1972-05-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan I. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the House leaders on the other side and we have agreed that the House should revert to motions at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2, for the purpose of hearing a statement from the Minister of National Revenue. I believe that is agreeable to the other parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed and so ordered by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY. TRADE AND COMMERCE ACT AMENDMENT RESPECTING ACQUISITION OF CUSTOMS DOCUMENTS BY MINISTER AND DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS

Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-196, to amend the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Act.


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


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-197, to amend the Criminal Code (Canadian and Provincial Flags).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to make it an offence to insult in any way the Canadian or a provincial flag.


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

Leonard Donald Hopkins: for leave to introduce Bill C-198, to amend the Criminal Code (Foreign Flags).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make it an offence to in any way insult the flag of a foreign country lawfully represented in Canada.


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

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

Mr. Caouette: 1.	What were the production costs of the programs "S.O.S. Soleil" and "Viva Mexico-Viva Canada"?
2.	Were the expenses incurred shared by the Governments of Jamaica and Mexico or were all expenses paid solely by the Government of Canada?
3.	If these programs were meant as cultural exchanges, what criteria were meant as cultural exchanges, what criteria were used to determine the representative nature of the Canadian artists involved?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The CBC is not usually required to disclose the cost of a particular program. It should be noted however that the production costs of "Viva Mexico-Viva Canada" and "S.O.S. Soleil", which were shown in the "Beaux Dimanches" series, were well within the average figure for a one and a half hour variety show.
2.	No governments were involved. However, it was at the express request of the Mexican and Jamaican boards of tourism and due to the working conditions they offered

May 1, 1972
Questions
that these productions were made. Actually, under these conditions this type of program costs less to produce outside Canada than it would as a studio production.
3.	These programs were not part of cultural exchanges. Availability of the performers is the chief criterion in making programs of this kind.
It should be noted that "Viva Mexico-Viva Canada" has just been sold to la Communaute des televisions francophones, which embraces France, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Monaco.


DREE PROGRAMS-BANKRUPTCY SAFEGUARDS
Mr. Robinson: Are safeguards taken to avoid bankruptcies in the programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so, what are they?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes. Incentive assistance is offered to an applicant only if evaluation by trained professional staff indicates that the proposed project is likely to succeed. Conditions laid down in an offer of assistance are designed in part to ensure that the chances of long-term viability are good. No payment in respect of our offer of incentive assistance is made until an audit and an on-site inspection is made to determine that these conditions are being met. Final payment is made only after a final audit to determine that they have been met during the relevant control period following the point in time when commercial production is achieved. Throughout the process, officers of the Department are available to assist the company with advice that may be helpful in overcoming any difficulties being encountered.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider tendering the publication of its books, reports and other publications in order to avoid losses and make a profit on government publications?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: The government has announced a policy on co-publishing with Canadian publishers. The techniques of implementing the policy are still being developed.



Mr. Robinson: Has the government considered tendering the publication of its books, reports and other publications in order to maintain a viable Canadian book industry?


Abram Ernest Epp: The government has announced a policy on co-publishing with Canadian publishers. The techniques of implementing the policy are still being developed.


CANADIAN OBSERVER TO OAS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Who will fill the post of permanent observer to the Organization of American States, when will this individual commence his duties and where will he perform them?
2.	What is the estimated annual cost of the Canadian permanent observer mission for the Organization of American States?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Canadian Permanent Observer to the Organization of American States, who will have the rank of Ambassador, will be named in the near future. He will commence his duties as soon as he has been formally accredited to the Organization. He will perform his duties through the offices of the Canadian Permanent Observer Mission which has been established as a channel of communication with the OAS headquarters in Washington.
2. The operating costs of the Permanent Observer Mission for 1972-73 have been estimated at $187,000. In future years, the costs and the size of the Mission will reflect the degree of Canadian interest in the Organization of American States and the inter-American organizations that are affiliated with it.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much of the $50 million for grants to municipalities and their agencies in the program announced by the Minister of Finance in the House on October 14,1971, has been allocated?
2.	What is the allocation, by province, of money under this program?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The $50 million for grants to municipalities and their agencies in the program announced by the Minister of Finance in the House on October 14, 1971, has been allocated.
2. As of March 14, 1972, the allocation by province under the program was:

	Municipal
Newfoundland	3,312,039
Nova Scotia	2,620,640
Prince Edward Island	522,707
New Brunswick	2,576,686
Quebec	24,069,219
Ontario	7,729,497
Manitoba	1,937,847
Saskatchewan	1,409,231
Alberta	3,714,612
Northwest Territories	442,131
British Columbia	4,328,213
Yukon Territory	115,550


DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL-SECURITY PLANNING AND RESEARCH GROUP
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Who are the members of the Special Planning and Research group attached to the Solicitor General's Department?
2.	What is the authority or area of responsibility of the said group?
May 1, 1972

3.	In what manner is the choice made of the members of the said group?
4.	Who is the head or senior member thereof?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. As of
April 1, 1972 the staff of the Security Planning and Research Group in the Department of the Solicitor General consisted of the following employees: P. Banning, H. Black, R. Bourne, B. Cantin, L. Cloutier, W. Dabros, R. Gaudet, S. Hoffman, L. Paquette, P. Wallace.
2.	As stated in the House of Commons on September 21, 1971, the functions of the Security Planning and Research Group are: (a) to study the nature, origin and causes of subversive and revolutionary action, its objectives and techniques as well as the measures necessary to protect Canadians from internal threats; (b) to compile and analyze information collected on subversive and revolutionary groups and their activities, to estimate the nature and scope of internal threats to Canadians and to plan for measures to counter these threats; (c) to advise the Solicitor General on these matters.
3.	By secondment and by Public Service Commission competition.
4.	R. Bourne.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS
Mr. Thomson: What percentage of Farm Credit Corporation loans were in arrears in each province in the years 1969,1970 and 1971?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that as of the end of the fiscal years the amount remaining in arrears as a percentage of the amount due during the year was as follows:
1969-70	1970-71	1971-72per cent	per cent	per centBritish Columbia	15.5	15.3	14.9Alberta	19.3	22.0	21.0Saskatchewan	11.6	18.9	21.1Manitoba	14.0	22.3	24.7Ontario	7.8	7.8	7.0Quebec	3.8	4.1	4.5New Brunswick	4.9	4.7	6.2Nova Scotia	10.2	7.9	7.5Prince Edward Island	11.3	11.6	14.3Newfoundland	7.811.3	13.9



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Laprise: 1.	What projects have been approved in the constituency of Abitibi under the Local Initiatives Program and what is the nature of each project?
2.	Which projects in the constituency of Abitibi have been rejected and for what specific reason was each one rejected?
Return tabled.
DISC Program and Canadian Economy RESEARCH STUDIES ON PIPELINE FROM ARCTIC 
Question No. 315-Mr. Robinson:
1.	What research studies on the Arctic does the government support at the present time?
2.	Do the research results thus far indicate the feasibility of a pipeline being constructed from the Arctic to the South?
3.	To what extent is permafrost still a problem, does the research indicate that it can be overcome and, if so, by what means?
4.	To what extent would a pipeline from the North irreparably damage the ecology, terrain and wildlife, according to the research?
Return tabled.


EXPERIMENTAL FARM STATIONS-TENDERS CALLED FOR CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Have federal Experimental Farm Stations called for tenders for chemical fertilizers since January 1970 and, if so, on how many occasions?
2.	For each tender call (a) what are the names and addresses of the companies who submitted tenders (b) what was the amount of each tender (c) who received the contract and for what reasons?
Return tabled.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have had question No. 293 on the order paper since March 8. It is a very simple question to the Solicitor General with regard to the establishment of a committee to plan the RCMP centennial and asking for the names and addresses of the members of the committee. The question being that simple, it surely should not take almost two months to obtain the answer.


Mr. Cullen:: In view of the fact the hon. member v/as looking at the Solicitor General rather than the speaker, I think the question will probably be answered soon.



MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 28 TRADE IMPACT OF UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM ON CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY AND CANADIAN ECONOMY IN GENERAL

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move under Standing Order 26 that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. This matter concerns reports that American automobile and automobile parts manufacturers are using the DISC plan to export motor vehicles and parts into the Canadian market contrary to the Canada-United States auto pact and to the prejudice of the manufacture of these goods in Canada, the failure of the government as the primary source of knowledge and responsibility in the matter to inform the House and public whether these reports are true, and the serious impact on the Canadian automobile industry in particular and the Canadian economy in gen-

May 1, 1972
DISC Program and Canadian Economy
eral that must follow if these reports are true. If leave is given, I propose to move the motion, seconded by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth).


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has received notice of the proposed motion and at the same time similar notices were received from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and the hon. member for Brant. Perhaps the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby might be allowed to indicate the nature of his motion, and the Chair could then make a ruling in relation to the three notices of motions of which notice has been received under the terms of Standing Order 26.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the recently revealed threat to our manufacturing industry, especially the automobile sector, by the disclosure that United States corporations, many of them having branch plants in Canada, have been using the tax deferral program of the United States government for many months, which breaches the spirit and the letter of GATT as well as of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement, and critically endangers our national economy.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated a moment ago, the Chair has received notices of motions proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, and the hon. member for Brant. Obviously the matter proposed for discussion by hon. members is one of national interest and importance and it is of concern to members of the House as evidenced by the many questions asked last week.
There are many other factors which the Chair has to bear in mind in considering a proposed motion to adjourn the House. The Chair must be conscious of the provisions of Standing Order 26 and of other practices of the House which determine the manner in which certain questions should be brought forward for debate and the time when such debates can take place. With this in mind it should be noted that two of the notices received are, to some extent at least, in the form of a proposed censure of the government.
I refer in particular to the notice received from the hon. member for Lambton-Kent which proposes to discuss "the failure of the government, as the primary source of knowledge and responsibility in the matter, to inform the House and public whether these reports are true." This would indicate that what is sought by the hon. member is a debate on a motion of censure of the government. I suggest to hon. members that the provisions of Standing Order 26 cannot be invoked for this purpose.
Section 5 of Standing Order 26 specifies that Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means. I remind hon. members that since a motion under Standing Order 26 was submitted and granted early Thursday afternoon, a budget presentation has been announced for next week. The House has also been advised earlier today by the President of the Privy Coun-

cil that the Minister of National Revenue will make a presentation to the House in relation to foreign ownership at five o'clock tomorrow afternoon. I would hope that at least in the case of the budget debate hon. members will have within a reasonable time an opportunity to express views in relation to the matter alluded to in the motions which are now before us. Between now and the close of the current supply period there remain about 40 sitting days. If it is to be assumed that 12 of these days will be used for supply purposes and another six and one-half sittings for the budget debate, it seems to me that ample opportunities will be presented for discussion of matters such as Canada-United States economic relations.
In view of all the circumstances and taking into account the procedural requirements set out in Standing Order 26, the Chair cannot see its way clear to granting these motions at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Some eight months ago in reply to a question I put to the Prime Minister on the subject of DISC the Prime Minister said that "when there is an actual threat we will come forward with an actual measure." Now that there is a threat, and has been for some three months, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister what actual measure the government proposes to take?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said on Friday, the government is now hoping to have discussions with the automobile companies to find out whether there is a threat and the nature of it. He then said he would hope to participate in the budget debate and give at that time an account of the government's views. He may at that time, of course, indicate what further measures the government may feel are necessary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I gather we are going to have continued assessment rather than measures. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister this question. Now that Mr. Connally seems to have made an end run around the position taken by the government of Canada, does the Prime Minister or a minister of this government propose to take up directly with the United States the application of DISC, particularly as it affects Canada-not notes but direct contact?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been many direct contacts on this subject. I have raised the matter myself on a number of occasions with my United States counter-
May 1, 1972

part, and I know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has done so with his counterpart in the United States administration. In addition to the notes, which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition agrees are essential first steps, we have had many personal contacts with the United States administration. Unfortunately we were not able to persuade them not to proceed with the DISC legislation, and unfortunately some companies are now taking advantage of it. But we are not at all sure yet-and I think it would be desirable to look before we leap in a matter of this kind-as to the actual effects it will have upon the Canadian economy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will soon learn to be able to distinguish between negligence and prudence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That is as good as some of the sayings of the Prime Minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether any approach has been made or is under way to resume the discussions with the United States administration regarding the differences that exist between the two countries? Is it just a matter of each side continuing to review its position in an academic way, or now that we are faced with this disaster is the government seeking to reopen the discussions in a meaningful way?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the position remains as the Prime Minister expressed it, namely, that each side is reviewing its position. We have not yet resumed negotiations. I do think it is very desirable that we should protect our own position in these matters and that we should not assume, as the Leader of the Opposition does when he throws words around, disaster on the one hand or that we have not anything to be concerned about on the other hand. As far as the government is concerned, we are trying to show reasonable prudence and we are not going to be pushed, as the hon. gentleman would apparently like to see, into a war with the United States on the economic front.


Mr. Muir:: Where is that fantastic breakthrough?



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-EFFECT ON AUTO PACT WITH CANADA AND ON GATT-GOVERNMENT ACTION

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that President Nixon during his recent address in this chamber asserted that he desired "a pattern of economic interaction which is beneficial to both countries", does the government consider that the recent revelation that many United States corporations with subsidiaries in Canada are using DISCS in contravention of both the auto pact and GATT to be an example of what the President was talking about or does the government consider such action a breach of trust?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have asserted and we continue to assert that the DISC proposals are contrary to the international undertakings of the United States not only toward Canada but toward the world in general.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you for that very clear and positive answer. As the United States DISC legislation violates the preamble and Article I, Section (b), of the Cana-da-U.S. automotive agreement and will shift production away from Canada to the United States, does the government consider that the United States will be able to achieve by DISC the changes in automotive trade that they desire without having to alter in the slightest detail the actual wording of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some serious doubts as to the form of the question. The hon. member is really asking the minister to express an opinion on behalf of the government. Perhaps the question might be rephrased by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby; otherwise I will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


John Edward Broadbent: I will reword it, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the action by the auto companies in setting up DISCS and trading on that basis clearly contravenes the auto pact, does the government intend to take action other than writing formal notes of protest to the United States and similar action which the Acting Prime Minister has told the House has already been carried out without effect, or does the government intend to take some other steps to stop this complete undermining of the auto pact?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that if it is found necessary to take countervailing action against the DISC we will do so, but I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree that if the predictions that have been made on the basis of the very successful operation of the automobile agreement to date prove to be true and that we continue to benefit very substantially and to see our exports to the United States continue to rise, then I think it would be very doubtful whether we should take action of that kind.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT IN CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Hon. George  Hee@: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. When does the government expect that the use which the American automobile companies are now making of the DISC program will begin to affect employment in the Canadian automobile industry adversely?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is never.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to my first question to the Acting Prime Minister, arising from the answer he gave. Is it the belief of the government that the use of the DISC program by American automotive companies will not in any way shift employment in that industry from Canada to the United States?

May 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far we have no evidence that it will do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: That is the purpose of the inquiries that are now going on. If it were to be shown that the DISC program, to which we have expressed our very strong opposition both in GATT and to the United States government, were nevertheless to have the effect that the hon. gentleman has suggested, the Canadian government would not hesitate to take the necessary measures.



POSSIBLE DELETION OF REFERENCE TO CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT IN SPEECH BY PRESIDENT NIXON TO MEMBERS OF HOUSE AND SENATE

Right Hon. I. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, mention was made of the speech given by the President of the United States in this chamber. In view of the fact Mr. Peter Desbarats has stated that there were indications that the President's speech was written in part by Mr. Ivan Head, one of the principal script writers for the Prime Minister, could the minister tell the House whether the question of the automobile agreement was to be included in the President's speech but was removed at the request of Mr. Head?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that is about as improbable as that speeches by the Leader of the Opposition would have been written by President Kennedy.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Head is writing poetry in prose.



POSSIBILITY OF USE OF DISC MAKING GENERAL NEGOTIATIONS MORE DIFFICULT

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister concerning the Prime Minister's statement to the House a little while ago. When questioned about the progress of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement the Prime Minister indicated that both sides were reviewing their packages. May I therefore ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the recent discovery by the government that the auto companies have made applications under DISC and seem to have contravened some understanding will in fact make negotiations concerning these packages more difficult?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it can help to make them any easier.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-INTENTIONS OF CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister on the same subject. As the government has announced its intention to canvass Canadian subsidiaries of American automobile companies in order to ascertain

their intentions, will the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the House whether a statement to the House on this subject will be made at an early date since many contracts for 1973 production models are already being allocated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add to what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said on Friday. He will be in the House tomorrow and questions of this kind can be put to him directly and with greater satisfaction.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-REVEALING OF NAMES OF AMERICAN COMPANIES MAKING USE THEREOF

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since it was revealed last Friday that United States firms participating in the DISC program are entitled to secrecy under United States rules concerning that program, is the government considering any representations or any particular technique as a result of which those United States firms operating under the DISC program and exporting goods to Canada might be revealed to Canadian importers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question directly. Certainly one of the very serious problems that arises in taking any sort of action against companies that are taking advantage of DISC is that we must know whether or not they are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West on a last supplementary and then the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


Mark Willson Rose: Inasmuch as the minister indicated a moment ago that it is very difficult to ascertain the number of jobs lost to Canadians as a result of the DISC program, does the minister not think that the companies exporting to Canada should be required to reverse any DISC participation so that our government can make a basic assessment of the number of Canadian jobs lost?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's supplementary is an argument.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the announced resignation of the president of the CBC, would the minister make a report on current labour difficulties within the corporation and say whether the resignation is in any way related to those difficulties?


Gérard Pelletier: There is no relation whatever between the resignation of the CBC president and the labour management difficulties experienced by that corporation.
May 1, 1972

As for a report to the House regarding the state of negotiations, I think such a request should be directed to the Minister of Labour.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can the minister tell us the effective date of the resignation? In the search for a successor, will the minister assure the House, and thereby relieve the minds of Canadians from coast to coast, that the Pickersgillian precedent will not be followed and that no Secretary of State, past or present, will be selected for this post?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is a representation rather than a question.


Mr. Bell:: We want Judy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the last part of the question was a representation, but the first half of the question concerning the effective date of the resignation is relevant, especially in view of the state of negotiations within the CBC and for the state of this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that the first part of the question is in order. Perhaps the minister might like to reply to that part of the hon. gentleman's question.


Gérard Pelletier: August 1, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State. What steps does the minister intend to take on behalf of the House and the Canadian people to convey the nation's general feeling of profound thankfulness to the CBC now that the CBC television series, "Jalna" has finally ground to a halt?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MANPOWER


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Notice of it has been given. Will the deadline for LIP forgiveness eligibility be extended? If so, to what date?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his usual courtesy in giving me notice. In reviewing the LIP program, both private and municipal projects, it seems obvious that certain projects should be extended beyond May 31 because of circumstances beyond their control such as lack of material, slow processing, and so on. Therefore it is anticipated that certain projects, without
Inquiries of the Ministry
need of extra funds, will be extended until the middle of June.



MEASURES TO ASSIST NON-STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITY GRADUATES TO FIND JOBS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the heavy emphasis on students in the government's job employment programs, can the minister say whether the government has any measures available for non-student young people who are having difficulty finding jobs?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the success of the Opportunities for Youth program last summer is an indication that the program will meet with even greater success this year. This will go a long way to alleviating that particular type of problem.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have moved from one subject to another. I cannot accept that the hon. member's supplementary was actually a supplementary to the previous question. I will return to the hon. member in a short while, and also recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I specifically asked about non-student young people and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration thought I was referring to students. Perhaps he would answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized and the minister also for that purpose in a few moments.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the heavy emphasis in summer employment programs on the employment of students, can the minister say whether there are any programs in the mill for the employment of non-student young people? I ask this because they are having difficulty finding jobs.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having misunderstood the original question. The obvious assistance that will be given to non-students is through the anticipated reduction in unemployment figures from now on through the summer months as employment in secondary manufacturing improves. There is no particular program comtemplated at the present time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since graduates are now finding difficulty obtaining permanent jobs, can the minister say whether he has any programs in mind to help university graduates find permanent jobs?

May 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, many of these graduates are finding employment at a considerably faster rate now, than they were at this time last year.



INCOME TAX


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the many urgent appeals being received from senior citizens for the alleviation of then-situation, is the minister giving consideration either to increasing the income tax exemption levels for retired persons or granting tax credits in the budget he will be bringing down next Monday evening.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the hon. member's representation.



HISTORIC SITES


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister rewritten the history of the gold rush on the Klondike, and is this new interpretation of the history to be placed on a new plaque substituted for the original plaque at the discovery site on Bonanza Creek?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really think that question ought to be put on the order paper. If there is extreme urgency about this obviously important matter, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the government downgrading western traditions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think it is a matter of great urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUGGESTED PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the many excellent projects under the Opportunities for Youth program which have had to be rejected because of budget limitations, is the government giving considera-

tion to providing additional funds for the Opportunities for Youth program?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but no decision has been made yet.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will he or somebody in the government take a second look at the proposal of the Pacific North Coast Indian Co-operative in Prince Rupert for the establishment of a fish processing plant there and announce whether government assistance will be provided to that co-operative?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and ^Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering the situation of the Indian fishermen on the northwestern coast of British Columbia. As for a concrete proposal, I must talk with the Minister of the Environment before a decision is made.


Frank Howard: I wish to ask the minister whether the fact that the government recently made a grant of $700,000 for the establishment of a fish processing plant in Hay River is an indication that it is going to have a change of heart with regard to the Prince Rupert proposal?


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



DISCUSSION OF TREATY RIGHTS BY MINISTER WITH NORTHWEST TERRITORIES NATIVES IN LIGHT OF MACKENZIE HIGHWAY PROJECT

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development related to the announcement by the Prime Minister in Edmonton of what he called the new Mackenzie highway on which construction commenced last year, as the minister will recall. Now that the highway is under construction and in view of the reports that have been made to the minister by the Indian people of the Northwest Territories Indian Brotherhood and the National Brotherhood, is it the minister's intention to sit down now and have talks with regard to the treaty rights of these Indian people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already met with the Northwest Territories Indians, and I have told them that I was prepared to talk with them about a

solution to problems concerning treaties 8 and 11. I have also invited them, as an alternative, to meet with the Commissioner of Indian claims.
As regards the Mackenzie highway which will be extended from Fort Simpson to Inuvik, of course, this is a request which has been put to me several times in every Indian village along the Mackenzie river.


