1973-09-20

PRIVILEGE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: 
Mr. Speaker:: The grievance raised by the hon. member for Wellington is one which was raised before in the House, last week, I believe, by the hon. member for Yukon when he very forcefully objected to or took issue with the statement of the minister. The matter was considered at that time. I suggest to the hon. member that there is not a prima facie case of privilege. He proposes a motion. I suggest to him that this is a substantive motion and not a privileged motion. In the circumstances I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this is not the kind of matter that the House should consider at this time.



RECOGNITION OF GROUPS OF VISITORS IN GALLERIES- RULING BY MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence but today is an historic day for this chamber as we have here 42 senior citizens from Edmonton Centre who are visiting parliament. I feel that when people travel 2,400 miles just to see the way parliament operates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the position of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, who at this time wants to bring to the attention of the House the presence of very distinguished citizens from his constituency. I am sure all members are pleased to see them here, but at the same time I suggest to the hon. member it is extremely bad practice to do what he is attempting to do at this time. Every day there are distinguished visitors in the members' gallery and in my gallery, visitors from my constituency and other members' constituencies, but if we were to embark on a practice of recognizing visits by senior citizens, junior citizens, or any other groups visiting the House of Commons we might spend most of our day bringing to the attention of the House the presence in the galleries of our distinguished constituents. After what I heard yesterday during the question period that might be an improvement-

September 20, 1973
Indian Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -but, all this having been said, I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, who is a well liked member of the House, will appreciate the position of the Chair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 4, 1973-Mr. Howard:
That the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday when the hon. member for Skeena proposed to move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in, the Chair suggested that it might be irregular to proceed with the said motion at that time. With the assistance provided by the hon. member himself in his submission to the House, the Chair has given careful consideration to this matter. It would appear to me that not only is the rule of anticipation involved here but there is also the application of certain Standing Orders which I suggest bear on this case.
The hon. member has obviously given serious thought to the procedural difficulty involved. It seems to me that in the submission of his argument he has agreed with the proposition that his motion anticipated the order for the adjourned debate on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Incidentally, the records indicate that the hon. member for Skeena seconded that motion. That in itself introduces a further complication which I will merely mention and on which I will not make a ruling.
As the hon. member pointed out yesterday, the Chair, in interpreting the rule on anticipation, should have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time. I would suggest that the probability of resuming debate on a motion by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is still an open question. The Chair must assume that that probability is still open.
In my view, consideration of two specific Standing Orders touching upon the procedural question is relevant at this time. Standing Order 45(2) reads as follows:
When a debate on any motion made prior to the reading of the Orders of the Day is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under government orders.

That Standing Order was permanently enacted in 1968 on the same occasion that the House, in the words of the hon. member for Skeena, "embarked upon a new structure and concept regarding the operation of the standing committees." The Chair cannot assume that the committees and the House as well were not fully aware at the time of the effect of the provisions of that Standing Order.
Finally, the Chair must refer to section 2 of Standing Order 18 which reads as follows:
Government orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.
The provisions of that Standing Order, I suggest, are so clear and explicit that they preclude the Chair or any member other than those in the government from designating any government order to be taken up at any sitting.
As stated in citation 13 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:
... An express order of the House, whether standing or occasional, supersedes every mere usage or precedent. In the absence of any express order "what can or ought to be done by either House of Parliament is best known by the custom and proceedings of parliament in former times."
Without a doubt the anticipation rule must be taken into account as a guide in our proceedings, but in this case its application must be interpreted in the context of the Standing Orders to which I have referred.
The Chair has no difficulty about the hon. member's motion being allowed to remain on the order paper but I suggest, with respect, to the hon. member that it would be difficult to accept from a procedural standpoint that the motion be put and debated at this time.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, therefore, with the consent of the House, ask leave to withdraw the motion, saving always the right to reintroduce it at an appropriate time in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Danforth.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Kent-Essex, Mr. Speaker.
I respectfully request leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. The matter is of most urgent and serious concern to all Canadians in general and to the producers of cattle specifically. If the House is sympathetically disposed to grant approval, I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the government policies on the restriction on exports of beef and especially the removal of tariff protection on this commodity entering Canada without a reciprocal agreement with the
September 20, 1973

United States, be referred at the earliest opportunity to the Standing Committee of Agriculture for study and report back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: For the record, perhaps I might indicate that the hon. member has not been named. The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kent-Essex. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 it requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek permission of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the need of the House to be able to respond at an early date to the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development relating to aboriginal rights. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien):
That this House set aside Friday, September 21, 1973, for the consideration of Item No. 32 under Government Orders being: Resuming debate on the motion of Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands), seconded by Mr. Howard, That the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, as amended by unanimous consent, be concurred in. And that, at 15 minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment, unless the debate be previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.


Mr. Chretien:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the hon. member for Saint-Maurice was the seconder of the motion, that being myself. He has not talked to me yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair was going to inquire whether there is a seconder for the motion. There does not appear to be a seconder.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that was an oversight on my part. It is the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) who is the seconder of the motion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has recognized that my interest in the north is such that he confused the two ridings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
Cost of Living


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in as much as the only person present on the other side of the House who said no was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, perhaps he would explain why he does not want this matter to come forward for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair might allow the minister to stand up and say that he was not one of the members who said no, but I think that would not be fair to the House and I think it is not fair on the part of the hon. member for Skeena to suggest that one particular hon. member said no. From the procedural standpoint, what is relevant is that there is not unanimous consent. In my hearing there was not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That in view of the fact that the government has not taken adequate measures to deal with the high cost of living and as a result, elderly and lower income Canadians are finding it almost impossible to exist, this House requests that the Prime Minister of Canada postpone his planned trip to the People's Republic of China and also that he not undertake any other junkets that may be contemplated, and in addition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has indicated very often that it is elementary, the operation of Standing Order 43 being what it is, that hon. members should refrain from making allegations and often gratuitous statements in motions under Standing Order 43. The procedure has not made it possible so far to have a debate on motions proposed under Standing Order 43. I think this has been understood by hon. members who have generally refrained from making or resisted the temptation to include arguments in their proposed motions. I suggest that a motion couched in the terms proposed by the hon. member is entirely irregular and should not be put to the House.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would therefore, with your permission, move simply as follows, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House requests the Prime Minister to remain in Ottawa and forthwith to direct his government in an immediate and full-scale attack on inflation by means of the essential antiinflation measures proposed by the Progressive Conservative party.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford.

September 20, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43, to ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a most pressing matter.
In view of the huge difference in the way the expropriated were treated at Ste.-Scholastique compared with those at Pickering, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That a special committee of the House be formed to reopen and study all the files on all expropriated at Ste.-Scholastique in order that they might be treated exactly as those at Pickering were, taking into account the true respective evaluations.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of his statement to the House in July that in the event of evidence there was any gouging in connection with food pricing the government would take action, by legislation if necessary, and in view of the evidence given by the Minister of Agriculture and charges of gouging by supermarkets, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to enable itself to deal with this alleged situation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is still the same. Having regard to the action being attempted by the Food Prices Review Board, the publicizing of whatever findings they have and the summoning of responsible people before them, if in all these circumstances it appears that corrective action is not taken the government will seek parliamentary authority to act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it from the Prime Minister's answer the government does not place much weight on the evidence of the minister. Has the government set up any machinery to monitor bread prices at this time in order to ensure that the increased subsidy and the various arrangements made by the government with regard to domestic wheat will keep bread prices down, as promised by the Prime Minister at the time of his earlier statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman recollects the terms of my statement, it was to the effect we would ask the Food Prices Review Board to follow the various subsidies we are making to ensure that they are passed on to the consumer, and to report to the government if they are not. I believe they are engaged in this task at the present time.


MONITORING OF SALES TAX AND TARIFF CUTS TO ENSURE BENEFITS REACH CONSUMERS-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the importance of monitoring and the experience we have had with assurances by the government about minitoring, I wish to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether, after six months or more, we can now have the report of his department or group with regard to the monitoring of results of the budget changes and the passing on of those changes to the consumers? Can the minister assure us this report will be tabled in the House today, tomorrow or early next week?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I previously informed the House that I expected the surveys for the purpose of preparing this report to be completed about this time. It is my hope to have the work on the report completed as soon as the survey results are made available to the officials.


TAR SANDS OIL-POSSIBILITY OF EXEMPTION FROM TWO-PRICE SYSTEM AND EXPORT CONTROLS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of reports of an agreement between the government of Alberta and Syncrude for the production of oil from the Athabasca tar sands. Has Premier Lougheed or Syncrude made a request to him directly, or to the government as far as he knows, that the oil produced by this process be exempted both from the two-price system and from any export controls Canada may have? If so, what has been the reply to such request?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I would have to confirm this with my office, but to my knowledge I have received no such request either from the company or from Premier Lougheed. I might say that the full details of the Syncrude project are not yet known to us. We learned about them on
September 20, 1973

television and we look forward to obtaining further information as time goes on.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that according to press reports the letter of intent signed by Premier Lougheed and Syncrude makes the arrangement conditional on the obtaining of such exemptions from the federal government, will the minister assure the House that the interests of the Canadian consumer as to supply and price will be protected and that exemption from the two-price system or from export controls will not be granted in the Syncrude situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think I would have to know more about the project. The fact remains that both in terms of income taxation and in terms of protecting the Canadian market the responsibility does lie upon the government to put the interest of Canadians first, as indicated in the National Energy Board Act.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the minister has told the House there will be legislation introduced to deal with some of the policies announced on September 4 or 13-I forget the precise date-and in view of the fact that the request of the oil corporations and the Conservative premier of Alberta would hypothecate the oil of the Athabasca tar sands to the United States until such time as Canadian prices are equal to or higher than United States prices, may I ask the minister whether he can assure the House that the legislation to be introduced will not exempt any part of the multinational oil industry from the requirements?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I really would not like to anticipate the legislation. Perhaps I could regard the hon. member's question as a representation.


David Lewis: And a strong one.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works.
Does the hon. minister intend to reopen the files of expropriated people in Ste.-Scholastique so as to deal with them the same way he did with Pickering owners?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to reopen these files because I am satisfied that expropriated people in Ste.-Scholas-tique have obtained the same justice as will Pickering residents. However, I have agreed to receive in my office next week five spokesmen for the expropriated people. I am sure we can convince these people that they have been fairly treated. However, if there are points in their favour which have been overlooked, I shall be pleased to consider them with justice and an open mind.
Oral Questions


STE.-SCHOLASTIQUE-ALLEGED BLACKMAILING BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES RESPECTING EXPROPRIATION
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Does the Minister of Public Works intend to take the necessary steps to prevent his officials from blackmailing the expropriated owners of Ste.-Scholastique who are presently under his department's pressure?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that the blackmail is not applied by officials but by certain representatives of the people who are trying to stir up part of the people against the government.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker . . .


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Lotbiniere raising a point of order or is he asking a supplementary question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I said, a moment ago, that we were trying to complete the first series of questions, which we have now done. We will come back to this question later. I note that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes and others wish to ask supplementary questions. We will now come back to the subject involved in the first question.
The hon. member for St. John's East I believe has a supplementary to the first question.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is momentarily out of the House. If Your Honour will kindly take this into account I shall resume my seat.


TAR SANDS OIL-REQUEST FOR ANALYSIS OF ALL EVIDENCE BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER TWO-PRICE SYSTEM AND EXPORT CONTROLS SHOULD APPLY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the question by the hon. member for York South and the fact that many thousands of jobs are being developed in Alborta by the Athabasca tar sands project, as the minister knows, and also in light of the fact it has operated in the red to date, will the minister make certain that all the evidence will be analysed before following the suggestion of the hon. member for York South who seems to want to kill development not only in Alberta but elsewhere?

September 20, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I shall look forward to receiving full evidence about the Syncrude project either from the premier or the company.


TAR SANDS OIL-POSSIBILITY OF JOINT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the minister. In view of the fact we ought to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes in developing the tar sands as were made in developing the oil fields and turn them over to the multinational corporations, I want to ask the minister whether the government is prepared to make an offer in principle to the oil-producing provinces that have tar sands to develop them on a joint basis so that the federal and provincial governments might develop and control the tar sands oil in conjunction with the public?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we mentioned at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference our interest in priority in assisting in the development of the oil sands, particularly in research and development. I have not yet made, nor have I been authorized to make, any offer such as suggested by the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that these fields must be developed in the next few years if we are to meet the anticipated oil shortage likely to arise by 1983, may I ask the minister if the government is prepared to give serious consideration to a joint public involvement on the part of the federal government with those provincial governments that are willing to co-operate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give that serious consideration.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the Leader of the Opposition and is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the government studying the extent that the rise in food and other prices has been caused by the government's own monetary policies and, if so, what steps are planned to change those policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had occasion to hear the Minister of Finance in the debate the other day and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, he would perhaps begin to understand that, on the contrary, our fiscal and monetary policies have made the situation better in Canada than in most other industrialized nations.


WELFARE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the continuous increase in the cost of living affects those on low and fixed incomes, and in view of the fact the Prime Minister indicated that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of any increases by the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan and social assistance, would the minister indicate if he has been in consultation with all the provinces, whether they have indicated agreement to such a plan, and what action the federal government intends to take in this regard?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed consulted my colleagues. As a matter of fact, I consult them regularly. Since that time the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have already announced an increase in their welfare payments. I understand that several other provinces are reviewing their present scale of welfare payments, which had already been increased prior to this month, and that there may be further adjustments in the future.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works.
Can he inform the House whether he is prepared to set up a mechanism which could ease a satisfactory settlement of the 350 pending expropriation cases at Mirabel?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes as well as those of Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) and Labelle (Mr. Dupras), we have created a conciliation committee which will do exactly this work. I hope they will settle the odd remaining cases to the satisfaction of all concerned.


STE.-SCHOLASTIQUE-MEASURES TO HASTEN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR LANDS EXPROPRIATED
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, knowing the efficiency of the Minister of Public Works and his two colleagues whom he has just named and who do not meddle in politics, I should like to ask him a question.
Considering that a great number of expropriated persons have not yet received their compensation cheques and that the rent charged to the persons involved has been increased without any prior consultation, can the minister say what steps he intends to take to cope with departmental dilatoriness?
September 20, 1973


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, we are taking all possible and necessary steps to solve the problem as quickly as possible.

Oral Questions
proceeded in this way. We would not have invited Her Majesty, and I take it she would not have come, to visit Canada twice at the invitation of the government in the past year, and she would not have been as well received and as happy about her visit as she is.
j-English]


WELFARE
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER CANADA ASSISTA.NCE PLAN-PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL AID
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. With regard to the need for increasing welfare payments, particularly in the poorer provinces, and recalling the Prime Minister's remarks about the 50 per cent cost-sharing arrangement under the Canada Assistance Plan, I wonder whether the minister has had any indication from the poorer provinces concerning whether additional assistance needs to be provided in order that adequate welfare payments can be made?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, no particular representation has been made in this regard. Discussions have taken place in the general review of social problems, but I have not received any special representations lately.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to answer this question. Was it with government approval or was it left to the Postmaster General to do what I have suggested has been done in recent months? Surely the Prime Minister does not suggest that removing any suggestion of the monarchy is a means of showing the government's devotion to that institution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will read the blues he will realize that he has repeated his question practically word for word-


John George Diefenbaker: I am not getting an answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and that my first answer gave the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the question he asked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POST OFFICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would have directed it to the Postmaster General had he been here. It has to do with the removal of the Royal cipher, E-II from Royal mail pillar boxes and post office vehicles in recent days. Was that done as a result of cabinet action or was it done administratively by the department of the Postmaster General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult the minister on this. I have no recollection that it was done in cabinet. It is possible that it could have happened in some cabinet committee that would have escaped me but I rather think not. The only communication I had with the Postmaster General on this general subject was a few months ago when he told me that he intended to publish special stamps, the largest ever published in Canada, to commemorate the reign of Her Majesty Elizabeth II.


John George Diefenbaker: The Machiavellian definition of respect for the monarchy as just revealed by the Prime Minister is difficult of interpretation. I ask him simply, was the Queen's cipher removed from the Royal mail in order to exemplify the newly-found devotion of the government for Her Majesty following her visit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the contrary, had we intended to remove the symbols of the monarchy we would not have


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: You have never done that in your life.


BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the fact the majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Lavell case has cast serious doubts on the efficacy of the Canadian Bill of Rights to protect Canadians against discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion and race, and in light of the Prime Minister's lifelong concern about a constitutional bill of rights, will he now renew the efforts of the government to obtain a consensus so that we may obtain a constitutional bill of rights available to all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the preamble because he correctly states my interest in achieving this end. I can only remind him that the federal government and the provinces went through a great many constitutional conferences between 1968 and 1972-


John George Diefenbaker: And between 1961 and 1962 as well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and were unable to reach a consensus on the constitutional bill of rights which he suggests and which, of course, we were promoting during that period. It is still government policy to obtain that, but I cannot say there are immediate plans to convene a constitutional conference for that purpose.

September 20, 1973
Oral Questions


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that fortunately, from my point of view, there have been a number of changes in the heads of governments in the different provinces since then, will the Prime Minister not now fix a definite time to consult with the provinces on this matter, perhaps with a different and happier result?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the suggestion. I will wait a few more months to ensure there are no further changes in governments and, if possible, I will perhaps in a discreet way initiate the consultation he has suggested.


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact he restated in the House the day before yesterday the 18-month freight rate freeze accepted by the railways, and in light of the fact the railways have announced an 11 cents per hundred weight increase in freight rates on fruit from the Okanagan to Toronto and Montreal effective October 1, will the minister order the railways to withdraw this rate increase?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say anything more than what I already said to the House yesterday or the day before. What I asked the railways to do was to avoid increasing the normal rates, but as far as agreed rates and certain other rates are concerned it was up to the parties to decide.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I might say that this is a normal rate, not an agreed rate. Will the minister now tell us what types of freight rates and commodities are affected by the freeze, and what percentage of the total freight traffic this represents?


Mr. Marchand (Liangelier):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member puts the question that way I think he is distorting what I said. I said I was asking the railways not to increase the rates. I do not personally have the power to make a decree freezing freight rates. According to the law, and this act was adopted by the House in 1967, the railways are free to increase freight rates and to justify them to the Canadian Transport Commission. All I did was to ask the railways not to increase the normal rates.


PRICE AT WHICH FEED GRAIN WILL BE SOLD TO EASTERN CANADA
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I understand he made an announcement today concerning the Agricultural

Products Board price for feed grain in western Canada. I also understand he is trying to establish a monitored weighted average price for feed grain being sold in western Canada. Can he inform the House and the country at which level feed grain barley will be sold to eastern Canada? Will it be the Agricultural Products Board price or the average weighted price which he is trying to determine?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to confirm the policy as announced.


John George Diefenbaker: It would be nice to have it announced in the House.


Otto Emil Lang: The selling price in Canada will be based on the determined off-board price. The purpose of the Agricultural Products Board price is to ensure that no barley or oats is moving at prices below that level.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I understand the price will be the monitored weighted average price which he is attempting to determine, but who will make up the loss? Let us suppose no barley is bought by the Agricultural Products Board and the Wheat Board has to turn over the grain to it. Who will make up the loss represented by the difference between that price and the international price that farmers may receive when they get their final payments?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, again I welcome the opportunity to clarify for the hon. member the fact that the Agricultural Products Board will not be selling feed grains to anyone in Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board will continue to sell feed grains to the Canadian market on the basis of the price at which non-board grains are trading in the Prairie region. The grain obtained by the Agricultural Products Board, at a price which we are telling the farmers we think is still too low considering the price available from the Canadian Wheat Board, will be stored unless the Canadian Wheat Board needs and wants it for its own purposes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who makes up the difference?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a final supplementary, and then the hon. member for Charlevoix.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, can the country and the House assume that the loss or shortage will come out of the barley pool in the final accounting of the Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of the price at which barley or oats is in fact traded in Canada depends on the price at which farmers in the Prairie region are willing to sell, and that will be the price to be used as the basis for sales elsewhere.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You did not answer the question. Who makes up the loss? The farmers ought to line you up and shoot you when you go out there.
September 20, 1973


INQUIRY RESPECTING INTENSIVE USE OF DRUGS IN TREATMENT OF MENTAL PATIENTS
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he received representations on the harmful effects of the intensive use of drugs as a therapy for mental patients?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I regret, but I did not understand the hon. member's question. Would he kindly repeat it?


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if he has received representations concerning the harmful effects of the intensive use of drugs as a therapy for mental patients?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that even though the use of drugs in psychiatric treatments may be effective in the short term, in the long term the use of phenothiazins in the case of 50,000 mental patients has resulted in permanent destruction of the nervous system and of the cells-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should point out to the hon. member that he is giving a medical opinion and I do not think that he can express an opinion instead of asking a question. Could the hon. member ask his question-


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to my question.
Is the minister prepared to act in this area in order to limit the intensive use of these drugs, as recommended by the committee on institutional psychiatry.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to examine the medical opinion given by the hon. member.
[La ter:]


Mr. Atkey:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to the question asked by the hon. member for Charlevoix. I made a submission to the Minister of National Health and Welfare one week ago today on the very subject of that question. I made further submissions orally to him on Monday of this week. The committee which gave rise to those submissions about which the hon. member raised the question is located in my constituency and they raised matters of serious and national importance. I regret to say that the minister today has infringed my privileges by saying that in fact he has had no submissions on the question.
Oral Questions


FEED GRAINS-POWERS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BOARD AND WHEAT BOARD TO PURCHASE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. I assume from his statement that the Agricultural Products Board will be able to purchase all grades of wheat, barley and oats from the farmers. I should like to ask him if that is so and also whether it is his intention to bring in amendments to the Wheat Board Act so that the Wheat Board may also purchase grain from the Agricultural Products Board as well as from farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the prices which have been set at this time for barley and oats are on the base of No. 1 feed barley and No. 1 feed oats, basis Thunder Bay. The Agricultural Products Board prices will range downward for lower quality grain. The Products Board will not pay a higher price for higher quality grain if it is offered to it, the feed price being the basic one which will be available. The question of the steps that may be required in order to facilitate operations between the Agricultural Products Board and the Canadian Wheat Board to the maximum advantage of the Canadian Wheat Board is being determined, but if legislation is necessary it will be introduced at that time.


