1973-05-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Horner (Crowfoot).
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mrs. Morin.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Nielsen:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the hon. member who has just presented the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is prepared to move concurrence in that report later this day, since we on this side, and I am sure this includes hon. members to my immediate left, are prepared to give unanimous consent to concur in the report today without debate.


FISHERIES
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked me a question about the communiques which were issued in relation to Pacific salmon problems which were under negotiation between Canada and the United States. I have pleasure now in tabling these communiques in both official languages.


MANPOWER
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of representations made to Members of Parliament of all parties from, I suppose, all the major cities in
this country I should like to move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration be requested to review the criteria adopted for the continuation of LIP grants so that projects which have been discontinued solely because the cities in which they operate have a lower rate of unemployment than the national average can be considered favourably: (a) because the area in which they operate has a high rate of unemployment, (b) because the project itself is of great social value.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


TABLING OF LIST OF PRODUCTS NOT CONFORMING TO LABELLING STANDARDS
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table lists of drug lots which failed to meet the labelling standards following the analysis made at the laboratories of the Health Protection Branch within as regards the QUAD program for 1972-73.


REPORTED NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from recent reports indicating that a critical problem of nutritional deficiency exists throughout Canada, and from the failure of the federal government to develop an effective educational program for the prevention of nutritional deficiency problems. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie):
That the federal government take immediate action to form a national institution of nutrition, with the primary task of developing a program for the prevention of nutritional deficiencies.

May 15, 1973
Rochdale College


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent under Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The hon. member's motion cannot be put.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion concerning a most urgent matter resulting from serious erosion on the St. Lawrence banks which is damaging properties and causing concern to riparian residents. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House request the establishment of a special committee to consider the legislation and regulations authorizing the construction of retaining walls and to suggest amendments enabling the Minister of Public Works to build the required walls where necessary and as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


HOUSING
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, when you called "Motions" I did rise to move a motion but I was not recognized. Perhaps you did not notice me, but I would appreciate the opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members will agree to return to motions for the purpose of allowing the hon. member to rise for the purpose of proposing a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: In view of reports that Rochdale College, Toronto, was the scene this weekend of the eleventh fatality through falling from this high-rise, social monstrosity, and in view of reports that of 800 arrests in

connection with Rochdale since January, 100 have been for drug trafficking, I ask leave of the House pursuant to Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That CMHC be directed by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to request the receivers of Rochdale College to replace the present management and to evict the present tenants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: There are many vocal "yeas" but there are also many vocal "nays". Since there is not unanimity the motion cannot be put.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 PENITENTIARIES ESCAPES AND DISTURBANCES
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26 I ask leave to move a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing specific and important matters requiring urgent consideration. These matters I have given notice of concern the penitentiary system in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta has given the Chair notice of his intention to request leave to move a motion to adjourn the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 so that consideration can be given to the matter of the penitentiary system of Canada.
There is little doubt in my mind that the question raised by the hon. member is one of widespread and great concern among all members of the House. It relates, indeed, to the kind of situation that would normally be contemplated, I suggest, by the provisions of Standing Order 26. I would think there is a consensus among hon. members that an opportunity should be provided as soon as possible for the consideration by the House of this issue. The many questions asked yesterday during the question period are an indication of this general feeling.
At the same time, it is difficult for the Chair to overlook the fact that one of its committees this very day was seized with consideration of the matter, and this is evidenced by the fact that a report, which I have in my hand, was tabled by the chairman of the committee. I appreciate that there is difficulty in that a motion to concur in the report has not been proposed to the House at this time. It may well be that, in the minds of hon. members, by consent it would be better to have a debate under such a motion rather than have an emergency debate. I would think this could be arranged following consultation.
May 15, 1973

I repeat that in my view this is the kind of situation contemplated by Standing Order 26, and I would be inclined to put the hon. member's motion and suggest a debate at eight o'clock this evening. It may be, however, that following consultation there will be agreement among hon. members to have this debate in another way at another time.
Accordingly, as authorized under the Standing Order I will hold the matter in abeyance until these consultations have taken place within the next couple of hours and make a ruling later this afternoon on the basis of whatever consultations may have taken place in the meantime.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the Solicitor General back in the House safe and sound.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He went over the wall.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to direct a question to him regarding the penitentiary at Dorchester, New Brunswick, which I believe the minister visited last week. Is it correct that Dorchester penitentiary is overcrowded as a result of a big increase in the prison population during the past year? Is it also correct there are not enough beds to go around and some prisoners are being kept in what is called the hole, partially for punishment and but also partially because there is not enough room?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Dorchester penitentiary is at capacity. When I was there last week I think they had one more space available in the entire penitentiary, and some of the inmates were in the disassociation area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That must be the guardhouse.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the disassociation area is the hole. This extreme population problem is the result of two things. Approximately a year ago there was an excess of space in the penitentiary but there was a transfer of inmates from western Canada where at that time we had a serious population problem.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Oh, we are good boys.


William Warren Allmand: They still had space available there, but since the beginning of this year they have had 100 inmates from the Maritimes enter Dorchester, which is far beyond any intake into the penitentiary in recent years.
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just like central Canada, they blame all their troubles on the west.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising from the fact that the penitentiary is overcrowded and that some inmates are being kept in the hole for reasons of overcrowding. Can the minister tell us whether he in fact examined the facilities while he was there? I know he interviewed some of the prisoners, but did he in fact examine the facilities of the institution or did he refrain from examining certain areas of the penitentiary because it was too dangerous for him to do so?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to examine the facilities but the director of the penitentiary recommended that I not do so at that particular time because there was a sit-down strike going on at that time in the institution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I took the decision that it was more important to spend the time speaking to the men. I met with the union representatives, the inmates committee, and the officials. I might say that since I was there we have moved 24 inmates out of Dorchester to central Canada. We put 12 of those 24 in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Were they hockey fans?


William Warren Allmand: To be precise, the 12 who were sent to St. Vincent de Paul were put in an area that was formerly used as a regional reception centre. It was vacated recently for a new regional reception centre. That space was available for these men. We were going to close that wing. The other 12 were sent to Kingston penitentiary to an area that had been closed previously but is being opened up on a temporary basis to deal with these men in the overcrowded situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether it is true that a beating took place at Dorchester by a guard, not a beating of a guard but a beating by a guard of a prisoner, and that subsequently the guard was transferred to another institution? Has there been an investigation of this if in fact a beating did take place, and when will the results of that investigation be made public?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not have information with regard to a beating by a guard. There was a fight earlier in the winter between some inmates which led to some further trouble, but I will check into this. When I was there I was not made aware of a beating by a guard, but I will check into that.


PRINCE ALBERT-COMPLAINTS BY WIVES OF PRISON OFFICERS CONCERNING DANGERS FACED BY GUARDS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I will go from Dorchester to

May 15, 1973
Oral Questions
Prince Albert and ask the minister whether or not he has had any complaints in writing from the wives of officers in the Prince Albert penitentiary concerning the serious dangers that the guards face today because of the failure of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries to give them support when they are challenged by recalcitrant prisoners?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there were some letters, but last week the Commissioner of Pentitentiaries visited Prince Albert and met with the wives. He had a long discussion with them and promised to take up the complaints they put to him. He reported to me yesterday about that visit. We intend to follow up on that, but he had quite a long discussion with wives of the guards.


John George Diefenbaker: I have one follow-up question, Mr. Speaker. Was there a general suggestion that the penitentiary services of Canada, including Prince Albert, would be a lot better off if it were not for the fact that a political appointee is commissioner today who has no knowledge whatever and had none when he was appointed two years ago?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. No one has made that suggestion to me except the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in reply to the minister because the hon. member for Skeena has already raised the matter and certainly it was dealt with in Prince Albert. If the information has not got to the minister, somebody is guarding the information from him.


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


Mr. Lewis:: I do not have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is why I am recognizing at this time the hon. member for Skeena on a supplementary question and a few other hon. members who have supplementaries. I will come to the hon. member for York South in a short while.


POSSIBILITY OF EXERCISE OF AMNESTY TO RELIEVE OVERCROWDING
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the minister whether he is going to rename the special correctional unit at Laval as a halfway house, but I will not. I should like to ask the minister whether he is going to resort to that age-old technique of dealing with overcrowding in prisons by invoking amnesty upon the occasion of the visit of Her Majesty?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is not our intention. Since the establishment of the National Parole Board several years ago it has been our policy to release inmates under the Parole Act rather than by amnesty.


PRISONERS TRANSFERRED FROM DORCHESTER TO ST. VINCENT DE PAUL-REQUEST FOR SELECT COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE PENAL SYSTEM
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. I wish to ask him whether, of the prisoners transferred from Dorchester following disturbances there, five of those transferred or one or more were the same individuals who escaped from the Laval institution last Sunday?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, none of them were the same. The people who were transferred from Dorchester to St. Vincent de Paul were transferred to the old St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and in particular to the former regional reception centre. The people who escaped were from the correctional development centre, which is a different institution, a super-maximum institution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I have a further supplementary question for the minister. Since he was with us in the committee this morning and since the committee has reported the unanimous request of the committee to the House that a select committee be set up to inquire into the whole penal system throughout the country, will he recommend to his cabinet colleagues that that motion be acceded to by the House so that it can be brought in and passed without debate?


William Warren Allmand: This morning I stated that it was up to the committee to make a decision on that matter. I had decided we would have an independent judicial inquiry, which I think is the better way of dealing with it. I said that if the committee decided to set up a parliamentary inquiry I would co-operate with the inquiry, but I personally do not think it is the best way of dealing with this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously a number of supplementaries are being sought on this subject. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and then complete the first round of questioning. The Chair will then recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta on a supplementary question.


REPORTED ADVICE TO ST. VINCENT DE PAUL OFFICIALS BY POLICE THAT INMATES WHO ESCAPED WERE SPECIAL SECURITY RISKS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, were officials of the minister's department informed by officials of the Quebec Provincial Police that the five inmates who escaped from the correctional institution in Montreal last weekend were special security risks requiring extra and special surveillance?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the first that I heard about that allegation was when I saw Mr. St. Pierre on television last night. We immediately got in touch with the Commissioner of Penitentiaries to see if the Director of the Quebec Provincial Police had passed on any such information. The commissioner was not aware of it, but he checked and this morning he told
May 15, 1973________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________3755
me that certain information was passed on with respect to one of the inmates to one or some of the officials of the Quebec region, but it was with respect to a time frame other than the present time. I am pursuing that still further and I hope to have more information for the House as soon as possible. We dealt with that in the committee this morning as much as we could.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can leave the super institution the Solicitor General was talking about and ask the Minister of Finance a question. I am sure everyone in the House is happy with the fact that the unemployment figures continue slightly on a down curve-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -but in view of the fact it is still the case that younger Canadians from 14 to 24 years represent the largest single group of unemployed Canadians at this time and it is a very large number of unemployed, about 200,000 or more, may I ask the Minister of Finance or any other minister dealing with the matter whether there is any particular program to deal with the unemployment of young Canadians in the months ahead?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, a good many of the direct employment measures of the government are oriented toward younger people, as the hon. gentleman knows, particularly LIP and OFY. I am watching these figures with great care.


UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNGER CANADIANS- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF TERMINATION OF LOCAL INITIATIVES PROJECTS IN MAJOR CITIES
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that leads to a rather obvious but important supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact Local Initiatives Programs in major cities are being terminated at the end of this month on the basis that those cities have less than the average national unemployment rate, which ignores the fact that in those large cities there may be pockets of unemployment above the national average rate, and as many thousands of young Canadians will be thrown on the employment market and many worthwhile schemes will be abandoned, I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he is ready to reconsider his program and to c6ntinue worthwhile projects-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -not those given to companies but those given to local communities organizations?
Oral Questions


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give every consideration to the hon. member's representations. I have nothing further to announce at this time.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think every member of the House is disappointed with that answer. The minister told us yesterday that he would give it consideration. In view of the very large number of young unemployed in Canada, and in view of the fact that more young Canadians are likely to be unemployed when they leave school this month and next month, will the minister now undertake to reconsider his program and put the LIP projects on the basis of their worthwhileness in terms of service instead of the irrelevant criterion he has now adopted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, all those factors are being given consideration not only because of the representations of my hon. friend across the way but because of very considerable representations by members of my own party.


POLICIES TO REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-REVIEW OF PRESENT REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS TO SEEK IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. While we welcome the news of a general decline in unemployment across the nation, in view of the fact that unemployment in the Atlantic region was 11.1 per cent last month, almost twice the national average and actually higher than it was at this time three years ago, is the Minister of Finance, along with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, preparing a co-ordinated set of policies involving capital, transportation, manpower and taxes to reduce decisively the disparity of employment opportunities suffered in this region and, if so, when will a statement be made?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, although there is some improvement in the unemployment picture I am not satisfied with them in most areas of the country. But I should note that the hon. gentleman ought to take some comfort from the fact that in the Atlantic region the employment picture increased by 20 thousand in April over March. We will continue, with the co-operation of my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to increase opportunities in the Atlantic region.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Central Nova on a supplementary, and then will attempt to finish the first round of questions. I think I should recognize the hon. member for Champlain and after that return to all these supplementaries on the first and second questions which will take a few minutes.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer, and I should like to address a supplementary to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the goal of equitable employment opportunities for the Atlantic region and Quebec has obviously not been advanced sue-

May 15, 1973
Oral Questions
cessfully by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the national economic policies of the past four years, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is going to undertake a thorough and independent review of existing regional development programs, and in particular is the government going to set up a special task force to co-ordinate over-all regional development and transportation policies to seek further improvements in these depressed areas?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise of the question, but so far as an over-all review is concerned the minister responsible for Regional Economic Expansion has done such a review and is now in the process of discussing it with the various provinces. He is engaged in a series of trips to the various parts of Canada to discuss with them the various aspects of that review, and of course the Minister of Transport is doing the same thing in his area.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Could he say whether he has ordered his officials to consider particularly the problem of retaining walls along the shores of the St. Lawrence River in order to change the present standards which keep riparian owners from being adequately protected?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of damages caused by erosion along the shores of the St. Lawrence is still under consideration. Of course, I cannot commit either the department or the Canadian government to take the responsibility for any erosion due to natural causes. Again, when erosion is caused either by shipping or federal works, we then assume responsibility. I would say that in certain parts of the St. Lawrence it is quite difficult to determine whether or not erosion is caused by shipping, and we try to establish our limits as precisely as possible.


CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS-DELIMITATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES-ADVISABILITY OF CONVENING FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the problems raised as to jurisdiction of the various levels of government, does the hon. minister intend to convene a federal-provincial conference for the purpose of discussing this matter so that jurisdictions of federal, provincial and municipal governments may be clearly established and that the public be better informed and know to whom applications should be made?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that our responsibilities are

quite clearly established and we have no intention, at least for the present, to convene a federal-provincial conference in order to define them.


POINTE-AU-PIC-INQUIRY RESPECTING COMPLETION OF RETAINING WALL
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Further to my colleague's question, does the department, which undertook the construction of retaining walls in Pointe-au-Pic some six to ten years ago, expect to bring this work to completion this year?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, since the project mentioned is a specific one, I should have to review the file in order to know what to decide.


PENITENTIARIES
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It relates to a question I asked yesterday of the Minister of Justice regarding a stabbing that took place at the British Columbia penitentiary a week ago this Wednesday. Can he tell us who got stabbed, who did the stabbing, and whether any charges are pending?


William Warren Allmand: I am awaiting a report on that, Mr. Speaker. When I get it I will give it to the hon. member as soon as possible.


EFFECT OF CLOSING MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTIONS AT SPRINGHILL AND BLUE MOUNTAIN ON REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he has made an assessment of why decisions were taken by his department to close the minimum security institutions at Springhill and at Blue Mountain in New Brunswick, which has resulted in a great deal of the overcrowding that has occurred at both the Dorchester and Springhill maximum and medium security institutions and has in effect just about destroyed the rehabilitation program carried out in those two institutions?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the institutions referred to that were closed were minimum security institutions. Our problem is not really with minimum security inmates; it is with maximum and to a certain extent medium security inmates. I must also say that at the same time those two institutions were closed a new centre was opened in Halifax, a community correctional centre, and another is shortly to be opened in Moncton as a minimum security centre. These will allow inmates to work in the community at the same time as they are carrying on their rehabilitation program.
May 15, 1973


Robert Carman Coates: Would the Solicitor General not agree that the closure of these two institutions and the transfer of a great many inmates to the maritime provinces from other parts of Canada have resulted in the tremendous overcrowding at both Dorchester and Springhill with the result, for instance, that at Springhill the young offenders aspect that was carried out there has had to be set aside in order to make it into a general institution and the minimum security inmates now have nowhere to go and must stay in the institutions with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly to the question which was perhaps approaching argument rather than questioning.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I was in the Maritimes during the Easter recess I visited the Springhill institution. I did not find that there were any major problems there. I met with all groups and they did not indicate any major problems. There has been no change in the programs at Springhill. It is still a medium security institution and medium programs are in process. The living unit program is being introduced there as well. I think everything is all right at Springhill. The problem is basically at Dorchester, and I agree with the member that the problem there is due to the large transfer from the west in addition to the 100 new maximum security inmates from the maritime area.


PROVISION OF NEW MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary following the same line of questioning, Mr. Speaker. About a year and a half or two years ago a maximum security institution was planned for British Columbia and money was allocated by parliament at that time for the building of that institution, but the government across the way vetoed it. There was some criticism of the architecture. In light of that fact and in light of the overcrowding, particularly that caused by moving prisoners from the west to the east, would the Solicitor General look into the matter and see if the architecture could be changed and the money allocated used to build the maximum security institution planned by the former commissioner?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that a maximum security institution was planned for British Columbia but because of the criticism that was levelled against that type of institution-it was a Millhaven type of institution-the plan was suspended. As a result, the former solicitor general set up the Mohr Commission to develop a new plan. That work has been completed and we are now trying to find a site in British Columbia for this new maximum security institution. We were going to place it near the present British Columbia penitentiary but the people of New Westminster did not want to accept the institution there so we are looking for another site.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member, after which I will recognize the hon.
Oral Questions
member for Oshawa-Whitby for a supplementary on the second question and also the hon. member for Hamilton West and others for a series of supplementaries on the second subject, which will take us close to the end of the question period.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. In light of the difficulty the minister is now having with the various institutions at all levels, medium, minimum and maximum, would he give an undertaking to expedite this project, use the money that was allocated by parliament and show leadership in this field, thus avoiding the difficulty we are having in Canada today in the administration of law?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are expediting this matter but in the last year it has been very difficult to get a community to accept a maximum security institution. We want to co-operate as much as possible with the municipalities where these institutions are placed. I might say that in the first place New Westminster was ready to accept the institution but the council, after further consideration, asked us not to place it on the same site as the present institution. We are now working with them to find a new site.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns the persistent high levels of unemployment in the Atlantic region. In view of the high level of discrimination in freight rates in Canada which weighs against the industrial development of the Atlantic provinces, can the minister assure the House that he is giving consideration to changing the transportation freight rate policy to remove this discrimination against the Atlantic provinces and, incidentally, against western Canada as well?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am presently in discussion with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces on this very subject.


An hon. Member:: When are you going to do something?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West on a supplementary.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not a supplementary but I know you said yesterday you would recognize me today. Pursuant to that I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has had an opportunity to

May 15, 1973
Oral Questions
investigate what I would call the callous deportation of Mr. Reddy? Has he any information on whether this deportation order was premature, keeping in mind that Mr. Reddy apparently had 60 days within which to appeal? Has the minister caused an investigation to be made and what is the result?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have had some information but I am not satisfied as to its completeness. I will be re-examining the answers I asked for within the next day or so, but I doubt very much if all this will result in a reversal of the decision.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister advise the House why it was necessary for his department to move with such haste in this matter, particularly when the wife was seven months pregnant and two or three months would not have made any difference? Has he looked into this in order to ascertain why his department moved with such haste?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of that on which I wish to satisfy myself, but in the meantime I would point out that when the Immigration Appeal Board rejected his appeal in November it stayed the order of execution of deportation for 25 days to permit Mr. Reddy's departure to coincide with his wife's since her visitor's visa had the same length of time before expiry. This was based on the assumption and the indication that Mr. Reddy would voluntarily leave the country but he did not do so.


FINANCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the Bank of Canada has increased its lending rate twice since the minister introduced his expansionary budget, has he had discussions with the governor of the Bank of Canada, especially since the chartered banks have already increased their lending rates, with regard to the effect this is having on the slow growth regions of the country which are still suffering from chronically high unemployment? Can the minister also assure the House that the Bank of Canada and the government are not in fact embarking on a tight money policy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have given the assurance before that the monetary policy continues to be expansionary. As a matter of fact, for the first four months of this year the amount of loans granted by the Canadian chartered banks rose at an annual rate of 30 per cent. I have made it clear, and so did the governor, to the chartered banks that special consideration was to be given in the allocation of loans to those slower growth areas, to use the hon. gentleman's phrase, and particularly to smaller businesses. I note with some satisfaction that the chartered banks that did raise their prime rates in response to the bank rate made special provision for a type of dual rate in favour of small busi-

ness, and a good many of those will be found in the Atlantic region.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary on the subject and then the hon. member for Lisgar, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for Shefford.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister whether he sought and in fact received an assurance from the governor of the Bank of Canada that there would be no further increases in the interest rates of the Bank of Canada during the period of the minister's expansionary budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the governor made it quite clear in the speech he made in Toronto that the monetary policy of the bank would continue to reflect the expansion of the economy. I cannot give the hon. gentleman any such assurance that the bank rate will remain the same. The governor has a duty, under his statute, to respond to domestic and international credit situations and interest rates as he finds them.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with interference in the interprovincial movement of farm commodities in Canada, which could have very serious effects on agricultural trade within our country. Has the minister's department ascertained as of the present time whether the Manitoba government was within its quota in sending eggs into the province of British Columbia for sale, which seems to have caused the dispute?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, upon checking I find no interference with interprovincial movement so far. We are concerned about the orderly movement of products across provincial boundaries. I met with the chairman of the National Egg Marketing Board this morning, and I am very optimistic that all this confusion and the suggestion of irregular marketing will come to a happy conclusion.


Jack Burnett Murta: Does the minister not feel that the seizure of approximately 50,000 dozen eggs in British Columbia is a violation of free interprovincial movement within our country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is argumentative.


ALLEGED NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY AMONG PEOPLE OF FOUR PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR DATA AND ESTABLISHMENT OF FOOD PROGRAM
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement by the co-ordinator of the Nutrition Canada survey that there is an urgent need to inform four provinces of serious nutritional deficiencies among their citizens, can the minister identify the four provinces to which Dr. Sabry refers and can he assure the House that relevant nutritional data will be made available, without waiting for the final report, first to these four provinces and then to areas in others where serious nutritional problems have been identified?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to identify the four provinces concerned, but I am told that they have been advised of the results of the inquiry inasmuch as they are concerned.
With regard to the third part of the question, the information will be given each one of the provinces as it becomes available and, as I indicated to the House, the government intends to publish all the documents and findings of the study when it has been completed across Canada, that is towards mid-October, we hope.