Erik Nielsen: In view of the statement by the minister that he has already had talks with the Indian people, can he inform the House whether negotiations are now going on between his department and the brotherhood with regard to their land rights and whether it is the government's intention to withhold further construction until these negotiations are concluded?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, no negotiations are going on at the present time. I made some proposals to the Indians of that area and it seems they are not quite prepared yet to discuss the settlement of problems relating to these two treaties. Now, as far as the highway construction is concerned, it is obvious that far from jeopardizing the solution to the Indians' problem in that area, these works will help the Indians by bringing an end to their isolation.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: May I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister is not in the House today, is it possible that he is working on the new John George Diefenbaker highway to Tuktoyaktuk?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the supplementary of the hon. member for Red Deer is not supplementary to that of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the questions asked by the hon. member for Yukon of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the statement in the House the other day by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the National Energy Board would not entertain applications for a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley until this season's feasibility studies have been completed, and in view of the fact the Prime Minister in his statement said he intended to collect part of the cost from the oil companies, will the minister inform the House whether there is any correlation between these two aspects of the Mackenzie highway project at this stage?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that if a road is built along the Mackenzie River and if the government some day allows some companies to build any pipelines in that area, it would only be normal and
Inquiries of the Ministry
fair to try to recover the road construction costs from the companies that will build the said pipelines. There is nothing contradictory in that position.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION

Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question. The whole point in my previous question had to do with the feasibility of pipelines down the Mackenzie Valley. Does this mean the construction of pipelines is feasible and the reports are in the minister's hands?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it has been recognized that it was possible to build a road from Fort Simpson to Inuvik, which would help put an end to the isolation experienced by the Indians of this area.


Robert Norman Thompson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer has a point of order and he will be recognized for that purpose, but we should try to proceed in an orderly fashion and get on with the question period.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I asked about the feasibility of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley and I received an answer about Indians. My question is whether there is a feasibility report that states that a pipeline can be constructed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question at this time is quite hypothetical and premature. We hav not yet started negotiating with the companies concerned nor have we decided whether a pipeline will be built or not, but we certainly hope that one will be built.

Perhaps I might speak in English to help the hon. member. We have not made a decision about a pipeline. We made a decision about a road. That road will help to end the isolation of the Indians living along the Mackenzie.



MACKENZIE VALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT-PERCENTAGE OF COST TO BE MET BY OIL COMPANIES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement at Edson, Alberta, to the effect that the pipeline companies would be the primary beneficiary of this highway and in view of his statement that: "the government intends to recover some of the highway construction costs from the pipeline companies", what percentage of the cost, which the Prime Minister said would be between $70 million and $100 million, will be met by the pipeline com-

May 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
panies and how does the government intend to recover these costs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I stated-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government, according to the minister, has made a decision about a road and the Prime Minister has announced that the pipeline companies are going to cover part oi the cost of this highway, I want to ask the minister whether the Prime Minister made this statement without any agreement from the pipeline companies that they will contribute to the cost of the road and without the government having any idea how it proposes to recover these costs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. When the companies come to see the government to obtain permission to build a pipeline, it will be at that time we will ask them to pay some of the cost of the road.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: There go the Edmonton votes.


George Harris Hees: There goes a three-day trip down the drain. Big brother will be awful mad when he gets back.


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



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say whether agreement was reached last week to extend air services between Canada and Italy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations were concluded.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: This may not be a matter of importance to the members of the opposition but I know how important it is to my hon. friend and it is also important for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there were negotiations last week and an agreement has been reached ad referendum to the two governments for the extension of air services between Canada and Italy, including direct service from Toronto, and at the other end of the line we will receive extensive benefits in Milan and beyond.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
(Mr. Douglas]



NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN CANADA AND PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister about a much more important and valuable air route.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Frank Howard: Perhaps I might rephrase that, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has any information to give to the House about a much more valuable and important exchange of air routes, namely, between Canada and the People's Republic of China, which seems to be a high priority question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is considered important by the Italian community in Toronto that there should be direct service between Italy and Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: May I also reassure the hon. member on the other question that negotiations between Canada and China are now proceeding and that progress is being made.



REQUEST FROM GRAIN EXCHANGE FOR APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNMENT SUPERVISOR OF FUTURES TRADING

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Has the government received a request from the Winnipeg Grain Exchange to appoint a government overseer to supervise trading in grain futures, and is it the intention to do so?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions concerning the question of futures and the control of futures. For most of the proposals legislation would be required, and further consideration is being given to the question.



CARROT RIVER, SASKATCHEWAN-REPORT ON EXTENT-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has he yet received a report on the extent of the flooding of the Carrot River, and has there been any request for federal assistance?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker. We have had some preliminary information
May 1, 1972

given to us but we have not had an extensive report on the damage and there has been no request for any assistance.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, coming up from pipelines to people I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the United States Federal Trade Commission is now requiring care labels to be sewn into clothing which consumers purchase, and in view of the further fact that the Consumers Association of Canada tried in vain to get such legislation in Canada last session, has the government now decided that, where manufacturers and distributors are concerned, mandatory care labelling is more effective than moral suasion?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's representation into account and give it full consideration.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask the minister when we may expect legislation to make care labelling mandatory?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the packaging and labelling act regulations are due to be promulgated in the near future and our commitment is that we will consult with all concerned before promulgation.



SUGGESTED COMMITTEE EXAMINATION OF PACKAGING AND LABELLING REGULATIONS BEFORE PROMULGATION

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of these regulations and the fact that the act was passed about a year and a half ago, would the minister indicate whether there will be an opportunity for a committee of the House to examine the regulations, which are going to be very important to the implementation of the act, before they actually become law and are operative?


Robert Knight Andras: I will give that consideration too, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON IMPACT ON CANADIAN EXPORTS TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. During the throne speech debate he said that his senior officials were making a detailed examination, with the assistance of knowledgeable people in the business community, of the likely impact of DISC on our exports to
Inquiries of the Ministry
third markets. May I ask the minister whether he can tell the House if he has learned anything?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the commitment of my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will leave him to deal with the question during the budget debate, as he said he would.



FINANCE


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I gave an undertaking to the hon. member for Assiniboia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I gather that the minister has responded to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I also understand that he wants to be recognized on another matter, and he is now being recognized for that purpose.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I undertook to give the hon. member for Assiniboia an answer to the question that he put to me on April 27.
Accounts dormant in chartered banks and Quebec savings banks for nine years are published by the Department of Finance in the Canada Gazette. The most recent list was published in a supplement to the Gazette dated April 15 and the accounts totalled in excess of $1.4 million.
Accounts dormant for ten years are transferred to the Bank of Canada at the end of ten years as unclaimed balances. Those transferred to the Bank of Canada which bore interest on the books of the banks continue to bear interest for a period of 20 more years, as provided for in section 94(3) of the Bank Act and section 82(3) of the Quebec Savings Banks Act, at the rate of 1J per cent per annum simple interest.



NATIONAL SECURITY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It arises out of the long overdue answer given today to the question I asked regarding the special planning and research group attached to the Solicitor General's department. Can he say how often this group meets and whether it makes reports to him from time to time concerning threats to the internal security of this country?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I assume that, being good civil servants, they meet from nine o'clock in the morning until five o'clock in the afternoon, that they do their job according to their terms

May 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
of reference as approved by the Treasury Board. Also, being good civil servants, once their assgnment has been duly completed, they report to the deputy minister who, in turn, reports to the minister. I do not find anything strange or mysterious about that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not say there was anything unusual; I asked for information. I now ask the minister whether it was from this group that he secured information, as a result of what happened in this group and the information that it gave him, to the effect that an even more serious outbreak by the FLQ and associates would have taken place last fall?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, if the right hon. member really had such great respect for the House, he would also extend it to the parliamentary committees. I answered that question fully before the parliamentary committee when estimates of my department were being studied a few days ago; if the right hon. member will refer to the minutes of proceedings published by the secretariat of the parliamentary committees, he will find plenty of material to satisfy his wish for information.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister where the cock and bull story he gave the people of Canada came from that Canada was in a more serious position last fall so far as a potential revolution was concerned than it had been in 1970?



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. Noting the promising largesse of the Prime Minister these days, can the minister advise whether the government is now giving consideration to reviewing its repudiation of its commitment to build the Northumberland causeway?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this project, like many others, is always under review.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Eudes Dubé: However, at the present time the people of that island province are appreciating and enjoying what has replaced that project, namely, considerable federal assistance under the department of my colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the minister whether he is indicating that the government of Prince Edward Island has accepted the development plan as a replacement for the promised causeway?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: No, Mr. Speaker. Good governments are always trying to get more projects approved, but I think the people of the island are enjoying that program.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In regard to the continued interest of the government of Prince Edward Island in this project and the recent proposals in regard to which they have contacted the department, can the minister report whether any assistance has been given the government of Prince Edward Island to further the possible implementation of this project?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Not lately by my department, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is of national interest and I appreciate the fact that the Chair has at last recognized me.
I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he would ask the RCMP to make an inquiry into the mysterious disappearance of the Social Credit party: not one of its members is in the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one right in front of you.



INFORMATION CANADA


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and concerns the disappearance of one Jean-Louis Gagnon. In view of the fact he is leaving the country for a very sensitive post in Paris with UNESCO, and in view of the fact there has been no announcement of his replacement, does this mean that Information Canada is being closed up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts as to the form of that question. Before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Selkirk.



POLLUTION


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is of some urgency in light of recent oil finds in
May 1, 1972

the Arctic. Can the minister tell the House when it is expected that the drafting of regulations to make the Northern Inland Waters Act an effective piece of legislation will be completed since they were promised for 1971?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, the regulations have been drafted and published, but I shall look into the matter and advise the hon. member accordingly.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1971 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to continue a debate on a serious matter such as this with the hubbub that usually accompanies the completion of the question period. This problem is not unique to a particular member, since it occurs every day. Probably if I am departing from the Chamber at this time I am as responsible as any other hon. member for some of the noise. I do note, however, that frequently I am, by merely getting to my feet, able to effectively clear the House in short order. I see I have accomplished that today.
I think the Chair will recognize that it is very difficult to take up a continuing story and tie it in with the beginning of the remarks I made just before one o'clock last Friday. For the benefit of those who tuned in late, I feel I should summarize some of those remarks. This is necessary to get people more or less up to date on the remarks I made earlier and to put things into proper context.
On Friday last, following the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), I made some remarks in opposition and in contradiction to their position regarding the retention of the lash. I support that part of the legislation which removes corporal punishment from the Criminal Code. Following the same philosophy, I also oppose the use of the thumbscrew and the rack, on the grounds that indulgence in this kind of brutalization in our institutions does not do a great deal for our attempt to move
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 toward a more civilized reaction to the kind of transgressions which formerly brought about such violence.
I hasten to add that I appreciate and share the repugnance of many people when they learn through the news media of some particular brutal type of crime, such as gang rape, which results in the destruction of the lives of many innocent people. I am not convinced there would be fewer of these crimes if we resorted to more extreme forms of physical punishment. If I were convinced of the deterrent effect, I might take a different view. I recall from my history lessons that once upon a time people were hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, but that kind of punishment has now been abandoned, perhaps on the ground that it did not prevent thievery. I support the motion to change our Criminal Code in respect of what has been traditional in what we called our prison system and which we now refer to as our corrective or rehabilitative institutions.
I appreciate there have been certain views circulated in respect of prison guards and policemen regarding the five-year ban on capital punishment and that there has been a loophole clause which would allow the extreme form of punishment to be applied to capital crimes against police officers, prison guards and officials. I share the concern of the guards and the police officers about the fact that there is no ultimate penalty so they have no protection, or at least less protection than they might have otherwise. There are many arguments pro and con on this matter, but I do not think anyone knows for sure which are right. I would prefer to find myself on the side which suggests that capital punishment is really no deterrent to murder, and that capital crimes would be no less prevalent as a result of a return to capital punishment.
I admit that if I were a policeman and in the position in which three police officers found themselves in the bush near Moncton not more than three weeks ago when they were sent out to arrest an armed man who was suspected of escaping custody, and having been shot at twice from very close range with a shotgun, I would feel perhaps a little bit less responsible about the way in which I apprehended that particular suspect. I can appreciate their feelings, and if I were in that position I think I should be moved to take no chances. I will say nothing else about that matter.
I reiterate and re-emphasize my feeling that a lot of the people who are putting forward the suggestion that we adopt a more repressive kind of punishment for certain individuals are not looking for justice but rather for vengeance. Our courts and our thoughtful social institution personnel should not be concerned with this kind of vengeance. I do not believe that the brutality of corporal punishment in our institutions will have a civilizing effect or will even be a deterrent to these particular wrongdoers, whether they have been convicted of rape or murder. These crimes, for the most part, are not premeditated but are crimes of passion.
I suggested there were three oversights in these amendments to the Criminal Code, and I went into them in some detail. I was disappointed that, although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) met with representatives at the provincial conference regarding the enshrining of the concept of the right to counsel in our constitution, this amending bill

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 is silent on that subject. I do not think I need say more about that. The fact that it is, I think, speaks for itself. I hope the minister will be moved, when he is considering further amendments to the Criminal Code, to look after this oversight and see that the right to counsel is entrenched, not only in the constitution if we ever ultimately accept one for Canada, but also in the Criminal Code. Many people are being denied their civil rights because they cannot afford counsel to represent them adequately in the courts. If they cannot have this kind of support there will be many occasions on which justice really is not done.
I could go into a long, detailed discussion about my particular views concerning the right to that kind of a voice that is denied people on the ground of their economic situation. I think this is a familiar subject to most people. After all, we have had the Company of Young Canadians, and various other federal programs designed to give a voice to the voiceless. In my opinion, one of the best ways to give a voice to the voiceless is through a public defender system which would provide legal aid, which in most cases now amounts to charity, and would provide a right to counsel before the courts for people who are accused of breaking the laws of our country.
A second subject on which I should like to speak today, and upon which this particular bill is silent is amendments to the habitual criminal section which I believe is section 660 of the Criminal Code. I had hoped that because of representations, I believe by sincere and responsible members of all parties, changes in this section would have been contemplated by the minister. Perhaps the minister is at the moment contemplating a review of this particular section 660 which relates to the habitual criminal, or as it is more commonly known in the correction institutions, the "bitch" section. The reason I make this particular representation is that from time to time I have received letters from various inmates of federal institutions and have also visited those institutions. However, since I refuse to ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) for permission to enter a federal institution, I have not darkened the doors of one lately. Anyway, we are still allowed to receive mail from these institutions. This habitual criminal section has been used primarily by only two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario.
The first complaint about this particular section is that a great number of petty criminals, nuisance criminals if you like, are faced with indeterminate or indefinite sentences. There would seem to be an attempt to prescribe an indefinite sentence rather than have the punishment tailored to the crime or have the rehabilitation, if you are looking at the prison system from that point of view, fit the individual. I am afraid it has not worked out in that way in all cases. I am sure it has in a number of cases. A number of people who are serving indeterminate sentences are doing so because they have been convicted of minor, petty or nuisance crimes. I am not saying this is applied exclusively to these people, but there are certainly a great number of them. The result is that those people who have been found guilty of much more serious crimes to person and property have an opportunity which is denied one on a shorter sentence. They are able to enjoy the kind of parole opportunities and temporary absence opportunities which are accorded to prisoners. I believe

this is a source of serious irritation or hostility among those people who have been convicted of less serious crimes to person and property. Right alongside them, they often find persons convicted of a serious crime who have been subject to a more equitable and more enlightened parole system, as well as temporary absence opportunities. That is the basic criticism. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Hogarth) has made representations on the same subject as a result of his visits. I am not sure his representations would parallel mine and I am aware that he is certainly capable of making a submission on his own behalf. I mention this fact, however, to indicate that there is an expression of concern which extends beyond the voice of one particular member.
There is one further topic in respect of which I wish to indulge myself briefly. It concerns the matter of compensation to victims of crime. Frequently, we learn from news sources that people are amazed that members of society would stand around and watch, without lending a helping hand, while some particular individual is besieged and perhaps harmed physically by the methods used by criminals. One reason I believe goes far beyond the question of not wishing to become involved. There is a real concern on the part of the general public that if a member of the general public were to assist in such a circumstance and should be physically injured himself his own family might suffer as well. The citizen's arrest or the idea of assisting the police I believe has a long tradition in British common law, but is frequently ignored. This tradition I believe is followed more frequently in smaller communities where each person knows everyone as neighbours or friends. However, it is frequently ignored in a city crowd. I believe representations have been made over the years on this subject. I think particularly of the case of a fireman who came to the aid of someone who needed him, whose injury involved a substantial loss of pay.
I notice that the British Columbia legislature recently passed a measure to assist in the compensation of crime victims. So, I put this forward as a little representation for the consideration of the minister. It seems I am always making representations to the minister. I made them in respect of immigration and the lack of reciprocity. Before he could get around to doing something about it, two and a half years later he is not the minister responsible for that department. However, he has listened most attentively. I am sure he has heard these representations and will hear them again. I look forward to him adding this subject to the very progressive bill we have before us.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just one or two short comments. I am very glad to see that at last measures are being taken which, as a non-lawyer, I can only hope will be effective in getting right under the skin of these cancerous individuals who through some warped logic of their own decide it is profitable and fruitful to hijack an aircraft or try to ransom the people on board an aircraft. As I said, I am not a lawyer, but I am very glad to see that the definition of a peace officer includes the pilot of an aircraft when that aircraft is on the ground and when the pilot has taken command of it for the purpose of flying it somewhere. It is my understanding that sometimes the trickiest phase of one
May 1, 1972

of these take-over bids occurs on the ground when peace officers are present.
It is my understanding from talking with pilots that they are very apprehensive about not being in command of the situation until the moment when they want to turn it over to policemen. They have usually had an opportunity of evaluating the mental state of the person who has attempted to hijack the aircraft and they are probably adjusted as much as they can be to the situation. Sometimes, in their opinion, more harm than good can be done by having an over-zealous police force come in with loaded guns and try to solve the situation in a manner with which the pilots probably do not agree. So, I am glad to see that the aircraft will be left in charge of the pilot until such time as he would normally hand it over.
I also have one comment to make about the fact that if a person is found guilty of the indictable offence of hijacking he is subject to life imprisonment. As I understand it, life imprisonment is nothing of the sort. In many cases, it is probably a good thing to allow a person who has been sentenced to life to have his case reviewed, and to be freed after a certain number of years if he has shown signs of penance and a change of heart. However, it seems very difficult to reconcile oneself to the idea that anyone who has hijacked an aircraft should be let out into society again. I cannot understand what kind of egotistical nut could ever think that it was either funny, progressive, amusing or of any value to anyone whatsoever to put the lives of 100 to 200 people in jeopardy. Therefore, I feel that when this bill goes to committee the penalty of life imprisonment should be considered very carefully.
Perhaps psychiatric evidence should be sought to ensure that a person released after a number of years will not be so stupid or so insane as to do the same thing again. It is tragic enough when a man makes another mistake or kills a man after having been let out of prison, but it is about 5,000 per cent more tragic if he hijacks an aircraft and puts the lives of several hundred people in jeopardy. So, I commend the government for having brought these features into the bill. I suggest that when the bill goes to the committee, the committee should ask the Airline Pilots Association to come before it and to give its opinion of the bill. Personally, I would ask the committee to take another good, hard look at the practical result of a sentence of life imprisonment so far as this legislation is concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill is one that permits a wide range of discussion, comprising as it does a multitude of changes in the criminal law. I congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on the manner in which this whole question has been brought before the House and the degree to which an opportunity is afforded to consider in general, with particular reference to the sections contained therein, the whole problem of the criminal law.
It is on that subject that I intend to speak shortly. I will then refer to two or three matters, all of which have been dealt with before in the debate but on which I will give a somewhat different viewpoint than those already expressed during the course of the debate. I will say
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 immediately that during my years in university and law school, the general feeling was that if only people could live in affluence, most if not all of the problems of mankind would be solved. In the last 50 years, despite the inexcusable poverty which still exists, we in Canada have gone far to bring about one of the highest levels of living in the world. In North America, with reference to the United States and Canada, economic well being beyond imagination at the beginning of this century may well have dulled and even drained away the courage, initiative and vigour of the people. In achieving economic prosperity-and I am speaking about levels of prosperity-are we in danger of losing the spiritual values which nations no less than individuals need to survive?
I was particularly impressed with the speech on the subject by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), who has made a profound study not only of this bill but of criminology in general. It reveals the progress in the House to which he has greatly contributed.
We find that lawlessness has become almost a way of life. Crime is rampant and on the increase in Canada, in the United States and in Great Britain. Why has this come about? Why in Canada last year should almost 5 per cent of our total population find themselves convicted of some offence under the Criminal Code? It is a frightening picture to see that one million Canadians were convicted of criminal offences, and I am not speaking about automobile offences other than manslaughter and that type of offence. The question is being asked: what should be done? Should there be more severe penalties? Has there been too great freedom in the last two or three years in the granting of parole in our country? It was under my administration that the Parole Board was set up, but I was concerned recently when several of those who committed one of the most dastardly offences, that of kidnapping, found themselves released after serving a very short portion of their sentences. That type of thing encourages violence. The violence of a few becomes a contagious disease within our country and other freedom loving countries. One of the reasons is that acts of violence are continually played up in the press, on radio and on television.
There is a movement within our country, as in other western Nations, of an underground nature, the members of which masquerade above ground as crusaders for permissiveness, participate in campaigns for peace, and against the war in Viet Nam. Their leaders claim that what they are doing is an exercise in freedom of speech, when in fact it is often criminal and contrary to several sections of the Criminal Code. Violence begets violence, and unless measures are taken to punish this kind of wrongdoing those who advocate, support and engage in violence will destroy the basis of our democratic society and pave the way for absolute tyranny.
Today we find the youth of our country criticized. I do not join in that. There are 2 or 3 per cent that preach revolution, while the rest want to bring about change by democratic means. Those who pretend that they believe in passive resistance or disobedience as practised by