PRICE TO FARMER FOR BARLEY USED DOMESTICALLY
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to analyse the formula placed before the House by the Minister of Justice. It seems to make the Einstein theory look like simplicity itself. I have done some figuring here and I want to find out whether it is not correct. As of today, on the basis of the new formula the minister has produced or that has been concocted, is it not a fact that the western farmer would receive 90 cents a bushel for his barley less than he would on this particular day on the international market?


Otto Emil Lang: The fact of the matter is that the price which has been set for the Agricultural Products Board for feed barley, for instance, is 58 cents a bushel higher at the elevator than the Canadian Wheat Board's initial price, but it is set at this level as a midway point between the initial price and the expected final return. No farmer needs to receive the Agricultural Products Board price because, with the expected high quotas that will be available, he can and indeed should hold his grain and sell it to the Canadian Wheat Board.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the right hon. gentleman and then the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, and by that time we will have come pretty close to the end of the question period.


John George Diefenbaker: Again I repeat the question. As of today, is it not correct that if a farmer sold his feed barley in western Canada he would get 90 cents per bushel less

September 20, 1973
Oral Questions
than he would on the international market? That is a simple question.


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: How much less?


Otto Emil Lang: The simple fact is that if he sells to the Canadian Wheat Board he gets the full value of the Canadian Wheat Board initial price and final payment. If, instead, he chooses to accept a total amount without any hope of final payment, he does obtain less, but that is his choice.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is an insult to the western farmer. Get a judgeship from Trudeau while you can.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that much of the question period has been spent on this very important matter. I recognize that it is very important, but we must not forget that there are other matters of interest to other members of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has a supplementary question. We will then try, in the last three or four minutes before the end of the question period, to look at another aspect of Canadian life.


FEED GRAIN-REQUEST THAT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BOARD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE UNTIL LEGAL STATUS VIS-A-VIS WHEAT BOARD CLARIFIED
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek some clarification from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. According to my understanding, the Canadian Wheat Board is not legally entitled under its present act to buy grain from the Agricultural Products Board. Will the minister delay putting the Agricultural Products Board into operation as a purchaser of western grain until such time as the legal status of the two boards is clarified under the Canadian Wheat Board Act?


Otto Emil Lang: If I were to give the hon. member a legal opinion, it would not be to confirm his premise.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from whom I have been attempting for many months to get a copy of the report on the monitoring of the February budget changes. Is the minister prepared to honour the statement he made on September 7 that the report would be ready about the middle of September, which has now passed, and can he now give the House a firm date when this report, real or imaginary, will be made available to the House and the 
public, or are we to regard this whole thing as nothing but a worthless sham?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House on September 7 that it was expected that the work on the report would be completed about the middle of September, and I stand by the rest of what I said in the answer to that question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that the report would be ready by the middle of September. I read the answer and I want the minister to stop fooling around with the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I have here the Hansard extract. I said:
Work on this has been going on. I expect it to be completed about the middle of September.
This is consistent with the answer I have just given. [Later:]


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a question of privilege but this is a matter which has been before the House for a number of months. I should like to read the answer given on September 7 by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He said:
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect in suggesting that I have been refusing to prepare a report. Work on this has been going on. I expect it to be completed about the middle of September. It will be delivered to the Minister of Finance, following which I trust its conclusions will be made available appropriately to the House and the public


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: What's your problem, Bob?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hon. members opposite may not regard it as of any importance that the minister has been giving the House an assurance on this subject for a matter of seven months and has not lived up to it. I say there can be no doubt, reading that answer, that the report was to be completed by the middle of September, and I want to know when the minister is going to bring this long delayed report to the House. What is he trying to hide?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition neglected to point out that there was a period between the word "September" and the word "It". He slid over that in his usual manner when raising his point of privilege. I said the report would be presented when it was completed, and I am going to stick to that.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for CMHC. In view of the urgency of the clean-up program on the Great Lakes system and the
September 20, 1973

difficulties of small towns in financing sewage treatment systems, can the minister say if more generous financial assistance, with special consideration for small municipalities, will be offered by the federal government in the agreements to be signed with the provinces this year?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I said some time ago that the sewage program of CMHC which expires in 1975 is under review. I hope to make recommendations to my colleagues within a matter of weeks and I hope to announce that, as I have made clear to the provinces, this fall. Of course, I think that one of the features that must be considered in revising the sewage support program is the position of small towns which have not been able to take full advantage of the program until now.


OIL-PRICE OF WESTERN CRUDE IN EASTERN CANADA UNDER GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has ducked out of the chamber. In his absence I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, although since it deals with western Canada and oil he may not understand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was given the floor as the question period was about to end for the purpose of asking a question. Perhaps he might attempt to do that, after which I will call orders of the day.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made in Calgary by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he was pleased this week that the government of Alberta wanted to base the price of western oil on world prices and not United States prices, will the Prime Minister say whether under the government's new oil policy western Canadian crude prices will continue to rise in eastern Canada by the same amount as crude oil imported from the Middle East and Venezuela?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That will depend on further announcements the minister will be making in the near future on the basis of which oil will be priced in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the acting government House leader about the order of business for today and the rest of the legislative items which the government seeks to have enacted or completed in the House before it puts the adjournment motion which appears on the order paper.
Parole Act


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we propose to proceed this afternoon with the amendments to the Parole Act, which is Bill C-191, followed by item No. 40, the amendments to the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, followed by No. 26, the CNR financing bill. The question of proceeding with additional items of business or completing these tomorrow may depend on the view of the House of the motion now appearing on the notice paper in my name. It is our disposition that the House may well now resume the break which was begun in July, and that the very important items which require attention may be more effectively dealt with by members on and after October 15.


Gerald William Baldwin: If I may work my way through that answer I assume that tomorrow the minister will be moving the motion for adjournment standing in his name, provided the three items he mentioned are disposed of today.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of the motion for adjournment is a subject for discussion. I have indicated that it is our inclination to proceed with it, and as these discussions proceed we will determine for certain the course of action with regard to it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It depends on you, in other words.


Frank Howard: Am I correct in assuming that there is no intention on the part of the government at this stage to bring forward the resumed debate on the second report of the Indian Affairs Committee relating to aboriginal rights?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, many hon. members are extremely interested in resuming that debate. I believe the House leader has it very much in mind, and will give consideration to the matter on his return.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General) moved: that Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 last I announced a series of measures designed to prevent abuses in our inmate release programs, that is to say, the parole and temporary absences programs, to provide for a better investigation of inmate grievances through the appointment of a correctional investigator or ombudsman, and to improve the working conditions and morale of employees working in penitentiaries. These steps were meant to remedy some of the immediate problems in our federal correctional system.

September 20,1973
Parole Act
One of the measures announced was an amendment to the Parole Act to provide for ten additional ad hoc members of the Parole Board. The bill that we have before us seeks to do just that. Both parole and temporary absences have played an increasingly important role in recent years in our efforts to assist inmates to re-integrate in the community as responsible citizens. As I explained on June 1, inmates can be released from penitentiary under the authority of both the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act. As one might expect, the criteria for selection by the National Parole Board and the Canadian Penitentiary Service for release on parole or temporary absence have not necessarily been the same.
These differences in criteria arise not only because of the different statutes under which they operate, but also because the considerations that apply in assessing an inmate for temporary absence differ from those applicable to parole. This has led to confusion in the public mind. In addition, as I explained previously, certain legal complexities have brought into question the legality of the back-to-back temporary absences, a practice developed by the penitentiary service in recent years whereby inmates are released on successive leaves of absence over an extended period of time, generally for rehabilitation purposes.
Because of these legal difficulties the Canadian Penitentiary Service has now discontinued the practice of providing back-to-back temporary absences for inmates in federal institutions. I might say that those who were on back-to-back temporary absences on June 1 have now been transferred to day parole. At the time of my announcement on June 1, there were approximately 100 inmates on back-to-back temporary absences, and 43 of those have been granted day parole, 16 have been denied day parole, and 15 have been given full parole. Eleven of these were persons serving a life sentence and the Parole Board does not have jurisdiction over them. Fifteen have still to be dealt with. Experience has shown, however, during those years when the practice of back-to-back temporary absences was developed, that the gradual and regular release of inmates as part of their rehabilitation program constituted an excellent device to assist them in their efforts toward re-integration in the community. While the legality of back-to-back temporary absences could be open to some doubt, it was clear that the practice itself should be continued under some other legislative scheme. This, of course, is possible by a greater use of day parole under the Parole Act, with an expanded Parole Board.
As hon. members are aware, the National Parole Board as now constituted has a membership of nine persons. An excess workload in recent years has slowed down case decisions to the point where the chairman was compelled to suspend panel hearings held by members with inmates in the penal institutions. As a result, applications are, and have been for the last few months, considered by the board through an examination of the inmate's file but without the board or inmate having the benefit of a face to face interview. Such a practice, I am sure hon. members will agree, is inadequate both from the point of view of the proper administration of parole board functions and responsibilities and the inmate's interest in having an

opportunity to present his case face to face to members of the board.
The provision of ten additional members to the Parole Board will not only allow the board to resume panel hearings in the institutions, but also to deal satisfactorily with the added volume of decisions on day parole applications that will come before the members. As these ten members will deal primarily with day parole and panel hearings in the institutions, it is our intention to assign them in teams of two to the five regions of Canada; that is two in British Columbia, two in the Prairies, two in Ontario, two in Quebec and two in the Atlantic region.
The nine actual members of the National Parole Board have experience in various fields and disciplines relating to criminal justice such as police, social work, law, corrections, as well as the judiciary. It is my hope that we will attract to the board new members from the various disciplines that contribute to the efficient operation of the criminal justice system so as to reinforce the scope of expertise that the Canadian public has the right to expect from an institution such as the National Parole Board.
I would hope, in this respect, that I could make the necessary arrangements with provincial authorities for the appointment of a limited number of judges to the National Parole Board as ad hoc members for a limited period of time, two or three years, for example, at the end of which they would return to their judicial responsibilities in the province. This kind of arrangement would enable highly qualified and respected members of the judiciary to play an important role in the working of the National Parole Board. This would, at the same time, provide the channel for closer liaison with the judiciary as a whole.
A great deal of effort has been made in this direction in recent years by the board, with some relative success. But more must be done. I believe that the objective of closer liaison between the judiciary and the National Parole Board could be further assisted and supported by the appointment of judges to the board who would be expected to return to their judicial functions after their service as a member of the board for a short period of time. I believe that both the judiciary and the National Parole Board could greatly benefit by that kind of arrangement.
These arrangements will have to be made in concert with the provincial authorities concerned. A number of provinces have already been approached on this and the reaction to this idea has been most encouraging. I am confident that should this legislation be adopted, as I certainly hope it will be, arrangements for the appointment of judges to the Parole Board, on the basis I have just described, could be made fairly quickly.
Hon. members know that a large number of inmates in our federal and provincial institutions are native Canadians especially in western Canada where I might say, Mr. Speaker, 25 per cent of the inmates in federal institutions are native Canadians whereas they only form 6 per cent of the general population. It is my hope that I will be able to attract to the board a native Canadian who would be interested in and suitable for that kind of job. I would also like to appoint representatives from other minority groups who would be more representative of our prison popula-
September 20, 1973

tion and consequently, have a better understanding of their problems.
All of the measures that I announced on June 1 have been implemented except the provision of the ten additional ad hoc members to the Parole Board. Treasury Board has already given approval for additional support staff, parole officers and classification officers who would work in conjunction with those ten new members. I trust that hon. members share my concern for the need to immediately enlarge the membership of the National Parole Board as proposed in this legislation. The passage of this bill will not provide a cure to all the problems that we are facing in the field of corrections. It would, however, provide a response to a pressing need. In particular, it would do a lot to help with the over-crowding problem in our penitentiary system. Last year, for example, the population of the penitentiaries increased by more than 14 per cent which is much higher than the increases in previous years. As a result of that over-population situation we have had more tension, more frustration on the part of inmates and employees, more overtime and so on which has led to escapes and other incidents. We would hope that with additional members the Parole Board would be able to provide a better screening and maybe a quicker screening of applications so that more and better people could be put on parole than in the last year.
For the longer term, as I said previously, more profound changes will be necessary. The report of the task force on the releases of inmates, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Hugessen of Montreal, which I made public a few months ago, is receiving detailed consideration. As hon. members appreciate, the report raises a number of important issues that could only be dealt with by substantial changes in our current legislation. Also for the long term, we will have to consider the report of the Senate Committee on Parole and Temporary Absence which should be ready soon. It is also my hope that the report of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee of this House, which is carrying out an enquiry into our penitentiary system including parole and temporary absence, will be of assistance to us in our search for improvements in the corrections field in the longer run.
One of the key questions with respect to parole, is the distribution of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments. Generally speaking, the National Parole Board has authority over inmates who have been convicted of offences under the federal criminal laws, whether they are in federal or provincial institutions. Some provinces have, in recent years, expressed the wish that these arrangements be reviewed so that the jurisdiction over federal offenders in provincial institutions could be assumed by provincial parole authorities. This is a question that we propose to discuss at the federal-provincial conference on corrections which will take place late this fall, probably in December.
I am hopeful that these federal-provincial discussions on corrections and especially on parole will allow us to reach some conclusion as to whether the current distribution of responsibilities between the federal and provincial authorities is as efficient as it should be. The conclusion of an agreement on this question would enable us to better come to grips with some of the major issues raised by the
Parole Act
Hugessen task force and others, in connection with the release of inmates.
In the meantime, I hope that hon. members will agree with me that this legislative measure which is before them today is one that deserves their support. While the quick passage of the bill will, admittedly, not provide us with a cure-all to all our problems in the corrections field, it will at least help us to cope more effectively with some of the problems relating to the release of inmates.
I also want to say that since the bill has been drafted and tabled in this House the Treasury Board has suggested to me that one of the sections could be amended and I intend to put forward an amendment along certain lines. I am referring to subsection (4) (b) of section 4.1 which deals with the non-salary benefits of those people to be appointed to the board. I have been informed, after the bill was drafted, that this section deals with things that are already dealt with in a Treasury Board directive. Consequently, all these matters are taken care of. In other words, the non-salary compensation to people who are order in council appointments, such as these people would be, is covered already by a Treasury Board directive. So, in committee I will move simply for a deletion of subclause (b) on page 2 of the bill. It does not affect the principle of the bill. It relates to the non-salary compensation of the people who are to be appointed on an ad hoc basis to the board.
Having said that, I once again urge the House to support the bill, which is one that will help us to deal more adequately with the problems of parole in Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question. I am putting this question now because there is some feeling on the part of members that this bill should go to committee for study and consideration, as this would save time. My question relates to section 684(3) of the Criminal Code. The minister is well aware of it, because it is a section that was previously dealt with in committee. It reads:
(3) Notwithstanding any other law or authority, a person in respect of whom a sentence of death has been commuted to imprisonment for life or a term of imprisonment or a person upon whom a sentence of imprisonment for life has been imposed as a minimum punishment, shall not be released during his life or such term, as the case may be, without the prior approval of the Governor in Council.
That section, I put it to the minister, has not been repealed. Am I correct?
My second question is this. Is it intended to repeal that section when the bill to abolish capital punishment is brought forward. There is some suggestion that this section may be repealed. Is that correct?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the section referred to by the hon. member is to be dealt with in the bill on capital punishment, which is before the House. It is my understanding, if I recall correctly-and I am not dealing with that bill today-that that section would still apply. If the bill on capital punishment is passed, we would still require cabinet approval for temporary absences with respect to people serving life sentences.

September 20, 1973
Parole Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just so that there is no misunderstanding, am I to understand that parliament has not repealed that section yet?


William Warren Allmand: It is my understanding that we did not need to repeal it, as it expired automatically at the end of 1972. It expired with the death of the law relating to the temporary ban on capital punishment, which was in effect for five years. When the effect of that law ended at the end of 1972, so did the effect of that section requiring cabinet approval for the absence from prison of those persons serving life imprisonment. Now, cabinet approval is not necessary for these people seeking parole or temporary absence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question. Recently, a prisoner was released from a Prince Albert penitentiary. He was given a temporary release. This happened during the summer recess. That person was an inmate of the penitentiary and had been found guilty of murdering a young boy. He went out to dinner either with the warden or somebody else and disappeared into thin air. He is believed to be somewhere in Alberta. Has that person now been rearrested, or is he still at large? The minister knows about whom I am talking.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I recall the case referred to by the hon. member. The person in question was released for a temporary absence with escort. He was out with a guard, and escaped from the custody of the guard. To the best of my knowledge he has not yet been recaptured. I might also say that, as that event took place during the summer, cabinet approval was not necessary for the man to go out on temporary absence, because that particular law was no longer in force. However, when the bill before the House passes, cabinet approval will once more be necessary.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might pose a question to the minister before the official opposition commences its remarks in this debate. The minister mentioned, when talking about temporary absences on a back-to-back basis, that there were some legal difficulties connected with that matter. I wonder if he can tell us what those legal difficulties were?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, section 26 of the Penitentiary Act, which establishes the temporary absences program, says that temporary absences can be granted for three days for medical purposes, rehabilitation purposes or humanitarian purposes. In certain cases, 15-day passes are granted with the approval of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries. Three-day passes are granted by the directors of the institutions.
This law, after it was passed several years ago, was not used to a great extent at the beginning. Its provisions were used mainly for three-day passes. In recent years, as the increased use of temporary passes came about, these passes were granted on a back-to-back basis. A man would leave the institution for three days and come back; the director would immediately give him a new three day pass; the man would go out and come back again in three days. This became almost the equivalent of parole, and so more and more people began to question the legality of this practice.

We studied this question and found that there were grave legal doubts about the propriety of temporary leave passes being granted in this way. So, we ordered this practice to be stopped. Temporary absence passes are still granted for three days for humanitarian, medical and rehabilitation purposes, but we have stopped the back-to-back passes.
As I said, there were about 100 people on those passes throughout Canada and we kept them on passes until they had a chance to be heard by the Parole Board, because most of them were doing very well on those passes. I have given the statistics. I said that of the 100, 43 were put on day parole. We are trying to use day parole, which is the best way of dealing with these back-to-back situations. For instance, a man who is on day parole may leave the institution in the morning, go to school or to work, and come back to the institution at night. All but 15 of those 100 cases have been dealt with. All new cases are now going for hearing before the Parole Board, if there is to be day parole.
The problem is, and this is one reason we wish to appoint ten additional people, that there will be numerous applications for day parole, as such parole is going to replace back-to-back temporary absence. We are suggesting that ten new members of the board be placed throughout Canada in the five different regions, with two in each region. They will be used to renew panel hearings in the institutions, which were regrettably stopped, and to deal with all applications to do with day parole. They will also make recommendations to the board here, in Ottawa, on major parole decisions.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one further question. In his opening statement the minister spoke about legal difficulties. He said it was not so much that there were legal difficulties but that there were doubts in the minds of some as to the legality of this matter. Is it not a fact that the practice of issuing temporary absences on a back-to-back basis was discontinued, not because of any legal doubts, but because of errors which had been made in the granting of these absences?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's question, but I remind hon. members that we are not in committee at this stage. Perhaps we might continue with the debate and allow the hon. member for Calgary North to make his contribution. As I said, the minister may reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Skeena.


