and is probably best known as being director of the Warrendale home, about which experience he made a movie for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Mr. Brown takes umbrage at much of the criticism of the young offenders act. I suggest that there are few people in Ontario who are as familiar with the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act as is Mr. Brown. What does he have to say about this piece of legislation?
On Friday, January 15, Mr. Brown appeared on the CBC program called "The Bruno Gerussi Show", and was interviewed by the host. I think a portion of the transcript of that interview should go into the record for the edification of all hon. members, particularly those who might not have studied the bill and who are concerned about some of the criticism of it.
Earlier Mr. Gerussi had had Mr. Don Sinclair from the Department of Reform Institutions of the Province of Ontario on his program, and Mr. Sinclair had been critical of the legislation. When the host, Mr. Gerussi, asked Mr. Brown to comment on that criticism he said:
Well, perhaps Don Sinclair is the one single person who has made improvements in reform institutions in Ontario. It bothered me a bit to hear him attacking a bill that I feel is really basically to the benefit of children in the province and I have a feeling-that of course he is an employee of the Department of Reform Institutions-they have been party to this bill and are voicing opposition in the hope that they can exercise some, either political influence or some changes in the act.
I think the bill is a good improvement over the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and I take exception to certain things that came
Young Offenders Act
out. For instance, in all of the criticisms of the act both by my professional colleagues and by reform institutions people, by Judge Little of the court, and so forth, has been sort of criticism of the language of the bill-that this was going to be a criminal code for children, that they used bad unprofessional terms for kids, and this is nonsense. I've been through the act; I see two places where they use the word inmate. The bill is called the Young Offenders Bill over the Juvenile Delinquents Bill. They speak of young persons continually throughout, and I just don't see that the language of the bill has any basis for criticism.
I think it very legal, very proper, and I don't know what else you would call a young person who is deviant. The psychologist and the pyschiatrist would call him a patient, and the social worker would call him a client, and the sociologist would call him a deviant. In the reform institutions they would call him a delinquent at the present time. I would call him a child, and the act calls him a young offender, which means he is a young person under a certain age and he has committed some kind of an act that is contrary to the codes established by the community.
There are some very important things about this act though that we should look at. Instead of calling it a criminal code for children it's a bill of rights for kids. Up to now it has been possible to charge children with juvenile delinquency if they had no place to live, and I myself engineered and set out a legal action against the reform institutions a number of years ago to defend a 15-year old who was declared a delinquent because she had no place else to go. So, I know some of the dangers to children.
These children are not defended. They usually, if they have parents-the parents are usually confused and don't know their rights and so forth; so a kid who doesn't have a place to go is suddenly declared a juvenile delinquent and sent off to a training school, and has the record of a juvenile delinquent for the mere fact that nobody cared enough for him to put him someplace.
The host then indicated that Mr. Sinclair had referred to the fact that under this bill a young person could be sentenced to a specific time, up to three years, and suggested in that sense that he is treated as an adult and as a criminal. In reply Mr. Brown said:
Actually I don't think that's true and I don't make that interpretation of the act myself at all. There are two aspects that go with that. One is that a child, as well as any other person, should have his civil liberties declared in law and rooted in law so that if they are violated he has some legal recourse to it. So, the access the child must have-a specific charge- that's one aspect of it, and I agree he should have a specific charge, and he should know that charge, and he should have the right to legal counsel and defence, and he is doing precisely that which the act sets out which it hasn't done before.
Then, in terms of the sentence all professionals would like to think they're God and they would like to think that they can judge how long a kid should be in their treatment and how long he shouldn't, and of course that's one of the great, great travesties on individuals at the present time.
Thank God even in the psychiatric hospitals there is a limit set for children. Usually in the pyschiatric treatment unit they say six months, and these are psychotic children. I don't see how the same government can say they need more than three years to deal with a delinquent child.
My hunch is that it is a very bad thing not to have a definite time limit because it means a child can get lost. We have a large number of children in the province of Ontario who have gotten lost in our institutions, and this act, not just in Ontario but across the country, says this will not be possible in the future.
It says many other things very definitely and specifically that are helpful, that protect the child and set limits on the professional person who helps the child, in terms of length and what


Young Offenders Act
he must do, but doesn't interfere with good treatment for the child.
Throughout the act they are advocating good treatment, and the nicest thing about the act is it says that a child should be treated with the respect and the responsibility that a parent would exercise over his child in each of these instances.
The host, Mr. Gerussi, picked that up and said:
That immediately becomes debatable and one of the reasons so many children are in trouble is because the parents do not, don't know how, have no judgment about exercising parental care.
Mr. Brown's reply to that was:
But let's look at it. The fact of the matter is the majority of children do all right, and it is precisely because they are involved with parents who exercise a proper care over them. In terms of numbers there's a small minority over the total population who have difficulty, and in those instances the parents are not-for one reason or another-and the act specifically says they should be placed in such circumstances, and the people who take them be charged to be responsible as a good parent would be responsible for his child.
It was interesting to note that after all these pleasant things Mr. Brown had to say about the bill, the host ended with the comment, "Mr. Brown thinks that Bill C-192 has some merit." What are my personal conclusions? I agree with Mr. Brown that this is a better piece of legislation than the present act and I have already used his words that it is, in effect, a bill of rights for children. This bill, in my opinion, can lead to the road to reform.
No legislation, Mr. Speaker, can make a policeman kind, a judge fair, a probation officer objective, a foster parent compassionate nor a social worker dedicated. We give them solely the framework within which to work, and then provide the safeguards in the bill as protection for the young person. The government, recognizing it cannot through legislation change a person's attitude, have endeavoured in clause 4 to at least set the kind of guidelines that they would like to see followed by persons operating under the provisions of this bill. The bill states loudly and clearly to the judge, to the policeman, to the probation officer, to the foster parent, to the social worker and to any others who are operating under its provisions as follows:
This act shall be liberally construed to the end that where a young person is found ... to have committed an offence, he will be dealt with as a misdirected and misguided young person requiring help, guidance, encouragement, treatment and supervision-
The government, recognizing the prime responsibility of parents for their children, has taken the steps feasible to require the attendance of the parent with the young person when he is being dealt with pursuant to the provisions of this bill. Some people would change the name of the bill to something like The Young Persons and Children's Act. I believe this view is shared by other members. With the greatest of respect to their opinion, it seems to me that this bill is not applicable to all young persons or all young children but only to those who break the law. Happily, they are a very small segment of our over-all population of young people. I am not
certain that this point of view which they express or which I express, is particularly important and I would have no fault to find if the Solicitor General saw fit to change the name of the bill.
I am somewhat concerned about the age factor. It seems to me that 12 years of age might be more appropriate, but then I ask myself how we are to cope with a 10 or 11 year old who breaks the law. I think the young offenders act protects this position and gives probation officers, psychiatrists, sociologists and others the opportunity to help these young people, possibly by the court adopting the suggestion of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), namely, distinguishing between a summary and an indictable offence. I am not too upset over the word "inmate" nor the reference to the Criminal Code, but if a word with a similar meaning but more euphemistic could be found, then I doubt if the Solicitor General would object to that kind of an amendment.
I know my colleagues on the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will give this bill careful scrutiny. I share the view of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) that lawyers can deal with this kind of measure because they have had to cope with it on a daily basis. I respect the position of the Canadian Mental Health Association. If they feel as strongly about this bill as they seem to in their correspondence and their brief, and if they are in fact correct in the long run, I hope that position will prevail. To date, however, I have not read anything nor heard any debate that would dissuade me from the view that the young offenders act is a much improved piece of legislation over the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the next few minutes I wish to deal with the amendments that I deem necessary before the adoption of Bill C-192, an Act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
First of all, I wish to say that the proposal is positive as a whole. In my view, young offenders represent a concrete reaction to the numerous contradictions of Canadian society. They should therefore be considered not as wrong-doers but as victims. As Judge Trahan of the Juvenile Court, where I had been invited, said last Thursday: "If it has showed on the parents, it is the children who will reap the avalanche."
Mr. Speaker, as elected representatives of Canadian society, we must endeavour to make available to these young offenders all the means required to ensure their complete and satisfactory rehabilitation.
In examining the bill before us today, I realize that the government is making a worthwhile effort to improve the present act which, as you know, goes back to 1929. It is therefore absolutely necessary that young delinquents be considered in the light of twentieth century thinking and that these young people called destructive elements of society in the old days, and by direct consequence rejected by it, be today deemed victims of the conflicts within our civilization.



The young people have a dynamic but deviated personality which must be set straight and put to use for the improvement of our society so that they will become law-abiding citizens.
As I said before, I believe that the bill is acceptable as a whole. However, to my mind certain amendments would greatly improve the scope of Bill C-192 in respect of its practical enforcement.
Therefore, my remarks are aimed mainly at bringing to the attention of the government the risks of interference with human and judicial freedom that certain ambiguities in this bill seem to allow.
Clause 2(o) of this bill provides that a probation officer shall be appointed by a judge.
So as to enable the House to see it, I shall quote this paragraph:
''probation officer" means a person appointed or designated as such under an Act of the legislature of a province, or a person designated in writing by a judge to perform the duties of a probation officer generally or in a particular case:
I object strongly to this state of affairs, for the four reasons that follow.
First, it does not rest with the judicial power to make a decision which comes under the administrative power. We cannot leave it to judges to appoint policemen, or even clerks of the court and much less the support personnel. It will be agreed that a judge cannot appoint probation officers, either because, if it were so, we would be restoring the family compact and setting the stage for influence pedding, and I strongly disapprove of that.
Secondly, I consider that the provisions of that clause leave too much discretion to a single person and might lead to abuse of power.
Thirdly, probation is, in my opinion, a specialized action the application of which cannot be left to judges or to any other individual who does not have the necessary qualifications to do so. We must admit that the appointment of some judges leaves the population thoughtful and that indirectly, a number of them are often severely criticized, because they are compelled to reach conclusions or make decisions in fields with which they are not sufficiently familiar.
Fourthly, I believe that giving such a power to judges will lead to the layoff of several probation officers who would have different conceptions of the services to be rendered to young offenders. I maintain the probation personnel is now a very important professional body whose value and maturity Bill C-192 could not deny.
Mr. Speaker, the wording of subclauses 17 (1) and (2) on page 12 of the bill tends to indicate that the probation officer is somewhat a peace officer. I quote:
(1)	A summons issued under section 8 or a notice given under section 15 may be served by any peace officer or probation officer or by any person designated by the person who issues or gives it, or may be sent by mail.
Here is subclause (2):
(2)	If a young person or a parent, to whom a summons or notice is mailed, does not appear in court at the time and place
Young Offenders Act
named therein as thereby required, a second summons or notice may be issued or given, which summons or notice shall be served by a peace officer or probation officer or by a person designated by the person who issues or gives it, by delivering it personally to the person to whom it is directed, or if that person cannot conveniently be found, by leaving it for him at his latest known address with some inmate thereof who appears to be at least seventeen years of age.
I therefore consider that there is a contradiction in the terms which should be cleared up. To my mind, this is a serious weakness; it could provoke the anger of probation officers who are certainly, as I see it, not peace officers but rather counsellors.
Clause 30 (1) (f) at page 25 of the bill, has this to say about the judge, and I quote:
he may place the young person on probation for a maximum period not exceeding two years;
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the judge may recommend a probation period for the delinquent, but that the probation officer is in a much better position to know precisely how long the period of detention or surveillance should be in each case. Furthermore, I believe the probation officer may also allow the delinquent to resume his proper place in society after a period which he alone, in my opinion, can determine. Actually probation should apply to a special group and not be the direct and automatic consequence of the delinquent's behaviour.
I feel that the expression "foster home or group home" appearing in Clause 30 (l)g) should be defined within the bill. It should be better defined in order that it may not become a catch-all.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the House's attention to a document received on January 20 last, from the Director general of Boscoville in Montreal. In his letter, Mr. Gendreau referring to clause 30(4) of the bill, on page 27, writes as follows:
The Rehabilitation Process
Boscoville considers it unthinkable in connection with a rehabilitation process to demand that a young person who has benefitted from rehabilitation measures should face a second trial at the end of his period of probation in a school where he went through a process of change. Such a procedure is similar to advocating euthanasia for patients with a sickness considered extremely serious at the start and that could have been treated successfully. That clause must be fought with all the power of those who have understood what the rehabilitation of a young offender was all about. The Boscoville experience shows that it is possible to save such young persons while protecting society without for all that starting over again court procedures which would for all practical purposes result in an extremely serious regression of the personality of the young person who would under such circumstances have to go through a new trial. We even think that such a measure amounts to eliminating the real rehabilitation opportunities for these youths. Therefore, we deny the validity of this clause.
Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Gendreau's statement proves his experience in this field as well as the advisability of rejecting this clause of the bill.
Clause 35, subclause (2) of Bill C-192 reads as follows:
Where no probation officer is available to conduct an investigation and submit a pre-disposition report, the judge shall himself make the investigation referred to in subsection (1) and complete a written report thereof, but he shall not do so until after he has made a finding that the young person appearing before him committed an offence.


