1973-07-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later today.
[La ter:]
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development presented this day be concurred in.
As a result of discussions with the House leaders of all parties, I believe there is general agreement on this concurrence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Herbert.

Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years now it has been recognized that Parliament faces a severe space problem creating a limitation of its effective operation. As Parliament has become, through its committees and in other ways, even more involved in all aspects of the nation's life, it has become much more a year round operation and space available has fallen behind its needs as they have developed in the modern era.
Moreover, concern has been expressed about the danger of visual encroachment on the beauty of the present parliamentary precinct, which is one of the great symbols of Canada. We must ensure that nearby developments do not adversely affect it and furthermore, we have an opportunity, I believe, to enhance the present precinct by enlarging,
and thereby completing, it in a fitting manner. The longer we wait, the more costly the solution.
Hon. members are aware, of course, that we have achieved temporary relief of the space problem by refurbishing the Confederation Building and making it available to members. However, it is only a temporary solution as all members are aware and as you, Mr. Speaker, were careful to point out at the time I had the pleasure ot handing over the Confederation Building to your very able and competent jurisdiction.
We have all been aware that to properly house the expanded requirements of Parliament for the generations ahead in a way that would both complement and preserve the existing architectural beauty of the Parliament Buildings we must enlarge the present parliamentary grounds.
I wish therefore to announce, Mr. Speaker, that I have today, on behalf of the government, filed a notice of intent to expropriate all the land and buildings in the area bounded by Wellington Street, Elgin Street, Sparks Street and Bank Street. The purpose of this expropriation is as I have indicated to protect the environment of Parliament from any development which could adversely affect it and simultaneously provide the land for an appropriate expansion of parliamentary facilities and other government requirements. The property of the United States Embassy has been excluded from this expropriation but discussions are well advanced for its acquisition.
This action will also provide the National Capital Commission with a splendid opportunity to plan the urban development of this most critical piece of land which is at the heart of the national capital and which constitutes a bridge between parliament and the city of Ottawa. My department will be working closely with the commission to marry the architectural requirements of Parliament to the exciting possibilities this location raises.
For this purpose, it will be important that Parliament be at the heart of this process and I wish to announce that it is the intention of the government to appoint a commission on parliamentary accommodation comprised of present and former members of parliament representing all parties in the House and in the Senate. The government will be consulting leaders of all parties with respect to appointments to the commission.
The purpose of the commission will be to advise on the amount and type of facilities that parliament will require to operate effectively for the future.
I should like to add a few words, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the existing properties and especially the Sparks Street Mall. It is the government's intention that until Parliament's needs have been fully defined, there

July 20, 1973
Parliament Buildings
will be no disturbances whatsoever of the existing properties. This will be especially true of the commercial operations on Sparks Street. Some of the office accommodation in the upper levels may be used for government purposes from time to time, but the commercial character of Sparks Street at ground level will be left intact.
To underscore this, I wish to emphasize that all leases have been excluded from the expropriation process. I want to assure everyone involved that on the Mall it will be business as usual. Further, it is the government's intention that when a plan is developed for the area, including the architecture of the buildings, space will continue to be provided for commercial operations facing Sparks Street so that the present character of the Mall will be preserved and enhanced.
We are all proud of the outstanding appearance and setting of the Parliament of Canada. It is as impressive as any in the world. I think we will all agree that we have a duty to preserve its dignity, grace and beauty for the years ahead, in accordance with the fundamental position it occupies in the life of the nation. I trust that this announcement and the promise it holds for the improved facilities for the operation of Parliament and the completion of the central architecture of the national capital will commend itself to all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, let me say that on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition we welcome this announcement today and commend the government for taking this important step.
This is a significant development for Parliament. Not only does it ensure that the basic tool of space for the operation of Parliament is available, but also that the planning for the expanding work of the committees of Parliament and the work of the members of parliament on behalf of the people they represent can be assured. This House will be considering as an ongoing process the work of committees, and if the committee system of the House is to function, then there is no doubt that the staffs of committees must be expanded both in number and in depth. We now have the assurance that this important function will not be limited by lack of available space. It is my hope that in the planning process the interests of the owners and tenants will be respected in that they will be kept fully informed of plans and timetables for development. It is important to observe that the centre block can be put to the use for which it was intended, at least to greater use, that is for the accommodation of members of parliament.
However, I would say that the most significant aspect of this announcement is the aspect of control. Parliament Hill is recognized as a place unparalleled architectural beauty. More than that, it is the symbol and the centre of our national life. As such it deserves protection from the conflicts and differences in points of view that arise between municipalities and developers on land use, even though they may be well intentioned. This announcement today will ensure that the people of Canada whose national capital this city is will have a part in the development of its centre.
The announcement of the intention of the government to appoint a commission on parliamentary accommodation is an excellent one, especially if its composition is as suggested by the minister. It will ensure that the best of experience is joined in the production of reasonable, practical and effective facilities to serve Parliament, the members of which serve Canadians. It is regrettable that the negotiations with the United States with respect to the U.S. embassy property are not complete, and all of us urge the government to press ahead, with the assurance from this House that the government has the full support of all members of the House in completing those negotiations.
Lastly, I would like to pay tribute to the National Capital Commission which, with some notable exceptions, has been mindful of its responsibilities to marry the concepts of the national capital as a place for government and as a place for people. In this new venture it must continue that delicate balance so that this city will continue to grow as a fitting symbol of our national life. In that venture the minister can be assured that he has the support of the opposition with respect to this announcement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for some reason an advance copy of this statement did not reach me, but even so I have the pleasure of indicating on the spur of the moment our strong approval of the announcement that has been made by the Minister of Public Works. Indeed, I join in the remarks that have been made by my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). We are not only friends, it so happens that when I am in Ottawa we are neighbours; we live across the street from each other. He helps me get my car out of the snow in the winter time. But I have one advantage over him. From the side of the street on which I live, from my bedroom window I can see the Peace Tower. Woe betide any developer who puts a high rise building between my bedroom window and the Peace Tower.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Although I have put that on a personal basis, I wish to underline the point-I hope it will not be regarded as a conflict of interest-that we are concerned not only about the beauty and the attractiveness of the area from the river over to Sparks Street but we are also concerned about the view of Parliament Hill from all parts of the city. I hope that in addition to the things that are being done and suggested in the minister's statement, the government and the National Capital Commission will play a very strong role in preserving the view of Parliament Hill from all parts of Ottawa.
Sir, we thoroughly approve of the decision to expropriate the area between Wellington and Sparks Streets, and between Bank and Elgin, for this purpose indicated by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube), and I join in the incidental comments that have been made upon that, both by the minister and by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.

July 20, 1973

We also approve of the decision to establish a commission to survey the whole question of the best use of the Parliament Hill area. I underline the suggestion that this centre block should be the preserve of members of parliament rather than of others. That is why it was built, for parliament. I suggest that in so far as other buildings near by are made part of the Parliament Hill complex, provision should be made for speedy connections. That may well mean a system of underground connections so that those who have to go from one building to another can get there quickly.
On the whole, having just heard the statement this morning, I am happy to say that we are in favour of it. We take this position not only because some of us have the real privilege of spending a great deal of time in this city, but because it is the capital of this country and therefore it belongs to all Canadians. I am delighted that over the years the number of people who have been able to visit Ottawa has greatly increased, and more and more it is true that Canadians recognize this not just as some place off there but as their capital. Anything that is done to make this Parliament Hill area and the whole national capital region a beautiful place, a place where work can be done, and also a place of which all Canadians can be proud, is a step in the right direction. I welcome the statement that was made by the Minister of Public Works, and I trust that action he has outlined will proceed as quickly as possible.
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for sending me a copy of that statement which should have been made to Parliament some 20 years ago, I think, in order to protect the environment of Parliament, because we must acknowledge that the most important structure in Canada, whatever some people may think-


Mr. Baldwin:: What about the Bank of Canada?


David Réal Caouette: -is the Parliament of Canada, our institution.
The thousands of visitors who come to Ottawa do not come here to see the City Hall, but to visit the Parliament Buildings. For one who comes from my region, the first thing to do is to visit Parliament.
It is quite logical to be told that the government is taking measures to protect the environment of Parliament Hill even if properties must be expropriated, and the Centre Block which we now occupy must be improved and made more attractive.
Mr. Speaker, as does the minister, I deeply regret that some members have to travel from the Confederation Building and the West Block to the Centre Block. It seems to me that the Parliament Buildings could shelter all the members with the greatest comfort, not the one we have known for the two or three days on the sixth floor. It is too warm, in spite of air-conditioning. All members should have an office here. If we have to move someone, let us move the senators to the Confederation Building, leaving the Centre Block to the members-
The Canadian Economy


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send them to Hull!


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggest that they should be sent to Hull. I am a citizen of Hull and I do not want them at all, Mr. Speaker. Let us keep them in Ottawa or put them in the zoo south of Ottawa!
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the Centre Block definitely constitutes an attraction. Personally, I refused to move to the Confederation Building because I am convinced that Parliament is not the Confederation Building but the Centre Block. And this is why I want to stay here.
I hope that the minister will proceed as soon as possible with improvements so that all hon. members will have their offices in the main building with Your Honour in order that we may legislate for the whole Canadian population.
The minister's statement is certainly welcome and I support it entirely, as do all my colleagues here.
[DOT] * *



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, because it is a matter of serious concern to all members of this House and therefore they may be disposed to grant my request, I ask leave of this House to propose a motion under Standing Order 43.
It deals with the confusion and the concern that presently exists, not only over the drastic and continuing rise in food prices, but the increase at an even greater rate of all input costs in food production and distribution to a degree that it now appears to be curtailing production at a time when great supplies are desperately needed.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That this House request the ministers of the government either later this day, or on the next sitting day to make full statements on motions with regard to their present policy and future plans to assure adequate food production and supply for Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the hon. member's motion cannot be put.

July 20, 1973
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and relates to the statement he made last evening about the price to be paid by domestic millers for wheat. I should like to ask the minister why the government chose this time to reduce the financial liability it had accepted under the two price system adopted back in 1971, a move which in effect forces an additional increase in the price of bread quite independent of any movement of world prices?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it should be appreciated that the so-called reduction in federal treasury money is a very minor item of 4 Vi cents on each bushel. The exact figure of $1.04'A was an historic one relating tb the $1.95'A at which wheat had been selling under the old international grains arrangement. It seemed appropriate to set this figure at $1 rather than at $1.041/2, particularly because from yesterday on the Canadian Wheat Board will be selling wheat to millers in Canada not at a fixed price, such as the old $1.95'A, but at a price which will move from day to day or week to week within a range of the world price. That range seems to be easier to calculate regularly if the difference is $1 rather than $1.04Vi. The adjustment in treasury support is a minor one in the over-all picture. Of course, the 4 Vi cents is added to the return from the miller to the wheat producer and is in addition to the amount that is added from millers to wheat producers because of the increase in price.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would judge that the length of the minister's answer reflects the weakness of his position. Since the minister said that the $1.05 Vi was an historic figure, and since the price paid for bread by people will be a factor of the day, I ask the minister if he can justify the reduction of some $2,700,000 in the government contribution to the cost of wheat which would, therefore, cause an increase of a like amount in the cost of bread? Can the minister justify this at the present time, and will he not agree that this will hardly encourage millers to exercise restraint in the pricing of bread, because if the government is trying to get out as best it can, will not the millers try likewise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and the reply which was given earlier by the minister, are part of the debate which we might have had if the announcement were made by the minister on motions. We have heard the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the minister might be allowed to reply, but I would hope that both answers and questions could be briefer.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the adjustment of the 4Vi cents would only lead to the most minute alteration in the cost of bread, perhaps something less than one tenth of one cent. The much greater change has to do with the fact that the world prices are higher and, of course, the switching of this amount, which still leaves us with a $60 million consumer subsidy on wheat for bread making purposes, was sometning which people like those in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool had strongly advocated with regard to the whole amount. We felt we should leave the subsidy to the extent of $60 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that members on the government side are applauding an increase in the price of bread.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


POSSIBLE INCREASE IN PRICE OF BREAD-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AID THOSE ON FIXED INCOMES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the government's reducing this financial commitment at this time, which is showing a very poor example and will result in an upward movement in the price of bread, can the Prime Minister indicate whether he proposes to recommend any measures to enable those on fixed incomes or inadequate incomes to deal with the increase in the price of bread, to which the government's policy will contribute, or is the Prime Minister now accepting advice from Marie Antoinette?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with the preamble to the question, much as the Minister of Justice did, and emphasize that this government is subsidizing, through the taxpayers' money, the western wheat growers to the tune of $60 million, and that is $60 million more than the opposition party ever did by bringing in two-price wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE INCREASE IN PRICE OF BREAD-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF WHEAT PRICE TO OFFSET
Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board that the aim was to achieve a round figure, and that is why the government dropped from $1.04 Vi to $1, may I ask if consideration was given to a round figure like $1.10 or $1.25, so that the price of bread might come down?
July 20, 1973


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that hon. members did not understand, even from my long statement, that the only thing which is in any real way contributing to the increased costs for flour to the miller is the increased price which the Wheat Board will charge to millers, which results from the world price now being at about $3.50, or 50 cents higher than the $3 at which we were supporting it before. That additional 50 cents, which has nothing to do with this minor adjustment in treasury support, is what may increase in due course by a small amount the cost of wheat to millers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is not the higher price all the more reason for the subsidy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is argument. The question asked in those terms is not in order.


INCREASE IN COST OF FOOD-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO RECTIFY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the unprecedented high increase in the cost of bacon, pork products and beef products-


An hon. Member:: And fish.


James Aloysius McGrath: I can assure the hon. member that fishermen are not getting any benefit from it-I would ask the Prime Minister what action the government proposes to take to prevent this exorbitant increase in the price of food. My question is prompted by the fact that a majority of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the minister to reply. I do not think additional comments are necessary when he is asking a question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly consider the question, but I will also want to consider very carefully the suggestion that fishermen are not getting anything out of the higher prices for fish. I would want to consider that.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the only action the government has taken thus far to cope with the increase in the price of food is setting up the Food Prices Review Board, and as the majority of the members of the House have no faith in the ability of that review board to cope with the situation, as indicated in the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South in Calgary-I beg your pardon, in Vancouver-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: -may I ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might ask his question now.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, there are interruptions, which make it rather difficult. May I ask the Prime Minister what new proposals the government intends to bring
Oral Questions
before the House, in order to bring Canadians some relief from inflation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with the interpretation of the vote of this House that the hon. member has just made by saying that there was no agreement on the role of the Food Prices Review Board. It was set up by this House and, I repeat, we have confidence in its ability to act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking the opportunity to ask supplementaries on this subject. We will return to it, but I suggest that we should complete the first round of questions. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of indications yesterday regarding the removal of price controls in the United States, what consideration has the Canadian government, and the Department of Agriculture in particular, given to the establishment of a forward price for the production of hogs to ensure that any limitation of production does not create the 50 cent increase that will take place in the United States and may very likely occur here, according to the industry.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, one of the big things we have to worry about in food production is people suggesting that there will be food shortages, since we have to provide security for people in food production no matter what food may be involved. Also, we have to encourage production in Canada. What the United States of America has done has been to curtail production and curtail supply, and that should be a lesson for all of us.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that within the last year or two many hog producers in Canada have gone broke because of the inability to stabilize their prices in accordance with the cost of production, does the Stabilization Board now intend to assist in establishing a forward price that will encourage farmers to go back into production in order to avoid this possible price increase which would have a great effect on the cost of living?


Eugene Whelan: First of all, pork production in Canada is near an all-time high. The stabilization board is watching what is going on very closely. We are concerned to maintain this productivity, and price is the greatest incentive to productivity in Canada.