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of Dr. Sabry's statement and in view of the fact that medical research has linked poor nutrition to mental retardation and low resistence to disease, is the government willing to take the initiative in establishing a food for people program which will guarantee an adequate level of nutrition as a basic right of every Canadian?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the problem mentioned by the hon. member, I feel it would be advisable to wait till the survey has been completed across Canada before reaching very exact conclusions. Concerning the implementation of a program similar to that the hon. member spoke of, I feel the topic should be the subject of much more elaborate discussions. A similar program, applied in the United States for years, has been the object of many attacks and criticisms to the effect that it is far from efficient.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Solicitor General.
In view of the many escapes that have taken place in the last few days, particularly from the Cowansville penitentiary, and in view of the fact that in the surroundings of this town there are signs along the roads that read: "Watch for prisoners crossing", can the hon. minister say if it was
Oral Questions
he who asked the Quebec Minister of Roads to put up the signs?


William Warren Allmand: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance of providing protection to the environment and fisheries of Atlantic Canada, will the minister make a statement on motions concerning his "proposed off-Nova Scotia vessel routing scheme", which was item 8 on the agenda of the meeting held by his officials in Halifax on May 9, 1973?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I am expecting a formal report from my officials. When I receive this report I will see whether it will be worth while to make a statement on motions. I must underline the fact that the main purpose of the Halifax meeting was safety of navigation, not fisheries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that there are four minutes before the end of the question period. We have had so many supplemen-taries again today that we have spent almost all of the question period on the first three or four questions with these countless supplementaries.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary will be brief. In view of the opposition by fishermen and others to the 10 mile wide shipping corridor which cuts right through the inshore fishery banks off Nova Scotia, will the minister consider a new tanker route which will follow the 100 fathom line parallel to the coast of Nova Scotia and which will put supertankers and other tankers off our coast where 99 per cent of our fishermen would not be affected?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we will do our utmost to protect the interests of our fishermen. I think the Department of the Environment is also interested in this matter. I think the hon. member's representation was fitting and I think we can succeed in this regard. I again state to the hon. member that the Halifax meeting was more concerned with navigational safety than anything else.


WINNING OF ALLEN CUP BY ORILLIA HOCKEY TEAM-REQUEST FOR LARGER GRANTS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of National Health

May 15, 1973
Oral Questions
and Welfare in his capacity as head of amateur sport and fitness programs. Is the minister aware that last Saturday night the Orillia Terriers of the city of Orillia won the senior championship of Canada and the Allen Cup with a score of eight to one on the game and four to one on the series? In view of this, is the minister prepared to look at his grant system to see if he can make a larger grant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It concerns freight rates. In view of the recently announced reduction in freight rates to areas of northern Ontario served by the Ontario Northland Railway and Star Transfer of approximately 18 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is nice to see so much interest in northern Ontario. In view of this, will the minister take action to have freight rates reduced by a similar amount in areas served by the CNR and CPR?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know, and I think the hon. member and the House know, how freight rates are determined in Canada under the act.


An hon. Member:: Do you know?


Jean Marchand: Yes, I know. I hope the hon. member knows. I hope the two main railway companies in Canada will review their scheduled rates following this decrease in freight rates by the Ontario Northland Railway.
[La ter:\


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement by Premier Davis, as reported in the Globe and Mail of May 11, that the National Transportation Act is being illegally administered by the CNR and CPR, will the minister undertake a review of these charges through the Canadian Transport Commission to ensure that the 18 per cent recommended by Premier Davis for the Ontario Northland Railway will also be applied to the CNR and CPR?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the premier of Ontario thinks that the law has been illegally applied- we all know what recourse is available in Canada in such cases-he should go through the usual channels.

[ English]


William Arnold Peters: I should like to address a supplementary question to the minister arising out of his earlier reply. We are all aware that the Ontario Northland Railway operates solely within the jurisdiction of the government of Ontario and in a relatively small area of Northern Ontario. Would the minister give consideration to meeting with Premier Davis and his officials in an effort to see that the CNR is encouraged to provide a similar incentive to development in other parts of Northern Ontario as that which the provincial government is trying to provide in a limited area of that part of the province?


Jean Marchand: I said a few minutes ago that I hoped the railway companies-and this is in accordance with the Transportation Act-will review their rate schedules applying to this part of the country, and maybe in the west as well as in the Maritimes. I think that is a good indication of my position. As far as a meeting with Mr. Davis is concerned, I have been trying to arrange such a meeting for the past 15 days. I hope that when he returns from London he can meet with me and discuss this subject and, indeed, all other matters connected with transportation in Ontario.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General. It is in two parts. First, to the minister's knowledge, are there presently any persons in Canada who have been indicted for capital murder other than for the murder of police officers or prison guards? Second, if there is such a person or persons, has the entire legal process been completed-the preliminary hearing, trial, appeal to the Supreme Court of the province and appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that a question asking for such details should be placed on the order paper.
[ La ter:]


Paul Wyatt Dick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention and the attention of the House that on January 26, as recorded at page 881 of Hansard, the hon. member for Calgary North was entitled to ask a question in almost the very same words and of the same length. I point out that the debate on capital punishment is now in process. I think it would be appropriate to have the answer now rather than in three or four months. I ask that my question be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate the position of the Chair. The hon. member himself refers to the fact that there is a debate going on in the House, which in itself shows that the question ought not to be asked. In any event, the hon. member knows that his recourse under the Standing Orders is simply to give
May 15, 1973________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________3761
notice of the question. I would be pleased to ensure that it is given priority. If the hon. member wishes to redraft the question and ask it in shorter terms, I would have no objection to allowing it to be asked. This is much easier than having a point of order to deal with. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to redraft his question and get a quick reply.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the knowledge of the Solicitor General, are there presently any persons who have been indicted for capital murder, other than the murder of prison guards or police officers, and, if so, have they completed the entire legal process?


William Warren Allmand: Since we are presently operating under the 1961 capital and noncapital murder law, the number of those indicted for capital murder is much larger than it was in recent years. I know there are some in the category about which the hon. member inquired. I do not have the exact details, but I will get them and make them available to the House for the debate later in the day.


Paul Wyatt Dick: On a point of order, perhaps I should indicate to the Solicitor General, through you, Mr. Speaker, my intention of discussing the question I raised earlier at ten o'clock.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the many squeals, shrieks and squeaks caused by the shunting of railway cars, which are still upsetting the health of the worthy citizens of Edmonton Centre, can the minister yet advise the House as to the progress being made in having the Canadian National hump yard moved out of Edmonton?


Jean Marchand: I will surely make a very serious inquiry and report to the hon. member.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the next question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the brief that was released by the CNTU on April 1, is the hon. minister prepared to make a statement on the creation of a Canadian merchant navy, or does he plan to do so in the fairly near future?
Capital Punishment


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already stated, in the House or outside, that we are steadily beginning to restructure our merchant navy, and also to help our shipyards.
First, we should like to accept the Darling report; we should like to reserve all Arctic navigation for Canadian ships, and we hope eventually to achieve the next stage, that of starting to make our merchant navy truly Canadian, and giving it all the privileges that merchant navies enjoy throughout the world.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On February 27 I asked the minister a question with respect to the action of Canadian National Railways in increasing its fares in Newfoundland. The minister promised to investigate the matter and, hopefully, do something about it. Can he tell the House whether he has had a chance to investigate this situation and, if so, what has been done about it?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I recall that I did investigate this matter at the time. No increase took place pending the decision of the court.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks last night, I pointed out that the practical purpose of this debate is to decide the best and most effective way to protect society from a person who has committed murder.
Some people want to follow the age old practice of hanging the murderer. As a matter of fact, I wonder why they stop at that when they could go still further back and reintroduce the procedures of drawing, quartering, disembowelling, and otherwise going to the limit in inflicting suffering and misery in the process. Others realize that the subject today is much more complicated. I believe that most people in our country today are not particularly concerned about wreaking vengeance on a murderer. What

May 15, 1973
Capital Punishment
they want is security for themselves, their families and their communities. Large numbers of Canadians today are, I believe, very fearful for the safety of themselves and their loved ones. They want to make sure that never again shall a murderer commit the crime of murder. They want measures to be taken which will ensure that murderers are not turned loose on the community. To my mind, this is the big problem with which the Justice Committee will have to grapple when the bill before us reaches it. It seems to me that the committee might very well be examining a number of aspects which can not be adequately considered by this House in the time we are able to spend on the matter.
Speaking for myself, I should like to see the complete and final abolition of capital punishment. Reasons in favour of this point of view have been advanced by many speakers. I wish to summarize those which have influenced me most. First, figures fail to prove that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. During the past five years, in Canada and elsewhere, crimes of violence have increased but the rate of murder has not increased. Second, practically every country in the industrialized world has abolished capital punishment. Third, there has been no hanging in Canada since 1962. The people have proven thereby that they have no desire to watch this cold-blooded taking of life; increasing numbers of people do not want it to be done, even though they are not called upon to watch it being done. Nobody can tell me that if the Canadian people overwhelmingly wanted to bring back hanging, the federal government would have been able to get away without executing a single individual since 1962.
The fact is that we, as a country, have outgrown hanging and capital punishment generally, as a means of dealing with murderers. Fourth, hanging will not bring a murdered person back to life. Instead of killing the murderer it seems to me it would be better to keep him securely imprisoned, put him to useful work and use his wages to help the family of the victim. In this way, he would be enabled to make a small measure of restitution to those whom he has deprived of a loved one. Fifth, in a world of large-scale violence such as ours is today, it merely escalates that violence when the state retains this survival of violence directed at an individual. Surely, the best way to inculcate respect for human life is to refrain from taking it in the name of the law.
For these reasons, I have long been in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. Speaking in this House in 1966 on a joint private member's bill before the final legislation was brought in, I made my position very clear. When the government, in 1967, brought in its legislation providing for a five-year trial period during which capital punishment would be abolished, I supported it. I shall do the same thing now.
It may be that we will require yet another trial period before we are ready to abolish the death penalty altogether. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) said yesterday, because some members are not in favour of doing away with capital punishment, there may have to be some exceptions made in order to establish the principle of abolishing capital punishment. If we cannot have a clear abolition bill passed, then I am prepared to accept abolition on the instalment plan. The main thing I want to

make sure of is that when capital punishment is finally abolished, it is abolished forever because we have proved that we have outgrown it. I was greatly heartened by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Marceau) who yesterday made his position on this matter very clear.
What I think is required now is a quiet, dispassionate study of the best way of dealing with murderers in view of the over-riding need to protect society. Certainly, the House has given every demonstration of its concern to keep not only murderers but those who commit crimes of violence away from society. This chamber has, for days and weeks, heard the words of people who have been attacking the inadequacy of the present parole system and the detention of people in our prisons. I am very glad that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has announced he is prepared to hold an inquiry so as to improve the situation. The Canadian people do want more and better protection against people who have committed crimes of violence, and particularly against murderers.
In this regard I think the British experience has been very interesting. In 1949, the British government set up a royal commission to look into capital punishment in all its aspects, a commission which reported in 1953. Before that commission began its work, its chairman, Sir Ernest Arthur Gowers, was a supporter of capital punishment. During the life of the commission he became an abolitionist. Having travelled to other countries, had witnesses before him and studied documents and papers over a period of four years, he became convinced that he should become an abolitionist rather than a retentionist. I commend such a period of study to people like the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) and others who have studied the subject for a much briefer period and are retentionists. I think that if they extended their studies and examined documents, facts and figures, travelled to other countries and heard witnesses whom they could question, perhaps in the end, like Sir Ernest Arthur Gowers, they too would decide that retention was no longer good enough in this modern world in which we are living.
Capital punishment was abolished in Britain in 1965 for a trial period of five years. It was abolished permanently in 1969 at a time of some peculiarly horrible murders. In fact, one of the long-time supporters and advocates of abolition was opposed in a general election by a close relative of one of the victims of a very horrible murder, and to the ever-lasting credit of the British people and their maturity, this man was returned to his seat in parliament. Capital punishment was abolished permanently, as I say, in 1969. This year, 1973, an attempt was made by a private member to restore the death penalty in Britain and he brought in a bill to that effect. This bill was decisively defeated. There has not been a hanging in Britain since 1964.
Many community organizations and most of the major churches in Canada are opposed to capital punishment. They call for research into crime and its deterrence. There was a very eloquent article in the Globe and Mail this morning which quoted what Mr. Pearson, when he was Prime Minister, said on this subject a few years ago. He
May 15, 1973

felt that the handling of the problem of murder ought not to be by such measures as the gallows and the gas chamber, but that we must go into places like the slums and the ghettoes of our cities, into clinics and so on, to try to prevent the crime of murder in its early stages. If there are any school teachers within the sound of my voice, they will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the crime of murder has its seeds planted very much earlier than the actual commission of such a crime. The seeds of murder are planted in injustice and misery, in the broken homes and in the wrong teachings of parents in their homes.
As for my own stand on this matter, I have said that I am an abolitionist. I have found that very wise things have been said by people from a number of areas. I mentioned the churches a moment ago. One of the most interesting, and to me most significant and altogether moving, expressions on the subject of capital punishment was given by the Canadian Catholic Conference. I should like to quote from this statement by the Reverend W. E. Power, president of the Canadian Catholic Conference. It is dated January 26, 1973. I quote this statement for its thoughtfulness and impressiveness. He says in part:
The question of the death penalty, in our opinion, ought not to focus on whether a convicted murderer, no matter how wanton "deserves" to die. The focus should be on us: should Canadians as a community try to break the escalating spiral of violence by refraining from violence even as a deterrent?
Then, leaving out a paragraph, I continue:
There is also a pragmatic, statistical question whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent. We will not enter this debate. Our question is not whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent; our question is whether it is an absolutely necessary deterrent, required by good order in Canada today. Unless you are convinced that it is, then we feel that the presumption should be for suspension. Furthermore, in our opinion, the case for retention of the death penalty has not been proven.
We would hope that, during a possible second period of suspension, research committees would study exhaustively all the ramifications of this complex problem and publish their reports within a specified period. We might note the need for study of the effects of violent crime on the families of both the criminal and the victim.
I would also add that I should like studies made in respect of the effects of violent crime on communities and those children and adults who watch the media and listen to the hotliners, because in my opinion the spreading abroad of the details of these horrible, heinous and gory crimes, which we have witnessed in this country during the last few months, has done nothing to contribute to keeping down the climate of violence which is escalating in so frightening a manner these days.
My own stand is that it is up to a Member of Parliament to give leadership and to vote in accordance with what he or she believes to be right. In this connection, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly), who stated quite definitively in an article in Saturday Night this year that he believed, regardless of what the constituents thought or a majority of them might think, it would not be the duty of an hon. member to vote for or support something he or she believed to be evil. I also have written in this vein to a number of constituents.
Capital Punishment
What good would it do a constituent to have a member who would get up on this issue and vote against what he, or in this case, she, believed? How could you ever again trust that hon. Member of Parliament to do anything honest if he or she was crooked enough to vote counter to what he or she believed merely because there was a sizeable group in the constituency that wanted this? Surely, we are not going to have members in this House who are prepared to vote for things, tongue in cheek, because they think it would be popular in their ridings. What a strange doctrine that is. Surely the members of the riding association and the constituency have chosen men and women they believe to be honest, intelligent and capable, people who will get the facts and vote accordingly. Some of these facts are more available to us than to the people in the riding. Surely, they trust us to get the facts and use our own judgment and then, in the light of that judgment stand up fearlessly and say what we believe to be right, without worrying about whether the constituent will hear what we have said and how we have voted in parliament. The greatest indignity and insult to the electorate in my opinion is for a member to duck the vote. I do not think we should do that.
In this country we have heard pleas from both sides of the House for leadership on a number of important issues, and this is an issue in respect of which I believe the people of this country are entitled to leadership from Members of Parliament. They are entitled to the best thinking of which we are capable, whether or not that thinking is different from what it was several years ago. Hon. members may well have changed their minds in the interim. I believe it is a wonderful thing to change your mind as a result of learning further facts and achieving greater maturity. I would be pleased if, in the light of further evidence or maturity, the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) could flip-flop back to where he was before. That would prove to me that he is capable of learning and changing his opinion in the light of further facts that have been adduced by community bodies which have made their weight felt following study of this matter.
From what I have learned, the death penalty is wrong and I certainly cannot vote to bring it back. I would vote for complete abolition, given the chance. If that choice is not before me and I must choose in favour of abolition with certain restrictions that may be applied following amendment during the committee stage, I am prepared within limits to vote for the abolition of the death penalty in instalments. I want to see the death penalty abolished, but I shall be happy to see the trend towards that objective continued. Having said this, I shall be very proud, as an honest woman, to go back and tell my constituents what I said and what I did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on the record the views of my constituents on this subject of capital punishment, and at the same time I should like to express certain personal thoughts on the legislation now before this House.
I find it most regrettable that the government has demonstrated what I believe to be little sincerity in its approach to this very serious and important subject. This

May 15, 1973
Capital Punishment
legislation first came before the House four months ago. At that time, the government indicated it was, in its opinion, a matter of top priority to be dealt with at once. It became obvious, shortly, that it was anything but a top priority with the government, and that almost the sole reason for its introduction in the House at the beginning of this session was that the government intended to use it to gain time. The government had no idea where it was going in relation to the major problems that were facing Canada and, instead of coming to grips with those major problems such as inflation and unemployment, for which it had no solutions, it floundered aimlessly and brought in the capital punishment bill in order to stall for time. When it suited the government's purpose the debate, which was supposedly of such great importance, was abruptly terminated for some months. Now, we are debating it again, and I suggest to the House that the story is once more exactly the same.
This government is again using this legislation as a means of gaining time. It needs time, for example, to decide what to do about the corporate tax legislation it has hesitated to introduce to this House. It wants time to sort out its inner cabinet dissension, which it hopes desperately to keep from public view. Indeed, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is to be complimented for his extraordinary ability to come into this House every day with a smile and supposed lack of concern. It is unfortunate that this serious subject of capital punishment is being used for such a purpose and in such a fashion.
It is even more unfortunate that the people of Canada have been asked by this government to believe there will be a free vote in this House on the subject. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made it abundantly clear, beyond any doubt, by some of his utterances in recent weeks that in reality the only members who will take part in a free vote in this House will be members of the opposition. In my opinion, the members on the government side of this House are, in fact, actually being subjected to pressure to do as the Prime Minister says. It would seem that really what he is saying to them is-


William Warren Allmand: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister rises on a question of privilege.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member, in the statement he just made, is reflecting on the freedom of hon. members on this side of the House, and I ask him to withdraw that statement. 1 have said on behalf of the government that this will be a free vote and that no pressure whatsoever is being applied to any member on this side.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, on that same question of privilege, I should like to ask the minister how he can equate that affirmation with the Prime Minister's stated position and complaint that other parties do not have a position on capital punishment, leaving the direct inference that his party does have a position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please The hon. member cannot ask the minister the question since the minister does not have

the floor to answer. The hon. member for Leeds has the floor, and I recognize him for the purpose of continuing his remarks.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I find the interjection of the minister somewhat interesting. If he gives me a moment or so of additional time, I am quite prepared to elaborate on what I meant when I suggested I did not believe members, other than those in the opposition, would be taking part in a free vote. I suggest that the Prime Minister is, in effect, saying to those members on the government side: You can vote exactly as you wish on the subject of capital punishment as long as you listen to me and as long as you do as I say.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I will illustrate how I arrive at the conclusion that there is not a free vote atmosphere in this House. It is not surprising, I might add, that there is not a free vote atmosphere in this House, because it is quite in keeping with the principles of Liberal participatory democracy which really mean nothing but plug-in and get orders from above.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that this is a debate about capital punishment. The hon. member has been speaking about inflation and free votes and about party politics. I think at this point or very soon he should make an attempt to attack the question or initiate consideration of the matter before us which is a specific bill.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Well, Mr. Speaker, I recall some weeks ago at a fund-raising dinner meeting in the city of Toronto the Prime Minister-if I might conclude this portion of my remarks with a quotation which I think is relative to the point I am making-was reported to have asked a question something like this: "What is the Conservative policy on capital punishment? I don't know. Can anyone tell me what it is?" I think this is a very valid point to be raised about the Prime Minister. I think the answer which should be given to this question is that he should not judge others by his conduct or that of his party. On this side of the House, it is truly a free vote. The Conservative party has not attempted to dictatorially thrust a policy down the throats of any member of our party. The fact that it is a different story on the other side of the House should not be taken as any indication concerning what it is like over here.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I see that the trained seals are acting as one would expect. More recently the Prime Minister was quoted in the news media as telling the people of Canada, in what I consider to be somewhat sarcastic and ridiculing tones, that the Conservative party is in favour of the retention of capital punishment. The obvious intention, I suggest, was to convey the impression that the entire Liberal party supports the opposite view. I believe he is trying to conjure up some sort of ridiculous picture of the ghastly ghouls on one side compared to the lily-white Liberals on the other. The Prime Minister is following the
May 15, 1973

degrading tactic of playing cheap politics with the issue of capital punishment. I see no harm in that being said in the House. He has made statements which he must know are not accurate. The distortion, the innuendo and the smear are approaches hardly worthy of his office. I hope that before this debate concludes he will do what the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has said he has already done, namely, reaffirm to this House that it is indeed a free vote in so far as the government is concerned.
The legislation, I think, fails to seriously come to grips with the question of capital punishment. If it is passed into law it will succeed only in perpetuating for another five years the state of suspended animation that has existed during the past five years. During the last five years, this government has made it quite clear that it has no intention of allowing capital punishment to be carried out in this country, regardless of what parliament happens to decide. This has been clearly illustrated by the fact that during this time all those who have been sentenced to death for murder of a police officer have had their sentence changed to life imprisonment, despite the fact that the law in force which we are now being asked to extend provides the death penalty for such crimes. So, in effect, this House is being asked to pass something that had been disregarded and will continue to be disregarded by this government. In many ways this debate, therefore, is becoming an exercise in futility. But at the same time it is a perfect illustration of how the government can show contempt for the decisions made by the House of Commons of this country.
I should like to place on record the views of my constituents on the subject of capital punishment as shown by the result of a survey taken in the riding of Leeds a while ago. I sent a questionnaire to just over 20,000 homes which is the total number of homes in my constituency. I received between 6,000 and 7,000 replies, a fact which clearly shows the great public concern about this subject. It can scarcely be argued that this is not a greater response than usually is received to surveys or questionnaires of this type. Furthermore, I do not believe the accuracy of the result can be disputed since the number of replies represents well over 30 per cent of all the households in my constituency. If the Gallup Poll can accurately assess the views of the entire country by sampling less than 1,000 persons in the whole nation, the views of the constituency of Leeds are most accurately reflected by the sampling of 6,000 to 7,000 homes. Ten per cent of those responding in Leeds favoured complete abolition of capital punishment. One and one-half per cent found themselves unable to make a definite decision.


Mr. Nelson:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Leeds is using misleading and inaccurate information. A home cannot vote. If a questionnaire goes to a house there could be six voters in that house. There are 88,000 voters in my constituency. My homes cannot vote. My voters vote.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I do not follow the point the hon. member is trying to make. I must object to his statement that I am misrepresenting the situation. I am not. I made the simple statement that I sent a questionnaire to 20,000 homes in my constituency and received between 6,000 and 7,000 replies. I certainly take exception to the hon. member
Capital Punishment
saying I am misleading the House. I can assure the House that is something I would never do.