Young Offenders Act
I believe that under this subclause the judge is given powers beyond his jurisdiction. Is it logical for the judge to be investigator, policeman, psychiatrist or court clerk in the same case. I do not really think that the reason brought forward-unavailability of probation officers- could justify such a procedure. It would be granting a judge too much power and too much judicial and administrative freedom. A judge is a judge, but only a judge. Therefore, he must not try to perform the duties mentioned a few moments ago. The definition of a judge would then be completely falsified. He must remain neutral in his field, namely that of applying the law to the best of his ability, the reason why he was appointed and sworn in.
Thus in the following pages where the duties of the probation officer are defined, everything is ambiguous and complex and in my opinion this will result in dry and useless discussions.
I should like to draw once again the attention of the House to the document received from the Director General of Boscoville. Three short paragraphs from this document are, in my opinion, very constructive. I quote: Judge and "Superintendent"
We should avoid giving the superintendent the responsibility of transferring a young person from one training school to another, in contrast with the provision of Clause 47 (1). The judge should be the person to assume the efficiency of rehabilitation measures that society, which he is representing in the last resort, takes for this young person. This should be respected if we want the judge to play the part that experience has proved to be essential to successful rehabilitation.
I agree with these remarks and I believe the government should seriously consider this particualr aspect of the bill. The second comment reads as follows with regard to Clause 59, subclause (2) paragraph (b) on page 53 of the bill, and I quote:
A judge may by warrant commit a young person to detention. It seems to us that such a measure should not be applied towards a young person when there are detention facilities for adolescents within the judicial area where the proceedings are taking place. Being in contact with adult prisoners during imprisonment previous to a rehabilitation measure is inappropriate and a young person who is put in such a situation may well be stigmatized. Past experience has shown that such measures must be avoided if possible.
Once again, I strongly recommend that the government should consider this aspect in order to prevent the young offenders from falling prey to the nefarious influence of hard-core criminals. We are dealing with unlucky youngsters and not with the scum of society. Let us remember that.
I am now coming up to a point which appears to be vital and to which we never pay enough attention. I am speaking of clause 60(4) on page 55 of the bill, which reads as follows:
No person shall, except with leave of a judge, publish by any means any report
(a) of an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person
Mr. Speaker, the mere phrase "except with leave of a judge", in my opinion, destroys the legal scope of this paragraph. Does the law provide for some preference? Is
it a good thing, whatever the significance or the sensational aspect of a case from a journalistic point of view, that a youngster should all of a sudden become the subject of a kind of publicity which will sully his reputation for ever? Is there one judge in Canada who does not understand this prime aspect of the young person's rehabilitation? In my view the government in this specific case, with the six words that I dispute thoroughly, is permitting abuses contrary to the most elementary freedom of the accused. I should like to quote the remarks of Mr. Gendreau of Boscoville in this regard:
It is said that it is possible for a judge to give permission to publish certain accounts of the trial of a young person.
For rehabilitation purposes, we fell that we must ban all publicity concerning the delinquent action of a young person when he appears before a children's judge. No permission to disclose to the public any aspect of the family or personal problem should be granted. The risks involved are too great for such a thing to be allowed.
This is clearly viewed from the rehabilitation standpoint which definitely implies that an individual should not have to bear social stigmas which are not conducive to social reinstatement. This is unavoidable in the case of adults and under no circumstances must it be permitted in the case of young people, for it would be a backward step.
This quotation is self-explanatory and if anyone should know something about rehabilitation in Quebec, it surely is Boscoville's director general because he is right in the middle of it.
In my view, the bill is positive in its principles. We are endeavouring to defend the young delinquent by helping him through the enactement of positive, not punitive laws.
This for example is truly a backward step as compared with the law of 1929 respecting probation. Already that act recognized the administrative role of probation officers. As I suggested briefly a few minutes ago, Bill C-192 authorizes the judge to designate whom he wants as probation officer and it even grants him the right to act as one and I am against that.
I believe the bill should be amended to take the present situation in consideration. Today, almost all provinces have probation services established under provincial statutes. Through experience it has been possible to rationalize the social role of probation services. At the same time, professional and scientific elements were gradually integrated into the practice. This measure is applied within officially constituted services. Of course, the work of probation services is always connected to the implementation of the act.
However, to submit its activities to the control and goodwill of the judge is nonsensical and anachronic. In that bill, I note a clear interference by the federal government in an exclusively provincial jurisdiction and in a field already held by the province. In my opinion, the federal government must not in any way define the role, functions, rights and duties of probation officers. This responsibility comes under the provincial government and as far as I know, that government wishes to continue to assume its responsibilities in that field.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore obvious to me that this bill, as drafted, cannot be passed. There are meaningless



words in it, some complicated sentences make numerous paragraphs, and risks of interference by the federal government in provincial jurisdiction and by judges in the field of probation officers are obvious in it.
I feel that the future of these young people is important and should clearly orient this legislation, so that this bill does not become the cause of a conflict of judicial interests between the provinces and the federal government.
Although changes should be made to it, it would be desirable that the bill be avant-garde, constructive and positive, and not punitive and adamant.
Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely wish that the present government take my remarks into consideration.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, one of the
most important bills now before Parliament is the young offenders bill. It has been the subject of very much controversy. I think all hon. members agree that the Juvenile Delinquents Act, dating back to 1929, should be changed. The problem is that many people expert in the field of delinquent behaviour cannot agree as to the nature of the changes.
The reason that this bill is so important is that its provisions will affect the lives of thousands of young Canadians for years to come. These young Canadians could be my son or your son. If we pass a bill containing the right ingredients of protection of society, safeguarding the civil liberties of the young, with deterring effect and rehabilitation procedure, we will not only be doing a service to the young people involved but in the years ahead we will be saving this country literally millions of dollars now being spent on penal institutions. That is why this bill is so important.
When one inspects the costly penal and reform institutions now in existence, it is easy to see what a tremendous financial saving could be achieved. By reducing the number of inmates, we could materially reduce the number of institutions. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to prevent as many young people as possible graduating from youthful offenders to hardened adult inmates. An enlightened progressive juvenile law will go a long way toward achieving this objective.
When the young offenders bill was introduced for first reading, it met with considerable opposition from various organizations and individuals experienced in dealing with young offenders. Naturally, we must give a lot of weight to these opinions, but certainly not to the point where a reasonable discussion of this bill cannot ensue. Before anyone categorically renounces the philosophy of and procedure under this proposed legislation, it should be remembered that this was not the hurried product of the Solicitor General's department. It had been the subject of extensive deliberations and hearings dating back to 1961. Those on the Department of Justice Committee sought out the opinions of persons knowledgeable in a number of fields and activities. They met with officials of provincial government departments, juvenile and family court judges, training school personnel, probation officers, un-
Economic Council of Canada iversity professors and private agencies. Many of the recommendations of this committee are now embodied in a new young offenders bill.
We cannot lightly set this bill aside unless, after further hearings, the preponderance of opinion seem to distate substantial amendments. For those who uphold the present proposals and those who attack them, there is a common objective, to protect society and at the same time treat the young offender with a happy blend of enlightened severity and humane understanding with one avowed purpose, to restore him to society as soon as possible.
May I call it five o'clock, 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 Compton (Mr. Latulippe)-Finance-Abolition of sales tax on sale of construction material; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Canadian National Railways- Reduction of passenger service in Northern Ontario- Suggested holding of public hearings by transport committee; the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy)- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Mid-Canada program on "Weekend"-Action to rectify alleged dishonest presentation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Ronald Basford: Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling a document.


John Angus MacLean: This is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table two copies, in each of the official languages of Canada, of a report of the Economic Council of Canada entitled, A Report of Intellectual and Industrial Property.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. friend from Edmonton West has a question of privilege to raise. I stood up in order to give him a chance to get back to his place.


Economic Council of Canada


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry I was moving while Your Honour was putting the motion to which the House has just agreed; I was getting back to my seat in a hurry. I had been trying to ascertain the exact title of the document which was tabled before five o'clock, because it is in connection with that document that I wish to raise my question of privilege. It is unfortunate that the minister who tabled the document is not here, but I think the House would be interested to learn that this report of the Economic Council of Canada under the very impressive title "A Report on Industrial and Intellectual Property" was disclosed to the public at a press conference at eleven o'clock this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Economic Council has no obligation to table this document in the House at any particular time but I would point out, in connection with the question of privilege, that after this document had been released to members of the press under signature at eleven o'clock, hon. friends of ours were called up by newspapers and asked to comment on it. When they learned that the document had been released, they went to the distribution office of the House and were told they could not have the document until it had been tabled in the House. This is the point to which I wish to address my comments. I think it is absolute nonsense for any ministry or agency of government to issue any of these documents before they are tabled in the House if there are to be any restrictions on the issue of that document to hon. members until it has been tabled. That is the point I wish to make-if there is no obligation on the ministry or on the agency to table a document and there is a restriction placed thereon. I have no complaint if the department or agency issues it to the press beforehand; we may recognize that the minister is seeking publicity beforehand, but that might only be a grievance.
The question of privilege arises when members of this House are told they cannot get a document before it has been tabled, although members of the press are running around with it in their hands. They have reported to their newspapers, stories are on the wire and editors are calling local members to learn their views about it. And the members have to ask: What document? I am fed to the core with this sort of thing. We have had too much of it and the more we protest this unequal and inconsiderate treatment the more, perhaps, it will be realized that this chamber is the focal point of the operation on this Hill, not some minister's office. I do not know whether members become statesmen when they become ministers or whether they become arrogant or whether they become solid ivory between the ears but they forget, when it comes to treating members of this House, that they themselves are members of Parliament and that they are collectively responsible to this House. We shall continue to complain until they realize that they, too, are members of the House and responsible accordingly. This is my grievance and I raise it as a question of privilege on behalf of all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to multiply words but I fully support the protest which the hon. member for Edmonton West has made. He is absolutely right.


Mr. Bell:: I, too, wish to support this protest but I should like to And out whether any hon. member on the government benches is prepared to stand up and defend the ministry on this issue.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: The hon. member should address the House or yourself, from his seat, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The House has heard the protest made by the hon. member for Edmonton West and others. The position has been made very clear and I think we should proceed now with the business of the Private Members' Hour.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am informed, Mr. Speaker, having telephoned the minister's office, that this information was given to the press for release at five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I do not believe we should enter upon further discussion or debate on a question of this kind. The point has been made; although the minister was not here. I think it is clear from the statements presented that this was in the nature of a protest. The views of the hon. members who spoke have been made known and they will be on record in Hansard.
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 public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Delia) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-25, respecting Canadian National Environment Week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could we be told what idea Their Honours came up with?


Thomas Henry Goode: Certainly, Bill C-25 received second reading in the other place on March 16. The bill was sponsored there by the Hon. Alan Macnaughton, a distinguished former Speaker of this House. To him and the other hon. senators who gave sympathetic consideration to this bill I express my sincere thanks.


During the course of debate in the other House it became clear that there was a certain concern about the name "Canadian National Environment Week". The general feeling, expressed by Senator Martin, was that the name was too cumbersome and thus would not lend itself to efforts to have it well remembered in the minds of citizens across this country. The suggested change was the deletion of the word "National" throughout the bill with the result that the week would be known simply as Canadian Environment Week. The bill was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Health, Welfare and Science for consideration of such an amendment. In committee it was unanimously agreed that such a change was desirable and thus the bill was reported, as amended, by deleting the word "National", and given third reading in the other chamber last Wednesday.
I feel that the change of title to "Canadian Environment Week" makes Bill C-25 a better and potentially more effective piece of legislation. I therefore ask the concurrence of the House in this amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It occurs to me that a word of comment about the various metamorphoses through which this bill has passed might be appropriate at this point.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, it was originally introduced by the hon. member under the name of Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week. I believe it does say something for the value of careful consideration in committee that the House of Commons committee made one proposal for a change of name; several were actually considered. Then again, the committee complied with the suggestion which it received that the timing of this particular week be changed to allow of its observance in the fall rather than in the spring. Now, Their Honours have made a proposal, through their amendment, which I would agree improves the bill, by making the title less cumbersome. I am sure we would all concur in this amendment and express a hope that this particular week, which will become the second week to be officially observed by Act of Parliament, will be used by citizens of coming generations to improve the environment. I am happy to support the proposal by an hon. member who comes from another constituency in the Province of British Columbia that this amendment be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford) moved: that Bill C-33, to amend the Criminal Code (control of motor vehicle), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker-
Criminal Code


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member's bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code by adding a new section 223A. The explanatory note refers to sections 222 and 223. The bill gives the wording of sections 222 and 223 of the Criminal Code that existed before the amendments that were adopted by the House in 1969, I believe, in the Criminal Law Amendment Act which we referred to as the omnibus bill.
I submit that, as presented, the bill could not be referred to the justice committee without amendment because it refers to sections of the Code that are no longer in existence. Sections 222 to 224 were amended by the omnibus bill. I raise this point because I expect many hon. members will be interested in the bill. Although debate will go until six o'clock and the bill will not be referred, I would point out that in its present form the bill is irregular and would have to be amended.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I suggest to hon. members that we proceed with the debate on the basis that the sections of the Criminal Code referred to are the amended sections, unless the hon. member for Oxford has some other suggestion.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank my hon. friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I think there is a patent error here that has escaped the law officers of the House. However, it is the substance of the bill that is of importance and perhaps the clause of the bill could be amended accordingly. As I say, the hon. member is quite correct; there is a patent error here which may be due to a misprint or an oversight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Then, we will proceed on that understanding.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, the substance of the matter is clearly explained in the explanatory note to the bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code so as not to penalize drivers of cars who, realizing that they are intoxicated or that their ability to drive is impaired, are wise enough to stop their car immediately and refrain from continuing their journey for as long as their state lasts. In other words, the purpose of the bill is to get drunken and impaired drivers off the road and to encourage them to stay off it.
I think most people in this country, even the government, would agree that this is desirable. Only last year, I think it was, the government brought in some good legislation in this regard when amending the Code by providing a breathalyzer test for drivers who were considered to be intoxicated or impaired. This legislation has had a good effect and proved to be a deterrent to driving while intoxicated.
This bill is carrying that step a little further in that it seeks to keep off the road drunken drivers, who as everybody knows are a menace not only to themselves but to other drivers on the road. As Your Honour knows, under the present law a person who, realizing he is intoxicated, drives his car on to a side road off the main highway, takes the keys out of the ignition and places them in his pocket, and perhaps even sits in the rear seat of the car,