July 20, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


NATIONAL DEFENCE
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
This morning, on a Montreal radio station, people were talking of the emotion caused by the mysterious discovery of a bomb in the Richelieu River, near Lacolle. Would the Prime Minister have any clarification to give to the House concerning this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot clarify this mystery at this time. I know that this government, through the responsible minister, is looking for the required information, and as soon as this has been obtained, I shall see to it that it is forwarded, if possible, to the hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, since it has been possible to establish that this bomb is of an American make, the Americans must have found out that one was missing. Does the Prime Minister intend to inquire from the American authorities concerning the time when they lost that bomb?
[ English]


Hon. James A. Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that a bomb was located in about 15 feet of water in the Richelieu River. It has been recovered by members of the Armed Forces, and I think they should be congratulated for their skill and bravery in this undertaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: We still have to investigate the origin of the bomb, and this is being done.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: should like to get back to the Prime Minister and to the wheat announcement made last night. In the light of three facts, namely that the price of bread will go up, that the producers will get no more for it and that the government right now has a cash surplus of $350 million, why was it thought appropriate, especially at this time when our rate of increase in the cost of living is the highest in the western world-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why did the government think it appropriate to go ahead now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member would agree that a question asked in those terms is really an argument.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I rephrase the question, then?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggested yesterday, and perhaps I ought not to have done so, that when questions are asked that are not in order, the questioner should allow another member to put his question. Nevertheless, the hon. member might perhaps be allowed to rephrase his question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can the Prime Minister tell the House why the government feels it appropriate at this time, given the circumstances I have outlined, to increase the price of bread to consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I might begin by correcting the impression given or the facts as stated by the hon. member. Of course, the producer will receive more. He will receive it because the price of wheat is going up. And of course the consumer will benefit. He will benefit to the tune of $60 million of the taxpayers' money because the government is providing this $60 million from the treasury, which is a form of subsidy for the consumer. As to the question about the surplus, it is really a matter of whether the hon. member wants tax revenue and surpluses to be distributed in consumer subsidies right and left or whether he hopes that eventually taxes in this country will go down.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the drastic increase which is taking place in the price of basic commodities such as food, and the effect this will have on low-income families, and particularly on the children of disadvantaged families, will the Prime Minister now direct that the family allowance legislation, which is presently low on the priority scale, be put back on top where it should be, and introduce the bill for second reading immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure that if the bill is low on somebody's list of priorities it is not the government's but probably that of the Conservative opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as we are concerned, this bill is to come into effect on January 1. Our planning is to this effect and short of some unbelievable filibuster by the Conservatives, this will happen.


INCREASE IN COST OF FOOD-SUGGESTED STRENGTHENING OF POWERS OF REVIEW BOARD
Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary along those lines of questioning. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he takes seriously enough the threat of the leader of the NDP to withdraw from the
July 20,1973

coalition unless something is done to toughen up the powers of the Prices Review Board to propose that those powers be increased?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question does not seem very supplementary to me, Mr. Sneaker.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that apparently only militia units were worthy of the Queen's inspection during Her Majesty's recent visit, will the hon. gentleman take steps to ensure that the uniforms of such units are not replaced by the drab, dull greens-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this question could be placed on the order paper.


AGRICULTURE
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the absolute necessity to increase food production in Canada and the highly detrimental effects of rising farm costs as well as the scarcity of competent farm labour, would the minister call an emergency conference between his provincial counterparts, representatives of commodity groups, consumers and farm organizations in an attempt to resolve a critical problem which can soon become disastrous?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I met as late as the day before yesterday with my counterpart in Ontario. I have also discussed this question with the Minister of Labour and with the Minister of Manpower. I would point out to the hon. member that at the present time there is more offshore farm labour available in Canada than at any time in our history. I wish that some of the people who are unemployed would accept the challenge to work on some of these farms and help harvest the crops.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


EGGS-EFFECT OF HIGH COST OF SOYBEAN MEAL-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Bill Frank (Middlesex):: The minister told us he had been talking to his counterpart in the government of Ontario. Would he also consider contacting all interested parties to consider plans for temporary tariff protection for Canadian egg producers because of the great differential in the price of soybean meal between Canada and the
Oral Questions
United States, amounting to more than 250 per cent, as a result of the temporary U.S. embargo?


Eugene Whelan: We have received representations on this question. I have met with the National Farm Products Marketing Council. We have discussed this problem with the trade, and with our officials, and we shall discuss it further in Charlottetown on Tuesday, I hope. It is a situation which requires some attention but I do not consider it as being so urgent that immediate attention is required.


FEED GRAINS-ALLEGED ANNOUNCEMENT BY POSTMASTER GENERAL OF DATE OF NEW POLICY
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Does the statement he made during the UPA convention held in Drummondville as to the announcement of the new policy respecting feed grains still hold?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is aware that, under our rules, he is not allowed to ask a minister questions about statements made outside the House. Maybe the hon. member will rephrase his question so as to make it in order.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, could the Postmaster General advise the House whether the government still intends to announce its new policy respecting feed grains before August 1?


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In light of the announced intention of 57,000 non-operating rail employees to proceed with selective strikes next week, possibly as soon as Sunday, will the minister tell the House whether he is now going to personally act to get serious negotiations resumed, and if so, when?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite agree with the premise or the prelude to the hon. member's question as to when the strike is going to commence. From reports I have received, hopefully it will not commence nearly that soon. As far as what intervention we contemplate, I am certainly going to have mediation services offered by my department in an all-out effort to get these parties together. If that includes intervention by myself, I will certainly be prepared to do that.

July 20, 1973
Oral Questions


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- STUDY BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT OF EFFECT OF POSSIBLE STRIKE
Harvie Andre: Without implying I am satisfied with that answer, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government reached any decision as to whether selective railway strikes are possible without shutting down the whole railway system or without disrupting essential services? If not, is such a study or determination underway and is the minister prepared to make a statement next week?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the government has never attempted to shut down part of the railways to see if it could be done.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- CONTINGENCY PLANS OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT FOR MOVEMENT OF VITAL MATERIALS IN EVENT OF STRIKE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's department worked out contingency plans for the movement throughout Canada of foodstuffs and other vital materials?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think some negotiations are now going on between the railways and the union for specific cases such as Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and the special circumstances to which the hon. member is referring. I do not know if they will be successful. I do not think it would add any strength to the union to paralyze, for example, the ferries to Prince Edward Island. I hope they will reach some kind of an agreement with regard to those who are in a very special situation.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In the decentralization of his department, will the minister indicate if it is the intention of the government to move the regional office for Ontario to northern Ontario and if other offices will be made available in areas such as the Cochrane, Timmins and Timiskaming riding, rather than only in the southern fringe of the north such as Sudbury?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may recollect that when a similar question was asked by another member of the House the other day, I suggested it might be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment.
[Mr. Munro (Hamilton East).)


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Almost three years ago the Report on the Status of Women recommended the closing of the women's prison at Kingston, Ontario. A few weeks ago, the minister said his officials were consulting with provincial officials regarding this matter. Will the minister tell us when the closing will take place and the reason for the delay?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing this matter with the provincial attorneys general. It has been agreed to put the subject matter on the agenda of the Federal-Provincial Conference on Corrections which will take place in early November.


WILLIAM HEAD-REASON FOR CONVERSION TO MEDIUM SECURITY INSTITUTION BEFORE HEARING REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL CITIZENS
Mr. Donald Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Solicitor General, but is in no way to be considered supplementary. On May 23, as recorded at page 4019 of Hansard, the Solicitor General gave an undertaking to the people near the William Head Prison that this institution would not be converted to a medium security prison until the representations and proposals of the community had been considered. Will the minister tell the House why residents of the area have now been advised by the minister that William Head is to become a medium security institution?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we did take the representations of the citizens seriously. They were examined by myself and officials of my department. We found we could not delay the implementation of medium security status at William Head. The representations were fully considered. I recently wrote a letter to the President of the Ratepayers' Association of Metchosin informing him we would have to go ahead with the plans for medium security status at William Head because we had a serious overcrowding problem and were not able to find other places for our prisoners at the present time.


Donald W. Munro: It is my information that the citizens have not yet submitted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask his supplementary.


Donald W. Munro: Is the minister prepared to release to me what he calls representations made by the citizens of the community, because I understand they have not fully submitted representations with regard to their problems?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it was my impression they had submitted them. It was on that basis we examined and replied to them. They suggested, for example, that we
July 20,1973

transfer the medium security institution to another location. I looked into that. They also made other suggestions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister and the hon. member might discuss the matter further in a private discussion.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Following the release of the second annual report from Mr. Spicer, did the minister have any personal exchanges with the latter as regards bilingualism within his department?
[ English]


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Not to my recollection, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to Mr. Spicer from time to time, but not recently about this question.


Claude Wagner: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Did the minister give instructions to his departments various missions abroad in order that the bilingual and bicultural image of Canada outside the country stood out better, thus resolving the grievances in this area contained in Mr. Spicer's last report?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Will the minister advise why a survey is being conducted under the aegis of his department among native women in the province of Alberta as to their attitude toward the outcome of the Jeanette Lavell case which is presently awaiting adjudication by the Supreme Court? Also, will the minister say why this governmental service is being carried out before the Supreme Court decision is made known?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I will have to look into this, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


AIRPORTS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I believe I speak for all hon. members in putting this question to the Minister of Transport.
As everyone knows, every time we want to board a plane in a Canadian airport, for reasons of security we are searched, we are frisked. Might it be possible for members of parliament to use their identity cards to avoid that regulatory search?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not something we have considered. Even the ministers, even the Prime Minister, are searched; the Minister of Transport, especially, is searched each time he boards a plane. That would be too easy; they may be the ones who are most dangerous, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First I wish to thank the minister and his department for the co-operation which the citizens of Calgary received. My question refers to Michael Chappel who is in custody in Cuba. This person escaped from a shipwreck and is now being held as an illegal entrant to Cuba. Will the minister advise whether the Cuban authorities are still holding out for a ransom of $4,000 and whether Mr. Chappel is going to be released?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make further inquiries before answering this question, which I will do on Monday.


MANPOWER
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that many community groups across Canada are held up in planning their fall and winter programs because of the uncertainty of the continuation of LIP, will the minister state now whether LIP is to become a permanent program of the government?


Hon. Robert K. Andtas (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to the permanency of LIP. I

July 20, 1973
Oral Questions
would indicate that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in a recent paper and statement indicated the consideration by the government of an employment strategy in connection with income security. I will also add, for the hon. member's information, a reference to our comments earlier when we extended the Local Initiatives Program this summer in which we gave a fair warning to those people who received extensions that they were for a precise period of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a supplementary, but there are only three or four minutes before the end of the question period. Perhaps I could have the co-operation of hon. members to allow as many questions as possible without supplementaries.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, is it now the policy of the government not to merge LIP and OFY, and when can we expect a clear statement of policy?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, no such policy decision has been made. It is still the subject of examination and we are proceeding to a decision as quickly as is wisely possible.


TRANSPORT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the government to attempt to remove the Irving Whale from the Gulf of St. Lawrence before winter sets in and, if this is not the case, could he assure the House that the delay is caused solely by engineering and physical problems, rather than by any other problems? Would the minister assure us that the rumour that there is a police investigation into the circumstances under which the government attempted to let a contract for this undertaking is not accurate and that is not, in fact, the cause of the delay?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the police investigation is completed and the attorney general of Nova Scotia has a report. What action he will be taking, I do not know. The decision about the removal of the Irving Whale has no relationship to the other investigation.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Since the Prime Minister has now expressed his view that Information Canada has failed because of "the general suspicion that it was a propaganda machine", is it the government's intention to disband Information Canada?


John Carr Munro: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member is aware from the proceedings which took place before the committee, we were prepared to acknowledge that it has not been able to fulfil its mandate in terms of the federal presence in Canada, as the Prime Minister indicated. That is in no way to indicate that something still cannot be done in that connection. I am certain it is the wish of all hon. members that that objective be reached.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell us when legislation will be introduced for the subsidization of capital construction of storage facilities for tender fruit growers and apple growers of Canada? I refer to construction for the purpose of increasing storage facilities, which would reduce waste in peak periods of production and would also indirectly increase our food production and help stabilize fruit prices to the consumer.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has been reading one of my old speeches that some people say were non-productive. But if he can wait a few more days, I am sure he will be satisfied.


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CONSUMER SUBSIDY PAID TO PRODUCER AND NOT ON ACREAGE BASIS
Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the wheat growers will no longer be called upon to subsidize the Canadian consumer, could the minister go further and assure the wheat producer that he will not be asked to subsidize the rapeseed growers and the barley growers, and will he assure the producer that the $1 consumer subsidy will be paid directly to the wheat producer and not on an acreage basis?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that argument is one that has gone on for some time about the best method of paying the $60 million representing the $1 a bushel for wheat consumed in Canada. When the producers themselves, all of whom are potential wheat producers, were consulted about the matter they voted 87 per cent in favour of an acreage payment.
July 20,1973


INCOME TAX
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the concern expressed by many taxpayers, could the minister advise the House when his department expects to complete the processing of income tax returns for the year 1972?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, since the end of last month the initial bulk processing of returns has been completed. As of today, about 99 per cent of all refunds to which taxpayers are entitled have been sent out. It is normal that for some weeks hereafter there will be discussions with some taxpayers concerning their entitlement. But I think the department should be congratulated for sending out refunds faster than ever despite so many changes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the delay in processing many income tax returns, would the minister give consideration to paying interest on overpayment of tax at the same rate as is charged by the department on underpayment of tax?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, if I were permitted by law, I would be very glad to do so. However, we do pay interest from May 1 at the rate permitted by law.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the high cost of protein, and in view of the fact that Canada could rectify this problem and become self-sufficient in protein production, is the minister now prepared to authorize more money for research into high-protein crops and the elimination of thioglucoside in rapeseed?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have research programs in this respect. As I said before, I believe, to some hon. member of this House, I think we are doing more in this field than any other country and plan on doing even more.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the Day.
Immigration



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, July 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-212, respecting certain immigration laws and procedures, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 1-Immigration regulations, part I, s.28.
The Chairman:: Order, please. The discussion is on clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Chairman; we have to continue the lesson begun last night. This is the second phase of the lesson. I am glad to be speaking with the Prime Minister temporarily in the House. It is rather interesting to note that this legislation was brought in only because the government was in difficulties. This government does not believe in legislating unless it has to. It does not believe in consulting representatives of the people unless it is in extremis or in a very grave situation, when they will say: We have to legislate.
I will not be any more critical of the minister because, as I said last night, he is only the most recent of a very long line of ministers who have had this problem. We are here because of the failure of the government to consult us, to secure the advice of the House, and to secure legislation. There are one or two questions which I want to ask the minister. As I pointed out last night, we have to deal with this matter because of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Federal Court and the Immigration Appeal Board. There were several decisions.
I would like to know-I raised this question briefly last night, and the minister will have an opportunity to make a general statement about it-what the scenario is for new legislation. Are we to have from the government a green paper? Are we to have reference to a committee of the House of the problems related to immigration? Are we to take up where we left off in 1967, have a chance to examine what has transpired since and what needs to be done?
Last night, the hon. member for St. Paul's, followed by myself, dealt with the passage of the new Statutory Instruments Act. I am glad to see the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville here; he will recall that during the discussion by the select committee which considered the question of statutory instruments, one of the major concerns was the extent to which the government could alter