Nels Edwin Nelson: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I did not intend to imply that the member was misleading the House intentionally. If I may address the hon. member through you, Sir, my point is that I think he said that a certain number of questionnaires were sent to so many households which indicated that they were in favour of capital punishment. A household is made up of people. Presumably a meeting is held in the household and the people in the household fill in the one questionnaire.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members see the point made by the hon. member who rose on the point of order and also the point made by the hon. member for Leeds. Perhaps we may assume the matter has been resolved and allow the hon. member to pursue the substance of his speech.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I might explain that many of the replies on the questionnaires which were returned contained information that there were four or five people living in the house, two of whom thought such and such and two of whom thought otherwise. In other words, I believe there was a very clear indication of what the people in Leeds thought. The hon. member tells us that people live in households. I never doubted that. As I said, ten per cent of those responding favoured the complete abolition of capital punishment. One and one half per cent found themselves unable to make a definite decision on the question. Eighty-eight and a half per cent favoured retention of capital punishment in full or to some degree. Of this latter group, 80.9 per cent favoured the retention of capital punishment completely and 19.1 per cent favoured retention for the murder of police officers and prison guards.
I believe that the over-all conclusion to be drawn from the results of a survey of this type is that there exists very definite public rebellion against what is viewed as a too permissive society. In some ways, stronger support for retention of capital punishment is a reflection of a strong demand for a return in this country to what perhaps we too commonly and simply call law and order. But I should like also to mention that a great number of persons answering the questionnaires said that our bail and parole regulations are too easy.
A further point that was made abundantly clear by my constituents was that many who are now asking at this time for full retention of capital punishment might well be prepared to consider supporting abolition if life imprisonment really meant what these words imply, namely, imprisonment for the rest of the offender's natural life. They do not want convicted murderers paroled to walk the streets again in a few years time after commission of the crime. I might add that this view has become more evident as a result of the events of the past few days. If there were first a complete overhaul of our penitentiary system in Canada to put an end to this government's "easy exit" policy, many of my constituents might support abolition.
There are those who have criticized the Association of Canadian Police Chiefs and other law enforcement groups because they have taken a strong stand in favour of
3766

May 15, 1973
Capital Punishment
retention of capital punishment. I do not believe such criticism is valid, nor is it deserved. These are the experts in the field of criminology, and I see no reason why those who are authorities on the subject of crime should be criticized for voicing their views, no matter what those views may be at any time. There are those who have said that by even expressing such views police officials are entering and interfering in the field of policy whereas they should remain silent. It is contended that they should simply carry out the laws in force at any given time. I believe such criticism is also completely out of order. The experts should be heard in the process of making a decision on this subject. Obviously, it is parliament that will make the decision, but parliament would be remiss if it did not carefully consider the expert opinions on both sides of this subject.
The Canadian Police Association has suggested a national referendum on the subject, and I must say I do not believe this to be necessary. It would establish clearly and beyond any doubt the feelings of the Canadian people from coast to coast, but so many surveys have been taken in so many areas of the country-and generally speaking with the same emphatic result in favour of retention by a very heavy percentage-that there is no doubt in my mind, and I cannot see how there can be any doubt in the mind of anyone sitting in this House, what the result would be. There can be no doubt what the actual result would be if the Canadian people were to register their views on capital punishment through a national referendum.
Much has been said during the debate as to whether capital punishment is or is not a deterrent to the crime of murder. I do not believe there has been any proof in either direction. I have heard figures used by persons across this country who have been attempting to justify their viewpoints, but it seems to me that one can always find figures to justify any side of any question. There is, of course, one very definite factor which makes it impossible to judge whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent in Canada at this time. While the death penalty has existed over the past five years for specific classes of murder, it has never been enforced. It has been common knowledge and very obvious to all Canadians that this government did not intend to enforce it. Measuring with any accuracy the possible effect of the death penalty as a deterrent during this period of partial abolition is, therefore, quite impossible.
This government has made a mockery of the existing law, and I think that this must be admitted by those on both sides of this question. Proper observance of the existing law would have meant that sentences should only have been commuted where there was a recommendation of mercy at the trial of the accused person or in a case where it was established later that there was an error in the conviction.
The people of my constituency of Leeds have spoken overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of capital punishment, and as their representative in this House I would be turning my back on them and turning my back on the principles of democracy if I failed to listen to the people who elected me to this House. To those who sanctimoniously use the word "conscience" to justify ignoring the wishes and views of the people of this country, I suggest

that it should be a definite matter of conscience to them if they ignore the emphatically expressed desires of those who went out to the voting booths of this country and sent them to this House. In accordance with the overwhelmingly expressed wishes of the people of Leeds, I intend to follow the principles of democracy and I will vote against the second reading of this bill.
[ Translation]


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but after hearing the remarks made today and recently concerning the appeal to hon. members' conscience and the fact that a member should not take into account the opinion of those he represents, I think it is my duty to say a few words on this bill.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, a debate on the same subject was held in 1967 and at that time the House approved in a free vote a bill which we are asked to extend for another few years.
If we refer to that debate, Mr. Speaker, we see that in 1967 the House held a free vote and abolished capital punishment, except in two cases: the murder of a policeman or a prison guard on duty.
There have been murders of policemen and prison guards in the exercise of their duties since 1967, the year in which the act came into force, and yet there have been no executions.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the executive's power to reprieve condemned men, I really wonder why we are having this debate, since the 1967 act has not in fact been implemented, and since we may suppose that the renewal of the act will not alter the executive's power to reprieve criminals who have been condemned to death.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is one important point which should be brought up in this debate, namely that we are the representatives of the people, and the laws must exist to serve the society that they govern.
I think that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) was right on this point, except, of course, when he claimed that all liberal members would support the government.
I suggest that the majority of the population has a genuine feeling of insecurity with regard to the laws on criminals and murderers, and this is the main point that the House should bear in mind. We must somehow promote and enforce laws which at least give people the feeling that they are in safety.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the population, which, in general, has just as much heart and conscience as some hon. members who lecture others and talk about conscience, feels constantly insecure. Why is this? Precisely because, for most of those condemned to death, the creation of the parole system has made it impossible for their sentences to be carried out.
And I repeat, Mr. Speaker, without any political motive, that there have been no executions since 1962, either under the Conservatives or under the Liberals.
May 15, 1973	COMMONS DEBATES	3767
Without, of course, speaking against the parole system, I think people are worried, because they know that the sentence that the judge gives has in fact no real effect, since the parole system completely changes the structure and nature of the sentence that was given. Now, I think, Mr. Speaker, this is likely to destroy the judicial power and to endanger the security to which the population is entitled from the judicial power.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that as long as the rights and powers of the National Parole Board would not have been fundamentally changed, it will be illusive to discuss any longer the question of being for or against capital punishment. In fact, I think all members have sentiments generous enough to know that this punishment is the ultimate resort and that we have in fact to determine if the death penalty is a dissuasive factor or not.
Theories and opinions may vary, but when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) called a few minutes ago on the members' conscience, saying not to be too concerned with how their constituents might feel, I think she prompted me to join the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) who said that this is a matter of free vote, for we live in a democratic country.
Personally, I am inclined to become an abolitionist, and if I am hesitant to say whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not, I am convinced that 80 per cent of my constituents want me to express their views in this House. I think it is also my duty to say that I am in favour of capital punishment without believing that the people are wrongly concerned if they want this penalty for murder, and in this way express their concern towards the inadequate parole system and rehabilitation service. As a matter of fact, the latter has proved to be inefficient and there is a need to think about it in depth before going in for eloquent speeches or heart rending protests to say: I am in favour or against capital punishment.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the debate to decide if I am for or against the death penalty for a criminal is an utterly outmoded process and a totally inopportune one since a similar debate took place in 1967 without results. The proof is that in spite of restrictions, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, no death penalty has been imposed one way or the other.
I do not say it is bad. I do not say that the then Prime Minister and the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice, who must sign the execution evidence, should or should not have done so. What I am saying it is that we should not thus dissect legislative and coercive measures, but rather introduce a set of laws which will reestablish in the public opinion the prestige of the judicial power and put again into the hands of those who have the responsibility to decide, with the members of the jury, what sentences will be imposed and to insure that these sentences are executed in nearly all cases.
This is the way we will restore confidence in the public opinion. I am persuaded that the population as a whole will then feel as strongly for abolition as does the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
I already discussed this question with several groups in my riding and I expressed the views of several hon. members in favour of the abolition of capital punishment,
Capital Punishment
telling them that I was not convinced at all that it was a deterrent against murder.
I also pointed out that the life of an individual or the execution of a criminal does not bring back the murdered victim. Obviously, it is, in a way, a panacea or a very clear element. But the moment those groups are assured that the sentences given will be fully carried out and that the Parole Board will not alter the decision of the judicial power, then, Mr. Speaker, people are relieved. We immediately witness a wish to become abolitionists, as are some members who expressed their views.
Mr. Speaker, since our duty is to protect the citizen and that about 80 per cent of the voters I represent are in favour of retaining capital punishment, not because they are enthusiastic about executing a criminal but because they want to show their insecurity in view of the inadequate laws that exist in the parole system, and since I am living in a democratic state, I shall vote against this bill which to my mind, has not been applied, since it was implemented.
Therefore, I would urge the Solicitor General to table a legislation on an overall reorganization of the Parole Board to give back to the judicial power the authority it is losing over the population following the erosion and the continuous cuts which are made in the sentences given by the courts.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to associate myself with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) who has just spoken. I also enjoyed some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) when he spoke yesterday, and the excellent speech made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). As a comparatively new member of this House, I have listened with great interest to some of the history of this topic we are debating today. The hon. member for Montmorency also alluded to it. I know that in 1966 there was an interparty resolution which called for the abolition of the death penalty and the substitution of the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. That was rejected by the House in a free vote by 143 to 112. Then, as the hon. member for Montmorency said, there was the 1967 development which resulted in the present five year trial period which has just come to an end.
Since 1968, I believe there have been four convictions for the murder of police officers and the government commuted the sentences in all cases. The Governor in Council, of course, has the power of granting mercy or clemency and this is as it should be, but it can also be argued, I suggest, that the present practice of invariably commuting every death penalty to life imprisonment is undermining both the legal process and the power of parliament. It can also be argued with some effect that this practice has removed any deterrent effect that the death penalty may have, in theory.
In speaking on this bill I think one cannot avoid the philosophical, religious and legal questions. This bill makes no final determination of the fundamental issue of capital punishment and, in its present form, it discrimi-
26314-21J

May 15, 1973
Capital Punishment
nates. It discriminates between the victims and imposes a greater penalty for the murder of a police officer than for an ordinary citizen. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons I intend to vote against the bill. In her remarks before ten o'clock last evening, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) coined a phrase when she said that this bill should be debated in "quiet reasonableness". I think this was a particularly apt observation on her part, and I think that in bringing forward this legislation the government has shown a singular lack of appreciation of priorities and a singular lack of timing.
I have some sympathy with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). From my knowledge of him, I realize that he is a forthright and frank minister. I would say that this is quite a contrast to his predecessor for whose policies he is now responsible. When one hears of the almost ridiculous things that are happening in the administration of our penal system and realizes that under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility he has to bear the brunt of much of the criticism, one can feel a certain sympathy. I noticed with some amusement that in answer to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) earlier today, when the minister referred to what is commonly known as "the hole" in Dorchester, he called it the "disassociation area". As far as convicts are concerned, I guess the whole prison system would be called a "disassociation area". Convicts can hardly wait to disassociate themselves from it, and are doing so quite regularly. Hopefully, things will improve in this area.
The thing that concerns me about this legislation is that the chaotic state of the administration of justice is infringing to a large extent on the primacy of the judiciary. Those of us who practise law and who have had an opportunity to participate in criminal trials and murder trials, realize that under the present system the accused has a great deal of protection. There are the rules against self-incrimination, the protection of the preliminary inquiry, the grand jury which makes sure that the case is judicially sound and should be sent to the petit jury, the knowledgeable judge, the jurors, who are selected from a man's peers, who sit in judgment on him. It is still the tradition in our courts to say to the jurors "Look upon the prisoner and harken to his cry; he puts himself upon his country, whose country you are" and I believe that this gives the accused the greatest guarantee of a fair trial. This system should be cherished.
What disturbs me, as one who has practised law, is that a judge who, after careful consideration as to what is appropriate under the circumstances, gives a sentence which he feels is appropriate, often finds that this sentence means nothing because the effect of it is changed by some functionary or a parole board. This is an unfortunate atmosphere as far as the primacy of the judiciary is concerned. In light of the chaos that is presently abroad in the administration of our prisons, I think it is a shame that this issue of capital punishment comes up for debate in parliament. The "quiet reasonableness" that is so desirable cannot be created in this House under the present circumstances. I think the people of Canada are fed up with the undermining of judicial authority and the bizarre events that take place when dangerous prisoners escape, almost casually, from maximum security institutions because the guards are out having lunch. I would not be surprised, Mr. 
Speaker, if it came out in evidence that box lunches were requested and given to these prisoners at eleven o'clock so that they could escape without having to miss their lunch, but perhaps that is unkind.
On the issue of whether a Member of Parliament should vote according to conscience or reflect the will of his constituents, I am fortunate because I find no conflict there. I feel, as do the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) and the hon. member for Montmorency, that when it comes down to it a Member of Parliament would be remiss if he sought to impose his own will in an issue that he knows enjoys the almost overwhelming support of his constituents, to the detriment of the clear conscience of the majority of the people he represents.
I think parole and penitentiary boards are relative to the matter under discussion. I am under the clear impression, perhaps erroneously, that there is not only this conflict between the legitimate sentences passed down by Supreme Court judges and the carrying out of those sentences, but there is even conflict and a grabbing for jurisdictional influence between the parole services and the penitentiary boards. I believe that when weekend leaves are granted it is often on the initiative of penitentiary boards without the compliance or knowledge of the National Parole Board. I may be wrong and no doubt the Solicitor General will deal with this topic. If I am correct, however, this situation is not conducive to a proper atmosphere for debating the subject. I cannot see how, within the context of the present social fabric of Canada, this is the time to consider the abolition of the death penalty. I say that this is a poor time in terms of priorities because there are many social needs in this country, people who are suffering from malnutrition, who do not have work or who have been hurt by inflation. These are legitimate concerns on which the government should do something constructive yet here we are, debating an issue that has been debated before, being asked to give a continuing trial period to that which has been tried before and has been frustrated.
The hon. member for Scarborough East last night referred to the professional criminal, the Mafiosa, the hit man or the soldier. I suggest that, like other professionals, these people have their own rules, their own argot. They know the odds, Mr. Speaker, and that they are engaged in an illegal and highly dangerous occupation. If they can be assured that no matter how heinous the crime they commit, whether it is a cold-blooded mercenary killing, a political assassination or an extreme case of putting cyanide in a water reservoir, something that is absolutely despicable and unspeakable, there is not the slightest chance of being executed, that will improve their odds. That is the kind of game these men understand.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) pointed out, there is also the need to consider the argument whether there are some crimes which perhaps do require the ultimate in penalties. As a Member of Parliament, a lawyer and someone who is basically a very reluctant retentionist at this time, I find it very difficult to say unequivocally that under no circumstances should anyone in this country be executed for any crime. My logic may be erroneous, but I feel strongly that if the government would put its house in
May 15, 1973

order and the penitentiary services, the parole board and the various factors that make up the successful administration of justice in Canada were put in order and the primacy of the judiciary were once more established, the social climate would be better. That would be a far more appropriate time to consider the very important philosophical question of whether we should once and for all abolish the death penalty. This bill does not do that. All this bill does is perpetuate the status quo or status non quo. For that reason, I have no hesitation in announcing my intention to vote against this bill. By doing so, I think I will be doing the people of Canada a service.
[Transla tion]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about capital punishment. It is a most controversial subject and not particularly inviting since it deals with the elimination of some of our fellow humans. However, in all justice, anyone of us is entitled to life. When someone has deliberately attacked the life of someone else, we do not have to protect his life more than he has protected that of his victim.
We are probably directly responsible for the fact that those human beings have become some kind of wild beasts as many did after living too long unbearable lives because of our egoistic attitude. To oblige us to take care of them they have had to protest and use the only means available to them. However, abolishing capital punishment amounts to protecting convicts and forsaking the innocent. It is one way of saying to the potential murderers: You can go ahead, the law forbids anyone to harm you. Even more it provides for the maintenance of your life at your victims' expenses.
The life of any individual is worth that of a police officer or of a jail warden. This is why there should not be two weights and two measures. If the death penalty is applied it should be considered that life has no age and is valuable to anyone of any social class. A murder is a murder and should be punished.
Anyone must protect his own life but should also respect that of others. So homicide or murder is prohibited by moral law as well as by civil law which should reflect natural law. It is around the word "homicide" that a solution should be found. Indeed natural law does not prohibit all kinds of homicides. It only forbids unfair homicide, namely the fact of taking a life with impunity. But we cannot agree that the death penalty amounts to unjustified homicide.
It is said sometimes that the death penalty may be inflicted upon an innocent and that there is no means of correcting such an error. It is true that the death penalty may be applied by accident in the case of an innocent person. But it is not because accidents may happen that we should prevent the building of automobiles or aircraft. It is not because there are miscarriages of justice, very scarce I should say, that we should depart from the general principle.
On the other hand, to the supporters of the absolute right to live, we should answer that murderers have no respect for that right when it applies to others. If such a right were absolute, a soldier killing an enemy would be a criminal. The right to live is not an absolute right. We can
Capital Punishment
deprive of it those who have no respect for it. The murderer who takes the life of another person cannot base his claim on the supporters of the absolute right to live in order to escape the punishment his crime deserves.
If this country were at war, nobody would take offence at the fact that death would be the fate of the enemy and, in my opinion, we are at war against criminals.
Those whose conscience speak against capital punishment could at least request with us that life imprisonment in murder cases be really imprisonment for life.
At the present time, criminals know very well-and they joke about it-that the death penalty is for their victims and that they will be automatically and eventually released and able to start all over their life of debauchery.
Therefore, I strongly request the reinstatement of hanging for wilful murder and I emphasize that he or she who puts a loaded revolver in his pocket or in her handbag premeditates something. Therefore I will vote for the reinstatement of capital punishment.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill C-2, a bill to amend the Criminal Code. It deals only with amendments concerning what is presently called capital murder in the code. In my view, the amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with the taking of life should be dealt with in full.
There are perhaps three classifications of the crime of taking a human life or, if you want to use that expression, murder. In those three categories of murder, perhaps the dealth penalty is appropriate for one type. To specify that classification of murder, it should be attributable to those who commit the heinous crime of premeditated murder. I refer to not only the murder of police officers and prison guards, but the heinous murder of children of prison guards, murders committed in the course of airline hijacking, murders committed by people who are paid to kill, the hired gun, murders committed in the course of a bank robbery, when there is no question that the life of whoever gets in the way is forfeited, and murders conducted in the course of a kidnapping where the kidnapper has no intention of doing anything but destroying the life he took as a ransom.
The categories of murder for which the death penalty is required are far more broad than those set out in this bill. This bill does not go far enough. It should go further. It should clearly set out that those murders involving people who are killed in the heat of temper, defending their property, in a family dispute or brawl, in a barroom, on a pier, matters of instant flare-up, are certainly not in the same category as heinous premeditated murders. These are offences which should attract long terms of imprisonment, bearing in mind that there is a possibility of reform.
There is already under the Criminal Code a third classification, infanticide, covering cases where the life of a newborn child is taken. Perhaps this classification should include the crime of illegal abortion; it should perhaps include the crime of euthanasia where for some honestly given reason life support is removed-killing is regarded

May 15, 1973
Capital Punishment
as the best way out. That class of murder should perhaps be punishable by a five-year prison term.
I think it is imperative that the government review its thinking about the bill before us as it relates to crimes involving the taking of life. The proposals now before the House are unsatisfactory. We have already spent ten days debating the subject, and I understand that member after member still wishes to speak. This clearly indicates that the House is extremely dissatisfied with the legislation brought before it. I suggest to the minister that the Bill ought to be withdrawn and something better produced.
During the last election campaign, I told the people in my constituency that I would be in favour of capital punishment for those who murdered police officers or prison guards, those who murdered in the course of airline hijacking and those who murdered when it was proven they were paid killers. Since that time I have altered my views. I have done so partly as a result of representations made to me by people in my constituency, partly as a result of perusal of answers to questionnaires, and as a result of hearing speeches made in this House and exchanging ideas with members of the National Parole Board and others involved in law enforcement. Some of the considerations which have led me to change my mind are as follows.
The first which occurs to me concerns the question of capital punishment being a deterrent to murder. The idea of deterrence runs through our entire criminal law. Provision is made in the criminal law for various degrees of punishment depending on what is considered to be the gravity of the crime committed. There is undoubtedly a supposition throughout the criminal law that punishment will deter a person from acting in a certain way. The offence of keeping a common gaming house, not too serious a crime, attracts a two-year penalty. Indecent assault brings a five-year term. We have often heard friends who go to cocktail parties refuse another drink with the explanation that they have to drive home and do not wish to be charged with impaired driving. Clearly, penalties do deter. I suggest to hon. members that the prospect of a penalty is similarly a deterrent in the circumstances we are now discussing.
Our whole concept of the organization of life revolves around the idea of nemesis, the feeling that if a man undertakes certain acts he is inviting retribution. The preponderant feeling of those who commit premeditated murder is that they are inviting the death penalty as the only adequate response society can make to that kind of crime.
A great deal has been said in criticism of the parole system and the penal system. As a lawyer, I had to deal with a great many people incarcerated in jails or allowed out on parole. While at times the National Parole Board has made serious mistakes by allowing certain people to get out too easily, by and large it is motivated in the right way; it is working for the reform of prisoners and it is doing a good job. What I find abhorrent in this debate is the attitude of those who say that anyone who commits murder should be thrown in to the hole and kept there for a minimum of 25 years with no hope for the future. This seems to be the course which people opposed to capital punishment are recommending. It is not possible to reform