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 Ghandi, are actually practising revolution and advocating changes in our country on the basis of revolution.
I have stood for the right of the individual to have freedom of speech throughout my life, both at the bar and in the House of Commons. And I have stood for the right of the individual to have that freedom and to advocate the need for change. I believe that impatience, coupled with the will to change, are both needed to bring about orderly progress, but an uncontrolled will to change, practised without restraint, is a menace to freedom. Mob rule is the antithesis of freedom and dare not be condoned if freedom is to be maintained or even to survive. With those few general remarks, Mr. Speaker, I now come to the bill itself.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me dealt with the question of piracy in the air. I brought this matter before the House on March 20 when I asked the minister, as recorded at page 959 of Hansard:
In order to discourage potential hijackers for gain, is the government giving consideration, among other things, to bringing in as part of the de-incentive, if I can use that expression, a provision whereby no airline will be permitted to pay ransom?
The answer was:
There is no immediate intention to introduce legislation along these lines.
I think it should be done, Mr. Speaker. In large measure hijacking is designed to bring about extortion by way of ransom. If the right to extort is denied by law, the incentive to commit hijacking is greatly reduced. I again ask the minister whether he will not give consideration to a further amendment along the line I have suggested here, to the end that we strike at the vital basis for hijacking and kidnapping, except in a very few cases.
There is a strong feeling in certain areas of our country, and among very thoughtful people, that capital punishment should be re-instated. I realize that statistics are always available to prove whatever the person who produces them is endeavouring to prove. But when it is stated that the murder rate is increasing, I do not share that view. What I see is this: that when capital punishment was in effect, if there was any possibility of bringing in a verdict for manslaughter, juries did so. Since the changes have been made in the law removing capital punishment from capital murder, juries today do not have the same qualms about convicting that they used to have. Anyone who has acted both for the Crown and defence knows that if there was a reasonable ground for a jury to find that the accused was not guilty of murder but of the lesser offence of manslaughter, the jury almost invariably took the opportunity of reducing the charge. Everyone is entitled to his or her view of capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, I appeared for the defence many times. Although my experience in criminal law was restricted to about 5 per cent of my total practice at the bar, I defended quite a large number charged with murder. Some wonder why I have such a feeling of concern over the imposition of the death penalty. I ask those who wonder how would you feel if you defended a man charged with murder, who was as innocent as any hon. member in this House at this very moment, who was convicted, whose appeal was dismissed, who was executed; and six months later the star witness for the Crown admitted that he, himself, had

committed the murder and blamed it on the accused? That experience will never be effaced from my memory. The man was so sure he could not be executed that he said to the executioner when he came along to perform the supreme penalty of the law, "You can't hang me; God won't let you." I ask hon. gentlemen to bear that experience in mind when they conclude that those of us who stand against the re-imposition of capital punishment have views that are based on emotion but not on actual experience.
All over the free world capital punishment is disappearing, because we are living in a changing world. My great grandfather saw a boy hanged in Upper Canada for picking pockets in 1837. I think the boy was 17 years of age and everybody gathered for the public execution. Those Scottish people in North York turned up in large numbers. There was a great celebration, and during the ceremonies of the execution four of them had their pockets picked, which just indicates the argument that the fear of capital punishment will greatly reduce the number of offences is not completely tenable, or indeed tenable at all.
I think the record shows that in the United States there has been not one execution in the last three years. Capital punishment has been abolished within the United Kingdom, excepting within those limits which all of us know.
So far as the imposition of the lash is concerned, anyone who has ever seen a man who has been lashed would never advocate the heinous cruelty connected with that operation. It demoralizes not only the individual lashed but also those who have to carry out the penalty.
Next there is the question of common assault and increasing the penalty from a potential two years to five years. I think that is going too far. Common assault can be tried by a justice of the peace. To place in the hands of a justice of the peace the summary right to impose a sentence of from two to five years, is to me inexcusable and unjustified.
The increase in penalties for assault of police officers is, I think, justified on the basis of what too frequently happens today when police officers become a subject of contempt, largely as a consequence of some people referring to them as "pigs". Too often the Canadian who believes in law enforcement fails to give to those same police officers that respect, regard and help which they deserve. Those are just three or four matters to which I wanted to allude.
I wish now to go on to another matter which is not comprised in the bill itself in any way. I am concerned about the fact that we discriminate against the Indian in the administration of law. For many years I was a proponent and advocate of the Bill of Rights which was looked upon in some circles with a certain amount of derision. Many law professors said that it would never be effective. It came into effect in 1960, and for seven long years thereafter various professors and inferior court judges across this country stated that it was in effect a grandiloquent declaration of human rights but would never be effective to protect the rights of the individual.
Then came the Joe Drybones case-a wonderful name that Indian bore. Drybones was found guilty of being
May 1, 1972

drunk in his shack on his reserve. It was an offence under the Indian Act. He was found guilty but he said "You cannot do this to me" and the prosecuting authority said "We have". He appealed and the appeal was allowed. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) had nothing to do with the matter of which I am about to speak, but it has always shocked me that the government of Canada had its counsel argue for a day and a half in the Supreme Court of Canada that the Bill of Rights was not effective and ought not to be declared to be effective. That is what was done by the present government. Pretending to believe in human rights and human freedom, it has its counsel argue in the Supreme Court of Canada with vehemence that the Bill of Rights was a danger to Canada in that it subjected parliament to the surveillance of the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada held, however, regardless of the arguments advanced by the Crown and under the direction of this government now in office, that the Bill of Rights was superior to every law ever passed in Canada since 1867, and where any portion of the statute passed contravened in whole or in part the provisions of the Bill of Rights, to that extent it was a nullity.
Now, a word about the Indians. I always feel a sense of guilt when I see the Indians across our country, who have a right to go into a beer parlour and buy liquor, who have a right to secure liquor from the regular sales outlet, but have no right to have liquor on the reserve. Where are they to consume it? If they consume it on the way home so that they will not break the law on the reserve, they are subject to being charged under the various liquor acts. The fine is usually $50 minimum with the alternative of 30 days in jail. They cannot pay the fine so poverty becomes their passport to prison. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. In his desire to bring about changes that will ensure human liberty, I would like the Minister of Justice to communicate with the Attorneys General of the various provinces in order to arrive at a plan which will do away with this stigmatization of the Indian.
I visit jails and I see there individuals; decent, responsible, respectable Indians who are unable to pay the fine and are incarcerated because they dared break a provincial law while having been placed in a position where they have no alternative but to break it. If the Minister of Justice were to bring together the various Attorneys General from across the country, I think arrangements could be made to remove this example of discrimination. When it takes place it causes me to have a feeling of revulsion that all who hate injustice would necessarily share. I am not going to speak of what I have done but on more than one occasion, not knowing the individual at all, I have paid his fine so that he would not be incarcerated. That is how strongly I feel on this matter and I hope that the minister, in the spirit in which I advance it, will do his part toward eradicating one of the most serious examples of injustice to an individual which arises because of his colour and by virtue of the fact that he resides on a reservation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detain the House, but I thought that these few observations might at least start a line of thought that would be beneficial to all of us in that it would ensure justice to all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it will certainly be forever a great honour to me to remember that I followed the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in a debate on criminal law. I remember the occasion when I first saw him in the courts. I think the right hon. member will recall the case of Regina versus Cathro and Chow Bew. I was just a young lawyer, and I noticed that he made all his notes on the back of a cigarette package. I was very impressed with his address to the jury on that occasion so for the next four cases I made my notes on the back of a cigarette package and lost every one of them. He happened to win.


An hon. Member:: You should give up smoking.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Perhaps I can be allowed, however, to correct the right hon. member on an observation that he made in regard to the law proposed by this bill. He suggested that the law is going to be changed so that common assault becomes punishable by five years in prison. I would draw the right hon. member's attention to the provisions of clause 21 of the bill. All that has happened to common assault is that it will be made a summary conviction offence, on which I will comment further in a minute. It is assault causing bodily harm, an indictable offence, where the penalty has been increased to five years. I think this was as a result of a case in the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Court was limited in the length of the sentence that could be imposed on a particular individual in relation to what they felt was a particularly vicious assault causing bodily harm.
While the field of criminal law is extremely difficult in a modern society, it is especially difficult in Canada where there are different moral standards throughout the country and certainly a conflict between urban and rural societies. The crime rate is up and society is expressing more and more concern. It is difficult to resist the hard line taken by some people. The Chief Justice of British Columbia is alleged to have said "If there is going to be shooting, there will surely be hanging." It is difficult for society to accept the proposition that society's best protection lies in good, sound, modern penology which, in turn, rests on the principles of rehabilitation. We need a police force which is supported by good laws; we need good penology services and we need a good parole service.
We are moving too slowly in the direction of advanced penology in Canada. Although our theories in some instances have not proved too sound, we have made some progress in this area. Nevertheless, we have many years of lag to make up. I notice that the right hon. gentleman pointed out that not until 1958 was our parole board first established. One would think that in a country as modern as Canada such a board would have been established in 1928. Without doubt, harsh measures such as corporal punishment or the noose do not deter violence. Certainly, crimes of violence are on the rise; I doubt very much if we can attribute those to the lack of harsh sentences imposed. I think statistics shortly will reveal that although all crimes of violence are increasing, the crime of homicide, for which in some instances capital punishment has been provided, is showing the slowest rise.

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
So, it would not appear that the noose is a deterrent with regard to offences of that nature. Certainly, public executions are absurd. I understand that public executions were stopped because they became too much of an attraction. Thousands of people would stream to the execution. Instead of executing a man publicly, in recent years the authorities hanged the man in the middle of the night in the privacy and secrecy of a prison. Recently I read a description of a public execution in London, Ontario. That was a disgrace to those times. People had little humanity. Society today would not tolerate such a spectacle. Hanging is not necessary. It is offensive to our basic principles of rehabilitation. I hope with all my heart that all hon. members, in the debate soon to come, will see their way clearly to taking the enlightened point of view.
The actions of the parole board in the case mentioned perhaps could be criticized. Nevertheless, we must remember that the parole board, by and large, hears about 17,000 applications per year and it has done extremely well in discharging its duties. Hopefully, we can extend the parole system beyond its present limits and, by increasing the staff, try to make sure that errors of that sort do not occur. I submit that the behaviour of the inmate during the whole course of imprisonment ought to be the determining factor of his parole. That behaviour pattern could be obtained from an analysis of his day to day conduct. We must also remember, and the minister responsible must take this point of view, that the parole board's function is quasi-judicial. It is not for the politician, it is not for the member of parliament, or for the minister under whose direction the parole board comes, to interfere in any way with the workings of that board or in the manner in which parole is given. If that interference should ever occur, Mr. Speaker, parole would depend upon whom you know, and not on behaviour. As such, the concept will be reprehensible to us all, and I do not think any member of this House would entertain it. By and large, the parole board of this country has done a good job. As I say, I recognize some mistakes it has made. The board will be presenting its estimates before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs tomorrow, and any hon. member who wants to examine a member of the board may do so. Hon. members may examine the board and see exactly what the present situation is and how past mistakes may have arisen or may have been corrected.
I had occasion not long ago to visit the members of the Optimum Club in the maximum security institution in British Columbia, the B.C. Penitentiary. The Optimum Club consists of a group of men, some of whom are serving life sentences of imprisonment-we call them lifers-following conviction under habitual criminal proceedings. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) told us of some of the problems that arise among such sentenced habitual criminals. The problem, really, stems from a change in the judicial interpretation of the law. Some years ago there was a rash of prosecutions under the habitual criminal section and men who had a record of a long string of minor, petty offences were sentenced under the habitual criminal section. Perhaps I am exaggerating the case somewhat. At any rate, those who had been convicted of a long string of minor, petty offences were found to be habitual criminals and were sentenced accordingly.

Today, of course, they are in jail, well knowing that the judicial interpretation of the law which sent them to jail has been changed. Now, only those with a long history of more violent offences are charged as habitual criminals. The members of the club know that if they were to come before the courts today, it is unlikely that they would be convicted of anything more serious than the prime offence, as we call it, which brought about the habitual criminal proceedings. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley West mentioned, I have referred this matter to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and am pleased to note that he is to send the matter to the Law Reform Commission, to be taken up in due course in its deliberations.
So far as habitual criminal proceedings are concerned, may I suggest that the accused be subjected to those proceedings only after he has finished serving his sentence for the prime offence. Only then, after he has finished his sentence for robbery, or whatever he was charged with, should habitual criminal proceedings be undertaken. After that sentence is finished I suggest that he should be placed on life long parole, instead of in a maximum security institution, for a man on lifetime parole would know that if at any time he transgressed the law or the conditions of his parole, he could find himself back in prison. I suggest that would be a better way of treating habitual criminals than incarcerating them, as we now do. Actually, our present habitual criminal proceedings were one of the prime causes of a riot in a British Columbia prison at Oakalla. Some time ago, a number of prisoners charged as habitual criminals were imprisoned in Oakalla. Knowing that they faced a life of perpetual imprisonment if convicted their morale sank so low that they started a riot while awaiting trial.
I want the Minister of Justice, particularly, to pay more attention to what is being said at the grass roots level by those who must administer our bail reform act. I notice that Mr. Stewart McMorran, a name well known to the Minister of Justice and to any Canadian criminal lawyer, has suggested that, in the police courts of Vancouver, the new bail reform act is not working. I think the whole matter of bail reform should be investigated. We must look at this again, or else there will be trouble brewing not only for the minister, but, as well, for the police and authorities who must administer the act.
This bill, an omnibus bill, certainly contains many provisions, some good and some bad. I see, for instance, if I may talk about indemnities for a bondsman, that we are still to prevent professional bondsmen from operating in our cities and communities. This, I suggest, ought to be reviewed. After all, a man charged may be in Montreal, and he may have come, in these days, from Winnipeg, Calgary or any other city in Canada. When charged he may find himself in Montreal; also, the reverse may be true. That man may not be able to get bail because he has no friends in Montreal. From my experience, it is difficult to put up property as bail; if the property is much more than a half mile away, so to speak, there are great difficulties. I hope that provision will be made for professional bondsmen. I see nothing wrong with this. Professional bondsmen have been excluded under our criminal law because, under the old common law concept, a man's friends were the ones who would get him back to court if he was reluctant to face justice. I think in modern society
May 1, 1972

that basic concept has become outworn. A professional bondsman, after he has been thoroughly investigated, ought to be acceptable. I hope this bill will include provisions to that effect.
The provisions with respect to soliciting for purposes of prostitution are somewhat obscure. It is interesting to note that prostitution never was an offence. I do not think that prostitution has ever been an offence in the history of the common law or our statute law. Incidentally, offences pertaining to prostitution have. We now come to the part dealing with soliciting and I quote:
Every person who solicits any person in a public place for the purpose of prostitution-
I do not know what it means to solicit for the purpose of prostitution. Does it mean that someone is going to try to induce someone to become a prostitute? However, it appears some dressing up has to be done with that clause. Why not go the whole way and say that any person who is found with a prostitute is also guilty of an offence? Why not be honest about this, and say that if prostitution is against the law in any way, those who use prostitutes are also committing an offence. But oh, no, this is a very masculine society. I should not say that because this provision now applies to both men and women. I will comment on that in a minute. Nonetheless, the predominant use of prostitutes is by men. If we are going to deal with prostitution in any way, shape or form, those who participate should be just as guilty as those who are prostitutes.
Today is a day of come-uppance. During the course of the debate on the omnibus bill when we amended the section of the Criminal Code dealing with indecency, I drew to the attention of the justice committee and the solicitors who were present from the Department of Justice that if we were going to permit gross indecency in private, we would have to amend the law pertaining to male prostitutes. I was assured that the law, as it then read in the Criminal Code, was quite satisfactory. It gives me great pleasure to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that clause 14 of this bill now does exactly what I said should have been done three years ago, after several judges in this country pointed out to the Crown the essence of their stupidity.


An hon. Member:: Law officers are never wrong.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: That is the trouble. Perhaps now that we have had a little more experience, we can draw their attention to a few places in this bill where changes should be made rather than go through the whole exercise again in the next parliament.


Frank Howard: Have you got any views as to good government?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I have a lot of views about that. I am concerned. The repeal of the law pertaining to vagrancy is discomforting. Common law offences relating to vagrancy were codified in our Criminal Code as early as the 1898 version. The trouble with the offence of vagrancy is there is one catch-all section which deals with the person who has no apparent means of support. Section 175(1) reads:
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Every one commits vagrancy who
(a) not having any apparent means of support is found wandering abroad or trespassing and does not, when required, justify his presence in the place where he is found;
That section was of tremendous use in law enforcement. When someone was found in a dark alley hiding behind a telephone pole or a garage and watching a dwelling house, a policeman could take that man into the police station and legitimately ask him what he was doing. This section does not apply now, other than the one Part dealing with a dwelling house and, I should specifically put the case in a warehouse district to get it more clearly established. Such a person can now stay there, drift into the darkness and rob the warehouse in the next block. The time has come for some policemen to obey the law, although I do not suggest that they do not now do that. We have good law enforcement people. However, in order to make sure the policemen are protected when they act, there should be a section enabling them to remove people when circumstances indicate they are obviously on the verge of committing an offence. We better look at that carefully when the bill is in committee.
I am glad the law officers of the Crown have advised the minister to go as far as including the offence of canoeing while impaired. Our impaired driving sections have been applied to vessels. Assuming a canoe is a vessel, I can visualize someone cruising down the river while his ability to paddle is impaired by alcohol.
There will be a particularly good debate on this. The breathaliser section, under which the Canadian public were promised the accused would receive a sample of his breath, is in this bill. A sample of breath can be taken by the police but, of course, nothing whatsoever has been done to provide a suitable container to give the accused a sample of his breath. It is just put in there for political window dressing to fool the Canadian public into thinking we are great reformers, thinking only of their interest. Everyone knew this at the time that section was put in the bill, and I drew to the attention of the committee the fact that there was no such thing as a container in which a sample of a person's breath could be retained for the purpose of measuring the alcohol content. I understand there is still not one available. Now, the same provision is included in the section covering the offence of canoeing while impaired. This nonsense should stop until such time as we get a proper container. Perhaps I am prejudging the case. Maybe the minister has one in his pocket which he will bring to the committee. I look forward to being the first to test it.


Mr. Alexander:: We may wipe out that clause if he does not bring in that container.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to common assault. Common assault was previously one of the few offences which could be proceeded with either by way of summary conviction or indictment. Impaired driving and dangerous driving are the others. The value of having this as an indictable offence was that it often came in handy in jury trials. If a jury wanted to convict a man of an offence, but not manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, wounding or maiming, the judge could direct them that common assault was an included offence in the indictment. It is
1776

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 now a summary conviction offence. It cannot be included in a proceeding with an indictable offence. Often the jury compromised on a verdict and the man was dealt with much more lightly than he would have been in the first instance.
With regard to the offence in clause 27 on page 18 of the bill, having in one's possession a motor vehicle with the serial number obliterated, the onus should be on the Crown to prove the accused knew it was obliterated. It should not be left the way it is now.
I am concerned about the provision in clause 38 which appears on page 24 of the bill. This provision permits a justice, acting under that part of the Criminal Code, to remand an accused, and I quote:
for a period not exceeding thirty days without having heard the evidence of a duly qualified medical practitioner where he is satisfied that compelling circumstances exist for so doing and that such a medical practitioner is not readily available to examine the accused and give evidence;
With the greatest of respect, medical practitioners are the last persons who like to appear in court. I am afraid that where you have an accused who may appear to be a little dull, but certainly has all his marbles if I may use that expression, remanding him for 30 days will be a good excuse for police officers who prosecute in rural communities to imprison him when he otherwise would have been brought to trial. The medical facilities in this country are adequate and the provision that the remand must be on the evidence of a medical practitioner should be retained. In any event, we look forward to hearing the minister with regard to that particular clause and the reason for the change.
Finally, I wish to speak about the concept of conditional discharge which appears at page 33 of the bill. This will now be possible under section 662.1 of the code. It is grossly inconsistent. I am not in favour of the conditional discharge concept. The British had a conditional discharge some years ago, but they repealed it. It is no longer in their law. We are rather far behind in law reform and will have to go through that period of experience before eventually throwing it out. It is incongruous. I quote:
Where an accused, other than a corporation-
Why they should be exempt is beyond me. In any event, if he pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offence, the court may, instead of convicting him, place him on probation. In short, he is on probation for an offence of which he was never convicted, and that is surely nonsense. When an accused pleads guilty, or is found guilty, then he is convicted. That is precisely what has happened to him. I would much prefer that the minister consider that a magistrate or a judge has the right, having heard all the evidence against the accused, to decide that it is not in the interests of the community in which the accused lives-or in the interests of justice, if I may put it in that way-to convict him. He has heard all the evidence but he makes no finding. In cases of guilty pleas perhaps exceptions could be made or some qualifications attached.
A prime example of what I mean is women who have reached the menopause period of their lives and the strain is such that they sometimes become shoplifters. This sit-

uation is well known in the courts, and certainly these women should not be convicted of such an offence. They pick a load of groceries and walk off with it because they are mentally deranged. This sort of thing has happened to many women. Similarly, there are men who should not be convicted of certain offences, depending on the individual case. In such cases, I suggest the magistrate should have the right to say that it is not in the interests of justice that the case proceed and that he will enter a stay of proceedings. The attorney general has this right. In any proceeding his agent, the Crown prosecutor, may tell the clerk of the court without leave that he wants to enter a stay of proceedings in a certain case, and then that case is over, unless he wants to proceed with it at a later date.
We are now making provision for this in the bill with regard to summary conviction offences. This is the sort of thing a court should be allowed to do because then there is no conviction. Perhaps there should be special provision made in the case of a guilty plea where a magistrate has the power to hear representations from the accused or his representative to set aside the guilty plea and to enter a stay of proceedings. In that way, we would be able to circumvent the absolute garbage we find in the bill that would result in placing on probation an accused who pleads guilty without convicting him. I suggest this is a matter we should look into during the committee hearings. I am a little surprised we have not sought to benefit from the English experience and dress the bill up properly in the first instance.
I am extremely proud to be in a parliament where we are moving toward the abolition of corporal punishment. I must say to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that no member has done more than he to insist that the government get down to this question. I remember debating a private member's bill that he introduced on this subject a couple of years ago. Other hon. members have also supported this proposal. Corporal punishment is a most demoralizing thing to men in prison when you are trying to convince them that the "Catch 22" of crime is a change of attitude toward their fellow man and society. The way out of jail for them is a change of attitude. It is the only way out, and if they do not change their attitude in prison then it will not be long before they are back again.
Just what is it that happens when you put a man in a room, take the skin off his back with the cat-o-nine tails, then take him back to his cell, as they used to-though I do not know what is the procedure now-and throw salt water on the wounds? The attitude the other prisoners have to that sort of treatment is: "That is the way that society treats the likes of us". They identify very closely in the prison subculture. This is why seeing this type of nonsense eliminated gives me great pleasure, and is a reward to the hon. member to whom I have referred for his insistence. Your Honour will note that in the justice committee the other day the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) said that corporal punishment would never be used in prisons so long as he was minister. Prison wardens or custodial officers are finding that they can get along without its use, that they do not need it any more. Isolation is one of the remedies being substituted for corporal punishment.
May 1, 1972

I am looking forward to the bill going to committee and, hopefully, getting the law officers of the crown to change their views here and there on the bill where perhaps they are wrong. I am looking forward to participating with other hon. members in the deliberations of the committee on what will be a very interesting experience in the criminal law.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I was, as I am sure were others, very interested to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), especially to his careful and incisive analysis of the poor wording in some of the clauses of the bill, which presumably reflects his opinion of the poor advice given by law officers of the Crown. It is not very often that we get hon. gentlemen so closely attached to the government itself giving an indication that perhaps the consideration and advice given by law officers, who I take to be the lawyers in the Department of Justice who do the drafting and give legal advice to the Crown,'has'been poor.
We all know that the hon. member has tremendous ability and mentality to be able to see through a lot of this bad advice, and I am sure we will all remember this in future if and when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) gets up on a major point and indicates that he got advice from the law officers of the Crown regarding a certain way to proceed. It puts the thing in proper perspective and probably indicates that, on a number of occasions in the past when hon. gentlemen in government have risen to endorse their position by resting upon the sanctity of the law officers of the Crown, they have been given bad advice and have accepted it. So far as the operation of government is concerned, this is probably a bad thing. However, I do not want to go too far in that direction, except to say that it was interesting to hear some hon. member opposite finally admit in this House that bad advice is sometimes given, and perhaps has been given in the case of this particular bill.
I suppose we cannot very well, and should not, approach any bill relating to the criminal law of the country by looking at the criminal law alone to see what it is that the government proposes to change, to add or to take away. We have at the same time to look at the effect that the law has on individuals who appear before the courts charged with some offence against the law, and see what might be the outcome for the individual. In other words, not only should we be considering the rights of individuals and property offended against; we must also look at the possibility of rehabilitation, so-called, of the individual who offends against the law. There is a companion attitude that we have to take in this connection. This has been reflected in the comments of many hon. members who have wondered about the effectiveness of the law as it is applied to individuals who offend the law, and as to whether or not there will be remedial or preventative steps taken, so far as that same individual or some other individual is concerned, to prevent infractions of the law in the future.
I do not say this from having made a study of it, not being involved in the legal profession in any way, but it appears that the Criminal Code is concerned almost
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 exclusively with offences against people and property, whether they be ones of individual injury, such as might be the case in an assault, or ones of theft, in the case of break and entry or something of that sort. That is about all that is of concern to the Criminal Code itself. There is a companion part which would seem to be based on the theory of deterrence. In other words, we seek to create an offence and bring some punishment to bear upon anyone who is convicted of committing that offence, the theory being that if the punishment is severe enough it will deter that person from committing that or similar offences in the future, or if it becomes public knowledge that the punishment is severe there will be a spin-off effect deterring other people from committing an offence against the law. In other words, if we make the punishment severe enough this will stop crime. I do not think that is true to the extent we seem to think it is.
It has been stated on many occasions, and I think this is an over-simplification, that we have an 80 per cent recidivism rate in our federal penal institutions. In other words, as I understand it, 80 per cent of the people who are in federal prisons today have been in jail before at some time during their lives, some once, some innumerable times, some in provincial jails and others only in federal institutions. If the theory of deterrence, upon which the criminal law in part is based, were fully effective, then presumably in theory a person might commit only one offence and then be deterred by the severity of the punishment from committing any further offences, and others, knowing what punishment is likely to be handed out, would not commit an offence in the first place. That is pretty false reasoning and should not have, to the extent it does, any place in the development of criminal law. We should not try to develop criminal offences, a criminal code and criminal law with that concept in mind. We should have some other type of concept in mind, namely what can we do to assist the individual who offends against the law in order that he will not repeat his actions?
What can we do to establish social concepts or an attitude about offences against persons and property so that those who have not committed any offence will not do so because they consciously desire not to rather than because of fear of punishment? In a number of instances, the side notes in the bill use the word "punishment" to indicate what will be visited upon an individual if he is convicted of theft, or whatever the offence may be. Reference is made to the terms of punishment and injury to the individual who has injured somebody else. It reflects the concept of retribution and revenge, which is different from the question of deterrence, although that is wrapped up with it.
I think probably we still have a carryover within our general attitude about these matters which reflects a bit of the past and carries with it a concept of punishment, which history has shown to be not acceptable. We still say to ourselves that even though we do not have any vengeful feelings, we intend to punish somebody or wreak vengeance upon him for something he has done to somebody else. In the process of doing this, we hope to deter that person and others from comitting offences in the future.
25104-53!