July 20, 1973
Immigration
by a stroke of the pen the immigration practices, the right to restrict, expand and extend the opportunities of people to come into the country under the order in council provisions contained in section 57 of the Immigration Act. I mention section 57 because it brings us to the first clause of this bill which refers to the right of the government pursuant to section 57 of the act. This is the regulatory granting clause.
I would ask the committee to look at section 57 and the enormous authority which in 1952 the House of Commons invested in the government, giving it unrestricted power of almost life and death over the opportunity of people to immigrate to this country. Section 57 of the Immigration Act provides:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations respecting.
(a)	the terms and conditions under which persons who have received financial assistance to enable them to obtain passage to Canada or to assist them in obtaining admission to Canada may be admitted to Canada;
(b)	literacy, medical and other examinations or tests and the prohibiting or limiting of admission of persons who are unable to pass them;
(c)	the terms, conditions and requirements with respect to the possession of means of support or of passports, visas or other documents pertaining to admission;
(d)	the admission to Canada of persons who have come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which they are nationals or citizens:
(e)	the prohibiting or limiting of admission of persons brought to Canada by any transportation company-
This incredible power was given in 1952 by the Canadian Parliament to the government. Obviously, it is utterly impossible for the day to day decisions with regard to who should come to Canada, how they should come in and under what conditions, to be made by parliament. Anyone will admit that. But there must be a better method and a better opportunity for the House to scrutinize the rules and regulations under which the government operates. I made that point very emphatically yesterday, and I would simply ask the minister now to give us some idea of his plans.
I know, and the minister knows better than I do, that proposals have been made from time to time to draft new legislation. Some of those proposals have reached cabinet, some have been rejected. I can understand the political and other problems which face the cabinet in having to come to a conclusion. Officials of the immigration service would like nothing better than regulations which have received parliamentary approval, in order to avoid having to come to the minister to secure orders in council day in and day out so they can deal with situations which have suddenly arisen.
I recognize the difficulties of people in the service, in the government and in the House of Commons. However, I suggest the minister and the government take their courage in their hands, refer this matter to the committee and let the committee have complete freedom of access to departmental records, to talk to people in the government service and to private and quasi-public associations which have some knowledge of the facts relating to immigrants or people who come to Canada as visitors. We all know of

the problems. Let the problems be settled in the forum which exists for that purpose, that is, the Parliament of Canada. I suggest, with due deference to the minister-I think he probably agrees with me-that we should dump the whole thing in the lap of parliament and say, "Here is the problem. Here are the difficulties. Here is the green paper. Here are some proposals.
I suggest that a committee should be established and empowered to consider the whole spectrum of immigration difficulties, not only with regard to admission but with regard to economic possibilities. The committee should consider what can be done, for exemple, with regard to parts of western and northern Canada and problems in Quebec. We know they exist. I can understand the government, faced with the political difficulties, having some hesitation. Let this matter come to the House of Commons, representing all the people of Canada. Let them grapple with it and solve the problems.
Of course, the government is not bound to approve all recommendations. It has the right of veto or of changing them when the new legislation is introduced. I recognize that the minister cannot bind the government, but at least if we had an earnest of his intentions, through a statement made today, it would be of some benefit not only with regard to this particular measure but to the extent to which this problem affects very many people throughout the country.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to have some material in front of me, particularly a judgment of the Immigration Appeal Board which is relevant to clause 1 of the bill. First let me say that I object violently to this type of procedure. Perhaps I wore out my welcome with previous ministers of immigration, telling each of them that the practice in force since 1967 was wrong and that we were building up real problems.
I do not know at how many hearings on the estimates of the Immigration Appeal Board and of the department I raised the problem of the increasing number of appeals. I appreciate what the problem is but I have extreme difficulty in understanding why the House is not being asked to amend the Immigration Act. Section 7(3) of the act, as interpreted by the Immigration Appeal Board, allows people who are rightly in the country to appear before an immigration officer and to obtain a special inquiry pursuant to that section, after which they are in the circuit for the full immigration appeal procedures. If that is the case, why not amend section 7(3) or, for that matter, all of section 7? But now we are being asked to approve a regulation flying directly in the face of a statutory provision. That is an abuse of the parliamentary process.
In future, practitioners who look at the Immigration Act to determine the rights of individuals under section 7(3) will also have to look at this little, two-clause bill. On the face of these clauses, section 7(3) and regulation 28 are incompatible. That being the case, why is this procedure being adopted? What bothers me about the bill is that it has retroactive effect, in the same way that the regulations issued late in November or early December last year had retroactive effect to November 3, thus affecting the
July 20, 1973

rights of people already in the country, depriving them of rights which they had when they entered the country.
According to the Immigration Appeal Board, deportation orders made pursuant to regulation 28(1) on the sole ground that those involved did not have the appropriate visa, were illegal. But parliament is being asked to say that, notwithstanding the inconsistency between the regulation and the statutory provision, those deportation orders were legal. I find this to be an abuse of certain rights. Of course, it must be remembered that in the case of many deportations there are separate grounds. These may be included under regulation 5(t). Other reasons may include suppression of information and the making of untrue statements. Since last November there has been added the further ground of not being in possession of a visa as required by regulation 28(1).
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I have appeared before the Immigration Appeal Board on cases arising out of regulation 28(1). I say that those deportation orders must now be vacated. There is no way in which you can sentence a man illegally and then ask parliament to approve the sentence. We would not do it with a criminal but where, in effect, deportation orders have been declared to be illegal, parliament is being asked to legalize those orders. I contend that if there are no other valid grounds for these deportation orders, they must remain vacated.
Parliament is being asked to legislate retroactively. To that, sir, I object. If my material reaches my desk soon, I hope to go into the wording of the sections and of the regulation and deal at length with the decisions of the Immigration Appeal Board. Again I say I recognize the problem, but I do not think we should hurry to crush the rights of certain individuals in this country. I cannot sanction that.
There is another matter to be considered in connection with clause 2. Again I stress the inconsistency between regulation 28(1) and section 7(3) of the act. I recognize the problem faced by the minister; the door is wide open. But I contend the remedy lies in amending the Immigration Act, not in making regulations.
All too often we are told that the regulations made under the Immigration Act have the approval of parliament. That is utter poppycock, Mr. Speaker. Regulations made under that act from time to time since 1952 are rarely, if ever, subjected to scrutiny by parliament. They are made by the minister on the recommendation of his officials. No one can give an objective assessment of those regulations. It is on that count that I find this procedure difficult to accept. There should have been on amendment to the Immigration Act. Regardless of what parliament is being asked to do here, the governor in council still will have power to pass regulations which are absolutely contrary to the wording and to the spirit of the statutory provisions.
I hope we can get an answer from the minister as to why the government did not amend the Immigration Act in the proper way, rather than asking parliament to give retroactive approval to deportation orders which I submit never should have been made if they were made on the grounds only of regulation 28(1).
Immigration


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, while we are dealing with this bill affecting immigration, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that I agree completely with the proposition of the hon. member for Peace River that the Parliament of Canada should play a greater part in deciding upon the major regulations that are enforced by the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
I deal with a specific problem faced by our agricultural industry, where we are now depending more and more upon the importation of offshore labour on a seasonal basis in order to adequately harvest and plant crops. It is completely within the jurisdiction of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to determine how this program is controlled. In my considered opinions, the department is not aware of the peculiar problems that are growing in magnitude because of the way in which their regulations are administered.
The Department of Immigration, through the minister, takes the position that when we have high unemployment in Canada, no matter in which region it may be, this justifies their saying that there is sufficient competent labour available for the harvesting of crops. This question is particularly important now because of the fear of consumers that scarcity of food in Canada can cause an undue increase in its price.
The attitude of this government has been that if you do not want to work, you shuold not have to do so. I raise this matter because the Prime Minister reaffirmed the position of the government that a Canadian should not have to work if he does not want to. Mr. Chairman, many people do not like to work in agriculture. They do not like the monotony, the conditions and the fact that you work sometimes in heat and sometimes in cold. That is all right; they do not like it and they should not be forced to work at it. We all agree with that. But the department takes the position in most cases that Canadians should want this type of work.
Then there is the allegation by the Department of Manpower and Immigration that if the farmers of this country were to pay wages or salaries comparable to those received in industry, there would be no difficulty in obtaining competent farm labour. This is a fallacy. This is not why we have a scarcity of farm workers; we have a scarcity because in many instances it is seasonal work, short-term in nature. There is not the permanency that is found in other positions. When the minister and the government say to me, as a representative of the agricultural industry, that farm labour is not paid enough, let me point out that in many instances the $30 to $40 for an eight-hour day which some farm workers are now receiving is comparable to many industrial jobs, and it is impossible to obtain farm labour at these rates. In desperation, farmers have left it entirely up to the workers as to what their wages shall be; they have put the work on a unit basis so that the worker is paid in direct proportion to productivity. There is no limitation, other than physical capacity, on the wages workers can earn.
I have walked into canning and processing plants where there are cafeteria and washroom facilities comparable to most hotels. I have seen a 19-year old girl making $40 a day. We cannot quarrel with this type of wage. However, most of our harvest season occurs when students, who
5836

July 20, 1973
Immigration
would ordinarily provide a large block of labour, are returning to university and secondary schools. It is wrong for the government to feel that we do not need offshore labour because students will be available. There are many students who do not want to work on farms. I do not quarrel with this. However, many are prepared to do so, but the school term begins early in September.
What do primary producers do? How do they obtain labour? Many of them have encouraged offshore labour over the years which comes from three sources, the Caribbean, Portugal and Mexico. We need this labour, Mr. Chairman, and these people are used to working in the heat. They are used to working in agriculture, and they are satisfied with the pay scale. Everybody is satisfied: the workers are satisfied, the primary producers are satisfied and the consumers of Canada are satisfied because we are getting the crops harvested. Everybody is satisfied but the Department of Manpower and Immigration. They will not grant work visas now to people from Portugal or to people from Mexico. They say they have made an arrangement to grant visas to Caribbean workers. That is fine. We get very good workers from the Caribbean-we also get poor workers from the Caribbean-but they are not available through a sufficient number of outlets. We need more.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I am so serious about this matter is that we have crops right now that are not being harvested because we cannot get enough labour: it is not available. I talked to a primary producer yesterday who said that in the last week he had hired 45 workers sent by the local Manpower centre to work at his establishment. They came and they left. It was not a matter of wages; they just did not want to work.
We brought in labourers from other regions of Canada. This was encouraged by the government, and I give them full marks for it. but what did they say when they got here? When they were on the job they said, "The work is fine. We shall work from eight until ten, from two until four, and if you need us from seven until nine it will involve overtime pay." How in the world can the producers of this nation make food available to Canadians at reasonable prices under conditions like that?
So, Mr. Chairman, my question to the minister is this: Why not bring this question to parliament and let the men and women of this nation who represent the agricultural industry, and the consumers, have a voice in determining what the regulations shall be and whether there shall be offshore labour imported into this country? I feel that Canadians should provide work for Canadians wherever possible; Canadians should have the first opportunity to work. But, Mr. Chairman, if Canadians do not want to work at this job-many of them do not, and have expressed this feeling in no uncertain terms-then I say that the producers of this nation are entitled to offshore, competent labour from wherever it may come, if these people are willing to work under the conditions prevailing in Canada today and produce crops for Canadian consumers.
This is my quarrel with the minister. I do not think he sees this point or understands the situation, so I take this opportunity to bring it to his attention once more. We must have a solution, and we must have it now.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, the minister last night said that the effect of the Federal Court decision would apply to 10,000 cases which are before the Immigration Appeal Board at the moment, and the effect of the Immigration Appeal Board decision would apply to 1,752 cases. This is approximately 12,000 cases that may be affected by the two decisions. I should like to ask the minister what the state of those cases is now, whether they will be proceeding with them or waiting until this law is passed before proceeding with them under the adjustment of status program set forth in Bill C-197. That is the first question.
My second question is this: What about the two cases which have been referred to, the Immigration Appeal Board decision and the Federal Court decision? What will be the effect on the appellants in those cases? If the board has no jurisdiction to deal with these people, what is their present status? They would not be landed immigrants unless the board directs that they become landed immigrants. I ask the minister, what has happened to those two cases affected by the present legislation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to respond to the various points and questions which have been raised. I will deal first with those raised by the hon. member for Peace River. I find myself agreeing greatly with many of the suggestions he made. We have already stated the substance of what we planned to do today in reviewing immigration policy. I said that on a previous occasion, in another forum of parliament, when I spoke before the standing committee on June 20:
I can now announce that the government has undertaken a review of the whole field of immigration policy and it is intended to meet the needs of Canada a decade from now as well as those of today. Proposals based on this review will be written into a policy paper for submission to parliament and the Canadian people as a springboard for public examination and debate. That should precede the drafting of a new act.
This policy paper has been labelled by some as a green paper. That is fine with me; I am not concerned about any colour definition.
We intend to proceed as quickly as possible with the development of such a position paper and intend to place it before parliament in an appropriate manner. At the moment I assume we shall place it before a standing committee. It could be the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. We shall put it before the committee for examination and discussion with a view to its perhaps being debated in this House. I hope to go further than that in the sense of consulting with interested groups, parties and individuals in this country on the development of a new and contemporary immigration policy that will serve for several years to come.
In that connection I would agree with the hon. member for Peace River regarding another comment he made about provincial interest in this field. Not being a lawyer and not being a constitutional expert, I would not want at the moment to ask the House to listen to my views on the exact legality or constitutionality of where we stand vis-avis the provinces on this matter. I certainly understand that they have a constitutional interest in this field, although I think the federal jurisdiction is paramount. Whether that is the case or not, I bring to this question
July 20, 1973

some biases and observations from a previous portfolio for which I was responsible, that of urban affairs, inasmuch as I sensed the growing concentration of population in the urban centres of this country.
I therefore consider it a practical requirement that there be consultation with the provinces and others on immigration policy. We must consult on the quantity of immigration at any given time, because the provinces, after all, are the recipients of immigrants who reach this country and the provinces must deal with them in terms of education, of housing, of welfare and in a whole series of areas in which, although some responsibilities are joint, the provinces have full jurisdiction in others. I am referring to the ability of provinces to implement necessary government assistance programs that will help immigrants. I think the consultation will need to take into consideration social and cultural factors as well as economic ones, which of course are most important considerations as well.
So I agree with the hon. member for Peace River about the method of obtaining wide debate and on there being full respect for the parliamentary process. He and I are very much in agreement on the necessity of doing this. I am hopeful that we will produce a policy paper, place it before parliament or an appropriate committee, and before the country and then receive from all interested peoples and groups throughout Canada advice and suggestions. All this we could then consolidate into a consensus. Then we would come forward perhaps with a more firm position and introduce a white paper. However, hopefully, by that time we will be moving on to legislation that will reflect a new, enlightened and good immigration policy.
The question arose-I think the hon. member for Peace River referred to it, and I recall that last evening the hon. member for St. Paul's made the point-as to whether procedures laid down by the Statutory Instruments Act has been followed last fall when regulation 34 was revoked and regulation 28, subparagraph (1) was amended. I can only say I have been assured that the procedure required by the Statutory Instruments Act was followed and the required reference was made. I say that on the basis of advice available to me. That matter in question was referred to the Privy Council and to the Department of Justice. So the required procedure was followed.
It then becomes a question of opinion. Legitimately, there can be opposing attitudes on whether an amendment will or will not stand up in law. As I say, according to the best advice of the legal people available to us, the procedure was followed. We were informed that this was possible, and we still hold to that view.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How can the minister deny the Supreme Court judgment?


Robert Knight Andras: With respect to the hon. member's interjection, I am saying that last night the question arose as to whether under the Statutory Instruments Act a regulation was referred for approval to the Privy Council and to the Department of Justice, as is required by that act. I give the hon. member the assurance, as I have been assured, that this procedure was followed. Not being a lawyer, and as we will be seeking leave to appeal this decision, I would not attempt, nor do I think that this is the forum for me to do so even if I were capable of it, to argue the legality of
Immigra tion
the decision of the Immigration Appeal Board or of the Federal Court in the case of Koo Shew Wan. I know what my bias and opinion is, and I think that matter will be dealt with if leave to appeal is granted.
The hon. member for Peace River also referred to section 57 of the Immigration Act and quite rightly said that this is the phraseology from which the power of regulation flows. The question as to whether these powers in the act, which are clearly there, are excessive or not I will not take the time of the House in answering. That is the kind of matter, among many others, that will be the subject of productive and constructive examination when we come to the real guts of the examination of immigration policy and of the legislation that will entrench that policy into law in this country.
I admit being impressed by the hon. member's argument. My attention has been drawn recently to the wisdom of such suggestions. I am often surprised about the degree of power contained in regulations. I wonder, however, how one maintains the delicate balance between the flexibility that is required and any possible rigidity in law. I know hon. members realize that flexibility is often required if one is to meet situations from day to day. I know, for instance, that the points system by which we judge the admissibility, eligibility and compatibility with Canadian society of an applicant was developed in 1967 and has continued without refinement. I myself will be examining this. I think perhaps there should be more frequent examinations of these matters, particularly in the earlier stages of any new approach. Nobody is perfect, but you begin with a sincere desire to find a good solution. One finds that practical experience dictates changes in this and changes in that area.
If we have to come back to the House every time we wish to make changes, we might find ourselves in difficulties. However, I do not think it can be argued that there are not parameters and that there are not boundaries within which we can and should be able to move. They may be somewhat narrow, and we must move between too much flexibility in regulation and perhaps too much rigidity in law.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that not the value of discussion in committee? Is not committee discussion bound to be useful?