everyone. On the other hand, our aim should be to reform those who are capable of being reformed. As for persons who commit heinous, premeditated, animal-like murders, there is not much chance of reforming them, and when we retain them within our penal system, the whole system has to be organized accordingly, with regrettable consequences. Maximum security precautions must be in force at all times to contain them, because we dare not let them out; they are animals. This means there are less funds and fewer resources available from our limited social capital to reform those who are capable of reform. Thus, what we have left is the worst of both worlds.
The recent reform of bail procedures has also attracted criticism from some quarters. I commend the present bail reform legislation though, it is true there have been some shortcomings in its implementation. I remember practising law in the days when a man charged with careless or impaired driving was picked up and put in the Don Jail and kept there until he could find $200 bail on a Monday morning.
The bail reform legislation has done a great deal to help people by allowing them to be free on their own recognizance rather than treating the public on the basis that only those who can raise the cash can get out on bail. Some limitation of the act is required, since it appears there have been certain abuses. But it really bothers me when I hear opponents of capital punishment argue that people should not be let out on bail in any circumstances. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that they are adopting a regressive attitude.
If we are to improve our penal system, we must recognize that there are some poeple who can only be handled by giving society the maximum of protection. Many people who abhor capital punishment use the great hoax of the rope and the trap door; you can almost hear the trap door swinging open and the horror of public execution by hanging. I, too, am abhorred by hanging, but I suggest that any argument based on the rope and the trap door is a poor argument against capital punishment. It is not a reasoned argument. There are many other ways today that are much more humane for removing people from society.
In my view, the law of this country must respect the wishes of the vast majority of the people. Every poll that I have taken, every poll taken by newspapers in my riding and across Canada, every poll taken by high school students on a statistical basis throughout my riding, indicates that for heinous, premeditated murder of the kind I have described the overwhelming percentage of the people of this country demand the death penalty. Justice must appear to be done. The law must reflect the mores of society. Any suggestion that this parliament can enact laws that do not reflect the mores of this society, the clear, overwhelming feeling in society, is wrong. A member of parliament who votes for a law that he clearly knows does not demand the respect of the society that he represents is acting wrongly and that member does not deserve to be here.
It has been suggested that in a criminal trial there is a possibility that an innocent person will be charged with murder and executed for that murder, that that possibility
May 15, 1973________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________3771
always exists. But we have a great number of checks and balances in our judicial system. In almost every province of this country today there is free legal aid. We have a competent and capable bar and we have competent and capable judges. We have a very well organized jury system, and there is a system of appeal. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in my experience a miscarriage of justice that would result in the death of an innocent person is not a possibility.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) quoted the Bible last night. I suggest to him that the instruction "Thou shalt not kill", one of our ten commandments, does not mean that we shall not kill in the absolute; it means we shall not kill without just cause. To kill in protecting your nation in time of war is justifiable. To kill in protecting your family is justifiable. But I suggest that those who, in a premeditated and heinous fashion, murder members of society are not justified. I suggest that the commandment to love one's neighbour certainly does not mean that when one's neighbour is murdered, your neighbour's killer, who may well kill again, should go free.
There have been many improvements in medical science over past years and in the science of altering a person's personality, a science that is developing bit by bit. I hope in years to come that society will be able to change the attitude of people toward life. But we have not yet demonstrated anywhere in our penal system, in our psychiatric studies, in medical or sociological work that we can change the personality of hardened, dangerous criminals. Until we can demonstrate some degree of success in changing the personality of those who are the kind who commit the heinous type of premeditated murder of which I have spoken this afternoon, we owe society the ultimate protection of capital punishment.
I am a member of the United Church of Canada, and my church clearly calls for the abolition of capital punishment. I have suggested to my church, and I suggest to this House, that at this stage of our social development the abolition of capital punishment is not possible. When our society develops, perhaps when it becomes more loving, more capable of organization and able to alter people's personalities, able to effect some cure of those who are engaged in forms of anti-social behaviour, then perhaps the abolition of capital punishment will be possible. But at the present time this is not the case.
Our prison system is brutalizing. The investigations that followed the Kingston riots clearly demonstrated that some of the persons incarcerated in the institution bore only a likeness to human beings and were really animals. The death penalty as a punishment is a lever of protection and discipline, a lever which at this stage in the growth of our society cannot be dispensed with. Members of this House should examine closely what police associations across the land have said. Police officials deal more with the criminal element of society on a daily basis than anyone else. Right across Canada these associations have said-indeed, the wives of police officers have collected petitions to this effect-that we cannot abolish the death penalty.
We still retain the provision that the Governor General in Council has the right to direct that a person convicted
Capital Punishment
of murder can have his sentence commuted, and that is as it should be. Executive clemency must be maintained.
This is a bad bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill lists police officers, ancillary sheriff's officers and prison guards as exceptions, and thus discriminates against other categories of persons who might be murdered. My daughter will not be protected. A member of the House of Commons will not be protected. You can kill the Prime Minister but under this bill his killer will not hang. It is a bad bill and I will vote against it.
I think it is imperative for the government to rethink this bill and produce another one. It must analyse the crime of taking a person's life and set new standards. The government must present to the House a bill that the vast majority of members are happy with. The very length of this debate clearly indicates a division in the country, and clearly indicates that this House is not satisfied with this bill.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the last time I rose to speak in the debate on capital punishment was some five years ago. Just before I came into the House at that time I was handed a very urgent and important letter from a constituent, a school teacher of my sons. She urged me to support hanging as the only way of protecting children. She was very sincere and very concerned about what she thought was happening. This was probably as cutting a letter as a person could receive, especially when he knew he was going to vote for abolition. I have a very high regard for that teacher, as I have for other people who do not necessarily agree with me on this question of abolition. I intend to continue to be an abolitionist and to support this bill with its deficiencies. I think there are some deficiencies in this bill and my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has pointed them out. In principle, we will support the bill in the absence of a measure proposing total abolition.
As much as anyone else, I am aware of what polls indicate are the attitudes of the people of Canada. I have conducted polls in my own riding and have read the results of national polls. After reading them, one would think this was a hanging country, that the public very much wanted to bring back hanging and is determined to do so. If that is the impression left by the results of polls I suggest it is somewhat erroneous. I am sure if you asked the fast and facile question, do you want hanging, do you want to bring back capital punishment, that is the kind of answer you would get when you live in a society where, for one reason or another, the fears of people have been increased by prison escapes and their security is a matter of importance. I sympathize with and understand that attitude.
Like other Members of Parliament, I should like very much to feel I was in harmony with my constituents and could go along with what they appear to want. However, I do have a responsibility, and I am sure my constituents will recognize that I have a responsibility to act and vote in the best way possible on the basis of the information before me. I have a conscience as has every other member of this House of Commons. Sometimes a debate gets off on the wrong track when we assume that because everyone

May 15, 1973
Capital Punishment
on this side has a conscience everyone on the other side has not. Let us assume that we all have a conscience and act according to that conscience. I know many of the members of this House personally, and have no hesitation in saying that they act on the basis of their own conscience, whether or not they agree with my decision. I do believe that hon. members are making a mistake when the results of polls have much bearing on their decision. I say that for two reasons.
It is important not to take these results as being representative of public opinion. It is far more important, in my view, to sit down with these people and ask them what they really mean and what really bothers them about the situation. When you do that you get a much different impression from the one you get on the basis of what the polls indicate. I suggest you will find that the people of Canada are not in favour of hanging. After explaining the complexities of the situation to members of the public you often find they have a different view, usually one that is softer and more understanding.
I find that many individuals are confusing problems in respect of parole and prison escapes with the concept of capital punishment. When you talk with them you find they are not worried about capital punishment, but are worried about permissive courts, paroles and other things of that type. When you point out that the one has not much to do with the other, they want to be assured that these dangerous people will be kept in jail, will not be allowed to escape and will not be paroled. I am not suggesting we get tough in respect of parole but that we should be wiser. We must learn from our mistakes. Most people will agree that a good parole system is a necessary part of society, but we must separate clearly the one problem from the other. When you give people an assurance that these dangerous people will be removed from society, and no longer will be a menace, their feelings in respect of capital punishment undergo a degree of change.
Before I became a Member of Parliament I had an instant opinion, as I am sure other hon. members had, about various things. If you asked me a question I would give you a quick answer. It is rather easy to have an instant opinion when your hand is not on the lever that opens the trap door. Our hands are on that lever in that we are making this decision. I have the opinion that if my constituents were in my place, in possession of the evidence and information I have, and given the opportunity to listen to the debate taking place in the House, and had the same responsibility of exercising the small degree of power to send a man to his death, they would feel somewhat different from what the polls indicate.
My reservations about capital punishment, and perhaps in this sense I am different from some of my colleagues, are not the result of any squeamishness or reluctance to kill when necessary. In common with other hon. members of the House, I served five years during the war, and I suggest that if you had any squeamishness you lost it after that period of time. If the evidence before us demonstrated that capital punishment protected society and saved lives,
I would not hesitate to support it. No such evidence exists, and to kill for unnecessary reasons is wrong. Perhaps killing is never necessary, but certainly if there is no

evidence to support the belief it is, one should not take another person's life.
What is it that we must consider during this debate? We must consider whether hanging is a deterrent. At the very best, I suggest the evidence leads to a standoff. The statistics available do not support the fact that hanging is a deterrent. If anything, the statistics indicate that during the years when capital punishment was abolished the incidence of serious crime declined. Should we take a life for the sake of vengeance? There was a time in society when those in authority did take life for vengeance. Many of us have forgotten the real meaning of the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth concept. I had to draw on my experience as a young man studying under my rabbi to realize that you were not being asked to be more harsh or to require more in the way of retribution, but rather require a minimum. In those days if someone insulted you, you look his life. If someone punched you too hard you killed a member of his family. The meaning of the concept of an eye for an eye is that you do not take greater vengeance than is absolutely necessary.
In a society like that the fear was that if the authorities did not take vengeance on behalf of the population, the population would take it itself. We are talking about lynching, stoning and other acts of instantaneous violence. Therefore, violence by government was necessary to preserve the cohesion of that society. Is that the kind of society we are living in today? Are we afraid that if two or three lives are not taken over a period of years there will be riots in our streets, and that people will take things into their own hands, that blood victims will take blood and that children will kill child murderers. I think we have progressed over these thousands of years to the point where vengeance does not have to be taken in that particular way. It may be that some day-and I hope it never comes-our society will become so concerned that there is this danger of public violence that those who are abolitionists will have to reconsider their position. However, I see no evidence of that now and I do not think the time will come.
I was remarking to my colleagues, in recalling the debate which took place some five years ago, that one thing which strikes me about this particular debate is that it is being conducted in an infinitely calmer way than the debate of a few years ago. While the polls show that this is a hanging society, this is not being reflected in this House. The debates here are marked by a more logical and more reasoned approach from both sides of the House. There is less anger and more concentration on argument in support of positions.
Perhaps one would argue that justice demands capital punishment. I wish to speak for a few moments about justice and what it is. First of all, we can never be sure, so long as we have capital punishment, that the state does not make or has not made an error. As the speaker before me said, I think the possibility is small, but the possibility does exist and justice on the part of the state demands that that possibility not exist. As people, we cannot condone the law that may take a man's life unfairly or a life which should not be taken. That is always a possibility
May 15, 1973

which hangs over any society which maintains capital punishment.
One might point to laws we have in respect of which elements of injustice exist and may be exposed from time to time. The difference is that most of those injustices can be corrected. There is now way to correct the injustice of a life which has been taken by an act which should not have been carried out. We have examples in our society-and one might wonder how a society makes judgments about things-of intelligent men or women who become drunk, get into a car and kill an entire family. They are remorseful, but nevertheless they kill an entire family. In no way does our law say that these are persons who should hang. It was not premeditated or planned; it was an accident. At the worst, it will involve a charge of manslaughter. Yet we have the example of someone who is stupid, who has been torn apart by some internal demon over which he has no control, who in a moment's passion or in a moment of stupidity kills. He hangs. We make this kind of distinction.
Perhaps we forgive drunkenness but not a man's stupidity. In some way, the person who has intelligence and drinks is more guilty than the stupid, foolish man who has so little control over his emotions. These are the types of things one faces when one decides what is justice. We talked about bank robbers. I heard one member say that a bank robber who kills during a premeditated bank robbery should pay the penalty. Let us take the case of two men who go into a bank armed. One man worked up the scheme and is really responsible. He persuades someone of lesser intelligence than himself to accompany him. So often the criminals in this country are not the brightest people in the world, at least those who land in jail. In the course of the robbery both guns are fired, but the shots from only one gun kill someone. Both persons should hang. One man hangs; the other does not. How does one talk about justice in this kind of a situation?
Mr. Speaker, I have other things I wish to say. May I call it five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Harbours-Atlantic area-Request for improved facilities for fishermen; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)-Agriculture-Small farm development program-inquiry as to agreement with Saskatchewan; the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick)-Administration of justice-persons indicted for capital murder other than murder of police officers or prison guards-completion of legal process.
Urban Transportation
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe) moved: that Bill C-26, to establish the national urban transportation authority be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support adoption of the bill which I have the privilege to introduce today, I would point out first that the terms of the bill are set out quite fully in the draft which is available to all members of this House. The purpose of the bill is to promote and improve rail, air and water passenger traffic in urban centres in Canada. To that end, we are proposing that a national urban transportation authority be established for the entire nation which in turn would have the power to establish local urban or regional transportation authorities in our urban centres.
I would draw the attention of the House to a motion, tied in with this bill, which I proposed on January 12 and which is on the order paper as No. 67. That motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the establishment of a National Urban Transportation Authority empowered with authority over all rail, air and water passenger traffic within designated urban centres including the authority to set rates, negotiate agreements with provincial and municipal authorities and to expropriate land for the purposes of carrying its duties and objects into effect.
In rising to deal with this subject, I believe it is important to first look at who administers our transportation needs in the domain of air, rail or water in our urban centres at present. As hon. members know, this matter is generally handled by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand). I have had the privilege of attending certain of the Transport Committee meetings-the chairman tables his first report today-and I must admit that in dealing with, say, the matter of a second airport in Toronto I was very startled to hear the Minister of Transport state:
I really do not mind that the government of Canada lose $100 million-I do not mind-but what I would mind would be, if it were needed in 1980 and were not there, because we relied on something that did not happen. This is quite a responsible thing but I think it preferable to take the risk of losing the $100 million than not to have it if needed.
Here is a Minister of Transport seriously suggesting to that committee that he is willing to shoot crap with $100 million of public funds rather than seriously delay the opening of the Toronto international airport No. 2. At an earlier stage at that same hearing, the minister was asked to comment on the revolving fund that the department has
3774

May 15, 1973
Urban Transportation
for dealing generally with airport development and expansion. That fund runs up into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and an hon. member made the comment:
It is a very handy kind of fund, is it not?
Whereupon the Minister of Transport stated:
Oh, yes, especially at election time.
I feel that perhaps jokingly the minister conveyed a great deal in those two comments that I have quoted. While I introduced this bill for consideration some time ago, I believe that it is more imperative today than ever that we stop the centralized control of urban transportation with respect to railways, air traffic, and also the handling of our water passenger service as that related to our urban harbours.
Let me first lay down a few facts on this subject. Here we have the Minister of Transport stating that there is a serious possibility that an airport in the Toronto area, a new airport, will be needed by 1980. In a form tabled on April 26, 1972, the department put in a schedule listing what they proposed to do and the number of passengers in the various airports of our main North American cities. I believe that hon. members should note that if one follows that schedule and checks out what they project for the year 1980, one finds that Toronto is No. 9 in the expectation of passengers and Montreal is No. 10. The projection is that, for example, the number of passengers passing through Toronto in 1980 will be 15.5 million and through Montreal in the same year there will be 12 million. This compares with the fact that New York in the same year is projected to have 89.1 million passengers, the No. 1 city on the continent; Chicago, the No. 2 city, is projected to have 68 million passengers, and Los Angeles, the No. 3 city, is projected to have 48.9 million passengers.
I believe that in considering the bill I am proposing we should take a serious look at the irresponsible approach of the present Minister of Transport. The fact is that, in spite of the fact that Toronto and Montreal are rated in their own schedule as being ninth and tenth so far as traffic projections are concerned for the year 1980, those two cities are the only cities in North America that are contemplating or developing an airport of the magnitude of Pickering or Mirabel. Surely, it is time that we asked ourselves: why does New York decide after due deliberation that they do not need an additional airport? Why does Chicago decide that they do not need an additional airport, and why does Los Angeles decide in the same way?
To bring this into perspective, I believe it is time that the government started to be more candid with the people of Canada. For example, the John F. Kennedy international airport with 4,900 acres of land, approximately 100 acres smaller than the present Malton airport in Toronto, is handling approximately double the traffic that is projected for the entire Toronto area in 1980 today. To give you another example, this morning I spoke to the commissioner for aviation for the city of Chicago and I asked him what their plans were for future airport development in that city. The commissioner laughed and said: "We have no plans". I said: "Is it not true that in Dallas and Fort Worth they are planning an airport of some 17,000 acres?" He said: "The Texans like to do things big. They've got the money, more power to them, but in our case we cannot, from the capital standpoint, afford such luxury. And

besides that, we do not need it". I asked the commissioner what in 1972 and 1973 would be the likely passenger traffic at O'Hare airport, for example. He informed me that for 1972 it was 34 million passengers and for 1973 it will be 37 million passengers.
I checked with the Canadian authorities regarding the actual amount of traffic through Toronto and Montreal, and I found that the comparable figures were seven million passengers for Toronto and between four million and five million passengers for Montreal. Here we have a situation where the commissioner of the biggest airport on the continent, or as they claim in the world feels, that there is no need for new facilities until 1990 or the year 2,000 and there may not ever be the need for such new facilities. I would suggest that one of the reasons we have got ourselves into this position of contemplating a half billion dollar airport in the Toronto area and a half billion dollar airport at Mirabel in Quebec is that we have a civil service that is out of control. The civil servants have decided, not the people of Toronto and not the people of Montreal, that both of those centres need an airport, that they will have an airport, and that their brainchild will be constructed.
I suggest that if we had local authorities dealing with this matter we would not get such irresponsible actions. I suggest also that one of the political reasons an airport of the magnitude of Pickering is being contemplated is that it was first decided that there should be an airport of this size in Mirabel, and then-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Is the hon. member for York North rising on a point of order?


Mr. Danson:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was given to understand that we were discussing Bill C-26, an act to establish a national urban transportation authority, and I was very much looking forward to speaking on that bill. Has there been a mistake? The hon. member is not referring to that bill at all? He is talking about an airport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I must say that the point of order is well taken. Of course, in private members' hour we are not as firm as at other times, but if we really check Bill C-26 there is no doubt that part of the hon. member's explanation has taken us some distance away from the basics of the bill. Perhaps he would return to the bill in order to keep in order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if I have conveyed that impression, because the point I am making is that we do not have local regional authorities dealing with the questions that I have been discussing. I believe that the question of an airport in Toronto would be decided differently if we had a regional authority dealing with air traffic, with rail transportation of an urban nature, with the harbours in Toronto, and likewise if we had a regional authority dealing with those subjects in Montreal. I have chosen to refer to the situation in the United States because the fact is that all such developments in the United States are handled at the city or local authority level. This situation is peculiar to Canada, and is not typical of the development of similar facilities in England
May 15, 1973

and in France. I could cite many other countries that have a central authority determining what type of facilities are needed or should be put into a local area.
My bill is designed to give the authority to an overriding national authority which, in turn, can delegate its authority to these regional levels, similar to what they have in New York where there is the Port of New York Authority, similar to what they have in southern California where there is the Southern California Association of Counties, and similar to the Chicago situation where there is actually a department of the city of Chicago running the local airports. But I would stress, for the attention of the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson), that the federal government of the United States has consistently refused to give federal assistance to the type of airport development which his minister is contemplating at Toronto International No. 2. The developments through these authorities are handled with local financing.
For example, a comparable development to the one being proposed at Pickering is in Dallas-Fort Worth, to which I have already referred. The money for that project is being raised through a revenue bond issue of some $400 million. That bond issue is guaranteed 100 per cent, jointly and severally, by the air carriers that will use that airport. The total cost anticipated for the development will be $700 million. I emphasize that that is a smaller development than the proposed one at Pickering, but the initial cost will be $700 million, and eventually $1 billion. However, I would emphasize that the local authorities throughout the United States, in all of the areas I have referred to, have no airports of the nature of Pickering and Mirabel in the planning or development stage at the present time, in spite of the fact that their projected needs could well be three, four, and in some cases five times the projected needs for any future airport facilities in Montreal or Toronto.
I would also mention that this national authority, if established, would give the people in the local regions what they want. For example, in my own area of Toronto for many years we have attempted to have better transportation facilities, of a commuter transit nature, than presently exist. We have been constantly told by the federal authorities that they have no funds, and they have in fact brought very little effective action to bear on this subject until now. Up until a few months ago, they relied on the fact that they were waiting on a Toronto commuter rail study which they had commissioned, jointly with other bodies, to be undertaken by Dr. Soberman. Mr. Speaker, now they have had that study in their hands since November of last year. That study indicates that a fully developed commuter service, on lines which Dr. Soberman considers desirable, would cost between $80 million and $130 million, and would carry 11,789,500 people a year. I am simply pointing out that, according to the federal government, there is no money available for the development of a service that would help the man going to work on a daily basis, that would help the relatively poor person in our area, but on the other hand it can find money for the development of airports, which are essentially for the rich, to the tune of half a billion dollars or $1 billion per airport. Under a national urban transportation authority, I would hope that there would be a better reflection through the regional authorities of the true needs in each of the regions.
Urban Transportation
Dealing with need, Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, from time to time, takes a trip through our area. When asked about the airport, he indicated that if the majority of the people were opposed to it, then of course he would not go ahead with the airport. Public opinion polls have reflected that the majority are opposed to it, but I would suggest that because of the centralized federal approach to this project there is no way that the public opinion in my area will be felt in a decisive decision-making way. However, if there were a local authority, and if that local authority first had the responsibility of financing the project and, secondly, for making sure that the project was a worthwhile development for the area, I am confident you would not have the rather autocratic approach that has been taken to date by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and by the present government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) I would like to note with respect to Bill C-26, which the hon. member for York-Simcoe has presented to the House, and to the point of order that was raised by the hon. member for York North, that the impression might be left by the speech given by the sponsor that this was a debate more on the Pickering airport than on the bill itself.
When hon. members present bills, in all fairness to all hon. members, they should debate the basic principles of the bills. Therefore, if other hon. members do not address themselves to the contents of this particular bill, and I have to call them to order, I hope the House will understand and excuse me.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated entering this debate but as I entered the House and heard the subject matter, I thought I should like to say a few words, although I confess I seldom enter debates on the subject of transportation for the very odd reason that I do not know very much about it.


Mr. Stanbury:: That does not stop anybody else.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It does not stop too many people. I should like, in general, to support the principle set out in the bill introduced by the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). The subject of urban transportation is of great importance to all those who represent urban areas. As the bill suggests, the situation is not satisfactory. There is a clear lack of co-ordination between the provinces, the municipalities and the federal authorities, all of whom are concerned in the effective working out of the very serious problems of transportation which not only affect the environment but the whole economy and the lives of many of our people.
I agree with the hon. member that one of the best illustrations of this is in the metropolitan area of Toronto, and that is the history of the so-called Pickering airport. It is a good example of what should not be done. Had the urban transportation authority which he proposes or some similar machine been in existence, we might never have had the difficulties that have been experienced with this proposal. There, without any adequate inquiry, a tremendously expensive and tremendously dubious proposition
3776

May 15, 1973
Urban Transportation
was almost foisted upon the people. Had it not been for the reaction of the people concerned in the city of Toronto and elsewhere, an immense project might have been undertaken on the wrong premises, and without proper pre-examination. Certain officials took one aspect of it. The location was selected by provincial authorities and so far as we know the municipal authorities were not consulted at all and if they were, they decided that they did not want the project. Although my constituents would be served by the airport in the east end of Toronto, they do not want this project to proceed.
If we had a national transportation authority, as is proposed by this bill, the elected representatives of the people would be in a position to object to such projects. One of the reasons against this project is not only doubt whether the need has been adequately demonstrated but is the indirect results of this project in this neighbourhood. How many houses in the riding of Greenwood would have to be torn down in order to provide transportation to the airport? That matter should be discussed and the local representatives should be given the opportunity to take part before the project is approved.
A national transportation authority could do all sorts of other things. It could pressure for greater development of new technologies in the field of transportation. One of the dangers of the present rate of progress is that we get a new scheme and by the time it is put into practice it has become obsolete. There are all sorts of novel developments, but I disclaim being an expert on the subject so I hope no one will ask me what those developments are. However, I have seen and read a good deal about all sorts of new forms of transportation which are essential to the solution of these problems and which could save millions of dollars but which become obsolete before they become operative.
In the draft bill there is a provision which is not acceptable, however, but it could be dealt with when the House comes to second reading, which I suppose is prima facie rather than probable. Clause 3, "Objects and Powers" should be looked at very carefully. Clause 3(c) provides for federal, provincial, regional and municipal representation to be established by the board itself. I do not think that any federal parliament has the right to establish regional, provincial and municipal representation. What it has is the right to create an authority, with which, by either co-operation or delegation of powers, these local and provincial bodies can participate. I think that is the main purpose of the bill and I support it. Although second reading of the bill is dubious, I think the hon. member deserves the thanks of this House for bringing forward a subject which is of immense importance to a large number of Canadians.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer in this House, I think I was asked to take the floor on Bill C-26 and that is what I am going to do. I noticed that two hon. members tackled the matter of an airport and I think that Bill C-26, as it has been drafted, does not apply only to the building of a national airport like the airport of Pickering. Thus, it is with considerable interest that I take part in this debate because it is a

subject which, I think, all hon. members as well as my constituents are interested in.
Bill C-26, introduced by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), deals with the question of urban transportation in metropolitan areas and elsewhere, but in Ottawa-Hull, it is a topic all residents of both provinces are interested in.