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Apropos of that, I should like to make a comment about the law relating to murder. For almost five years now we have had a law which provides that if a person is convicted of murdering a police officer or a penitentiary guard, I think those are the two classes, that is capital murder and the person convicted of committing such an offence will be hanged. In all other cases, the individual will not be hanged. I have expressed my views as to whether or not that type of penalty is a deterrent to a person committing that offence, and hope to have the opportunity to do so again when this subject comes up again for discussion. To the extent that people feel the threat of hanging is a deterrent to individuals to commit murder of a police officer or a prison guard, the whole concept is being negated by the government itself. If parliament has said that in these cases where someone has murdered a police officer or a penitentiary guard that person shall be hanged, I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or anybody else has the right to thumb his nose at the law of the land as expressed by parliament. The government should not say it does not care what parliament has said or what the law is because the government is supreme.
I do not know how many cases there have been in the past few years, and four or five come to mind quickly, where a police officer has been murdered and an individual convicted, the sentence imposed by the court but set aside primarily because of the attitude of the Prime Minister. To the extent that you accept the idea that capital punishment is a deterrent, this action on the part of the government entices people to commit murder of police officers and penitentiary guards. If the deterrent concept has any value whatsoever, the government has removed that value because those who are involved in circumstances, for whatever reason, leading to the murder of a policeman or penitentiary guard do not think in terms of automatically being hanged since the government continues to commute their sentences. The deterrent to that extent is removed. I do not think it should be considered in the first place because I do not buy the idea, but so long as it is in existence it should be respected. I hope the minister is not shaking his head in disagreement with the force of what I have said. When such a person as the Prime Minister brings the law of the land into disrepute by ignoring and thumbing his nose at it, he entices others to do the same thing.
The criminal law also rests on the concept of establishing the punishment to fit the crime rather than taking into account the individual who may be charged with the commission of an offence. This situation is changing. The courts, in some instances, are becoming more enlightened and concerned about the individual and less concerned about making the punishment fit the crime. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) referred in general to the case of a woman reaching the age of menopause, being emotionally disturbed by that process and engaging in shoplifting. He suggests this should not be considered an offence, in the normal sense of the word, against the criminal law.
As I understood him, he said that in many cases the Crown prosecutor will simply ask the court clerk to enter a stay of proceedings, in other words not proceed further

with the case, because there is a recognition of the possibility of an individual technically committing an offence of theft or whatever the charge for shoplifting is. This situation is changing. A different sort of attitude is developing. We have the opinions of psychiatrists, for what they may be worth, and quite frankly I do not think much of them in many of these cases; but in many respects these opinions are being heeded by the courts. However, we still have the general problem of fitting the punishment to the crime. The operation of the Parole Board is supposed to alleviate the force of the law as it is vented upon someone who has committed an offence. In theory, the Parole Board is supposed to look at these individuals who are in jail and say they do not have to serve their time in jail but can part of it outside. This shows a concept of concern for the individual.
I quite frankly think that the Parole Board, while it operates in this area of lessening the impact of the punishment in terms of time spent in jail, none the less is a highly conservative structure. It may be highly conservative because of the nature of the Parole Act which set up the board, but none the less it is conservative. Of course, one must be selective in this procedure and this is where the decision-making comes into it. But I advance the idea that in many instances the very best time at which to give a person a parole is on the day he is sentenced by the court, especially in cases where a person has been convicted of a crime arising out of an emotional involvement. A person may be emotionally unbalanced at the time of committing a murder because his or her spouse has been involved in some extramarital relations with someone else and has been discovered in that act. In such situations, the result is usually an offence of murder and the likelihood is that the individual involved will not again run into a similar circumstance. It is not a deliberate act or an act of a criminal nature such as a bank robbery. For a person of that type to have to spend 5, 6 or 7 years in jail, or some period of that nature, before some favourable consideration may be given to him by the Parole Board is really stretching the point. To the extent that we want to buy the idea of balancing out the punishment concept by the use of the Parole Board, I think the Parole Board could operate in this area and be a little more generous in its consideration of these cases.
Another matter with which I think we must concern ourselves arises when we come to the matter of the punishment fitting the crime versus the punishment so-called-and I place that in quotation marks-fitting the individual. This comes into focus when we talk about the disparity in sentencing. We know of instances where a person who commits an offence in one jurisdiction may receive a pretty severe sentence from one judge or one court, either because that judge has an apoplectic view about that type of crime or a certain concept of punishment and deterrence, or because of local situations which might exist which may influence the court or judge either consciously or unconsciously. On the other hand, a person in similar circumstances in another part of the country may commit an identical offence and receive either a suspended or very light sentence, or a stay of proceedings, or whatever result the court or Crown may wish to secure.
Inasmuch as the Parliament of Canada is reviewing the criminal law for all of Canada, I do not think we should
May 1, 1972

permit such wide disparities to exist in various parts of the country that one person may receive a ten-year sentence for the theft of $201, while another person may receive a one-year sentence for the theft of $50, $60, $70 or $100 in some other part of the land. Surely, there ought to be an attempt to bring sentencing into some balance, so that all persons have a relatively equal chance to obtain the same consideration in a court no matter in what part of the country they may happen to be. I do not know whether or not this can be accomplished by the process of drawing people into the courts who are in the probationary field or people who may want to help others over a rough period. We do not know whether or not that sort of approach would work. I do not believe we have had sufficient experience in Canada to say it would, but certainly it would be far better to try a procedure of that sort than to allow the sentencing procedure to operate as it has in the past.
If I may, I should also like to mention the question of writs of assistance which are not really a part of the criminal law as such. There is no provision for them within the Criminal Code. However, they are, in effect, search warrants given to peace officers. Two, three or four laws of parliament such as the Narcotic Control Act, the Customs and Excise Act and the Food and Drug Act provide for writs of assistance to peace officers. Writs of assistance are probably not well known outside this House or outside of people who have been on the receiving end of them. Basically they give a police officer the right to enter premises, to break in doors, to search premises and arrest people at any time of the night or day. In other words, a writ of assistance is a blanket sort of search warrant to break into premises, search for whatever is wanted and arrest people without having a warrant, simply on the grounds of suspicion.
Writs of assistance are considered by the Bar Association to be offensive and against the concept of the rights of individuals. I spoke with the former Minister of Justice about this matter when writs of assistance were used by police officers to invade the premises of a number of people in a very small community in northern British Columbia last year. We raised the matter on another occasion when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister when writs of assistance were used to invade the homes of thousands of people of Chinese origin in this country who saw their papers and everything of a documentary nature seized. When I spoke to the previous Minister of Justice about this, he said he would be removing it but the only thing that has been removed has been the former Minister of Justice. I would certainly think, at a time when some kind of an over-all approach to criminal law is being taken in this bill, although it is not as wide and all-encompassing as we would have liked to see it, there should be a new approach taken to writs of assistance because of the fact they offend against the rights of individuals and in many cases are misused.
The habitual criminal sections, on which I would like to comment, should be removed from the criminal law because, even though there has been a variance in the interpretation and application of the provision over the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 years, they offend against our fundamental rights in two ways: one, they impose a second sentence on a person for something for which a court has already convicted and sentenced him, and second, they impose a sentence on the individual because of the belief that in the future he may commit some criminal offence. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) said, this section was used extensively. It was used in Vancouver by Stewart McMorran, who was at that time Crown prosecutor and who saw an excellent opportunity from his point of view to lodge all drug addicts in penitentiaries in the lower mainland for the rest of their lives. Some 15 years ago or so, he took occasion to proceed against nearly every drug addict who had been convicted of three indictable offences since the age of 18, most of them for possession of narcotics, through the use of the habitual section. Dozens of them were classified as habitual criminals and lodged in jails for the rest of their natural lives.
I do not support the idea advanced by the hon. member for New Westminster that once a person has concluded the sentence for an offence for which he was convicted he should then be on parole for the rest of his life. If you apply the same reasoning to everybody who has been convicted of any offence, every such person could be on parole for the rest of his life. Presumably this would empty the jails. In any event, it still carries with it the concept of the imposition of additional punishment on an individual for something for which he has served his sentence, and also imposition of punishment into the future for an offence that he might commit. This is crystal ball gazing and is just as offensive as the provision in the bill presently before us.
There is a provision in the bill relating to the Criminal Records Act. Inasmuch as we have opened it up, I would advance another thought with respect to it, one that we advanced when the criminal records bill was before the House a few years ago. Under the act at present a person who receives a pardon under the Criminal Records Act is free from questioning by an employer as to whether or not he has been convicted of a criminal offence for which he has or has not been pardoned. This is only applicable in those employer-employee relationships that come under federal parliamentary jurisdiction. It does not apply to companies operating purely within the provincial field. So any employer who comes under provincial jurisdiction, not the federal labour code, may seek to ask any person who has been given a pardon whether in fact he has been pardoned and whether in fact he has been convicted of a criminal offence. That sort of query offends against the moral force of the Criminal Records Act. Inasmuch as we are dealing in the field of criminal law, which parliament has the right to do under the constitution, we should not hide behind the BNA Act which prohibits us from intruding into employer-employee relationships in the provincial field. If it is valid to say to companies operating under the federal jurisdiction that the state has given a person this pardon and the employers cannot inquire as to whether or not he has a pardon, we should say the same thing to all companies operating under provincial jurisdiction and give to the individual to whom the state has already given the pardon the full benefit of protection throughout his time of potential employment.

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
May I conclude by commenting, as did the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), on the law as it applies to the Indian people. We are in agreement that perhaps the law itself is not so much discriminatory as is the attitude of some courts, some sections of our society and perhaps some members of the police force as well. The Prince Albert penitentiary with which the right hon. member is familiar-at least from the outside, I do not think he has been inside the institution to visit it- contains a population 50 per cent of which is Indian. I heard some statistics the other day, related to me by an individual who said that they had been compiled by someone else, which showed that of the 20,000 people in jail in Canada today-obviously this includes provincial jails as well-60 per cent are Indian or of Indian descent. It is a shocking state of affairs when one considers that the population of Indians as related to the total in Canada is somewhere in the neighbourhood of one per cent or one and a half per cent.
Surely, there is something wrong in the attitude towards the Indian people when we see this great preponderance in terms of percentage end up in our jails. Surely, it cannot be entirely the fault of a group of people classified as Indians that a high percentage of them have greater criminal tendencies than the rest of the population. Surely, that cannot be the inference drawn from these statistics. It is certainly not my thought, and I am sure that anybody who looks at this in a reasonable way would reach the same conclusion. One must also conclude, by the same token, that there is something wrong with the system, the attitude, the administration of justice, and the imposition of punishment by the courts on Indian people who appear before them. As I stated, the Prince Albert penitentiary is half filled with people of Indian ancestry. There is a feeling among many Indian people that the law discriminates against them, and I think it has proven to be the case in some instances.
In the Cariboo area of British Columbia a few years ago, I have forgotten the precise circumstances relating to the situation, an Indian girl had been attacked by some so-called white men. I think she died as a result, although I may be mistaken. As the result of the attack that took place-and I think rape was involved and a variety of pretty heinous activities-the individuals were convicted and received an insignificant sentence, one of them a fine and a couple of years in jail or something like that. We all know that if that situation had been reversed, if it had been a couple of Indian boys who had engaged in the same activities with a white girl, there would have been one hell of a hue and cry for a hanging to take place. But it did not.
I know of an occurrence which took place in another part of British Columbia 15 years ago when a chap was with a young Indian girl. I suppose there was drinking involved, I am not sure of that, but in any event he proceeded to attack her physically. He put the boots to her, and as a result she rolled down some stairs in a rooming house; in effect, he killed her in the process of assaulting her with his boots. He got four years, Mr. Speaker. Just reverse that situation and imagine the result if that had been an Indian lad who did that to a white girl! There would not have been any four years involved. There would have been a hue and cry for a

hanging of that individual, or a long sentence at the very least, with lashes.
The Fred Quilt affair, I submit, is another case in point. These are ones I know of because they relate to my own province, but you can duplicate this situation in other provinces. Here is another case in point where there is, to be overly generous about it, a convinced attitude on the part of the Indian people in British Columbia that a crime had been committed by a member of the RCMP, and it had been whitewashed. The extremely generous would say that, but this is a situation which took place. This confirms once more that Indian people are discriminated against in their relations with the law. Just a few years ago we had a federally appointed commission on the law and the Indians. It came up with a number of opinions, views and recommendations on courses of action that should be taken. For a few years, we persistently asked what the government was going to do with respect to that report, and the answer we always got from the government benches was, "It has nothing to do with us. It is not our responsibility. Under the constitution, the administration of justice comes under the provinces." They completely wiped their hands of the whole system. They completely ignored the validity of the points made by that commission.
Is it any wonder that there is an attitude that, yes, the law discriminates against the Indians? Is it any wonder an attitude exists that, yes, the white man discriminates against the Indians, since they are on the receiving end every time they come up against the law? It is a shameful commentary if in this day and age we have to stand up in this House of Commons, and admit that such things do exist. It is a very shameful thing for people in parliament to have to admit, but it is a fact. This situation does exist and it needs correcting, as do many of the other abuses that prevail with respect to the application of criminal law against individuals who have committed offences against persons or property but who are not given the other side of the coin, namely, help from society which will rehabilitate the individual who commits the offence.
I doubt that these matters will be cleared up when the bill gets before the committee. I hope they will be cleared up, but I doubt it very much. We know that this is not the bill of the current Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). He did not conceive it. He did not develop it. It is an inheritance, a legacy from his predecessor. I do not say this unkindly, but this is the normal case with such legislation. But I do hope that he, being a person learned in the law, being a human sort of person with his feelings about people, would take to heart not only what I have said but what members of his own party and other parties have said, so that when he appears before the committee he will not simply be trying to defend the wording of the bill before us, he will not simply be trying to adjust a few words here and there to meet some insignificant objections to the bill, but rather will approach it from the point of view of trying to do something worth while for the total population.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate
May 1, 1972

because I had the unique privilege of acting as the counsel to the joint parliamentary committee which studied capital and corporate punishment and lotteries during three sessions of the parliament in 1954, 1955 and 1956. It is a great pleasure for me also to note the presence in the House this afternoon of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who made such a notable contribution to the work of that committee. I am sure the hon. member must look back over his long public career, at the many things he has done, and know that there is a reward for perseverance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Duncan Gordon Blair: That report, which was submitted in 1956, recommended that corporal punishment be removed from the Criminal Code as a punishment given by the courts, and in this year of grace, 1972, this is being done. The hon. member for Vancouver East will be remembered by all who followed the work of that committee as one who made a tremendous contribution, based upon his long and earnest study of penal reform. I would like to think that we in this House might call this the Winch bill because it owes so much to the contribution he made to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Duncan Gordon Blair: There are not many people left in parliament who participated in the long deliberations of that committee. In the other place, the Hon. Senator Hayden and the Hon. Senator Fergusson are still active.
I believe that the committee approached its work in a sceptical way, a scepticism I might say that was shared by its counsel. It was only after three years of careful and painstaking investigation and study that the committee reached its conclusions, and made the major recommendation that corporal punishment be abolished as a judicial sentence. I would like to comment on this report in greater detail, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I might be permitted to call It five o'clock now.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont-Consumer Affairs-Larger increase in food costs in Prince Edward Island-Reference to Prices and Incomes Commission; the hon. member for Skeena- Indian Affairs-Request for tabling of Stanbury-Fields report; the hon. member for Central Nova-Transport- Updating of year of manufacture of foreign automobiles-Action to end practice.
It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on
Suggested Centre for World Problems Study
today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider, in furtherance of the objectives of the United Nations, the establishment and operation in Canada of a world centre to program and administer co-operation between and co-ordination of the efforts of experts and institutions in their studies of compelling world issues respecting (a) international relations and peace (e.g. problems of peace-keeping, 'farms control and disarmament, human rights and intercultural communications) (b) global problems of development (e.g. the use of natural resources, international trade and problems of developing economies, transfers of science and technology, population problems and concerns of youth) (c) the environment and, in particular, the impact of science and technology on the environment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion is self-explanatory and I do not plan to use all the time allotted to me because I would like to hear the views of other hon. members of this House. I also hope that there might be unanimous consent to dispose of this motion, either by referring it to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence or by passing it.
The concept of a world university does not originate with me but has been suggested on a number of occasions by the largest volunteer organization in this country, the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation. This is a very important association concerned with the greatest activity that takes place in this country, apart from government, the business of education. Since 1965, the Canadian Home and School Association, through a special committee, has given a great deal of attention to the concept of an educational institution which would help to alleviate much of the misunderstanding and dissension that creates at times almost impossible barriers against the solution of international problems. I can recall correspondence with the association as far back as 1967 to the effect that it would be a most appropriate gesture in that centennial year if we could establish a world university so that our celebrations would not merely be selfindulgent but would make a contribution to the larger constituency and larger neighbourhood of the world itself.
I think it is fair to say that in 1967 and shortly afterwards, the possibility of using the Expo site for a world university was discussed. It is a little ironical that the matter was never given serious consideration, and that in recent years the city of Toronto has indicated a strong interest in establishing a world university there. Perhaps this just illustrates the continuing conflict and competition between Toronto and Montreal; the compromise might be to locate such a university in Prince Edward