Robert Knight Andras: It is, again, a matter of opinion whether an amendment to the Immigration Act would have been a better method of proceeding or whether a separate act should be presented. There is argument on both sides. We chose to go this way, recognizing, and we frankly admit it, the emergency situation we face, the timing, and so on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Bad cases make bad law.


Robert Knight Andras: Well, that is another argument. Our action in doing this by amendment may cause inconvenience to lawyers at a later stage because they would have to consolidate their information not only with the Immigration Act but with this measure. But again, it might be possible
5838

July 20, 1973
Immigration
at a later date to tie together those technical, administrative process matters when we deal with the act itself.
I tried to deal with the question of retroactivity last evening. I sense that we may not reach agreement, but I state again my feelings. I find retroactivity, in terms of changing the rules of the game on a retroactive basis, to be repugnant but in this instance I believe we are maintaining what was the intent of the government and, I still say, a validly stated intent through section 57 of the regulations-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is wrong.


Robert Knight Andras: The hon. member says it is wrong. The Immigration Appeal Board has said it is wrong. We, however, proceed on the basis that it is right and seek leave to appeal. As I said last night, I would take my chances on that appeal to a superior court except for the emergency situation we face right now, the time which would be bound to elapse before a decision was reached, the harm which would be done to this country as well as to very many innocent people, the harm which would be done by irresponsible and reprehensible actions on the part of so-called immigration counsellors who have exploited innocent people in countries abroad before. So we decided to deal with the matter in this way, on the grounds of urgency. I do not argue that this is not retroactive in the strictly legal sense of the word. In the sense that it amounts to changing the rules, I do not believe it is.
The hon. member for Kent-Essex raised a point which has been bothering him for some time. I can tell him that I am concerned about it. However, this is more a manpower situation than one which concerns immigration. But since I have to deal with both I cannot really dodge that issue, either. There are certainly more than 6,000 offshore workers here now, including foreign students, who will work at these jobs and there is an increasingly effective foreign seasonal worker program. We will pay more attention to this.
We do not intend to unecessarily deny an employment visa to Portuguese or any other workers who are in this country or who can be brought to this country. Indeed, we will try to get them here, through the program I have described, to engage in occupations which Canadians will not undertake. I do not think time is available to me in which to embark on a whole discussion about the erosion of the work ethic, and who is or who is not at fault here. I will simply say it is a phenomenon which is occurring throughout the western world.
We have experienced difficulty with some employers when we have suggested bringing offshore workers in. I should point out that we are obliged to conform with provincial labour standards and other standards. We cannot bring foreign workers in if working conditions, including but not limited to wages, are substandard. We will co-operate in an effort to find innovative ways to overcome some of these problems involving housing, accommodation, and so on. The hon. member can doubtless point to many employers who do meet the appropriate standards. But there are, unfortunately, other employers who will not conform and who then scream murder and say that we are contributing to an erosion of the work

ethic. However, I am well aware that the important thing is to get food costs down, and this means production.
As to the appeals before the court, where the people involved are eligible under the adjustment of status program I enunciated the other day, to the degree it is within our jurisdiction we shall continue to apply relaxed criteria in recommendations to my representatives before that court. This matter is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Board, but I have reason to beleive the board will look upon this with sympathy as it did in the case of a similar program which was successfully carried out last summer. I am very glad to say, with regard to a particular case with a name attached to it, the case of Miss Nazarali, she will be landed even if our appeal to a higher court is successful. Many of these cases will succeed, but I think on other grounds, grounds which will not jeopardize our ability to control the situation in the future. In the Koo Shew Wan case-that is the Federal Court decision of May 23, I believe-there will probably be another inquiry held, though on what basis I am not sure right now. But I am totally sympathetic to the individual situation there, and I will do my best to make sure that in setting our house in order we do not trap those two individuals.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am more concerned than I was before at the minister's casual approach to what I say is really a case of retroactivity. The minister seems to have the wrong impression as to the nature of my objections. I am not objecting to the closing off of applications to become landed immigrants made by people who come here as visitors. I have never objected to that. Therefore, action taken by parliament to close that avenue is perfectly legitimate as far as I am concerned. However, I do not accept that it is right that parliament should be asked to do it in a way which the Supreme Court of Canada has condemned.
I hope the minister will read the judgment of the majority in the Podlaszecka case. Mr. Justice Laskin was most pointed in his remarks. How the minister's legal officers or the Department of Justice can suggest it is possible that there is a remaining difference of opinion following the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Laskin, I fail to see. It is this point which concerns me. Those people who were ordered deported between the end of November and the end of June, or as a matter of fact up to now, under the general grounds of regulation 28 (1)-


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. An hon. member has noted that it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Laniel):: When the committee rose at one o'clock it was considering clause 1.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the committee much longer. In complet-
July 20, 1973

ing my remarks, I wish to emphasize for the third or fourth time, as some of my colleagues have done, that the people who particularly concern me are those who had an order for deportation made against them under the provisions of regulation 28(1) which was brutum fulmen. There was a total incapacity to pass that order in council in light of section 7(3) of the Immigration Act. Those people have had their status affected by the deportation order.
I cannot accept the proposition of the minister that we are now going to pass curative legislation which has the effect of restoring deportation orders made under regulation 28(1), and possibly section 5(t) when the courts have declared that regulation 28(1) is an invalid ground for deportation. Such deportation order was void ab initio. There were no grounds for it and it must be void. Yet the minister is asking parliament to breathe life into these deportation orders for which there was no ground in the first place.
The minister can talk all he wants about legal niceties, but according to the estimates given by the minister it may be a lesser number; certainly it will not be a greater number than the 1,700 who were caught under inquiry and had a deportation order made against them under regulation 28(1). I refer the minister and his officials to the Podlaszecka case, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which is totally binding and cannot be appealed. With this two-clause bill the minister is asking that that decision of the Supreme Court of Canada be wiped out in so far as it affects the interpretation of section 7(3). The minister has not put forward any grounds why parliament should set aside that Supreme Court of Canada decision. The minister complained about the Immigration Appeal Board decision, but the principle will still apply to the Supreme Court decision.
The only way to get around this is to amend the statute, not to ask this House to deem valid an invalid regulation. Why on earth the statute has not been amended, I do not know. This is merely trying to justify a bad case. If the minister was not satisfied with the Immigration Appeal Board decision and felt he had a case in law, an appeal should have been launched right away. He should not come to parliament to suppress the rights of the 1,700 people whose rights are going to be affected.
I certainly agree that a plug must be put in, but it should be put in there now. Why act retroactively? The minister has a bad case. He now comes to us in an emergency. Visitors to this country can now apply under section 7(3) of the Immigration Act to become landed immigrants. I realize the pressure there, but such pressure is a bad basis for this type of law. All I can say is that I must oppose the minister's action in this regard. I think it is wrong. Let the minister proceed the right way by amending the section, and then I would agree with him; but not retroactively.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Persons deemed to have reported.
Immigration
Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, there has been a typographical error in clause 2 of the bill. I have an amendment to correct that. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre):
That Bill C-212 be amended by striking out the figure "19721616" in line 28 on page 1 thereof and substituting therefor the figure "1967-1616".
Motion (Mr. Reid) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the bill carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before we give approval to this measure, which my friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) regards with such repugnance-and I must say I share his view-may I ask the minister two questions which I have discussed with him. I have particular regard to the fact that a number of people who may be caught by this amendment may be deserving of consideration because of the special circumstances. I can think of no better illustration than that of the girl who landed here and gave rise to this leading case. She left her native land in full and honest belief that in coming here she would be entitled to qualify, and subsequently apply after having been a visitor, for landed immigrant status. She arrived in Canada the day after the revocation of the previous regulations came into effect. I would think that here is a case where discretion should be exercised to allow her to stay.
In addition, I would hope the minister would exercise his discretion under section 8 and examine these cases with his officials. I do not believe in ministerial discretion. I think that is one of the things that was made quite clear by the committee meetings of 1966-67. I am opposed to the handling of these matters through ministerial discretion. However, because this House, very reluctantly, in the nature of an emergency, passed this legislation I would urge the minister and his officials to consider all representations and even seek out, of their own volition, some cases where injustices have been manifested and where there has been inequity.
I hope the minister would exercise the discretion which resides with him and the department and use the same provisions as are contained, for instance, in the Criminal Code which give the benefit of doubt to the person con-

July 20, 1973
Immigration
cerned. I do not suggest that there be a wholesale application of that principle, but I urge the minister to make sure that no real injustices are brought about in respect of people who came here genuinely believing they would be entitled to apply to stay, and have no other restrictions against them. If this happens, I think we will feel a little better about having consented to the passage of this bill.


Robert Knight Andras: As I understand the hon. member's
representation, and I think I do and I will re-examine it when it is available in printed form, I believe I can give the assurance. In the case of Miss Nazarali particularly, I am pleased to note in the Appeal Board judgment that in addition to creating the situation with which we are dealing in Bill C-212, there was a further expression of opinion, that had that not been the case the Appeal Board would have seen fit to perhaps grant her appeal on other grounds. That makes it, happily, easy for me to agree to the hon. member's suggestion.
There is another factor there which makes it quite possible, as illustrated by my comments under Bill C-197, in that she did arrive before November 30, 1972, and so on that ground also, to the degree that it is within my jurisdiction, since it is now before the Appeal Board, I will certainly make recommendations to my representative in this case to apply a relaxed approach to that appeal. I am reasonably confident that that effort will be successful, as I have previously indicated in the case of all appeals of that nature that were made by people who arrived here on or before November 30.
I am very happy in that particular case, with the name identified to it, to acquiesce. I had intended to do that in any event. Also, I think it is a good suggestion to examine other cases. I cannot commit myself to a wholesale removal of the prohibitions which may exist on many grounds. I want to be quite sure of my ground before I make an individual case commitment. But we will examine them. I think the objectives stated by the hon. member are shared by me and the department and, I am sure, by every member of this House. We are not trying to be punitive in respect of those people caught in this particular legal argument. We are most concerned about our ability to control the future. I would add my appreciation for the dispatch which this bill has received. He intend to see that it is carried out with the intent expressed by most of us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I want to explain which I did not deal with before. My vehemence in this debate is not related in any way to the fact that the young lady in this case happened to be a resident of my constituency. I have never met her, and had never heard of her. I must commend counsel who represented her through her appeal for a very skilfully and intelligently argued case.
Again I will say to the minister that I am disappointed that the department has chosen to travel via this route. I think it is a shameful way to proceed. The right way to proceed would have been to amend the Immigration Act and to ensure that its implementation would have been as of now. I find it totally repugnant to accept that parlia-

ment is asked to resurrect deportation orders made on grounds that were found to be beyond the power of the minister. I cannot for the life of me see why we should be asked to validate that type of action.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members expect the Chair to refer briefly to some of the motions which are before the House. I should like to refer in particular to motions Nos. 1, 4 to 10 inclusive, and 12. I must tell hon. members that I have serious reservations about the procedural aspect of these motions. I do not want to prejudge them in any way, and I know they are motions about which hon. members have thought a great deal.
I appreciate the fact that they were debated from a procedural standpoint when they were before the committee as amendments to the bill, and it may well be that hon. members would want to give their views from a procedural standpoint before the Chair is called upon to express his opinion on these motions. I would be grateful if hon. members were to offer advice and guidance to the Chair in this respect.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, having heard your comments, and having attended committee meetings at which discussions were held regarding the admissibility of various amendments to the bill, including some which are before you for your consideration, I have the feeling that I may have difficulties, together with my colleague the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'-homme) who shares responsibility for putting them forward, in having them accepted by you. I rise at this time, not in any way to question your wisdom or the decision you must ultimately make, but to at least bring to your attention our arguments and our views on why we feel these amendments should indeed be accepted.
During the second reading debate on Bill C-2 about 130 speeches were made in which the constantly repeated issue was that of the degree of punishment. This matter was constantly raised and it was suggested repeatedly that it would be decided in committee the degree of punishment to be contained in the bill. On January 29, in the early stages of the debate, I gave notice while speaking on
July 20, 1973

Bill C-2 in the House that it was my intention, along with my colleague the hon. member for Saint-Denis, to put forward certain amendments, and I gave the basis of those amendments then. Several days earlier I, together with my colleague, announced my intention to the press. I also spoke to colleague on both sides of the House who I felt had some sympathy with our point of view.
Having done that, over a period of some five months speeches were made in a lengthy debate in the House and amendments or proposals to come before the committee were supported by some members and rejected by others. Never over that period of five months during first and second reading of the bill in the House, and then in committee, was there any suggestion of any procedural problem or inappropriateness in the approach until there was some question about the amendments and it was suggested that they would not be appropriate for consideration by the House. If I have erred in not checking with the table officials and asking for their opinion at an early stage back in January, I also erred in my conclusions regarding the committee meetings in 1967 when amendments, which included total aboliton, were put forward, without challenge, and then defeated.
I would not be putting forward these amendments had I not balanced total abolition with another aspect ensuring severity of punishment, and that is the next point I want to make. What is the principle in the bill, and is it indeed challenged? Are we attempting to change the principle with the amendments I have put forward? In committee, while the chairman of the committee ruled that to alter the one extreme of punishment in the bill, that is, for certain categories the penalty of hanging, would be to change the principle, there was no such ruling and an amendment was accepted for consideration to change the other extreme in the bill, that is, the ten-year minimum sentence by reducing it.
I am trying to argue: What is the principle, versus what are the specifics in the bill? I am saying that if the chairman of the committee ruled that the death penalty abolition changes the principle of the bill, then I fail to understand how the other extreme regarding a ten-year minimum sentence for the most heinous crime does not also change the principle. I agree that the principle of Bill C-2 cannot be altered, but I argue that the principle is the provision of an appropriate punishment for various categories of murder; it is not the specific punishment but the principle of appropriate punishment.
Whatever amendments have been offered either in the committee or now in the House, the principle of the bill, that is punishment for the crime of murder, has not been removed, nor do amendments put forward in committee or here suggest that that principle of appropriate punishment be removed. If the principle were based on death or no death as a specific, rather than general principle, of severe punishment many people might argue that a definite 25 years of incarceration more terrible than death. Whatever those arguments, my amendments to the existing contents of the bill or the contents of the original bill continuing to deal with the specifics of punishment all maintain the principle of the bill, which is punishment and the deterrence of this terrible crime.
Capital Punishment
I should like to summarize my arguments. It was the will of parliament as expressed during the second reading debate that real changes be made in the type of punishment in the committee and, if not there, that they be made here during the report stage, especially in the area of the degree of punishment. Also, in those speeches the possibil-* ity was mentioned of the removal or harshening of the death penalty factor. It was also the will of the House that the principle of severe punishment be maintained. Certainly that was the general feeling during the second reading stage. I feel that my amendments live up to that principle.
Very early in the debate on this bill notice was given of my intention, along with that of the hon. member for Saint-Denis, and during the five months this was not challenged. In fact, it was accepted as material for debate during second reading. The amendments were expected to be presented in committee, and they were found acceptable when they reached committee and voted upon. It is quite possible that a tight procedural interpretation may jeopardize the admissibility of these amendments, but I would like you to consider, sir, the free vote status of this bill, the lengthy notice given and the general acceptance of parliament over the months that these alternatives would be acceptable for consideration in committee. Surely this justifies their admissibility if parliament is to make a responsible decision on such a controversial matter without the constraints of party discipline.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, did I understand you to indicate that you also may have some doubts about amendment No. 11?