Criminal Code
according to judicial interpretations is nevertheless considered to have the vehicle under his care and control. He can be punished by an automatic sentence of 30 days and/or fine, with suspension of driving privileges. In other words, such a driver is punished for having the good sense to drive his car off the road and to stay off the road. In my opinion, that makes no sense.
The provisions of the Code are clear. I feel that the phrase "care and control of a motor vehicle" has been interpreted by the courts very unreasonably. Under the illustration I have just given, whether or not the car is in motion, the driver is guilty of an indictable offence. Originally the judicial interpretation, as I recall it, was that if a person were sitting behind the wheel of a car and had even stopped the motor running he was still considered to have care and control of the vehicle. Then, the courts went one step further and decided that even though the keys were not in the ignition, he could still be charged. Eventually, the point was reached where even a person asleep in the back seat of the car was considered to have care and control of the vehicle, which I suggest makes no sense.
The fact is that instead of helping to keep drivers off the road, judicial interpretations of this kind have hindered this objective. Under these conditions, most people in an intoxicated state would keep on driving and take a chance on the cops not picking them up rather than pull over to the side of the road and stop the vehicle, because if the police look inside the car to see what is wrong they will be picked up anyway. I submit the existing law encourages drunks to keep driving, and I can think of nothing more foolish than that.
What is the situation in Great Britain? That country usually has forward looking laws in this regard. The British parliament changed its law, and the wording of my bill is much the same as that of the bill presented to the British parliament some years ago. I believe in 1965 the British parliament saw the anomaly existing in their law which encouraged drunk drivers to keep on driving, and I understand that the change they made has been of considerable assistance in improving the situation.
I have presented this bill on a number of occasions and the press has been very favourable to it. In fact, I have seen no unfavourable comment. The Toronto Star, which is considered a paper that supports the government, printed a very favourable article in 1966, and I have seen others since. I understand that a number of members of the House in all parties feel that this would be a useful amendment to make to the Code. In fact, I have yet to hear any arguments raised in opposition to it. This is why I shall be very interested to hear what government members who oppose the bill-and I understand it is to be opposed-have to say.
I am curious about one aspect, Mr. Speaker. Even if there are reasons, which I am anxious to hear, for opposing the bill, I cannot understand the government's refusal to let the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The reason, of course, may be due to the usual attitude taken by members on that side of the House. I refer to the attitude that has been taken by the Liberal party since the days of the late
C. D. Howe. Although they have good attributes in other ways, one thing all hon. members opposite have in common-some people might refer to it as arrogance-is the attitude that only the members of the Liberal party have sound ideas; no one else is capable of voicing sound ideas, even people from other countries. The repository of all brains is in members on the government side of the House.
Perhaps that is the reason the bill is being opposed. Another may be that the senior officials, of the Department of Justice, and the minister himself, have decided that this amendment is not a very good idea because it does not fit into the doctrinaire approach to the Criminal Code. In the view of these people we must be made to fit the doctrine, the doctrine must never be altered to fit the people. We must not keep to the doctrinaire approach. There is a type of armchair debate among lawyers about which we often hear. Being a lawyer myself, I have heard of it. A number of lawyers gather around in comfortable armchairs and debate some of the fine principles of law which often are not very relevant. Sometimes they say that to be consistent the law should be one thing or another. That is fine perhaps so far as civil law is concerned. Certainly, I would be the first to admit that the law officers of the Crown and the public servants in the Department of Justice are experts at drafting laws and in constitutional matters, but I doubt if any of them has had much experience in enforcing the criminal law. I am sure the minister himself is in that category. One member of this House, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) has had some practical experience as a Crown attorney. In days gone by, I have such experience myself.
I would remind the government that the purpose of the law is not that people should fit into some precise niche in respect of the criminal code. We are dealing with people, and I believe a more practical approach is required. In this amendment the burden of proof is entirely on the accused, and he must prove a number of things which are not easy to prove. This is made clear. A number of quite difficult things must be proven. It is up to the judge or magistrate to decide whether or not he accepts the evidence presented by the accused on his own behalf. The way I read this amendment, and according to the advice I have received, there would not be much opportunity to fool the courts or to misuse the law by reason of the particular wording of the amendment. I believe those persons who have tried to exercise good sense in taking their cars off the road when they feel they are impaired or intoxicated should at least be given credit for this. This would not be easy to prove and I have deliberately phrased the amendment in this manner. I believe, however, that those persons who try to keep off the road in these circumstances should be given appropriate consideration and should not be punished for exercising a little sense.
As I mentioned, this view has been held in other countries. Public opinion would seem to favour this type of amendment. I would hope hon. members who do not



see fit to support the legislation at the present time might be persuaded to change their minds.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly cannot support the hon. member's bill, even though I agree that in some extreme and exceptional cases presumption could create embarrassment. But the bill in its present form could certainly not be sent to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee for study because it would have to be amended. In fact, as I mentioned before, it refers to Criminal Code sections 222 and 223 as they were before the amendment of section 222, which covered the crime of driving while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, and section 223 which involved driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs. It is therefore a slightly less serious crime than under section 222.
Well since the bill was amended section 222 was deleted and moreover the minimum imprisonment of seven days on summary conviction was cancelled. The new section 222 pertains to driving a motor vehicle while the driver's ability is impaired owing to intoxication or the influence of a narcotic and retains the word "imprisonment" but only for the second or subsequent offences.
A new section 223 was added which covers the refusal without legitimate reason to give breath samples when a police officer requests them for valid and logical reasons.
Then a new offence was created under section 224, that of driving with a blood alcohol content of over .08.
I find it difficult to understand the wording of the bill as it contains a new clause, clause 223A, which states as follows:
"Sections 222 and 223 shall not apply where the motor vehicle is not in motion and the driver, having realized that he was intoxicated or that his ability to drive was impaired, has, for that reason alone, refrained from putting his motor vehicle in motion or stopped the same, and is also in a position to establish that he had no intention of driving or continuing to drive, while intoxicated or while his ability to drive was impaired."
The accused still has to prove that he did not intend to drive or to continue driving.
So, there is not much difference with the old section 224 (2) which contained the following assumption: where a person occupies the seat ordinarily occupied by the driver of a motor vehicle he shall be deemed to have the care or control of the vehicle unless he establishes that he did not enter or mount the vehicle for the purpose of setting it in motion.
Now, the clause proposed by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) does not amend much the present provision, since the former provisions of the act allowed for this presumption. And if I am not mistaken, this presumption was introduced into the Criminal Code in 1947. This was certainly logical because previously a driver could easily establish that he did not intend to drive his vehicle.
Obviously, when Parliament passed that legislation, it was thinking of all the dangers involved when a driver, willfully or nor, drives a vehicle while under the influ-
Criminal Code
ence of drugs. Usually the person himself knows what was his intention when he decided to drive his car.
In the explanatory notes it is said that the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code so as not to penalize drivers who are wise enough not to drive or to stop their car immediately.
Perhaps it was mentioned that some drivers are smart enough to stop their car in certain cases and say they did not intend to drive it. So it might be too easy perhaps to establish their non-responsibility.
I agree with the hon. member that, in some cases, it is not easy to prove it, as far as care and control of the vehicle is concerned and, in the past, various decisions have been rendered as shown by our jurisprudence. Even in certain cases when it was utterly impossible to drive a vehicle because it had come to a dead stop due to outside circumstances, the accused was found guilty. Let me say to the hon. member that there are many extreme cases.
I remember one from days of private practice. An individual walking out of a hotel and who felt intoxicated asked one of his friends to drive his car. He had asked his friend to drive him home and while driving through a narrow street a slight accident happened. Of course, the car stopped and the owner was later asked by the police to take his car out of the way, then he was given a ticket for driving while his ability to drive was impaired. Although these facts had been recognized, the judge decided that this was the law and even though the car had been driven only about 100 feet the driver was responsible and the charge stood.
I admit that there are extreme cases where it is difficult to establish the presumption provided for in the law. But are we going to ignore this presumption, considering that in all the other cases where the drivers have stopped their car or are asleep at the wheel they have the care or control of it and have little chance of driving their car?
We all admit that with the number of car accidents and the daily parade before the courts of people charged with driving while their ability to drive was impaired, there is no need to restrict the prescriptions of the act; I think that they are not too severe to cover general cases. All those acquainted with the courts and those who read newspapers see that every day a growing number of people, notwithstanding increasingly stern penalties, are charged with driving a motor vehicle while drunk or vhile their ability was impaired by alcohol.
There is even less need to amend the legislation since section 224 was enacted and use of breathalyzer established positively determine the proportion of alcohol in the blood of a motorist. The rate of .08 per cent recognized by all experts, as was outlined in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during the study of this matter, had been suggested and was approved, I believe, by the Canadian Bar Association and several other bodies whose opinion was that a higher rate would make driving a motor vehicle extremely dangerous. I could quote statistics before the House in that respect. Everybody knows that such cases occur in large numbers.


Criminal Code
It has been established by experts that alcohol is an important factor in most fatal accidents. Now is not the time to restrict the application of the act in such cases.
Even if one does not take into account the changes that were made, this would not change much in the act as the presumption remains. As to the general principle of suppressing the presumption in some cases, I do not think, in view of the danger caused by the presence of intoxicated drivers on the roads, that the time is appropriate for suppressing or reducing the effect of the presumption created by the act.
For these reasons, I cannot support the bill introduced by the hon. member and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to hear other members concerning the changes proposed by Bill C-33.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My friend who has just spoken made some technical objections to the bill; he said that Bill C-33 is not relevant to the old sections 222 and 223 of the Criminal Code and therefore the amendment could not be passed. In the last few moments I have had the opportunity to check this matter, and may I say as a point of clarification that I find that the bill is quite relevant to the new sections 222 and 223, although there is slightly different wording. I thought I would bring that point to my hon. friend's attention.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate because the subject is one which interests me greatly. I have listened to the hon. member who is proposing the bill and I must say that I am impressed with his reasoning. Personally, I would have no objection to the bill being referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, where all the lawyers in the House, including the hon. member who has spoken and myself, would have an opportunity to consider it further. However, I have some reservations and this is why I am making some remarks on the bill that we have before us.
The bill proposes an addition to the Criminal Code in the form of a section 223A which purports to prevent the penalization of drivers of motor vehicles who are wise enough to stop driving when they realize that their ability to drive is impaired or that they are intoxicated. Although the Criminal Code was amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, and the relevant provisions with regard to drinking and driving were proclaimed in force as of December 1, 1969, reference is made in the explanatory note and the suggested amendment to the sections of the Criminal Code prior to the amendment.
The Criminal Code presently contains section 224A (l)(a) which provides as follows:
224A (1) In any proceedings under section 222 or 224,
(a) where it is proved that the accused occupied the seat ordinarily occupied by the driver of a motor vehicle, he shall be deemed to have had the care or control of the vehicle unless
he establishes that he did not enter or mount the vehicle for the purpose of setting it in motion;
In other words, the onus is on the accused. A provision to this effect was first enacted as part of the criminal law of Canada in 1947, and the reference to this enactment in Snow's Criminal Code expresses the reasoning behind the enactment. Snow writes the following:
This amendment is made following recent court decisions to the effect that a driver may be too drunk to have the care or control of a motor vehicle. The purpose of subsection 4 of section 285 is to protect people on the highway. When the driver of a motor vehicle is in such a state of intoxication that his driving is a menace to the public safety he must be considered as "intoxicated within subsection 4 of section 285 of the Criminal Code: see Rex v. Cox, 7 C.R. 39"-
It is to be noted that the care or control provisions of the Code are to be found in both present sections, that is, section 222 which relates to impairment and section 224 which relates to persons whose blood alcohol level exceeds .08 per cent. Care or control of a motor vehicle is possible without one being the driver. One might be acting under the direct supervision and instruction of another, so that the care or control would be in that other person. There are any number of decided cases dealing with the question of when a person has care or control, but in each case it is a question of fact which must be decided on the evidence adduced at the trial.
I think it is clear that in enacting the legislation Parliament had in mind the potential dangers of an intoxicated or impaired person who might at any moment voluntarily or otherwise put a motor vehicle in motion. Because of this real danger, and because the accused would be a person who would be best able to give evidence as to what he was doing in the car, provision was made for the presumption section. This section raises the presumption of the care or control, which the accused may rebut by evidence of his intention. The proposed amendment would not change this provision because it recognizes the obligation on an accused "to establish that he had no intention of driving or continuing to drive while intoxicated or while his ability to drive was impaired". I merely point out to the hon. member that it seems to me he is not accomplishing what he wants to accomplish by the bill that he is proposing.
In order to appreciate the extent of the onus on the accused and the effect of the care or control sections, reference could be made to the cases which are referred to in Tremeear's or Martin's Criminal Code. As has been pointed out by many lawyers and bar associations across the country, the law is clear about care or control. If drivers, in the words of the explanatory note, "are wise enough not to drive or to stop their cars immediately and refrain from continuing their journey in their present state" they should also be wise enough to remove the key from the ignition, step out of the car and re-enter it either on the passenger side or in the back seat. These steps would be clear evidence from which the court could properly infer that the accused "did not enter or mount the vehicle for the purpose of setting it in motion."