May 1, 1972
Suggested Centre for World Problems Study Island, but I shall refrain from that kind of parochial comment.
The basic concept is well worth consideration because there are any number of initiatives that a country like Canada should take in the interests of international cooperation. We have taken some excellent initiatives in the past, and undoubtedly one of the most important has been the recognition of Mainland China and the impact of that decision at the United Nations and in the United States of America. There are others of which we have been most neglectful, such as our recent peacekeeping attempt and humanitarian attempts with respect to the civil war in Nigeria and our approach on questions related to development in the third world. While we have made many excellent speeches on this second matter, there has been little evidence that we are prepared to take this kind of development seriously.
One thing is clear: we have to gear our response to the challenge of international co-operation to the resources we have available, both material and intellectual. It is naive to suggest that we can only respond to the call for international co-operation on a plane of basic self-interest because the whole question of self-interest can be defined in many ways. It is my view that Canadians have had and continue to have very deep interest in events that transpire beyond our borders. Only last night, when observing the National News I was intrigued to note that our public broadcasting system featured six or eight news items from other parts of the world before turning its attention to domestic activities. This means that there is a very real interest, and a sense of responsibility in this country, about what is happening abroad. It is not necessary to list those who have contributed time and talent to a host of international agencies. We do this not only from a humanitarian concern but because we realize that we do not live in some kind of isolated existence. I think it was Barbara Ward or Buckminster Fuller who said that we are really together in this fragile spaceship, earth, and that what happens halfway around the globe will have a challenging effect on our country.
The purpose of this motion is to establish that we believe that international co-operation is not some kind of abstract goal, but that it is a very real tool toward the resolution of real problems facing the international community. We are saying through this motion that Canada wants to go on record as offering a mechanism for the international study and resolution of problems that affect all citizens of the world. It is really not appropriate for national communities or countries of the world to develop totally independent approaches to international problems and then hope for some miraculous capacity for independent solutions to blend into one common resolution of the problem.
I think we have already seen how this kind of isolated approach to complex international issues makes it difficult to find some kind of consensus. If the problem is a common one, as is pollution, for the entire developed world, then common priorities and critical procedures must be developed. Within a month or two the first world conference on the environment will be held in Stockholm; but one conference in a fairly formal setting with papers being presented will not move us much closer to the

problems that are rapidly developing in the environmental field unless we have a continuing framework within which these issues can be faced and resolved or positions put forward whereby the responsible agencies of government can give them full consideration. I believe the common priorities and critical procedures must be developed. Common information must be available and common resources must be mustered in the battle. Narrow national solutions will remain just that, narrow and limited in scope and effectiveness. I think it is clear that narrow solutions are no longer acceptable or even feasible from a political or economic or even environmental point of view. We have to develop new procedures and new opportunities for the resolution of these problems.
As recently as a few days ago, Mr. John E. Ricketts who has been giving leadership to the international committee of the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation, upon being notified of the motion placed on the order paper, sent the following letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp):
Knowing that this federation has been actively promoting the idea of a world university, preferably but not necessarily in Canada, since 1965-
He goes on to commend the motion that I have proposed, and then continues:
In view of the communications we have exchanged with your department in recent years, you will know that this federation warmly supports the motion, and hopes that the government will act on it.
U Thant's 1969 suggestion for a United Nations international university comes before the General Assembly for the third time- and probably for the decisive vote-this fall. The aim of UN U would be to work with existing universities in all countries to unite the world's academic resources in co-operative search, in a nonpolitical setting, for solutions to world problems.
All UN member nations, and the university community at large, were invited to express views on the idea. Our last information was that most of the emerging nations have indicated strong approval, but that Japan is the only advanced industrial nation to have done so.
The threats to world existence-from pollution, misuse of natural resources, weapons of mass destruction-have never been more obvious. This Federation again urges the Government to give full support to the proposed United Nations University.
I think it is clear from Mr. Ricketts' latest letter that this will be a crucial and deciding vote later this year. Of course, I am speaking of the vote concerning the matter of the United Nations University. It is sad, even tragic, that the government has not yet indicated its position on the proposal that has been before the United Nations for the past three years. Although United Nations officials to whom we have talked would welcome enthusiastically the support by our country for this concept, that does not mean that we must necessarily become involved in the matter of the location of that United Nations University.
Of course, my motion expresses the hope that Canada may provide the site. I am in favour of that possibility not only because I am Canadian, and in that sense I may be said to express a parochial point of view, but, as well, for another reason. Having visited people in other countries and travelled extensively, I have found people receptive to the idea that Canada can play the role of host country in such an important experiment. The experiment is impor-
May 1, 1972

tant in so many ways, Mr. Speaker. I am thinking of the number of areas which have been touched on by those who have considered this question. It is important, surely, because it involves the question of arms proliferation and arms control. Today, the disarmament conference in Geneva is one where nations work diligently to bring about arms reduction. But, Mr. Speaker, what of an international disarmament strategy? What is our position there? What of a program that goes further than disarming the present arsenals and looks to the prevention of the buildup of further arsenals. These are the types of wide ranging and creative studies that a centre of this nature could pursue with a scholarly and impartial tone.
In addition to examining problems immediately relating to disarmament, which may be more political than we suspect, the university should also look at long term problems relating to disarmament. The experiment is also important in that it would examine questions of the environment that I referred to a moment ago. We could thereby prepare and formulate an international strategy for the solution or resolution of certain aspects of the international pollution problem. In addition, there is a series of related subject matters involving economics which needs to be considered in that context. Surely, these could be considered, since they involve such matters as the utilization of natural resources.
I suggest, also, that we could thereby consider the whole problem of international trade stability. The question of international trade stability has been of paramount importance to Canadians and their trading partners. We know only too well from our experience of the last eight months just how important that stability is. These problems become pretty significant in a crisis when we must deal with them on a short term basis and provide solutions that do little except meet in part the present, basic problem.
It is ironic that at present a United Nations conference on trade and development is being held in Santiago, Chile. We have sent a delegation to Chile; its mandate is not clear. There has been almost no discussion in this country of what we are to do to meet our responsibility to 80 per cent of the world's population which is struggling to find a role for itself. Increasingly, we have imported less from developing countries and more from developed countries. We seem to be moving away from a position that might offer real trading possibilities for developing countries of the world. Surely, the time has come for us to realize that we need more than short term, stopgap answers. We must plan better and deal with these questions more adequately. In my opinion, these studies could best be undertaken in a world university.
Even at the present we are considering seriously, or ought to be considering, what changes should be made in the charter of the United Nations, in order to make that charter more effective. There has been little discussion in this country about a review of the charter. All the same, that charter review is urgently needed.
When we talk about the world university, we are not talking about a typical, degree-granting institution. We are thinking more of a centre, or a series of centres, in which problems of vital importance for the existence and survival of mankind can be examined. It would not be, as U
Suggested Centre for World Problems Study Thant suggested, a university in the conventional sense. It would involve a flexible system enabling better co-operation among countries and the better integration of ideas and information. We need, as Mr. Ricketts suggested, a vehicle that will unite the world's academic resources; a vehicle which will complement our own work in this field. Canada's strategic and international position, which in some ways, may be said to be somewhat acute, makes the undertaking of this initiative, in my view, fundamentally important.
Let us examine the reasons as to why this is so. Considering the growing use of resources without plan or rationale throughout the world, Canada's own wealthy position in the world with regard to its own resources may become a source of real difficulty and hostility within the international community. I am thinking not only in terms of fuel resources, and minerals, but in terms of that resource which is perhaps most important to us all, water. We will need to maintain the stewardship of that water in some international context; otherwise, we may find ourselves in great jeopardy. Also, bearing in mind the continuing reliance of Canada on international trade, it is clear that every unresolved problem could be the source of some major trade crisis in future for this country. Canada's own commitment to arms control makes our involvement in the research and resolution of arms control strategies fundamental.
It is even important for us to concern ourselves with an international youth policy. I submit that since our population is basically youthful, our own involvement in international programs concerning youth will be a worth-while and necessary initiative.
So, in essence, Mr. Speaker, the establishment of this centre, of this world university, would be a major step in the resolution of many of our own fundamental problems.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for introducing the notice of motion before the House and for giving the House an opportunity to debate this most important matter. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to forget the horrors of war when they are not immediately involved in or threatened by war. However, if we are to do something about war and maintain peace, we must act before we are on the threshold of conflict.
In his notice of motion the hon. member suggests that, to further United Nations' objectives, we should establish in Canada a world centre to administer and co-ordinate studies in three area, namely, (a) international relations and peace; (b) global problems of development; and, (c) the environment. Mr. Speaker, I did not interpret this notice of motion as recommending a world university, as suggested by the hon. member who introduced this notice of motion. According to my interpretation, the notice of motion recommends the establishment of an international research centre for peace, development, and the environment, and I will discuss it in that sense.
Since the notice of motion is divided into three sections, I will discuss it accordingly. May I say, first, that I fully support the proposal in part (a) of the motion. It is a sad fact that, in this country and throughout the world, we
1784

May 1, 1972
Suggested Centre for World Problems Study spend millions, even billions, of dollars on military research, and almost nothing on research related to peace. In Canada there is the Canadian Peace Research Institute, which attempts to study these questions; but that is a private body with a small budget and it receives very little government support. The Canadian Peace Research Institute was established in 1960, and was the first peace research institute established in the world. Actually, it was the first body to use the term, "peace research". At present, the Canadian Peace Research Institute has eight full-time employees in its office at Dundas, Ontario, and six in its Oakville office. Of these people, only eight are full-time researchers. The rest are office staff.
The chairman of the Canadian Peace Research Institute is Norman Alcock. He has been the main force behind it since its inception, although Alan and Hannah Newcombe have also been very prominent in its operations and have done a lot in the peace research area. At the present time, the only government help the Canadian Peace Research Institute receives is a grant from the Canada Council and a small grant from UNESCO. These are the only public grants it receives.
Some of the matters being studied by the Canadian Peace Research Institute are of the type I would like to see on a much broader basis by a government supported peace research institute, as seems to be suggested in part (a) of the hon. member's motion. Some of the projects that have been studied by the Canadian Peace Research Institute are studies on UN voting patterns and voting blocs, the prediction of war, attitudes on war-peace questions, the economic consequences of disarmament, peaceful nuclear explosions and disarmament, peace-keeping operations, and militarism, a survey on world trends. There are many others, but these are some of the studies being made by the institute in an attempt to understand the causes of conflict and the possible solutions to them.
There are other peace research institutes in the world, but they are very few. Some are privately financed and some are publicly financed. The most prominent one is in Sweden which, by the way, came about as a result of the influence of the privately sponsored Canadian institute. The Canadian institute came first. It prompted the establishment of the Swedish institute which is called the Swedish International Peace Research Institute. The government of Sweden gives the institute a grant of $1 million per year. The institute reports directly to parliament, but is not under the control of the government. It is free to study any matter it wishes relating to peace and war.
There is also an institute in Norway which is called the International Peace Research Institute of Oslo. This institute also receives government support, but not to the same extent as the one in Sweden. In Denmark, there is the Centre for Conflict Resolution which is also government supported. In West Germany, in the last fiscal year, the government provided $750,000 for peace research in universities.
In Holland there is the National Institute for study of Peace Questions. This institute receives a grant of $1 million per year for the government. The government of Holland also provides grants for peace research which

takes place in universities. There are other institutes of lesser importance.
The United States, which in many respects is one of the most powerful countries in the world, has no publicly financed peace research institute, although some research is going on in the universities. There is some research in the universities of Japan. On the whole, there is very little peace research being carried out in the world. It is interesting to note that with the commencement of the new university term next September, there will be a PhD course in peace research at Carleton University under the direction of John Sigler. This course should provide some interesting research and material, but it will be on a very small basis.
Let us compare this weak performance, not only in Canada but in the whole world, with research on military and related matters. In Canada, the government has provided in the estimates for 1972-73 a budget of $46 million under the title of defence research. There is another $5 million allocated for emergency measures. It seems strange that we provide $5 million for emergency measures, but hardly anything for peace research which might prevent those being used. If we look at the grants the Department of National Defence provides to private associations in Canada, we see they provide grants of $665,000. For such things as military studies at Canadian universities, they provide $280,000 and $70,000 in grants to rifle associations. There are grants to other types of cadet leagues and so on.
There may be real value in this type of funding by the federal government, but if we can allocate that much money to defence and military research, why can we not do a little more for peace research? According to the estimates, the Department of External Affairs gives major grants to three groups in Canada; $50,000 to the Canadian Institute of International Affairs; $27,000 to the UN Association in Canada and $2,500 to the Atlantic Council of Canada. These are good things, Mr. Speaker, but why can the government not give more money to a group such as the Canadian Peace Research Institute or for the establishment of a government peace research institute in Canada? The record of this government with regard to external aid is much better. I will discuss that later.
The government has already set up the Canadian International Development Research Centre which deals with the points in part (b) of the hon. member's motion. The amount of money allocated for that centre this year is $8 million. I will not deal with what is put forward in the hon. member's motion in that regard, because I think we already have that. If the governments of the world are sincere in their statements that their first priority is peace and their armies are only a means of security if aggression is committed, then surely they should spend a great deal more money on peace research and preventive measures. Governments should put their money where their talk is. If I were not in the House of Commons, I could put that much stronger.
At the present time, the behaviour of world governments is something like that of a man who spends a lot of money on fire insurance, but very little to prevent fires or like governments that spend a lot on medical treatment,
May 1, 1972

but little on preventative medicine. If we are sincerely concerned about peace in the world, we should know much more about the causes of war and the best means to reduce and eliminate these causes. Those persons who accept wars and world wars as inevitable and, consequently, state we can do nothing about them, are without imagination, foresight or courage. If their attitudes were to prevail, we would never conquer any pestilence, plague or evil. Fortunately, the spirit of man continually pushes forward and great cures and discoveries have been made.
One of the great disappointments of history is that while man has made great leaps forward in science, technology and medicine, there has not been much progress in human relationships, social dynamics, the reduction of violence and the reduction of war. Since 1945, the end of World War II, there have been 113 wars in the world, mostly in the third world. I can document those 113 wars if hon. members want me to do so.
I should like to refer to a document on this point. I have in my hand one of the bulletins put out by the Peace Research Institute which points out that in the 27 years since 1945 there have been 113 conflicts in the world. About half of these were of significant size, duration and intensity, there was slightly more than one every five months and any one of them was capable of provoking a holocaust. Some of these conflicts have been quite large. The tonnage of bombs dropped in the Korean war exceeded the tonnage dropped by all the allies in the Pacific theatre of World War II, and in Viet Nam the tonnage of bombs dropped has been greater than in all theatres of World War II. In addition, the Viet Nam war has lasted considerably longer than either World War I or World War II.
It is interesting to note that weapons deliveries to third world countries in recent years grew twice as fast as the gross national product of those countries. Many of us were shocked when we saw the budget figures for India and Pakistan at the time of the recent war which took place between them. These figures showed that in both countries the amount of money spent on defence and military equipment was more than 50 per cent of the budget.
I should also like to refer to another point made in this research extract. It is pointed out that the world now has a nuclear non-proliferation treaty which seeks to confine nuclear weapons to the big five nations. However, it points out that since 1945 all the killing in the wars I have referred to has been done by conventional weapons. In spite of this, the proliferation of conventional weapons, their spread from the few big countries which manufacture most of them to the many small countries who fight most of the wars, has continued unchecked and almost unnoticed.
Since the end of the war, the number of independent nations in the world has gone from 55 to 140. Only 13 of these manufacture armaments in any variety or quantity, yet 95 per cent of the conflicts since 1945 have been in the poorer countries. If the arms trade had not existed, those wars would either not have occurred or would have been fought with primitive weapons and therefore with much less destructiveness. My purpose in putting forward these
Suggested Centre for World Problems Study facts is to make this point as strongly as I can: if we are sincere in saying that we want to reduce world conflict, we should get off our butts and do something about it. Let us dedicate at least as much of our money to peace as we do to war.
What I have said so far related mainly to the first part of the hon. member's motion which suggests that we set up a world centre to co-ordinate and administer studies with respect to international relations and peace, and especially the problems of peace keeping, arms control and disarmament, human rights, and so on. With regard to part (b) of the motion, as I stated earlier the government has already taken action in this regard and has set up the International Development Research Centre. The budget for the centre provided by the government this year is $8 million. In addition to that, this year the government's budget for CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, is $483 million. I think that is significant. The government is doing a very good job regarding international development and I think international development has a lot to do with the reduction of world tension. However, that alone is not enough.
With respect to part (c) of the motion which deals with environmental problems, similarly I think the government has made considerable progress. It has set up the Department of the Environment. It has a research section and many studies are being conducted by the department. In addition, the Canadian government is taking a leadership role at the Stockholm conference. It is possible that the Stockholm conference will recommend that a more permanent structure be set up for dealing with world environment problems, and if that is the case I fully support such a proposal.
I do not think the government can be criticized in regard to sections (b) and (c) of the motion since it has made considerable effort in these areas. With regard to part (a), peace research, if we are serious and are not to be hypocritical about this, I think we must spend a lot more money in this area.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, first I want to indicate my support for the motion put forward today by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Basically and essentially it says that we should support the establishment of a world university. Such a proposal is being considered by the United Nations. As the hon. member for Egmont said, to date Canada has not taken a position on the matter. This fact concerns me. If we do take a position and support it in principle, it does not mean necessarily that we will suddenly establish a university in Canada and then have to outline the details and technicalities of such a university. Rather, it is a question of giving support in principle. Apparently the only industrialized country that has indicated its support for the idea is Japan. Many other countries in the developing world support the idea as one in which they are interested.
This seems to me the type of motion that should receive the support of all parties in the House. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has indicated his support, and I hope we will not see this resolution talked out as so many of them are. It is for this reason that I do not intend to speak at length and shall make only a few
25104-54J

May 1, 1972
Suggested Centre for World Problems Study points. I appeal to the government to allow us, before the hour is up, to pass the motion and I ask that the government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), take a definite stand on the question and support it in principle.
The hon. member for Egmont outlined a number of matters that a world university would have to deal with, such as international relations, peace keeping, nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation of arms, and so on. Then he talked about the problem of development in the third world. We are also concerned about environmental problems and problems of science and technology. We in Canada have a great deal at stake in this regard. We must first of all realize that we are a global village, that what happens on the other side of the world has a great impact upon us in Canada. We must interest ourselves in the other peoples of the world and create a better understanding of their feelings, wishes and aspirations. We cannot go back to the old days when each country was isolated from others, formed its own policies and simply hoped for the best.
In light of today's world, international politics and the use of weaponry, national boundaries no longer exist. Neither do they exist in the field of pollution, science and technology. We must accept the fact that the institutions of man are lagging far behind. This is one of the many reasons that so many people in the world feel upset and restless at the type of institutions which man creates.
Another point I must make is that in debates such as this we always hear wonderful speeches containing platitudes about people and what they want do do, but action never seems to be taken. Hon. members on all sides suggest solutions for understanding one another better, yet out of the other side of their mouth they continue talking about the same old policies. For example, in the United States the President is talking of international co-operation, about how the big powers must begin to understand one another. At the same time, he is ordering bombing attacks on North Viet Nam. This type of hypocrisy in the world must cease. Hopefully, a world university would make a contribution toward ending this kind of hypocritical attitude on the part of some of the big powers.
War is big business. We spend billions of dollars every year on scientific research and development of armaments. Countries on each side of the world are trying to develop more sophisticated ways of killing, maiming and injuring others; they are developing more sophisticated napalm bombs to drop on women and children in various parts of the world. There is this tremendous emphasis in our society, yet we do very little to foster peace or international development.
We in Canada could do a great deal in that direction if we really wanted to. We have the defence production agreement with the United States. Certain products under that agreement go the United States military complex and find their way into Viet Nam. In that way our country is indirectly involved in the war in Viet Nam. We should not be a party to such things; we should be spending the money going into that agreement on peace research,

research into international pollution and environmental problems, promoting world trade, and so on.
We in Canada belong to NORAD. We spend a great deal of money every year on NORAD, but where does it get us? Even some military experts in the United States say NORAD is obsolete and nothing but a waste of money. Why do we not terminate that arrangement and immediately divert the money into projects such as a world university and international development?
We participate in NATO. I question the usefulness of NATO. I say Canada should get out of NATO and concentrate more on international organizations such as the United Nations. I want to make it very clear that this is the direction in which I want Canada to go. Unless we do some of these things, all the speeches we make in this chamber are useless. We talk like nice guys but continue putting money into weaponry to continue the bombing of people in Viet Nam. Unless Canada takes action and gets out of NORAD and NATO by terminating the defence sharing agreements, all our words will be meaningless.
We also carry out research at Suffield, Alberta, in chemical and biological warfare. What is the purpose of this but to develop more sophisticated ways of killing people? This type of research should be terminated. If we really want to put our muscle where our words and our mouths are, we should be doing the things I have mentioned. I know that to many members of the House this may sound like a radical and irresponsible way to go. I do not think it is. I think Canada as a middle power must take a stand such as this. We are a respected nation throughout the world and could provide a great deal more leadership than we are now.
We had an example of our leadership in the recognition of the People's Republic of China. I think we made a contribution there. But that is only a small step in the direction of things we could be doing if Canada became more aggressive and independent in foreign affairs policy, doing something real for the international community.
There are other matters I could mention about a world university and why we should move in that direction. We in Canada, besides considering world problems have a number of parochial matters at stake. Canada has resources that we and other countries want and may need. What will our long-term policy be respecting non-renewable resources? These are questions that could be studied at a world university.
The resource of water was mentioned earlier in this debate. We must consider the question of international trade now that Great Britain and three other countries are joining the European Common Market. We now have Europe, the United States, the eastern and Japanese blocs. Where does Canada fit into this type of trade complex? And what is our future? These are a few of the parochial questions in which Canada is tremendously interested and which could be studied by a world university. For these reasons I support the motion before us.
In a few words I should like to caution some hon. members about one or two situations that may develop if we are not careful. We have a number of institutions around the world studying topics such as I have men-
May 1, 1972

tioned, including peace keeping, disarmament, etc. The results of many of these studies have had little impact upon the powers that be; they seem to be very aloof. If we do establish a world university we will have to make it our purpose that such a world centre has real impact on the powers that be: it must have relevance to the powers that be, and links with the decision-making people in world society. Such a university should have relevance to and impact upon the peoples of all countries of the world.
Too often under our foreign aid and international development programs we do not consult the people in the developing countries. We consult only the leaders of these people and we make decisions according to the benefits that may accrue to some multinational corporation or to the departments of external affairs and trade and commerce. We tend to ignore the little guy of the third world. It is this person whom we must not ignore; it is this person whom we must consult and help.
With that in mind, I certainly support this motion and our party supports it. This is a worth-while project to put our money into. I appeal to the cabinet and government backbenchers not to talk it out, but to help us on this side, and members such as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, pressure our Secretary of State for External Affairs into taking a decisive stand for once, putting the muscle of Canada into an approach that is worth while and which, I am quite sure, will count in a real way on the world scene.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, this motion by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), so far as I am able to understand it, seems to be directed toward the establishment of a centre which would draw together but duplicate the work being done in committees and institutions of the UN and other international bodies. Each of the three great issues-we do not deny for one moment that they are great issues-is the subject of continual examination. It would seem by his motion that the hon. member wants to have all these activities come together into one centre to be established in Canada.
While the co-ordination and co-operation among the many bodies now existing could undoubtedly be improved so that the ultimate results of their studies and deliberations would be more fruitful, I suggest that yet another body is not necessarily the way to do this. It would result in more duplication of the work of others already in the field, and for a long time would not even do that very well.
The hon. member's motion specifies three great issues which are worthy of further research and co-ordination. However, it seems to me that basically the motion is calling for research into what can provide the political, economic and social elements of the peace which the vast majority of the world's people desire. This basic question, probably the greatest, is also the subject of study and research in many countries, Canada included. The UN General Assembly recognized the need for co-ordination in this field in December, 1971, when it passed, by a large majority, resolution 2817. That resolution notes the work done in the field of peace research by national and international institutions, by the UN educational, scientific and
Suggested Centre for World Problems Study
cultural organization and the UN institute for training and research.
The United Nation's Secretary General is instructed by the resolution to prepare biennially, and he has already begun to do so, an informative report on scientific works produced by national, international, governmental and non-governmental, public and private institutions in the field of peace research. Therefore, with the co-operation of Canada, since our delegation co-sponsored this resolution, some of the very basic work which the hon. member would have his world centre undertake has already commenced at our existing world centre, the United Nations. I suggest our efforts should concentrate on making more effective the machinery we have already, machinery into which is built an immense amount of experience and expertise, rather than start all over again.
The fact that these three great global issues still defy solution is due not to lack of knowledge and the exchange of information but, rather, to the competing policies and philosophies of the world's states. A Canadian government-financed research centre, however well organized and staffed could-


An hon. Member:: Author?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I think I can say it without reading it for your benefit. Such a centre could not very well eliminate all this rivalry. The rival powers could still preclude the possibility of translating the studies of the centre into effective action. It has been said that the United Nations is an accurate reflection of an imperfect world. It is that imperfect world which hinders the furtherance of the objectives of the United Nations. That imperfect world, not the lack of studies and co-ordination, also delays significant action to alleviate the hon. member's three issues of international relations and peace, global problems of development and the impact of science and technology on the environment.
Few subjects can have come under such a degree of interdisciplinary and international scrutiny and discussion as disarmament and arms control. Individually and collectively, scientists, scholars, statesmen and soldiers have grappled with the problem of reducing armaments while maintaining international security. The problem has been one of main concern at the United Nations and in various special negotiating bodies, in particular the disarmament conference in Geneva in which Canada participates. While no one can deny that these discussions include their share of empty verbiage, they also stimulate ideas, assessments and proposals based on substantial international thought and research.
Last year, for instance, the United Nations produced a major report on the economic and social consequences of the arms race. This report was prepared by a group of scientists and scholars from western, Soviet and non-aligned countries, including a distinguished Canadian professor. A Canadian was also a member of a similar team which drew up a United Nations' report on chemical and biological warfare in 1969.
A glance through the annual report of the disarmament conference in Geneva shows that this body's work, though