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not the reason they were discontinued. Actually, the success rate for the temporary absences program was over 98 per cent; the rate of failure was extremely low. I said that there was doubt about the legality of this because we had received conflicting legal opinions; at one stage some felt that these absences were legal. However, it is like everything else that goes to court. I decided, after looking at the legal opinions that, for my own part, the practice was illegal, so I decided to terminate them. But this was not because there had been too many failures.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has indicated, Bill C-191 provides for a
September 20, 1973

larger parole board. There is a need for more board members to fulfil the larger duties which are being assigned to the board. We support the general intent of the bill and are, therefore, prepared to accept it for second reading. However, because of certain questions that we must ask about the bill concerning what good it will accomplish for the parole system of Canada, we want this bill to go through the normal channels of committee discussion and further House debate.
The minister has said that he would like speedy passage of the bill. I remind him that the bill was introduced in the House on June 6. If the government was so anxious for speedy passage in order to implement its provisions, it ought to have brought it before the House for second reading sooner than today. The fact that the government has procrastinated in bringing the bill forward for second reading is no reason to expect the opposition parties to allow this legislation to pass without proper study and scrutiny.
In light of the needs of the parole system in Canada, I suggest the very character of this bill indicates the need for further debate and discussion by the House of Commons. This bill is simply another example of what has been called, with reference to other actions of the government, ad hocery. It is significant that the bill refers to appointing ad hoc members to the board. Ad hoc members will be appointed by an ad hoc government to implement an ad hoc policy.
There is a real need for a much more thorough review of the parole system as it is implemented in Canada today. The minister admitted that. That is the implication in much of what he said in his address this afternoon. He said this bill offers short-term satisfaction to the needs of the parole system and he looks forward to a more longterm re-organization. We would have expected that by now he would have been in a position to present to this House a much more thorough plan for re-organizing the parole system in Canada.
The Hugessen report to which the minister referred was submitted November 30, 1972. The minister has had almost 10 months in which to study it with the aid of his staff. We believe he should now be acting on it to a much greater degree than he seems prepared to do as indicated by the terms of Bill C-191. I regret very much that in his address this afternoon, the minister did not give us any exposition on the Hugessen report. When he tabled it in the House, he gave no exposition of its message. He has not indicated his thinking on the recommendations of this report.
We are now asked to take a serious and considerable step in re-organizing parole in that we would appoint 10 more members without having an adequate debate on the recommendations of the Hugessen report on the release of inmates from Canadian penal institutions. A great deal of that report was devoted to the parole system. This is certainly another example of the government's ad hocery.
In a press announcement by the parole board only this week, the public was informed that we now have in Canada a new kind of parole called temporary parole. This is a means by which the parole board is granting temporary release to inmates who previously might have
Parole Act
received temporary absence on a back-to-back basis. It is interesting to note the minister said today that the legality of the system of back-to-back temporary absence, which his government upheld and practiced for several years, is in doubt. I suggest there is reason to believe that temporary paroles, certainly in terminology, have no real status in Canadian law. We recognize that, under the provisions of the legislation the parole board is entitled to provide day paroles, there is no reference to temporary paroles.
When the committee studies the bill, it will be necessary to ask some serious questions of the minister and the parole board authorities to see to what extent temporary parole has not only a pragmatic justification, but legal status as well. I am informed that "temporary parole" is simply a term which the parole board has seized upon as a way of describing, for its own information and organization the kind of leaves which the parole board is now granting to inmates, which I suggest are really not very different from the temporary absences which the penitentiary service was granting just a few months ago.
We have had a change of terminology and a change of jurisdiction, but not a very fundamental change in practice. The old temporary absence on a back-to-basis is gone, but the new temporary parole may not be very different. This is an example of the ad hoc approach which the government is taking on the subject of parole, as it has on so many issues. When confronted by major and complex problems, instead of attempting to solve them with adequate re-organization and imaginitive solutions, the government tries to do a patch up job in some way that will get it through another year in office.
Is this really the method we want to follow in attempting the re-organization of the parole service which the Hugessen report recommends? I had hoped this House could have had before it something which would represent a greater effort at improving the efficiency of the parole board as it is now constituted.
According to the Hugessen report, the present board suffers from excessive centralization. In place of the board, the Hugessen report recommends a two-tier system of organization. In a sense, the present bill, accompanied by the announcement of the minister, makes some gesture towards that in so far as the 10 ad hoc members are to be distributed according to regional locations. However, the proposal of the Hugessen report is much more thorough than what is suggested in Bill C-191. For example, the report calls for the formation of local parole boards to serve each institution or group of institutions. Each local board would have three members, one representing the penal institution, one representing the community and one representing the parole service. In that respect, the local board would be comparable to the British system which provides for local review committees to function in addition to the 33 members of the national parole board in Britain.
On the basis of the Hugessen report, and on the basis of the time the department has had to study this matter, there could have been a greater effort made to see what the experience of the British has been. If that experience were positive, recommendations along that line could have been made to this House of Commons. If it were negative,

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
we could have been given some reason why the Hugessen recommendation was not being adopted.
The report also recommended the appointment of five regional boards of a much greater strength and significance than the one proposed in Bill C-191. Bill C-191 simply proposes that we add 10 ad hoc members to the National Parole Board. These are to be distributed among five regions. However, the Hugessen report states we should have five regional boards, each with eight members. The members would reflect the following backgrounds; one would be an informed and interested citizen, one would be a judge, one would be a senior police officer, one would be a psychiatrist or a psychologist, one would be a criminologist or sociologist, one would be a person with responsibility for programs in correctional institutions and one would be a person with responsibility for the supervision of offenders in a community. What we find, instead, is a diluted, pallid, anaemic, shadowy substitution for this strong and effective recommendation. Had the minister been prepared to show sufficient confidence and imagination I would have expected a recommendation to the House along those lines, or, if not, I would at least have expected an explanation of the decision he appears to have made.
The Hugessen report went on to recommend that provincial boards should continue where desired; second, that a national commissioner for parole be appointed to coordinate local and provincial boards, and, last, that a national parole institute be formed for the purpose of gathering information upon the basis of which the various parole agencies could act. The need for such an institution cannot be overlooked. Before we can hope to deal adequately with the subject of parole, certain fundamental questions need to be answered with respect to the facilities now available to the board.
The report called, as well, for certain other major changes including the abolition of the program providing for temporary absences without escort. The regulations of June 1, positive though many of them were, do not meet the requirements which should have been met in order to ensure the adequate reform of the system. For one thing, the decision to discontinue temporary back-to-back absences does not involve any change in the statute law. A penitentiary can still operate the old system upon which the department has acted in the past and to which the minister could at any time return; the change is dependent simply upon ministerial decision. Penitentiary authorities can still grant three-day leaves of absence should they wish to do so, so it is still possible for another Geoffroy incident to occur. We are continuing what the Hugessen report calls the inefficient duplication of operations of the penitentiary service and the national parole service. Thus, there is a need for a much more fundamental reform of the present parole system and we should take the necessary steps to bring this about in the light of the well thought out and well researched recommendations contained in the Hugessen report.
In spite of certain indications that the thinking of the minister differs from that of his predecessor, we are not satisfied that the parole service, along with branches of the penitentiary service, is adequately responding to the

challenge implied in that statement in the report which draws attention to the need for much more effective liaison between the parole board and the various police agencies;
The protection of society against illegal behaviour by parolees might be improved by strengthening the surveillance and control aspects of the parole process.
There needs to be much closer integration of the parole board program with the whole of the police process throughout the country. I wish to refer to this aspect in some detail because I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that to a large degree the present system is failing in this respect. In practice, it is failing to provide adequate protection for the public.
It is true that officials often say they are taking all the steps necessary to ensure the protection of society but one must recognize the seriousness of the judgment-and again I quote from the Hugessen report-that "few of their activities are really directed toward this objective." What is the basis of this judgment? I believe it is accepted by responsible people across the country that parole is good in principle. Indeed, I am convinced that every party represented in this House and every section of our society supports the principle of parole and would support a healthy, positive parole program. What concerns us is the way in which the parole system has been so mismanaged that its benefits have been granted to people who could not and would not use them as intended but who, instead, regarded parole as a means of continuing their actions against society.
Just a few years ago, one citizen in British Columbia, Judge A. L. Bewley put together a collection of case histories of 62 persons with extensive criminal records who had been granted parole and who had committed serious offences while on parole. One such person had a record of breaking and entering, robbery with violence, kidnapping and escaping custody. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment in 1968 and released on parole in 1970. In 1971 he was re-arrested for robbery. He escaped jail and shot the RCMP constable who was attempting to arrest him.
A second offender was sentenced to four years and six months for attempted murder. He was granted parole in 1970 and was re-arrested for a second attempted murder. There is a third case of a man who had a record of armed robbery and forcible confinement of a person. He was granted parole in 1970, and while he was on parole police reported him on 22 occasions as being seen in the company of known criminals. Those reports were sent to the National Parole Board but the offender's parole was not cancelled.
A fourth case concerns an offender sentenced to life imprisonment as an habitual offender in 1965, although 22 convictions were recorded against him, including armed robbery. His parole was suspended after one month but renewed in 1968. In 1969 he was arrested and convicted of robbery and false pretenses.
In the fifth case I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the offender had been convicted of 105 offences between 1945 and 1962. In the latter year he was sentenced to a ten-year term. Between 1968 and 1971 he was granted parole on three occasions. Three months after being given
September 20, 1973

parole in 1971 he was arrested on 41 charges of false pretenses and forgery committed while he was out on conditional liberty.
These are some of the cases from the west coast to which attention has been drawn. Let us turn, now, to an article which appeared in Weekend Magazine on November 25, 1972. We read that between 1963 and 1971 Dwight Allan Swanson was sentenced to 11 prison terms in respect of charges ranging from car theft and possession of stolen property to robbery and breaking and entering. During this period he was paroled not once but five times and on each occasion he committed one or more offences while on parole. His last conviction, on November 24, 1971, was for indecent assault of a female. I think it is evident that about one third the number of people released on parole commit crimes again. Because of that we must ask very searching questions about the way in which the parole service is being administered in this country. We are not persuaded that parole is being granted always to those who will act with the proper intent. Very often parole is utilized by those who see it as another opportunity to be released from jail and return to crime.
We do not suggest for a moment that the solution to this is simply a reduction in the number of paroles granted. This may be the thinking of the minister and of the parole board, because there seems to be a certain satisfaction taken in the way in which the statistics indicate it is now more difficult to obtain parole than previously. We are not impressed by that kind of statistical justification. We are not saying that fewer people should obtain parole, but we are saying that there must be a much more thorough search of applications for parole and that we should take much more serious steps to help avoid the kind of mistake the parole board has made during the past several years.
We feel we can support Bill C-191 to the extent that it involves the appointment of additional parole board members, even on that ad hoc basis, to serve that end. We welcome the appointment of additional parole officers to make the system more effective, but we are not convinced, until there has been further study, debate and discussion of the various aspects of this complex question, that the parole board itself will carry out its duties in such a way that we will avoid the kind of thing from which Canada has suffered during the last decade. There is simply no justification for the fact that a person, having committed a crime, having been sentenced to prison and having been given parole, is able to go out and commit another crime, then come back and receive a second, a third or even a fourth parole. Very often that person is one who, by his record, has shown that he is dangerous to society.
We, therefore, believe the parole board must reorganize its work and its thinking so that we may be satisfied that parole will be used for the purpose for which it was intended. We must ask questions, for example, about the effectiveness of the board's surveillance and whether the parole officers acting in the name of the board are competent to carry out their duties. I have already referred to the way in which one person on parole could be seen 22 times in the company of known criminals, and that when this was reported to the parole board nothing was done about it. Those reports were sent in, not by the parole
Parole Act
officers but by the local police. Too often it is the case that this kind of information is provided, not by those whom one would expect would obtain the information first, but by the police who do not have a primary duty for the supervision of parolees.
One reason for this situation is that the parole supervisors have had too many parolees under their supervision. The police chiefs, in appearing before the Senate committee dealing with parole, said that the bulk of parole violations are only brought to light as the result of police investigations into other incidents. They go on to say that the number of violations which the police report are only a small percentage of the actual number of violations. We, therefore, must ask ourselves some very serious questions about the efficiency of the surveillance program. We must satisfy ourselves as a parliament that the proposals the minister is making in this legislation are adequate, because if the kind of surveillance which is being carried on is not adequate to provide supervision of those who are potentially dangerous, further recommendations must be made.
It is simply inexcusable that we should go on in this ad hoc fashion at a time when we have seen the growth of crimes of violence cause the average citizen to pause and wonder what steps are needed for his own protection. I would point out in this connection that I should like to see much more attention directed toward the value of halfway houses or after-care hostels. It seems to me we ought to be ready to take a much more positive step in this direction than the minister so far has encouraged us to think the government is prepared to take. In dealing adequately with the problem of surveillance of parolees or the transition of an inmate from jail to life we need half-way houses. In this regard we whould study the experience other jurisdictions have had.
For instance, in the 1969 report of the British Parole Board, we see the following statement:
In a number of cases it has only been possible to recommend parole because an 'After-care Hostel' or 'Half-way House' has been prepared to accept the prisoner at the time of his release.
It seems to me that until we are prepared to couple an adequate supervision program in terms of a sufficient staff with an adequate program of after-care or half-way house facilities, we will not even begin to think seriously about meeting the needs of the parolees and of society. If we really mean what we claim to mean when we speak about parole and the value it has to inmates and to society, surely we must be prepared for whatever is involved in setting up an adequate half-way house system across this country. The few hostels that are now available are largely maintained by voluntary agencies which depend for much of their financing on contributions. These agencies simply cannot adequately meet the challenge of the times. So, I would hope the kind of discussion we have in committee, and the kind of future debate we have in this House, would prompt the government to re-think its present program, its lack of initiative and action in this respect.
There are other changes we need to consider very carefully along with those to which I have referred. One change we need to consider involves the whole question of whether the parole board should have the right to act, as someone suggested, as kind of a substitute judge, because

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
very often it seems the parole board is now, according to the law, in the position of a sentencing judge. In effect, it is in a position to rewrite the sentence the judge has imposed on the convicted criminal on the basis of the trial and on the basis of the evidence he has heard. I think there is something to be said, therefore, for the recommendation by the Canadian Bar Association that the provincial attorneys general should have the right to appeal decisions of the parole board. This would mean that the head of the law enforcement agencies and the law enforcement system in the province would have some say if it were thought that a sentence had not been carried out adequately or that the risk of further parole violation was too great. I would add that the Canadian Bar Association also recognizes the rights of the inmate in recommending that an inmate should equally have the right of appeal.
[DOT] (ieoo>
Just dealing for the moment with the way in which very often the parole board, it seems to me, has offered itself as a substitute for the sentencing judge, and dealing with the proposal of the Canadian Bar Association, I would suggest that if we had that kind of a system or something comparable we might have avoided the tragic mistake made when the five kidnappers of Mary Nelles were released on parole. Shortly after they began their prison sentences for this serious crime, two were released after serving only 20 months of 10-year terms, and three were released after serving 24 and 26 months of 12-year terms for the serious and major crime of kidnapping, a crime that might well have resulted in a much greater tragedy than it did.
This was a scandal and a shock to every citizen who takes law and law enforcement seriously. When representatives of the parole board tried to justify that decision by rationalizing that these criminals really had not intended to commit a crime but to carry out some kind of a practical joke, the real joke seemed to be the law, and every serious law-abiding citizen of this country wondered if the law in Canada, where it has so long been respected, was now a laughing stock.
Another suggestion for dealing with this problem is to give the sentencing judge the authority to impose a minimum term before which parole could not be granted. An editorial in the Criminal Law Quarterly, February 1973, supports this recommendation. It reads:
The post sentence process appears to take on all the aspects of a device to defeat the original judicial determination.
One solution according to this Law Quarterly is to give the sentencing judge "the power to impose a minimum term before the expiration of which an inmate shall not be released on parole". That is the practice already in two states in Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. The experience there should be adequate for the minister to indicate to us why he has not undertaken some reform along such lines, and why the government is not taking the action it should. If the experience of other jurisdictions indicates the proposal to which I have referred would not be effective, I think the minister should suggest something better, and certainly something better than we have had in Canada for the past several years.
The parole board very often justifies its program on the basis of the saving of taxpayers' money. Apparently the

cost of keeping an inmate in a penal institution is so high, and the cost of parole is so low it makes sense to parole very large numbers of inmates. I hope this kind of rationalization can quickly be dispensed with, because surely we are not going to offer this reasoning as some kind of justification for granting paroles to the kinds of prisoners to whom I have referred in citing these case studies. I refer to the kind of parolee who can go out and burgle, swingle, steal, attack and even murder.
What value do we put on that kind of crime when we say we are saving the taxpayers' money by granting parole? What value do we put on the suffering and loss endured by the citizens who are the victims of these men, and what value do we put on the life of a person like the late George Edward Oliver whose throat was slit by a parolee who had a record of crime and past paroles, who was nonetheless given a further parole during which he committed this vile, brutal murder in the city of Vancouver? He was sentenced first in 1969, and paroled the next year. His parole was revoked in 1971 and a second parole was issued the same year. Before the year was out he had committed murder.
We have to see that there is a very great cost to the Canadian people when parole is given to those who cannot use it properly. We have a very grave responsibility as a parliament, along with the grave responsibility borne by the minister, and we are using this debate to draw these responsibilities to the attention of parliament and the public. We hope that further discussion in the committee and further debate in this House will explore this dimension of the problem much more searchingly. We are prepared to pass this bill on second reading, but we are not prepared to be the kind of uncritical audience the minister might have welcomed. We are simply not giving him the speedy and unquestioned passage he has suggested, and we do not do so because too often in the past those who have acted in his name have not acted in the best interest of the people of this country. So we are asking for a much more searching examination of the effectiveness of the National Parole Board and the need for its effective reorganization in the best interests of society.
I should like to say something as well about the need for forming a national parole institute as recommended by the Hugesson Report, to do effective research into how the parole system is working, and to provide informed answers to difficult questions. This bill makes no provision for expanding the research facilities of the National Parole Board. It should be clear to everyone who is engaged in parole work that this is one of the fundamental needs of a reorganized and reformed board. For example, I put a written question to the minister in which I asked how many of those who had applied for parole and received it had received parole before; once, twice, three times or four times. That is the way of finding out the extent to which parole is being made a kind of career by the career criminal. I was told it would take too long to search the records of the parole board to find an answer to that question.
In discussing that kind of thing with those active in the field of parole, I have found that they know the answer but there is just no one on the staff of the National Parole Board doing that kind of elementary, necessary and essen-
September 20, 1973

tial research. If we are ever to have the kind of parole system in which we can have serious confidence we will have to expand the research facilities. If we did that we could certainly draw upon the experience of parole systems in other jurisdictions where, for example, in Great Britain the parole section of the Home Office has its own research unit and publishes the parole section of the annual report of the National Council of Crime and Delinquency. In the United States they have a National Council of Crime and Delinquency with its own research centre providing adequate information for the guidance of parole boards and parole officers in that country. I would suggest further that any attempt to reform the administration of parole in this country which does not provide for extended research facilities and staff would not begin to meet the need.
Finally, I should like to suggest that we should be doing something serious about the need for giving greater recognition to the rights of the inmates themselves. We should recognize that the due process of law should apply to all aspects of confinement in the penal institution, and when an inmate applies for parole he should not only have the right to state his case and the right to a definite decision but he should have the right to an explanation as to why his application for parole has been rejected. Admittedly, there is an argument for the present policy of the board, according to which a reason is not always given. I can recognize that giving a reason or an explanation to some inmates might cause them great distress, and I take that kind of argument very seriously. However, I would point out to the House and to the minister the opinion of a Canadian authority on this subject, Dr. Evelyn Shea of Ottawa, who, in a study called "The Future of Parole" says:
We believe however that the detrimental effects of withholding an explanation will, in the great majority of cases, be worse than the distress caused by knowing the reasons.
I maintain that to give an explanation would surely increase the trust that inmates might have in the penal system and in paroles.
As well, we should give consideration to inmates having a chance to appeal the decision, giving them the same rights that we would give attorneys general or other law agents who would be dissatisfied with the thinking of the board. The Hugessen report says that it has four objectives for the reorganization of the parole system in Canada. These four objectives are: one, the decentralizing of the board; two, integration of the parole system with the criminal justice continuum; three, an interlinked information system; and four, due process of law.
I think it should be clear to us all that the bill before us is inadequate on each of those counts, that it takes but one, small faltering step toward the first objective. But in terms of really reorganizing the board so that it would be adequately decentralized and most efficient in carrying out its mandate, this bill simply does not meet the need. We need further time to ask ourselves if the government should not be recommending to parliament a much more extensive reorganization than it has. Certainly, we have not had any suggestion that the minister intends a further integration of the parole system with what the Hugessen
Parole Act
report calls the criminal justice continuum to safeguard society against inadequate surveillance so that there can be an avoidance of the tragic misuse of parole, evidence of which I have submitted. Certainly, we have no promise of a more effective research program and an interlinked information system, and as yet we have no suggestion that the due process of law, on behalf of the society or on behalf of the inmates, would be more greatly honoured.
This is a weak, hesitant step that the government is asking parliament to take, not because the minister has not had adequate information presented to him by most well informed sources, such as the Hugessen task force and the Senate committee as well as the experience of other jurisdictions, and not because the minister has not had adequate time to deal with the information that surely is available to him. Therefore, we say to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that while we are prepared to support this bill for second reading we are not prepared to go further than that today. In fact, as I look at this bill and think of the minister's exposition in support of it, I am reminded of what a father of a bride said at a wedding which I recently attended. As he looked at the groom, he said: "well, he is better than nothing". I think that is the best we can say for this bill-it is better than nothing. We know that the National Parole Board needs more members, and we know that it needs the distribution of those members across the country. We know that there was a need to abandon the back-to-back temporary absense system. We welcome all these steps, but there is so much more to be done that we are not prepared simply to give an uncritical acceptance to that which is so obviously inadequate.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us is a very short one and really says very little. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) who said that it travelled a very small distance toward any real change in the method of dealing with this subject. The bill contains a short explanatory note which reads:
The purpose of this bill is to effect the appointment of additional ad hoc members to the National Parole Board.
i can understand why the minister provides a short explanation. It is because whenever the minister has provided a long explanation in the House he has brought upon himself a certain amount of difficulty. But again, he has a difficult portfolio. His position is one with which members from both sides of the House have sympathy because any penal system which is 100 per cent secure and 100 per cent successful does not exist. We in Canada do not have the worst penal system in the world.
However, the purpose of this bill is to put into effect the suggestions the minister made in his statement on June 1, when he outlined certain changes that were being made to our parole and temporary absence system. Certainly, one of these changes that we in this corner of the House welcomed very much was the appointment of Miss Inger Hansen as a kind of ombudsman for the penitentiary service. This change was long overdue and we are very happy with the quality of that appointment. Nevertheless, the statement itself contained a rather inadequate approach to a big problem. I should like to quote the minister:
6764