With respect, I do not think the proposed amendment accomplishes what the proposer seems to have in mind. On the other hand, I would not think that an amendment of this kind would be appropriate in light of the statistics on drinking and driving, the injuries and damages resulting therefrom and in light of the recent amendments to the Code with respect to the breathalyzer. I have the most recent statistics with respect to the number of drinking and driving convictions registered in each province under sections 222, 223 and 224 of the Criminal Code.
In Ontario the number of convictions for driving while impaired, under section 223, and driving while intoxicated, under section 222, during the period January 1 to September 30, 1969, was 12,738. The number of convictions has increased substantially since that time. For the period January 1, 1970, to September 30, 1970, under section 222, driving while intoxicated; section 223, failure to provide a breath sample, and section 224, driving with a blood alcohol content of more than 8 milligrams, the number of convictions increased to 15,669. From the statistics I have quoted for my province of Ontario it would appear that there has been an increase in convictions having to do with driving and alcohol consumption of 19 per cent.
Criminal Code
I would also point out the statistics with regard to the number of motor vehicles registered in Ontario. In Ontario, during the period January 1 to September 30, 1969, 2,855,361 motor vehicles were registered, and from January 1, 1970, to September 30, 1970, the number of motor vehicles registered in Ontario was 2,956,043. This is an increase of 3J per cent. From the statistics I have quoted, Mr. Speaker, you will notice there has been an increase in convictions for driving offences associated with alcohol, of 19 per cent whereas the number of motor vehicles registered has increased by only 3| per cent. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it might be of interest to hon. members to have these tables printed in Hansard, in view of the fact that they refer to all provinces of Canada and would be of great interest to members generally.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Has the hon. member leave of the House to include these statistics at this point in his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The tables referred to above are as follows]:
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]



TABLE 1. NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS REGISTERED IN EACH PROVINCE

[Stage Direction]
(a) Under C.C.C. Sections 222 and 223-1969 Driving While Intoxicated Section 222 Canada	(b) Under C.C.C. Sections 222, 223 and 224-WO Driving While Impaired Driving While Impaired Failure to Provide Sample Section 223 Section 222 Section 223	Driving with More Than 80 Mgs. of Alcohol in Blood Section 224	and the Provinces	Jan. 1, to June 30	July Aug. Sept.	Total Jan. 1, to Sept. 30	Jan. 1 to June 30	July Aug. Sept.	Total Jan. 1, to Sept. 30	Jan. 1 to June 30	July Aug. Sept.	Total Jan. 1, to Sept. 30	Jan. 1 to June 30	July Aug. Sept.	Total Jan.1, to Sept. 30	Jan. 1 to June 30	July Aug. Sept.	Total Jan. 1, to Sept. 30Newfoundland	
220	80	300	240	160	400	246	150	396	20	Nil	20	137	110	247Prince Edward Is	
3	-	3	174	140	314	29	15	44	3	43	46	137	149	286Nova Scotia	-	-	-	897	311	1,208	345	106	451	61	58	119	702	620	1,322New Brunswick	
8	4	12	677	429	1,106	371	182	553	18	27	45	374	371	745Quebec	
9	-	9	2,881	1,914	4,795	3,111	2,004	5,115	-	Nil	-	310	533	843Ontario	
375	(12 mos.)	-	12,363 (12 mos.)	5,088	4,116	9,204	1,614	369	1,983	1,854	2,628	4,482Manitoba	
38	11	49	716	298	1,014	289	273	562	153	16	169	825	136	961Saskatchewan	
44	22	66	723	529	1,252	839	336	1,175	55	139	194	801	626	1,427Alberta	
83	37	120	2,128	1,137	3,265	1,443	n.a.	n.a.	130	n.a.	440	n.a.	n.a.British Columbia	
59	-	59	3,056	1,734	4,790	2,798	1,184	3,982	396	270	666	1,178	1,777	2,955
o
[Stage Direction]
p
4534	_________COMMONS DEBATES __________________March 23, 1971

[Stage Direction]
Canada and The Provinces	(a) 1969	(b) 1970	Number of Registrations Between Jan. 1 and June 30	Additional Registrations During July, Aug. and Sept.	Total Registrations Between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30	Number of Registrations Between Jan. 1 and June 30	Additional Registrations During July, Aug. and Sept.	Total Registrations Between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30Canada	
7,061,505	451,406	7,512,911	7,307,719	459,070	7,766,789Newfoundland	
74,868	7,809	82,677	78,185	8,076	86,261Prince Edward Island	
33,859	2,925	36,784	35,326	3,148	38,474Nova Scotia	
262,708	23,123	285,831	216,641	23,510	240,151New Brunswick	
183,323	15,082	198,405	186,113	15,885	201, 98Quebec	
1,382,142	150,426	1,532,568	1,479,254	157,330	1,636,584Ontario	
2,732,442	122,919	2,855,361	2,833,043	123,000	2,956,043Manitoba	
352,290	19,590	371,880	360,741	19,773	380,514Saskatchewan	
415,630	23,831	439,461	405,972	27,692	433,664Alberta	
723,682	58,478	782,160	768,534	58,681	827,215British Columbia	
900,561	27,223	927,784	943,910	21,975	965,885
March 23, 1971_______________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________ 4535
[Stage Direction]

Criminal Code
William Kenneth Robinson: To sum up, Mr. Speaker, in my view there is unquestionably a relationship between traffic accidents and the consumption of alcohol. I feel the present law is good law and places the onus rightfully where it belongs. Although I sympathize with the hon. member who has presented this bill, I cannot support him at this time.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to return to the point of order raised by the hon. member who moved this bill. As I read the bill, it purports to amend sections 222 and 223 of the Criminal Code. As I read those sections, section 222 does deal with impaired driving, or care and control of a vehicle, and section 223 provides as follows:
Where a peace officer on reasonable and probable grounds believes that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding two hours has committed, an offence under section 222, he may, by demand made to that person forthwith or as soon as practicable, require him to provide then or as soon thereafter as is practicable a sample of his breath suitable to enable an analysis to be made in order to determine the proportion if any of alcohol in his blood, and to accompany the peace officer for the purpose of enabling such a sample to be taken.
Then subsection 2 provides a penalty for anyone who refuses to take the test. So I submit that the proposed bill in purporting to deal with section 223 is wrong and does not make sense. There are other observations which I would like to make. The law as it now is under section 224A(1) of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
-where it is proved that the accused occupied the seat ordinarily occupied by the driver of a motor vehicle, he shall be deemed to have had the care or control of the vehicle unless he establishes that he did not enter or mount the vehicle for the purpose of setting it in motion;
This section, while it raises a presumption, raises nothing more than a rebuttable presumption, a presumption which the accused can rebut by adducing evidence to indicate that he did not in fact intend to set his motor vehicle in motion. This is evidence which is peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused himself. There is nothing to prevent him taking the stand in this type of prosecution and giving evidence or adducing evidence which would satisfy a magistrate that he did not in fact intend to put the motor vehicle in motion, no matter where he was sitting in the car. There is a presumption that if he is sitting in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition or with the motor running that he is in care and control of the vehicle. But it is open to him, as the law now stands, to show that he did not intend to put the motor vehicle in motion, and if his evidence is accepted this is a complete defence to the charge.
I submit that under the proposed bill the accused will have in one way to go much further than that. If we read the bill closely we see he has to establish three things. First, he has to establish, strangely enough, that he was intoxicated or impaired. It seems strange to me that in a situation like this an accused should be placed in the position of establishing to the satisfaction of a court that he was intoxicated or impaired. When he has established this fact in court-and I do not know how he can go on to the next step if he has established that he was intox-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
icated-he must establish that he realized he was intoxicated or impaired and for that reason alone he refrained from putting his car in motion, or brought it to a stop. Then he has to establish that he had no intention of driving or of continuing to drive.
I do not know in what way a man who establishes to the satisfaction of a court that he was drunk can then establish to the satisfaction of the same court that he was wise enough to carefully park his car and that he intended to stay there. Surely, no man who is drunk will be able to satisfy anybody on this score.. I submit that he would not have the mental capacity to make those decisions.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is stretching it pretty far, isn't it?


Charles Terrence Murphy: I hope to practise law again some day and I can see where this clause could be used in some rather doubtful defences. Let us say an impaired or drunken driver is weaving down the road when suddenly a police car comes along with lights flashing and siren sounding; when the driver sees this he realizes he is drunk or impaired and so pulls his car over to the side of the road, parks it and turns off the ignition. There is no doubt that he does not intend to drive again, possibly because the policeman is by the door of the car.
Under the wording of this clause it is open to ingenious defence counsel to argue this type of defence, and it may satisfy the requirements. The man realized that he was intoxicated or impaired; there was no other reason for his stopping the car. If he had been sober he would not have stopped. He refrained from putting the car in motion again and so could satisfy the court that he did not intend to drive, particularly if he had asked the policeman to drive him home. I submit that this could be a defence under the provisions of this bill as it is presented to us. In that respect, and for purely selfish reasons, it might be wise to amend the Criminal Code in such a way so that defence counsel could have fun in arguing the matter.
I have illustrated one way in which this bill might be used to thwart the provisions of the Criminal Code which pertain to driving and drinking, but there must be many others. I do not think we should change the Criminal Code in a way which would lessen the effectiveness of the present law as it pertains to drinking and driving.
There are some interesting statistics pertaining to the increase in accidents between 1958 and 1967. One set of figures issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows that in those nine years the number of persons killed on our highways rose by over 66 per cent and the number of persons injured rose by more than 100 per cent. The statistics read into the record by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) show that there are many more cars on the road now than there were in those nine years. I submit that we should only consider lessening the criminal law pertaining to drinking and driving when we have statistics which show that the recent amendments to the Criminal Code concerning


the breathalyzer and breath test are reducing the accident rate and the death rate.
In a speech in this House dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said:
The experience in the United Kingdom gives ground to expect that if this legislation passes there will he several hundred Canadians alive next year who would not be alive if there were no compulsory breathalyzer test. There will be several thousand more persons uninjured and several thousand more hospital beds free for people with other illnesses which would otherwise be occupied by patients broken in bone and spirit in traffic accidents.
Once we get driving and drinking under control to a greater degree than now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that only then can we consider bills such as that proposed by the hon. member. Even at that time I would suggest that a bill to accomplish the same end should be framed in a way that would prohibit defence counsel getting around the law and being able to trot their clients out of court because of weak wording.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, could I put a question to the hon. member?


Charles Terrence Murphy: Yes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member mentioned the British experience to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) referred when amendments were being made to the Criminal Code. In view of the fact that the government of the United Kingdom in 1965 passed an amendment identical to the one I am suggesting and apparently found it very satisfactory, would the hon. member not agree that it might be worth discussing in the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee?


Charles Terrence Murphy: I am not aware of the British legislation, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member now says that his bill is identical to the British legislation. Earlier I thought he said it was close to it. I do not know what the British legislation is, but I think it is worth discussing.

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Richard): Order. As the hour set aside for private members' business has expired, I do now leave the chair.

Having listened to many comments on the Criminal Code today, I am reminded of a little poem which it might be interesting to put on record for thoughtful reception by hon. members.
When some fellow yields to temptation And breaks a conventional law,
We look for no good in his makeup,
But Lord, how we look for the flaw.
No one asks, "Who did the tempting?"
Nor allows for the battles he's fought.
His name becomes food for the jackals,
The saints who have never been caught.
I'm a sinner, O Lord, and I know it.
I am weak, and I blunder and fail.
I am tossed on life's stormy ocean Like a ship that is caught in a gale.
I am willing to trust in thy mercy,
Young Offenders Act
To keep the commandments thou'st taught,
But deliver me, Lord, from the judgment Of the saints who have never been caught.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer that Bill C-192, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Woolliams (page 2381).
Donald Ross Tolmie: Mr. Speaker, the difference between those who uphold the principle of this bill and those who oppose it is in the approach to achieving these goals. So far as I am concerned, this is a non-partisan bill and my only question is, how do we achieve the goals that we wish to achieve? Those who support the bill-it is a government bill-apparently believe that young people who break the laws of Canada should be charged with a specific infraction and after due process of law should receive a sentence as a deterrent. The sentence, when carried out, would strongly emphasize the rehabilitation of the individual.
Those who oppose the philosophy of the bill seem to believe-I hope I am right in this assumption-that young offenders should be treated as a behavioural problem and the young person got into his or her predicament by reason of environment, family problems or mental instability. There is a real, honest and definite philosophical cleavage between these two groups. I think it is of extreme importance that before a law which will affect the future of thousands of Canadians is enacted, much more study be carried out. I strongly feel that the bill should be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs or other appropriate committee and that briefs and witnesses from all parts of Canada, and all reputable and thoughtful organizations, should be made available to the committee. Furthermore, I would suggest that evidence of comparative laws of the United Kingdom, certain American states and Sweden be placed before the committee. After exhaustive hearings by this all-party committee-I emphasize the word all-party-I would hope that a non-partisan report would issue to assist the government in its selection of changes to the present bill.
I do not want to go into the specific provisions of the bill; we can do that at a later date. One point which


Young Offenders Act
intrigues me concerns the name of the act. Should it be changed from Young Offenders Act to Young Persons Act? I think that question should be examined. I strongly suggest that for juvenile court judges there should be a specialized training program. These are not judges of a general nature; they require a specific knowledge. They should receive specialized training covering such matters as the principles of child psychology and personality development, the prevention and treatment of delinquent behaviour, juvenile court law and the rules of evidence. In other words, they should know something about this particular subject. Juvenile court judges should continue to be appointed by the provincial authorities but selected only from names recommended by an advisory group of representatives from such fields as education, law, medicine, religion and social work.
There has been criticism that the provinces will be saddled with additional costs if this bill is enacted. This is quite possible, but that is not the point. If the net result-and this is what we wish to attain'-is prevention of juvenile delinquency and permanent rehabilitation of our young offenders, any additional funds spent by the provincial authorities will be well spent.