When I read the bill, Mr. Speaker, I wondered if the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) was not proposing to undo the momentum already attained in solving urban transportation problems whereby the government engages in patient, careful negotiations in the most intelligent way possible, to arrive at long lasting solutions. What I am getting at, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member for York Simcoe has left out of this proposed legislation a fact which is very important and that is the inter-relatedness of things municipal and urban. Everyone of the social problems of our urban centres has to be regarded and understood and the inter-relatedness of all those social problems, be they technological or otherwise, are affected by all other problems such as housing, etc. We are not so ingenious that we can allow ourselves to review problems in such a vacuum as proposed in Bill C-26.
Legislative programs and agencies must be seen in context. My hon. friend's bill does not take account of this very important factor of the inter-relatedness of urban issues. He has failed to grasp what I would call the obvious. Urban transportation, urban housing, urban neighbourhood, urban services cannot be treated in isolation. He might be talking about Pickering and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who has more experience than we two combined, repeated some of the arguments regarding the airport but I think the bill in question could have been the object of some more constructive comments in its defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have enough, not to say a lot of municipal, regional, provincial and federal agencies and I think there are enough structures in Canada to deal with all the problems we can imagine, especially as regards urban transportation.
We have-and this is what the government is trying to do-to solve our problems by the adopting innovative measures through government agencies open to wide consultation with provinces and municipalities in order to find long term solutions to the numerous social problems generated by modern communities.
I am not an expert on transportation, but from reading Bill C-26 I realize that it ignores the realities of transportation in Canada. One cannot deal with transportation in urban areas as something distinct and set apart from transportation between urban areas. I am thinking particularly of the Ottawa area. It would be nonsense and folly if Ontario, for example, and the Ottawa regional council established one system of urban transportation,
May 15, 1973

such as the proposed rapid transit that the provincial government has announced for this area, without involving the whole of the capital area including Hull-Outaouais on the Quebec side.
I was amazed some time ago when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) asked if the federal government would participate in such development and deal separately with each provincial government in the granting of funds for a system on only one side of the Ottawa River. I repeat myself, Mr. Speaker, but one cannot deal with transportation in urban areas as something distinct and set apart from transportation between urban areas. This principle is most important to the Ottawa area if we want our dream of a national capital to become a reality in the near future. I am sorry to say that in Bill C-26 the distinction I have referred to exists, and I will not encourage it by supporting the bill.

The residents in my riding of Ottawa East, Mr. Speaker, are facing all sorts of social and other pressure as regards urban transportation. I must say that this is a topical issue because we in Ottawa East are convinced that the hardships we must suffer concerning roads, asphalt, expressways and high density housing are not proportionate to our wish to maintain a good environment and quality of life.
I have a voluminous file on the development of six-lane roads across my riding in Ottawa and I object to this kind of planning which ignores the interrelation of social problems-and we can see that easily-as does Bill C-26.
Obviously it is necessary to draft a general transport policy, a national policy to establish standards for all municipalities and provinces in the field of public transportation. Neither the municipalities nor the provinces have the necessary funds to develop alone those large public transport systems and the federal government must participate in the preparation, the planning and the cost of such wide-ranging projects.

There is another aspect of the hon. member's proposal which I find disturbing. What is the phrase "urban centres" supposed to mean? To which urban centres is he referring? Is he referring to the 22 metropolitan census areas recognized by statisticians, or is he referring to our 52 cities with populations of over 30,000? Is he speaking of urban regions, municipalities, cities, towns or villages?
The hon. member's bill provides in clause 2:
In this act, "urban centre" means a city or an urban community so designated by the governor in council.
When these so-called urban centres are designated, on what fancy will a decision be made? How will we deal with the country's three massive metropolitan areas? I am thinking of Montreal, where the tradition of civic administration goes back further than the history of this honourable House, where dedicated, knowledgeable people are trying to work out an acceptable definition for the Montreal urban community and what constitutes its urban centre. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is grappling with such problems. It is working to solve the problems of urban communities, urban transportation being one of them.
Urban Transportation
None of the simplifications contained in Bill C-26 would come near to curing the havoc that would result from the hon. member's less than adequate appreciation of the constitutional issues inherent in his proposed authority. Urban transportation is a field of mixed jurisdiction where conflicts are quick to crop up. In support of this contention I remind the House that recently the Premier of Ontario, having made a public statement about Ontario's urban transportation policy as it applies to the Ottawa-Carleton area, invited the co-operation of both the federal government and the province of Quebec in dealing with transit problems for the national capital region. It is true that the federal government has authority over traffic interprovincially; however, the rules and regulations that control traffic within specified regions are the responsibility of the provinces.

That is the kind of co-operation and planification we need as regards the growth of cities and municipalities. And I was pleased to hear the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) announce recently in the House that he was taking the appropriate steps to meet very soon with representatives of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to discuss the whole matter of urban and interurban transportation, together with municipal and regional governments. Co-operation, Mr. Speaker, is the real solution to our problems of urban transportation.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we all know that our big cities badly need more efficient and more modern means of transportation, but that provinces are entirely responsible for this matter which falls under their jurisdiction. When there is an alternative which respects the constitutional reality, we must act, and the federal government acts throughout the country when it holds trilevel meetings like the one the minister referred to relating to the national capital region.

Through this channel the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, by means of consultation, is funnelling valuable technical assistance and is dovetailing policies and research to take into account the transportation needs of the people who will be making the decisions in these areas, that is, the provinces and the municipalities. What Bill C-26 fails to make clear is the relationship between the national authority and the regional authorities. It raises several questions. How does the hon. member propose that these regional regulatory bodies be established? What is their relationship to the provinces?
The best mechanism, Mr. Speaker, for exercising federal influence in areas that are outside the competence of this House rests in the trilevel consultations now being developed by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. It has taken many years of elaborate planning to devise these consultations. Let us not jeopardize this inevitable step by creating some new bureaucratic machine. We have enough machinery, and we are establishing innovations such as trilevel consultations to make it more effective. That is the way we must proceed.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak for a few moments on this bill. I congratulate my colleague on his

May 15, 1973
Urban Transportation
foresight and understanding of the basic problems which the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier) was talking about and the interrelation of transportation systems in this country. As we know, there is the difficulty of co-ordination of various services and functions in an urban community.
Before dealing with the bill I wish to refer to a matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa East. He referred to the position I took on an earlier occasion in this House with respect to dealing with the problems of co-ordinating policies of transportation between two municipalities in two provinces, and the federal government. If the hon. member reads carefully what I said during an adjournment debate a few evenings ago, he will see I said that in so far as the development is concerned on both sides of the river, it is a good thing in principle. However, I think the present situation is unfair, unreasonable and inequitable for people on both sides of the Ottawa River-which the hon. member and I know so well-who wish to develop together an area which requires this type of service and needs it, and who are prepared to accept the contribution offered by the government of Ontario, to have to wait for another jurisdiction to decide. I feel the government of Canada has waited too long since January 30 to accept the invitation of the government of Ontario to make a contribution to the development of the system.
I asked the question, on March 5,1 believe it was, for one purpose, that is, to prod the government into establishing the trilevel conference which it announced it intended to establish to discuss this question vital to the national capital area. Out of all this it is my hope that the national capital area, which after all is the capital of this country- people are beginning to look upon this area as the capital-will be, with respect to transportation and every other municipal service, a model for the rest of the country. As the hon. member from the national capital said, I hope this will happen. I believe, and I say this with all the modesty I can muster, which is considerable, that as a result of this prodding the government has finally decided to move in the right direction.
Our problem in the national capital epitomizes the problem in the country generally under a federal system. The bill put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is an attempt to alleviate the difficulties of co-ordination. This country is not like other countries which have a single government. We are ten provinces and two territories which possess differing aspirations, differing requirements, differing needs to be satisfied in their urban areas. We have all seen the statistics projecting the growth of our urban areas. The bill before us focuses on the problems facing our cities. If the bill is adopted, governments at all levels will be obliged to co-ordinate their efforts to make urban living a more reasonable proposition.
I think the hon. member for Ottawa East missed the point of this bill. Its purpose is to improve co-ordination. I commend my hon. friend for proposing it, since it also provides within its framework an important avenue by means of which contributions can be made by localities affected by legislation passed in this chamber and elsewhere. I cannot imagine anyone responsible for decisions

made in this chamber affecting Ottawa, Toronto or anywhere else to be reached in the absence of feedback from the communities directly concerned. Any machinery for improving lines of communication with the national government is important in this respect.
I note that the hon. member for Ottawa East dealt with the constitutional issues which are involved in this question. We have been faced with constitutional questions in Canada since 1867; they are part of our national life. But I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that such constitutional difficulties are really challenges to governments. Parliaments and legislatures which continually cite the British North America Act as grounds for objection to reasonable action are invoking a principle which is less than relevant to the needs of Canadians today.
My constituents tell me they do not care about the British North America Act. They say they are interested in solving the problems of our urban communities, in putting an end to pollution whether of water, air or soil. Their environment is affected by these things and they want solutions. They say to parliaments, "Do not tell us about the British North America Act. Do not tell us what you cannot do. Tell us what you can do and what you intend to do." This bill focuses on the effort which ought to be made by the national government to deal with the question of co-ordination.
I believe the establishment of a national urban transportation authority could well lead the way to the development of new technology in Canada. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) touched on this point. We might well find the ground upon which we could develop a new industry right here in Canada, rather than import machinery and technology from elsewhere. This also applies to anti-pollution measures. The federal parliament and the provincial legislatures are concerned about pollution, yet we seem to import almost every device which is used in the fight for clean air and clean water. In this field, too, we have an opportunity to develop a completely new technology based in Canada.
I feel the spirit of this bill is a sound one. The establishment of an authority which would co-ordinate various urban projects would be valuable. Such an authority is needed in this country, and certainly it is needed in this community as the hon. member for Ottawa East should know. All of us acknowledge the necessity of provincial, municipal and federal governments getting together to deal with the challenges which face us. We are faced with the necessity of meshing older forms of transportation with present-day innovations such as the new STOL program which is possibly the forerunner of further experiments of this nature. There is need to collect and disseminate information on all such developments.
I think the difficulty that faces this government in many fields-I suppose the hon. member for Ottawa East, having sat in the caucus of the Liberal party, knows this better than anyone else-is that of co-ordination. On one hand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will upset the programs of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson); on the other hand the Bank of Canada will tighten the money supply while the Minister of
May 15, 1973

Finance suggests his budget is expansionary. These are examples of lack of co-ordination.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that within the field of transportation as it affects a growing number of city dwellers, in a society that is moving from agrarian to urban living, there will for the first time be the element of co-ordination which is needed and which was not present hitherto. I know the hon. member for Ottawa East will applaud those sentiments.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address the House on the subject of transportation. You will forgive me if I do not limit my remarks to the terms of reference of the so-called national urban transportation authority which the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) would have this House consider.
When first reading the proposed legislation I was dismayed to see we were being asked to create yet another government agency. Upon further study, my dismay gave way to anxiety when the implications of what was being proposed became clearer. Bill C-26 is irrelevant to the emerging pattern of urbanization in this country. More importantly, it contains elements of constitutional discord. The hon. member is suggesting that we circumvent or run afoul of existing provincial jurisdiction by setting up regional federal authorities with local powers. Can he be serious? Or is he, like the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), talking of direct dealings with cities, clearly the responsibility of the provinces, for some political gain?
There is more to dealing with issues than introducing new concepts without consideration of all the factors. There is more to coming to grips with an immensely complex issue like urban transportation than merely creating yet another agency, yet another authority. There is much more to rationalizing the existing laws and regulations and jurisdictions that govern transportation in this country. Creating still another tribunal is not going to work toward the creation of viable urban transportation policies-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is rising on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is misunderstanding the bill when he suggests that somehow there is a jurisdictional problem. The bill is very careful to deal only with railways, air transportation and harbours which are all federal matters. It is simply proposing that "urbanwise" they be put into separate regions.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the details, but I know what I am talking about. I have been interested in transportation for 33 years, so I know a little about it. In fact, this bill would have quite the contrary effect, further delaying the day when hon. members can speak intelligently about a matter that is of crucial national, provincial and local interest. Urban transportation is of crucial interest countrywide. That is the point this government wishes to make when it
Urban Transportation
introduces legislation, as it will shortly when the railway relocation measures are placed before the House. This government has not been idle about transportation, especially urban transportation.
I should perhaps remind hon. members that there already exist government agencies that deal with transportation on a day to day and on a long-range basis. There is the regulatory body, the Canadian Transport Commission, that has a direct role in doing exactly what the hon. member would have the new legislation do, namely, improve rail, air and water traffic. There is the Department of Transport, which last year, with expenditures of $409.2 million, was in the business of doing exactly what Bill C-26 would do; that is, promoting and improving rail, air and water passenger traffic; not only passenger traffic to urban centres in Canada but also the movement of goods across the country and between cities.
The Department of Transport has also entered new fields. In 1971-72 a major national highway policy was set in motion which includes participation with all provincial governments. A federal-provincial advisory council on motor carrier regulations was created. The development of a transportation strategy for the Canadian northwest was started. Through greater participation with other governmental and private institutions, new and more advanced transportation systems are being developed. These initiatives all have impact, in one way or another, on urban transportation.
I am only skimming the surface in pointing out these examples. The point to be made here is that the government is fully aware of the need to improve urban transportation. But more important than this awareness is the conviction that planning new strategies, be they in transportation or any other area, demands a co-ordinated orchestration of all the elements involved, not simply the creation of another agency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting his remarks, but it is six o'clock. Before the Chair calls it six o'clock, I believe the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House leaders concerning the special debate on penitentiaries that was raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). I believe there is agreement to debate a substantive resolution which would read as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to investigate the administration of the penitentiary system, including security, parole and temporary absences, and that it report its recommendations as soon as reasonable after a thorough inquiry.
I believe it is further agreed that there be a limit of 15 minutes on speeches, that at the conclusion of the debate the motion be deemed to have been adopted, and that the motion be non-amendable. I think the House would be agreeable to accepting that motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 15, 1973
Urban Transportation


Mr. Speaker:: If there is agreement, perhaps the proposed motion might be read by the mover.


John Douglas Reynolds: Then I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to investigate the administration of the penitentiary system, including security, parole and temporary absences, and that it report its recommendations as soon as reasonable after a thorough inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: It is understood that this is the motion that will be put at eight o'clock this evening, subject to the conditions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary to which hon. members have unanimously agreed. I gather that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is rising on the same point of order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to indicate that as far as we are concerned, we agree with the suggestions that have been reported to Your Honour.
However, I should like to enter a caveat, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the right some time this evening to suggest that we set a time when the debate will end. This is not part of the agreement as it was not possible to achieve that, but I think instead of the debate going on all night we might agree to a cut-off time some time this evening. Perhaps one of us might propose that later.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we agree to discuss this motion. As suggested by the hon. member who just spoke, we too would like the length of the debate to be limited.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There appears to be unanimous agreement to the conditions expressed by hon. members including the hon. member who proposed the motion.
I believe this agreement would dispose of two matters: first, the motion under Standing Order 26 proposed earlier today by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.In view of the fact there is to be a debate on this question this evening, we should not, of course, proceed under the proposed motion. Second, I believe consideration of this motion and its disposition at the end of the debate would effectively dispose of the notice of motion for concurrence in the report of the committee tabled earlier today by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
[ Transla tion]
Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The debate which was under way at five o'clock will, of course, be deemed to have been adjourned. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
At 6.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) has moved:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to investigate the administration of the penitentiary system, including security, parole and temporary absences, and that it report its recommendations as soon as reasonable after a thorough inquiry.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, permit me to state, on behalf of not only the people of my riding of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta but all Canadians who are concerned about the present state of affairs in our penitentiary system, that I am happy there has been unanimous agreement of the House to debate this motion. It is gratifying to see that the concern of the people of this country can result in the transcending of political lines and that action can be taken on their behalf and in their best interests on very short notice.
The latest break-out from St. Vincent de Paul of five highly dangerous criminals was indeed the last straw in what has become a matter of almost national disgrace. During a recent visit to the British Columbia penitentiary I learned that some of the inmates referred to the almost daily reports of escapes and violations of leave passes as "Comedy Night in Canada". But, Mr. Speaker, this is anything but a laughing matter. These break-outs are only part of the existing problem in our whole judicial and penal system. Our courts are bogged down, our prisons are overcrowded and our rehabilitation program is in a sorry state of disrepair.
The parole system needs a complete overhaul, and authority for deciding the length of sentences must be returned to the trial judge. What is the point of a judge carefully considering all the evidence, having the opportunity to view the accused during what is often a lengthy trial, being fully aware of all aspects of the case, and in many cases even knowing the accused having dealt with him before, and then after reaching a decision as to sentence seeing that sentence commuted by a body far removed from the actual scene of the crime? It is no wonder that judges are speaking out in irate tones against the Parole Board.
Certainly, it is no easy task for a judge to pass sentence on a man, but when he sees the same man before him again at a time when he is still supposed to be in jail from the previous offence, he wonders about the mentality and the thinking of the person who released the man back into society. Possibly if this body known as the Parole Board had to serve the sentence of anyone who violated the
May 15, 1973

terms of the parole, greater care would be taken in selection for parole than is currently the case, for indeed one must consider their actions criminal in some of their recent decisions.
At the very least, the presiding judge should be allowed some input into the final approval for parole of any convicted person, particularly in cases of crimes of violence. It might surprise the parole board to know that judges, after years on the bench, have a contribution to make in the assessment of a person's rehabilitative chances in society; yet this expert, professional advice is not sought and hardened criminals are being released back into society with disastrous effects on honest citizens. Perhaps, too, the entire make-up of the parole board should be changed to include more lay people and less social workers who often tend to pay more attention to the poor convict than to the victim of his crime.
In so far as the security of our penal institutions is concerned, this is a technical matter and should not even be before this body. Either you have a man competent in his job of keeping prisoners in jail or you get rid of him and employ a man who can do the job. In this regard I have no hesitation in recommending the immediate dismissal of the warden and senior officers of St. Vincent de Paul for gross neglect of duty if not for any other reason. There has been some suggestion that inside help was made available to the five convicts who escaped very recently. If this is the case, I trust the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) will pursue his investigation to the fullest and that the most severe penalty will be imposed upon those responsible for the escape. That five such dangerous men should be allowed to escape in broad daylight during a lunch hour, and that all four watch towers should be unoccupied, is more than anybody could even remotely find plausible.
The whole incident reeks of collusion and corruption; even more so when one realizes that there was almost one guard on duty to every prisoner. Again, in light of the fact that instructions had been issued to man these towers on a 24-hour basis, I would call for the immediate resignation of the warden of St. Vincent de Paul prison and the officials of any other prisons where the job of security for the protection of society is not being carried out adequately. Such incompetence must not be permitted to exist in our penal institutions.
Perhaps the most unfortunate effect of this entire incident will be the detrimental effect on future chances of parole for deserving men and women presently in jail. When the record is reviewed, it is the Parole Board and their sometimes senseless granting of weekend passes and early parole who must take partial blame. The remainder of the blame must be taken by this government which has permitted this situation to exist and to grow into its present state. To award weekend passes to sex deviates, rapists and murderers is beyond all reason, particularly in cases where the victims of sex deviates and rapists have not and will not ever recover from the effects of the injuries done to them.
I hope and pray that a thorough and complete investigation into the pilicies and procedures of the National Parole Board is included, and indeed receives the highest priority
Pen i ten tiaries
in this investigation of the penitentiary system. This is the crucial issue here, not the simple one of housekeeping in the penitentiaries.
If we must spend additional funds to erect an institution to house our hardened criminals, then let us do so. But please let us not spend millions of dollars in this regard and then flood that institution with weekend passes and overnight leaves. Let us face the fact that there are those who have no regard for others, who spit in the face of honest men and regard work for society as something others do. Let us say to these men, "You shall be incarcerated in prison, and there you shall stay. You were given a chance, you were given a second chance or even a third chance, and you shall receive no more. Society shall be protected from you from now on". Perhaps, then, those individuals will be separated from others and their insidious, hardened habits will not spread like a cancer among other prisoners.
To the others we can begin to offer a sincere program of rehabilitation, not making licence plates or hand carvings, or putting patches on mailbags for the Post Office, but introducing an educational program coupled with learning a specific trade. Instead of being turned back into society with no specific training, he can look forward to employment in a given area. Certainly this program is going to cost money, but will the cost be any greater than is presently the case in housing and feeding these men year after year?
It is unfortunate that these men often become entangled in a continuous cycle of being in and out of prison. It has often been said that it is not a case of having too few policemen but of having too many criminals loose in society. Let us offer them the opportunity to increase their knowledge, to learn a trade; let us assist them in gaining employment. Then if they continue to follow their criminal routine, let us incarcerate them and separate them not only from society from their fellow inmates who truly wish to turn a new page in their lives.
In conclusion, let me reiterate the point I made earlier. Let us not become bogged down in the mechanics of security in our prisons. This is a simple matter to resolve. Let us concentrate on the real issue facing us right now, and that issue is the complete investigation of the current practices and guidelines under which the National Parole Board is mishandling the responsibility with which it is charged.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we consider the motion before the House of considerable importance, but I want to make very clear at the outset that we consider it of importance not for the hard-rock, red-neck reasons to which you have just listened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is all very well for hon. members to say that they are in favour of rehabilitation after they have said everything that feeds the worst in human nature and calls for incarceration without limit, except the limit of the judge, and creates an atmosphere of fear and resentment against modern attempts to rehabilitate the criminal. I say to the hon. member who has just spoken that if the second part of his speech was sincere-and I have no

May 15, 1973
Peni ten tiaries
reason to doubt it-the first part of his speech was shamefully contrary to the spirit which he indicated in the second part of his remarks. He cannot have it both ways.
It is not possible to introduce a system that tries to remake human beings who have committed a crime, it is not possible to have a system of parole, it is not possible to have a system of temporary absence without some mistakes. No member in the Conservative party could do it without making some mistakes. Mistakes are inevitable because the system is being supervised by human beings. It is inevitable that a mistake will be made from time to time, and in my view it is reprehensible that people take advantage of these mistakes to create an atmosphere of fear and of almost unlimited anxiety about the situation. That is not necessary, because it does not help anybody.


John Douglas Reynolds: Tell us what helps.