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
These are recommendations that are calculated to deal with some federal correctional problems on a short-term basis in the field of penitentiary services, temporary absences and parole. For the long term, more profound changes may be necessary.
We are all waiting very patiently for those more profound changes. We can certainly say "Amen" to the remarks of the minister of June 1. It is not as though there have not been enough reports, enough research and enough information available to the minister to allow him to come up with a coherent, co-ordinated approach. What we have before us is a patchwork approach to the problems of penal reform, one unfortunately which is predicated on whatever the public mood may be at the moment. That is a very difficult part of the minister's job, but I submit the minister should not react to every incident that occurs within the country, because one swallow does not make a summer.
The change that was made on June 1 to increase the mandatory part of a life sentence to 7 years rather than 4, was a response to the public mood. I suggest it was an irrational response in this sense. It is not the length of mandatory sentence that counts, it is the screening process that counts. No one is rehabilitated within prison. It all depends on the way we choose people who are eligible for parole. Whether they spend three, seven or ten years in jail may not be that significant. What is significant is the manner in which we make our choice. We must base that choice on the penology approach and not the political approach. My criticism of the minister has been, and is, that he is using a political approach in attempting to solve this problem.
We need more than a patchwork attempt to put this subject into proper perspective. The purpose of this bill and the statement made on June 1 with respect to rationalizing the temporary absence program with the day parole program sound logical, although I must say I am not that impressed with the Hugessen report to which the hon. member for Scarborough East kept referring. The effect of the recommendations in that report would be to eliminate temporary absence, other than for humanitarian or medical reasons. The rehabilitation ground would be removed from the temporary absence program operated under the Penitentiary Act. I do not think that is a step forward.
I welcome the approach taken by this bill to regionalize and localize these decisions, but I am not so sure that the qualification officer, the people within an institution and the people around the community in which it is situated, are better qualified in terms of the screening process to determine which of the inmates in the institution can benefit from parole, and to know whether the public would be protected on their release.
One of the things that has been lacking in the program to date has been the intimate contact that is necessary in order to make the screening process more effective. The hardest person of all to "con" is the convict inside the prison. Yet how much consultation is taking place with inmates of prisons to determine which of their numbers is safe to release? There is almost none. How much consultation is taking place with the prison staff, with the cooks and the guards who have intimate contact with these men

all the time? There is still too much of an elitist approach in terms of dealing with the screening and making the decisions. Based on my experience, you can trust a great many of the persons in institutions to give you a fair and honest assessment of their peer group within those institutions. As I say, Mr. Speaker, we have fallen down in terms of that consultative process.
We also find that the people who are making decisions on parole are incompetent, or are capable of being "conned" by the inmate who has all the time in the world to prepare himself for an interview, to put on his best front, and as long as that continues to be the case we will have these dramatic errors. I say that these dramatic errors are eroding public confidence in the system that we have at present.
There are three basic myths under which the parole system operates. The first is that people are rehabilitated while they are in prison. All the evidence and statistics show that this is demonstrably false. Rehabilitation takes place outside jail. It takes place within the community, not within jail. Our prisons are for custody, for the protection of the public from people who have a tendency to repeat their crimes. However, that does not mean that the inmates should not be treated decently and humanely. The mark of a civilized society is the way in which it treats the inmates of its prisons. It is still vital and important that the public knows it is protected from escapes from institutions. That is why we in this corner of the chamber supported the establishment of the subcommittee of the Justice Committee to look into this and other aspects of the prison system.
The second myth under which the system operates is that the solution to the crime rate is to change the parole rules and make them tougher. Mr. Speaker, that is not related to the crime rate at all. Each time a spectacular crime occurs the reaction is sudden. We all favour changing the parole rules. But when there is a lack of crime news, we are liable to look in the other direction. You cannot run the system like a lottery that reacts to every public outcry. I am not saying that either six, seven or five years is the correct mandatory term before parole. I am saying that parole decisions have to be based on a very careful screening process. As long as we think that the longer a guy is held in prison the more likely he is to learn his lesson, then really the more likely we are to continue to make mistakes. It does not bring anybody closer to rehabilitation to isolate him from the public.
It is difficult to identify those to whom we can issue parole. As I said before, there is insufficient consultation with two of the most important groups in the prison, namely, the prisoners themselves and the prison guards. As long as we continue the elitist approach, the psychological approach, the psychiatric approach if you like, we will make the kind of errors that we do make. Take the classic case of the Tanya Bush murder which has been referred to in this House many times. If proper consultation had taken place I do not think Gary Head would have been released. If the prisoners and the guards had been canvassed, I do not think that horrible error would have occurred. As long as errors of that magnitude occur there will be no confidence in our rehabilitation system. It
September 20, 1973

cannot be perfect if there is that kind of glaring stupidity which brings the whole system into disrepute.
The third myth is that all prisoners are capable of rehabilitation. That is demonstrably false. There is an element of psychopathic behavior amongst the inmates of our institutions. Those of us who have practised law, and in particular criminal law, know of it. There are people who have no conscience, who have no feeling of remorse for anything they do, and have no capability to restrict their criminal activity. They make up 10 per cent to 20 per cent of our prison population. It is time we did something to examine that element, to learn why these people behave the way they do, and to find out if there is anything we can do about it.
One of the experts in this field is a man from British Columbia, Dr. Hare. He has written an internationally accepted text on the subject, "Psychopathy: Theory and Research." He worked in our institutions in B.C. for some ten years. Here is what he has to say, as reported in the Vancouver Province of February 17 last:
"The fact is, the penitentiary service doesn't really have a rational, integrated treatment program. Many of their rehabilitation programs are poorly organized, makeshift and frequently faddish," he said. "They have the experts but not the expertise to deal with criminals, particularly psychopathic ones."
Hare and his research associates are attempting to develop a model experimental program for the modification of psychopathic behaviour. It would involve a combination of behaviour, drug, and milieu therapy carried out over a period of several years.
He says its unlikely to be carried out. A year ago he contacted the Solicitor General's office about funds and was later visited by a member of his staff. Since then he has heard nothing and assumes they are not interested.
I know the minister's answer is that there are psychiatric opportunities set up but this is a new and interesting departure. This is a specialist in the psychology of psychopaths. This is the kind of new approach that needs to be taken in penology but it is not being taken because we are stuck with traditional attitudes. We can afford to spend money on Montreal bikers apparently making wooden ducks, or homosexual handbooks published in Vancouver, so we can surely afford money for intensive scientific research into the workings of the brains of people who are deeply troubled by psychopathic behaviour.
The other area that is not being followed up is the early identification of this kind of behaviour within the public school system. I am, not saying that they need to be typed or segregated, but most people who are knowledgeable in this field tell us that there are certain personality traits in young children which can identify, once they get into the elementary school system, probable future psychopaths. The problem will not go away if the harsh reality of it is ignored, but we are not doing anything in that area of research and the bill offers no new departures in terms of penology.
As I indicated before, there is no program by any government that is going to work toward public confidence. If there are any more cases Garry Head or those mentioned by the hon. member for Scarborough East, we are going to go back into the dark ages of penal reform. I urge the minister to be cautious of the manner in which these
Parole Act
things are issued. The screening process is important. More money must be provided for research before any progress can be made in this field. I can understand the appointment of more members to the Parole Board and I can appreciate the fact that is should be regionalized. It is clear that decisions were being made too far away from the persons concerned. However, this bill is really innocuous and goes no distance toward the co-ordinated thrust that has to be made into this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that there is not more public confidence in rehabilitation, but in a way I can understand and sympathize with the approach of the newspapers. They display an element of sensationalism and seem to be hypnotized by every event but this can be understood in the light of the glaring errors like those in the Head case and the fellow who ran off with his LIP grant. These cases certainly undermine public confidence.
By his remarks, the hon. member for Scarborough East seemed to favour cutting down on parole. That is a simplistic approach, Mr. Speaker, and I do not agree with it. We can still be progressive while being practical and realistic. We know that there is a percentage of those people within our institutions who when released, because of their psychopathic behaviour and psychopathic nature, will again commit crimes so we should realize that an effort should be made to identify those people early in life. We have to spend money on research and perhaps we have to modify their behaviour. It seems to me that until we tackle that problem, we are not getting to the guts of the penal system.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-191 now before the House aims at amending the Parole Act. This bill amounts to a very simple thing, to increase the number of National Parole Board members in order to expedite the work, thus increasing its efficiency, according to the minister.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that a clear-headed person cannot object to the principle of parole. The fact that planes crash once in a while is no reason to abolish aviation and it is not because some criminals benefitted from Parole Act lenience by relapsing into Crime that we should abolish the Parole Act.
This being said, as a basic principle, it nevertheless remains that day after day we realize, thanks to the statistics supplied to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and also by the newspapers even on other subjects, that the Parole Act is perhaps not what we need to meet current needs.
Certainly, in order to solve the problem of crime in Canada, which is becoming a major problem, we need more than just a parole act. This must be tied to the social causes which create crime, which make criminals, including the family environment. Indeed, the social environment, often full of injustices, incites people to commit burglary or assault and robbery, and these individuals finally find themselves before a criminal court to be condemned. In many cases, and rightly so, it is society itself
6766

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
which ought to be condemned rather than these individuals.
Let us also talk about organized crime. People choose crime as a profession, earn their living through crime. They have reached such a point of organization, Mr. Speaker, that newspapers are filled with articles telling about shocking things, especially in Quebec; scandal rises right and left which results in people becoming often sceptical about the due process of law and saying that there are two kinds of justice.
Moreover, in many respects justice is not the same for everybody. The bail system, for instance, is such that the rich, those who have money, obtain a kind of justice, while the poor, the man who has no money, the worker, the labourer, the family man whose sole income is the fruit of his toil over 40 or 50 hours of work, obtains a different kind of justice. Mr. Speaker, that such a system in some areas of our country still exist is revolting.
Let us consider also the system, the administration of penal institutions. We have reached the point-and the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is in a position to testify of this-where prisons in some areas have been turned into schools of crime. They indiscriminately put in the same bag people who have been sentenced for robbery, rape, murder, attempted murder, etc, and when prisoners are set free, they know a lot more about crime than when they were imprisoned in the first place.
It is unfortunate that millions of dollars are spent for penal institutions which do not always succeed in stopping crime. It is often found that they have become schools for criminals.
Under those circumstances, and to complete this gloomy but realistic picture, there is also the courts and what is called the judiciary administration which is often rotten. In fact, some judges are political creatures and render sentences based on half evidence. I could give many examples. But as I do not intend to have this debate dragging on I will dispense from giving them. But it remains that, hopefully, all my colleagues are aware that today's courts are not a good example for our youth.
With the parole system the members of the Parole Board are often in a position to reverse a court decision. For instance, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment or to 25 to 30 years may apply for parole under the law and the Parole Board is allowed to reverse the judge's decision. This is the reason for most critics against the Parole Act.
Many of our fellow citizens witness murders; then they learn that the accused, after lengthy procedures, has been condemned and they heave a sign of relief telling themselves that justice has been done. But what do they hear a few months later? That the criminal has been set free.
Several examples could be given. I shall mention only one, which concerns my area. A few years ago, a crime was committed at Victoriaville, a burglary. When the burglars came out, the policemen called to the scene tried to protect the owner's property. The bandits, armed with machine guns, had no hesitation in firing point-blank at the police officers. They wanted a shoot-out and, needless to say, their machine guns were not loaded with dummy shells.
When the bandits had planned this crime, they had foreseen that they might be forced to kill, and with those

arms, they were ready to do so. In any case, officer Collard was wounded and was unable to walk for eight months.
This bandit was captured, judged after many delays and sentenced to jail. He then applied for parole and, for the purposes of rehabilitation, the board granted his request. It is not because one plane crashes that we should stop all air transportation. In the same way, it is not because of one recidivist that the parole system should be abolished. In itself, the principle is excellent, it is its application which is not so good.
What happened was that the board agreed to grant parole to that gangster who lost no time in going to Sainte-Therese-de-Blainville and killing another policeman.
Mr. Speaker, as a police officer had been seriously wounded and another, a father of a family, murdered, the board should have realized that gangster was not likely to rehabilitate.
Even though we believe in the principle of parole for the reason that it may be possible that a human being could be rehabilitated in a normal society and comply with its laws, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) should reconsider his position on the administration of the law and here is the reason.
All hon. members will recall that, two years ago I believe, Parliament discussed a bill on juvenile delinquents. Bill C-192 raised protests from a lot of the people involved.
It happens that the problem of juvenile delinquents can be summed up in one fact: If he has committed a crime, in 80 per cent of the cases, according to the evidence of the witnesses before the committee, it is because the family environment he spent his youth in did not exist, the parents not being there, or was "rotten". Mr. Speaker, the result is that this young boy or girl enters naturally, against his or her will, the path of crime. Then he is picked up, as people will say, appears before a welfare court and is judged. Then, he is placed in a kind of training institution, with all kinds of young criminals.
These young people have no right to parole, under the laws governing them. However, these are young people who could rehabilitate themselves, much more than hardened criminals who have repeated 8, 10 or 15 times.
This is the exact criticism I want to make about the Parole Act under which, in many cases, hardened criminals are released, while juvenile delinquents remain in jail. If the minister's arguments as regards rehabilitation are valid, if his faith in rehabilitation is reasoned and justified in the case of certain criminals, I do not see why this benefit of parole could not be applied even more to young people.
Mr. Speaker-and I ask the minister to give us these figures-how many probation officers are there for young offenders? How many young offenders, when they are released, benefit from the assistance of a probation officer to re-establish themselves in society? The young person who had no family, no friend, no one to guide him in life, who had no serious mother or father, goes back to free society with the same means when released. The same causes will involve the same effects. Whenever he is hungry, whenever he is tempted by what is displayed in
September 20, 1973

store windows, he will commit another offence and this is how he will relapse into crime. How many probation officers are there? What are their qualifications? What are the qualifications of those who work in the court of Montreal?
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, in a rehabilitation and crime prevention system, we should above all put all our efforts, all our attention, all our energy in crime prevention and this, from the very first years.
Do we do anything to detect crime at the school level? How many probation officers are acting, are able to act and really follow a young offender? Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to believe that it is practically nothing. He is simply released and, as I said earlier, he relapses into crime; finally, he grows older, and instead of being judged by a welfare court, he goes to criminal court under criminal law. It is at that point, Mr. Speaker, that he becomes a professional in his trade. He is put with other criminals more hardened than him, older than him, in rotten prisons, the best crime schools.
Mr. Speaker, for one-and I think my colleagues share this view-I believe in rehabilitation and, above all, in crime prevention. If one looks at crime statistics in Canada one finds that the crime index is on the rise. When, for example, a youth is found in possession of narcotics he immediately winds up with a criminal record; he is immediately catalogued. What does this same system that condemns that youth, do about the pusher? Is the youth guilty or is it the one who gave him the drug?
Mr. Speaker, this youth caught using drugs-influenced by those older than him-has a criminal record. He is sent to jail or released on bail if his father has the means to pay, and as I said earlier not everybody has the means. Thus he becomes a criminal. This youth will rot in a prison because he does not have the necessary contacts or possibility to get out, because our system of rehabilitation and prevention is clearly inadequate; that is how he becomes a hardened criminal.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the minister should issue new directives, and maybe even recall the new Parole Act, not the one that simply provides for increased membership on the board but that which sets out the duties of that board so that Parliament can instruct it to review the scope of that act so it will apply first and above all to those who are really rehabilitable, who are better potentials anyway, namely young people rather than confirmed criminals relapsing into crime for the tenth or fifteenth time.
Some hon. members might not believe it, but I urge them to read Hansard for May 5 ou 9, 1969. There is a question dealing with the number of relapses among parolees. Statistics on that are quite unbelievable.
The scandal of our century, in the application of justice, is that crime is systematically created by completely rejecting young people being victimized by a sick society.
Mr. Speaker, when a family is penniless, when the father takes to drink and the mother leaves, the children are left without any family environment and I say to myself if I did not have a good family background, I would
Parole Act
probably not be here today as well as many other members.
Mr. Speaker, those young people must not be penalized on account of their age; as we know, they do not come under that legislation. This is why I urge the minister to reconsider his position so that we may hope that the young people may be granted parole much more easily than at the present time and that especially the necessary funds will be earmarked for the services of qualified, serious and honest personnel in the probation and rehabilitation fields.
Mr. Speaker, to get an efficient parole system it is not enough to pass an act, to appoint a number of civil servants and say: Go across the country, search prisons, try to find inmates likely to rehabilitate and free them. I know that the real object of the parole system is to prevent crime and leave the parolee every chance to return to society as a normal citizen. This person was sentenced because he broke the laws of society.
Mr. Speaker, when a prisoner is released he must have every chance to return to society in a normal way. Consequently, for this system to be operative, efficient and really satisfactory, it is essential that the government invests more in the probation system by creating a department or a school or whatever to train more and better qualified probation officers in order to meet the demand.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I hope that the minister will listen to me and that he will answer at the end of this debate.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-191 has the support of the members of the New Democratic Party. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt) set forth in a very clear and convincing way some of the problems that we face today with regard to parole.
All this bill does is appoint additional ad hoc members to the National Parole Board. I think we have reached the end of our research and study with regard to the question of parole. We have to start framing legislation which will deal more adequately with this problem. As the minister said, this is a response to a pressing need. It is only one step on the road to finding the complete solution.
Parole is one of the important matters in the area of the criminal justice system. May I review just a few of the steps we have taken. We made some amendments to the Criminal Code. These had some effect. We have the Hugessen report on the release of inmates. The Senate is now studying parole. An ombudsman has been appointed to study some of the grievances of inmates.
When I listened to the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) speaking on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party, I had the feeling his remarks could be summarized by saying, you put people in prison, throw away the key and leave them there. That may be a rather harsh criticism. However, he gave details of some of the cases that have been failures without giving the details of some of the cases that have been successful. He did not set forth the high recidivist rate we have when we keep inmates too long in our penitentiaries.

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
The hon. member stressed surveillance. When it comes to parole, it is not only a question of surveillance, but reformation and rehabilitation of a parolee re-integrating himself into the community. He must be helped to adjust with regard to living conditions, employment and his attitude toward himself and other members of society. We have had many reports on the question of parole. We had a chapter of the Ouimet report. As has been pointed out, we have had the Hugessen report with regard to parole. We have also had the official statement of the Canadian Criminology and Corrections Association.
I hope that today we will deal with this bill in committee of the whole and pass it, so that the additional ad hoc members can be appointed to the parole board in order that it can be a more effective instrument in parole. Having said that, I hope the minister will refer to the committee the Hugessen report, the Senate report and also the position of the Canadian Criminology and Corrections Association in order that the committee can study these reports. The minister could then be in a position to come forth with legislation which would deal more effectively with the problem of parole.
It is not only a question of surveillance. It is a question of rehabilitation and reformation. The Canadian Criminalogy and Corrections Association made 27 recommendations setting forth the meaning and purpose of parole. They recommended that in the revisions that are introduced, every effort should be made to construct the system of parole in Canada so that it will be readily understandable by prison inmates, parolees, the police, members of the bench, prison and parole staffs and the public. When you have the divisions of full parole, day parole and temporary absence parole, confusion is created in the minds of the people. It brings about a criticism that at times is unnecessary and unjust.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wonder whether this is a convenient point for the hon. member to interrupt his contribution.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Inquiries on information given to provincial governments about ministers; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)- Energy-Representations to United States respecting proposed movement of oil by supertanker to Cherry Point and alternative Canadian supply; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-External Affairs-Government position on recognition of new government of Chile.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business. I gather there has been consultation among the parties as to the item of business with which we will proceed. Perhaps this could be put on the record.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, but there is absolutely no fixed position on this. There might be agreement not to proceed with private members' hour, but to proceed with the bill we are now discussing. If that is completed before six o'clock, we could reconsider our position and perhaps, rise or have the CNR financing bill. I recognize there has been no agreement. I am simply putting forward this suggestion as one which hon. members may wish to consider.


Mr. Bell:: We agree.


Frank Howard: As the parliamentary secretary has said, no fixed position has been taken. We shall not, in fact, be dealing with private members' bills this afternoon and the next item listed on the order paper is notices of motions for the production of papers. The government has sought for a long time to sweep all these motions under the rug and to withhold the disclosure of documents. Perhaps we should see whether we can persuade members opposite to change this attitude.