Mr. Speaker:: The remarks which I made a moment ago were only to the amendments which stand in the name of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming). I thank the hon. member for York West for the considerations which he has just put forth for examination by the Chair. Hon. members will appreciate the difficulty with which I am faced at the present time. I might say that the main difficulty with which I am faced results from the form in which the bill which is before us has been returned from the committee.
I have serious doubts as to the procedural admissibility of some of the amendments which were made in committee, but at the same time I wonder whether the Chair ought to exercise the initiative required to refuse to accept a bill as it has come to this House from the justice committee, and ask that it be returned to the committee for further consideration. There is no recent precedent that I know of, even with the assistance of the advisers to the Chair at the table, to indicate that the Chair could take this rather bold step of refusing, on behalf of the House, to accept a bill as amended in committee. I think that committees to some extent have to accept some responsibility and return to the House bills which contain amendments which are procedurally correct.
If the Chair were to take the initiative and suggest that some of the amendments, particularly an amendment or amendments which in effect amend the Parole Act, cannot be accepted, I would be placing the Chair, the committees and the House in the position that in every instance where

July 20, 1973
Capital Punishment
a bill returns from a committee there might be an appeal from rulings of committee chairmen, to the effect that the ruling of a chairman on a procedural point, accepting or refusing an amendment, should be reviewed. I wonder whether this is the position in which hon. members would want to place the Chair. It would be a very difficult position. Perhaps we should give the matter some thought.
If this were not a bill on which there is a cross-section of views on both sides of the House, there might be a tendency on the part of the Chair to take bolder action, refuse to accept the bill and suggest that some of the amendments proposed should not be received. But in view of the character of the bill, in view of the nature of the discussion which has taken place both in committee and in the House on second reading, I would very much hesitate to rule at this point that this bill should not be accepted and that the many hours, days and perhaps weeks of work spent by the committee in studying this matter, preparing amendments and referring the bill to the House for third reading should be discounted.
This is why at this point I would be prepared, on behalf of hon. members, to say that what we have before us is a bill with these amendments, and I will try to make my rulings on the motions now before us on the basis of the bill that we now have before us from the committee. But having said this, it does not necessarily make the hon. member's amendments more in order. I still have, in respect of the hon. member's proposed amendments or motions, the reservations which the chairman of the committee had when he was called upon to rule on those amendments.
I would think that hon. members would tend to share the hesitancy of the Chair in accepting the hon. member's amendments. The hon. member has referred to the principle of the bill and that, of course, is the difficulty with which we are faced. The purpose of the bill which was given second reading by the House, as I understand it, is to provide for the reinstatement of the law relating to capital punishment. The hon. member's motions in effect would remove those provisions from the bill. In other words, the amendments proposed are negative of the principle of the bill as approved on second reading. That is really the difficulty with which the Chair is confronted.
With particular reference to these several motions, I should mention that motions Nos. 2 and 3 would appear to be irregular on two or more grounds. These motions may be relevant to the subject matter of capital murder, but my understanding of Bill C-2 is that it is specifically directed to capital punishment. I would hope that hon. members, in comparing the bill which we had before us five years ago with the bill we have now under the title of Bill C-2, would note they are different in this sense, in that there is a different accent. What we have before us is, as I said, Bill C-2 which is essentially directed to capital punishment rather than to capital murder.
Secondly these amendments would purport to introduce into the bill provisions over and above those contained in the bill as given approval by this House on second reading. The first group of amendments purport to eliminate capital punishment. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 would increase the number of offences subject to capital punishment and, at the same time, reduce the number of offences punishable

by imprisonment. In doing so, these two motions appear to me to run contrary to the provisions of the bill which was given second reading by this House. It would appear to me, also, that motion No. 11 is defective in that it proposes to introduce into the bill a provision unrelated to the purpose and provisions of Bill C-2.
In connection with motion No. 12, it appears to be procedurally acceptable, but considered in isolation it may be that the hon. member for York West might wish not to proceed with that motion. In other words, if the Chair looks on it as a separate motion, it only removes certain words from the bill before us. There is nothing wrong with that, but I assume the hon. member is proposing this amendment only if the other amendments are carried after consideration by the House. For these reasons, and with much hesitation, I would have to rule that the hon. member's motions are not in order and cannot be put to the House.
The next motion is the one which stands in the name of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). The Chair, again, had some reservations about this motion but it seems it is relevant to the bill as it has come back to the House from the committee. I again insist on the fact that if the bill had been returned to us in strict or in correct procedural form, it may well be that this motion would have been out of order. But in view of the fact that we have a bill before us which has come in a certain form, defective as it may be, it has the result, in my estimation, of making the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert in order, at least to the extent that the hon. member should be given the benefit of the doubt so that it could be put to the House for consideration. If hon. members wish, the Chair would put this motion now. However, in the absence of the hon. member is it the wish of the House that this motion be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The remarks which I have just made in relation to motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert would also apply to motion No. 4. Again, I would be prepared to give the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) the benefit of the doubt. I would think it would be the wish of hon, members that this motion be put, and if the House so wishes I am prepared to put it at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I rise on a related point of order, Mr. Speaker? I gather that the motions that the Chair will allow are Nos. 2, 3 and 11, if I am correct, and I should like to raise as a point of order the question of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think perhaps the hon. member is assuming a little too much. We have not come to No. 11 yet. We were dealing with Nos. 2 and 3. We have now before us No. 3. Although we have not reached this point in our proceedings, I would have some doubts about motion No. 11. At this time I am inquiring whether it is the wish of the House that motion No. 3 be put so that the debate might be initiated by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.
July 20, 1973


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I wish to raise applies even if only two of the motions are to be put, and that point of order relates to the taking of the vote, if votes are asked for on these amendments. I think it would be the wish of the House, and I think it is probably a wish shared by both sides on this debate, that votes come at a time when we would all know about them. In view of the fact that there is provision in Standing Order 75 for Your Honour to defer the taking of a vote, if a vote is asked for, when the report stage of an amendment has been concluded, I wonder if it could be understood that all of the votes at report stage of the amendments would be deferred to an agreed time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to that?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am in a somewhat embarrassing position this afternoon because, not knowing what your Honour's intentions were and being well down on the list of amendments, I had assumed in the event that you did accept the amendment of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), as I hoped you would, and that you would find it in order, as you have, we would then proceed with the debate on that amendment first of all. I am rather horrified at a quarter to three on a Friday afternoon in July to find that perhaps we may be proceeding with my amendment.
May I suggest that if all members want to facilitate the debate and the taking of the votes in respect of this fairly controversial measure, we not accede to the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), simply on the following ground. The taking of the vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert, when it comes, would be an indication to some of us who have intentions in respect of other amendments. If by any means we voted on the hon. member's amendment and, for instance, that amendment were lost, then we might save a great deal of time in respect of the debate and the subsequent taking of the vote in regard to the first amendment standing in my name.
I would therefore say to you, Sir, and I understand this is an exercise of the Chair's discretion alone, that in opposition to what you have just heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we might proceed with the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. If that is permitted to stand, I think I should have the privilege of permitting my initial amendment to stand. I think it will save time and it will save discussion-I hope I am making my point clear-if we have the vote at the end of every question at the time those amendments are put.
Perhaps I could resolve the difficulty that we may be in now by asking Your Honour to stand the first amendment standing in my name, and perhaps we could proceed with a dicussion on whether No. 11, standing in my name, might be in order. Of course, I should like to speak in relation to that.
Capital Punishment


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that we have been asked to stand motion No. 2, but the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham would prefer to proceed with this motion. After we have had a debate on motion No. 2, which I think is reasonable, the suggestion of the hon. member is that we should dispose of motion No. 2 before we attempt to dispose of motion No. 3. I am in agreement with this.
The Chair would not want to take advantage of the Standing Orders to impose his wishes or suggestions on hon. members. This leads us at this time to consideration of the procedural point relating to the hon. member's motion No. 11. I would certainly be grateful for advice from the hon. member or other members of the House in respect of the procedural acceptability of this proposed motion.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of talking too much this afternoon, I shall attempt to be quite brief on this one as well. First of all, as you indicated in your ruling on the amendments which you declared out of order a short while ago, the principle of this bill is related not to capital murder but to capital punishment. I think that is important.
My amendment relates strictly to the form of execution in the event that the penalty of capital punishment is imposed. I do not want to get into the merits or demerits of the case, but I cannot resist the temptation to say that in my belief the actuel form of execution in this country at the moment, namely, hanging, is an extremely archaic, medieval way of imposing the ultimate punishment, capital punishment, on anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I would think if we are going to have capital punishment in this country, then it certainly should be carried out in a far more humane manner than it now is. This is the purpose of the amendment. I know, sir, that you do not want me to get into the argument on the merits or demerits of the actual amendment, and I am trying to resist that. I must point out to the House and to you, if I may, that my understanding of the procedures- and believe me, I have studied them in another capacity before coming here-in regard to execution in this country is that sedatives are administered, or have been in the past, to people who are going to have the sentence of hanging imposed upon them.
The form of this amendment would permit, by regulation, the government of the day to indicate a far more humane, sensible, sane and less cruel way of imposing capital punishment. It is on that basis, and because it falls within the principle of the bill as you enunciated it not more then ten minutes ago, namely, capital punishment and not capital murder, that the amendment was brought about. Sir, you have indicated that there are some doubts in your mind as to whether this amendment really is in order. I would assume, if I may be so presumptuous, that the mental processes of the Chair, for simplification purposes, would run along the lines that there was no mention made in the original bill of the form of execution; this amendment comes along now to attempt to lay down a
5844

July 20, 1973
Capital Punishment
different form of execution, and therefore it is out of order.
May I merely point out to you that there was no mention in the original bill of any details or any procedures or any length of time in respect of parole, and the committee, albeit in my absence, decided in its wisdom to insert in that bill restrictive provisions regarding parole and parole procedures. My point, put as simply as I can, is this. The Chair is accepting amendments from the committee as being in order. I appreciate you have very grave doubts about this one, but I assume you are accepting it. If the Chair is accepting amendments that come from the committee as being in order, then I submit that in fairness you have no choice but to accept motion No. 11.
If the only ground for ruling motion No. 11 out of order is that there is no mention of this question in the initial bill, then I am sorry and we must leapfrog back one further stage and you should also refuse to accept the bill as coming to the House from the committee. It should be returned to the committee. I suggest that you have a duty to perform if a committee reports an improper bill to you. I know Your Honour would be making a precedent-making decision, if you make it. I submit that the Chair has the duty and responsibility to supervise the actions of committees of this House. The only way Your Honour can exercise that responsibility, obviously, is by refusing to accept improper reports to you. If you are about to rule that motion No. 11 is improper, I submit you should also rule that the committee's report is improper, because it deals with exactly the same type of matter. The same question of principle is involved in this matter.
I will not flog the matter any further, Sir, hoping I have made my point. It is simple: if you accept the committee report, in all fairness and equity you should also accept motion No. 11.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, for obvious reasons, as the chairman who ruled on this amendment in the first place, I was reluctant to enter this debate on whether the amendment or the bill is in order. I only do so now because the previous speaker in his argument referred to the fact that the amendment was moved. The amendment was in a certain form and a ruling was made on it. The amendment was rejected, but that amendment is identical to the one which is before you now as motion No. 11.
There are two comments I want to make. The hon. member has conveniently overlooked two important distinctions. The first distinction he overlooked has to do with the power of the Chair at this juncture. The power of the Chair, of course, is absolute with respect to motions which are before the Chair at this time. Accordingly, it is the privilege and obligation of the Chair to rule on whether motion No. 11 is in order, because it is before the Chair at this time. So Your Honour must rule on it. As Your Honour pointed out in your preliminary remarks, the Chair does not possess anything like the same powers with respect to an amended bill, which is before you, and therefore your handling of the matter in that regard would have to be totally different.

The second distinction that the hon. member conveniently overlooked has to do with the nature of the two motions that he is discussing, the first being motion No.
11.	That motion is a direct affront to the rules of procedure in that it proposes to go beyond the amending bill, Bill C-2, and do one thing only, amend a section of the Criminal Code which it is not intended will be amended by Bill C-2. That is a direct contravention of the rules. A comparison of amendments which have now been passed by the committee and now form part of the bill, and the provisions of the Parole Act, which are included in the bill, is not a valid comparison inasmuch as the amendments to the Parole Act are only consequential to the main thrust of the amendment which was accepted in committee.
The amendment which was accepted in committee was to define or clarify what is meant by life imprisonment and to give the judge certain powers with respect to those parts of Bill C-2 which deal with life imprisonment. If that amendment, which automatically is part of Bill C-2, is on any dangerous ground it is because it went beyond that matter and dealt with an amendment to the Parole Act; this would have to be done in due course. That is the only consequential aspect of the main thrust of the amendment. Also, it is separable. It would be entirely possible for the government not to go that far. The government could do that at any other time.
In other words, faced with the main thrust of the amended bill, the government, if it did not want to amend the Parole Act, would have been obligated, in order to bring the Parole Act in line with the Criminal Code as amended by the passage of Bill C-2, to present a further bill to amend the Parole Act. If that simple step had been taken to cut adrift that consequential aspect that relates only to the Parole Act, the amendment, surely, would have been beyond attack. Therefore I submit that the comparison is not valid.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence) for their guidance in respect of this very important motion. I wish to assure the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham that I fully understand the strength of his argument. This is what perhaps caused me most anguish in the last hours and days when I have been giving this matter serious consideration.
The hon. member states that his amendment, or motion, should be treated in the same way as amendments which are accepted in committee and adopted by the committee, so that they are now part of the bill. I think there is some distinction between the two. In addition to the distinction to which the hon. member for Sudbury alluded, there is another distinction. While I had some doubts as to the validity of the amendments, I was not prepared to make a clear ruling that they were clearly out of order. I said that I had some doubts. When I referred originally to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, I said that I had some doubts as to the procedural validity of his amendment. I might say that this was a polite way of putting things. I had perhaps more than doubt. I was basically convinced that the amendment was not acceptable for the very simple reason that it goes beyond the terms of the bill which we have before us.
July 20, 1973

The hon. member, with his lengthy experience in law, in government and in parliamentary affairs knows that one cannot propose an amendment to a statute which is not before us. The hon. member's amendment is not to the bill before us but to the act which stands behind the bill, the Criminal Code itself. The hon. member's suggestion, and I know that he put this forward as argument in support of his proposition and perhaps was not 100 per cent convinced that it was right, was that we should accept the amendment because it relates to the subject of capital punishment. Because an amendment or motion refers generally to the subject of capital punishment does not make it automatically acceptable. If the amendment seeks not a modification to the bill before us but, rather, a change in the statute which the bill seeks to amend, the Chair has no alternative but to say it is not acceptable. It is for that reason that I hesitate very much to accept the hon. member's motion from the point of view of procedure.
I repeat, I have general doubts about the whole procedure which has been followed in connection with this bill in many respects. I should make a distinction to which I should refer. The hon. member referred to a report which would not be in order. We are not dealing here, of course, with a report, but with a bill which has come before us. It is not the report, but the bill which we have before us for consideration at this time. While it may be possible in some instances for the Chair to take exception to the form of a report which comes before us-and there are many precedents to justify such intervention on the part of the Chair-I suggest there are few, if any, precedents which would justify the intervention of the Chair in the case of a bill which comes before us in a certain form from a committee. For these reasons, I would have to rule that the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in accepting Your Honour's ruling, may I pose this question in regard to the bill as reported to the House? Perhaps now or at some future time, so that it may be clear, Your Honour would indicate for the benefit of generations yet to come your reasons for refusing to intervene at the report stage of the bill even though there might be serious doubts in your mind as to what has been done in committee itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the Chair tries not to rule for generations to come. It is difficult enough to rule for this generation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope that future generations would be easier to rule for than the present one. In any event, I suggest that whatever reasons, if any, can be gleaned from what I said a few moments ago should be sufficient for this moment; and if there is another occasion I may find other explanations, perhaps more valid, for ruling one way or the other.