May 1, 1972
Suggested Centre for World Problems Study
essentially political, also benefits from solid technical study and analysis. Some of the topics dealt with in recent background working papers include many things, such as employment of ocean-bottom seismographs to improve present detection capability for seismic events and possibly to increase the capability of identifying explosions from natural events as well, aspects of the definition of toxins and a method to determine, in numerical terms, the usefulness of particular seismic discriminations to the political decision problems posed by nuclear test ban control with or without obligatory inspections.
Canada has contributed fully to the technical background of the Geneva discussions. For instance, in 1971 the Canadian delegation submitted papers on atmospheric sensing and verification of a ban on development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons, and seismo-logical detection and identification of underground nuclear explosion.
In Canada, studies and analyses of arms and disarmament problems are carried on in the normal course of their work by officials of the departments of external affairs and national defence. They are able to keep in touch with thinking in other countries through the usual diplomatic channels and through international conferences, particularly the disarmament committee in Geneva. Moreover, Canadian universities are devoting increasing attention to arms control and disarmament as part of their international relations or strategic studies programs, and are being encouraged in doing so by federal government grants.
Specialists in these fields from the academic world and the public service are continually exchanging views and ideas both through informal contact at home and abroad and at more formal gatherings such as the seminars organized from time to time by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. This institute has in recent years made a major effort to stimulate research and publication in this general field, and other private organizations take a serious interest in the question of disarmament.
In short, in the field of disarmament there is no lack of interest or activity by highly qualified people who remain well aware of each other's work though their activities are not always co-ordinated through a formal structure. They are making an invaluable, indeed essential contribution toward the eventual slowing down and termination of the arms race. The slowness of progress in this field is not the result of anybody's failure or inability to keep informed but, rather, of an insufficient will on the part of a number of world states to seek resolution of their differences by peaceful means.
I would also like to speak on another matter pertaining to the hon. member's motion. The motion provides an opportunity to focus on a great task which confronts Canada and the other developed and developing nations of the world. Acknowledgement of one part of this problem of importance to all Canadians formed the climax of President Nixon's recent visit. I would bring to the attention of the hon. member that the signing of the Great Lakes water control agreement to begin to restore the Great Lakes did not have to await the formation of a new research and co-ordination centre. Drawing on the studies and recommendations of the International Joint Commission and other bodies, procedures for effective action have been formulated.
The Great Lakes problem is a complicated and expensive one to solve. The impact of science and technology, especially the deleterious effects which these advances have had on environment throughout the world, also will be complicated and expensive to solve. The handling of the relatively local situation in the Great Lakes is compounded by the authorities of several jurisdictions. It is not difficult to project this to the national, hemispheric or global stage to realize that here is a world wide matter which requires maximum co-ordination and co-operation so that the complementary and competing needs and desires of the world's peoples can be met to the maximum degree possible. The achievement of this requires, also, utilization of a vast wealth of data, special studies, highly professional skills and so on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
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. Lang that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, just before private members' hour I had an opportunity to pay my respectful tribute to the work in the field of penal reform of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I would also like to recall to the House the contributions made by other hon. members, most notably the late Don Brown, the former member for Essex West. That hon. member, with Senator Hayden, was joint chairman of the Senate and House of Commons committee which considered this subject in the 1950s.
A former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon indicated how difficult it is to discuss rationally the question of crime and punishment. He made it perfectly clear that

May 1, 1972

those who oppose corporal punishment do not do so out of any false sentiment. The hon. member for Prince Albert and others who oppose the imposition of corporal punishment do so for the simple reason that this form of punishment has not and will not do any good.
Many people in our society linger under the impression that what is important in restraining and deterring crime is the severity of punishment, but we know from history that this is not so. The records of the nineteenth century tell us of little children having been hanged for theft, of men and women having been brutally whipped for committing very small offences. In general, the early part of the nineteenth century was characterized both in Europe and in North America by great violence, and these severe punishments, far from deterring the commission of crime perhaps escalated it.
Over many years society has found out that the real deterrent to crime has been the certainty of apprehension and of conviction at trial. This is a lesson which it is difficult for many people to accept, because it is much easier to believe that there is a quick and simple solution to crime, that we have it within our power to do something which is relatively easy and inexpensive in order to prevent the commission of crime. But in fact, as every member of the House knows, the control of crime in modern society will cost money and the devotion of a great deal of governmental effort.
To control crime we need better policemen, more respect for police forces, better rapport between the police and the public, an attack on some of the basic social causes of crime, better courts, more facilities, more judges and-I hesitate to say it-perhaps even more lawyers. The whole process of trial should not be so drawn out and subject to all kinds of unusual accidents and hazards. The total process should be carried on rationally in the interests of defending society and also of protecting the rights of those charged. I can recall that when the report of the committee was prepared in 1956, a senior senator on the committee remarked to me that it marked "the end of an illusion", the illusion that there is an easy way out, a simple way of dealing with serious crime.
I should like to make one or two comments on the merits of the longstanding discussion on corporal punishment in this country. I commend, for the consideration of hon. members, the report of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee representing, as I said earlier, three years of work during the course of which the committee heard expert evidence on the subject not only from Canada but from Great Britain, the United States and elsewhere. I think at that time the committee's investigation constituted something of a novelty in our parliament and still stands as a great accomplishment in terms of parliamentary inquiry.
One thing the committee noted immediately was that corporal punishment had become a very rare event; it was applied only in a minute percentage of the cases where it could have been applied. In much less than 1 per cent of the cases where corporal punishment could have been imposed was it actually applied in the middle 1950s, and we know that its use as a punishment since that time has
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 become increasingly rarer. We might ask ourselves why this should be. In asking that question we are faced with the formidable answer that the collective judgment of those who are most concerned with the administration of justice, be they police, courts, penal officials, in fact experts of every kind, is that it is a useless punishment. This is why corporal punishment is rare. Its imposition has not been reduced because of any sentimental impulse on the part of people charged with the administration of justice, but simply because long experience has taught them that it has done no good.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said in this House last Friday that the retention of corporal punishment was necessary to deter the commission of violent crime. He thereby committed the illogical indiscretion of failing to explain why violent crime had occurred even when this type of punishment remained in the Criminal Code. It is a punishment that has almost grown out of date because of the judgment of people that it is useless. In 1956, the committee noted that in most countries corporal punishment had been abandoned and that before it had been abandoned it had ceased to be used. The committee commented as follows:
In this respect, Canada would appear to be in line with other democratic countries which abandoned corporal punishment after its use had steadily decreased over a considerable period of time.
Another feature of the discussion on corporal punishment is the suggestion that it might have special utility for young offenders. This suggestion was made last Friday by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and it has been repeated on many occasions in the course of discussions on this subject. It has been suggested that a quick spanking or caring would have more effect on a young offender than his being put in prison or being subjected to other types of treatment. The committee anticipated the argument of the hon. member for Oxford because at one stage its report states:
Several witnesses suggested corporal punishment might be particularly effective against this type of offender-
They had been speaking about leather-jacketed hooligans.
-because it would humiliate him in the eyes of his companions and take away the false glamour attached to a person who had been unaffected by lesser punishments.
However, the committee then noted the reservation which was expressed even by those who advocated this course of action. I quote again from the report at page 44, where people advocating this kind of treatment for young offenders stated:
Some form of pre-sentence investigation and report was suggested which would take into account physical, mental, emotional, environmental, and other relevant factors in the background of the offender. This was considered to be necessary, particularly in the case of young offenders who had not proven amenable to other methods of correction and who might be so constituted as to suffer grave harm from the infliction of corporal punishment.
Wherever the committee pursued the arguments for the retention of corporal punishment it came to the conclusion, after serious investigation of the available evidence and the opinions of experts from all over the world, that those arguments would not bear up. Perhaps it would be most helpful if I were to quote one of its general conclusions. This passage is taken from page 45 of the report:

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Generally, in relation to all types of offenders, those favouring abolition argue that corporal punishment could produce no quick cure and was apt to do positive harm. The rarity of the sentence in Canada meant that its imposition was inconsistent and inequitable, a factor recognized by representatives of the police. Its imposition, under present conditions, depended upon the views of particular judges and, perhaps, also the swings of public opinion; and sometimes bore little relation to the nature of offences or offenders. It was considered a degrading punishment; and, since it was more likely to arouse feelings of resentment and revenge, it was urged that public humiliation of offenders could not be a proper foundation for their reform. To bring out the best in young offenders, better methods of treatment could be employed and, to protect society from recidivists and sexual offenders, isolation and segregation could be used to greater effect. Although no specific evidence was produced, the opinion was expressed that corporal punishment might adversely affect prison officials either by bringing out sadistic impulses or discouraging the application of positive reformative measures.
Thereafter, the committee considered in detail the pointed question as to whether or not corporal punishment deterred the commission of further offences by persons to whom it was applied. At one stage in the committee's investigation, on its behalf I personally investigated the cases of approximately 20 people who had been subjected to corporal punishment. I interviewed them all. My distinct recollection of this experience was that corporal punishment could not be said to have done the least bit of good for any of those men. In fact, I could well remember, many years after the event, that in describing what had happened to them their eyes blazed and the hair on the back of their neck raised. I remembered how bitter they became.
I accept entirely the view of the committee that corporal punishment, far from deterring the commission of further crimes by people to whom it is applied, is much more likely to create a situation in their minds which will make reform more difficult and a continuing criminal career more likely. The committee also considered in great detail whether there was any evidence that the presence or absence of corporal punishment in general had any effect in restraining the commission of crime. Although the view of many people may be that severe punishment such as corporal punishment might have this effect, certainly it does not stand up under investigation and the committee concluded that corporal punishment does not exercise any unique deterrent effect in addition to that provided by other methods of punishment.
Mr. Speaker, my purpose in going through the committee's report is to indicate that this matter has been seriously considered by parliament, and that a very superior parliamentary committee representing both Houses many years ago found that corporal punishment as a judicial sentence did no good and recommended its abolition. I think that if we accept the recommendations contained in the bill before us, and abolish corporal punishment, we will accomplish a great legal reform.
I should like to mention that there is a difference between the recommendations of the committee of which I have been speaking and the bill. The committee recommended the abolition of corporal punishment as a judicial sentence, but it did not recommend its abolition as a punishment in our penal institutions. The reason was that at that time the Commissioner of Penitentiaries and his [DOT]

staff considered it necessary to retain this form of punishment as an ultimate sanction in the preserving of discipline in penitentiaries. The committee, although accepting that view, was of the opinion that it should be used only rarely, in special circumstances and under conditions of complete control. The committee recommended, for example, that it should not be used except with the express permission of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries.
The result has been that over the years the use of corporal punishment as a method of discipline in our penitentiaries has decreased. As the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) pointed out in his address last Friday, the former commissioner of penitentiaries, when giving evidence to the justice committee a year or two ago, expressed the view that it was no longer necessary as a disciplinary sanction in penitentiaries. Therefore, the recommendation contained in this bill, that corporal punishment be abolished both in the judicial sense and as a form of punishment in our penitentiaries, seems to be supported by the evidence and the experience both in the courts and in the penal system.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this address I said that society is concerned with the rise in crimes of violence and violence in general. Not unnaturally, people in society seek to find quick solutions to these problems; they seek easy answers for violence and crime. But I suggest that there are no easy answers. Certainly, the least effective of the answers suggested is that of severe punishment, such as corporal punishment, because it has no good effect. We do ourselves credit in facing up to this reality, and perhaps we can lead the people of this country to a better understanding of the fundamentals of our society. If we are to have less crime and less violence, the social causes of crime must be attacked and, as a country, we must be prepared to spend far more money and devote much better people to the control of crime in our police forces, in our judicial systems and in our treatment systems.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of only one aspect of this bill but I have listened with great interests to the comments of hon. members on all the other subjects, including aerial hijacking about which I have had deep concern. I hope that this bill will shortly be referred to the committee so that it can be considered in detail, brought back to the House and enacted into law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the House is now dealing with Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act.
Mr. Speaker, no human need is more essential than that of individual security, no desire more instinctive than that of being free from fear. If one does not feel secure at home or in the street, if one is threatened-by an agent of a police state or by a criminal or even by discriminatory economic forces-one is not safe any more. In that sense, the legendary freedom of the Canadian people is eroded more and more every day.
May 1, 1972

Social disorders, bludgeon laws, undue union thrusts, violence, increased discrimination, the frustration felt by more and more citizens in the presence of the enormous wealth of this country, such are the characteristics of a situation that is painful to describe when one knows that our ancestors always stood with such conviction for freedom.
In the face of those modern problems, to provide protection which is the basis of freedom and security is the first duty of a government in the judicial field. Now, today, more and more people question the judicial power. To quote but one example, I say that the too great influence of party politics and money in the administration of justice have been the cause of a greater and greater lack of confidence of the people in the judicial power, which is something very serious.
The appointment of judges is often a matter of politics. The same can be said of the bail system, which often enables the rich to come off well and causes the poor to rot behind the slow administrative process of justice.
Finally, to be free as well as secure, one must have some financial security, which, unfortunately, is the case of fewer and fewer Canadians.
This explains the feelings of frustration, of dissent, of violence, which are not only modern social phenomena, but mostly the result of a provoking economic policy which leads us to obvious social injustice. That is why we must strive after a policy of fair distribution and try to eliminate those understandable feelings of frustration.
Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to say about the whole concept of justice. Let us say right away that an incomplete and partial revision of the Criminal Code, as proposed in the bill before us, does not necessarily mean a reform of justice. We shall have to consider it at length and go much further.
By the way, does the minister know where we are heading with this minor reform? The criminal law must be a changing and evolutive tool of social order, and I am disappointed when I realize that instead of going all out in that direction, that goal, the government is satisfied with minor reforms, except for clause 24, which abolishes the additional punishment of whipping.
This is a very good measure which comes, once again, too late.
Bill C-2 is a kind of omnibus bill, dealing with several matters, such as the breathalyzer false alarms, conditional discharges, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I shall try to deal with some of these points and make a constructive criticism.
Insofar as conditional discharges are concerned, I shall refer to new clauses 545 and 662.1 of the bill. In short, the government proposes to broaden, once more, the Parole Act, in order to make it more flexible and workable.
The concept of the public interest is also invoked in those two sections and it is stated that parole will be granted in cases other than those previously provided for where the interests of the accused are not contrary to those of the public.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
That is a new concept in this act on parole, but no definition of public interest is given, which can lead us to asking ourselves questions.
In this connection, I shall bring up a point at this time. On the one hand, the government broadens the act on parole to include other categories of accused while, on the other hand, the same government does not set up any mechanism for the control, the probation or the rehabilitation of the accused discharged either conditionally or unconditionally.
Mr. Speaker, I have statistics on this in my office, but off-hand one can surely say that every parole officer must deal with at least 20 to 30 criminals. Surely then he cannot deal with each prisoner to whom parole is granted, either conditionally or unconditionally, on an individual, human and personalized basis.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we read the type of news recently published in the Gazette to the effect that the crime rate is increasing in Canada, that experience with parole is more or less satisfactory, more often than not, unfortunate, and that a system of control, of review, should be adopted in that field.
Who makes up that Parole Board? Competent people, people who are interested in that field? It does not comprise more than ten members who simply travel across Canada, through areas they know more or less, and who often make decisions that are contrary to that of the judge, so that in many cases the work accomplished by the Parole Board renders that of the judge useless. And so the lack of planning and co-ordination becomes evident.
Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to broaden the law on parole, it will have to set up, in due course, a control or probation mechanism for each prisoner, to allow for his case being followed.
I have personally visited some prisons and the Social Welfare Court in Montreal. I have met some judges, I have talked with them and I have attended hearings. What I have seen is absolutely incredible, indeed it is an indescribable chaos. There are some people who are endeavouring to administer justice as best they can in spite of the bureaucracy, inadequate legislation and the lack of a rehabilitation system, as a result of which the same judge constantly sees the same individuals from one generation to another. This shows, Mr. Speaker, how our crime prevention system is inadequate.
To give you another quite typical example, I have always wondered why the parole legislation could not apply to young delinquents. For a criminal who has been condemned eight or ten times, I have data published in Hansard in reply to a question of mine to the Minister of Justice. After being condemned more than 20 times, some criminals re-apply for parole and the Board grants their request. They are hardened criminals; I should say professional criminals.
However, a young delinquent, after his first or second offence, is not eligible for parole. Nevertheless, if there is someone who would have some chance of being rehabilitated, of straightening up, of becoming respectful of social order, it is that young man. But instead of that, he is jailed with other young people, sometimes even with hardened

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 criminals and when he is freed, he is at least twice as bad as before,
Mr. Speaker, those prisons or detention centres are practically crime schools and it is sad to note that no immediate or realistic step is taken.
Parole is granted to a hardened, professional criminal, while a young first offender will rot in a detention centre with homosexuals, criminals guilty of assault and battery, burglary, attempted rape, etc. When he is freed, this youngster is briefed about ways to commit crimes. He has been living in this. No one cared to rehabilitate him in a very personal way. Finally, we make a criminal out of him.
I will remind the House of an unfortunate incident which took place in Hull. A criminal, whose name I cannot remember, killed a policeman sometime ago, in the city of Hull. This same criminal had been taken under probation by the brother of the policeman who was killed. This indicates how difficult it is to rehabilitate a hardened criminal, even when he is given very special and personal care.
So, what do we do with our young offenders? If it is so hard with hardened criminals, what are we waiting for to help these youngsters who, very often, appear before the Welfare court judge, precisely because they have not lived in a good family circle, because their parents lacked money, or for any other kinds of reasons? What do we do? Absolutely nothing. Petty reforms with a lot of publicity, and that is all!
It seems that we lack logic. If we are truly concerned with justice in Canada, we must tackle this problem without delay.
Mr. Speaker, even if we have fair laws, the best judges, the best judicial system in the world, if the people who enforce the law-I mean the police forces, among others- do not enjoy the confidence of the authorities and are put, by the political power, in positions such that they can give even give rise to violence, in short, if morale among our police forces is low, it is useless to think that justice will be improved in Canada, no matter what legislation is introduced.
And that relates to the problem of capital punishment.
A few years ago, in Victoriaville, officer Collard was called to the scene of a crime with another policeman in order to arrest the perpetrators of a burglary. Not only did the bandits escape but they fired at the policemen. In fact, officer Collard lost 12 months of work, because of the wounds received on that occasion. The bandit was jailed, he applied for parole and our very intelligent and very brilliant Parole Board granted the parole without imposing any control nor appointing any probation officer. The same man, a little later, commits another burglary in Sainte-Therese-de-Blainville and kills another policeman.
Then, policemen will be told, enforce the law, get closer to the people, go out and risk your life.
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, our police forces are asked to risk their lives for the welfare of society, while at the same time nothing is done to administer justice prop-

erly. What is the use of chasing a criminal if, once he is arrested, he is immediately released without probation or control? What is the use of police forces if justice is not administered logically, in spite of the amounts spent to track down criminals?
Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is a basic problem.
A policeman in Drummondville, in the riding of the Minister of Industry, Trade, and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who is not here at present, is crippled for life; he uses a wheelchair and he cannot work. Why? Because he went to the scene of a crime, tried to arrest the criminal and was fired upon. The criminal was caught a little later and released under the rules governing the famous Parole Board.


An hon. Member:: That is part of the job.


André-Gilles Fortin: Why should this or that police officer or police corps be required to show concern, courage and good will in their work when justice is not administered efficiently.
This does not necessarily mean that capital punishment should be requested in all cases involving criminal law. It means that the time has come for the administration of justice to be logical. If it is worth while to allot money to the tracking down of criminals and to their rehabilitation, to the application of laws, to the maintenance of police services which are becoming more and more expensive to operate, it is certainly worth while to tackle this problem and follow up on the convicts afterwards. Every possible means to rehabilitate them should be taken, if the majority wishes so. But at least let us take these steps rather than fail in our task as happened with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) with respect to the National Parole Board. The Solicitor General, I suggest, acts something like a clown. When during one week-end he releases prisoners who all do return to jail, he says: My program is an excellent one. During the following week-end, some of those he has released fail to come back and then he says: The Board's program is not that good; they are to be blamed. When results are good, he gets the credit; when they are not, he blames the Board. But whatever the outcome, the Solicitor General is never available. He is satisfied with the publicity made around his successful week-ends. When there is failure, he sinks his head in the sand like an ostrich and dares not face the problem.
Mr. Speaker, it follows that the population is asking questions about the administration of justice. In fact, people want politics to be divorced from the administration of justice in Canada. Canadians would like to see some measure of responsibility in the enforcement of laws and some respect for the Criminal Code.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) seeks the floor.