An hon. Member:: Say yes, or no!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no agreement.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
NATIONAL DENTAL EXAMINING BOARD OF CANADA On the order:
June 13, 1973-second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders of Bill S-7 an act respecting the National Dental Examining Board of Canada-Mr. Railton
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) has asked me to explain to you, and to the House, that he does not intend to proceed with this bill at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand.
September 20, 1973


PRIVATE MEMBERS'MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the program forecast (program review) by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I propose to begin by noting that I have already stood this motion on one occasion in the immediate past. Very often members are asked by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Reid) whether they are prepared to proceed with their bills and motions. To my mind, it appears a little inconvenient to be repeatedly asked at the very last minute whether we are ready to proceed and I am, therefore, glad of this opportunity to further develop a line of argument which I have sought to put forward on two previous occasions.
I found it instructive when dealing with this matter to review some of the arguments or counter-arguments put forward by spokesmen for the government in earlier debates. On September 6, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) enunciated certain views with respect to a motion to produce documents related to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Since the principle we are discussing today is identical with that being discussed at that time I believe it would be worth while to comment on two points he made. I may say they were the only two points he put forward on the matter of principle underlying the notice of motion. I quote from a translation the observations he made as follows:
I fail to see any such benefit for General Motors or Chrysler as well as other industries which compete against one another and which also stand to grain by keeping secret the main elements of their long-term plans.
By analogy I infer the hon. member was arguing that if it was bad business for General Motors and Chrysler to tell the public their long-term plans, it followed it was bad for the Government of Canada to advise members of parliament of the details of some of its long-terms proposals.
I reject utterly that analogy and the logic which appears to underlie it. The parliament of Canada is not a private enterprise corporation, despite the best efforts of some members to turn it into one, and it does not follow that because private business would suffer if it told the world about its plans the government of Canada would suffer if the members of parliament who sustain it were advised of those programs in greater detail. In the first place, the government is not an object unto itself. It exists under sufferance of parliament and it cannot spend a cent unless members of parliament are prepared to vote it supply. I have argued consistently that in order to consider questions of supply intellingently it is necessary for members to be given more information than is available to them at the present time. It is not only fallacious reasoning but an unhealthy attitude to suggest that what is not good for General Motors is not good for the country.
Urban Affairs-Budget Forecast
The second point the hon. member for Labelle made on September 6 when commenting on my remarks was to this effect-that each and every member of parliament had the right, or the opportunity and advantage, as he put it, to participate in the sittings of the various committees at which, for example, the estimates of all the departments were considered. Obviously, we do have this opportunity, this advantage, and even this right. But my question is: how can this opportunity best be exploited? How can a member of parliament, whatever his party, best take advantage of that opportunity to ask questions intelligently and in the public interest concerning programs which the government is contemplating? It is not good enough to say there are committees which members can attend if they wish. I am concerned about this: what material will be made available from the vast archives of government to enable members to do their job effectively, not merely in party political terms, as is often the cases now, but in terms of reaching conclusions as to the inherent wisdom, or otherwise, of programs which the government is seeking to establish? It is my conviction that these program forecasts, of some version of them, would go, a long way toward giving members of parliament necessary information which they do not presently possess.
The hon. member for Labelle went on to say that longterm programs of the various departments are not announced, and the fact they were not announced did not jeopardize the interests of Canadians. Canadians, he said, did not miss anything by being unaware of these longterm projects. Mr. Speaker, they may not miss 'anything if it is assumed that what you don't know won't hurt you. But it is a dangerous philosophy to assume in the process of government that what the people don't know won't hurt them. It might very well hurt them grievously at some time in the future. To say Canadians are not missing anything by being unaware of long-term government plans is nonsense. It is the responsibility of members of parliament to ensure that the government does not take steps which might have deleterious results. Again I say that the information provided in the program forecasts could go a long way to enabling members to discharge this fundamental responsibility more effectively.
I have suggested on earlier occasions that governments of whatever political stripe tend to assume that almost any document prepared by the public service is confidential, unless specifically designed for public consumption, and contains information which ordinary mortals ought not to be allowed to play with. Thus when a notice of motion is presented in this House we are given the reply, as has been the case concerning my notices of motion, that these are internal documents of a confidential nature and therefore cannot be tabled. That is the end of it. Who says they are of a confidential nature? This is said by the government which does not want to release the documents. Therefore, we are engaged in a circular piece of reasoning. The government does not release the documents because it declares them to be confidential and it declares them to be confidential because it does not want them released. I say we have been given no substantive criterion for the basis on which documents prepared in the government service, or task force reports undertaken at the request of the government, should be either released or retained in private.

September 20, 1973
Urban Affairs-Budget Forecast
I am worried about the assumption which I believe was implicit in the remarks of government spokesmen in the past that if you give members of parliament too much information they will cause damage with it or if you give them too much information they will be up to some mischief. The result is that this is a very pessimistic and unnecessary judgment of human nature. I, perhaps, am overly naive as a new member of this House, but it is just possible that if members of parliament were given more material on which to base their contributions in these committee meetings, they would be more objective and therefore would be less the product of partisan political judgments upon which, in the absence of real material to base a case, a member must fall back. I suggest to the government that it may very well be in its long-run interest to be a little less stingy with papers prepared by the public service.
I suggest it would be very useful if the government were to re-examine its entire policy in this regard and take a look at the basis upon which it is denying the House documents which have gone into the formulation of its policies. It should ask itself seriously whether every piece of paper in the ministry must be stamped "confidential". Other jurisdictions have operated with a very great degree of latitude in respect of the publication of internal documents and have survived. We know for a fact in two jurisdictions I have examined, namely Switzerland and Sweden, a far more, if I may use the term, liberal attitude toward publication of papers has prevailed for some time. It may or may not be coincidental that the government of Sweden which introduced this policy has managed to survive in office for 40 years, although I concede it is in a very close situation at the present time.
It is part of the underlying philosophy of the creation of public policy in Switzerland that the citizens of that republic shall be provided with all the information necessary to come to an educated conclusion about protecting government policy which is not directly amenable to the interest of maximum security. In the case specifically of the Department of Urban Affairs, I may note that the production of some more material would have been particularly useful in permitting members to come to some conclusions concerning the very extensive amendments to the National Housing Act which were passed by this House. Some more useful light might have been shed upon the bill which passed this House a day or two ago. At a time when housing policy is undergoing massive reevaluation right across the country at all levels of government, I think it would have been in the interest of creative public policy for the ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to have given this House more background material than it did.
Indeed, I may say this comment might very well apply to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and to the vast array of bureaucracy which administers federal housing policy. It is extremely difficult to find out precisely upon what criteria its conclusions are based. I think the public, on the whole, is not served by an obsession about privacy in the matter of public papers. I urge that the spokesman for the government reconsider what has been in the past an automatic and instinctive negative response

to reasoned requests such as the one I make in my notice of motion for the production of papers.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) is asking for the production of the 1973-74 program forecast for the Ministry of Urban Affairs so that by scrutinizing the A, B and X budgets of the ministry he will have more information than he feels he now has available to him. I have a great deal of sympathy with the member's desire for more information. Certainly, it is my feeling that over the longer run members of parliament must be furnished with more information on all aspects of government than we now have available to us, regardless of party. I can assure the hon. member, however, that there is no desire to keep him or any other member of the House uninformed about the important activities of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. An examination of the A, B and X budgets of the ministry would tell something about the ministry's program.
In the case of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs the blue book, the main estimates, provides a very clear and concise picture of what the ministry is involved in. And I would remind the House that the minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) was prepared to go before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs this spring to explain, in detail, the activities of the ministry and the imaginative program it is evolving. Members of the committee, however, chose to study and debate other subjects.
I think we should recall at this juncture that the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is just over two years old. It was created by proclamation of the House of Commons on July 10, 1971. It is a new ministry, with new activities and new staff, but it is making its mark on the urban situation in Canada. The ministry is, and intends to remain, a small, compact, highly responsive federal agency. And its budget for 1973-74 is not large by the standards of other departments, generally speaking. The estimated expenditures for 1973-74 are $17,020,000. It is very important that all of us have a very clear picture of what a policy ministry is, what it does and what its specific application is in the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.
Ministries of state were, and are, intended to develop new, comprehensive and innovative federal policies in areas where such policies are of great urgency and importance. And I hardly need remind you how important urban Canada is for our society and our economy. Most of us live in cities. And the fortunes of most of us are decided by how our cities fare. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, then, has three major responsibilities. It is to formulate and develop policies by which the federal government can influence the urbanization process, urban growth if you will; it is to achieve the integration of urban policies with the other policies and programs of the federal government, and it is to develop co-operative relationships in urban matters with the provinces and through them with the municipalities, as well as with the public and private organizations.
September 20, 1973

The rounding out of that mandate has been well launched in the 24 months the ministry has been operating. The ministry is developing urban policy, it is conducting research into urban problems and it is developing co-operative and productive relationships with the provinces and their municipalities.
The ministry has three main functions. They are: Policy development, to initiate proposals for new policies and to evaluate existing policies; research, to provide substantive data and knowledge for policy development; and coordination, to implement urban policies by coordinating with federal departments, between the federal government and the provinces, and through them with their municipalities and with the private sector.
The establishment of the ministry is a response to a number of hard facts about Canadian life. First, the change and the rate of change from an agrarian to an industrial economy affects every person in Canada. The transformation from a rural to an urban society and the flight to the city affects the country from coast to coast and, explicitly or implicitly, involves all levels of government in urban problems.
Governments have tried to meet this challenge. The federal government has taken many useful initiatives, and has tried a number of imaginative programs. But, programs which are developed unilaterally or in isolation are never as effective as projects undertaken with collaboration and consultation. If we are to take hold of urban growth, consultation and coordination are imperative. The fault lies with our past inability to attack urban problems in concert and to see them as part of a nation-wide phenomenon. Urban affairs initiatives are changing this situation.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that all government programs inter-react. There is no such entity as a policy or program which does not influence or affect in some way other policies and programs. Better housing may or may not provide access to better jobs. Transportation networks affect the form of cities and the pattern of urban development. Housing, sewage disposal, water supply and transportation among other factors are almost completely interdependent and inter-related. Although cities and municipal institutions belong in the constitutional framework of the provinces, the federal government has a major impact on urban life through many programs. The federal government is also a major urban landowner and a major national urban employer. It is also a major property manager in our cities. It has obligations and responsibilities to every community in which it has an installation, a building or a facility.
The ministry was created to deal with these facts of life. It was established to bring a coordinated federal perspective to the meeting and guiding of urban change. It was established to seek out information and knowledge on urban issues and to discover how the urban system works and how it can be influenced beneficially. The ministry was established to initiate and to develop mechanisms to enable the three levels of government to work together rather than at odds or in disharmony.
Urban Affairs-Budget Forecast


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, as I realize that perhaps some outline of the responsibilities of the department would be helpful in considering the motion presented by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier). It does seem to me, however, that we are receiving a continuous report on the reasons for which the ministry was set up rather than a specific response to the request in the hon. member's motion. It is difficult motion for the Chair to understand, as I have not the slightest idea what budgets, A, B and X of the program forecast or program review by the minister are all about. Perhaps I could be enlightened on that point by the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely in explaining the purposes of the budgets of the ministry that I am, in fact, detailing how the expenditures of moneys in Budgets A, B and X are to be directed. They are to be directed into these areas, and I feel that from the point of view of hon. members on both sides of the House it would be helpful to put on the record some of the precise objectives of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. I feel there is a general lack of knowledge among all members of parliament about these objectives and exactly what function is to be carried out.


James Aloysius McGrath: There is some lack of knowledge among government members as well.


Mr. Peters:: If you would table the document, we could all read it and understand the situation.


Ian Watson: As I indicated earlier, there is a need for the coordination of function in respect of the expenditures covered in these budgets and the details referred to in the request in this motion.
There are some 110 federal programs which have a direct impact on Canadian citizens and on the lives and well being of the people living in them. Federal transportation and communication systems, for example, have a major influence on the pattern of development in urban communities, and because of that as much as for any other reason the federal government must have the capability to understand and control the urban implications of its programs. Because federal policies interact with those of the provinces and local governments, the federal government must be prepared to work with and coordinate its policies and programs with those of the provinces and their municipalities in completely new and innovative ways.
Federal jurisdictional responsibilities are being taken into the cities to share with the provinces the task of devising and reformulating urban policies for Canada's emerging urban society. It is out of this situation that the commitment has emerged to build consultation between the three levels of government in order to face up to the problems of urbanization and urban growth. There are few urban problems that do not affect all three levels of government, and there are even fewer that do not interact with and react to others.
The mandate of the ministry charges it with building the coordinating and consulting mechanisms to deal with these inter-dependent factors of urban change and growth so that the decision-making processes of all three levels of government work in harmony and not at cross purposes.
6772

September 20, 1973
Urban Affairs-Budget Forecast In the first months of its mandate, the urban affairs ministry addressed itself to creating an effective organization, defining goals and strategies, setting priorities and initiating its functions. These tasks have been accomplished but they are subject to continuing review and adaptation to ensure a continuing effective response to urban issues. The question of goals and strategy is of particular importance to a policy ministry because that really is what its mandate is all about.
The question of what urban future or futures is the correct one for Canada has no easy answer. The urban affairs ministry and the minister are addressing themselves to the drafting of options for the urban future from which Canadians can make a choice. Approximately three-quarters of the Canadian population is now urbanized, and in less than 30 years this percentage will be over 90 per cent. Much of that growth will put the vast majority of Canadians within the perimeters of three or four large centres. The questions for us, and there are many, include the following: Should present urbanization trends be allowed to continue? What are the economic, social and political consequences of an almost totally urbanized population? What will happen to national unity and the national purpose? What will happen to the quality of urban life? There are no simple or fast answers to these questions. They involve personal values, priorities and what trade-offs we are willing to make to achieve a satisfactory urban future, but the ministry is tackling these and other policy issues.
The ministry began its existence with a strong sense of urgency in creating the kind of information and institutional response to enable the necessary accommodation to take place. That is the central direction of its policy development, research and coordinating functions. As I said earlier, the objective of this ministry is to lay the options in the budgets, which are in the motion, and which will be and are being directed toward a policy development, before us.
The efforts of the ministry are being directed toward the hiring of personnel for the preparation of long-term policies. The major emphasis in the policy is the development of long-term urban objectives. When elaborated, these will provide the focal points for the planning of urban strategies, policies and programs at the federal level and means of working out productive relationships with the provinces. Just as urban objectives will provide a basis for policy options over the longer term, a framework for urban strategy is being studied within the ministry to provide short-term working guidelines for the federal government over the next ten years.
There are other, more narrowly defined projects under way on policy development. These are projects which deal with specific and continuing sectoral issues. For example, transportation in urban centres is under study preparatory to a national trilevel consultation in Edmonton which will take place next month, and a measure to stimulate railway relocation, which was proposed last fall, will be introduced in the House. This program, as the minister has stated on a number of occasions, will have a major impact on urban centres in terms of what it will potentially be able to do in the way of rejuvenating core areas, opening

up green spaces in the centre of cities and making available to cities land for housing, services and recreation facilities.
The ministry is working on the policy implications of railway relocation as part of the necessary work-up of ideas prior to introduction of this measure. Practical experience on the issues involved in railway relocation is being gained through the trilevel committee in Winnipeg where railway relocation as envisaged by the federally-financed Winnipeg rail study is a major topic on the agenda of the trilevel action group.
A special task force within the policy branch of the ministry is analysing the short-range factors involved in municipal finance. This is another area that concerns a large number of members of parliament when we see the state of finances of most of our municipalities. Public concern over the availability and use of urban land has led to the initiation of a policy study of possible federal action in regard to federally-owned land, and an announcement on this can be expected in the near future.
The ministry is examining the development of policy proposals to guide the creation of new communities and the managing of the built-in environment in terms of scientific knowledge and technology. Policy development is especially concerned with preparations for the 1973 national trilevel consultation which takes place this fall. The first consultation was starting point. The second will,
I am confident, get deeper into the more substantive issues of intergovernmental co-ordination and consultation on urban affairs policies. We are working with this in mind to prepare the federal position. I should note that the urban affairs ministry does not participate in these trilevel consultations by itself: it co-ordinates a federal team effort which includes a number of federal departments, namely, the Department of Transport, DREE, etc.
On the question of urban research, I would like to put on the record a few details. Research is a vital function of the ministry. The research program now under way is guided by certain prerequisites. It must be issue-oriented, it must have sound theoretical and analytical foundations, and it must be applicable to Canadian needs. The research projects have been grouped into a number of broad theme areas related to the scope of individual projects and to the central urban objectives of the ministry. These theme groups include: urban growth and demography, program impact indicators, technology and the environment, the core city, land and housing markets, urban environmental quality, urban government, urban public economy, and urban information and values and systems.
These groups are not meant to be exclusive or to indicate the limits of ministry research activities. Rather, they indicate the current work being undertaken and the more immediate demands for knowledge within the ministry. There are many individual projects within these broad fields. There is, for example, the $232,000 research contract with University of Toronto researchers to analyse the financial plight of Canadian cities. This is one of the ministry's largest external research contracts. We all know that there is more and more pressure on municipalities for more and better services and yet the municipal dollar keeps shrinking. We must find ways to provide more money for municipalities.
September 20, 1973

The study is examining a number of issues. First, the effects of federal and provincial grants on local expenditures. For instance, do provincial road grants encourage more rapid building of roads, or does the growth rate stay the same? What are the comparative effects of conditional versus unconditional grants? Second, the fiscal squeeze. Is the gap between revenues and expenditures caused by a conscious decision to improve services or by unavoidable increases in existing services?
Then there are a number of other items, such as the exploitation thesis. Do the suburbs take undue advantage of the cities by using their services without paying for them? There are also the new simulation models; the effects of transportation systems on land values and property tax revenues will be analysed and measured by the use of mathematical models. There is also zoning; the effect of zoning on the land market will be studied. For the information of hon. members, I may point out that the ministry is also studying the cost of providing public services in cities of different size, and it is delving into the demand for urban transportation to explore the transport arrangements for different land uses in cities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him, plus the allowance by the Chair for the point of order raised by the Chair, has expired.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to which you yourself referred a few moments ago. I deliberately waited until the parliamentary secretary had finished before doing so. It seems to me that the greater part of his speech-and this was the case with the greater part of the speeches on this subject two weeks ago-did not address itself in any clear way to the substance of the motion which is before the House. I would urge Your Honour to rule that stricter application of the rule of relevancy be applied to these debates, otherwise it will be possible for members of the government to avoid utterly or evade the central question at issue in these motions and spend the better part of this hour reading public relations documents prepared in their departments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member anticipates what might be said by future participants in the debate. But this question is of some anxiety to the Chair. The hon. member has put forward a motion directed toward a specific objective. I think the argument should be on whether his motion should be accepted or refused, and reasons for either course being adopted should be put forward.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I indicated at the very beginning of my remarks that I had complete sympathy for the hon. member's desire for information. In his motion he seeks information regarding not only this department but other departments. In discussing the motion in the House, I do not think it would be stretching your patience unduly, Mr. Speaker, if one were to go into some of the details of the information sought by the hon. member who proposed the motion. It seems to me that one of the objectives of the motion is to obtain more information, and this is what I have been attempting to provide.
Urban Affairs-Budget Forecast
It is all very well to refer to what I have just been saying as a public relations lecture. The fact is that there has not been very much information available to members of parliament regarding this ministry because the estimates were not brought before the committee last spring by a deliberate decision of the committee on health and welfare which wanted to debate something else.
Therefore, this has really been one of the first opportunities to make this information available to hon. members. I would hope that the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) would be appreciative of our effort to supply more information here. I sympathize with his desire for more information. I am one who also is desirous of there being more information for all of us. In speaking today I attempted to make more information available to the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) and the Chair itself, for that matter, get further involved I would recognize the point that this issue is before a committee. I will put it on record now. I quote from Votes and Proceedings for March-29 as follows:
-document entitled "Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers", tabled March 15, 1973, referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.
I hope members of that committee will consider the difficulties that the hon. member and the parliamentary secretary, along with the Chair, found in just how to proceed properly with the debate. Now perhaps the three of us can rest on our oars and see what the next contributor brings forth.