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-192 which we are debating replaces the Juvenile Delinquents Act with the Young Offenders Act. I say at the outset that I am not a lawyer and do not profess to be an expert on the legal interpretation of this bill. I leave that to members such as my colleague the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). I have a purely human interest in this bill and I am speaking tonight as what is commonly called "Joe citizen". I have an interest in what this bill will do to those young people affected by it. I have a human interest in the type of society we have produced and the type of society this bill will help evolve in the future.
The title of the bill, the Young Offenders Act, is both inappropriate and misleading. In the bill a child is defined as a person under the age of 17 years. The bill continually refers to a young person as being a child over the age of 10 years. Most of the provisions in the bill are applicable to children 10, 11 or 12 years of age. As many members have already pointed out, the title of the bill is misleading. Many hon. members, including the member for Broadview and the hon. member who just spoke, have suggested that the title should be changed to the Young Persons Act.
Many hon. members have received dozens of representations from ordinary citizens, various groups and people who have experience in criminal law. Most of these people are concerned that if this bill is passed it will be in essence a criminal code for children. The bill is very distasteful in its terminology. Throughout the bill there are references to offenders. The title of the bill, the Young Offenders Act, is very negative. It implies that someone is condemned before he is tried. It refers to inmates, training schools and uses language of that sort.
This is very distasteful in a bill that affects children of 10, 11, 12 or 13 years of age.
The bill is very legalistic in approach. It deals in cold legalisms. It lacks some of the human elements that are necessary when dealing with an area such as this. It deals with young people and the problems in which they become involved. It is more concerned about technicalities than with the social conditions that motivate or provoke young people to do those things which our society does not deem to be regular or law abiding. When dealing with children of this age, the courts should have the maximum amount of flexibility in order to help rehabilitate young people rather than just punish them. There is a wrong emphasis in the bill. As I already pointed out, the title condemns rather than doing something more positive. The bill is punitive in nature, and harsh. It segregates the child who breaks the law from the mainstream of society, limits the discretion of the judge and does not give him as much flexibility as is necessary in dealing with young people.
The bill lacks the human element of compassion and understanding. Many hon. members, including the minister, have been asked who participated in the drafting of this bill. Were the young people, organizations, groups and welfare workers consulted? It appears they were not. I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) will have to admit that the bureaucrats in his office drafted the bill. Perhaps this is why the bill is so cold and legalistic in approach and lacks the compassion and human understanding that is necessary.
This bill is reactionary in approach. Some hon. members have described it as a Spiro Agnew type of approach to law. We do not need a strong, iron hand, ultra-conservative type of approach in this country. The bill is reactionary instead of progressive. A punitive approach to the law is not the direction that society should be following. When I look at bills such as this I wonder where the great Liberalism is that was talked about a few years ago. Where was participatory democracy when this bill was drafted? Were the young people, social workers and those experienced in this field consulted? This is nothing but a reactionary piece of legislation. In my opinion it reinforces the type of society from which people are becoming more and more alienated, the type of society against which young people are rebelling.
With regard to the content of the bill, the government has displayed nothing more than a "swinging" image. Instead of reaching into the future with progressive legislation, this bill reaches back to the age of the dinosaur. It is all talk and no substance. For this reason I suggest that hon. members should vote on the bill according to their consciences. They should be free to vote in the way they feel, not as directed by the people who drafted the legislation.
The amendment before us is good. In essence it suggests that the bill should be withdrawn and a task force appointed to redraft new legislation. This is a good idea. In addition to consulting professional people and experts, the task force should consult lay persons, the people directly affected by legislation such as this. If we cannot convince the minister and the powers that be to with-



draw the bill and introduce a new one, we should move as many amendments as possible in order to put a more human element in the legislation. Young people between the ages of 10 and 14 should not be treated as criminals. This is one of the most undesirable parts of the legislation. If the bill is not withdrawn and a new one drafted, amendments should be made that will at least change this aspect of it. Amendments should be passed which will make the bill more flexible. Legal technicalities should not be emphasized when dealing with young people. If amendments to this effect were made, then at least the bill would be less offensive and more progressive than it is now in dealing with young people who for one reason or another do not fit into our society.
The most offensive thing about the bill is its general attitude, the thread which seems to run right through it. It is a reactionary measure instead of being a progressive, forward-looking document. The most ludicrous aspect is that it applies to 10 year olds. Under the equivalent act in Britain, no child under the age of 14 may be charged with an offence; but in Canada, under this legislation we are taking a directly opposite approach. Surely, a child of tender age has special psychological and physical needs. People change tremendously between the ages of 10 and 18. A child may have changed almost beyond recognition by the time he is 21 and is sentenced under this proposal. This fact has been pointed out by a number of organizations, among them the Canadian Mental Health Association which on December 7 sent a letter to all members of the Senate and of the House of Commons on this issue. I should like to read one section of this letter which I believe to be relevant.
A Criminal Code based on the notion that specific offences merit a specified range of punitive procedures may be appropriate for adults but deffnitely not for children. A particular offence may be committed by two children of the same age. In one case the total social, emotional and intellectual needs of one child may require only a suspended sentence; while with the other child an indefinite and probably prolonged period of re-education, treatment and retraining may be required.
Basically it is the position of this association that there should be a separation between the judicial process and the process of determining appropriate treatment, training, supervision and after-care. The former should be considered to be a matter of due process while the latter deals with decisions concerning the particular needs of the child with a special emphasis on his rehabilitation.
The Canadian Mental Health Association draws attention to an omission about which we should all be concerned. They say there is a lack of emphasis on the area of rehabilitation and human need. Priority should be placed on strengthening the bill in these areas, rather than on legalistic questions involving judicial processes. Emphasis must be placed on the growth and development of a healthy personality when dealing with a child or young person who is found to have committed an offence. Instead, this bill leads to the segregation of a child who has broken the law. It tends to deal with his behaviour instead of his total personality, his total background.
The federal government should be talking in terms of helping the provinces through the provision of finances,
Young Offenders Act
staff and so on to build rehabilitation centres where young people who have broken the laws of society can be helped and rehabilitated. The bill before us seems to show no concern about this aspect. The Solicitor General ought to be willing to look to the United Kingdom, Sweden, Holland and other European countries as examples, because a great deal of useful work has been done there in connection with the treatment of young offenders. Rather than thinking in terms of the punishment of a child who is involved under any of the provisions of this act, he should be trying to help him readjust to society.
We should educate these children. This does not mean requiring them to develop skills or academic proficiency, but educating them socially and culturally so that they feel they are part of the society which has rejected them. Something must be wrong if they have committed delinquent acts. We should always keep this in the back of our minds and try to help them as much as possible. If we do not, all we shall produce is a still greater degree of alienation on the part of young persons and increasing segregation within a society from which they have broken away.
It has often been said that jails and penal institutions are the greatest schools for crime, and I believe this is true. We must do our best to see that it is true no longer. We should not look at these individuals in terms of the offences they are said to have committed but in terms of their background and their need. Again I appeal to all hon. members, regardless of party, to consider seriously the need for making fundamental amendments to the bill before us. If the Solicitor General will agree to withdraw it, better still; many people both inside and outside the House would be happy. Let him support the amendment, withdraw the bill and start all over again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But if this does not happen, certain fundamental changes will have to be made, changes which will put these proposals on a more human basis and place greater emphasis on rehabilitation instead of strict legalities and jurisdictional interpretations. The bill should be made more flexible. Judges and others concerned should be given more freedom to decide what is best to be done when young persons are involved in offences. This would be moving in the right direction. If we fail, we shall get ourselves into more trouble and more and more people, especially the young, will be angry at us for passing legislation which is reactionary, nineteenth century in its philosophy, reaching back into the past instead of looking forward to the future.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join those who have expressed concern about this bill, its lack of general application and the narrowness of its philosophy. I should like to relate my remarks to some of the principles and, specifically, to some of the recommendations contained in the Celdic report. This is a report on one million children in Canada. It was completed in 1970 and was sponsored by such associations as the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, the Canadian Council on Children


Young Offenders Act
and Youth, the Canadian Education Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association-which has been mentioned many times in the last day or so-the Canadian Rehabilitation Council and the Canadian Welfare Council, as well as other bodies interested in the disorders of children, some of which deficiencies lead to a confrontation between them and our courts and legal system.
The main difficulty from the standpoint of existing programs having to do with children is the very serious lack of co-ordination resulting in overlapping or major gaps in service. The Celdic committee summed it up in a way that I find very appealing, one that I hope will commend itself to the House. If I may quote directly from the report, the committee says:
No one sees or Is concerned with the whole child as he interacts with his environment. We diagnose and treat and sometimes label for life, on the basis of a small segment, the problem part of the total child.
Preferable to this chaotic state of affairs which was so well stated by the Celdic report would be the provision of a wide range of alternatives to the teacher, public health nurse, doctor, social worker, policeman, or parent who has become concerned with a child with emotional and learning disorders or other handicaps. So we are talking about children with emotional disorders.
It is interesting to note the extent to which the committee stressed certain points. For example, the committee stressed an approach toward the understanding and treatment of these disorders and handicaps which would keep the child as a whole within the view of the Canadian public and the view of those who must deal with him. The committee felt that a child with an emotional or learning disorder should be regarded as having a typically persistent imbalance in the interaction between the child and his environment and between his capacities and the demands, both internal and external, that are made upon him.
This can be evidenced in a number of complexly interrelated ways involving both physical and psychological factors. When someone close to the child becomes aware that he is having difficulties, he may be referred to a specialist of one type or another who tries to unravel and to describe the symptoms to those responsible for him, his parents, an institution or whatever it be. An attempt is then made to determine the cause and what the result may be if the behaviour persists. An attempt may then be made by the child, by the group around him and by the teacher, nurse, doctor, social worker or judge-and in the context of our discussion this evening, by the court- to work out a better resolution of his imbalance. This can be applied, I suggest, both biologically, in the sense of better nutrition for example or, more to the point, as an improved response to external environmental conditions which in many cases are in the background of those children who find themselves coming before our courts.
While every child may be regarded as a student and as a patient-which I suppose is desirable-it is not desira-

ble that he become a ward, an offender, or require institutional or residential care. This attitude may unfortunately influence some neglect or reluctance in the provision of welfare or correctional services. Historically, it has been part of the philosophy of the work ethic that people be as self-supporting as possible. However, with the greatly expanded role of government today, a persistent distortion of this philosophy has resulted in a considerable imbalance in services provided by the state which most adversely affects poor people. Most often it is the poor who appear before the courts. Provincial child-care legislation, for example, is inordinately sensitive to budget cutbacks and other forms of political and institutional neglect. Very often, to return to the Celdic report, the committee found this lack of funds resulted in more serious undesirable behaviour by a disturbed child, eventually resulting in more drastic measures such as removal from the home. The committee states:
For the low income family, the only choice is usually between the programs of child welfare agencies and those options open to the juvenile court, such as probation or training schools for delinquent children.
Or, of course, incarceration. The committee points out very strongly-I must agree with the committee here, and I think most Canadians who have evidenced concern for children will also agree-that most of the children who become involved with the law are not really representative of a complicated social problem. The committee points out:
Society is threatened by the aggressive acting-out child and we are liable to respond promptly with measures designed to provide social controls. Yet it is the hostile, provoking child who is still striving for achievement who may respond rapidly to immediate and relevant help.
I think that is a very important point. The committee stressed the need to implement the recommendations for preventive services as welfare measures in order to divert a potentially delinquent child into the appropriate treatment procedure. It is also especially important, the committee feels, that provision be made for the many seriously disturbed children from whom at present there is a no place to go other than into the correctional system, into the courts. We must be concerned with the considerable lack of these services at the adolescent level, as well as the great difference between the way that the offences of boys, for example, are determined as compared with the way in which our courts and society treat offences of young girls. Again the Celdic committee points out:
We believe that the process of labelling a juvenile as delinquent, and the associated names-incorrigible, truant, sexually immoral, vagrant-is insupportable because the effect is to increase the alienation of the child from society by defining him in a derogatory way and isolating him from his normal social environment.
I agree with that. The enlightened society of 1971 should have no need for courts that deal with young people. This is especially critical because the committee was under the impression that very often children were committed to training schools, not so much because they were offenders but because it was impractical to provide


for the child elsewhere, perhaps largely as a result of the paucity of community services.
We have also discovered in our studies the very considerable differences in the treatment of so-called delinquents between the various ethnic and religious groups, as well as on the basis of socio-economic considerations. The most likely result, in the view of the Celdic committee, would be to generate or accelerate the process of alienation from society and its prevailing values. As far as procedure is concerned, a way must be found for dealing with the child. I think that if we approach Bill C-192 with an open mind and with concern for the child, we will find that there is a very great difference in the way that children can be treated and must be treated by society, and particularly by police departments.
The minor may not give a guarantee himself, because of his age and status in life, in respect of appearance in court, pre-trial custody, and so on. There must be something that reinforces the impression that our youth have of our courts and institutional procedures. They must not be left with the impression that our courts and institutions are compulsive and arbitrary, which would seem to be the case today. In most cases, whenever the court uses a clinical examination it is usually very unsatisfactory because of the conditions of interview and testing, as well as the fact that many recommendations cannot be implemented in any case. There are few institutions outside the regular corrections system which accept delinquents into a treatment program. Quebec is an exception, and I believe Ontario is coming along in this regard. The rest of Canada, unfortunately, does not have the type of institutions that we require. I do not blame the correctional institutions for the steps they seem to be taking, because they have no other choice.
I think that usually when a child has his proceeding adjourned he is returned to his family. In the most serious cases he is sent to a training school. Many of these schools have little or no treatment facilities. Their staffs learn mostly on the job and their programs are minimal, although several in recent years have made considerable attempts at improvement. There is in Quebec a special training program for the re-education of delinquents. The over-all rate of progress in Canada is still very slow; in my opinion appallingly slow. The Celdic committee noted that some provinces now deal with delinquency as a welfare problem in order to qualify for assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan. The committee points out that this is useful only if there is real improvement in the services offered to children and adolescents. I doubt very much if this in fact is the case.
The committee emphasizes that there must be continuity in the treatment of the offender, in that there must be integration as between the training school and further treatment for the child so that effective, long-term relief of the cause of delinquency can be achieved. To this end I am firmly convinced that much greater training and continuous implementation of programs must be made available to courts and training school personnel as well
Young Offenders Act
as people who deal with the child before and after the disposition of the court.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most thorough studies undertaken in Canada with respect to children with disorders presented 144 recommendations for those who are interested in this problem. A number of these recommendations deal directly and indirectly with the courts and correctional procedures. I commend the recommendations to the minister and shall place them on the record in the few moments remaining to me. I do so because I support the amendment. I should like to see the bill viewed in a parallel way with the Celdic report and the conclusions of that learned group of gentlemen. These recommendations, beginning at recommendation 56, are as follows:
That a provincial cabinet minister be clearly responsible and accountable for the development and enforcement of standards for child protection programs and for the care provided for children who are wards.
That the civil rights of children and their families in child protection proceedings be adequately safeguarded through the provision of legal representation before the courts including the right of review and appeal of wardship decisions.
That provincial governments provide funding and set standards for the establishment in local communities of a range of placement choices including group homes to improve continuity of care to children growing up as wards.
That child welfare agencies develop procedures and maintain liaison with the staff of other community services and provide consultation to improve the identification and management of situations where there is danger of child neglect or abuse.
That the juvenile courts or tribunals for minors be restricted to the 14 to 18-year age group.
That children under the age of 14 be brought before the courts only under child protection legislation.
That only violations of the Criminal Code or provincial or municipal statutes be classed as delinquent behaviour requiring appearance in juvenile court.
That legal counsel be easily and freely available to the offender appearing before the juvenile court and to the parents accused of neglect of a child who is alleged to be in need of protection.
That statute laws governing juvenile courts be amended to include provisions for rights of appeal for written court proceedings and for written documented records of evidence and that abusive preventive detention and indiscriminate and indeterminate commitment to institutions be made impossible by safeguards embodied in the statute laws.
That professional schools training personnel for work with children and adolescents or for the administration of justice include juvenile delinquency in their curriculum.
That juvenile courts and training schools encourage the participation of individuals and community groups in the planning and operation of existing programs to increase the community understanding and support for the needs of the juvenile deli-quent.
That the personnel working with the young offender have access to a variety of community education, health and welfare services.
That all juvenile courts use specialists in child and adolescent behaviour to assist in the diagnosis of the problems and needs of the young offender and to formulate rehabilitation programs.
That after-care services for delinquents be given budget priority to increase the number of staff involved in this function and to improve their training.
That admission to a special school, hospital unit or child-care institution take place only following the development by community services of a treatment plan based upon a medical and psychological examination and, as appropriate, an educational assessment.