Mr. Deakon:: Will the hon. member accept a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has asked whether the hon. member who has the floor will receive a question.
May 1, 1972


André-Gilles Fortin: But, of course, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Cyril Deakon: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member tell the House the percentage of those who have been released on parole or on visits and who have not returned, or have done something wrong while out? What is the percentage compared with those who have returned?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I don't have these figures on hand, and rather than quote a figure of which I am not sure, I prefer to send this information to the hon. member who is asking the question. If he is genuinely interested, I shall send him the documents that the Solicitor General distributes to all members. However, the statistics are there to prove the point.
There is no doubt that in the case of some criminal offenders, it is worthwhile to try everything to rehabilitate them. I would even be inclined to believe, Mr. Speaker, that in most cases, since they are human beings who may have made one, two or three mistakes in their lifetime, we have the duty to respect not only the law but also the individuals. But, this means also that the government is not afraid of assuming their responsibilities and taking all available means to protect society.
Actually, the background of all those problems is the same. When you go to the Welfare Court-and I invite my colleagues to do so-and meet young delinquents, you realize that most of them are there precisely because the family environment was either totally lacking-they are children who grew up in the streets-or rotten to the core. When the family, for financial, marital or other reasons cannot assume its responsibilities toward a child, more often than not he will become a delinquent.
Furthermore, the system of rehabilitation of young delinquents is inadequate and practically inexistant, first because of a shortage of probation officers and second because the Parole Act cannot be applied to these young people. For several similar reasons, the centre eventually becomes a school of crime.
When the family and society have failed to rehabilitate a young delinquent, should we convict him, when we all share the guilt for that situation?
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the problem of young delinquents is now the most urgent in the field of administration of justice in Canada and that it is inacceptable that today nothing is being done about it. Even the co-operation which should take place between provincial and federal governments has become inexistent.
I should like to say something else about the bill: there is to be in the near future a review of the abolition of capital punishment.
The hon. Minister of Justice has promised repeatedly that a debate would be held in the House on this issue, giving all hon. members an opportunity to speak for or against capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, I personally carried out a survey in my riding. I sent out 17,885 copies of a questionnaire to families, asking them: "Are you for or against, give me your opinion."
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Frankly, the response from those people was extraordinary. Indeed I should appreciate our having an opportunity in this House to tell the government what the people of Lotbiniere think of this issue, of social order and justice in general. For that, Mr. Speaker, the minister will have to stop promising a debate on capital punishment and grant it. Let the government stop putting it off indefinitely and give hon. members an opportunity to express the views of their constituents in this House.
All my colleagues have made similar inquiries and, needless to say, Mr. Speaker, opinions differ. How can it be otherwise? But precisely because this is a very important subject on which opinions differ, we must hold this debate in the House of Commons and deal with this issue immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude my remarks by stating that it is an undeniable fact recognized by all members that criminality or the crime rate in Canada is increasing.
There is a second thing that must be said: the cost of the administration of justice in Canada is soaring.
There is a third thing that must also be said: movements of violence, frustration, dissent are increasingly serious in Canada, are also increasing.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the crime rate among the young is rising alarmingly and distressingly.
These are four facts that, if related, point to a common source, a common problem. When you ask the government to establish more intelligent and more adequate rehabilitation systems, when you ask it to provide more adequate structures and equipment for the administration of justice, the government replies that it lacks money.
Actually, if rehabilitation is not more advanced in Canada, Mr. Speaker, it is because we have no money. If there are so many criminals in Canada, it is simply because wealth and poverty live side by side, and that such flagrant injustice causes people to revolt, commit crimes, and so on and so forth-
This past week-end, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson) announced that members of the Canadian Armed Forces would be instructed in riot prevention and control methods. This, Mr. Speaker, is another problem of modern times. All of this results from the fact that there exists in Canada-we shall have to recognize this one of these days-a basic economic problem; it is not because our Bill of Rights and all our other legislation say that "all Canadians are equal", or that it is written in our Criminal code that "all citizens are equal and will be treated as equals before the law" that we must believe that they actually are. For they are not, Mr. Speaker, and to believe otherwise is to delude oneself!
We all know that poverty and unemployment prevail in all parts of Canada. We all know that many families who depend on social welfare hand-outs cannot make ends meet with their meager monthly allowances.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian family- the basic unit of our society-is deprived of the necessary financial means of survival, it will continue to break up more and more as it has done over the past 10 years,

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 which will unavoidably result in an increased criminal index, in spite of the considerable amounts of money we may invest in the rehabilitation of criminals and the administration of justice.
Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of some sort of poultice on a wooden leg. Instead of dealing with the problems which generate criminals who, because of their utmost poverty and destitution, are induced into stealing, rebelling and joining protest or violence groups, the government will rather tackle the sequels of the problems such as the rise in the crime rate. Then, what do they do to reduce this rate? Criminals are let out on bail and without being rehabilitated so much so that poverty and frustration continue to increase in our society. In final analysis, the crime rate is rising and those criminals freed on bail continue to be criminals.
I wish to refer my colleagues to answers given by the former Minister of Justice to questions which I had put on the Order Paper and they will then realize as I said before, how this can be so ridiculous.
Criminals of the type we find in Kingston's penitentiary, Mr. Speaker, have been convicted more than 20 times and have been paroled after their twenty-first conviction.
In other words, the Parole Board is sheer window-dressing on the part of the government which hopes to conceal his inability to correct the situation concerning the administration of justice. It is more or less a means of politely getting rid of criminals while keeping a good front under the prextext of respecting the human being.
There being no probation and control methods, criminals are left to fend for themselves. It follows that the crime rate goes on increasing in Canada and the situation keeps on worsening.
Mr. Speaker, in short now is the time to keep politics out of justice and to have all citizens treated equally before the law. The bail system should be entirely revamped, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. Imprisonment does not last very long for the well-to-do and they finally get away with it. However, the penniless must wait because of the slowness of the administrative process because they have no money to put up for bail.
In the field of justice, money is becoming an important factor. If it is true that all Canadians are equal and can enjoy freedom and security, the government should start by setting up some sensible and modern financial machinery to meet the probems of a modern society through distributive justice.
Secondly, the government should set up at all costs a rehabilitation and probation system for all criminals likely to be rehabilitated.
Last but not least, the government should take steps as soon as possible to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents who are perhaps the most neglected and who most need our attention.
In fact, those people cannot make themselves heard and it is our duty as members of Parliament to defend them.
I urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) to look into this problem and to take the steps required to put some order in this system.

In conclusion, I would point out that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Ouellet) made not only an offensive but a dishonest remark about Creditiste members.
The same member over the last three years, has risen in his seat exactly 14 times, and he now takes the liberty of making derogatory and dishonest remarks about his colleagues. I think that if his constituents knew that over a period of three years, even as parliamentary secretary, he spoke only 14 times, while the Creditiste members spoke on average more than twice a day, they would realize that government members are more interested in indulging in petty politics than in actually governing the country.
Once again tonight, he is conspicuous by his absence as usual. That is why he did not manage to speak more than 14 times in three years.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be approriate to deal at length with the bill now before us.
As a member of the legal profession and of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I simply want to state a few general principles which seem to underlie this legislation.
The bill before us purports to strike a balance between the maintenance of order and the fair treatment to be meted out to offenders. We should avoid a treatment that is imbued with a spirit of revenge. It should instead be characterized by the wish to rehabilitate the accused. Still, that balance is difficult to achieve, since the principles involved are to my mind of equal importance.
I must admit that this bill arouses both fear and hope in me.
It arouses fear because it seems to grant exceptional importance to those who break the law, or who are willing to do so. Of course, I do not claim that those who have made one or two errors are not entitled to some compassion and justice. But I have noticed that often the funds spent on their rehabilitation are so considerable that those who respect the law, who make it their duty to be citizens respectful of the freedom of others, are at times deprived of the money they would need to further assist the society in which they live.
I remember that not so long ago, in the case of a local initiative, I had strongly recommended the launching of two projects: Cinebec and the Conseil des parents. But these two projects have been turned down. Sometime, certain people in my riding-and I think that this is the same in others-say: You are spending $10,000 in order to try and rehabilitate a convict, and when some people submit respectable and honest projects, you refuse to grant them the required credits.
I think that it is time, if we want society to find again its fundamental values, as well as the wealth that has made it into what it is now, that policies tend toward greater assistance, for those who work modestly but honestly in our society. Those are the middle-class people, who see their taxes rising all the time. Those are also the aged who receive only $135 or $255 a month those who in fact are
May 1, 1972

the backbone of society, and who are too often neglected because of the wrong-doings of some people towards whom I do not want to be unjust because they are not always entirely responsible for their actions. Nevertheless they have violated the law and have acted towards society in such a way as to surely deserve some punishment.
Just the same, Mr. Speaker, I think that priorities should be set up sometimes. And I must say that the bill now being considered-this may be a source of hope for me, as I said earlier-includes excellent provisions which, in my opinion, are bound to be satisfactory to us.
For instance, when it is provided that a suicide attempt is no longer an offence under the law, I think that this is quite normal, and should have been enacted many years ago. In fact, people committing such an offence are obviously sick in their minds, and putting them in jail will never offer a solution to their problems. I think that anybody will agree on that.
Added to all this, there is a very good provision with which I am genuinely pleased. In my profession, I have often had to defend people charged with driving a car while under the influence of liquor. Their driving permits were taken away from them, and could no longer earn their living.
Today, the law has become more lenient because it considers that not only the one who infringes the law must be penalized in a certain way, but also that we must not deprive the family of its sole breadwinner. As a matter of fact, being deprived of his driving licence, the accused lost his job and was no longer able to earn his own living and that of his family. This provision of the law that allows an intermittent sentence is, in my view, a great improvement, and I think it will be well received by all the right-thinking people.
There is also the question of the National Parole Board. And on this point, I would be tempted to agree with the comments made by the hon. member who spoke before me. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we would not have to vote on the re-establishment of capital punishment if the National Parole Board was playing its role better. I believe it must be recognized-and I should like my criticism to be constructive-that all too often those who benefit most from this Board are the most hardened criminals. I have personally had the opportunity to defend cases where in my opinion the accused were worthy of consideration. They were first offenders soliciting parole to whom this privilege was denied. I knew on the other hand that hardened criminals, with heavy records, were able, by means unknown but deplored, to obtain parole and thereby returned to society where they committed new crimes which brought them back to jail.
I believe the Parole Board, which is an essential agency, should be restructured and that it should really fulfill the purpose for which it was created, parole being limited to cases where there is a real likelihood of rehabilitation.
The matter of capital punishment will, in my opinion, be much less serious and it should be easier for us to arrive at a decision in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, the Parole Board might be one of the most important problems but I trust that its efficiency will be improved in the not too distant future.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill which has been in preparation for nearly a year provides some solutions. For instance, I was favourably impressed by the comments of my friend the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) this afternoon on the clause that provides that a judge after a trial or an admission of guilt can refrain from imposing a fine or a sentence of imprisonment on an individual who has pleaded guilty or has been declared guilty.
In my opinion, it is wrong to have the bill not prevent the individual from being convicted because if the person concerned does not deserve a conviction, I cannot see why he would deserve having a criminal record when one considers its importance and implications. In spite of the fact that the new Criminal Records Act provides for the destruction of a reocrd after a period of five years, during that time the record of an individual may be a millstone around his neck which limits his possibilities for employment and often excludes him from taking any active part in society.
I should have liked-I shall discuss this matter in committee-the bill to go still farther, because, some highly technical offences appear to have been committed. I remember, for instance, the case of this man who now has a criminal record because during a hunting season, he had kept in his locked car a loaded gun with both locks in the "safety" position. I find it highly ridiculous that this man's life be affected by a criminal record which may limit his activity and prevent him from playing an important part in society.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, puts an end to the use of the lash. I think that everybody agrees that corporal punishment is not a human way of making those people guilty of errors pay their debt to society. I think it is pointless to discuss it any further; we are happy for it. It does indicate that the government has made a step further, making a move for which the minister should be commended.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude these comments by saying: that this bill which is immensely important, must not lead us to forget that the Criminal Code, as it is, needs to be overhauled and I hope that the Law Reform Commission of Canada will enter into action as soon as possible, in order to propose a law better adjusted to our modern needs and written, I hope, in a clearer language.
People are often complaining and rightly so that the words used are often incomprehensible and that, in a certain way, they lead to injustice. I hope that the Law Reform Commission will accomplish its work in a competent and fair manner and that it will look for ways to improve the Criminal Code so that it will meet the present needs.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a while ago, I hope that this proposed legislation which is excellent and which meets with my approval will not restrict the money put at the disposal of other honest and thoughtful citizens who are playing an active role in society and within the framework of the Youth Opportunities Program. I would hope that those who have submitted projects will not for ever be refused the money needed for the realization of their projects because it has been used for people other than those who really need it.

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer I feel it necessary to become involved in this debate. On the other hand, I do not wish to be repetitious because my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has put before the House the position our party feels it should take. I think he should be commended for the argument he elaborated and placed before the House, because it showed a considerable amount of thought and a contemporary thinking. In all fairness to the government, I believe it is moving in the right direction in this regard also. I also find it extremely important to relate our social ills to crime because it seems to me they have been related for some time.
I believe it would be wrong for us to think that the bill which is before us amending several sections of the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, and so on, is a panacea for what one could call domestic tranquility, in terms of violence. I wish to place on record some thoughts I have garnered as a result of being in possession of an extremely important report tabled in 1969 by a commission in the United States.
In order to give some credibility to the statement I have just made, in terms of not being able to separate the two matters to which I referred, violence and our social ills, I recommend that members who were on the justice committee and those who would like to be enlightened, like my hon. friend on the left who always interjects-I hope he will give us an opportunity to hear his words of wisdom-acquire this report entitled, "The final report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence". The title indicates that some thought went into the inquiry because it also states it was to establish justice and to ensure domestic tranquility. I think this is the sort of thing we are all concerned about-domestic tranquility and the establishment of justice.
I hope hon. members will understand what I am hoping to point out when I refer to this question. I shall not dwell on it too long but shall merely give some concrete examples of why I have been able to come to the conclusion that we should not look on this bill as a panacea. I recommend this report to all members who do not have a copy of it. Hon. members who were part of the Canadian delegation met many of our colleagues in the United States and it would be very simple to write them and ask for a copy of this book. I believe it is extremely important to read what is stated in the book on page 27, as follows:
Much has been written about inner-city slums where crime and delinquency are bred. Social scientists have analyzed slum conditions and their causal link to crime and violence, writers and artists have dramatized the sordidness and the frustrations of life in the inner cities, and a number of Commissions prior to this one have produced comprehensive reports on this subject. In its 1967 report the Crime Commission described the linkage between violent crime and slum conditions in large cities as "one of the most fully documented facts about crime".
To interject briefly, may I say that what I mean by violence and crime as referred to in this report is primarily homicide, rape, assault and robbery. It continues:
Referring to numerous studies conducted over a period of years, the commission found that violent crime, its offenders and its victims are found most often in urban areas characterized by: low income, physical deterioration, dependency, racial and ethnic concentrations, broken homes, working mothers, low levels of education and vocational skills, high unemployment, high proportions of single males, overcrowded and substandard housing, low rates of home ownership or single family dwellings, mixed land use, high population density.
I think my point is well taken: it is very difficult to separate the reasons for a person's social behaviour from the reasons for the social ills which exist today. I give the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) some credit. He is new on the job, and most of this work was done by his predecessor, whom I also wish to compliment. A bill such as this does not enable us to get mean easily.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You are never mean anyway.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Sometimes I get carried away because I cannot understand how this government can ignore the problems and frustrations of people. However, since I am not supposed to be mean this evening, and I said I would not be mean, I give credit to the former minister of justice-perhaps I am taking this out of context-who said that the law shall never again stand still. Those are significant words. I hope it will never again stand still, because if it does we will unquestionably be faced with confrontation from those who believe that the administration of justice has no meaning for them and even this place has no meaning for them. I hope that the present Minister of Justice has taken a page from the former minister of justice when he stated:
In our day we can far less afford the delays which we have suffered in the past. It is more dangerous and less defensible to leave our legal system, our whole belief in the working of freedom, vulnerable to those who have a case against a particular rule when we have to agree with their case and should move to change the rule.
In other words, we are faced with change, not change for the sake of change but change which is necessary because of the contemporary way of thinking and the circumstances in which we live which lead to so much frustration. One thing about which I am pleased is that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, of which I am a member, is a highly respected committee. I think all hon. members will agree with this. We come from all parts of the country. Certainly we have different ideas, but among our group are to be found many lawyers. They do not pussyfoot when it comes to bills. We do not argue and we do not fight.


Mr. Benjamin:: There are too many lawyers.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank God you are not on the committee. I do not know whether there are too many lawyers in the House of Commons. With all due respect, those lawyers who are members of the official opposition are good lawyers. Those on the other side of the House are also good lawyers. The hon. member's party has one to whom I

May 1, 1972

give some credit, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is an exception to every rule.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The exception is you. I do not know whether there are too many lawyers, but what I am trying to say is that we have a high calibre of lawyer on the committee. They are intelligent and, generally speaking, non-partisan when dealing with bills such as this. When the Minister of Justice says that he hopes we will give this bill speedy passage and will bring before the committee amendments of some consequence, he can be sure the bill will receive that treatment. I have a feeling that the minister means what he says. If he is anything like the former minister of justice, we will get along quite well.
Here we have an omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code, the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act. In dealing with all these acts the government is attempting to remove certain offences and punishments. This is a commendable attitude because obviously certain offences should not be included in the Criminal Code, such as attempted suicide. It is high time we removed it. Generally speaking, we are dealing with social behaviour in contemporary society and occasions when governments should move in to deter conduct which Canadians as a whole find offensive and not in keeping with the type of society in which we would like to live.
As I understand it, there are some 75 clauses of significant magnitude affecting the acts to which I have just referred. Hopefully, when we are through with this bill it will become more meaningful. Hopefully, it will exhibit a need for change to rid our criminal law of an archaic climate, a law which is riddled with anomalies, one which for some time has had no new approaches and has not been responsive to the changing needs of our society.
I gave the former minister of justice credit for having indicated some time ago that the law will never again stand still. We are moving in the right direction in deliberating on this bill. As I said, this amendment will not be the panacea which we seek. The problems that all members of parliament face are difficult. However, there is a study that is being undertaken now. Perhaps we are moving too quickly with this bill, but on further deliberation I do not think we are because there are certain things that this bill will achieve and we cannot afford to wait for the conclusions of the law reform commission under the chairmahship of Mr. Justice E. Hartt. I refer to the removal from the Criminal Code of corporal punishment. It should have been removed some time ago. I think it is barbaric. It seems to me an attempt to seek vengeance upon the accused. I cannot see how corporal punishment could be a deterrent.
Today we have to face the crimes of skyjacking and air piracy which are reprehensible crimes. Surely we have to deal with them immediately and cannot afford to wait for what I am sure will be commendable conclusions and recommendations of the law reform commission. The law reform commission, in a publication entitled "Research Program I," has given some indication of the problems with which they are faced. I want to put it on the record. Perhaps hon. members do not know what they are
Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1972
attempting to do, what they are faced with and what their conclusions may be when they have finished their deliberations. I shall read from it quite extensively, though not to the point of boredom, for the benefit of hon. members who have not had an opportunity of looking at this issue. At page 12, under the heading "Aims and purposes of the criminal law" it reads:
At present there is confusion and controversy about the functions of the criminal law. Thus, the commission will study on a continuing basis the purposes to be served by the criminal law in our Canadian society. In particular, we will be concerned with: identifying the types of conduct which should be made subject to the criminal law; analysing the objectives to be attained by the imposition of criminal sanctions; finding alternative techniques for regulating conduct without resorting to the criminal law; studying the effectiveness of the adversary system; and examining the existing classification of offences and the jurisdiction of the courts.
The most important statement that I take out of this is that here is the law reform commission, which is headed by one of Canada's leading jurists, indicating that at present the criminal law is in an area of confusion and controversy about its functions. Under the heading, "General principles of criminal law" it reads:
The commission will study the general principles common to most offences with a view to their clarification and codification. Many of these principles are not now contained in the Criminal Code but are developed through statutory interpretation and judge-made law. As a result, there is uncertainty about some of the fundamental issues of criminal law. The study will include in the initial stages: the mental elements of the offence; strict responsibility; ignorance and mistake of fact and law; mental illness; intoxication; compulsion and necessity; extra-territorial extent of the criminal law; and corporate criminal culpability.
Another part of the program which the commission will delve into is described as, "The attainment of equality before the law." It reads:
The commission will study the impact of the criminal law on specialized groups within society to determine whether it is operating equitably. Special studies will be undertaken into the problems of the native offender and poverty and the criminal law.
That is a commendable program and I will deal with it a little later. Under the heading, "Prohibited and regulated conduct" it reads:
The commission will study offences now contained or that should be contained in the Criminal Code with a view to the enactment of a comprehensive code reflecting contemporary values.
I would like to so pause there, Mr. Speaker. It is too bad this type of commission has not been operating for five years so that we could have the benefit of its wisdom. I think we are a little premature in introducing this bill when we know that we now have a law reform commission which will be studying in depth this area of criminal law. But because of the necessity for passing a number of important clauses of the bill, we must move ahead with it. I continue to quote:
Some of the questions to be explored for each offence are: whether the conduct should be prohibited by law; whether the criminal process is the best technique for controlling that conduct; whether the physical and mental elements of the offence have been defined with sufficient certainty and in a rational and understandable manner; and whether the penalty set out in the statute for the offence is realistic. The matters to be studied and reported on at