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rather regret that you had to put your admonition in exactly those terms so that I might be singled out to be solely relevant, which is always what I intended to be and, hopefully, will be. Unfortunately, I cannot give any other guidance on budgets A, B and X.
I hope that in due course we will have better information as sought by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier). However, after coalescing a great deal of material and much research, I do wish to indicate some of my impressions to the hon. member who put forward the motion, particularly on the reference to a forecast of the departmental programs, and I also wish to give a brief review of what the Department of Urban Affairs has accomplished. I believe, Mr. Speaker, you will find that what I am about to say is relevant and I trust that if you deem otherwise you will draw it to my attention.
Frankly, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, for one very important reason. That is, to remind hon. members that urban problems and urban issues with which the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is grappling are not of concern to Canada alone. Indeed, the problems of urban growth evoke universal concern because, whatever form they take, they are present in every county of the world.
At this point I should like to remind the House that Canadians will be hosts in 1976 for one of the most important United Nations conferences ever held. I refer to the
26454-64 \

September 20, 1973
Urban Affairs-Budget Forecast United Nations Conference and Exposition on Human Settlements which will be held in Vancouver from May 31 to June 11 of that year. Canada has the key role to play in making this conference and exposition a success. Hon. members will recall that on March 19 of this year the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) informed the House that the conference and exposition would be the largest international conference ever staged in Canada. It is anticipated that some 4,000 participants from approximately 130 countries will be coming to this event.
The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is responsible
for developing and co-ordinating Canadian participation in the conference and exposition. The choice of this particular ministry to spearhead Canadian participation is indeed a wise one, and as my hon. friend from Laprairie (Mr. Watson) has just pointed out, the ministry has established and is strengthening those intergovernmental relationships which will be so necessary for the success of this United Nations event, which in my view ranks higher than the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in regard to its long-term significance for human progress. Obviously, the full co-operation of the provinces, of the municipalities and indeed of all Canadians will be needed to bring this particular conference and exposition through to a successful conclusion.
Canada will learn from this conference and exposition. Because urban growth is a universal phenomenon, and because urban growth issues are present in every nation, we can expect an outpouring of ideas, of talent, of communication, all of which will help us and the department, of course, as well as other countries, to meet this situation. Indeed, this event will offer Canada improved means of controlling and guiding its urban growth which threatens as well as promises so much. In turn, many Canadian initiatives and projects will be useful abroad.
I said that the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was the correct choice to head Canadian participation. Let me briefly outline what it has been doing. Consultations and meetings have been held with the provinces and departmental officials have been in close contact with the staff of the United Nations Environmental Program to work out the myriad details connected with staging such an event. Last May the urban affairs ministry, on behalf of Canada, acted as host for a United Nations seminar which met in Vancouver to begin the arduous task of drafting the agenda for the discussions in 1976 and the criteria for the demonstration projects that will illustrate solutions to problems of human settlements. This seminar drew invited urban experts from over 30 countries. It is significant to note that for the first time East Germany took part in a United Nations consultation on the environment and that the Chinese People's Republic sent official observers.
Moreover, the countries represented were from both developed and developing regions. The experts also met with Mr. Maurice Strong, who is well known to all members of the House and to most Canadians and who is, of course, the executive director of the United Nations Environmental Program. They also met with his staff, with representatives of the Government of Canada, with staff of the United Nations Centre for Housing, Building and Planning, and with representatives of the United Nations

economic commissions. This seminar of experts was chaired by Lady Robert Jackson, better known to hon. members as Barbara Ward. Lady Jackson is indefatigable in her efforts to gain world recognition of the crisis posed by urban growth, and her presence and vital leadership injected the experts' seminar with a sense of urgency which this challenge demands. This same sense of urgency underlines the programs of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs as it attempts to grapple with the many complex issues which constitute the urban growth challenge in this country of ours.
Just recently, in the Montreal Star, a Reuters dispatch reported that city life in Japan would collapse totally if current migration to urban areas continued unabated for another decade. Japan's economic planning agency has urged emergency measures to head off this catastrophe. Among its suggestions is one calling for removal of the capital from Tokyo. The planning agency has predicted that if present trends continue, living conditions in Japan's cities will be miserable by 1985. The housing shortage will be even more acute. Pollution will be much worse. Traffic jams will be monumental. Garbage will start to pile up in the streets. Water will be in short supply. This refers to Japan, not Canada, Mr. Speaker. But the same problems, of lesser degree, also challenge Canadian governments. That is why the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs has shaped its policy and research program to attack these problems and to support the policies and strategies of the provinces in attacking them also.
The urban experts at the United Nations seminar in Vancouver chose six tentative themes for the conference and exposition. But as they themselves recognized, the six overlap because the problems of human settlements are the problems of urbanization, of the continuing process of urban growth. They overlap; they contain elements of each other. They cannot be separated because what we are dealing with throughout the world and what the urban affairs ministry is tackling here in Canada is the question of how people can live better in the built-in environment-better, not just in physical terms, in terms of health, but in terms of cultural and social and other expectations. The dimensions of the problem were fully recognized by the experts, Mr. Speaker, as they are by the urban affairs ministry.
Urban settlements are growing at twice the rate of present world population growth. With that rate of growth, problems inevitably grow at an increasingly faster rate. One can hardly fail to recognize that the one, single challenge that unites all nations is how to improve the human environment. The shift from a rural to an urbanized society is world wide. Overcrowding, pollution, hard-pressed facilities are common to urban communities throughout the world. But the real difference is one of degree not of kind.
In the next 25 years, we have been warned, our urban society will be confronted with pressures of greater degree than ever before in human history. "Vancouver '76" is being held by the United Nations because of those pressures, Mr. Speaker. But the problems and the conference-exposition, provide an opportunity for all nations to join together to overcome the problems of urban growth, to
September 20, 1973

meet them with tested responses, to guide growth by policies and programs that have been proven effective.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that hon. members will agree when I say that Canada has a great opportunity to give world leadership in the fight to guide urban growth beneficially. That leadership has been entrusted to the right minister and to the right federal agency, because the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is at the centre of our attempts to control urban growth. It is the focal point for federal urban policy. And, through the 1976 conference and exposition, initiatives will be made available to other nations as well.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, and other members of the House for the indulgence afforded me. I trust that in every instance, Mr. Speaker, you have found my remarks to be relevant.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are a mobile people. We have a lot of ground to cover and we travel about this land of ours at an amazing rate. National transportation policy is not the concern of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, but policies affecting transportation matters in urban areas are definitely within the jurisdiction of the ministry. The ministry is acting on them.
As my hon. friend from Laprairie (Mr. Watson) has pointed out, transportation is one of those urban elements which interact with other elements such as housing. The ministry recognizes this interconnection among urban issues and factors, and that recognition underlies its response to urban growth. The realities of urban transportation are all around us. I shall start with a few statistics, not to impress or to avoid getting into the topic but to set out, first of all, the scale of the problem of best formulating federal transportation initiatives for Canada's urban communities.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened very carefully to the last couple of speeches. While they stuck fairly closely to housing and the responsibility of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), I suggest that the present speaker, when talking about transportation, is not referring to budgets A, B and X. He is giving a mild lecture to the House, and that is not the purpose of asking for the production of papers. There may be a reason why budgets A, B and X cannot be presented to the House, but I suggest no substitute is going to be the policy as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Turner).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair continues to be in difficulty. I am still not clear in my mind about this, and if I had been perhaps I would have ruled more forcefully. With regard to the program forecast of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, the Chair has no knowledge whether budgets A, B and X concern only the operations of the department itself or whether what is involved is an overview of the various aspects of the urban problem.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) certainly has a point: the issue that was presented to us this afternoon was whether certain information should be put
Parole Act
on the desks of hon. members or should be kept in government filing cabinets. This, as he says, has not been made clear.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
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. Allmand that Bill C-197, to amend the Parole Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-191, an act to amend the Parole Act, will give the governor in council the right to appoint not more than ten additional ad hoc members to the National Parole Board. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) this afternoon set out the position of the NDP on this bill in a clear, concise and convincing way and I will not add much this evening to what he said.
Parole plays an important role in the criminal justice system. It is therefore necessary, after a person commits a criminal offence and is confined to an institution, for us to have the tools to reform, and rehabilitate him, to turn him into a law-abiding citizen and a socially useful person. We must therefore make sure that our parole system is understood not only by the parolee, by the prison inmate and by the prison official, but by judges and by the public. Our experience of the past year has brought about some public criticism which in many cases has been warranted. Nevertheless, the over-all picture with regard to parole in Canada has been good and the results obtained have been good.
As I said to the minister previously, we have almost completed our studies and researches into problems of parole. We have been given the Ouimet report and the Hugessen report. There has also been the study by the Senate of the parole system. As the minister pointed out, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of this House has also been studying certain institutions and the parole of offenders. Also, an ombudsman has been appointed to look into grievances of inmates.
I think the time has come for the study and research to stop and for legislation that will deal with this important problem to be developed. I and the members of the NDP would like to see this bill passed tonight. We want it

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
referred to the Committee of the Whole House so it can be completed and we can appoint the ten additional ad hoc members to the board and begin developing the structure that we hope to develop.
The Canadian Criminology and Corrections Association, in a brief on the parole system, set out the value of parole.
I shall read some paragraphs from the brief as follows:
Parole offers many advantages to both society and the offender:
1)	The offender is released from prison when he is psychologically and socially ready; this increases the chances of his successful adaptation to the free community. If this period is allowed to pass without his release he may deteriorate and his chances of success diminish.
2)	The knowledge that parole may be available gives the inmate a sense of hope, and encourages him to make the adjustments in his attitudes and patterns of behaviour that are necessary if he is to be successful after release. Such a positive stance on his part will help him and also contribute to a better prison program.
3)	The fact that society has expressed confidence in him and the fact that he has agreed to the conditions of his parole give him maximum encouragement in his efforts to re-establish himself in the free community.
4)	The offender is enabled to reassume his family and community responsibilities with a minimum of separation. The longer the period of separation, the more difficult the roles of parent and citizen become.
5)	The assistance given by the parole supervisor aids the offender's chances of successful adjustment in the free community.
6)	Parole offers considerable financial saving over incarceration.
The brief continues:
There are, of course, risks in releasing offenders on parole. However, there are risks in any program for offenders. The shortterm risks of parole are calculated risks over which there is some measure of control. The risks involved in keeping the offender in prison too long, thus robbing him of hope, self-confidence and initiative before turning him free without assistance in making the adjustment, are greater in most cases.
The association is saying, I think, that we must exercise more control over the matter of parole. As well, we must help the parolee to adjust to living in the community, help him with employment and help him to change his attitude not only toward himself but toward other people. I heard the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) speak this afternoon on this bill on behalf of the Conservative Party. I thought he took a negative approach and I came to the conclusion that in many ways he would like to see people incarcerated and the key thrown away. That may have been the sixteenth century approach but it does not fulfil the needs of the twentieth century.


An hon. Member:: He is a clergyman, too.


John Gilbert: I certainly hope that the attitude of the Conservative Party changes in this regard. In presenting his argument, the hon. member for Scarborough East referred to a long list of unsuccessful cases and thereby tried to create an emotion of fear rather than one of confidence in people. It is also necessary, I submit, to set out a list of successful cases in the field of parole. After all, we are dealing with human beings and human beings must be treated humanly if we expect them to take their rightful place in society.

I wish to point out to the minister the necessity of dealing in a proper manner with young offenders. The young offenders bill was presented to this House but it was defeated in committee. Many members, both on this side and on the government side, were happy to see it defeated because it did not embrace the necessary philosophy with regard to the treatment of young offenders.


William Warren Allmand: There will be a new bill soon.


John Gilbert: Since that bill was defeated there has been very little action by the government in drafting a bill which would meet the requirements of the situation.


William Warren Allmand: The new bill is almost ready.


John Gilbert: I am happy to hear the minister say that the new bill is almost ready. Whether we have a new bill or not, I think the minister will agree that we need the necessary psychiatric, psychological and related services for the treatment of young offenders. This is the requirement of a successful piece of legislation concerning young offenders. We must change the attitudes and ways of persons when they are young if we are to avoid problems when they are older.
The record of convictions and incarcerations up until 1970 showed a decreasing trend in the number of persons committed to institutions. Since 1970 there has been an increase in the number of inmates, without the necessary institutions and facilities to handle the increase. The Ouimet report pointed out that Canada makes excessive use of the present system for the treatment of offenders. We now have one of the highest prison populations we have ever experienced. Therefore, it is necessary that we use the instrument of parole with regard to the treatment of these offenders.
The hon. member for New Westminster capably pointed out this afternoon that it is a myth to think we are going to reform and rehabilitate men in prison. The high rate of recidivism points in the opposite direction. This is sad and disappointing. That does not mean our institutions should be places of mere incarceration. We should continue to attempt to provide training and educational facilities in these institutions, but we should place greater emphasis on parole.
European countries have used with great success the parole approach to the treatment of offenders. We have only begun to do this in Canada. We have had the usual setbacks of a new system. I hope we will have a twofold approach, not only to improve the situation with regard to rehabilitation and reformation within the institutions but to improve and strengthen the parole system. There are many comments and criticisms with regard to parole because we have to make humane decisions when dealing with human beings. We shall make mistakes; however, I hope this will never stop the trend toward reformation and rehabilitation. To go back to mere incarceration, putting people in prison and throwing away the key, certainly is not the right approach.
We agree that the ad hoc members should be appointed on a regional basis. Setting up regional boards is a good idea. For the past few years, applications have been dealt
September 20, 1973

with by the parole board without the presence of the inmate concerned. The minister assured us this afternoon that, with the additional members, the board will go to the prisons and inmates will be given the right to present their cases for parole. This is a step in the right direction; it will strengthen the structure.
The minister also stated that judges will be appointed to the regional parole boards because of their wide experience in the field. I notice there is quite a difference with regard to the panel system that will be used. The Hugess-en report recommends a certain number coming from certain fields; the Canadian Criminology and Corrections Association makes another recommendation.
I hope that in short order the minister will bring in legislation which will improve and strengthen the parole system in Canada. We support this bill. We hope it will be dealt with in committee of the whole this evening, and completed, so that this necessary part of the parole system can be commenced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may not be quite so generous in their applause when they hear what I have to say. We must approach matters of this nature, not with opinions developed from the majority rule concept, as is often the case in caucus meetings of all parties, but from the point of view of what an individual possesses. I do not think there is any great difference of opinion in substance about what we are trying to advocate. There may be differences in terms of the technique of reaching the socially desirable objective, namely, ensuring that society and government agencies do all that is possible with regard to reformation and rehabilitation of those who run afoul of the law and end up in a penitentiary.
There are cases of individuals who are psychotic being sent to prison. I never did understand the term. But as I conceive it, it refers to those completely out of touch with the realities of life and with no concern or responsibility toward anyone except themselves. I agree there are some in that category who should never be let out of an institution, whether it be a penal institution, a mental institution or some other type of confinement, because they are a detriment to society and to themselves.


An hon. Member:: Who decides that?


Frank Howard: If we could find a person with the wisdom and majesty to decide that, we would not need government institutions or institutions of any other kind. That person would be a messiah. However, there is no one person who could do that. Through our political and government systems, society has decided that we require institutions. We have laws. When someone offends against those laws, the courts, or the medical profession if it is a question of certifiable insanity, can commit that person to an institution.
Parole Act
Somebody within the structure has an obligation to make a decision of that kind. Mistakes are bound to be made, just as they are bound to be made by the people to whom parliament has given authority to grant parole. But the objective we have in mind, and which we must have in mind, is that of assisting our fellow man and helping him to the fullest extent we can. Whether we use the term "rehabilitation" or some other term in this context is not particularly material.
I look upon this bill as being a small step. That has been said before. But I think it is a small step in the wrong direction. I think it is leading away from the type of policy which should be available to help people in our institutions to overcome their difficulties. The history of parole and the granting of parole from the time the parole board was set up and the original act was passed in 1958 has been one of groping and fumbling and missing the point.
I well remember the speech made by the minister of justice in 1958 or 1959 when the Parole Act was established. The minister of justice, Mr. Fulton at that time, spoke extensively about the mechanics of the old system of parole and what was conceived to be the new system being introduced. He made a lengthy, detailed and involved speech about the new bill and what it contained. But he missed one point, and when this was brought to his attention later he agreed he had missed it. He ignored the question of rehabilitation entirely. He ignored the question of what happens to an individual after he has been given parole; what happens when he gets out on the street and moves into the mainstream of society. He completely failed to deal with this point. The government of that day had no concept of what would happen to a person after he got out of a penitentiary, whether on parole or at the conclusion of sentence, and this aspect was never kept in mind while the Parole Act was being developed. This gave rise to a difficulty which has faced successive governments and ministers, whether ministers of justice or solicitors general.
I believe it is better for the individual, better for society and better for the taxpayer if, taking into account the factors I mentioned earlier, an individual spends his time of sentence outside a penal institution rather than in it. Though it has been said so many times that it has become a cliche, I think we must continue to recognize a simple fact about penitentiary life, and it is that there is no rehabilitation inside a penitentiary. There are attempts to teach people trades, to teach them work skills. They are taught how to make a chair, how to stamp out licence plates, how to sew mailbags or perform a number of similar tasks. But nowhere is there any attempt made, nor can there be any attempt made inside a penitentiary, to teach a person how to keep a job. You can teach him how to do it, yes, but teaching him how to keep it, or how to lead a so-called straight life is another matter.
In any event, the purpose of a penitentiary is not rehabilitative but custodial. The end result of the criminal law is to keep a person in jail for the length of time for which a court has sent him there, subject, of course, to pardon or parole. That is the purpose-to make sure all the doors are locked and the count is right. Any time there is the least conflict between the desires of a correctional

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
officer, who theoretically works in the area of rehabilitation, and a custodial officer, the custodial officer wins out. So it is better, I believe, for a person sentenced to jail to spend his time outside the institution in the mainstream of society whenever that is possible and as soon as that is possible.
There are instances when the best time to grant parole to a person who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced is on the very day he is sentenced. Again, this involves selection and correct decisions. Strange as it may seem, in certain cases of murder committed under the stress of emotion the best time to grant a parole is at the moment of sentence. I refer to crimes of passion, crimes of emotion, crimes which result from the discovery of family difficulties and a variety of other situations in which the person who commits the crime is not of criminal intellect nor of destructive intellect; he does not consciously or deliberately go out and commit a crime which might result in someone being murdered. It is a matter of a moment, something which could happen to anybody at a given time.
A person of that type should not, in my opinion, be required to spend a lifetime in jail. I do not like talking about statistics in this connection but, as has been stated by the chairman of the parole board, Mr. Street, any examination of a person at that time will show that the risk of his violating parole is nil.
Another point we should keep in mind is that every inmate who enters a penitentiary, even those serving indefinite sentences, so-called habitual criminals, will get out some time. The most obstinate, the most dangerous, the worst psychotic one can think of will get out some day. Our concern must be with the day he gets our and not, I submit, with setting up the mechanics of a structure such as this without being concerned about what happens when he does get out. I think the parole board is ill-suited in most cases to make that determination.
The parole board can make and has made decisions, generally speaking, in the most favourable of cases. The annual reports of the parole board indicate this in reference to the rise and fall of the number of paroles that are granted compared to the number of people who are eligible or apply for parole. Once the backlog of easy cases was dealt with, the parole board found it most difficult to deal with the granting of parole. The parole board also has been, to a measure, something of a jellyfish because when there has been an instance of a mistake on the part of the parole board in granting parole, and it has come to light, the reaction of the board has been to tighten up.
Probably the initial classic case of reference related to a fellow named Dionne who was imprisoned in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. He had been convicted of assault on a child from which death resulted. I think the charge was murder at that time.


Mrs. Morin:: Rape.


Frank Howard: He was granted parole. When he got out on parole he did the same thing all over again in two or three instances. He went back to jail. Not too long ago he was relieved of his difficulties; another inmate of the jail ended his life for him. In any event, when Dionne was on

parole he committed further offences and there was a public hue and cry about the parole board having made a mistake. It had made a mistake and it admitted it. However, the parole board squeezed up into itself and said, "My heavens, we had better not do that again, not because we might make a similar mistake but because we had better wait for the public clamour to die down". As a consequence, the parole board did not fulfil its obligation and its authority under the Parole Act or the commitment parliament gave it.
What has happened since then? The minister says we need to expand the parole board by ten additional members partly because of the backlog of applications, partly because the parole board had discontinued its panel or subcommittee operation and partly because of the removal of the back-to-back temporary absences issued by wardens to prisoners. The change was necessary, so said the minister a while ago, because of legal difficulties. He said he received conflicting legal advice. If he received it from the Department of Justice, this is understandable. He received it from some government agency, I do not know which, so it is understandable that he received conflicting advice. As a matter of fact, if I ever had to take advice on a legal matter I certainly would not rely on the Department of Justice. However, the minister did receive conflicting legal advice. Perhaps he spoke to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on the one hand and the departmental officials on the other.
In any event, the minister said because of legal difficulties they had to discontinue the back-to-back temporary absence system. He said it was a good system and had operated well. I think it was good, because the decision was made at the institutional level by individuals who were closer to the inmates on a day to day basis than any parole board could possibly be. Because it was discontinued, and because the back-to-back temporary absence is to be replaced by day parole, which is an authority given under the Parole Act, it is necessary to expand the Parole board to ten additional, ad hoc members. I submit to the minister that if he did receive conflicting legal opinion concerning whether or not he had the legal right under the Penitentiary Act to issue back-to-back temporary absences, he should have brought in a bill to amend the Penitentiary Act to make clear that that type of authority would be available to the directors.
In his mind, if he thought it was necessary to discontinue the back-to-back temporary absences, and instead say to the parole board that it could do the same sort of things through day parole, I submit he should have brought in an amendment to the Penitentiary Act to say so, and not attempt to deal with that situation by increasing the membership of the parole board and increasing the bureaucracy within the board's structure. Quite frankly, I do not think this is necessary. If the members of the parole board were-I was going to say "conscientious" but I am sure they are-assiduous, dedicated and determined about the question of parole, there would be no need to increase the board to 19 members.
The parole board started in 1958 with five members. Let us take a quick look at the statistical analysis of the operations of the board over the years from 1958 to 1968 or 1969 when it had five members. These figures fluctuate
September 20, 1973

from year to year, and this is understandable because of the different inmate populations. In some cases there was an automatic review of parole cases, in other instances individuals applied, and so on. So without relating the year to year fluctuations to the numbers of people granted or applying for parole and the percentage of success or failure-whichever way one looks at it-there is a fairly consistent pattern.
The number of people who applied for parole over that period of time had a general ratio to the total inmate population in the country. It ranged around 6,000 to 7,000 with an average-by looking quickly at the figures-of probably 7,000 plus applications for parole. Of those who applied over that period, the number granted ranged around 2,000: it fluctuates from year to year. The annual reports of the parole board relate figures in two ways. They relate them in terms of success and sometimes in terms of the failure rate. Later on the board became more euphemistic about it and called it a success rate. It can be stated either way, it does not matter.
In those years, as today, the failure rate was 8 per cent, 9 per cent, 10 per cent or something of that sort. When they changed the reference and called it the success rate, we find there was 88.8 per cent or 90 per cent success, with a 10 per cent failure rate. Generally speaking, that ratio was standard over those years.
In 1969 somebody concluded that five members on the parole board was not sufficient, so the number was increased to nine. Parliament endorsed this change and I was one of those who supported it. One of the arguments given to support the increase to nine was that the chairman of the parole board had the authority to divide the members into panels or committees of not less than two and the panels would have the authority to grant parole on the spot. The theory was that they would meet in the institutions, review the applications, consider the records, listen to the opinions of the warden and the RCM Police, check over the fellow's history of attempts to present himself favourably to the institutional authorities, and then have an interview with the inmate.
Quite frankly, I think these interviews were nt ,,hing more than window-dressing. I do not see how two people could sit down for 15 minutes with somebody they had never seen before, but who had been preparing himself for weeks for the occasion, and come up with an assessment as to whether he would be a good prospect, or otherwise, for parole. Such an individual would indicate what he hoped and planned to do, giving an indication that he had a job and perhaps even name the employer. In any event, that was the reasoning behind it.
There was some value in that idea in that decisions could be, and were, made on the spot. There was a bit of an increase in the number of people who applied for parole under that arrangement, and a substantial increase in the number of paroles granted. The success rate remained about the same, 90 per cent, and the failure rate was about the same, being 10 per cent or something of that nature.
I understand that the chairman of the parole board has discontinued this panel system, or perhaps it was the minister who did so. It is my information that it was the
Parole Act
chairman. For the sake of those who may eventually read this debate, those words were in response to the nodding and shaking of the head by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). The chairman of the parole board discontinued the panel system and said to the two-member committees or panels that were out visiting inmates in institutions that they should come back to Ottawa, consolidate and centralize, and he would then go to the minister and tell him the workload was too heavy. I suppose he expected then to have more members to divide into groups of two under the panel system and would thus be able to increase the staff surrounding the additional members, thereby increasing his kingdom or the size of his bureaucracy. That is what is happening.
As I stand here the percentage of paroles granted to those who have applied will not be any greater than it was in previous years, and the success or failure rate will not be any different. The rehabilitation prospects will remain identical. What has happened to our concern for what happens to the individual once he gets out on the street? I know quite a number of people in my own area who have been or are now out on parole.
Somewhere in one of the annual reports of the parole board there is a graph that indicates the location of various parole officers. There is one in the city of Prince George who has the responsibility of looking after about 250,000 square miles of territory. That is an area within which you could put the four Atlantic provinces two or three times over. That man has no relationship whatever with the people on parolp. If a man on parole has a difficulty or some emotional uptightness and does not know what to do about it, who does he turn to? Does he phone 400 or 600 miles to talk to the parole officer in Prince George? He might just as well have a tape-recorder with him that he can turn on when he wants to talk to somebody. The parole officer's voice might come out of it telling him that everything is fine.
A man in that situation does not have any measure of assistance, help or guidance from the parole officer. He is on his own. I am not the least bit disposed to support the idea of increasing the number of members of the parole board just for the convenience or the desire of the chairman to increase this bureaucratic entity. There shoilld be some effort to find probation officers and people in the community who will work on a voluntary basis-and they are there-and sit down with these people on parole and talk over their emotional problems. This would do a great deal toward reducing the 10 per cent failure rate.
There is another disadvantage to the parole officer structure. As I understand it, under the Parole Act a parole officer is a police officer. Many people who are on parole just do not want to sit down and talk with a policeman when they have an emotional problem. They look at their parole officer as someone who might turn them in if he thinks they have done something wrong. These people feel a parole officer is someone who might turn them over to the authorities if he thinks they are associating with the wrong people, that they are drinking too much, or if he thinks an individual is suffering some emotional turmoil and might crack and commit another crime. They think he is someone who might turn them into the authorities if, as is the case in respect of 40 per cent or