Mr. MacEachen:: I rise on a point of order related to that made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I note the suggestion made by the hon. member that if any divisions are necessary on the proposed amendments at the report stage they should be deferred. I realize this is a
Capital Punishment
matter for the Chair to decide but I would certainly support the desirability of that discretion being exercised in favour of deferring votes until all of them can be taken at the same time. However, this is merely an expression of opinion.
My second point is rather more important. Bearing in mind the type of bill with which we are dealing and the desirability that the maximum number of members be present in the House when a decision is taken, I wonder whether at this stage we could secure some sort of understanding between the parties that we would consult, and that the timing of any divisions would be mutually agreeable. I say this because there will be absentees from time to time on this side and on the other side, and if there are surprise votes we might reach decisions which are not expressive of the views of the total membership of the House. This is a serious point.
The third point I should like to make is this. I certainly would not raise points of order myself against those who might in the course of debate on the amendments stray from the rule of relevancy-if they wanted to make general speeches on what are, really, specific motions to amend the bill. I wish to make that clear, realizing there are a number of members who wish to speak on this subject. It would be unfortunate if they were prevented from doing so by insistence on the rule of relevancy.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am taken by the second suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council, that there should be some mutually agreed time at which we would be called upon to make our decision. We might well, in the course of the next two or three weeks, specify, for example, that each Tuesday is the appropriate time at which votes can take place.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Agreed. Every Tuesday from now on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this atmosphere of unanimity, may I support the suggestion put forward by the President of the Privy Council, namely that we seek to reach agreement among the House leaders as to when any votes on this issue will be taken. If there could be an understanding that there would be at least 24 hours, or preferably 48 hours, between the ending of debate and the taking of votes so that persons who might not be here can get here, it would be appreciated. At the moment I am joining with the hon. member for Peace River in the sensible part of what he said, supporting the idea that there should be agreement as to the timing of the votes.


An hon. Member:: We would like to have Labour Day off.


Mr. Bell:: I can see some difficulty about this, but providing we are only saying at the moment that we are trying to seek agreement, that is certainly all right.
[ Translation]


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I also agree with my colleagues of the other parties. When the House will vote on the bill, it will have to be truly representative of hon. members.
26454-6 i

July 20, 1973
Capital Punishment


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Certainly no one could object to some attempt being made to reach agreement. However, there are two points I should like to make at the risk of being extremely verbose today. First, the government must bear the main share of responsibility in the event that no such arrangement can be made or no such agreement reached with respect to the timing of votes in a matter of this kind. It is high time the government realized that, though it is a way out in certain circumstances to call for a free vote, it must also bear responsibility for what occurs when there is a free vote. They can take the coward's way out-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -but it is not an open door. I say that when there is a free vote, the party whips are off. The caucus has no responsibility for me or for anybody else on our side in those circumstances, and the party whip has no responsibility for me either. I assume the same applies to members on the other side.
The government House leader now attempts to impose an unfair condition upon the whips of other parties. When he and his hon. friends call for a free vote they should realize the implications of what they are doing.
My second point is this. If the government House leader is really, in the depths of his soul, concerned about everyone having the opportunity to express his views in the House in accordance with his responsibilities to the electors who sent him here, I must deplore in the strongest terms the fact we are being held here way into July to discuss a measure such as this when, really, I for one can see no urgency attached to it. If the government feels there should be full debate of this issue, with everybody participating, this is one of many matters which could just as easily be put over until the fall session of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If I might refer to the point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council, my understanding originally was that there was agreement that hon. members should seek agreement. Apparently there is disagreement now-disagreement as to whether there should be agreement to seek agreement. In view of the hon. member's comments I would think there is no question to put to the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Crop
insurance!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that both amendments have been stood and that it would probably be more appropriate for me in these circumstances to call for the rest of this period other items of business in the hope that one or two of them might be acceptable. If nothing I suggest is acceptable at this time I would propose calling it four o'clock and considering private members' business, if that is agreeable.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) calling for the crop insurance
fMr. Boisvert.]
bill. We, of course, would prefer to deal now with family allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed. Let's make it unanimous.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that further proceedings relating to the report stage of Bill C-2 be adjourned?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it further agreed that we call it four o'clock and proceed with the consideration of private members' hour?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Item No. 7, the Fisheries Development Act. I understand there have been discussions among the parties and agreement has been reached that this item could be passed without debate. That would be helpful.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-4, to amend the Fisheries Development Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I am only going from memory, but as I recall it the committee dealing with two of these bills agreed that the minister could by unanimous consent introduce an amendment to one of those. The committee agreed this should be done. As a matter of fact, this proposed amendment was dealt with in committee. I am not sure whether it is the wildlife bill or the fisheries development bill, but I think it is the fisheries development bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to carry the bill, and if there is a further amendment we can consider it at a later point. With unanimity, we could do this quickly.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the bill has already received third reading.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Item No. 14 respecting wildlife. I understand there is also agreement on that bill.
July 20, 1973


CANADA WILDLIFE BILL
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-131, respecting wildlife in Canada, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already tested the House on Item No. 12, crop insurance. I understand there is some wish to discuss that further so I will not try that one. I wonder whether it would be possible to deal with Item No. 43, the Canada Pension Plan. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) has been talking to me about the necessity for dealing with that bill. I would be happy to call it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to deal with the bill, but it cannot be passed without debate. There are a few things some of us would like to say.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would the hon. member be prepared to say them now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-190, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, could we have an explanation from the minister sponsoring this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not present at the moment. We are sending for his parliamentary secretary. I am sure my understanding of the bill is quite imperfect, but the essence of the bill is to provide exemption from payments to the Canada Pension Plan for certain groups, particularly the Mennonite community and the Hutterites. That is the basic purpose of the bill.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some trepidation because we seem to have made a great deal of progress rather quickly. There was no notice that this bill would be called. I had wanted to take some time to speak on the matter, but I do not have all my
Canada Pension Plan
material. Perhaps the House will bear with me under those circumstances.
It is too bad we do not have somebody from the executive to explain the bill in a little more detail than has been done by the government House leader. As I understand the bill, it is to exempt two main classes from contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, the Mennonite people and the members of the Hutterian Brethren.
This amendment is not really in the spirit of the governing legislation, the Canada Pension Plan, which is to provide universal coverage of social security for everyone in Canada. I wish to say at the outset I have never been a great fan of the Canada Pension Plan. It was passed by this chamber before I had the honour of being a member; therefore I did not have anything to do with its being placed on our statute books.
I have always distrusted and have been unhappy about the legislation since its passage. One might think that, because I dislike this legislation, I would not be taking this opportunity of suggesting that these classes of people should not be exempt. All I can say is that any piece of legislation that is of general application should be applicable to everybody. I might feel different if I could bring myself within some class which would be exempt, but for some reason or other there does not seem to be any likelihood of that.
In order to give an indication of my distaste for this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I have not to this day made application for a social insurance number which seems to be one of the requirements of the Canada Pension Plan. Those two things were produced at the same time and the action of the government of that day was directly opposite to my very deep feeling about numbers being assigned to people and plans being imposed upon them without any direct consultation. Medicare is another similar program. We find now that many hon. members complain about shortages of doctors and medical services all over this country, and I believe it can be said that the medicare legislation has not been a great boon to large numbers of the Canadian population.
The same thing applies here; that is, it is a law of general application and no one is exempt from it. Even though it is imperfect and poor, everyone must support it. I suggest the Canada Pension Plan is not perfect by any means, but it probably is not as bad as the medicare legislation. I really do not see why those of us who do not support the Canada Pension Plan cannot be exempt from it if various other groups and organizations can be, as proposed by this legislation.
Apart from that, however, there are a great many other complications flowing from the Canada Pension Plan. The contributions from the government of Canada under that plan go into a fund and at least part of it becomes available to the provinces for provincial and municipal purposes at low rates of interest. As I understand the situation, various provinces draw from that fund in proportion to the amount of money they contribute to it. I believe it makes a great deal of difference to the provinces how much money they have contributed to the fund. I think that follows as night follows day.

July 20, 1973
Canada Pension Plan
In order to obtain the greatest possible benefit from the Canada Pension Plan fund a province must have made the maximum possible contribution to it. It is all very well for the Mennonite and Hutterite people to say they do not require social security and that the precepts of their religion and way of life allow them to look after their own and themselves in their old age. I have a great deal of respect for those tenets. Indeed, I believe it is very unfortunate that more people who live in this country do not follow the same principles they happen to teach and practice in their way of life.
The fact remains, however, that the Canada Pension Plan contributions are really a form of taxation. The proceeds from those payments go to the provincial and municipal governments to use for the good of all people living in the jurisdictions of those municipalities and provinces. If large groups of the Canadian population are to be exempt from contributing to the plan, that money will not be available to make up provinces' credit which can be drawn upon for works within their jurisdiction.
If it is necessary that these works be carried out, the money must be found somewhere else, either through direct taxation or by borrowing in different markets at higher interest rates, resulting in higher costs to the remaining population in a given jurisdiction, whether it be municipal or provincial. I think in proposing this legislation the government has not taken into account the result that would flow from it.
The Hutterian Brethren and the Mennonite people I believe have always suggested that they should pay their share of taxes. I know the Mennonites at least have always done that. I have been honoured to represent a number of them in my constituency. As a group they are among the finest people one could expect. They are very happy and productive people. They are not in any way a drain on society. They have certainly made no complaint about payment of taxes.
So far as the Hutterian Brethren are concerned, the same cannot be said. It is true that in their religion today they follow the maxim: Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. They have never made any complaint about paying their proper land or municipal taxes, although there has been some difficulty in respect of income taxes.
Within the last four or five years there was a dispute between the Department of National Revenue and various members of the Hutterite Brethren in Alberta with regard to their liability to pay income taxes. That has been resolved for the time being and these people are now paying taxes. The fact remains, however, that if the proposed amendment is carried, the Mennonites and Hutterian Brethren will not be contributing to the general welfare of Canada in the way I believe the majority of the people of Canada expect them to.
I think it is important to note for other members in this House that not every part of Canada is affected by this bill. Perhaps the reason I am somewhat concerned about this legislation is that a great number of Mennonites and an even greater concentration of Hutterites are located within the province of Alberta. I know there are settlements of Mennonites in Ontario and in all parts of western Canada, but there is a great concentration in Alberta. If

these people are exempt from the making of contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, then the province of Alberta will be able to draw less money from the fund of the Canada Pension Plan for provincial or municipal purposes at a low rate of interest.
I really do not think there is real justification for allowing passage of this bill, though I know there will be at least one other speaker from this part of the House who will disagree with me. He nods his head in the affirmative. But the fact is this is a bill of general application. I do not think it is like many others in respect of which it would be possible to opt out on the basis of conscientious objection. There has been nothing from the other side, from the proponents of the bill, that would lead us to believe that.
Perhaps my hon. friend who will be speaking after me will be able to explain why the consciences of these people should be so offended with regard to paying for the support of a general social security plan. It certainly has not been explained to me why they should receive the benefits they are. If I might go back for a minute, while there have been income tax difficulties between the Hutterian Brethren and the Department of National Revenue-and so far the position of the Hutterian Brothers has not been accepted-I suggest there is still a feeling among many people in western Canada, at least in Alberta, that the Hutterian Brethren do not pay their fair share of income taxes as a result of the way they are treated by the Department of National Revenue.
I suggest that now is not the correct time to try to assist these people and to try to relieve them from what in fact is a form of taxation. I look forward with interest to hearing the remarks of my colleague from south western Ontario who, I believe, will be speaking next on this measure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Peel South.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to be mistaken for my deskmate, the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), but I do not think he would be flattered. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak in the debate on this subject because it is a matter of great concern to me. As the hon. member who spoke before me indicated, my constituency has perhaps a greater proportion of people who will be affected by this bill than any other constituency in Canada. This is a matter that is personal to me because it affects my constituents and their right to freedom of religion as well as their rights as Canadians. This is something that has been promised to them for a long time and something which they deserve. It is a matter of giving them the justice for which they have been asking.
It is with a great deal of pride that I joined my party after passage of the Bill of Rights which was brought in by a former prime minister, the right hon, member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). One of the provisions of the Bill of Rights was that there be enshrined for Canadians the right of freedom of religion. Surely nothing could be more important for any of us than the right to freedom of religion. This is why this bill is a good bill and deserves our support.
July 20, 1973

Let there be no equivocation about where we stand. Members of this party and all members of the House will stand up and be counted when it comes to standing up for the rights of Canadians to freedom and justice. This is what this bill is for. I am disappointed with the government because back in December 1971 the then minister of national revenue and the then minister of national health and welfare put out a joint news release which stated that in the next session of the House legislation would be brought in to exempt from the plan people such as the Old Order Mennonites, who for reasons of conscience are not allowed to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.
However, this promise was not kept. The next session of the House came and went. Throughout this session, since my election, I have been trying to get some assurance from the government that the bill would be introduced and passed. They refused to do so before tax filing time came this year. Then because the government was bringing in new legislation they promised not to enforce the old legislation, but it made the position of the Old Order Mennonites and groups like them very tenuous. It was certainly a cause of great concern to each of them.
The reason there is concern on the part of the Old Order Mennonites with respect to the Canada Pension Plan is that their religion expressly forbids them from taking part in any insurance scheme whatsoever. They have no objection to participating through taxes in helping other groups. While their religion does not allow them to participate in welfare schemes in terms of taking benefits-they do not take benefits from the family assistance plan, old age pensions, or workmen's compensation-they do not object to contributing and pulling their fair share of the load when it comes to helping other members outside their community.
If the Canada Pension Plan were to have been financed out of the tax revenue, there would have been no objection on the part of the Mennonites in my constituency. The problem that existed here was the special provision whereby the Canada Pension Plan was designed as an insurance scheme and the contributions were kept separate from the general tax revenue. The Mennonites were required to make full contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and the government acted to restrict their religious freedom by going before the Ontario marketing board and seizing their grain cheques. That is a shocking affront to their rights as Canadians. Fortunately this bill will change that and the procedure will not be carried out another year.
The argument has been made that, because the provinces are able to borrow from tax revenues which come into the federal coffers for the Canada Pension Plan, they are able to finance other schemes in the provinces of which Mennonites and other groups like them are able to take advantage, and that therefore the Mennonites would not be pulling their share of the load. Such an argument is specious because it is clear that payments made by Mennonites and other such groups to the government for welfare and other benefits, in return for which they do not collect benefits, are much greater than any potential loss from this fund. If a person who pays into the scheme and takes money out is a good Canadian, at least the people who pay in so much more money than they take out of any scheme are much better Canadians than the rest of us.
Canada Pension Plan
The argument has been made that because the Canada Pension Plan was designed as a universal scheme, no group should be allowed to opt out. Of course, this does not make sense. I cannot accept that, on the basis of bureaucratic niceties, we should deny people the right to religious freedom, which is what we would be doing if we refused to make this amendment. If there is a need to increase the amount of the fund-and I believe there is- to be made available to provinces and municipalities for capital construction purposes, to build roads and so on, let us bring in legislation that will do that. Let us start decentralizing the funding of programs. But let us not try to achieve our aims by depriving people of their religious freedom; there is no excuse for that.
I am a member of my party because I believe in the ability of all people to live in freedom and dignity, unburdened by bureaucracy and not threatened by insensitive and intolerant people who would refuse each of us the right to be ourselves. I believe that is a fundamental right that each of us should share. I support this legislation because I know that if the freedom of religion of a small sect such as the Old Order Mennonites is threatened, it may not be too long before the freedom of religion of other members of the House, myself included, might be threatened. This is surely something which we cannot allow in a democracy.
I will sit down now to give the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) an opportunity to give his party's position on this, but let me make the plea to members of the House that there be no doubt about where members of the House stand when it comes to justice and equity and freedom of religion. Let us support this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen) was correct as far as he went in indicating the purpose of this bill. Indeed, its main purpose is to make the provision which has been debated, pro and con, by the last two speakers, namely, that members of certain clearly defined religious groups be exempted from payment into and benefits out of the Canada Pension Plan. I shall come back to that in a moment or two.
The bill does one other major thing, and it has several minor points in it as well. The minor points are technical details that are improved because of experience with the act. The other major point in the bill is that it makes provision for the legal expenses of a claimant to be paid under certain circumstances.
As the legislation now stands, if a contributor to the Canada Pension Plan applies for a pension and has his application refused, he can take his case to a review committee. If that review committee makes a ruling in his favour, it is still possible for the minister to appeal that ruling to the Pension Appeals Board. In that case the contributor is faced with additional legal expenses, and one of the major purposes of this bill is to provide that, in a case where the minister has appealed against a decision favourable to the claimant, the claimant's legal expenses will be paid. That is certainly a proper provision which I am sure everyone will support.