David Lewis: I will in a moment. I live in the same country as the hon. member does and I read the same newspapers. He spoke as if at least 50 per cent of the prisoners in the penitentiaries were roaming the streets of Canada. He knows darned well that that is not true. He knows perfectly well that it is not helpful to the people of Canada and to the system to speak in such exaggerated terms about a situation that is unhappy. I think it is shameful that these exaggerated terms are used.
The hon. member says that the worst thing about the situation is that it will do something against the system of rehabilitation. Let me say to people who talk like that, that they are responsible for the spirit abroad in this country that is making it difficult for those who are trying to create a system of rehabilitation that would be of benefit to Canada. On the other hand, I say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), and I do not pretend to know the details of his department or the details in every one of the penitentiaries, that it seems to me obvious-there is a Latin phrase that lawyers use, res ipsa loquitor, "the thing speaks for itself"-that when these escapes have been taking place, particularly in the province of Quebec but elsewhere as well, at a fairly rapid pace, as it were, there must be something wrong in the Solicitor General's department. These things could not happen if there was no incompetence and inefficiency in high places in his department.
I am not prepared to ask for the dismissal of "A" or the dismissal of "B" without giving "A" and "B" an opportunity to state their case. I do not think that is fair either. But I say to the minister that I give him credit, as do all my colleagues, for being sincere and genuine in his attempts to run his department for the benefit and security of the people of Canada. I say to the Solicitor General that history is full of instances where the good intentions of a minister are destroyed and frustrated by those under him who are incapable of carrying out the policy which he wishes carried out, or who deliberately sabotage that policy.
I say to the minister that nobody can look at the present situation without concluding that even at the level of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries-and I do not think I have had the pleasure of meeting the gentleman, let alone being

in a position to judge him-what has been happening in the system indicates the present commissioner may not be the best person for the job. I say that it is the duty of the Solicitor General to look into the staff in his department and to be tough and ruthless about getting rid of those who do not do the kind of job which alone can support a policy of rehabilitation and efficiency in the system.
The minister ought to look at the situation and, if necessary, clean house without any hesitation so that there may be some competence and some efficiency in the services over which he has authority. Also, I cannot help feeling that in addition to that there must be some very serious loss of morale, if not worse in some instances, in the penitentiaries across this country. If you permit me to put it this way, Mr. Speaker, I have personally been saddened at the way in which over the last number of months, or years for that matter, many people in Canada, in my constituency as well as in others, have developed a sense of revenge against others in society and have forgotten the biblical injunction that mercy and compassion are pretty important in a civilized society.
I think it is not only desirable but urgently necessary that criminals in this country be given an opportunity to be rehabilitated. I, personally, approve of the temporary absence philosophy, although not necessarily in every case where temporary absence has been granted. That has been a matter of judgment which went awry in some cases. But I think it is right to have a program of temporary absence for those persons in our penitentiaries and other prisons who in that way can be reintroduced into their families and can be reintroduced into society on a developing basis, so that when they are paroled they feel themselves a part of society instead of pariahs as many of them are made to feel at present.
Therefore, while I say to the minister that he cannot permit the present situation to continue, that he cannot permit the incompetence which is obviously there to continue, I plead with him, certainly on behalf of my colleagues, that he not permit these unfortunate incidents to affect adversely the decent programs of rehabilitation which have been undertaken by his department and which should be improved in the future.
It will be a mark of courage if he treats those in charge who have failed in their duty as I suggested he treat them, either get rid of them if necessary or give them very severe instructions if he considers that enough. But it will be a mark of cowardice if he joins the ranks of some in this House who, because there have been these escapes and because there is a feeling abroad of anxiety among many people in this country, now wish to end rehabilitation programs. It will be a mark of cowardice if, because these things are facts, he now permits himself to be influenced to deviate from a policy of rehabilitation which includes a policy of humane parole, which includes a policy of carefully vetted and humane temporary absences from prison.
As I have watched our judicial and penology system over the years, I have often wondered whether we realize what we are doing to human beings in our society. The hon. gentleman who preceded me said something about the judges who sentence people. My impression is that the Parole Board does in fact obtain information of that sort.

May 15, 1973
But surely it is right that the judge who first sentenced a person should not be the man or woman to whom is entrusted the later assessment of that person's development after that person has been in prison for some time. It is surely right that the Parole Board consist of people independent of the judicial system, but it has to consist of people who are sensitive to the needs, who have the courage to follow a consistent policy and who have the courage to say no as well as to say yes.
It has not been my experience, and I am certain I have had just as much experience as the Conservative member who preceded me, that the Parole Board has gone hog wild with paroles. Indeed, I have had many cases coming over my desk which, from the information I had, appeared to me to deserve the consideration that the Parole Board refused to afford those people. As I say, it is not my impression that they have gone hog wild about freeing people.
I hope this motion will pass. I understand there is an agreement to that effect. I think it is important that the committee goes into all the aspects which the motion covers; but I plead with the committee, as I plead with the Solicitor General, not to permit the rednecks to prevent programs and policies that are genuinely rehabilitative and which genuinely try to bring back into society people who have committed crimes. That should be the objective of our prisons and penitentiaries. It should not be our objective merely to punish people, to incarcerate them forever, as has been suggested, but to put them into an environment where those who are capable of becoming decent citizens in society are given the training and the opportunity to be rehabilitated. So far as I am concerned, if one good person gains rehabilitation as a result of that kind of policy, then all the mistakes that may have been made are well worth while.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the motion that is being proposed to the House, in view of the number of escapes that are happening now. The government seems to have a number of crises to face in Canada, and I wonder which of them will lead to its defeat. Will it be the crisis in the prisons? Or will it be that of unemployment, or again that of the cost of living?
In any event, the one before us is pretty serious. For the last two or three years at least, the government has been trying to apply certain reforms to the prison system with a view to helping criminals to be rehabilitated, and it seems to have had the desired effect only in a few cases. But in spite of all the leniencies which the government has introduced into the prison system, it seems that those who stand to gain the most from them are working hard to offset the beneficial effects of these reforms.
Attemps are now being made to find the causes of the many escapes that have happened, especially since the beginning of the year. It is reported that in Quebec federal prisons alone, there have been 26 escapes since the beginning of the year. And this morning's papers report that the Quebec provincial police have had to organize a special corps of 60 policemen just to track down individuals who have escaped from penitentiaries.
Pen i ten tiaries
This is a sign that the situation has become very serious, and I wonder if the relaxation of prison regulations in Canada is really the solution to this unrest. I wonder whether, after trying two or three times to rehabilitate certain individuals, we should continue to waste our time on them.
The former Solicitor General had tabled a comprehensive program during the last session; he had even mentioned that golf courses would be built in some penitentiaries. I think that was going a little too far! And the way we treat criminals in our prisons is the envy of lots of honourable family heads who have to toil to earn a living.
Nowadays, we notice that bandits indicted on a charge of murder are travelling throughout the province with a private chauffeur. I would not be surprised to realize before long that they get free world-wide trips. And in spite of all that, they are not satisfied.
Therefore, I believe Mr. Speaker, that a rehabilitation system should be introduced in prisons where the inmates are mainly juvenile delinquents. I think we should give all our attention to that aspect.
As to the individual of a certain age who has ignored the laws of society for 15, 20, or 25 years, I think it is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate him and make of him an honest citizen like everybody else. But if it is a first offense on the part of a young man or of a young girl and if there is a lack of institutions for juvenile delinquents, that should be the object of our attention and I believe that in that case, chances are that those young people could be rehabilitated before it is too late.
Certain reasons were given these last few days that could have been of some help in the escapes we know about. We heard that the guards may have aired grievances which were not taken into consideration or whose examination was delayed for many months and that they do nothing to prevent such escapes because they do not care or shut their eyes to the behaviour of certain prisonners.
Mr. Speaker, unrest exists among prison guards, there is no doubt about that; it was mentioned on a few occasions. It was even discussed here in the House of Commons. If those men whose task is most difficult do not enjoy working conditions and wages comparable with those available elsewhere, I think we are making a gross mistake.
If a commission is appointed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to study this problem, it should start right there and would surely achieve something.
Anyway I think that the situation is serious and should be studied immediately. If a commission is appointed as stated by the Solicitor General, its reports and recommendations should come forthwith; otherwise the situation will get worse before measures are taken. I am not sure that the government is unable to take action now or that it has to wait for the report of such a commission.
I therefore ask most seriously to the Solicitor General to take action quickly in those cases. The individuals now at large are dangerous; those who have escaped from prison are dangerous individuals; they are a danger to the life of people who have to live in freedom and safety and also

May 15, 1973
Peni ten tiaries
jeopardize the life and safety of those responsible for bringing them back to jail.
The adoption of some measures is essential within the shortest possible delays and if the Solicitor General wants to act he will certainly have his colleagues' support.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I was appointed Solicitor General approximately five months ago I said that my principal goal would be to reduce and prevent crime in Canada, and that ail the agencies and all the resources of the Solicitor General's department would be directed toward that goal.
While it is obvious that this is the goal of the RCMP, it is not always so obvious that it is also the goal of the Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Board. Charges are often made, and they were made tonight, that these agencies are too soft toward the criminal, that they often care more about the criminal than they do about the victim. This is not so, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Board are concerned with rehabilitation; and rehabilitation means protection for the public, not being soft on crime.
I cannot emphasize too often that over 99 per cent of those sent to prison are sent for terminate sentences. That means that they are going to be released one day, whether we like it or not. Consequently, we have two choices. We can either put them in prison for five years, six years or whatever it may be, put them in a cell and, when the time is up, put them back on the street without any programs or any resocialization, and so on, or we can try to do something with them while we have them under our care. Mr. Speaker, this is what we are trying to do. But I admit that there are no perfect answers. Nobody has solved all the problems of the behavioural sciences; there are no dogmatic responses as to what should be done with a man in penitentiary in order to put him back on the street as a constructive or peaceful citizen. We are taking the best advice possible and we are trying to accomplish that result. We have had some successes and some failures.
With regard to parole, we have a choice. We can wait until the end of the man's sentence-and that end will come-and put him back on the street without supervision or assistance. He will probably be a more dangerous person and return to crime if we do that. On the other hand, with the use of parole we can let him out under supervision before the end of his sentence, with a continuing program and someone to help him if he needs help, whether he has an alcohol problem or whatever. That is what we are trying to do with parole. At the end of his sentence, his parole is finished.
The other day before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the chairman of the Parole Board pointed out that approximately 82 per cent of those granted parole since the establishment of the Parole Board 14 years ago had completed their sentence without incident. There have been failures in 18 per cent of the cases. He pointed out that those on parole are earning incomes, paying taxes and supporting their families. On the other

side of the picture, the man who is in prison is being supported to a great extent by the public. He is not earning any income and usually his family is being supported under a welfare program. This is what we are trying to do with parole. The criteria for parole are that the applicant must show the Parole Board two things: one, that he is rehabilitated; two, that he is no longer a danger to the public. The Parole Board tries to assess that question with all the reports and documents given to it. Last year there was a great reduction in the number of paroles. We reached the high point in paroles granted in Canada in 1971. In that year, including all types of parole, there were approximately 6,000. Last year there were approximately 4,800, a cutback of 1,200.
The Parole Board is a quasi-judicial body. It makes those decisions on its own. I do not have anything to say with regard to the granting or refusal of parole. We have something to say about the regulations pertaining to the Parole Act but not with regard to granting or refusing parole. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) spoke in terms of the Parole Board frustrating what the courts are trying to do. He made it appear as though the Parole Board is acting in an almost illegal way.
The judges of this country know that there is a Parole Board and a Parole Act. They know that a man is eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence, or four years, whichever is the lesser. They know that when they sentence a man, he will be applying for parole in a few years. Usually the judge gives a sentence with that fact in mind. As a matter of fact, if he is a wise judge he tries to give a sentence that is related to a rehabilitation program. The sentence is geared along those lines, to put the man back on the street after the sentence as a safer person.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta also said the members of the Parole Board were wishy-washy social workers. The chairman of the Parole Board was a judge of a court in Ontario. One of the most prominent members of the Parole Board, Mr. Gilbert, was a former chief of police in Quebec. There are members of the Parole Board who were policemen, judges and criminologists. They are not a group of wishy-washy people; they are a broadly-based group concerned about the protection of society. They are trying to put these people back on the street in a condition safer than when they went into penitentiary.
I want to say something about the temporary absence program. This program is also mentioned in the resolution. I remind hon. members that temporary absence is granted under section 26 of the Penitentiary Act. That act and that section were introduced into parliament the last time by a Conservative government. It was introduced by a former minister of justice, the Hon. Davie Fulton. This program was not passed into law by the Liberal party; it was passed by the Conservative party. It is interesting to note that when in power they did not use it very much. The Conservative party provided for this program in the law, but it became used on a wide basis only from 1966 to 1968.
I am talking about the section that provides for temporary absence, without escort, for rehabilitation purposes. Before that it was used without escort for medical and humanitarian purposes, but rarely for rehabilitation purposes. There have been changes.

The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta spoke about allowing sex deviates out on parole. I admit there were some bad cases in 1970 and 1971. There was the very bad incident of the Head case in British Columbia where a dangerous sexual offender viciously murdered a young girl, the daughter of a prison guard. Following that incident, my predecessor and those in the Solicitor General's department took some very important steps. They ruled from that point on dangerous sexual offenders would no longer be eligible for temporary absence. They also ruled that in many other categories of offences, the waiting period before being eligible for temporary absence would be extended. The temporary absence program was tightened up considerably in June or July of 1972.
The former minister appointed a three-man commission under Mr. Justice Hugessen of Montreal to study all the problems related to temporary absence and parole. They spent the better part of last year travelling throughout the country, meeting the people in penitentiaries, parole people, experts in universities, and so on. They prepared a report on temporary absence and parole. I received that report just before Christmas. The department has been working on the report. Recently I presented a document to cabinet proposing further changes to the temporary absence and parole program in line with what was contained in the Speech from the Throne. That matter was before cabinet last week and will soon be ready to put before parliament.
Parliament has now agreed to go ahead with another study on temporary absence and parole. I tried to make public the report of Mr. Justice Hugessen a few months ago. Unfortunately, it was delayed by translation and publication. It is at the Queen's Printer at the present time. It has been there for a couple of months, waiting its turn behind all the other books to be published. I am not sure when it will finally be completed, but it will be made public before the committee reports. We have taken those steps.
We have been concerned about the failures of temporary absence and parole. We know the program is not perfect. In addition, a Senate committee has been working on this matter since last year. It was set up because of the concern about failures in temporary absence and parole. The committee was first under the chairmanship of Senator Prowse, and now Senator Goldenberg, a very prominent Senator. The committee has been receiving briefs from police departments, parole officials, the John Howard Society and many other groups in this country who are concerned about parole and temporary absence.
In the short time I have held this office I have recognized the fact that there are many shortcomings. There have been shortcomings in the security system. This was made evident in recent weeks. There are shortcomings in the program. We have staff problems, and so on. Things are far from perfect and I have been trying to do something about it, as did my predecessor.
This week there was the serious escape of five prisoners from a penitentiary that was designated as super-maximum. When I was a member of the penitentiary committee of this House in 1966 we visited this super-maximum, special correctional unit. We were told that nobody would ever escape from the institution. That was shown to be
Pen i ten tiaries
wrong this week, maybe not because of the hardware and the buildings but because of human failures. We considered those escapes to be very serious. Within 24 hours of their happening I decided to have an independent judicial inquiry under the Penitentiary Act. That inquiry has all the powers of the Inquiries Act.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister accept a question at this stage?


William Warren Allmand: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, I only have 15 minutes. Perhaps the hon. member could ask his question when I have completed my speech.
I intend to make public the terms of reference of the inquiry. We were drafting them today. I went over them again tonight, but they are not completed. In general terms, this commission will look into the escapes from the special correctional unit-that is not the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary; the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary is nearby. The special correctional unit, which is now called the correctional development centre, is the first job it will do. The second will be to look into the Cowansville escapes, and the third will be to examine security problems in Quebec generally.
Just before entering the House I was finally able to confirm that the man I wanted to head the commission has accepted this task. He is Mr. Justice Jacques Ducros, of Montreal. He was a Crown prosecutor in Montreal and prosecuted the FLQ cases, a man whose experience was either associate deputy minister or assistant deputy minister in the Quebec department of justice, a man with a very good reputation. I have trust in him and I am confident he will get the job done for me.
The second man is Pierre Jutras, who is director of the institution in Drumheller, Alberta. Mr. Jutras is considered one of the best directors in the penitentiary service. He has had experience in both maximum and medium security institutions. He is familiar with security; he is also familiar with progressive rehabilitation programs. I have not received confirmation from the third man yet; I am approaching a man from the armed services security branch and hope I can announce his name tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: How can it be a judicial inquiry, then?


William Warren Allmand: It is an inquiry under Mr. Justice Ducros and it will be run according to the Inquiries Act. I don't know what else you would call it.


Erik Nielsen: An inquiry.


William Warren Allmand: It is an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. One of our great difficulties this year has developed without any warning, the serious overpopulation of our penal institutions. In answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) today I pointed out that Dorchester penitentiary in the maritime provinces has taken in 100 new, maximum security inmates since the beginning of the year. This is a fantastic increase. I was told by the people in the penitentiary service there that an increase of this size has never before been known. Usually the increase in the penitentiary population is proportional

May 15, 1973
Pen i ten tiaries
to the increase in the general population. The general population has been increasing by about 4 per cent, but in British Columbia, for example, the penitentiary population went up by 18 per cent. The opposition put forward this motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the minister because his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: I thank the House. I will conclude my remarks in another two minutes. We shall continue with the inquiry to which I have referred. As I said earlier, we have already conducted some serious, in-depth studies of parole and temporary absence. But I respect the wish of the House; if hon. members wish to study those matters again, we will co-operate with them and we look forward to their recommendations. I understand that this committee of the House will study security right across the country. That is a broader and more comprehensive study. I have suggested zeroing in, with the commission I am setting up, on security problems in Quebec because the escape problem has been more intense there than elsewhere recently. We will welcome the committee's suggestions.
There are members in the House who have worked with the penitentiaries. The committee will soon learn that when you work with penitentiaries, and especially maximum security penitentiaries, you are involved with a very difficult area. The men you work with are very difficult. They were difficult on the outside and they are very difficult when they are on the inside. There are no easy solutions. I will welcome any help the committee can give. We are in a minority situation here in parliament, and opposition members will have more seats on the committee than the government side.


Erik Nielsen: Not at all.


William Warren Allmand: Any help they can give me and the department will be greatly appreciated, whether it relates to escapes, to overpopulation, to staff morale or whatever it may be. I shall sit here this evening and listen to the suggestions which are made. Tonight our speeches are limited to 15 minutes and I have dealt with this subject as quickly as I can. However, we will be appearing before the committee on our estimates, when we will be prepared to give hon. members as much information as we can and we shall assist them as much as we can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Morgan:: May I ask the minister a question? Can he tell us whether under section 12 of the Penitentiary Act he will allow the inquiry to be a public inquiry, with all the evidence open to the public?


William Warren Allmand: I think that can be done, but my feeling is that it should be left to the discretion of the judge who

chairs the commission. Obviously, if the commission is being told about a communications system within a penitentiary, it would not be in the public interest for such information to be made public. Making it public might alert the public to aspects of security within a penitentiary. That kind of evidence would have to be given in camera.


Erik Nielsen: They obviously know all about it already.


William Warren Allmand: I expect the hon. member to take this matter seriously. I think he realizes that there are some hearings which could not be held publicly. But the judge will be in a position to decide, independently, what can and what cannot be heard in public. Hon. members will be able to make similar decisions about their own committee. I would not be surprised if they wished some of those hearings to be private.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, many people seem to be very surprised at the situation which has developed across our country as far as the administration of justice and the penal reform system are concerned. I do not think there is anything to be alarmed about, or at least to wonder about, because to my mind this is just the result of a new attitude which has been taken and of the new policy which has been promulgated with respect to penal reform. As we look at the situation today we find that the whole system is in a state of chaos. We can go back to the statement made in the House by the former solicitor general on October 7, 1971, when he said: We have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of the individual rather than the protection of society.
We find another statement which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of November 15, 1972:
Pierre Emond, executive assistant to State Secretary Gerard Pelletier said, "I would not check the prison record of anyone. Most people go to prison by accident. Society is responsible for it, not them."
A great many law-abiding citizens are getting fed up with being blamed for everybody who goes to prison. They say that society has failed them, that somebody has failed them, and the result is that they have run afoul of the law and find themselves behind bars. But every man has a conscience of some kind. He knows right from wrong, as far as the broader principles of social living are concerned, and if he decides to take a contrary course and go against the accepted standards and the laws of the nation, he and he alone has to accept the responsibility and the blame for that decision. I, along with a great many others, am tired of being blamed for people being in jail.
I should like to give a brief quotation from former Judge Mulligan in Weekend magazine of November 25, 1972. He said:
It is the law of the land, laid down by parliament and by the Supreme Court of Canada, that certain rules will be followed with respect to the treatment of criminals. First and foremost is the protection of society. Second, the deterrence of the particular individual from committing that particular crime again and the deterrence of others disposed to that crime, and third, the rehabilitation of the offender.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has indicated that his convictions follow something along the same lines, and
May 15, 1973

he has given me his personal assurance that he is concerned about the safety and welfare of communities. But I believe there must be greater recognition of the fundamental principle that society must be protected. With regard to the rehabilitation of individuals who have transgressed the law, instead of turning them out without supervision for even short periods there have to be ironclad guarantees that they are not going to perpetuate the crimes for which they have been incarcerated.
I realize there are those who say you cannot give ironclad guarantees, that you cannot have an absolute assurance that there will not be an repetition of the offence. But I say that society has the right to expect it to the fullest possible extent, and that has not been so in the past several years. I think there has been an admission of this fact by speakers tonight. Therefore I call attention to this particular situation.
Since that fateful day when the former solicitor general announced this new government policy, the newspapers of this country have been filled with all manner of parole violations-murders, thefts, assaults and rapes-by dangerous criminals who have been let loose in the community in an exercise that is an experiment by the government. I do not believe that this is acceptable to the great majority of the Canadian people.
I speak as a representative of a community in a constituency where there are several penal institutions. For some time I have followed reports of court proceedings in the papers, and almost every week there have been reports of people who had been let out of jail on a pass and were unlawfully at large because they had not returned. We had a considerable number of violent and tragic crimes committed in our community by individuals who were out on pass or had been able to get out through lack of adequate security. This reached the point where the council of the municipality protested to the Solicitor General. The response of officials in charge of one of the institutions- the one to which I referred just now-said that the community was overreacting. I ask, how many rapes, how many thefts and how many other types of crime are we going to tolerate before we get stirred up and demand that something be done?
I suggest that because of laxity within the administration of the Department of the Solicitor General or the penitentiaries branch, which I suppose is an agency of the department, we are now facing a situation where people are alarmed. I even heard a very prominent resident of my community say that he had been giving serious consideration to moving out of the community, to moving out of the province altogether, because he was afraid for his family's welfare.


An hon. Member:: Where would he go?