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
50 per cent of the inmate population of penitentiaries in British Columbia, he thinks they might take another fix of heroin to get them over some tough emotional period. That is a criminal offence and such a parolee would be sent back to prison, so there is reluctance on the part of the individual to talk to the parole officer.
Just as Davie Fulton, a former member of the Conservative government, missed the boat entirely when the parole board was set up in 1958, I think this minister is missing the boat entirely when he talks about the establishment of a super-structured parole board which is ill-equipped and ill-suited to make the decisions it must make or, what is even worse, to follow them up after an individual gets out of jail. This should be our prime concern, and that is why I said at the outset there is no difference of opinion among members of this House as to the need to stress rehabilitation. This idea has been expressed to the point that it has become almost a joke, or meaningless.
In any event, our concern must be in respect of rehabilitation. We must be concerned about helping these individuals get over the rough spots. Our concern must be to try to cut down the incidence of criminality. Our concern must be to try to cut down the incidence of violence, to cut down the incidence of robberies and all the other crimes that take place which result in people being sentenced to the penitentiary. But I think, quite seriously, that we are headed in exactly the same direction as when we started out in 1958, not helping one bit except to add to the bureaucratic structure. In this way the objective and the goal of rehabilitating the individual will receive scant consideration.
To take another approach to the matter, in terms of security I believe there should be gradations of institutions so that individuals who are considered to be tough, incorrigible, unable to conform, unreliable, desirous of only engaging in criminal activities, who are housed in a maximum security institution or a super-maximum security institution, would not be offered the opportunity for parole which is available to those who are housed in other institutions. The other penitentiaries in different types of classifications moving downward are called medium security or minimum security institutions. They have living accommodation quarters or home-living style activity. We have community homes. Halfway houses are not part of the penitentiary structure. If you walked by those community homes you would not know they were penitentiaries. People go out of them to work, to go to school or to engage in some type of activity, and they come back to the institution at night. There is a guidance counsellor around.
If an individual wants to spend the rest of his life in jail, he should be faced with this prospect, and if he wants to stay within the institutional structure until he has served his time, he should be kept in the so-called maximum or hard-line institution. His function there should be to work, work, work. There should be no meanness, no cruelty, no starvation, no lash, the paddle or anything degrading to the individual-just good, old-fashioned work. Then, if he wants to embark upon the road that leads toward rehabilitation, toward parole, toward temporary release, all of which lead toward a variety of other things-and it must be his choice-he should work his
[Mr. Howard.)
way, not by escaping out of that maximum institution, into other types of institutions and move toward rehabilitation. However, he must be faced with that prospect.
I do not believe in the idea of giving parole opportunities to everybody theoretically, in every type of institution, nor do I believe in granting temporary releases right across the board. But I do believe in some type of meaningful attraction being offered to the individual, so that if he wants to make a go of it then the facilities of the parole board are there to help him all the way, not only in parole being granted in the first place but in offering him assistance after he gets out-and that is the most important aspect.
Until the minister, the government and society in general are able to accept that concept and work toward it, all this is window-dressing which permits a debate to take place in the House about these matters and allows an expansion of a bureaucratic structure with nothing meaningful coming out of it at the end.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I feel the minister is on the right track in wishing to increase the number of members of the parole board. This brings me to my first point, and I will not speak at great length. I wanted to differentiate between the history of the parole board and the history of the temporary release program.
First, I want to quote from the Penitentiary Act because I believe it was misinterpreted at the time the former solicitor general held this portfolio, now the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). I do not blame him personally for that, and I never did at that time. Apparently he listened to a group of people who had a different interpretation of the act than was formerly the case. I agree with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) that the act was incorrectly interpreted and that it was misused. I want to point out that in my opinion the mistakes were not made by the parole board but, rather, as a result of ad hoc decisions under the temporary release program, for which of course the Solicitor General must take full responsibility.
I wish to quote from the Penitentiary Act, which is found in chapter 6 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, at page 12, section 26. This is the section under which the Department of the Solicitor General operated the temporary release program. I, as well as many lawyers across the country, including bar associations, believe that the back-to-back temporary release program under the act was misinterpreted and misused by the department. Section 26 reads:
Where, in the opinion of the commissioner or the officer in charge of a penitentiary, it is necessary or desirable that an inmate should be absent, with or without escort-
I will have something to say about the words "with or without escort".
-for medical or humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of the inmate, the absence may be authorized from time to time.
The grounds, in that section of the act, are medical or humanitarian reasons. Medical reasons do not need any explanation. If the inmate becomes sick and needs medical attention in a hospital, such as surgery or some other kind
September 20,1973

of attention, then the commissioner or officer in charge can sign a document for his temporary release and he can be removed to the hospital. I might say in passing that I had cases of applications being made years before the act was misused, misjudged and misinterpreted. The other ground is humanitarian reasons. We know what they are. I can give you one example of a man who was incarcerated for seven years for armed robbery. He was a family man. His seven year-old girl had played with other children with whom she started a bonfire, as a result of which a fire started and in the accident she died. We made application to the attorney general and the inmate was released to attend the girl's funeral. Those are humanitarian grounds and they are justifiable. I hope we will always have such a law.
Then we should consider the rehabilitation of the inmate. I do not think it was ever intended that an inmate should be released under the temporary release program for the purpose of rehabilitation at a time in Canada when we have abolished capital punishment not only de jure but de facto. We had abolished it by law. Of course, that law has now lapsed and the bill to reinstate it is awaiting third reading. We abolished capital punishment except where a person was found guilty of intentionally killing a police officer or a prison guard. But even during the five-year abolition period all those people who had been found guilty of such murders-I could name them-and who went through the due process of law-trial, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada-had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment. Recently we saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on television when he appeared at the Liberal party convention. He was asked about this situation and he said that every case was decided on its own merits. But, Mr. Speaker, I stress that all sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. That is de facto abolition.
I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) does not want to get involved in this. He is a rather talkative man.


Marc Lalonde: The same thing happened under
Diefenbaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you want me to name the cases where they did go to the gallows?


Marc Lalonde: Not under Diefenbaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you of one in Calgary. The death took place on Scarborough Avenue, at Scarborough United Church, where a man beat a girl to death with a Coke bottle. The man went to the gallows. But I did not come here to defend Mr. Diefenbaker or discuss his government. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who is trying to heckle me was the executive assistant to a former minister of justice and he should have special knowledge of these matters.
Returning to the question of rehabilitation, I say that this section of the act was never intended for people who were sentenced to life imprisonment or had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment. At the time
Parole Act
Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was prime minister this section was in force. It provides:
Notwithstanding any other law or authority, a person in respect of whom a sentence of death has been commuted to imprisonment for life or a term of imprisonment or a person upon whom a sentence of imprisonment for life has been imposed as a minimum punishment, shall not be released during his life or such term, as the case may be, without the prior approval of the governor in council.
So when section 26 is used it flaunts section 684(3) of the Criminal Code. I will deal with the Geoffroy case in a few moments. We also had the Head case, and another one that did not have any publicity, the Swearngen case. These men were found guilty of murder and given life imprisonment. In the case of the latter two it was not the parole board that was to blame. These people committed other crimes when they were out on temporary release. This is why I asked a question today about the chap in Prince Albert who some years ago was found guilty of killing a young boy. Recently he was given a temporary release, and now has escaped. I believe he is in a certain area, which I will not name, in western Canada. To date he has not been rearrested.
The point I wish to make is to raise a defence for the parole board. People have failed to differentiate between inmates on temporary release under section 26, whether legally or illegally enjoying that freedom, and people who are out on parole. Basically, the history of the parole board is good.
The first step we should take is to provide enough parole officers and more psychiatrists so that the proper documentation comes before local parole boards in order to minimize the risk of improper decisions being made. Any minister who must take responsibility for these things is sitting on a keg of dynamite when such decisions are made on an ad hoc basis by a local board with an officer in charge. I will give some examples. The parole board did not let Mr. Geoffroy out. He was found guilty of murdering his wife. He was in jail only a few months when he obtained a temporary release. On what grounds did he get that release? He was not sick. Surely it wasn't for humanitarian reasons. I do not know if it was necessary for rehabilitation.
I repeat that he was found guilty of murdering his wife. That might be a crime of passion, such as my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Howard) talks about. But there was another lady involved. There often is in such matters. How deeply she was involved is another question. I have some tapes in my office that would be worth listening to; I keep them there. She was involved with this man prior to the death of his wife. He applied for a temporary release, not because he was sick, not on humanitarian grounds, and surely not because of rehabilitation. He said he wanted to marry a particular woman. I quote the following from Hansard of February 21, 1972, the words of the then solicitor general:
On June 28, 1971, Mr. Geoffroy sought permission to marry Miss Carmen Parent with whom Mr. Geoffroy apparently had had a continuing liaison.
I don't know what kind of continuing liaison, but people can use their imagination.
The reason he cited to support his request was that marriage

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
would provide a mother who would look after the needs of his three children-
I do not think for one moment that the then minister wrote those words. Somebody in his department wrote them, and he read them. He was led to the slaughter. If this was a genuine case, why was it not examined properly? Then the truth about the custody of this man's children would have been known. If everything had been above board then surely a man, once he married while out on parole, would not have headed off to Spain and deserted the children.
That is the point I am trying to make with respect to decisions made on an ad hoc basis. I am not blaming the commissioner or the officers in charge. How were they to know who should be released? That is why local parole boards must be provided with proper screening and proper documentation. In that way the risk would be minimized. I believe that some day this case will be written-up in True magazine. It might even make Playboy because it's a joke.
My hon. friend from Skeena said we should not talk about these cases. The minister talked about minimal error. I have many cases I could recite. I have a fine clipping service of my own and I can document many errors. The risk is not minimized when an ad hoc basis is used; that is absolutely wrong. Then there is the example of the man named Head. On January 20, 1967, he was charged with attempted rape of a nine year-old girl. On January 31, 1967, he was charged with indecent assault on a nine year-old girl. On May 26, 1967, he was sentenced to life for the rape of a six year-old girl, and to a five-year concurrent sentence for rape of a nine year-old girl. On June 15, 1967, he was found mentally ill while in jail and declared criminally insane. On November 1, 1967, he was declared a dangerous sexual offender-DSO they call it. His other sentence was reduced to 15 years and then he was given an indeterminate sentence.
This is the record of a man who had to be sick. Surely any psychiatrist or psychologist would say that. I have heard that the reports from British Columbia said he was sick. But he was released under the ad hoc, back-to-back program despite the act. He certainly was not released with the type of illness that would warrant his release, although of course he might have been mentally sick. He was not released on humanitarian grounds. This was not the way to release a dangerous sexual offender, Mr. Speaker. He had a long list of sexual offences.
Of course, the government took responsibility. Any one of us, Mr. Speaker-you, myself or my colleagues, but in this case it happens to be the Solicitor General-would have to take the responsibility. I am not talking politics now, but facts of law. He was released. The evidence is that he disliked one of the wardens. He waited on the road until a little girl only six or seven years old came along, Tanya Bush. That was the end of Tanya. He was tried and found guilty of murder. The case went to appeal and I think it was dismissed.
Why do I mention these horrible cases? I do it to show that you cannot operate on an ad hoc basis. These horrible facts are facts; they are the facts that have destroyed the

parole system in Canada that was carefully set up. That is what I kept saying to the media about the Geoffroy case and the Head case. I mentioned that this had destroyed the real parole system where a man is studied while he is in custody, where his behaviour in custody, his behaviour out of custody, his background, his psychological tie-ups are all considered and the psychiatrist comes to a decision on documentation and if that goes before learned men and women who decide whether the man is safe to put out on the street either with or without supervision. Surely that is what the Solicitor General now has in mind, although he may not have enough officers.
Let me take another case. The headline of a newspaper article reads, "Murderer free on Xmas pass"-Commits reign of terror". It is datelined St. Catharines, Ontario. The article reads:
Assistant Crown Attorney Frank Keenan verbally lashed the National Parole Board in provincial court at St. Catharines for a "reign of terror" unleashed on the city by the release of Richard Swearngen on a Christmas leave pass.
Swearngen, 25, was sentenced in 1963 for the murder of a London, Ontario, man whose body was found in Rondeau provincial park. The man had been tied up and burned with cigarettes.
This is the background of the crime. The article continues;
Swearngen was granted temporary leave of absence-
Not parole, Mr. Speaker. All these things are talked about as if the parole board, George Street and his men, made the decision. I want tonight to defend the parole board of this nation. They have made mistakes; the mistakes have been made under section 26 of the act.
I do not know what my friend down there is talking about, but it does not matter. I do not want to get into an argument. This problem is too serious to be joking or heckling about. These are serious matters because every one of us has been elected by the citizens of Canada; it does not matter whether we are Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Social Credit. To continue with the article:
-from Collins Bay penitentiary on December 23 but failed to return by December 28. On January 6, he was driving a car on the Queen Elizabeth Way near Niagara Falls when he picked up a hitchhiker, Michael Savoie, 22, of Park Ave., St. Catharines, and held him (Savoie) at gunpoint.
I want to pause there. They say that this fellow got a little upset. Well, he had two guns; he was ready to be upset.
He robbed him of $70 and identification papers. Swearngen also had identification belonging to Laszo Ulman, of Hamilton. With the latter papers, he rented a car and drove it to Bogart Street, St. Catharines, where he was staying with friends.
Two friends of Swearngen told him they had had trouble with three men at the Henley Hotel. Swearngen and one of his friends went there and, when the trio emerged, Swearngen shouted: "Pve got something for you."
He had a Christmas present. He opened fire with two automatics. This is a fellow on temporary release, and the parole board was blamed for it. Let us see what happened. The article continues:
William Harper, 20, of Marlborough St., St. Catharines, was shot twice in the face and his jaw was broken, and Douglas Nicholson, 18, of Parkview St., St. Catharines, was shot in the left shoulder. The third man was not hurt.
Police arrested Swearngen at the Bogart Street address-
September 20, 1973

En route to police headquarters, Swearngen produced the .25 automatic and ordered the cruiser to stop. He told Sgt. David Horne and Sgt. David Swanwick to hand over their guns, and then fled the cruiser.
Swearngen eventually reached Pontiac, Michigan, with the aid of friends. He was arrested-
Swearngen claimed in a statement to police that the three men who came out of the hotel rushed him with knives and he only fired in self-defence.
Here is what the judge said:
"You and I have very different ideas about what constitutes self-defence . . . The fact that you were carrying two guns shows that you were ready to resort to violence."
I will accept that. The article continues:
The accused would have been eligible for parole in another two years, but must now serve at least 12 years-
These are examples of the temporary release program. Naturally, the parole board gets the blame when it is written up. I looked at the Oxford dictionary this afternoon and it defines "parole" as release from an institution, such as a penitentiary. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. All these statistics are a lot of tommyrot because you cannot find out anything from them. The people who make the mistake hide it under the table and the parole board takes the blame.
Certainly jails are lonely. Certainly people in them are frustrated. I agree with other speakers who say that Canada has too many people in the penitentiaries. We have a habit of sentencing people for various kinds of crime to long terms of imprisonment. That was one of the complaints set out in a pamphlet put out by the youth of this party. Only a few years ago, people who had a certain amount of marijuana were said to be trafficking and the courts were giving sentences of four and five years. Yet the same process of law in this country was releasing people who were dangerous psychologically, and the psychiatrists knew that they were.
I suppose Byron was right in his sonnet "The Prisoner of Chillon" when he wrote:
And when thy sons to fetters are consigned,
To fetters, and the damp vault's dayless gloom,
Their country conquers with their martyrdom,
And Freedom's fame finds wings on every wind.
Chillon. Thy prison is a holy place
And thy sad floor an altar-
For 'twas trod, until his very steps have left a trace,
Worn as if cold pavement were a sod-by Bonnivard.
May none these marks afface!
For they appeal from tyranny to God.
I know about these things. I spent 27 years practising before the bar. Apart from the time I have spent in this institution, I have spent much time and initiative-all my life-in defending people. I have been in every penitentiary of this nation, either as counsel or visitor.