July 20, 1973
Canada Pension Plan
With regard to the first issue, the one that has been discussed by the last two speakers, may I say that this is another of those instances in life which occur from time to time when two valid principles happen to clash.
I think there is validity to the principle of universality, which says that in a society like ours we are all in it; we should all share in its responsibilities and in its benefits. There is also the principle of religious freedom, of respect for the clearly held views of individuals. It just happens in this case that these two principles clash. I am not happy about breaking the principle of universality because I think that any social insurance scheme works best when, as Churchill once said, we bring the magic of averages to the benefit of millions of individuals. However, I recognize the strong appeal that has been made by one or two clearly defined religious groups.
The language in the bill is very precise when it makes it clear that the right to be exempted from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan will be extended only to a person who belongs to a religious sect that has established tenets and teachings that oppose the acceptance of benefits from any private and public insurance that provides for payments in the event of death, disability, old age or retirement, and which hold that that sect or group must practice and make provisions for the support of dependent members, provisions that are reasonable in view of their general level of living.
It is also provided that any such sect or group must have been in existence prior to January 1, 1966, which was the date on which the Canada Pension Plan came into being. In other words, this bill does not open the door wide to individuals who just do not want to pay a tax to claim some kind of religious scruple, and thus benefit by it. There has to be clear, bona fide evidence of a deeply held religious conviction practiced by people for a long time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, despite my tendency to put the greater weight with respect to social legislation on the principle of universality, I am not opposed to this bill being passed.
If my hon. friend from Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man) were here he would probably want to get into this debate and say not only is he not opposed to the bill but that he is strongly in favour of it being passed. Because he, like the hon. member who has just spoken, has a number of groups of the kind clearly defined in the bill in his constituency.
So I think the government is to be commended for having wrestled long and hard with this issue, and for having come up with a reasonable proposal which I think, even though some of us may have some misgivings about it, we ought to accept. As I have already said, other parts of the bill are concerned with technical details that ought to be improved, and there is the provision for legal expenses in certain cases. All of this ought to be passed without question.
But, Sir, the main reason I wanted this bill not to be in the category of bills that get passed without debate on a Friday afternoon is that I wish to express my disappointment that the bill before us to amend the Canada Pension Plan does not have in it the major and important things, which the government of course tells us are yet to come. I know that the Canada Pension Plan can be amended

twice, thrice or even oftener in the course of a session or the course of a year, but it is at the point when a statute is being opened that it is possible to get various matters corrected. Since we have been asked to accept this little bit of amendment to the Canada Pension Plan, I make a very strong plea that the rest of what the government has promised as amendments to the plan be brought forward in the current calendar year, 1973.
There are quite a few details of the Canada Pension Plan that some people would like to have improved, such as those dealing with problems that arise in the case of people who are between 65 and 70 years and able to earn a little bit from employment, and so on. But the two main things that need to be improved are the ceiling on the annual escalation and the level of the yearly maximum pensionable earnings.
The government is discussing these matters with the provinces. It has declared its eagerness to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of pensions. It has declared its eagerness to raise the yearly maximum pensionable earnings. But I am a bit concerned when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) says that he hopes this will be in effect by January 1, 1974, but never made any clear commitment to that effect.
I realize that he has to reach agreement with the provinces and all that, but it seems to me that if the provinces agree on either one of these points, then it should be brought before us. There will be a great deal of disappointment, and justifiably so, if when January, 1974 comes around pensions are still escalated by only 2 per cent, when the cost of living is rising by 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent per year.
I express to you, Mr. Speaker, my appreciation that you have sat quietly in your Chair. You have not called me to order for talking about something that is not in the bill. Maybe I am putting that idea in your head right now, but I will not abuse your kindness any further. I make the very strong plea that, since the House has co-operated with the government in putting through this little bill amending the Canada Pension Plan, the other major amendment, the one that removes the ceiling from the 2 per cent escalation and increases the YMPE, be brought before us this year, and definitely in time so that, like the family allowances measure, it can come into effect on January 1, 1974.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about the Conservative party is that there is room for diversified opinion. Indeed, this is nothing to be ashamed of. Rather, it is something to be proud of that in our party we see things from many different points of view. Let me say this, however, especially to my good friend the government House leader, that if the Conservatives were running the government we would hopefully program legislation in a more systematic manner. We would not be attempting on a Friday afternoon to bring in a bill that I and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) were assured by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) would have 24 hours' notice. I do want to express my protest especially on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, who had prepared a speech to be given on second
July 20,1973

reading in view of the importance of this bill to himself and to many others.
I think that it is an important bill. I understand it will go into committee of the whole where the hon. member for Provencher will then give us his thoughts. I do protest again the change which brought it in so quickly this afternoon without sufficient notice. It is an important bill despite the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who sees it as an ancillary part of the Canada Pension Plan. Indeed, it is not central to the working of the plan, and I would not want to see it lightly handled by the House.
I believe members of the House should support the amendment that has been introduced in Bill C-190 which will provide for exemption of certain groups on the basis of their religious belief from participation in the plan.
Members of communal religious groups, such as Old Order Amish and Mennonites, have refused to participate in the Canada Pension Plan because of their religion, which opposes insurance schemes of any kind. They believe that their own religious community, not the government's or any outside insurance plan, should carry the responsibility for the welfare and support of its members.
Religious principles forbid them from making voluntary contributions to a state pension plan. But they co-operate-and this is relevant to the dilemma we are facing today-with the National Revenue Department when it executes garnishees on milk cheques and other income which comes to these people. The government officials intercept their cheques until the $180 annual payment required by law is made. The garnishees are for non-payment of Canada Pension Plan assessments.
Although they have been forced to pay into the plan, members of the sect have not been credited with money in the fund because they have no social insurance numbers. Thus, on May 15 and 16, 1971, the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee recommended to the then minister of national health and welfare the following motion:
The minister give sympathetic consideration to an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan whereby coverage and consequential provisions would not extend to members of religious denominations which satisfied the minister that such participation is contrary to the religious principles of the denomination.
That motion was carried, and I say to you and the House, Mr. Speaker, that I support the principle behind it. I therefore support the bill which is built on that motion. It is now more than two years since the motion was passed, and it has taken the government that long to act. I am critical of a government that would take so long to deal with the motion, on the one hand, and then because they are in a jumble as to what to bring before the House quickly by way of legislation, just dump this bill in. I say that is not the way to run the government. It is no way to treat an important principle and it is no way to treat members of this House.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal involved in this legislation and yet, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has stated, there is too little involved. If we are to amend this act, then it seems to me it should not be for a certain group of people for whom a special arrangement
Canada Pension Plan
is to be made, but rather for Canadian citizens as a whole to whom certain opportunities are denied by the terms of the legislation.
As a result of a trip to my home for the weekend not long since, I had the misfortune of having to go to the funeral of a young man who had been married for some ten or 12 months. He had been employed in a position where he made contributions to the Canada Pension Plan for less than a year. Since he had contributed only for that short period of time, his widow is not eligible for a pension under the Canada Pension Plan. There are several widows in my constituency who unfortunately have had a comparable experience, one of whom finds herself the mother of three children and with no eligibility under the plan.
I do not believe this was the intention of Parliament when it passed the Canada Pension Plan with certain limitations as to payment. I do not believe that it is the intention of this House that limitations should be imposed upon citizens who make contributions of any kind to the plan. It is not in line with any ordinary, publicly owned pension scheme in which an individual takes out insurance, pays his premiums, and then in some cases is eligible forthwith. Or, in the case of an early, unexpected demise, the benefits are payable because he has paid the premium.
This is an important principle in relation to this act. It is not comprehensive; it does not close gaps which need to be closed for good social reasons. I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would accede as quietly as he did to such a mild amendment to this act when such consideration is in fact required. The mere inclusion of legal expenses for those who have to go through the courts of this land to obtain their just rights is not adequate. The mere review of an application by a review committee, and the appeal procedures, are not enough either. These are items which, with corrected administrative procedures, probably would not be necessary in the first place; these are items which probably could be considered under the act as it is, exercising wisdom in its administration.
I want to point out one further thing in respect of this act. Do you want to declare it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I will not be through before four o'clock.
[ Transla tion]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


Gerald William Baldwin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we start the important business relating to private members' hour, in view of the changes we have had I wonder if the government House leader would indicate the business of the House for Monday. I think I have an idea but it might be of some importance to have it on record.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we propose to resume discussion of the report stage of the Criminal Code bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in when we can plan on the Olympics bill from the standpoint of our

July 20, 1973
Criminal Records
members, particularly when its approval was given such importance last week and we did co-operate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had planned to call the Olympics bill today, but because members who wanted to participate were not here I put it off. I will certainly call it at some point next week, but later in the week rather than earlier.


Thomas Miller Bell: It still has the same priority?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Absolutely.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North) moved: that Bill C-27, to amend the Criminal Records Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has to do with young offenders who have been convicted once of an offence such as smoking marijuana or driving while impaired, who have gone on to lead useful lives and whose progress has been impeded by having a criminal record. I am sure most of us know of cases like that. Many of us might have been in trouble if we had been caught at a moment of indiscretion by the wrong person, so to speak. There have been growing problems associated with drugs, and also with the lowering of the drinking age, as younger people can now obtain liquor legally.
I became interested in this matter in 1960 when I was confronted with the case of a successful businessman in one of our large cities. The man then was in his late forties. He was married and had a family of three. Many years ago he had risen from a poor background and now was a respected man in his community, a member of the church board and of several clubs requiring good citizenship status and standards before admittance. However, in his younger days this man stole two radios and was convicted of a criminal offence. Thirty years later, his business growing, he wanted to enter the American market and, in the process, found his record uncovered by the RCMP. You can imagine how upset was this man who had forgotten about his youthful folly and become a respected man in his community.
This case was brought to my attention. Here was a man who, when young, had overcome great difficulties, greater than many face, inasmuch as he had risen from unfavourable circumstances. However, by good fortune, by meeting the right kind of friends, marrying the right girl, keeping company with the right associates, being a member of the church and associating with the people in the club, he had taken the right path. Fortune smiled on him. Unfortunately, he ran afoul of pharisaic legislation; there is no forgiveness in it. Every Christian principle I

have been taught creates within me a revulsion against this attitude on the part of the state.
I could tell hon. members of other cases. One that came to my attention involved an 18-year old grade 13 student who, not too many miles from here, was caught smoking a marijuana cigarette. That was all. He had bought a reefer from another high school student and tried to smoke it. That was his first attempt at such smoking. He was caught, brought before the court and convicted of an offence. His father was a disabled veteran and his mother was working. The boy was a good student but he now has a record. That boy finished grade 13 with a good standing and went on to apply for a position, only to find that, because of his record, the position was refused.
Let me tell hon. members of another case. As you know, in Ontario the drinking age has been lowered. As well, alcohol causes probably the most serious problems with which we must deal. The previous minister of national health and welfare said that alcohol causes more problems than any other drug. After the new law came into effect in Ontario a young lad whose case was brought to my attention went out with other boys and one teacher; they were listening to a hockey game and, as usual, hoisting some beers. I do not know whether they drank Molson's. At any rate, when it came time to go home this boy, because he had not drunk too much, offered to drive. On the way home he was accosted by the police. The other fellows were in the car with him. He was not charged from the standpoint of having been involved in an accident; he was stopped because he might have been driving closer to the centre of the road than he should have been. He was asked to take the breathalyzer test and his breath sample registered slightly over the allowed limit.
That fellow wanted to take law, but did not. Instead, he applied to the police for a job. He wanted to do police work, as he thought it would be useful when he practised law in the future, since he intended to do work in that area. What do you think he was told? The police authorities said, "No, you have a record," and he was rejected.
How many of us realize how serious are the consequences of breaches of the law? This lad had not committed an offence. He had been driving closer to the centre of the road than he ought. Such incidents occur time and again. In that case these was no accident. I learned that the police had been lying in wait for someone whom they suspected, with little or no foundation, of having thrown a stone through the windshield of a parked police cruiser. This young lad was stopped because he was driving closer to the centre of the road than he ought, and he was taken to court and fined.
I am mentioning that case to illustrate my point. There are many more such cases that could be mentioned. We ought to act from some sense of justice. For instance, how many in this chamber might have been in trouble but for the actions of some compassionate policeman? He came along at the right time, instead of the chap who had a grievance, who was out of humour, who had a grudge, or who had had a fight with his wife. I believe that so often it is little things like that which count in marginal cases.
Of course, the policeman must exercise discretion. Many kids who might have been charged and saddled with a record have escaped that fate and become businessmen
July 20, 1973

because a policeman came along and, on catching them doing something wrong, kicked them in the pants and said, "If you do that again you will be in real trouble."
Let me recount my own experience. Many years ago I was in a hurry to get to the hospital. This was in the days before power steering on cars and all the other fancy gadgets we now have. I was turning the corner more quickly than I should because the wheel was very stiff, hurrying to be on time for an operation, when a police cruiser came up on the inside. I well remember the look the policeman gave me. It was a hopeless look, the kind that you do not forget. He did not say anything to me, but I have never forgotten that look to this very day. That old police chief is still living. He is 90 years old. His look said more than a thousand words. He did not pull me into court; I would have resented it if he had.
I believe that the quality of mercy will not be strained if this bill passes. It should be said of all of us that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. I hope my fellow members of parliament will allow this bill to go to committee for further consideration.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance and of the extremely serious consequences of a criminal record when an accused has been found not guilty and was not sentenced or when it was only an offence punishable on summary conviction, it devolves that this person should have the right, automatically, to a pardon without having to make application for a pardon to the Parole Board, as proposed in the first supplement to clause 1 of Bill C-27 now under study.
For an individual to have to drag behind him a criminal record is the same, unquestionably, as having a second conviction for the same crime, because, in addition to having been punished the first time for the offence, he is punished a second time by carrying, as a ball and chain, a criminal record which impairs his possibilities of finding employment and which, often, prevents him from playing an active role in society.
As an example, I have now in mind the case of a well-known citizen, president of two social clubs, who must go on business trips to the United States but is unable to do so because of his criminal record resulting from being found in possession of American cigarettes two years ago. His request for pardon is under study, but let us hope that in the meantime the surrounding society will not find out about his troubles with the law, because his reputation would certainly be shot and he would not deserve this as he has since been acting as an exemplary citizen.
From these various facts, you can well imagine now in what untenable position an individual would be placed if he wanted to go into politics. It would then be absolutely impossible for him. Society has lost and will lose powerful assets simply because the Criminal Records Act is not flexible enough. With this bill we hope to remedy this unthinkable situation for an evolved society which speaks about rehabilitation and the rights of man.
Furthermore, the period of two years required after the crime before granting automatic pardon seem a reasonable
Criminal Records
delay to me, because during this period justice has time to assess the progress and goodwill of the person found guilty if, obviously, this person is not found guilty of a new infraction during that time.
Before the end of this two year period, or in certain cases which are not included in clause 2, it seems logical to us that this case be referred to the minister for special consideration.
But to be fully in agreement with the bill, we would need the assurance that the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) had at his disposal an adequate tool which would allow him to ascertain the good conduct of the accused during this period of two years. This remains a problem if we take into account the fact that 100,000 judgments concerning minor charges are rendered each year and that it would, obviously, not be very wise to grant 100,000 pardons automatically, without really ascertaining the good behaviour of these citizens.
Thus, even if the bill seems necessary to us in principle, it would also be necessary to decide at the same time on the enforcement mechanisms of this act, which would not happen if the bill was passed immediately. I suggest that the motion of the sponsor of this bill be referred to committee for further study, because I believe its interest is obvious.
X0)
I know we will have many amendments to move. The Solicitor General and his department are preparing amendments-if not for this session, it will be for the next one-precisely in order that this bill be enacted as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps hon. members would allow the Chair to interrupt the proceedings for just a few moments in relation to a motion which was adopted unanimously by the House yesterday, a motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This motion instructed that the Speaker be required to call an immediate meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group to discuss the matters referred to in the motion.
I think I should advise hon. members that I have been in touch with our colleagues in the United States and that a meeting has been arranged to take place at 12.30 in the afternoon of Tuesday. I believe there are discussions going on between representatives of the parties, and between the House and the Senate, to determine the exact numbers of representatives from both Houses who will be going to Washington, and also the representation of the different political groups in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, we have listened this afternoon to several debates. When we turn from one piece of legislation to another, I am impressed by the moral changes which can take place in people and the great respect they have for religion and for other people's views. I was impressed by the fact that even some of those far out religious views were being repre-