Mr. Mackasey:: Send him to Verdun.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It is suggested he be sent to Verdun. I mention this fact because I have another news article here which reads:
A spokesman for Solicitor General Warren Allmand said today a three-man inquiry commission will be established this week to investigate penitentiary security in Quebec.
Peni ten tiaries
This is not only needed in Quebec; it is needed right across the country.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Verdun is in Quebec.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I realize that. I have talked to people who have worked in institutions in various provinces and they have presented me with a picture. Some say that very soon there will be no one in jail because guards are not allowed to exercise any discipline, they cannot fulfil their responsibilities, and they are given instructions not to rock the boat. I suggest this is a strange way to protect our society.
I do not think I have to draw on any illustrations tonight to indicate what is taking place as a result of the actions of the Parole Board. The chairman of the board has made a spirited defence of his organization and stewardship. But the people of this country are not satisfied when they see people out on parole engaging in violence and in crime, shooting people in cold blood, and so on. If I had time I could refer to one case, that of Robert Leroy Barber, but unfortunately I do not have time to go into detail.
One of the things that concerns the people of Canada is the question of security. Reference has been made to the Head case, a prisoner who during his last escapade-I say his last, but I do not know whether it will be his last because possibly he will be out again one of these days- brutally murdered Tanya Bush in the province of British Columbia. Not long after that, when his trial came up a man was transferred from Dorchester penitentiary, in New Brunswick, to testify at the trial. At his request he was placed in a medium security institution, and after two days he was allowed loose for about seven hours. He broke into a trailer home, tied up the husband and forced the wife to drive him to the city. On the way he sidetracked the car and raped the woman. All this by a man who was supposed to be confined under strict maximum security conditions and at whose own request was placed in a less secure institution!
How can these things take place? I guess it is like the other things that take place, such as at Cowansville where prisoners walked out of jail, and the latest incident where they walked out of one of our super-duper maximum security prisons. We find these things happening right across the board. I suggest it is the government's past policy, a policy that has not been corrected to this day, that has allowed a great many of these incidents to occur.
Last October the warden of Millhaven maximum security prison in Kingston stated that it was impossible to control 365 tough criminals housed in the prison. He said he had been stripped of disciplinary power by incompetent or inexperienced officials. Then he said:
This has not only made controls of the inmate population impossible .. . but has almost completely destroyed the staff morale.
I can understand why. In any event, someone has suggested he got out but I do not think he used the same method as others have used. In this connection I want to mention that I have in my possession a series of letters from individuals and groups of individuals in my constituency who are tremendously concerned. For instance, I have a petition signed by about 650 people living in the

May 15, 1973
Peni ten tiaries
Agassiz area in which is located the Mountain prison and another institution not far away.
I also have communications from the district of Kent and the city of Hope. These have the backing of the municipalities and suggest that the priorities expressed in parliament by the former solicitor general should be reversed and that prime consideration be given to the protection of the public rather than the rehabilitation of inmates. They go on to refer to parole, passes and lack of security and call upon the government to take action to remedy the situation before it gets completely out of hand.
I have a letter here from the Public Service Alliance of Canada presenting the same argument with reference to the Kaiser case, the man who escaped from prison and broke into a trailer. I have another communication from the Mount Cheam ratepayers' association expressing concern for the safety of women and children in the vicinity of federal prisons. It reads in part:
We have also expressed our concern regarding the pay and conditions of prison guards and the conditions the RCMP have to work under in the Agassiz area.
These are documents received from concerned citizens. I know that some will say I am not in favour of rehabilitation. We listened to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) denunciate the suggestion of my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. (Mr. Reynolds). He said that the biblical standard is one of compassion and mercy. He then called upon the Solicitor General to be tough and ruthless when dealing with prison guards and persons in responsible positions. He cannot have it both ways. The Solicitor General has said, in respect of dangerous criminals, that they do not let them out. All I can suggest is that they still find some way or another of getting out.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may 1 express my regret that the minister is in the difficulty he now faces, and also my sympathy regarding the advice he has received. I suggest it is not much different from that received by his predecessor which led to many of the problems the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) now faces.
I suggest we must first get rid of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries. He was chosen for political reasons. He has been, and obviously still is, incompetent as the administrator of penitentiary services. I say that because I have had experience over a number of years with the penitentiary system. I have read some of the history of this service. A few years ago when Alan McLeod was appointed commissioner of the penitentiary service it was taken for granted by most guards that when a judge sentenced a man to a definite period of imprisonment he was to be kept in prison for that definite period. It was felt that after he had been let out we had strong police forces who would return him to jail if he did not live up to his parole conditions. Many police forces hounded these men to the point that it was almost impossible for them to remain out of prison.
Over the years we have been enlightened as to the penitentiary service. Schools have been established to train guards and to give them assistance in handling some of the problems that arise between guards and staff. Over the years we have changed the personnel in our penitenti-

aries and in my opinion we were reaching the point of developing a fairly progressive system.
The minister in his remarks paid careful attention to the Parole Board. I suggest that everybody knows the chairman of that board has no guts. Let me remind hon. members of the Tanya Bush case and the case of the two little boys from Montreal, or Toronto who were murdered by released prisoners. Whenever such a thing happens, the Parole Board tightens its regulations and we find there are no more paroles. This board will not take a chance.
The criticism made today by several hon. members was in respect of the construction of penitentiaries. I remember visiting the maximum penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul some years ago. It was built like a dog kennel. There was wire over the top of the cages on which one could walk to see what the prisoners inside were doing. It was originally so bad that the recreational area was fenced, with the prisoners inside and guards, with dogs, circling the outside. That sort of treatment was obviously so bad it had to be discontinued and that penitentiary was changed.
I do not know why the new commissioner was appointed and I am not aware of his qualifications. I do know many employees of the service are highly dedicated and competent men, but many are incompetent. I suggest there should have been an inquiry conducted after the riot that took place in Kingston some time ago, and the result of that inquiry should have been made public. With the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) I visited Millhaven soon after the transfer of prisoners from Kingston. We found that almost every prisoner had been beaten unmercifully, and we were told by the then solicitor general-


William Warren Allmand: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member would not want to mislead the House by his suggestion that there should have been an inquiry following the Kingston riot. There was an inquiry conducted by Mr. Swackhammer, and his report was made public a month ago.


William Arnold Peters: 
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, originally it was not my intention to participate in this debate. Frankly, I am not in favour of the motion, but I believe it will be adopted and so be it. I think the tack taken by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is the right one. That is the position I wish to support. I think the Solicitor General has set out well what is in fact the policy of the government, of his department and of the penitentiary service.
I was very disturbed-I am not sure whether I was angry or sad-to hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) tell us about the 650 names on a petition. He quoted the comments made by a warden of a

May 15, 1973
Peniten tiaries
penitentiary who apparently is no longer a warden. We do not know why he made these statements and we do not have an opportunity to question him. I think the response of the hon. member was a cowardly one to the petition he received. I think that rather than quote one or two sentences he should go to the jails, talk to the prisoners and guards and find out how difficult the situation is. He should go into the courts and find out what the courts are doing, because that, unfortunately, has been the failure of many people who consider themselves leaders of society but do not bother to find out what the situation really is and how difficult the problem is.
Probably the most notorious case where a mistake was made in the past occurred in Sarnia. One gets the impression that no mistakes have ever been made in the past, but "Red" Ryan fooled a lot of people. Every one thought he had been rehabilitated. He did all the things that had been asked of him by the padre in the prison and the people who were supervising, so they let him out. But it was not too long before he held up a liquor store and killed a policeman. I suggest that that crime got so much publicity that it had the effect of setting back for many years the rehabilitation process for prisoners. If we focus on that kind of dramatic incident, as I am afraid the opposition party seems to be doing tonight, we will be doing a grave disservice not only to those whom we are trying to rehabilitate but to Canadian society in general.
We are not to blame. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East said we are taking the attitude that society is to blame. We say that no individual has to accept the major portion of that responsibility. But there are some members of our community who have to bear responsibility and who turn the other cheek or do not look at what the situation. They create such an environment that an individual finds the only outlet he has, in effect, is to lash out at society and go to prison. Canadian society says: Let us give this man or woman another chance.
I agree with the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) when he chastised the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). Let the judge make the decision; he should make the determination. The judge is concerned with whether the individual is guilty or innocent of a particular crime, and then he has to make a judgment. On what does he base his judgment? He turns to the social worker and the probation officer to find out what kind of sentence the particular individual should receive. I suggest we should let the judge make the decision.
The hon. member suggested that we should go straight to the police and forget about the judge, and if the man is guilty that is the end of it. That would be a retrograde step. I do not think the hon. member recognizes this, but that is what it would be. He seems to be trying to have it both ways, and you cannot have it both ways. You cannot talk about rehabilitation of the criminal element in our society, the toughest and most dangerous people, and then expect that there will be no mistakes. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East wants a lead pipe guarantee. I suggest, with respect, that that cannot be done with people in our community who have already broken the law. There are going to be some mistakes, there have been some mistakes and there will be some in the future.

The Solicitor General made one of his best speeches. He presented the situation very cogently. I hope the hon. member for Fraser Valley East will have a few hundred copies of that speech printed and will send them back to the people who signed the petition to which he referred. He should not just climb on their bandwagon and say to them, "You are right; we have to do something about this." He should at least give the other side of the issue. He should take a strong and courageous approach, and not climb on the bandwagon of those 650 people. Let him send them the speech of the Solicitor General.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta is already calling for resignations and naming names. I suggest that he is prejudging the issue. I wonder why he wants to support this motion at all. He has already made up his mind. He has made his determination that we must have the study. I think that, also, is the wrong approach. We have a good penitentiary service and a good parole system, but no one has ever suggested it is perfect. We know that mistakes have been made and will be made in the future. However, we have an obligation not to give the impression that criminals are running all over the country and that we are in a dangerous situation.
I think the tendency of those who are criticizing the system today is that they are highlighting what the press is bringing out, the dramatic incidents and mistakes. I suggest to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and others who are criticizing the system, that when they send copies of the Solicitor General's speech they should also send some of the statistics that we have heard, such as that there has been an 82 per cent rate of success. We also heard the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) indicate the success that has been enjoyed by an individual who was a dangerous man in a maximum security prison and who later helped some 900 ex-convicts. This is the kind of person we want to get back into society. We want to rehabilitate them and get them to support the community. We hope they will help us with our penitentiary and rehabilitation service.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the other day a man called me to discuss the problem that we have before us tonight. He said, "We need a new minister". My reply to him was, "I do not think we do. I think the minister may need a new broom." The minister has every right to the confidence, support and respect of the members of this House. He certainly has mine. But I do believe that he will have to initiate decisions and actions that will end the possibility of the kind of thing that has brought to a head the issue that we are discussing tonight. There will have to be a cleansing of the administration of the system over which he presides.
We do not quarrel with the system. Indeed, as has been pointed out by earlier speakers, when the Conservative party was in office it had much to do with the introduction of the system in terms of establishing the National Parole Board and, indeed, authorizing temporary leaves of absence. We agree with the system. What we cannot agree with is the way in which it is often being administered. That is why we believe it is in the interests of the people who are subject to the system, and in the interest of the welfare of Canadian society as a whole that parliament take a good, long, serious, probing look at the way the
May 15, 1973

penitentiary system and the Parole Board are being administered and, as well, the way in which the leave system is being administered.
I take it from what I have heard tonight that this resolution will receive the unanimous support of the House. However, after listening to some of the speakers I am somewhat bewildered by the unanimity of that support, because some speakers addressed the House in such a way that one realizes they do not seem terribly impressed with the necessity for this kind of investigation. In fact, they seem to regret the fact that the point has been raised at all. But I would suggest that the hon. member who has introduced this resolution deserves the commendation of the House for bringing it forcibly and clearly to the attention of parliament and the public. He should be commended for giving us the opportunity to participate in this debate which is of such concern to every responsible citizen throughout this land.
The reason it is a matter of great concern is not simply because of the breaking out from Laval of five prisoners over the weekend. That, surely, was the last straw that the public could bear. It was, surely, the final incident in a long series of events which taken together have so weakened public confidence in the way the penitentiary system is being administered that the kind of debate we are having tonight is the least that parliament could do, and the kind of investigation proposed in this resolution is the least action we could undertake.
As I say, it is the last in a long series of events of a like kind. For example, when we think of the way in which the temporary leave of absence program has been administered, we have to look at how time after time prisoners have been released on temporary leave and have not come back. Some prisoners released without escort have taken the opportunity, not as a chance to adjust to society but to return to organized crime.
In March of this year alone we saw one prisoner allowed out to look for a job escaping his escort in a department store in Vancouver. In Sault Ste. Marie we read of a man who was allowed out to visit his home and he did not go back to prison. In Joyceville we read of a man who was allowed out to attend a prayer meeting. Indeed, he must have thought this was an answer to his prayer. Anyway, he did not come back. Then we read of a man allowed out to attend a funeral parlour, which it may be said has a certain function in covering up, and he did not come back. This sort of thing goes on and on. The minister has admitted to this House and to the committee that the system is not perfect. We agree, but we ask him to take those steps that will lead to reducing the number of prisoners who, without escort, are allowed out of prison even though they may have a record of crimes of violence.
Similarly, with respect to the administration of the parole program we are only asking that this program be reviewed in such a way that we can take a serious look at the number of people being granted parole, who have received parole not for the first time, possibly not for the second time but have received a number of paroles and have shown a singular lack of desire to take their parole responsibilities seriously.
Penitentiaries
We are asking the minister to take a look at parole so that this record will be changed. We are simply asking that that program and the penitentiary system be administered with responsibility. We are not asking for any kind of punitive policy. If that was the policy of the penitentiary service in times past, certainly we would not wish to return to it. But we would not, and could not accept any suggestion that we ought to allow a continuation of the kind of policy which has brought us to this situation tonight. That is what we want to change.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it is in the interests of a rehabilitation program that we make changes in the way the system is being administered, because if the public is to have confidence in the kind of reform and rehabilitation program to which the minister is committed and to which parliament as a whole is committed in terms of passing the budget necessary to maintain that program, then the public is entitled to have a penitentiary service that is administered with due respect for security. That is what we are asking. We suggest that once the public loses confidence in the administration of the penitentiary service because of the way in which this kind of escape is allowed to take place and these violations of the temporary leave of absence program are allowed to take place- these things which negligence has allowed to take place- then we cannot expect people to have any confidence in the leadership and the direction of the rehabilitation program.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I have made it abundantly clear that our concern is not in any way to minimize the need for a healthy, responsible rehabilitation program; that our concern is to see the program carried out with common sense and prudence so that public confidence will be maintained.
I hope that when the committee is established it will have the opportunity, as mentioned by a previous speaker, of visiting penal institutions and talking with the custodial staff, and indeed with the inmates and with anybody else who has testimony and evidence to offer, so that a report will come back to this House along with recommendations that will tighten up the program to the extent that it is loose, that will fill in the holes to the extent that they are there, and that will recommend changes in the program to the extent that they are necessary so that public confidence can once again be placed in the penitentiary service.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the events of recent weeks cannot be laid at the door of the present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). He has brought to his office a dedication, a spirit and a sincerity that have won the support of the members of this House and of Canadians generally. When he stated that the events of recent weeks had made him feel flabbergasted and disgusted, I could quite agree with him. Indeed, the guards at Cowans-ville and at St. Vincent de Paul make the Keystone cops look like Scotland Yard.
It is time we took a different approach to the problems facing us today. When a young man is charged, convicted and sentenced, two obligations face society. One is to hold the inmate in custody for the period of his sentence, subject to remission and/or parole. The second is to pre-

May 15, 1973
Peni ten tiaries
pare the individual for permanent return to community living as a law-abiding and contributing citizen.
With regard to the first obligation, to hold the inmate in custody for the period of his sentence, penal institutions over the last 50 years have not changed from the times that Dickens described in England. However, back in 1962 the Conservative party attempted to make changes with regard to penal institutions and their design. To the credit of Mr. Fulton, moneys were set aside for a ten-year period to build institutions which would not be a repeat of the past but would be more modern in design and in comfort. We have taken a step in that direction. The $200 million that was set aside for that program has not been used; in fact, less than $100 million of it has been used. It is time the government undertook a new initiative with regard to continuing the building program that was launched in those days.
The second problem of preparing an individual for permanent return to community living as a law-abiding and contributing citizen is a very difficult one with which to contend. It is difficult to rehabilitate and reform people to become law-abiding and contributing citizens if after we convict them we place them in an institution which deprives them of many things, which takes them away from their family, their community and employment and isolates them in an abnormal society. The lack of opportunity for an inmate to practice decision-making worsens the problem.
To the credit of the solicitors general of the past ten years, they have attempted to solve the second problem with regard to rehabilitation. They embarked upon a program which had the support of most Canadians. They developed programs with regard to prerelease centres. They allowed visits for the family of an inmate, with a condition of privacy. They developed a permanent advisory board. They developed a committee of eight psychiatrists to study the particular problems in that field. They provided additional medical services. They set up inmate committees whereby the inmates could relate their problems to the officials. They corrected the correspondence problem whereby when a letter was sent to an inmate it was read by officials before being given to him. A style of haircut was adopted which did not make the person look like a criminal. Identity numbers were removed from uniforms and the living unit concept was developed as well as the cafeteria system. These are some of the accomplishments for which the government of the day and the solicitors general of the past can take credit.
9 (2150)
Mr. Speaker, (hat is a long list of reforms in connection with the rehabilitation of inmates. These are steps in the right direction towards restoring the dignity of an individual which will enable him to take his place in the community after he has served his sentence. In the past few years the government has attempted to develop an educational program. Some of the inmates have been given the opportunity to upgrade their education and some have received university training. There has been a better development of trade training and this is to the credit of the present government.

There have been mistakes, Mr. Speaker, and I guess the reason we are having this debate tonight is that some of the mistakes have come to the attention of the public. I agree with the Solicitor General's (Mr. Allmand) view of the Parole Board. They have had an 82 per cent success rate and that is to their credit. I agree also with him that the composition of the board is a fair mix of members of the bench and members from the social sciences, but it may be that we have to strengthen the criteria used when a person is released on parole. On the question of the temporary weekend passes, there have been mistakes and there will be mistakes in the future because we are dependent on human factors in making these decision.
The Commissioner of Penitentiaries gave his evidence before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs this morning and he said that one of the things that would be done, in fact was being done now, would be to give more protection at the perimiter of penitentiaries. That made me hope that we were not taking an approach that is too harsh. I agree that we have had problems and that maybe more protection at the perimiter is necessary, but I had hoped he would concentrate on some of the more fundamental problems that may arise, those that the Solicitor General set forth tonight, such as staff morale. There is a gap between the custodial officials and the administration officials in the penitentiaries across the country. Many feel that this problem has to be resolved. The idea of having a custodial official as a warden is not acceptable in my view. I think we should have a person who not only embraces the custodial view but embraces the rehabilitation and training concepts that are necessary to solve the problem.
We in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, welcome the debate that is taking place tonight. We welcome the motion that has been agreed upon for the committee to study in depth the matter of security, the matter of parole and the matter of temporary weekend passes. I hope that the committee will travel across the country and visit the different institutions, not only to see the physical aspects of the institutions but to talk to the officials and the inmates and get their response with regard to the problems that face us. We should not despair because we have made a few mistakes, Mr. Speaker. We have to continue our approach to rehabilitation and we have to take the necessary steps to tighten security so that the public are protected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, rehabilitation is the magic word in the Solicitor General's department. The penitentiary service appears to be more interested in having the criminal's fears allayed, his hostilities washed away and preparing him to put up with a society that failed him than it appears to be in punishing the criminal or protecting the public. This would be a laudable idea if it worked but it has been tried and the crime rate continues to climb.
In British Columbia we have the Agassiz correctional work camp and the William Head minimum security prison, both about 12 years old. The idea was that the "best" criminals would be allowed to go to these institutions. They would know that they had one chance to visit
May 15, 1973

these places and that if they misbehaved in any way they would be sent to a more secure and more unpleasant prison. Prisoners were allowed to work in the community, even take box lunches and wear ordinary clothes. Even the usual prison guards were replaced with men from the community who were called correctional officers. But there were not enough in the "best" category of prisoners because the minor criminals and first offenders were in the provincial jails. It takes a two-year sentence to send you to a penitentiary. In addition, the correctional officers would not stay in their jobs because of the lack of response from inmates and because many guards were attacked or threatened by inmates. All of this happened in spite of the near luxury conditions of diet, entertainment, passes and so on.
The easy prisons in British Columbia have all been failures. Statistics have shown that escapes and failures to return from leave are so numerous that local municipal councils have asked that leaves be stopped, only to be told that they were over-reacting. Only 36 per cent of inmates in British Columbia in March, 1972, were in maximum security prisons, while over half of them were in medium security prisons. Medium security means a wire fence which can be climbed easily and minimum security means no fence at all.
The Solicitor General spoke today of the increased population of the penitentiaries and of the inability of his department to obtain another site for the 100-year old British Columbia penitentiary at New Westminster. This is a maximum security institution and New Westminister does not want it any more. Has the Solicitor General wondered why nobody else wants these institutions, either?
Let me tell you of a correctional seminar which I attended as an observer in Vancouver just two years ago. The story that unfolded was this. The city of Mission which suffered economically since it ceased to be the western terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway line, reluctantly agreed to be the home of a new federal prison. There was to be a small minimum security area, some medium security and a large maximum security building with perhaps 400 inmates. The land was cleared, the preliminary plans were prepared, and municipal services were installed at great cost to the government and to the city of Mission. In fact, the idea of the new prison came to be welcomed by Mission City as an economic shot in the arm. It must be illustrative of the government's planning that the participants in this seminar succeeded in persuading the federal government to stop construction of the Mission prison, leaving the people of Mission holding the bag. They are still holding the bag as far as I know. They had their economic hopes dashed and were left with an uncompleted eyesore upon which a few prefabricated buildings have been placed.
This group persuaded the federal government that increased maximum security prisons were not needed because of the new rehabilitative programs that were in effect. Now, the present Solicitor General tells us he is having difficulty handling the increase in prison population. Is it any wonder that the government is having difficulty finding a home for the prison to replace the
Peni ten tiaries
British Columbia penitentiary at New Westminister? The government cannot be relied upon to keep its plans or its prisoners under control. In short, the government has proved that its prisons are not good neighbours and the people of British Columbia do not v/ant bad neighbours.
It is clearly time that a proper investigation was held. I give my urgent support to this motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to let slip the chance to take part in such an important debate, on a subject which is causing great concern and anxiety to the population.
Earlier today, in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I expressed to the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) not only our sympathy but also our compassion for the problems he is up against, but I also reminded him that, while we understand his problems, we expect a lot of him. We expect him to give an account of himself and to explain to the people what has caused this series of escapes.
I say this by way of introduction and I should like to add immediately that this series of incidents, especially considering that there have been 46, I believe, this year in the province of Quebec, 18 in the last few months, and five this week, seems to me to be a tragedy rich in implications.
It is a tragedy which can first of all expose to ridicule the administration of justice in general and, secondly, lead to scorn for public institutions and penal institutions in particular. This series of escapes has the further disadvantage of undermining the morale of the officers and guardians of the peace. Another disadvantage is that they frustrate the police who, day after day, attempt to carry out their duty in the face of opposition, and whose sole consolation sometimes is seeing those they have managed to put in prison get out as quickly as they went in.
The brunt of this tragedy is the growing concern of the public, at a time when the population of Quebec in particular sees murderers who have been condemned to life imprisonment, who have managed to escape once and commit other murders, being condemned anew, only to escape again today. Let us hope that they will commit no more crimes!
And finally, Mr. Speaker, the true meaning of this tragedy lies in the fact that there is real danger in jeopardizing positive progress achieved in the field of rehabilitation because the gravity of these developments might blur the prospects of rehabilitation held forth to the people by dedicated people who strove towards a better future for inmates.
I confess that I was not free from emotion when, a few minutes ago, I heard the hon. member for Timiskiming (Mr. Peters), as an example of rehabilitation, recall the case of the young man who appeared before me in 1963 or early in 1964 following the St. Vincent de Paul riot. I can still see him stand there, a strapping fellow with a record of armed robbery and all kinds of things, with a smashed jaw and a bruised face. He had been badly battered by the guards, and I told him that his punishment had been severe enough to preclude the court, in the name of socie-

May 15, 1973
Peni ten tiaries
ty, adding to it. That fellow, in spite of his experience, standing before the court, broke into tears and swore to the young presiding judge that he would not have to regret his attitude. Today it is a happy moment for me to learn from the hon. member for Timiskaming that my forbearance bore fruit, that one can still believe in rehabilitation, that one can still believe that there exists in a human being, even the most corrupt one, a potential that deserves respect.
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that those escapes might bring about among the people the feeling that we should put an end to that rehabilitation attempt in our penitentiaries.
And in concluding those introductory remarks, I say it is essential for the minister to reassure the public, to preserve and protect justice which is being undermined by that event, to protect our institutions. For that reason it is important that the minister tell us the truth on those escapes.
It is an easy thing for public men to pass on the responsibilities to boards of inquiry, to compel judges to arrive at conclusions which they themselves could have drawn had they had enough courage to face facts. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is not by creating a judicial inquiry which will have to last weeks and months that we shall know the truth about that.
I respect the choice of the minister who announced a while ago that Mr. Justice Ducros of the Superior Court, had been appointed for that duty. I will not make more comments about that but I still believe that we Members of Parliament, assembled in a special committee, as was recommended this morning, would be able to obtain immediately the facts, hear witnesses, experts and come to conclusions.
However, I would have thought that the minister would have told the House and the people today about the written instructions that were given to guards and the oral instructions that were repeated to them. Were there or not any suspensions since the Sunday incidents? We should consider particularly the fact that the same guards might still be on duty as well as the director of the penal institution who, so it seems, is said to have been warned of the escape plans by the director of the Quebec Police Force. And yet the same director is still in office. I know that you should not prejudge and condemn someone without even hearing him, but it seems to me that to reassure our fellow citizens the suspension of the people involved would certainly have been appreciated.
I am surprised that wc do not have yet the evidence that should have been collected over the last three days by the RCMP officers. It would have been quite simple for the minister to table in this House the affidavits and the witness evidence so that we might know where we stand instead of having to rely on the minister's word, on press reports or simply on hearsay.
This morning I pointed out to the minister an enlighting experience which was the escape of Lucien Rivard in 1964 or 1965. In this case, the man was far less dangerous than those currently at large. Perhaps he was more dangerous for the safety of some politicians of the time but, as an individual, there was no risk that he might commit murder.