Young Offenders Act
It is because I am not convinced Bill C-192 has been framed against the background of recommendations such as these, which I wholeheartedly endorse, that I urge members of this House to support the amendment, not for the purpose of killing the bill but for the purpose of taking another look at it. The child is a full child and we must remember that. When we deal with a segment of his life that is deemed to be undesirable by the community, we must remember it is only a part of his life and, in some instances, a very few brief moments out of his entire life. I suggest to the minister that we as legislators have no right to colour that individual's entire life by our reaction to his activities covering just a few moments, no matter how grievous those activities may seem to us, because the child who is delinquent does have mental difficulty. He is in need of our help and is in need of rehabilitation. The last thing he is in need of is a criminal code under which young persons find themselves outside the law for activities of a few brief moments.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing this bill a few days ago with a Saskatchewan cabinet minister and he indicated to me that the provincial government was quite concerned about the cost that would be put on the provinces in connection with the corrective services which would be expected of them under this bill. If the minister does not expect to provide some relief to the provinces in this connection, I think he should consider this matter because it is a legitimate worry to the provinces.
In my view this bill is too harsh and its punitive aspects are overemphasized as against the corrective aspects. I have had a number of representations lately concerning the question of abortion which concerns the public at present. I told these people that there is no bill on this matter before the House at the moment but that it was an important issue. One lady said to me that if parents would accept their responsibility and look after their children properly, they would not be such a problem. I must confess I agree with her. I think that many of the problems which we have with children stem from parents who have neglected their responsibilities. It is too bad that we cannot have a bill to punish parents who do not look after their children in the way they should. That is the way I feel about it.
I regret that the action we will take under this bill is directed at the wrong people. Not long ago I read a little item about hippie children. This article suggested that most of the hippie children came from homes where there is no effective father. When I hear some of the suggestions from the women's liberation movement, particularly from some individuals who act as if being a mother is a disgrace to the female sex, I get a little upset-anybody would get upset-and I think there is something wrong with such a father or mother. They should have pride in the fact that they have children, and they should try to raise them in society in the best way they can. Some are better at this than others. Some may not be as well qualified as others. But I really get upset at those who do not try.
[Mr. Forrestall.l
I think there should be a bill of rights for children, in the sense that they have a right to good parents. A few days ago when I was in Weyburn I was talking to a lady who takes an active part in the community in Girl Guides activities. I am not saying that Girl Guides is the only community activity in which people can engage to help children, but I suggest it is one of them for parents trying to do the best they can at home. Sometimes the best they can do when a child begins to move out of the home is to help in the community in which they live to ensure that the children take part in good, clean activities.
I was talking to a member of the press gallery who told me about taking his youngster to a ball game. That is probably the best time that this man could invest in his children. It cannot be measured in dollars and cents, but when he looks on his boy when he becomes a young man who is able to solve his problems he will be proud of having invested this time in the child. When I was at a hockey game in Lloydminister I saw there a mounted policeman who was acting as coach to the Lloydminister team. What better way is there to solve police problems with the young people in Lloydminister than for a policeman to be directly involved in an activity of this nature? If you are going to keep young folk out of trouble, that is the best way to do it and thus avoid spending so much time chasing after them. I commend this mountie and others like him who have done similar things.
Despite the best efforts of some parents, one might almost think that some children are born part bronco, as I heard one fellow describe it. They have a streak in them that has to be worked out. Some of them invariably get into trouble. I can think of many whom I have known in the past who have been this type of individual. With a little help from an understanding judge, an understanding policeman or what have you, they have been able to work out their problems and are now good citizens. This is the way it should be.
What makes some young people like this, I am not sure-i am not a psychiatrist or psychologist-but I am aware that many of them are now good citizens. Some times it seems to me that young people who are born with a great deal of energy and nerve are more apt to get into trouble because they have more energy to burn. Perhaps they need more guidance, and occasionally when they get into trouble they need more consideration because they have a special problem. You might ask, why are we concerned? The answer is that if we are not concerned and if we do not solve the problem of these teenagers, the problem will become greater when these young people become adults. I suggest that some of them only grow physically and not emotionally. The figures I have heard quoted in connection with teenage troublemakers who become adult troublemakers and law breakers show that 20 per cent began this way.
One thing that astounded me when I visited a penitentiary was the number of young men there. It disturbs me to see all the energy and hope in these young men locked away from society because they had a problem and obviously could not be let loose. When I talked to some of the officials in the penitentiary I discovered that most of the


young men there had a special problem. It might be alcohol, which in itself indicates a problem, or they could not hold a job, they could not get along with their families or friends, or they were separated from their wives. In effect, all these people had emotional problems. These are the kind of people who get into trouble, and these are the kind of young people with whom the act will be dealing.
I have a magistrate friend who has dealt with a great many young people, among others. He described to me some of the cases with which he has dealt. It would wring your heart if you heard about some of the problems these people have and the homes from which some of them come. The law is the only answer to their problem. I do not think that sometimes the law is good enough. These people require understanding and compassion. If we were to interpret this bill in a strictly legalistic sense, in another age the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) would be galloping on his horse through the pages of history, chasing a couple of teenagers, waving his broad axe and shouting "Off with their heads". I do not think the Solicitor General wants to use that type of approach to a problem like this. It seems to me that he is a man of compassion and understanding. If he is going to deal with problems of teenagers, he must be a man of understanding. My hope is that he will withdraw this bill or accept amendments that will give it greater compassion.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I think it is good that this bill has been subjected to what I might call searing criticism and that the minister has seen fit to delay its consideration slightly, obviously as a result of acceptance of the validity of some of the comments that have been made. We have been interested recipients of comments about the bill by the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, faculties of law, faculties of medicine and interested citizens. I have had an opportunity to look at the Canadian Bar Association brief and to examine a very thoughtful paper which I will share with the minister-perhaps he has already seen it-written by Professor John A. MacDonald of the faculty of law, University of British Columbia.
I wish to make a couple of points in this debate but first I would like to be assured that in committee the bill will receive flexibility of treatment by the government members of the committee, and that the minister and his department will be more receptive to amendments than other ministers have been with respect to other bills. If Parliament had the assurance that the minister genuinely believes there could be a useful amount of input, as the current cliche has it, from members of Parliament at committee stage, I think second reading stage of the bill would move at a faster pace.
There are fundamental problems related to the bill, to its concept, to its drafting and to its language. I think the House would expect that type of assurance from the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer), and I hope I read his mind aright. He has indicated some flexibility by holding up
Young Offenders Act
the bill so that interested groups in Canada could comment upon it. But the committee stage is coming, and having been here for some years I am not too optimistic about the receptiveness of the minister and government members of the committee. I hope to be proved wrong and if so I will gladly stand in my place on third reading and say I was wrong.
At the second reading stage of bills all sorts of pleasant statements are made to the effect, "Oh, let the bill get to committee and everything will be all right." My experience is that everything is all wrong when bills go to committee. Government supporters seem to think that government legislation is literally drafted on stone and that it would be a defeat of some sort if a nuance or meaning were changed in any way. I plead with the minister to be flexible with respect to this important piece of legislation and to be ready to accept amendments.
The Canadian Bar Association, Mr. Speaker, has approved the bill in principle. I do not know whether I will be shot down for saying this, but that makes me very nervous. I have been a member of that association for 22 years, all my practising life, and I believe that this of all bills should not be hamstrung by legalistic drafting. Under the provisions of the 1929 bill which, if I am correct, was based on earlier legislation of 1908, juvenile court judges and others dealing with young offenders were enjoined to interpret the bill in a very liberal way. That was a very prominent section of the act, and I think that by and large over the years juvenile court judges, despite all the restrictions they were under-mainly restrictions of money and of support staff for their courts- did their best in the light of their time and day to interpret the statute liberally.
Unfortunately, in many instances and places in Canada there were very few resources and people upon whom juvenile court judges could call. I regret to say that this was the case in my own province when I was Attorney General of New Brunswick. I had to fight the municipal people in the constituency I represented because they did not want to establish a juvenile court district under the terms of the old legislation. But I may say that once they were persuaded, a marked improvement took place in the handling of offences in which young people were involved.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for the rambling way in which I am discussing some of the issues. I hope the minister will meet a problem that can become a serious one unless, so to speak, we get a national majority. I would think that 18 years would be an excellent age for the upper limit under the terms of the bill, because many of our provinces are reducing the civil age of majority to 18. There would be a nice meshing and melding, if that term is right, if we adopted that age in this instance, particulary when on one hand we are talking about the civil obligations of a citizen. I can foresee serious difficulties if one province fixes the age at 17 years and another at 18 years. I hope we can overcome that difficulty.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I was attending a committee hearing and did not hear the minister or any government spokesman refer to one important matter. It seems to me
4544


Young Offenders Act
there is a curious omission in the bill in that it has nothing whatsoever to do with bail. Presumably this is an oversight that will be rectified at committee stage. One point made in the Canadian Bar Association brief was that there should be a ban on juvenile proceedings' evidence to be used should there be other proceedings involved. The brief makes that point very clearly. There should also be a formula for periodic review of sentences and for periodic review regarding people in respect of whom an insanity finding is made.
I think that this is a very serious gap, if I may put it this way, in the senior law, the Criminal Code, under the provisions of which people are held at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor. I must say that at one stage I was in a position to see the operation of this curious provision for a couple of years but did not understand it any more at the end than at the beginning. This may disclose a serious gap in my mental capability. I accept that, but I defy anybody to give me a succinct version of the provisions concerning insane people and the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor, and so on. Surely this matter could be tidied up in a new bill concerning children.
I know one should not use anecdotes in speeches in the House of Commons, but I once acted for an 11-year old boy who was in a county jail in New Brunswick. He was found there, after four or five days, by a visiting clergyman. Some aspects of this case are not relevant to the debate, but we discovered that the child's family had moved 15 times in his 11 years. It should go without saying that no statute dealing with children and offences committed by children can be a good one if it isolates a child from his parents, if he has them, from his environment and from all aspects of his life literally from birth. This aspect of the bill will interest me greatly as this debate develops and the matter comes before committee.
Another aspect that will interest me is the provision made by the government to ensure that people charged with the responsibility of adjudicating on cases dealt with under the Young Offenders Act will have adequate staff. I am thinking of the whole ambit of people available-experts in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, social work, and so on. If we mean business, if we are not just drafters of a piece of paper, the act has to be given flesh and blood through support staff of the juvenile courts. Unless the government of Canada has made provision for this and the ministers of justice of the provinces have thought it through, I do not think we have done a thorough job.
I should like to make a few comments about the present Juvenile Delinquents Act and its major shortcomings, and make some recommendations. The Juvenile Delinquents Act originated in 1929 and, if my memory is correct, the first act came into force in the early part of this century. It removed children from the jurisdiction of the criminal courts and the adult criminal law and placed them within the jurisdiction of specialized juvenile courts. It made provision for the private trial of juveniles, free of publicity and separate from adult trials. It provided a wide range of reformative sentencing and
dispositions focused on the welfare of the individual offender.
Section 38 of the act provides:
This act shall be liberally construed to the end that its purpose may be carried out, namely, that the care and custody and discipline of a juvenile delinquent shall approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by its parents-
We have come a long way in the science of dealing with young people since 1929 and a good deal more information is available. The minister's major concern and the thread which should be running through this act and this debate is that the act should be based upon rehabilitation. If it is not, it will be a hollow debate and a very useless amendment to the law. Professor MacDonald reminds us of some of the shortcomings in the Juvenile Delinquents Act. It was still possible to prosecute children as young as seven years. People were concerned about the all-encompassing definition of "delinquency." One could be caught in that wide web if one were guilty of the most minor offence under a municipal bylaw. Closely related to this point was concern that the Juvenile Delinquents Act placed only minimal restriction on committal of children to training schools, thus opening the door to punitive sentencing practices.
I once appeared before a magistrate on behalf of a young person who had stolen a jacknife from the five and ten store. The youngster had been in jail for the night and finally his parents called for help. When I saw the magistrate he said, "I am not going to let the boy out because he has not cried yet." I asked him what section that came under, and of course he had no answer. This is only one of many examples of what has more eloquently been called "opening the door to punitive sentencing practices."
I have noted that many juvenile courts lack community resources. I have made this point earlier. Unless the resources of the community are part of the whole thrust, we are really not doing anything very useful. Another concern is that the original intention of the Juvenile Delinquents Act was to avoid stigmatizing young people as criminals. But the word "delinquency" in itself became a stigma. I am sure the minister recognizes these and other problems relating to the present act.
Mr. Speaker, I could make other comments but presumably there are other speakers. What I have said this evening has been of a very general nature, but I should like to repeat two or three points. First, I hope we can have an assurance from the minister that he will accept amendments and be receptive to them no matter from which party they should come. Second, I hope it is the minister's intention to provide sufficient qualified people. Third, I think it should be possible to fix a set age, perhaps 18 as has been adopted by many of the provinces.
One point which I am sure has been noted by many lawyers on the government side of the House is the provision for delay of sentence until the person charged is 21 years of age. Presumably if the act were changed an accused would be sentenced at 18. I cannot imagine where that concept came from. I hope we shall have an