July 20, 1973
Criminal Records
sented. I have also been interested by the great desire not to engage in a debate on capital punishment shown by some members who believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, particularly by the mover of this motion who I believe is on that side.
The bill he has introduced this afternoon, however, is broad, acceptable, moderate and progressive. Most people would agree that it meets one of society's major problems, not in terms of the Bible or of any religious group but in the light of the fact that conditions have changed and our laws must change. I believe that particularly in relation to summary conviction, after a two-year period there should be a mandatory withdrawal of the record of the person convicted.
The hon. member who introduced this bill called attention to the fact that in making an inquiry the authorities really are re-opening the case. His last example was a very good one. The offence happened many years before and had been pretty near forgotten. Most people did not know about it, yet the police and the ROMP visited not only the six people used as a credit rating or reference but they interviewed the neighbours, they interviewed workers at the job, and they asked about him at the grocery store. If nobody knew the man had a criminal record before, they all knew when the inquiry was finished.
As long as we have the present Parole Board and the present chairman, this legislation will serve no purpose. I know of a young person who made an application one and a half years ago and he has not even had the courtesy of a reply. Everyone has been interviewed, including the professors at the college he attended, most of the businessmen in his town, his employer and two of his neighbours. They have stirred up as much trouble as they can without re-convicting him, but he still does not have his pardon.
I agree that if someone applies for a pardon of a summary conviction, there has to be some investigation; but surely it can be discreet. Interviews should only be conducted with those who can shed some light on the matter. Everyone in town should not be asked what they know about John Blow, whether he is a traffic hazard, would rob a bank and so on. Discretion should be used in making inquiries. These investigations should be carried out by qualified people, not a new officer on the police force. A person should be able to have a pardon considered in a logical way and granted without undue delay.
The only reason this section is not working is because the Parole Board is not capable of handling this. The committee should give serious consideration to having this handled in some other way than by the Parole Board. The Parole Board is not able to handle paroles in the penitentiary system. There are 25 or 30 per cent more people in our pentitentiaries because the Parole Board has broken down. It no longer visits the penitentiaries but operates as an administrative body, making all its decisions in the office.
This bill not only covers summary convictions but indictable offence convictions where people have been involved in much more serious crimes. This bill states a person must be on good behaviour before asking that their sentence reports be eliminated. More care has to be taken

in these cases. I am sure there will have to be further investigations in cases of conviction for an indictable offence. It is wise to know the background of other offences which may have been committed prior or subsequent to the sentence. However, discretion should be used. These matters should be speeded up.
In addition to considering the parole structure, which is a disgrace to this nation, the committee should consider another matter. What happens to the records when a pardon is granted? They should not be available to the police. When a parole is granted, the records should be sealed and only opened if the person commits another offence and the court orders that the records be re-examined.
In many cases records are now available to the police which were not available before. If a person convicted of a number of offences is convicted of a summary offence, these are not necessarily involved in the trial. Even though a parole is granted and the record is in effect no longer in existence, it is reinstated by police investigation. They accumulate considerable evidence which is to the detriment of a person applying for a pardon.
This House has passed other bills which have also been open to abuses. I remember three or four occasions where we granted amnesty to immigrants. Chinese immigrants are a good example. The minister, the immigration people and members of parliament lied to those people because we did not grant them amnesty. We asked them to come out in the open so that we could take a look at their case. It was not until the late Mr. Favreau was immigration minister that true amnesty was granted. Mr. Favreau said to these people that even if they had come here illegally, had been smuggled in or came here in some other way, if they came forward and made a declaration they would be granted true and reasonable amnesty. When that happened, everyone, including members of parliament, felt much better about the amnesty that had been granted than they did about the pseudo-amnesty which had been granted previously.
There is a lesson to be learned from the parole being granted under the present legislation and the bill introduced by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). If we are going to grant parole, it should be done automatically for summary convictions, without all the hullabaloo we now have.
I am sure every member has a number of young people getting in touch with him who would like as little fuss made as possible about their indiscretion. The police only have the responsibility of ascertaining whether the person is now living a reasonably good life and whether justice will be done by making a favourable report. I disagree violently with interviewing teachers, schoolmates, employers and business people in the community and all the other things that take place. The Parole Board will not pay much attention anyway.
In terms of the second section, obviously closer attention must be paid to the question of indictable offence convictions. But again, surely the committee should consider handling this matter as nicely as possible with a little as possible disruption in the community in respect of
July 20, 1973

persons who apply. If this is not done most people will be very reluctant to make application. Again I hope the committee will go one step further than the member has recommended and will substitute some method of adjudication for that of the parole board.
The parole board under its present leadership is a total failure. At the present time'25 per cent people than should be are in jail because of the failures of the parole board. I suggest that if we add the provisions in this bill to the work of the parole board, we will be adding insult to injury. Therefore, I sincerely hope that a special branch will be set up in the parole board to handle this particular field. Many of the convictions in provincial courts, because of the length of the sentences involved, find their way to the offices of federal members of parliament. Therefore I hope that this special committee might give some consideration to the part members of parliament can play in this matter.
It seems to me this might involve a totally new field and one which has not been previously handled by the parole board. This bill lends itself very much to the support of this House the development of an agency to handle parole in a much more expeditious manner than is now possible.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, since the bill under consideration has been introduced by a member and not by the government and that if in 25 minutes the question has not been put, it will be put off indefinitely, I will only make some brief comments so that the House may vote.
I entirely agree with my colleague from Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) on the contents of the bill. Indeed, it is abnormal in our modern society to make someone bear during his entire lifetime the burden of a minor offence which in many cases has no effect on the remainder of his life but which as a result of the frequent application and interpretation of the legislation, would contribute to have him make a bad start.
A criminal record often involves a vicious circle. If a person has a criminal record and loses his job, he will become discouraged, which will lead him to despair and often he will see only one solution-relapse into crime, which he would not do if he did not have a criminal record.
As it happened, I found out about a case last week. While an individual was working on a construction job, a policeman did the "good" deed of warning the boss that this man had a criminal record. He lost his job and was saying: Listen, I want to live right, I want to assume my responsibilities as a citizen, and the first time I find a job, what with all this unemployment, I am fired because I was guilty of committing a small crime in my life.
Consequently, I suggest that a period of two years' of probation be granted to an ex-prisoner, which would be wiser because after all, we must have time to find out if the person who committed a crime really intends to change his behaviour. At the end of two years, a person without reproach and who, as cited by the member for Simcoe North, was, for instance, found guilty of smoking a marijuana cigarette after two years, if he has not relapsed into crime, should not bear all his life the stigma of a
Criminal Records
criminal record, as if he were a criminal, a paid killer. In practice, very often there is not much difference.
Furthermore, we find that often highly spirited young people are involved who, in fact, become later most remarkable men. It is quite rare to see a young person unable to come out of his shell become later a prestigious man. Often, the spirited young, precisely because of this spirit, are led to go over the limit, but they should not, just for that, have to carry to the end of their days the stigma of their mischievousness.
I close my remarks in wishing that this bill be referred to the committee and amended, if need be, to allow the young of 1973 to be dealt with fairly, for if we consider present procedures, although society needs to protect itself, the fact remains that it must also be just.
[ English]


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for a few moments in this debate. I intend to make a very few remarks because I hope it is the intention of the House to allow this bill to go to the committee.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), my colleague, who for years has championed this cause. I first heard of it in his name before I came to this House. I do not think any of us in this House have not at some time or other said what most lawyers say when they appear in court with a young person-"There but for the grace of God go I". Because of the compassion of a policeman or school teacher or because of compassion on the part of some good person in a community, it is often recognized that a young person may not have had the judgment of an older person and that his act or offence at that stage under the Juvenile Delinquents Act should not mean that this indiscretion would be placed on the record in his name.
In the course of the experience I have had as a member of the bar of Ontario, I have stood in courtrooms and prosecuted young people and older people for offences. I also had occasion to be an assistant crown attorney in this province. But more often I have had the privilege of defending people charged with offences. I have often looked at young people and wondered why they were in court. I have found in many cases, particularly juvenile cases, that it is thought smart to smoke a reefer, just as it was smart to smoke a cigarette in earlier days. It is also thought smart in certain cases to take a drink. These people who are acting smart are trying to be leaders and to stand out in their own particular way. Although they get into trouble they really are not bad. Perhaps they are misguided.
This bill would ensure that those people, particularly young people who are first offenders, do not have to carry the burden of that record for a period of time, and this is a worthy provision. There have been advances in the whole system of penology in Canada and in the world, and I think this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe North is a further advance to which this House should give every consideration.
One of the things that concerns me about the present situation is the fact that section 7 puts a person who has

July 20, 1973
Criminal Records
been granted a pardon under the law under the continual cloud of having that pardon taken away. It provides that if there is evidence establishing to the satisfaction of the governor in council that the person to whom the pardon was granted is no longer of good conduct, or is guilty of some other particular misdemeanour, then the pardon that society has seen fit to grant to that person may be taken away.
This bill does away with a bad philosophy. Surely if people are appointed by government to decide on a matter of pardon and that pardon is granted, then the right should not be revoked by law and the pardon removed. I think that the fact that this bill moves against such a provision is excellent and it should be considered seriously. We should all be looking, as the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) has done, at our legal system and system of penology to see whether it can be improved, having regard for the interest and protection of society.
I believe that this bill, which has been advanced for a long time by the hon. member for Simcoe North, is one that will achieve this purpose. In the course of our investigation of it we should look at a few other statutes, such as the Juvenile Delinquents Act. This is a very important statute. We should ensure that those persons who because they are young, are deserving of a second chance should be treated in such a way as to show them that they are entering into adulthood and should look forward to adulthood in a reasonably responsive and concerned society.
I believe that the bill put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe North is a stepping stone in reaching that concern in our society, and we should support it. I urge the House to let this bill go to committee. Because I feel very strongly on this subject I intend to sit down in the hope that someone will call it five o'clock.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I too am greatly impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) and of all other speakers. I think everyone has a great deal of sympathy and compassion for those who are caught up in the coils of the law, sometimes because of thoughtlessness, ignorance or exuberance, and who can never wipe their record clean. That is the main point which I am sure most concerned the sponsor of the bill, although many other things were mentioned relating to parole in general.
I do not support completely the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters), who expressed a strong and acerbic condemnation of the chairman of the Parole Board and of the Parole Board itself. I think they are doing an excellent job with our laws in view of the problems of modern population. People have a tendency to disregard laws more than they ever did, and they have a tendency to be more violent in their reactions. I think that the work of the Parole Board is most onerous.
The background of the bill before us goes back a long way. I could tell you a great deal about what social workers have been concerned about and what they have been urging. I would like to quote a typical newspaper clipping which appeared in July of last year and which reads:
Under new amendments to the Criminal Code, three teenagers who pleaded guilty to minor drug charges in a Toronto court

yesterday were given conditional discharges, which means they will have no court records providing they fulfill the conditions of their probation.
In other words, we are working toward the goal which the hon. member for Simcoe North has suggested.
Also, we had a social worker before a committee of the house, Mr. Kirkpatrick, who said that the present act does not go far enough in clearing a person's criminal record when pardon is granted. He was referring to people in general, not just to young people. A person who has been pardoned should be considered never to have been convicted of a crime, he said. We should listen to these social workers because they are closer to offenders than most of us are.
A rather interesting comment was made in the May 17, 1972 issue of the Globe and Mail about the situation in British Columbia. It refers to a Vancouver prosecutor-it is different from what we have in the east; they have a city prosecutor who looks after young people who have committed misdemeanours-who said:
One thing I hate to see is young people getting involved in something that will have a serious effect on their lives for years.
Lots of these young people don't know what they are getting into and a criminal record could mark them for years. It could keep them from going to the States for a job or for postgraduate studies, from getting bonded or from a job, period.
What he did was to get them before him and scare the living hell out of them, and 80 per cent of them never came back.
I think that is probably the way in which we should approach this matter. A few years ago, when I was about 13, I committed a misdemeanour on Hallowe'en and I had to appear before a magistrate. However, that is not on my record. Of course, he gave us a stern admonition, and not in court but in his own living room. I never did let my father, who was the local parson, know. I do not know how I kept it from him, but I have never done any wrong since.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you sure he did not know?


Samuel Victor Railton: That was the best thing that could have happened to me. When it comes to other ages, however, the problem is much broader: what should we do with people who are pardoned and paroled, how long should their sentences be, what type of investigation should be carried out? All these matters are complex, and they should be so because of the very fact that all human beings are different and their reactions, both to the environment and to each other, are different in every case. So naturally the law does not fit people individually.
This is why we need such understanding people as were mentioned by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to look after the paroling of offenders, to make sure that this is done quietly, as the hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned, and that the knowledge of this indiscretion is not spread around.
There are many other issues, as I have mentioned. For example, at what age should a child who commits an offence, be tried in court? Should all children be tried in juvenile court? Under the Scandinavian system a child
July 20,1973

must be over 14 years before he is brought to court for any offence. Those younger than that are looked after by the equivalent of the Children's Aid Society.
The treatment of young people is very important. I have a son who is a law student. He has been lucky enough to get a job in British Columbia again this summer with another law student from there. They take out about 20 young people from a correctional institution, rather bad delinquents, and go mountain climbing and sailing with them. By the way I don't think that's a very bad summer job. He reports that these young people are fine as long as they are kept busy, as long as they are given a little bit of praise and companionship. They have put them on the buddy system. I would like to see more of this in our institutions instead of just seeing to it that young people have enough to eat.
We have made many attempts to change the Criminal Code and the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The latter is a very old act. It was first brought in when I graduated from university, and that wasn't yesterday. Attempts were made as recently as 1971 to amend it, but the bills died in the House. These were small amendments along the lines of today's bill.
I am interested in supporting this bill and in referring it to a committee, but I realize there is no standing committee at the present time to which it could be referred. I also realize that it is the intention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to bring in a comprehensive amending bill in the fall. We should strongly support the present bill, and I urge that it be considered as one of the clauses of the more comprehensive bill that will be dealing with the penal code in a general way, and with the Juvenile Delinquents Act in particular. I strongly support the bill in principle but I think the matter would be better handled through comprehensive legislation in the fall.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) on presenting this bill. I am sure it reflects the sentiments of most members of the House, particularly since it is aimed at young offenders.
When people become adults they are considered more responsible for what they do. Younger people, often due to immaturity, or just for kicks, sometimes will do things they should not do, and we should not consider them completely responsible for doing them. Sometimes conditions of society are a factor in young people doing certain
Criminal Records
things, but their record should not remain against them all their lives to impede their progress in society.
The hon. member for Simcoe North is a member of the medical profession. He knows there are different ways to treat a patient. You can treat the cause or the symptoms. Sometimes you have to treat the symptoms when you don't know the cause. This is rather like what his bill proposes, to treat some of the symptoms of our society. But even better than treating the symptoms is getting to the cause through the use of preventive medicine. It is better to get an injection of Salk vaccine than later having to cope with the disease when it takes hold.
Similarly in the case of young people, society must get to the crux of the original cause of misdemeanors. Young people will make mistakes, but those mistakes should not be held against them for the rest of their lives. While we are getting more and more permissive in modern society we are becoming less and less responsible for the actions of young people. In modern society discipline at home is disappearing. That trend has to be reversed because it is changing the whole structure of society.
Governments cannot help by legislating against such root causes, but they can help by fostering an attitude that does not cater to permissiveness. If in certain government departments we have people who want to side with revolutionary ideas, with marginal opinions, in opposition to the opinions of the silent majority, then we contribute to this permissive society. We have seen that kind of thing in some of the programs that came from the Department of the Secretary of State in years gone by. It is such situations that the government can help.
I certainly agree that the government has to take some kind of action as suggested by the hon. member for Simcoe North, but as pointed out by the previous speaker it is the intention of the government to do just that in a comprehensive bill. For this reason I would not want the hon. member to think I would talk out a bill of his to prevent it coming to a vote. I simply point out that there will be an all-encompassing bill this fall, and it will be voted on by the House.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at two p.m.
At five p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 23, 1973