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
an early stage are: homicide; sexual misconduct; obscenity; contempt; conspiracy; and dishonest acquisition of property.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing now is certainly a step in the right direction, but the problem is extremely complex, calling for more than the standing committee on justice to delve into this bill. It calls for expertise and for hearings to be held around the country, something which I understand the law reform commission will be doing so that it may have the advice not only of jurists and administrators but of other persons who are affected by the criminal law.
One of the matters the commission will be looking at is homicide. Right now, homicide and the penalty for homicide constitute a burning question. I was not here five years ago when capital punishment was debated with deep conviction by members on all sides of the House. I understand there was a free vote taken on the issue. But as I have thought of the matter over the years, particularly since becoming a member of this House knowing that we would again have to face the issue, I have always wondered whether capital punishment in fact is a deterrent and whether it is morally right.
What disturbs me is not so much the answers to those two questions but the answer to this one: Can we make a mistake? Here I am really in a quandary. I know what the pressures are. If somebody says to me, "Let us bring back capital punishment because these are the statistics," I will reply, "Everybody knows what can be done with statistics." But what is unfortunate with respect to the law as it stands is that it was supposed to have been a five-year experiment and has turned out not to be an experiment at all.
Apparently members of this House, on a free vote, decided that capital punishment should be abolished except in the case of the murder of a prison guard or policeman. What has been the result? Policemen have been slain, and I have always been asked the question, "What goes on? I thought you chaps passed a law five years ago providing capital punishment for the murder of a policeman." I really did not know the answer myself but I knew there was an answer to the question. Then I found out that the answer was that when parliament passed this law it never did away with the prerogative of the cabinet to commute the death sentence. This is what the average person does not realize. He forgets that the cabinet has power to commute the death sentence. The result is that we have a law that is not a law.
I am not trying to be partisan this evening, but here we have a cabinet going against the wishes of the elected representatives of the people who wanted a five-year experiment. That is why we are in the present quandary. That is why the Canadian people are so upset. That is why they do not know what the law really is. They apparently believe that if a policeman or guard is slain, then the killer should face the maximum penalty.
There was a debate of some significance on this question five years ago. Why in heaven's name have we not followed the law? Had we done so we might now have the solution to a very burning question, a determination of the pros and cons regarding the abolition of capital punishment. The government has left the Canadian people in a dilemma. The government should have had the compas-

sion either to wipe out the law or abide by the law as it stands. I can live with and accept the law as it stands now and, as I said before, I have to reach a happy balance between it and those who are involved with the protection of lives and property, our policemen and prison guards. As the law stands now, they will say this is discrimination. Perhaps it is. But I have to answer the question that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon told us to ask ourselves: What if we make a mistake?
I will be very frank, Mr. Speaker. Apparently most lawyers around here have been involved as counsel in about 20 murder cases, and many give the impression that they are the greatest counsel that ever lived. I took part in only one murder trial and I do not particularly want to be involved in any more. The pressure that was exerted on me was enormous, not only with respect to my capabilities as a lawyer but because I thought that if the jury was not of a high calibre, and because of my inadequacies in going through the appeal procedure, this man might hang. I was bothered then and still am. As far as I am concerned, let somebody else who has the fortitude and strength, and who can go to bed when the case is over and forget about it, conduct murder trials. I see the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) looking at me. He knows what I am talking about. I can live with this law because it is provided that the government will move in the right direction and do what it is told to do, forget about commuting sentences.
Mr. Speaker, all countries are concerned about this problem. I shall put just a few statistics on the record. In several major countries the death penalty has been abolished by law: Argentina, Australia-Queensland and New South Wales-Brazil, Great Britain, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, West Germany, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Italy, Mexico-25 of 29 states-Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and many of the states in the United States of America. That is why we shall have to deal with this problem. I may have to change my mind six months from now, and I want help in this regard. I am not concerned about whether it is morally right or whether there is a deterrent; what bothers me is that a court and a jury may make a mistake and send an innocent man to the gallows.
In New Zealand, capital punishment was abolished in 1941. In 1951, it was reinstated and in 1956 the death penalty was again abolished although it was not formally removed from the statutes until 1961. The minister of justice for New Zealand made this statement during the course of parliamentary debates in 1961:
When we realize that the penalty for murder has changed three times in the period I have been reviewing-in 1935, in 1950 and 1957-with no effect on the figures; then surely it is plain to us that executing murderers does not achieve anything.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem we are faced with. There was one particular program within the objectives of the law reform commission that struck home. I want to spend a few minutes on it because I think it is extremely important. I refer to the attainment of equality before the courts. Most judges are impartial,
May 1, 1972

have a sense of responsibility and accept the fact that this country is a multicultural society with people of different races, creeds, colours and religion contributing to the quality of our life. But there are still some judges who for some reason or other make derogatory statements not only to the detriment of the accused but to the detriment of the group to which the accused belongs.
Mr. Speaker, I thought I was making a pretty good speech, but when I hear the noise in this House I wonder. I do not want members to stop talking while I am making a speech, but to just tone it down a little.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When I thought about this question, I thought we would never have respect for the law until those who are affected by the system in which we live believe they have equality before the courts. A few years ago the right hon. gentleman brought in the Canadian Bill of Rights. We are in a changing society now, the frustrated and the alienated, those who believe that this system cannot help them-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Change the system.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We don't have to change the system to make it more meaningful and responsible to the people we represent. I do not know how the hon. member ever got into this place. I don't know what he advocates, but I think this system is a good one and until somebody can show us a better one I am for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If the hon. member has a system whereby equality of opportunity is given, a system whereby-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are still trying to get that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -the individual can bring all his background into our Canadian life and freedom and be given an opportunity to pursue his legitimate goals, I wish he would stand up and tell us. If he does not have a system, he is supposed to tell the people, "We are changing the system in a meaningful way by making it more responsive to the needs of the people we represent". That is all we have to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me go back to what I was saying because I have a point to make. The hon. member is trying to get me confused, Mr. Speaker, but nobody will confuse me. He is not getting anywhere. I am taking more time than I said I would, Mr. Speaker, but I want to read part I of the Canadian Bill of Rights which reads as follows:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and following freedoms, namely:
(a)	The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the
person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be
deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b)	The right of the individual to equality before the law and the
protection of the law.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
That is the statement which I want to pursue for a few moments. When I see the problems of the blacks in Nova Scotia who have indicated that they do not have equality before the law-these are allegations which have been reported-when I read of the problems that my brothers, the Indians, the Metis and Eskimos have, the people of colour who have problems and do not believe that they have equality before the law, I believe it is enough to make us all concerned; it is enough to make us say that perhaps our judges should take a course in human relations: there is no reason why not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They take a continuing course in law and sentencing and perhaps they should take a course in human relations. No man should be pointed at in a derogatory way because of his race, creed or colour. This is 1972. I hope the Minister of Justice will take this question under advisement. Perhaps they need me to teach the course; I do not know. I want it to be known that we on this side of the House and members on the other side will not stand for that nonsense. There has been too much of it in the past and I do not intend to let wrongs go unchallenged. We in the Conservative party will not sit with folded hands and let injustices come to pass. I am speaking for Canadians, period. When I see the kind of nonsense to which I have referred, I am sickened. In future, those who read Hansard will know that the members of the House uphold justice and the idea that individuals must have equal rights, opportunity and equality before the law.
As I said earlier, we cannot criticize the government for introducing this bill. We must wait until the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) brings down his budget one week from today, on May 8: we can blaze away then. In this bill the government has met certain responsibilities. I think it has made a legitimate attempt to improve the efficacy of our criminal law. When the bill comes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs it will be treated with all necessary despatch. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has already put that thought on record.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak briefly on this bill. I was also pleased to listen to the fine speech made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). There are times in one's political life when one feels close to brother members of parliament. This sense of closeness transcends ideologies. The present occasion is an example of that sort of spirit which has arisen in the House because, Mr. Speaker, those who believe in the rule of law cannot oppose these amendments to the Criminal Code.
The bill covers everything that happens to an accused from the time he is arrested until he is convicted and punished. The whole bill is a compromise between humanity, in some parts, and growing severity in others. It shows more humanity in crimes such as common assault where previously a person could be convicted of an indictable offence. It will no longer be possible to treat common assault as an indictable offence. A charge of common assault usually arises when someone loses his

May 1, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 cool and makes a fool of himself. A man like that will be treated with compassion.
At the same time, the bill deals more severely with assault occasioning bodily harm, the maximum sentence for which is to be increased to five years. Under the code as it is at present, cases involving extreme violence were inadequately dealt with. The maximum sentence of two years was inadequate. I think a better balance has been struck in the law, lesser penalties will be meted out for lesser offences and more severe penalties for more severe offences.
I am glad that it will be possible for one to appeal a conviction for contempt of court. It was manifestly unjust, I think, that previously a judge had the power to convict a criminal or even counsel and that the law did not give either of them the right to appeal. This appeal provision is a major step forward in our law and all will recognize it as modern and humanitarian.
The question of public mischief is dealt with. I agree with the maximum sentence of five years. The offence may also be dealt with on summary conviction. That provision is good. A court can deal with people of low intelligence by way of summary conviction. On the other hand, of course, serious cases can be proceeded with by way of indictment. All in all, I think that justice will be done as it should be done.
There is in the bill a provision that concerns jurors. It overcomes previous weaknesses in the law. Previously, a judge was not empowered to dismiss a juror unless he was satisfied that it was impossible for the juror to continue serving. He might have been suffering a great deal of pain and might not have been discharged. Now it is provided that if in the opinion of the judge there is good reason for the juror not to continue serving, the juror may be discharged and his services dispensed with.
The bill is full of humanitarian reforms. In places it patches the law; in others it makes humane provision with respect to records, whether convictions will be allowed to stand, and whether a conditional discharge will be allowed. The entire subject of the bill will be dealt with in committee. I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which will review these matters in detail.
I cannot refrain from speaking about the wording of section 309, printed at page 18 of the bill, dealing with possession of housebreaking instruments under suspicious circumstances. I will not go into details now, but it seems to me that under this section the court is saddled with three burdens of proof whereas one burden is usually enough. First, there is the overriding burden of proof resting on the Crown, which must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Then an onus is cast on an accused, who must deal with the matter. Then an onus seems to be cast on the Crown. I think these burdens of proof should be spelled out in more detail.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about two aspects of the legislation before the House which have concerned me particularly since 1967. Earlier today reference was made to the leadership given by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) to the movement for abolishing corporal punishment and to

the work that the parliamentary committee did in the mid-1950s. It has taken remarkably long for those concerned with the furtherance of justice to implement previous recommendations and bring about the abolishment of corporal punishment.
The term corporal punishment is often misunderstood. When people talk about corporal punishment they think they are talking about hanging. It has nothing to do with hanging. Corporal punishment means the use of the whip or strap, an instrument of punishment previously in common use. It was imposed after criminals had been convicted of certain offences and sent to federal institutions. In recent years this form of punishment has been used less and less. Now, in introducing this law reform, the minister is merely making regular what has become standard and accepted practice. To be honest, let me say that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), by including this measure in the bill is taking a greater risk than if he had introduced it two or three years ago. A growing number of people in this country think it is useful to retain this anachronistic and revengeful form of punishment known as corporal punishment.
I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. Later in this debate I shall say why it is important to abolish corporal punishment once and for all. May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In baseball, Mr. Speaker, after three strikes you're out. I hope that does not apply to me, for this is the third time I have spoken today.
In bringing this matter to the attention of the House I am raising something that has been the concern of hon. members representing Prince Edward Island, and of the Premier of Prince Edward Island for the past few months. The matter was initially raised in correspondence among members of this House representing Prince Edward Island constituencies, the Premier of Prince Edward Island and Statistics Canada.
I think all Canadians in the last two or three years have been alarmed by rapidly rising food costs. From time to time the complaints of housewives, the most important body in the country, reach the ears of representatives in legislative chambers. We heard such complaints four years ago when the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) chaired, with Senator Croll, that important committee investigating the alarming and rapid increase in food costs.
In talking about the subject of high food costs I want to focus strictly on the situation as it pertains to Prince
May 1, 1972

Edward Island. I want to do this because I think a myth has grown in this country which suggests that it is cheaper to live in places like Prince Edward Island and other areas with a relatively low standard of living and low income. When federal wage scales are set or when federal estimates are made on the amount of expenditures necessary to establish comparable levels of equality of income, it is often concluded that a person can live more cheaply in a place such as Prince Edward Island or the Maritimes generally than in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.
One might almost call this the Judy LaMarsh myth. Perhaps it is not fair to refer to the hon. lady because she is no longer a member of this chamber. I remember a famous occasion when she was speaking in Ontario. She said that an old age pensioner could live much more cheaply in Prince Edward Island than in Ontario. I hope the hon. lady is listening, and others who still cherish that myth. I have facts to indicate that in one of the most vital areas in terms of consumer costs, food, this is unfortunately not the case.


An hon. Member:: What about rents?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The hon. member has suggested rents. I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss that subject on another occasion. It is also an important and related question. There is also the matter of transportation and fuel costs. However, this evening I am focusing on food costs. I have received figures from Statistics Canada which go into some detail. I think it is important to place them on the record. In January, 1969, starting with the $1 figure in Charlottetown, Saint John and Halifax, the criteria was established as to how much $1 would buy. Running through to the end of 1969, food costs showed an increase in those three Maritime centres that was roughly comparable. In December, 1969, food costs had risen to 103.8 in Charlottetown, 104 in Saint John and 104.8 in Halifax.
To the end of 1970 there was a very slight increase in Charlottetown to 104.4. There was a decrease in Saint John to 100.1, and in Halifax to 99.6. I now come to the alarming part. In 1971 there was a rapid rise in food costs in Charlottetown from 105.8 in January to 111.3 in December of that year. In Saint John there was an increase from 100.6 to 106.4 and in Halifax from 99.8 to 103.8. One can see the alarming rate of increase that took place in Charlottetown in the year 1971. While there was a similar increase in the other Maritime centres, it was obviously not as big. In 1972 the cost jumped from 111.7 in January to 113.5 in February, and 113.9 in March-almost 114. In Saint John the figure went from 106.3 in January to 108.2 in March, and in Halifax from 104.8 in January to 105.4 in March. This rapid rise in costs has to be treated very seriously. I think that on a statistical basis people are aware of the way in which they are paying a great deal more for their food.
The answers are not simple but they are at least clear. The issue of transportation has to be the basic one. The issue of transportation to and from the Island has been one that successive governments since confederation have avoided. As a result, almost all the commodities on the island originating from mainland Canada cost more. Almost all the commodities, basic foodstuffs that we sell
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
and which leave the Island, must be sold at lower prices to make up for the difference in transportation costs. How long will islanders continue to be in a seller's market when they choose to purchase their needs, and in a buyer's market when they need to sell their produce?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret that the time of the hon. member has expired.
Mr. ]udd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, Statistics Canada has looked into the situation in Prince Edward Island and found that the trend of food prices in Charlottetown and Halifax has been sharply different in the two places since 1969. It appears clear that an anomalous situation exists there.
As suggested by the hon. member, it may well be that part of this problem arises from transportation costs, and the extra costs involved are certainly a factor in food prices. However, the most important factor may well be the degree of retail competition in different areas. The large retail chains are heavily dependent on traffic in the large urban centres and competition is usually very keen.
In contrast, the attitude of merchants in smaller centres is frequently somewhat more relaxed. This does not imply that any conspiracy is involved, but merely that they are not forced by the market situation to compete as vigorously as they are in the larger centres. This would seem to be part of the problem in Charlottetown. The so-called food price war which began in 1970 did not, it seems, extend to Charlottetown nor, let us be candid, to a great many other parts of Canada.
Food prices, as the hon. member has mentioned, are the most visible of the prices paid by ordinary consumers and also have the greatest impact on public attitudes toward inflation. It would provide a more balanced view of the situation if account could be taken of the prices of a much wider range of goods and services. Although we do not have any precise information on the subject, it is probable that some of the disadvantages to the outlying areas in terms of food prices are counterbalanced by lower accommodation and service costs.
We should probably focus more attention on the over-all standard of living in different regions. It would seem that we should be striving for greater equality in standards of living and that we should accept disparities in particular price levels provided that similar groups of people in different areas have roughly equivalent living standards which they are able to enjoy.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ST ANBURY-FIELDS REPORT

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, about five years ago the federal government commissioned two University of British Columbia professors, Professor Stan-bury and Professor Fields, to make a study of taxation in the broadest possible sense as it related to Indian people in that province. As far as I can gather, the federal government paid the whole shot for that study; it was a federal government examination and survey.

May 1, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Stanbury-Fields report, as it became known, was subsequently concluded and presented to the federal government. On a number of occasions I have moved motions in the House asking that that report be made public; in other words, be tabled. At first when these motions of mine were put forward a few years ago, the government objected to them on the ground that the report was of a confidential nature and could not be disclosed. In fact, I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) was minister of Indian affairs at the time I first raised the question. At any rate, the federal government indicated it could not disclose this report because it was confidential. But we persisted in our requests.
A couple of years ago this government acquiesced and said in effect, "We have examined the report. We do not consider it to be confidential, so we will agree to table it subject to permission of the province of British Columbia." The province of B.C. subsequently denied that permission and the report was not tabled. I submit that inasmuch as it was a federal report related to a subject matter coming exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, namely, Indian people, and inasmuch as it was financed entirely out of federal revenue, the province of British Columbia has no position whatsoever in this matter, permission should not have been asked for nor should the denial of the province have been heeded at that time.
That report makes some very interesting disclosures about the position of Indian people, the amount of taxes they pay and the fact that they are cheated regarding their land tax position, in that reserve land is leased to the province of British Columbia. They are being cheated by the provincial government and I suggest that is the reason the province does not want the report tabled.
I suggest that the House did pass a motion to the effect that this report be tabled and I now seek permission to table four chapters of it, being the part I have been able to obtain. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a motion this House passed, I ask permission to table chapters 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Stanbury-Fields report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. While I do not have the rule book before me, if I am correct this document can only be tabled at the time of motions. The Chair cannot accept the hon. member's suggestion.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I doubt that it is your prerogative to make that decision. No one in the House has objected and I assume that unanimous consent has been given because of lack of objection. Unanimous consent having been given to table the report, this should certainly obviate any feelings you may have about the rules in respect of motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I think the hon. member is asking the Chair to do something that does not follow the usual practice for tabling documents. The hon. member knows the rules which apply at this time of night. I do not think the Chair has any right to accept the suggestions. In order to be fair, let me refer to the rule that papers can be laid before the

House by the provisions of an act of parliament, an order of the House, an address to the Crown, a command of the Crown or by Standing Order of the House. At this time of night we do not follow the practice of tabling documents. One might also suggest that there is no quorum, therefore unanimous consent cannot be given. In any event, I think my ruling should stand and I cannot accept the tabling of this document at this time.


Frank Howard: Am I correct in assuming that you refuse to put the question to the House seeking unanimous consent? Surely if unanimous consent is given in respect of an order of the House that has already been issued for the tabling of this document, it should be received.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In addition to what I have said, we have not a quorum and the hon. member knows the special rules which apply at this time of night.


Frank Howard: If we do not have a quorum, I think you should adjourn the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I think the hon. member should co-operate with the Chair and let the ruling stand.


Frank Howard: I take it I may raise this matter tomorrow on motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: If the hon. member intends to treat the matter as a motion, he will have to do so before motions are called tomorrow.


Frank Howard: If I raise the matter on motions, that is true, unless Your Honour suggests I do it by way of a question of privilege, in which case I can give two hours' notice in accordance with the rules. If that is your wish, I will do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member knows the rules. He can raise the matter on a question of privilege if he wishes, but my decisions stands and I regret that I cannot do otherwise than deny the request.
Mr. )udd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, in 1967 the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development engaged the services of Professor D. B. Fields of the faculty of commerce and business administration, University of British Columbia, to undertake a study and quantitative assessment of the status of Indians as taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. His associate in the study was Mr. W. T. Stanbury, at that time a PhD candidate in economics at the University of California, Berkley, and the department of economics, University of British Columbia. Hence the name of the report. The terms of reference of the study, as reported in Hansard for Wednesday April 23,1969, at page 7843 were as follows:
The project shall consist of a study and quantitative assessment of the financial significance of the special status of Indians as taxpayers in the province of British Columbia and without limiting its scope in any way shall include a general analysis of present and potential taxes levied on Indians, the nature and cost of services rendered to Indians at present and future trends, the growing significance of taxes paid by non-Indian leaseholders of

Indian lands, the tax implications of an increase in business activities on Indian reserves, and significant changes in income and spending patterns of Indians including their potential to pay income tax if they were subject thereto.
The nature of the study meant, of course, obtaining data from various departments of the provincial government, municipalities and federal tax authorities as well as from public documents. In 1968 a report with the findings of Professor Fields and Mr. Stanbury was submitted. It is well known, as reported in Hansard, that some of the material contained in the report was considered to be of a confidential nature and accordingly could not be released. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development undertook to have an edited version prepared which would take appropriate account of personal references to individuals and the confidentiality of material.
The government was prepared to make such a version available, subject to obtaining the concurrence of the province of British Columbia. However, unfortunately that province has not granted concurrence and consequently it has not been possible to have the report made public.



TRANSPORT-UPDATING OF YEAR OF MANUFACTURE OF FOREIGN AUTOMOBILES-ACTION TO END PRACTICE.

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on March 28 last I raised a question with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) regarding the updating of certain automobiles, mainly imported automobiles. This is a topic which has excited a considerable amount of interest across the nation and one to which I believe the government should direct its attention. I realize there is a dual responsibility here and that probably the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras) has just as keen an interest in the matter as his colleague the Minister of Transport.
The question has many ramifications. As I say, it has excited a great deal of interest across the nation. Apart from the fact that the Department of Transport certainly has a legitimate interest in this topic as a result of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the department I think should be prepared to answer a few questions and take a more direct interest in what is going on. For example, I should like to know how many people within the Department of Transport deal directly with questions concerning automobile safety.
I should also like to know how many complaints are registered annually with the department on this subject, and what sanctions are available through the Department of Transport to enforce regulations pertaining to auto safety and registration procedures. There is a real problem here so far as consumers are concerned because at this time, due to Canada's status as what has been called a dumping ground for unsafe and misregistered vehicles, any vehicle, I am informed, may be arbitrarily registered by the auto maker in any year desired, with full government approval. The only problem is that no one bothers to tell the consumer about this. Then he buys a new 1972 Datsun, Toyota or Volvo, for example, he may find much to his surprise that what he really bought is last year's model.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Most customers only discover the error when they return to their dealer the next year and find that their car has depreciated perhaps by two years, with a depreciation factor of 50 per cent rather than the expected 30 per cent. By this the motorist learns to his sorrow that he has paid more for his insurance, that his car's rusting is normal rather than premature, and that most sales contracts have a clause which prohibits him from doing much about it.
Aside from financial loss suffered, these redated automobiles pose a serious safety hazard. Certain 1971 and 1972 models advertised as incorporating the latest federally-controlled safety devices may in fact be substandard in construction, because the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act is effective only for vehicles manufactured after January, 1971, and normally any car registered as a 1972 vehicle would incorporate the features specified in the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, this is not always the case and the motorist loses a great deal financially and so far as his personal well-being is concerned.
There is another point which is of concern. I suppose the import tax collected on foreign automobiles is predicated to some extent on the year they were manufactured. If there is some uncertainty as to the status of the vehicles allowed into the country and the fact that they may be updated, as it sometimes appears may well be the case, then I think the amount of import tax collected would be affected. If such is the case, I urge the government to look into this aspect of the matter.
There is another problem involving registration. I should like to quote from a submission made by a responsible consumer group in which the following statement appears:
Mr. Karl Barths, president of Volkswagen Canada Limited, recently told two members of the APA executive staff that Volkswagen had a serious problem in the early sixties with the now famous "grey market" selling of Volkswagens. Old Volkswagens were updated and sold to unsuspecting American motorists. This fraud was quickly ended, however, when Volkswagen of America improved its serial numbering system in 1965 so that anyone could determine when the car was built.
If that could be done at the initiative of the Americans, surely the Canadian government could double-check to see whether something like that could not be done here. I realize that time is a factor and I would conclude by suggesting that there are certain things that the Department of Transport and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs could do. I make the suggestion because there are few things that interest the average Canadian as much as his automobile, and if he feels that something is phony about the way imported cars are being sold in the country, or for that matter any car, it will have a detrimental effect on the industry as a whole.
It seems to me that the import car industry in particular should be forced to set up machinery for a just rebate system for dealers who are left with old unsold models; that all car serial numbers should be filed with federal and provincial departments of consumer affairs and that complete reimbursement for all valid consumer claims, equal to the monetary difference between the real and the fictional age of the vehicle, should be instituted.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Recently the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs held a press conference in Montreal at which he dealt with this problem. That is why I said at the beginning of my remarks that this is really a dual responsibility, but a governmental responsibility nevertheless. At that press conference a certain amount of attention was paid to the proposition that assistance would be available to consumers who wished to institute suits as a result of grievances which they suffered at the hands of dealers of imported cars. I would like to know what has been done in this regard, how many suits have been instituted, whether the government is really concerned about the problem or whether this is just a convenient way to dispose of it.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, following a question asked in this House on March 28 by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) concerning current regulations on motor vehicle safety, I indicated in a written reply tabled on April 26 that any vehicle manufactured or imported in Canada after January 1, 1971, had to bear a label showing the month and year of manufacture.
The Minister of Transport feels he has a duty to ensure that vehicles meet requirements concerning the conformity label prescribed by the regulations on motor vehicle
safety, and a signed declaration for each vehicle is required of all importers.
Moreover, the records of manufacturers and importers are examined, and vehicles are inspected at customs offices in ports of entry as well as at the importers'. Whenever a complaint is received from the public, an investigation is made, and finally, the operations of manufacturers in Canada are under constant supervision.
One must also take into account the fact that any person who violates the Motor Vehicle Safety Act is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 or, on conviction by way of indictment, to a fine from $5,000 to $200,000, whether the offence is committed by a private person or a corporation.
The hon. member must be aware of the press release that was issued by the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) on April 24, and I guess he will be able to look into it if he has not done so yet, because he will find there all the information he wants about the subject matter we are dealing with tonight.

I also have taken note of other points of interest brought forward by the hon. member. I shall inform the minister of them in order to provide the hon. member with all necessary information.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Tuesday May 2, 1972