Mr. Benjamin:: How about as an inmate?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't want to get into that. My hon. friend may know something about that; I don't know. I hope he stops joking, because this is no joking matter, believe me. I have spent all my life dealing with matters of
Parole Act
this kind and have deep feelings about them. I want to see us on the road to a proper rehabilitation program. Let us set up a proper parole board, staffed with men and women who are trained in the highest skills, so that the right type of person in our society may be rehabilitated.
Surely we all recognize that environmental factors are behind much of the trouble. Judges across this nation to whom I have talked agree. A man who served his country as a member of this House-I refer to Mr. Justice McNiven whom I met in the Court of Appeal in Regina, who, incidentally, was a member of the Liberal party, and one of the finest men western Canada ever produced-used to say that from broken homes there comes trouble. We cannot change these things, but we can help the young men and women who have gone astray. That is why I want to see parole boards set up on a regional basis so that people with the best experience and the best skills are appointed. In that way we shall return people to society as rehabilitated individuals.
Last week, being alone, I read again the life of Clarence Darrow. Anyone who has read his life story will have read about the famous case of Leopold and Loeb. Darrow was the first lawyer in 1929 to bring together seven top-rated psychiatrists and psychologists of the nation to prove that Leopold and Loeb, who came from the oldest of families in the United States, were in a certain mental condition at the time of the offence.
These two young men had set out to commit the perfect crime. They picked up a young boy, the first one to leave a certain school, and took him out to the country and murdered him. It was not the perfect crime because one of the accused dropped his glasses. His name was on them and he was caught. Darrow pleaded them guilty. The accused were sentenced to death. However, Darrow, with his great ability, eloquence and knowledge of humanity and human motivation, brought scientists for the first time before a Chicago courtroom to show that the accused should be sentenced to life imprisonment rather than to death because of their mental and emotional condition at the time of the offence. That was a very important trial.
This illustrates the kind of law I should like to see in my country. I know what I said about capital punishments, but my remarks are confined to a very narrow basis as one will see if one examines my speeches. That illustrates the kind of law I should like to see in this nation. I say that because my whole life has been spent defending people charged with terrible crimes. In that way I may be unique in this chamber.
If I may be personal for a moment, in 1950 I defended a lady charged with murder. She was acquitted. In 1967 the same lady approached me and asked me to defend her son who was charged with murder. So one can see how important environmental factors are. The environmental factors of the home shape our lives and we can all say, when we point to unfortunate people, "There but for the grace of God go I." So I am really glad to see that the government has at long last moved on this matter.
I know the minister pretty well. We served on the same committee years ago when we used to take time off and visit various institutions. We would talk to various inmates. I know that his feelings run deep and I know he wants to do the right thing. I say to him, get rid of this ad

September 20, 1973
Parole Act
hoc basis of appointing board members because it will cause much trouble and bring about frustrations in the community. Let us have regional boards, made up of skilled men. Let there be proper screening. Let us try to rehabilitate those who warrant rehabilitating, and give them an opportunity.
Above all, let us revise our way of appointing judges. Surely, in 1973, we should not appoint men who have done nothing but draw up mortgages, who have been bagmen for some political party, who have drawn up leases or who are defeated candidates who have practised law. The time has come to put men on the bench with brains and an understanding of humanity of the kind I have tried to describe. Only then will we get better judges.
Above all, it is time we examined the rules of appeal in Canada. Once a trial judge has found the facts, you cannot upset them. If then witnesses say it was snowing and one says it was not, and the judge finds that it was not snowing, the facts that the court of appeal will accept are those found by the trial judge. If the trial judge finds a fact, the court of appeal cannot change it because the rule is, as Your Honour being a lawyer knows, that the demeanour of a witness is taken into account by the judge and he analyses the situation. That rule can become pretty dangerous.
Let me tell hon. members a little story on this point. I recall a trial in which I was defending a rather ugly truck driver. The lady on the other side was very well built, and beautiful. As she stood in the witness-box beside the judge and spoke, with her flowing hair and beautiful figure, I knew that no matter what the truck driver, my client, might say, justice was ended then and there so far as my client was concerned.
That sounds humorous, yet in criminal proceedings the atmosphere in the court is very important.
I have never liked the system in the criminal courts of my province. Let me say that I started in Saskatchewan but went on to practice in Alberta. That is the only province in Canada in which the jury in certain cases can be dispensed with and where indictable offences in certain circumstances can be tried by one magistrate. Mr. Speaker, you can be tried for murder by one judge. The whole principle of jurisprudence is that you shall be tried by your peers. These peers are various people who understand human behaviour and who judge a case according to their own experience. That, to my mind, is how a court ought to be made up. Any other system is not fair.
The Supreme Court of Canada says that when you are tried by a judge alone, the judge is deemed to have instructed himself as to the law. In other words, the judge is presumed to have instructed himself correctly. However, when he must deliver the charge to the jury you can smoke-out his knowledge. That is why 13 men whom I had defended for murder were granted a new trial. They were all under 21 years of age. One of the accused did not even get out of the car and did not know where the others were going when the offence occurred. He, too, was found guilty of conspiring to murder.
In that case the judge instructed the jury improperly in my opinion and the court of appeal held that there should be a new trial. Eventually, five of the accused were acquit-

ted. I say to the minister, who I know is interested in this area, let us strengthen the parole board, let us get rid of temporary releases, and let us not stretch the law to cover bad cases.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. However, with unanimous consent the parliamentary secretary may ask a question. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some statements about the way in which judges are appointed. Does he believe that any person who has been in politics at any level should be barred from sitting as a judge? Is that what I am to understand from the tenor of his remarks?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the fact that he was a member of this House should not affect whether he is made a judge or not. The late Mr. Justice McNiven was one of the finest legal minds. I was not here at the time, but I assume he was one of the greatest members of parliament. He was a man with a sense of dignity and justice. That was a wonderful appointment. Don't ask me about the bad ones.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it is always very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). He has the great facility of being able to combine his parliamentary responsibilities with what I consider to be a courtroom presentation. He is one of the few who can refight a case and do it well. He made an interesting comment about our peers. I wondered about this when he talked about juries. How would this work if a person applying for parole had his peers in the penitentiary as a parole board? As my colleague pointed out, no one would ever get out under those circumstances. It is the reverse of what happens in court with one's peers.
When we look at the parole board we are really looking at society. Society must look at the number of inmates in our penitentiaries and decide whether we are properly meeting the changes in today's world. If they believe we are, they are not considering the fact that our penitentiary -population is rapidly increasing. This does not hinge entirely on the parole board or the method of parole: to some extent it hinges on society.
As lawmakers it may be that we are not taking into consideration the crimes of today. Obviously, many people are being imprisoned for offences that in 10 or 12 years will no longer be considered offences. This is true of offences regarding marijuana. Only a very rash judge would send a young person to penitentiary for such an offence. Only four or five years ago, young people were being sentenced to five, six or seven years in penitentiary for smoking marijuana. Today, society does not find that as offensive as many other offences. The courts have now tempered their approach to the marijuana question, and this is all well and good.
September 20, 1973

I remember visiting a number of penitentiaries a few years ago. I was not a member of a committee being shown through the penitentiary on a conducted tour. On one occasion I visited a person who had written to me. Many letters were written to members of parliament; they visited the penitentiaries and became acquainted with some of the inmates. A member of parliament no longer has the right to visit a federal penitentiary. This right was eliminated by a Conservative minister of justice, Davie Fulton. According to the British constitution, members of parliament have the right to enter penitentiaries any time and talk in private to any incarcerated person. A former solicitor general from the province of Quebec did not agree with the British tradition.
Although it may cause him some trouble, the minister should reinstate the practice of allowing members of parliament to visit penitentiaries. They should be able to do this unannounced, at a reasonable time. If the minister is shy about doing so, it indicates he has no faith in the institutions for which he is responsible. I hope the minister does not believe the institutions would not stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
Each member of parliament has a responsibility. We help make the laws, establish the agencies that enforce the laws and maintain the penitentiaries. We are not vegetables, although some members may be. The people in our society are not vegetables. However, they believe that the inmates are so out of touch with society and its normal operations that they must be incarcerated for the sake of society. As members of parliament, we have an obligation to ensure that our institutions get those incarcerated back into society as quickly as possible. On their release they must be able to function properly and maintain themselves.
We have seen the birth of the National Parole Board as well as amendments to it. Members who were not here the last time more people were appointed to the parole board should look at the four who were appointed at that time. They may be very surprised. A number of members of parliament defeated in an election were appointed to the board. The same may happen this time. That may not be all bad, but surely the parole board should not be a pension plan for former members of parliament.
The parole board must be responsive to changes in society. The board does a number of things that are not related. The 1973 statistics indicate there are 7,800 inmates in our federal penitentiaries. If we look at 50 per cent of those each year, it is not a large number although it is in excess of the applications made for parole. The board also considers paroles for those in provincial jails.
Under an act of parliament which was passed recently, a person with a criminal record may be able to obtain a pardon if it can be established that he has lived an acceptable life in his community. The criminal record can be eliminated. This, too, has to be done by the parole board. The board's duties also include the granting of partial driving privileges to those whose licences have been suspended as a result of motoring offences.
I have always been disturbed by the relationship of the parole board to the press. The hon. member who spoke
Parole Act
before me indicated that a number of mistakes had been made by the board. It is easy to highlight such cases because these mistakes become newspaper stories which are carried across the land. It is not surprising that the board has become a politically conscious body engaged in watching the trend of newspaper reports over the years. To realize this one has only to watch the trend of newspaper reports and the fluctuation in the number of paroles granted over the years.
My hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Howard) pointed out that over the years the percentage of persons committing second and third offences has been steady. This is why I recently asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), bearing in mind the overcrowding in our penitentiaries, to make use of the royal prerogative to grant pardons. Her Majesty has, on occasion, decided when visiting a country to reduce prison sentences by six months. I believe that if we were to let out half the prisoners confined in our penitentiaries today, all the mistakes mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North would be apparent, but they would not be present to any greater extent than if the parole board has allowed them to be at liberty; the percentage would remain the same.
I have often felt that one of the greatest offences is the lack of legal protection available to the poor. Indeed, there is very little available for the middle-class. However, a person who is very wealthy in this country can commit murder without serving time for doing so. We often see people accused of crimes, young people in particular, being defended by persons who are not qualified to defend them. I have in mind a number of cases in which the greatest offence committed was committed by the legal system of Canada.
The Solicitor General referred to the practice of granting back-to-back day leaves, and the hon. member for Calgary North criticized this practice as being wrong. I disagree. I believe the people who have the best understanding of the mental condition of an inmate are those who are engaged in the institution in other than a custodial capacity, those who have the opportunity to talk with a prisoner periodically. It seems to me that a recommendation by such people is certainly as valuable as that of any other when it comes to ensuring protection.
My hon. friend from Skeena said the 15-minute interview granted by parole boards is not enough to serve as the basis of a judgment that can be relied upon. I have read some of the presentations made before these boards and listened to others. They have been well rehearsed. On various occasions I have talked to the inmates concerned and wondered how they had acquired the knowledge and the ability to make them. As far as I am concerned, these back-to-back leaves fulfil a need. I do not think the penitentiary staffs would have introduced this scheme if the parole board had been doing its job.
I know from personal experience that many young people are in our penitentiaries. It is not so easy to deal with older prisoners, but in the case of young people there comes a time when they make a decision about their future, whether it is on religious grounds, moral grounds or simply the practical ground that they do not wish to spend the rest of their lives in and out of prison. When



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

René Matte: Mr. Speaker, on September 11 last, I put to the right hon. Prime Minister a question of the greatest general importance if not the most extraordinary importance, to my mind, since it dealt with the integrity and honesty of the members of provincial governments throughout Canada. In fact, I asked the right hon. Prime Minister whether he could indicate to the House what policy he follows in advising his colleagues, the provincial premiers, when the government or he, through the Solicitor General or the RCMP, is advised of certain facts relating to the actions of members of a provincial government.
Of course, the intent of this general question was to allow the members of the House and, at the same time, all the people of Canada to be aware of the procedure when special information is available, when such information could reveal the existence of compromising situations for those who are entrusted with the management of a province.
In my opinion, the subject itself proves the importance of this question.
Mr. Speaker, I went on asking a very definite question, at that time, when I asked and I quote:
In October 1970, was the Prime Minister aware-
-of a certain joint investigation carried out in the province of Quebec by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Quebec Provincial Police about certain meetings of the former minister in the Bourassa cabinet, Pierre Laporte, with some people who are now involved in the organized crime world?
Why should we know these particulars? In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, it was extremely important for us to get this information. We remember sadly the events of October 1970 in Quebec. At that time, not only the government, but parliament, agreed, for example, to apply war measures, to pass a special emergency measures act and facts have proved since then that only a handfull of people were involved. A few individuals had succeeded in scaring the government in creating fear and even panic not only in Quebec but throughout Canada.
If at the time when the government had to determine the fate of one person named Pierre Laporte it was aware of certain actions which could be called compromising, we can wonder if the decisions that it made could have been influenced by this situation.
I believe that we should know what the policy of the leader of the Canadian government is in such a situation. Is it his duty, as soon as he knows of compromising facts, to advise those concerned of the situation in order to
Adjournment Debate
protect the population of Canada since, whatever province you may be from, it is extremely important to be able to rely on the integrity to those who control the administration of the country?
This is why I asked my question, Mr. Speaker, and in my opinion it has some historical consequences since sooner or later some disclosures will be made to that effect and I am referring more especially to what I read in the press some fifteen days ago in connection with Paul Rose, accused of the murder of Pierre Laporte and from whom the RCMP is supposed to have removed some handwritten documents in which he had described the various stages of the unfortunate events of October 1970. We are wondering what the government had to conceal and that is why I think the Prime Minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.
[ English]


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member I would like to say that the RCMP does indeed co-operate very closely with all other police forces in Canada. The range and scope of this co-operation is very broad indeed, covering as it does all aspects of crime prevention and detection. This free and uninterrupted flow of information between policing agencies is integral to the over-all effectiveness of police operations. However, much of that information must, as I am sure the hon. member will agree, remain confidential.
I think that every member of the House can appreciate the fact that questions raised in this House relating to any police investigation are extremely delicate and often can play no positive role in assisting our police forces to carry out their very important and difficult functions. I would therefore conclude that as a general rule it would be improper for me to divulge the details of any given investigation conducted either by the RCMP alone or in cooperation with other policing agencies in Canada.


ENERGY-REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES RESPECTING PROPOSED MOVEMENT OF OIL BY SUPERTANKER TO CHERRY POINT AND ALTERNATIVE CANADIAN SUPPLY
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on September 18, in questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which he refused to answer by leaving them to be answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), I asked the government to make a statement on motions setting out in detail the Canadian proposal with respect to the movement of oil to Cherry Point, keeping tankers out of the area, and to give the House an assurance that such a proposal will be immediately communicated to the United States government. I ended with the words:
-because nobody believes any longer that the government cares what happens on the west coast?
One can ask: Why do people believe that this government no longer cares what happens on the west coast? The answer is to be found in cabinet document No. 1214/71 which shows that as early as 1971 the Canadian government had decided to do nothing. This is abundantly clear

September 20, 1973
Adjournment Debate
when you look at the options in that document. First of all, on page 2 of the document the problem is set out. The first subparagraph reads:
(i)	because U.S. interests are using Canada's present neutral position to increase support for TAPS,
(ii)	because there is a wide spectrum of opinion in Canada regarding the advantages and disadvantages of an alternative route through Canada, and
(iii)	because there is little time left for Canada to influence the choice of route instead of having to respond to a U.S. initiative.
The question is: Did Canada try to influence the choice of route? And the answer is clearly no. The evidence is further found in this document to which I have referred. If one looks at page 4, paragraph 11 of that document, the fact is that on March 24 1971, the hon. J. J. Greene and the hon. Jean Chretien met with the presidents of oil companies interested in the TAPS line. They made it clear they were not going to apply to Canada to build an oil line across Canada. This was also made clear at the briefing for parliamentarians who went to Washington in July to make one last-ditch stand on the matter.
Further on page 6 it is again made clear why the government did not want to interfere, because in paragraph 17 on that page it is stated:
A pipe line route will traverse lands covered by Indian Treaties 8 and 11. Specific provisions relative to the land entitlement aspects of these treaties have never been fulfilled-
This is a clear admission by the Canadian government that the provisions of these treaties have not been fulfilled. Then we look at the alternatives. Again on page 6 of that document we find:
These alternatives range from the present essentially passive role-of awaiting any application that might be made and doing nothing more than to continue technical discussions with representatives of the U.S. oil companies on the possible construction of a pipeline through Canada-to a very active role of seeking an application and offering special incentives to encourage it.
The Canadian government knew the difficulty we were in, because in paragraph 25 on page 8 we read these words: Recent reports in the U.S. press attribute statements by U.S. government and oil industry officials to the effect that they had written off a Canadian route as an alternative to a trans-Alaska route because of lack of Canadian interest in a trans-Canadian oil pipeline.
Then we see three options set out. The first is:
Maintain the present position which involves no active encouragement of a pipeline-
Paragraph (a) concludes:
Conversely, this alternative would not escalate the native claims issue.
Then there is paragraph (b) which literally says the same thing, but this is the pretend or pretence paragraph. It says we should pretend we are interested. It says we should pretend to keep our options open by saying we will consider all options. Then there is paragraph (c), where we read:
Take a position of actively promoting the use of a Canadian route .. . This option could reduce Canada's bargaining position relative to a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, as well as the oil pipeline, and in general bring on the disadvantages of being too

aggressive . .. This option could also be expected to escalate the native claims issue.
It is quite clear that as long ago as 1971 the government had no intention to try to use any influence it had to keep tankers off the west coast. It did not want to deal with native Indian claims and it did not want to reduce its bargaining position with respect to a natural gas pipeline, which is all it was interested in.
In June, the United States gave us one last chance. We gave them our answer one day before the U.S. Senate was to vote on the issue. The history of this matter makes us look incredible to the United States. The present so-called Canadian policy of supplying Canadian oil to Cherry Point to get rid of tankers, as stated by the Prime Minister on September 11, is ludicrous if we are to have the pipeline to Montreal, as just announced by the government, because we will not have any oil to sell to the United States.
This is the policy that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is taking to Mr. Kissinger on Tuesday next. The laughter in Washington will be so loud that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not get a word in edgewise and, tragically for Canada, it will serve him right because he really does not have anything to say. It is all a wretched charade. It is the dismal and inevitable result of deception and incompetence over the last three years.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has mentioned-because it is quite easy for a member of the opposition to make a lot of statements in a case like this- the Canadian government is concerned about the risk to the environment entailed in the passage of supertankers through the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Puget Sound. This has been made abundantly clear on a number of occasions over the past two years or more in communications to the United States government, both written and verbal, including communications by ministers to their counterparts, and also in a number of public statements.
Canada would have preferred an overland pipeline route through this country. However, in view of current action by the U.S. Congress it is now likely that the trans-Alaska pipeline, with its Maritime link, will be constructed. When the final legal impediments are lifted, probably some time this year, it will of course be some years yet before the oil actually begins to flow.
Canada cannot prevent the construction of the Alaska pipeline since it is entirely within United States territory. We also know that most of the oil produced in Alaska will be shipped to various ports on the U.S. west coast by very large vessels travelling well out to sea. Provided these vessels are constructed and managed in accordance with the highest safety standards-and the United States has a good record in this regard-there is no reason why Canada should be unduly concerned about this high seas traffic.
Our most serious concern is with those tankers which will enter the Strait of Juan de Fuca to supply the refineries in Puget Sound. Canada is unable unilaterally to stop this traffic. We must therefore seek to influence the United States either to supply these refineries by some
September 20, 1973

other means or, if that is impossible, to manage and control the tanker traffic in such a way as to reduce risk to an absolute minimum.
One proposal has been to supply all the needs of these refineries overland from Canada via the transmountain pipeline from Alberta. Indeed, at the present time over 80 per cent of the oil delivered to these refineries comes through this route. The rest already comes by small tanker. This proposal has recently been rejected by Mr. Rogers Morton, in a letter to the United States Congress, in view of what the United States regards as the uncertainties of this source of supply and their apparent desire that Canadian oil available for export should be directed as a first priority to the mid-west.
We can foresee, therefore, that the United States would not find our conditions for the supply of oil to Puget Sound acceptable, since Canada would obviously only authorize export of oil surplus to Canadian needs and would not be able to satisfy all United States requirements in both Puget Sound and the mid-west. We are, therefore, considering all appropriate actions to minimize the risk to the environment in the event that the only option left open is a certain amount of supertanker traffic into Puget Sound.
There are four ways of attacking this problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON RECOGNITION OF NEW GOVERNMENT OF CHILE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) if he would consider withholding recognition of the military guerrilla junta in Chile for as long as Canada withheld recognition of the People's Republic of China. I received a non-answer.
When I became a Canadian citizen in 1967, I remember that I received a copy of the proclamation of the Canadian Bill of Rights, the closing passage of which always struck me as most memorable. I taught it to my students over the 15 years that I taught in elementary schools in Ontario because it embodies everything that Canada stands for. It bears repeating because I think members may not have seen it or have read it. It goes something like this: I am a Canadian, a free Canadian; free to speak without fear; free to worship God in my own way; free to stand for what I think right; free to oppose what I believe wrong; free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago a military guerrilla junta led by General Pinochet decided that for the good of the Chilean people, the government which they had elected democratically had to be removed, the constitution had to be suspended and civil and human rights of all citizens had to be thrown out the window. All the things we pledged to uphold for ourselves and all mankind have been denied in Chile.
Adjournment Debate
The government should not recognize the military thugs who represent everything we oppose as a nation. The only condition for relationships with this junta is the immediate restoration of the constitution and civil and human liberties of the Chilean people. We have heard much of the so-called failure of Salvador Allende in Chile. On the other hand, we know that in 1970 he was elected with 36.5 per cent of the popular vote, and in 1972 he received 43 per cent of the popular vote.
I say that Allende did not fail. Perhaps every Chilean did not have a car in his garage or a colour television. Some of them did not have much to eat or much to spend. But President Salvador Allende gave them something that they will never get from their military dictators-he gave them an opportunity to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, and the hope for a democratic future. There are those in this House who probably would not understand what those things can mean to people. There are perhaps those who do not understand how people can tighten their belts and hang in for the promise of a better future. Salvador Allende demonstrated eloquently, if tragically, a measure of the dedication and perseverance of which I am speaking.
And let us not be naive. The option of militaristic violence was as available to Allende as it was to those who caused his death. But he chose not to use it, and this is a time when many must regret that he did not. But I do not regret it, Mr, Speaker, for if Allende is dead, he left us his principles, his beliefs and his hopes intact.
I have heard no eulogy in this House for Salvador Allende, Mr. Speaker, and I wish I had. It is difficult to believe that no tribute has been paid this brave man, that the mouths of the government and the official opposition have been so assiduously clamped shut. One wonders at the sincerity of the government and the official opposition, who in our recent rail strike in this country had much to say about the upholding of democracy and the sanctity of the voice of the people and who turned their backs when that voice was so dramatically and violently silenced in Chile. This is hypocrisy of a nature which is demeaning to the name of our country.
President Allende died showing great courage in the face of adversity. He died dedicated to improving the social and economic well-being of his people, and with greater respect for the democratic institutions embodied in his country's constitution than any person about whom I have read in the last 50 years or so. This brave man died under heroic circumstances. The true story may never be known, and it is only natural and just that his eulogy in this House should come from a son of South America.
May the light of freedom which he struck in that sleeping continent to the south give us, Canadians, the courage to say no to General Pinochet and company, and may the Chileans always let his memory be a beacon for them. Viva Allende! Viva Chile!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) have repeatedly expressed our feel-

Friday, September 21, 1973