Marcn 23, 1971

explanation of it and, more importantly, that we shall have it quickly and that this provision will be removed as soon as possible.
o (9:20 p.m.)
The minister has heard in this debate that the Parliament of Canada is genuinely interested in reforming the law concerning children. I am one of those who share the general view that it is high time we were considering this topic. I am glad that a place has been found in the parliamentary timetable for us to deal with the bill. I conclude by saying that after the bill has gone to committee I hope it will be unrecognizable as a result of useful changes which will have been made by members of this House and many others who are interested in this reform.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party have moved the amendment that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be referred back to a task force for further study. Since the bill first came before the House almost four months have passed. I think the fact that we have had such a vigorous response from various sections of the public is an indication that our wisest course at this juncture of our proceedings would be to support the amendment so that some of the obvious difficulties of the bill as it now reads may be eliminated.
It is not only members of the House who have carefully analyzed and diagnosed the chief defects of the bill. As has been indicated by many speakers during the course of the debate, we have heard from responsible groups such as the Canadian Mental Health Association, which because of its experience in the field of human behaviour is especially competent in these matters. We have heard also from lawyers, both as individuals and as an association. I am entering the debate, Mr. Speaker, because I have heard from a group which, I submit, should be listened to with particular care, the magistrates who will have responsibility for administering this new Young Offenders Act.
Some of these magistrates have had long experience in the area of juvenile offences. I am about to quote a comment by a juvenile court judge which I think ought to command considerable weight as we move to remove the obvious defects of the bill and bring about a situation, in terms of legislative reform, which I am sure the majority of members of this House most devoutly wish to achieve. Listen to these words, Mr. Speaker: "This whole proposed act is a ghastly piece of legislation, retrograde in its concept and will render unworkable my court as to handling of cases of young offenders". Those are strong words from someone who has considerable experience in these matters.
I have followed the subject of penal reform generally for many years both in the adult area and in the juvenile area. As a matter of fact, one of my first opportunities after graduating from college was working in the police courts and prisons in the city of Toronto and the city of Montreal. This was at a time when the attitude toward adult criminals and juvenile delinquents, to use a term
Young Offenders Act
used in the Juvenile Deliquents Act of 1929, was one of punishment rather than that of seeking remedial measures.
I think hon. members will be aware that concern over the primitive approach in penology in Canada became an issue around the mid-1930s. As a result, the government of Canada of the day instituted the Archambault commission which brought down a progressive report on the state of penology around 1938. The Archambault report because a sort of guideline for all those-and they appeared in increasing numbers-who began to express concern over the lack of reform in our penal system. Mr. Alex Edmison was one of the pioneers in the field. He still is one of the leading authorities. As hon. members know, he is head of the department of penology and criminology at Ottawa University today. In those earlier days he was working for the John Howard Society in Toronto.
Not until the early 1960s did real action begin to take shape in dealing with the long delayed reform in the treatment of offenders in Canada. If I may deal specifically with the special problem of juveniles, in 1961 the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was set up to make a thorough examination of the treatment of juvenile offenders, or juvenile delinquents as was the acceptable term then. That committee sat for about four years before reporting. It produced a progressive report based on the gradual accumulation of knowledge on the subject that had emerged during the 1940s, the 1950s and the 1960s. Outstanding leadership was provided by the minister of justice of the day, Hon. Davie Fulton, in getting these initiatives under way.
It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that there have been revolutionary developments in the social sciences during this period. The social sciences, be they psychology or sociology or any of their respective branches, had moved forward at a rapid rate, particularly in the thirties, forties and the sixties. As a result of breakthroughs in the social sciences there was a whole new body of knowledge, an entirely new approach to the problem of treating juvenile offenders.
It was encouraging to one who had a long and continuing interest in these matters to find that the spirit of reform had been captured by the justice committee that was called into being to deal with this matter. There was also a hopeful and progressive note in the discussions that followed the tabling of the report in 1965. It appeared that the legislation that would inevitably be brought in would overcome the deficiencies of the then Juvenile Delinquents Act which had become increasingly glaring since it was first enacted in 1929. I think all members of Parliament optimistically looked forward to a real breakthrough.
During this debate hon. members have referred to the deficiencies of the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1929. For the purpose of my argument I will review some of the major points. I freely admit, and I think others with some knowledge in the field will agree, that the act of 1929 was a breakthrough, at least from the standpoint of
4546


Young Offenders Act
knowledge that was then available on the subject. For the first time it made a distinct point of separating adult offenders from youthful offenders. It removed the juvenile delinquent from the Criminal Code. It established special court procedures more suitable to meeting special problems of the youth of Canada who found themselves in difficulty with the law. There were deficiencies that became increasingly obvious as time went by. The main deficiency was the fact that the Juvenile Delinquents Act extended down to the tender age of seven. Some of the treatment that was meted out in the juvenile courts to children of that tender age was hardly in line with the knowledge we have with respect to child psychology.
I do not know why the age of seven was established in the original act. There is an old saying that as the limb in bent, so is the tree inclined. Perhaps that was the basis for it. There is another saying, give me a child until he is seven years of age and I will establish the pattern of personality for the rest of his days. These tales purported to be an understanding of child psychology at that time. It became obvious that this was hardly adequate to meet with the current situation. We became aware that the term "delinquency" was too embracing. There had to be more flexibility in dealing with the various behaviour categories and misdemeanours of young people. One of the greatest weaknesses was the emphasis on reform schools or, as they are called in the act, training schools. Herein lies the chief weakness of our whole system of penal reform in Canada.
This is still shockingly true with regard to the adult level. Our present institutions, jails, penal institutions or Whatever you wish to call them are more attuned to the practice of penology that existed in the nineteenth century than the requirements of the twentieth century. I am sure hon. members will agree that our present jails might better be described as black holes of Calcutta or institutions very much like the black hole of Calcutta. I know this applies in my own city of Brandon. They are not meeting the demands for reform and opportunities to acquire skills and education that will make it possible for adult offenders to return to the community as useful citizens. In the final analysis, this is the purpose of incarceration in penal institutions. Everyone agrees that something should be done but we do not have the facilities available in the form of buildings and trained staff.
Those who have the responsibility of being jailers, as they are still called, do their best under the circumstances, but we are still far from achieving the ideal situation where the people in charge of our penal institutions have thorough and adequate preparation in the social sciences to place them in the position of being able to adequately deal with the problem. This situation exists in the adult penal institution and it also exists in our training or reform schools. We are aware that throughout this country there are reform and training schools that were resorted to with far too much frequency under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. They are quite inadequate to deal with the more flexible approach to the treatment of young offenders that is required if we are to implement the spirit of penal reform as it was presented in the report of the justice committee, and as it has been
emphasized by an increasing number of citizens across this country.
I wish to deal with another point with respect to the changed circumstances. I think hon. members will agree that our juvenile court judges have a much more sympathetic approach to the remedial and therapeutic aspect of dealing with offenders than was the case hitherto. The fact that I have received strong protestations from juvenile court judges with respect to certain clauses in the bill is an indication that our judges are now trained and skilled in the social sciences. They demand an act that will be in the spirit of modern penology rather than, as was expressed in the very strong statement of the Canadian Mental Health Association, in the form of a criminal law for children.
I believe the minister is now aware-he has certainly been made aware of it since this bill was first presented to the House-that the measure as it stands fails to introduce the reforms we hoped would be realized. A statement which has come from a juvenile court judge supports the view which has been put forward by members of the opposition. He said: "This bill must be drastically amended or defeated." I am sure hon. members favour the more positive of these actions. We would like to see the bill amended in such a way that it would do what has been desired for so long, that is, accomplish reform and overcome the deficiencies of the present act. This can only come about if substantial amendments are brought before the House and approved.
If the House supports the motion that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be referred back to the committee for the necessary amendments to be made, our difficulty will be overcome. I am sure that members from all sides of the House, working together, will be able to bring about the changes necessary to deal with some of the more obvious weaknesses of the legislation.
The minister himself, when he introduced the bill, told us it was not perfect. That was an understatement. Responsible people all across Canada have pointed out that it is not only imperfect but that it is unsatisfactory, that in fact it moves away from reform rather than in the direction desired. To support this argument I would outline some of the major defects in the bill before us. In the first place, the very recommendations of the committee set up in 1961 by the then Minister of Justice Hon. Davie Fulton, are denied by some of the major provisions in this bill. It fails to remove completely the possibility of using convictions against juveniles for future reference. This is a fundamental weakness, particularly when one realizes that a child 10 years of age is placed in exactly the same category as a juvenile of 17 years.
It is obvious there should be more flexibility in dealing with offences by a child of the tender age of 10 who, under the terms of this bill can be treated in the same way as a juvenile between the ages of 14 and 17. This is another obvious weakness of the legislation. The bill is too rigid, and this opinion has been expressed by magistrates who have the responsibility of administering the law. Moreover, the bill relies too extensively upon the



philosophy of referring offenders to retraining schools for reform so that they may be brought back into the mainstream of community life. It is hardly necessary to repeat the argument that there are not adequate facilities in Canada to enable this to be done effectively. In any case, the whole idea of separation from family and community goes contrary to the emphasis which has been placed recently on probation and suspended sentences when dealing with young offenders.
It is just a year ago that the former Solicitor General led a group of members to my city of Brandon to inaugurate a significant extension of the parole service in western Manitoba. I can still hear the ringing words of the .speech he made at that time. This was to be the new approach to dealing with young offenders-not to incarcerate them in jails and training schools but to provide for their rehabilitation within the bosom of their homes and communities. Yet for some unexpected reason Bill C-192 harks right back to the form of treatment which was criticized in the old Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the bill is that it still places its greatest emphasis on punishment rather than on reform. Under one of its clauses it would be possible to incarcerate a child of 10 years of age, if he were found guilty of a serious offence, until he was 21 and then bring him before a court of law to be dealt with under the provisions of the Criminal Code. Obviously, this is a reversion to nineteenth century penology. Anyone who has worked in this field knows that training schools, reform schools, jails, penitentiaries, are training schools for crime. Time and time again those who are exposed to the atmosphere of such institutions become recidivists for life.
These are some of the major criticisms to be directed against the bill before us. For these reasons, and others, it should be referred back to the committee in order that we may bring in amendments which would restore the spirit of reform inherent in the recommendations of the justice committee. If the House would vote accordingly, we should be able to work together in the interest of a more positive and humane penal system.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there is general agreement among all parties that the speech we have just heard will close the debate on the amendment of my hon. friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and that the vote will take place immediately after the question period tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would be agreeable to defer the division until tomorrow when orders are called.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is understood, however, that the question will now be put and a determination made as to whether we should like a vote so that this will not have to be done tomorrow. After that has been decided, Mr. Speaker, I have a question to raise about what we do during the remaining minutes before ten o'clock.
Yukon Minerals Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair understands that the question will be put now and that if the House determines that there shall be a division, the division will be the first item under Orders of the Day tomorrow when those orders are called. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment 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:: In accordance with the special order made a moment or two ago, the recorded division will be taken as the first item of business when Orders of the Day are called tomorrow.



YUKON MINERALS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government orders:
March 5, 1971-Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that Bill C-187, an act respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
And on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Nielsen, seconded by Mr. Aiken-That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this evening the Government House Leader did indicate to me that if the previous debate ended we would move to this item. What we did not discuss was the time of night at which this might happen. It is now five minutes to ten. If one goes back to Hansard for March 5 when the debate was last before the House, one finds that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) had the floor. He had spoken for 30 minutes and his speech was interrupted by the clock. If we call the debate now, the hon. member gets only five minutes and another five minutes tomorrow. Therefore, I wonder whether we should not now call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, during the oral question period, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if the government was considering rescinding the sales tax on building materials, as requested by the Canadian Construction Association.
According to the spokesmen of this Association, this tax is unfair and, in their opinion, the same arguments are valid today. Indeed, not only does it add to the cost of badly needed construction, but it also depresses a vital industry.
Mr. Speaker, this tax was imposed in 1965 or 1966, I think, and has been in force ever since. According to the then Minister of Finance, the tax was necessary to fight inflation. To this end, we had to slow down housing starts and then impose a tax of 11 per cent on building materials. This tax therefore contributed to increase construction costs and in general the cost of living. In increasing the cost of living, housing costs went up to the extent that Canadians were barely able to find accommodation.
In reason of this hike in prices and the interest rate of the CMHC, the government of that day, like this government, voted huge amounts to boost housing starts, but through building sky high barriers. Ridiculous interest rates of 10 to 12 per cent were established by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and by banks or other financial institutions which lend money for residential construction.
Such high interest rates, added to the increase in the cost of building materials and services, have forced municipalities to increase taxes for those who would have been able to build houses for themselves.
The government, however, has stated on many occasions that agencies had to be created to help low income people to become home-owners. But the only thing that has been done to this end was to extend the repayment period to 50 years, from 25 years as it was previously. Thus homeowners are paying five or six times the price of their houses.
The only concern of this present administration is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. In doing this, Mr. Speaker, we help the large financing institutions become still more powerful and the big financiers fleece the poor. Indeed, it has become just about impossible to build a house today without assuming a 40 to 50-year indebtedness and paying five or six times its price.
Any man is entitled to own his home, his furnishings, his personal belongings, his car, the tools of his trade and also the required consumer goods.
Personal ownership of such property allows man to plunge his roots into some piece of land and there to organize his own universe and that of his family. That
ownership is his form of communion with the physical universe.
Mr. Speaker, if life is a journey, man must be able to put into port as often as his activity permits. That port must be his own and must not belong to someone else. There he rests, there he renews his physical and moral strength and prepares for the next day's progress.
He can carry out his responsibilities only by taking root in a soil which is his and of which he can dispose as he sees fit. If property in itself is a good thing, if the need to own something is a human one and if, moreover, ownership is a guarantee of freedom and independence, property should not be taken from those who own it, and transferred to a state which will make improper use of it.
Mr. Speaker, personal interest is and remains the most powerful driving force of human activity. From the very moment when it is reserved to a small number, when a vast majority of citizens are condemned to work without interest, the government is negating its principles, is consecrating a society of masters and slaves and not a society of human beings.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in posing his question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the oral question period today, regarding the sales tax on building materials, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) reiterated a representation which has been made on numerous occasions, both within and without the House, by many hon. members and by persons, firms and corporations engaged in the construction industry, not the least of which has been that very effective body, the Canadian Construction Association.
I should like to point out that, strictly speaking, allusions to the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials are misleading. There is not a particular tax on building materials; rather, there is a general sales tax in Canada on manufactured and processed goods. What is really being suggested is that building materials be exempted from that general sales tax. From the revenue standpoint, the sales tax applicable to building materials means $300 million to $350 million annually. Possible options to make up this amount would be a li per cent increase in the sales tax on other goods or a 6J per cent increase in personal income tax.
Many who have commented on this subject have limited themselves to the tax on building materials for residential construction. That exemption would result in a revenue reduction of $130 million to $150 million. Since the tax does not apply to such residential construction costs as land, labour, overhead and profit, its actual impact on housing costs is in the 4 per cent to 5 per cent range. I can assure the hon. member and others that their representations have been heard. However, any change in taxation must, in the practice of this Parliament, be disclosed in a budget bill or in a budget speech and cannot be indicated in response to a question even by one sufficiently interested to wait until this late hour.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-REDUCTION OF PASSENGER SERVICE IN NORTHERN ONTARIO-SUGGESTED HOLDING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, on February 12, as recorded at page 3329 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) whether it was his intention to make representations to Canadian National Railways in order to have them change their decision to cancel the service provided by trains Nos. 7 and 8. The minister's reply-which I must say in all fairness was uncharacteristic-was a non-reply. I am not prepared to let the issue die in that fashion.
The cancellation of trains 7 and 8 by the CNR demonstrates that the publicly-owned company, without having made a policy statement to the same effect, intends to follow the same path as the CPR. That policy is to abandon on a piecemeal basis every unprofitable service without regard to the public interest. Moreover, it is apparent under the present regulations governing rail line and service abandonment that no one can win an argument with the railroads in respect of the profitability or lack of profitability of a service, because the railroads are permitted to isolate that service for consideration whereas the only real way one can calculate profitability is in relation to the entire system, the entire network.
The obvious next step in this process of abandonment of passenger service by the CNR is the downgrading of trains 1 and 2, making them make more stops in order to service communities which would otherwise be cut off due to the abandonment of trains 7 and 8, thereby increasing the running time of trains 1 and 2, thereby making the service less attractive for long distance passengers, thereby decreasing the number of passengers, thereby decreasing the profitability of the service and thereby making an application for its abandonment inevitable.
The minister's silence on this question is, I believe, eloquent, especially in light of the fact that he is not often so, as I mentioned earlier. His silence signifies his willingness to acquiesce in the decision of the CNR to abandon its service, his willingness to see rail passenger service in Canada become a thing of the past. If this is not the case, I wish he or his representative would tell us so in plain language, and at the same time tell us what specific actions the department intends to take in order to stop the process.
At this point in any argument it is customary for a minister to retire behind the screen of the independence of the CNR and the CTC. This stand is completely unacceptable to me and it is entirely indefensible. If the government is not satisfied with the actions of a board or a Crown corporation, it has the power to replace the people running it. Therefore, inaction by the government in the final analysis indicates acceptance. Moreover, such boards, commissions and corporations, their methods of operation, their terms of reference are established by acts of Parliament and can be changed by similar acts if they are found to be unacceptable. I am not saying that doing this would be easy; I am saying it is possible if the government is really in disagreement with the policies.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Finally, I find the whole process of placing the power to make decisions-and it is being done increasingly-in key areas of public policy into the hands of quasiindependent boards and commissions highly distasteful. The fact that this government and others have pursued such a process is one of the major reasons why the institution of Parliament has fallen into public disrepute. The proliferation of boards and commissions is one of the reasons why this House so infrequently deals with questions of moment, questions directly relating to the concern of the people. All such questions have been placed in the hands of boards and commissions by politicians afraid to exercise the powers and to assume the responsibilities they have been elected to exercise and to assume.
The boards and commissions, as the current mess in transportation serves well to indicate, add nothing to our governmental process. Indeed, they detract by making our elected institutions less relevant, our elected officials less responsive and our public policies less coherent. Indeed, public policies are no longer worthy of the name; they are rather a pot-pourri of ad hockery. Nowhere is this more true than in the realm of public transportation. Nowhere is the situation in more urgent need of remedy.
I call upon the government to meet its responsibilities squarely, to stop hiding behind the CTC and the CNR and to give this country the national transportation policy for which it is crying. So doing will involve making, from time to time, unpopular and difficult decisions-but that is what we were elected to do. We certainly were not elected to appoint people to make those decisions for us. We were not elected to remove important decisions from the political arena, but to make those decisions ourselves as best we can and then to stand before the electorate and be judged.
It is within that context that I again ask through you, Mr. Speaker, the minister or the person designated to respond for him what he intends to do about the cancellation of trains 7 and 8 and the policy of the railroads to abandon passenger service. Does he intend to protest, to use his authority, or does he agree? If he agrees with such a policy, why? Those are the questions we all want answered. At least we want to be told that the government will no longer permit the railroads to continue their policy of retrenchment. At least tell us that the government is insisting that the railroads engage in research, in co-operation with the government, into ways of improving public transportation in an effort to combat the congestion and the pollution which has resulted from overdependence upon the automobile. I hope that in the reply to be given there will be an answer to some of my questions.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question raised by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). The manner in which subsidies are considered for rail service in various parts of the country is of concern to a goodly number of hon. members. The hon. member raised his question initially on February 12. It


Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
was at a time when considerable interest was being voiced by northern Ontario members concerning the operation of CN trains 7 and 8. In fact, I recall very well appearing on the "late show" on January 18, 1971, to respond to the very forceful and sincere appeal made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner).
There was expressed that evening a very real sense of frustration, which I tried with all seriousness to allay. While not everyone was satisfied with the outcome of that adjournment proceeding, it did give the hon. member a chance to express his views and an excellent opportunity to myself to emphasize and clarify the guidelines to which the Canadian Transport Commission must adhere under the Railway Act. Subsequent to these representations the Canadian Transport Commission directed the CNR to set up a new rail-liner passenger service in northern Ontario and I understand that this new service has received fairly favourable response from the people living between Capreol and Nakina.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Selkirk on February 12 asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) if he would make direct representation to the CNR in an effort to persuade it to reverse that decision. The decision in question was one that the Canadian Transport Commission had made, and it was required to do so under the act. If the hon. member has received any complaints, I can assure him that the CTC stands ready to consider any instance where people have not been accommodated on CN trains Nos. 1 and 2 since the retirement on February 1 of trains 7 and 8.
Also, the hon. member may wish to take advantage later this month of the presence of CNR officials before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. The president of the Canadian Transport Commission has already given evidence on its operations to that committee, and I do not know why the hon. member did not appear to make his comments there. The hon. member has raised some further points in his presentation this evening which I will be only too pleased to refer to the Minister of Transport for consideration.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-MID-CANADA PROGRAM ON &quot;WEEKEND&quot;-ACTION TO RECTIFY ALLEGED DISHONEST PRESENTATION

Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 14, the CBC "Weekend" television show aired a program called "Mid-Canada Documentary." Such a public affairs program could be expected to be objective, factual and reflecting a true situation. But oh no, not with the CBC! It was another of those periodic attempts by the "Weekend" producers to increase viewer ratings by creating impact.
The distortion, the negative approach, the dishonesty of the presentation, the imbalance of reason and judgment were just unbelievable-interviews with half-sloshed participants, with a welfare case who would rather receive welfare than go on a course at $110 a week, researchers who spent a large portion of their time in local bars, researchers who were looking specifically for poor people and finding some as they would anywhere, looking
[Mr. DuquetJ
specifically for drunks and finding some as they would anywhere, for old houses-not the new ones, which they avoided-for failing businesses, not finding any and forgetting the prosperous ones. These were the ingredients that went into the program.
Was the researcher paid for his barroom time? Was he indeed paid overtime? I am told that many knowledgeable and interested citizens were interviewed and completely discarded as being too positive. What about the newspaper editor? What about the trust company officer? What about the Chamber of Commerce manager? What about the businessmen? They were all interviewed, but not two seconds of those interviews were shown on the program. Is it recognized as bad policy for the CBC to get an objective picture in these circumstances? Is this typical CBC policy? And what is the motive and the purpose of these distortions? Why was the local CBC affiliate not interviewed? Why not the local politicians? Why not the local member of Parliament? Do we know too many facts, and are we too objective to fit into the CBC plans for controversy, or the plans of their young researcher who arrived in Canada just a short time but full of wisdom about northern Ontario and, of course, with a large capacity for booze consumption.
Mr. Speaker, the people who live in our area do so, not because they were unfortunate enough to be born there, as was stupidly indicated, but by free choice. We want the quality of life that is ours, the bounties of nature that are there, the ease of family life which we enjoy, the human values which have been destroyed in the large cities but strongly persist in our areas, in addition to the less important adequate physical facilities that are available.
I immediately sent a telegram to Mr. Pierre Juneau, chairman of the CRTC, as I am sure did many other viewers. It read as follows:
Weekend program Mid-Canada terrible distortion of actual situation Timmins Kapuskasing. Please prevent showing on Radio Canada Tuesday and investigate motives, methods and sources of information.
The answer I received was as follows:
Thank you for your telegram re Mid-Canada program. The commission is most concerned by suggestion that it should intervene to censor a public affairs program. The commission is of the view that blocking presentation of individual programs by the CRTC represents very extreme measure. The normal procedure of the CRTC in case of bona fide specific complaints re possible unfair and dishonest biases in broadcasting programs is to request the tapes and after judicial consideration take necessary steps to maintain principles of the Broadcasting Act re balanced opportunity for expression of differing views. Recommend you contact the station concerned to express your views and if program in fact in your view is biased, you may wish to consider requesting from the station an opportunity to express your views in reply.
Pierre Juneau, chairman, Canadian Radio Television Commission.
Mr. Speaker, the program in question was an absurd distortion of the situation and needs very extreme measures to rectify the wrong that has been done. I would strongly suggest and urge that the CRTC review the tapes and ascertain the facts and that after their judicial consideration they take the necessary steps to maintain


the principles of the Broadcasting Act. The local TV station would gladly express the views of myself or others regarding the facts, but there is no need; the people in our area know what the facts are and are aware of the distortions. The viewers outside our area, in the rest of Canada, are the ones who must be given the facts. We therefore request with all sincerity that the CBC network allow a group of our responsible citizens to be participants on a network program that would clearly establish the true facts, the proper perspective and rectify the damage as much as can now be done.
A very grave injustice has been perpetrated, Mr. Speaker, and with all the citizens in our area I have every reason to expect that both the CKTC and the CBC will see to it that it is corrected at the earliest opportunity. I have already received numerous very bitter representations regarding this incident. They are available for all interested parties to see. I am hopeful that justice will be done.


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) has already read into the record his telegram to the chairman of the CRTC and the reply dated March 16, so I shall not elaborate on that. I think it in large measure reflects the response of the CRTC. I may add that the CRTC has not yet had an opportunity to evaluate the particular program, but the tape is being
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
requested. I should also like to report to the House and the hon. member that CBC officials have advised me as follows:
The corporation appreciates the fact that all who watch its programs such as the Mid-Canada documentary presented on CBC "Weekend", Sunday, March 14, will not agree with everything that is said. However, the CBC is satisfied that this presentation was made honestly and was neither distorted nor derogatory. The program was carefully planned and took nearly two years to research and indeed it dealt in a very sympathetic way with the problems of mid-Canada.
It might be useful to repeat the closing statement of the program which was as follows: "Helping the people of mid-Canada means helping local businessmen get the money they need to take advantage of the opportunities they perceived. It means helping Indians and whites get the education they need to take over the good jobs that do exist in mid-Canada."
[DOT]	(10:20 p.m.)
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the hon. member that a number of the questions he raised in the course of his remarks can be, and no doubt will be, put to the CBC when they appear before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: It will be too late.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
4553

Wednesday, March 24, 1971