And yet what happened? Within 48 hours after the escape-I remember this affair because I was responsible for it-overnight, we had interrogated all witnesses, obtained affidavits, collected evidence, seized revolvers and prepared everything so that the next day everything was available to the House. For three days, in reply to questions arising rightfully from everywhere, the House and the Canadian public was informed and we were not required to refer the whole matter to a royal commission which would have convened months later.
That is why I feel that swift, accelerated justice can, while reassuring the concerned public, give satisfaction to the people. That is why, with my colleagues, I was happy to accept the motion for the institution of a special committee of enquiry of the House. I believe we should proceed quickly. Some of the information obtained to date worries us deeply. We have noticed, in particular, that two of the prisoners at large were in the past suspected of FLQ activity and that, at one point, when the Cross incident occurred, those gentlemen were listed among the prisoners which the FLQ wanted departed to Cuba. It seems to me those things should be looked into without delay.
I wonder why, for instance, reports on inquiries into previous escapes involving those same persons might not be tabled in the House. If we were to study those reports and establish who helped or took in the criminals after their first escape, it might be easier for us to find out what the facts are.
I convey this information to the House and make those suggestions in all modesty, as my contribution to this debate. I say to the Solicitor General that, while we understand his problems, the fact remains that in our present political and social system, the members of the cabinet are answerable for the actions of the civil servants. This solidarity and responsibility is one thing from which there is no escape, and I urge the Solicitor General to take good note of my observations, as well as all the speeches made in this House. I will be pleased to co-operate, that justice might be done to all.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, because most of what I had intended to say has already been said very ably by speakers who have gone before me.
All of us in this House who are concerned with the protection of the public have a very special responsibility. That responsibility is to refrain from fanning the flames of passion over the escapes and the failures in the parole system. If we are genuinely concerned about the protection of the public, we must endeavour to see that the public is ready to support a decent system of rehabilitation. We are doing public protection no service at all if we play on the fears of the public as the media are inclined to do.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said that in any good program of penal reform and rehabilitation, mistakes are inevitable. Of course, if that were the only test we must have one heck of a program, because there have been a number of monumental mistakes. My hon. friend from Broadview said the program had received
May 15, 1973

public support. He used the past tense. My overwhelming concern is that public support for what was basically a sound program is fast disappearing, and will continue to diminish unless we can lessen the number of errors which are occurring. I shall not dwell on those errors. In this party we think that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has been doing a good job and we wish him well. What we are sorry to see is that some of his officials have been letting him down. I think we can all congratulate him on his candour and on his honesty; those are very refreshing qualities in this House.
It seems to me that the Parole Board has over-reacted and that every time an incident occurs the cutback is so overwhelming the jail population grows, and when there are so many people in jail there are bound to be escapes. Inconsistency on the part of the Parole Board has led to some of the difficulties we face. I think there should be consultation on the part of the parole boards with respect to inmates in the penitentiaries. Before they let someone with a psychopathic personality free, there should be consultation with other prisoners, because a man who is able to "con" a number of people might not have been able to "con" his fellow inmates who often have good judgment of the people around them. There should also be consultation with prison guards who are often in a position to make an astute assessment of the characters of inmates. Much of the good work of rehabilitation is being destroyed as a result of the errors which have occurred.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) has placed a good resolution before the House; it is one which our party will support. Like him, I have had an opportunity to go through the B.C. Penitentiary. It is an institution which should be torn down. It is not rehabilitating anybody. We cannot operate a civilized and humane system when we hold people in cages. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) told us about all the problems, but I do not recall his offering any solution to them. The solution is a decent and humane system of rehabilitation because, let us not forget, these people are going to enter society again.
The last question I intend to deal with concerns the psychopathic inmate. Too little attention has been paid to this question. The studies which have been going on in British Columbia have not been funded, despite requests to the Solicitor General. This is too bad, because there are very real problems involved in the treatment of a few inmates who are not capable of being rehabilitated. Perhaps the reason the system is encountering failures is that it has been operating on the basis of a belief that everyone is capable of rehabilitation. I do not accept this. A good penal system must pay attention to the psychopathic criminal who cannot be released. We must study this problem, if necessary at the elementary level, so as to try to identify people with this kind of behaviour. Much work is needed in this area.
As I say, I welcome the resolution and support it. I hope the justice committee will be given the opportunity to travel and to visit penal institutions, and particularly be allowed to speak to inmates, because as much can be learned from them as from anybody.
Penitentiaries


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say at the outset that I welcome the fact that a parliamentary committee is going to look into the operation of the penitentiary service and its many facets. There have been in the past a number of royal commissions on this subject. There was the report of the Archambault commission of the 1930's, the Fauteux commission of the 1950's, the Ouimet of the 1960's, and more recently the Swackhammer commission into the Kingston penitentiary riot. Presently, we are awaiting the Hugessen report into parole and temporary absence.
Some of the reforms that these various reports and commissions recommended have not yet been implemented, even though many years have passed since the recommendations were made. It seems to me that others have been implemented with over-zealous haste and little preplanning. I think that for the time being we have had a surfeit of judicial or independent inquiries. The time has come for us, as parliamentarians, to educate ourselves, and in so doing educate the public, as to the nature of the malaise and discontent which afflicts our penitentiaries system, and may I say as well the progress in penal reform that has been made over the years. Too often this is overlooked.
I think these educational results could be better achieved if at the outset the minister made available to the members of the committee, if necessary on a confidential basis, the reports and transcripts that have been made both to the Swackhammer and to the Hugessen commissions. For instance, I refer to the fact that the Swackhammer commission visited nine institutions and received statements from some 580 persons, including penitentiary staff and inmates. If on the basis of full confidentiality these statements could be made available to members of the committee as pre-preparation for the work they are to undertake, I think they would come to their task better informed and prepared.
The constituency that I represent, that of Kingston and the Islands, lives with this problem on a daily basis. It is not something that comes up whenever there is an escape from a penitentiary in a certain part of the country; it is something that we have with us every day. Within our general area there are five major penal institutions. Some 1,500 people in my constituency are employed in those institutions in which over 2,000 inmates are incarcerated. So, not only is the safety of the community and the protection of the public involved in a very real sense; the involvement is much more than that. There is the involvement of the employees working in the prisons, there is the involvement of some 400 to 500 volunteers who work in the prisons on a weekly basis, and there is the involvement of inmates working in the community on temporary absences, on day paroles and in other roles.
As one who has been a voluntary worker in these penitentiaries over the last seven years, I have found it extremely beneficial for me to establish a good working relationship with the administration, the custodial staff and the inmates. My work has given me some insight perhaps into the problems that exist at these particular levels. In view of this, I should like to suggest that the committee take a look at its role and its responsibility from three different perspectives: first of all, from that of

May 15, 1973
Penitentiaries
the administration and the staff generally; secondly, from that of the inmate; and finally, and very importantly, from that of the community-that is, from society as a whole.
With regard to the administration and staff, I think some of the following questions should be asked. Is there a need to streamline the whole prison administration? How good are communications between different levels of the penitentiary service? Are new programs which are being implemented properly explained to those who are going to be responsible for their implementation? Is the needed staff infrastructure being provided for new programs? Are measures taken to ensure that established penal programs which are working well are not being jeopardized? Further, are all staff being given the opportunity to update their skills through special training programs as reform measures are introduced, or are some being denied that privilege, and does this result in friction among the staff members? How well are the unions providing representation for their members or forwarding grievances on behalf of their members to the administration? What is the guard to warden relationship?
I think it is necessary that the committee and others recognize that there is a divergence of viewpoint between the administrator and the custodial officer, in the same way that there is a divergence of view between employer and employee in any other sector of industry. Is this divergence or difference in view in any way detrimental to the efficient functioning of a rehabilitative penal institution? Secondly, with regard to inmates, I think the committee should direct its attention to the re-evaluation of the concept of a hierarchy of security in prisons-that is, minimum, medium and maximum security institutions. What are the criteria for determining what sort of institution a criminal enters, and for how long? I think there should be a full examination of psychiatric facilities. Are they sufficient? What about the idea of maximum security hospitals?
Then, I think the committee should look at the problems that are brought about when disruption by a few inmates results in restrictive measures being applied to the total inmate population. I think here particularly of the situation at Millhaven when 14 inmates escaped and all recently granted privileges were subsequently withdrawn from 350 inmates. The resulting tension that this aroused did much to lead to the onset of the deterioration in morale both on the part of the staff and the inmates at Millhaven in the following months. I think there should be a detailed examination of guard-convict relations, of how each is perceived by the other. The committee should be allowed to call both inmates and guards as witnesses.
I would specifically ask that the committee take a special look at the problems inherent in prisons for women. Whether or not we care to admit it, there is discrimination in this area. It is all very well to say that the concept of temporary absence should be changed, investigated and reorganized, but a temporary absence or a weekend pass to a woman inmate in Kingston means nothing if she comes from British Columbia or Newfoundland. Since this is the only institution for women in the country, I do not mean to imply that this is the only point of discrimination. I

want to mention two areas in this regard that should be investigaged.
It is permissible for an inmate to make a long distance telephone call once a month at his or her own expense. If you happen to be an inmate in a prison for women and you come from British Columbia that is a much higher cost for you to bear than if you come from Ontario or Quebec, or if you are in an institution for men, as these are located all across the country. If you are in a prison for women there is only one, and that is often many miles distant from your home. Furthermore, the educational facilities in the prison for women are very mediocre, in fact non-existent, as compared to those provided in institutions for men. The hierarchy of security at the prison for women is very complicated in that the minimum, medium and maximum security prisons are all meshed into one. There should be some way of differentiating between the treatment meted out to women who are incarcerated as medium security prisoners and those who have been sentenced as maximum security inmates.
I should have liked to see the criteria of the committee broadened to encompass the whole question of sentencing, the role of the judiciary and the manner in which crimes of a similar nature receive sentences of radically dissimilar lengths in different parts of the country. This is taking place and it is not fair. Perhaps this could be the subject of an additional study by the committee.
Finally, from the point of view of the public, I think the committee should be empowered to suggest methods to ensure that a new openness exists with regard to penitentiary facilities so that public fears can be allayed. What constructive role, for instance, can the media play? How quickly can visitors' committees with proper authority be set up and made to function? How can community involvement be designed to strengthen rehabilitation? Few prisoners die in jail from natural causes. Most of them eventually are released back into society. How can the public help them if it is not informed of the facts, and the public has the right to know these facts? The committee should press for less secrecy and more openness on the part of the penitentiary system, an openness that is free of distortion and distrust.
In this connection I want to quote briefly from the recent Swackhammer report where it is stated:
Thirty-eight years ago the Archambault Report commented that under the present system existing in the Canadian penitentiaries, what is going on in the institutions is shrouded with absolute secrecy, giving rise to suspicion and misgivings, which are further exhanced by extravagant and abused tales of ex-prisoners and the imagination of sentimentalists. As a consequence, although, for the sake of security, no undue information should be given, a practical check of what is going on should be made. The prisoner feels that he has no access to a fair administration of justice and is absolutely removed from the protection of his fellow man.'
I may say that the custodial staff and the general public have similar reservations. Those comments which were made in 1938 are equally pertinent today in 1973. I hope that the activities of this committee can contribute to the resolution of these many problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members will agree that most of what has to
May 15, 1973

be said in this debate has been said in one way or another by colleagues on both sides of this House. There seems to be general agreement that we do have a situation across the country today within our penal system which requires, and indeed demands, investigation by this House. I think it is imperative that this motion leads to the investigation of these problems by hon. members of this House and, that the investigation is not relegated to some sort of committee which will eventually bring in a report at some distant time. I hope an obligation will be imposed upon the members serving on the committee to deal with the matter quickly and expeditiously, albeit carefully.
This is important because most of us, and this may be almost an ingenuous thing to say, were profoundly moved during the past election by the number of people-and I think this is true no matter what their party affiliation- who said to candidates and to members who were seeking re-election, that while they did not know all the answers and were not prepared to blame any one person for the problem, they felt a growing uneasiness about the whole concept of law and order in our country. I use the words "law and order" with respect, because without law and order we have exactly the opposite.
I have been a lawyer for 17 years, and while I suppose I am proud of the position I now hold and grateful to those who sent me here, I am perhaps more conscious that whatever else I have been asked to do in my life this is perhaps the most important. I am one of those who has been proud to be a lawyer in this country and one who at any time will defend the concept of civil liberty and the great traditions that have been brought down through the ages, of which we are the proud inheritors. When I say this I say it with great consciousness born of experience in the courts, and born of some understanding of the people who have sent us here. If we are to have a humane and just system of law and order, it must rest on the basis of confidence among the people who send their legislators to the parliament and legislatures of this country.
What disturbs me is that, unfortunately, in some cases tragically, we have made errors and mistakes, and those errors and mistakes have resulted in an appalling lack of confidence. Because there is such a lack of confidence, there are those among us in the community who would be prepared to forget the great traditions and civil liberties of which we have every reason to be proud. It is because of this that I think it is important that those of us who are here because people sent us, and will remain here only as long as the people have confidence in us, are charged with the immediate investigation of those problems that are causing so much concern to so many Canadians.
I think I should say also it is not enough-and I believe all members in the House will agree with me-to point to one or two instances which we all deplore and say this means that our whole system is falling apart. I do not believe that. I believe some mistakes have been made which perhaps are rooted in a false philosophy. Having practised law not only in the civil courts but also in the criminal courts, I believe in a parole system. I do not believe that everyone who is convicted of a crime ought to spend the rest of his life in jail. I do not think any lawyer who ever practised in the criminal courts who had any
Peniten tiaries
sensitivity would believe that, nor do I believe any fair-minded Canadian would believe it. However, I believe experience has shown that in respect of a man who is dangerous to the community, those charged with deciding upon his release have upon them the onus to show, at least within reason, that there is a probability if that man is released back into the community his release will not result in that community being victimized.
If there is one thing which I believe we must come back to it is the recognition that experience in terms of what a person does is some indication of what he is, and what he might well be. There is an onus on those who have the very difficult task of releasing such people into society to be sure that these people are released under conditions and circumstances where the public will not again be victimized. These are some of the questions which the committee will have to look into. I have heard hon. members from every party make some very intelligent, sensible and sensitive comments in this debate. If we are to improve our prison system, if we are to improve our system for the security of the public, if we are to ensure humanity to man and if we are to do so in an effort to rehabilitate all of those who can realistically be rehabilitated, we must take this approach.
My colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) said he does not believe that everyone can be rehabilitated. My colleague and I are members of different parties but we are both lawyers. I agree with my hon. friend when he says that, and I hope that eventually in fullness of time and with the increase in our own knowledge and wisdom, perhaps we will be able to rehabilitate everybody. However, as someone who has been involved in the court system and who has lived at least for a few years in a real world. I say that at the present time we cannot achieve the rehabilitation of everybody. When we try to further our own knowledge in these spheres, we must not and cannot do it at the expense of the safety of those innocent people who depend upon us to ensure that we have a system whereby those who have transgressed against society in a dangerous way are put where they cannot any longer harm innocent people.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say one thing in closing. I say this to all hon. members, to the press and to the people of Canada who sent us here. I think it is intensely important that Members of Parliament take part in this investigation. They are not all experts; that we all concede. Most of us, however, in a way that the expert never has to realize in actuality, are in touch with our people. We know what their fears and concerns are. We "know also that if the fears and concerns increase much beyond the position we have reached at the present time there is a very real danger that the concepts of freedom, civil liberty, civility and democracy, without which we would not have a decent society, are in very real danger.


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has listened to a great many lectures tonight, and I do not intend to belabour him much longer. I should like to remind him that some months ago, I believe it was in December or perhaps early in January, I brought to him in private and submitted to several of his colleagues in his party as well as to some of my colleagues, a proposal which matched almost in every
3798

May 15, 1973
Peniten tiaries
respect the one we are being asked to consider tonight. I did so not because I had any profound knowlege that there was something wrong in respect of the penal system of this country. I did so at that time because we were engaged in a debate on the subject of capital punishment. We are still engaged in that debate. It was my contention then, and it is now, that most of the people of Canada who have expressed themselves rather vehemently in some cases in favour of the retention of capital punishment have done so not because of any well-founded concern that they might be murdered in their beds or out on the streets, but because they are concerned about the rise in violent crime. They are worried that they might be assaulted in public. A woman might have a well founded concern that she stands in good danger of violent assault and rape.
I say they have this concern with good cause and with the best of all possible reasons. They have watched these things happen. They have seen situations such as that which took place in Ottawa not too long ago where two men were involved in an armed holdup in which an innocent bystander was murdered while they were out on bail, on a charge of possession of a sawed-off rifle. They have read of incidents such as that in Toronto where a man who had committed a series of crimes, including assault on a police officer, was released on his own recognizance and not too long afterward murdered another policeman. They are aware of situations inside prisons, such as the situation which within a few months resulted in riots, murders and beatings. I think they have a good right to ask themselves precisely what their government placed first on its list of priorities and whether or not it was the protection of society. I believe this must be the first priority.
If people are not convinced that the system will protect them, they will panic. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, this is part of the reason members of all parties in this House are having a very difficult time making up their minds whether the government's bill to re-impose the banning of capital punishment should, in fact, pass.
I have spoken for only a few minutes, but in closing I will ask the government not only to make this inquiry a meaningful one, not only to search out every defect in its penal system, its bail system and its parole system- because defects there are without going into tiresome detail-but to consider very seriously withdrawing the bill on capital punishment from debate until there can be a meaningful inquiry which will have the effect of reasur-ing the people of this country that there is no need to revert to that kind of savage punishment.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, without any reflection on the impartiality or the eyesight of the Chair, I do feel that I might be allowed to mention that I have been on my feet for two days in the last week to ask a couple of questions about the William Head Prison. I was on my feet again yesterday and today to do the same on another sort of question, because unfortunately I have to make it clear that all the problems with penitentiaries are not concentrated in the province of Quebec. Regrettably, British Columbia has its share of them.
I was pleased to see that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) was on the west coast last weekend. Although everything else was working to have him enjoy that particular visit-and I was there too-the penitentiary system failed to co-operate. While the minister was in the area, a dangerous criminal, confined on a grievous sex charge, escaped from William Head Penitentiary. He was not the first to do so, but surely the first to do so when the minister was actually in the area. I do not say that the minister was in the prison at the time because I do not know where he was, but he was in the area.
Since that escape, two elderly people have been attacked brutally in a trailer camp in an area where that prisoner might have been, and a third person has since been attacked, also in an area where the escaped prisoner might have been lurking. All three victims are now in hospital. The man from William Head was still free when I spoke to Victoria about seven o'clock this evening. This is not all. There are accounts circulating in Victoria that a prisoner serving a five year sentence for manslaughter has been absent without authorization from William Head since March 12. The police were unable to say why they did not learn, until the beginning of this month, two months later, that this man had failed to return after the expiration of the pass, which was believed to have been a weekend pass, not a two months pass.
The third matter I had in mind to ask the minister was about the physical measures that were to be taken in William Head in the light of his decision to convert that institution from a minimum to a medium security institution. It was my hope that I would get the answer that those measures would be taken prior to the introduction into that institution of medium security prisoners. I do not yet know whether those additional measures have been taken. But is this why we have been having escapes from William Head, because those to which I referred were not taken. Is it because those measures have not been taken? I am told, for example, that in certain tidal circumstances which I need not elaborate it is possible to walk out of William Head quite easily. This may be an exaggeration, but it is certainly symptomatic of the tales that are circulating and the insecurity that is felt in the area about the institution that is there. The guarding at that institution must be tightened up; physical barriers must be improved, and parole procedures likewise need to be tightened. Finally, I suggest that another site should be selected, one that is not so near the centres of high density population.
These are only the most recent evidences of laxity in the penitentiary system in British Columbia, and let me make it clear that I am not criticizing the guards for this. I have the greatest respect for them. Their duty is an onerous one and we should be proud that they are performing it to the best of their ability. Let us not attack them. They cannot defend themselves from attack in this place. What we must look at are the policies formulated by the government that permit these things to happen. The government which, for some unexplained reason, has decided to place the emphasis, not on the public, which asks for security, or on the injured party, but on the man who has caused the injury. Society demands security. It is up to parliament to ensure that society's safety is assured. The criminal has placed himself outside the law and has earned his penalty.

May 15, 1973

Why should individual, law-abiding citizens be penalized for the delinquency of criminals? We are bound to ask ourselves these questions.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke of proportion. Can he deny that there has been a rash of escapes across this country? I have mentioned those in the west; others have mentioned those in the central and eastern parts of the country. The large proportion of this country is composed of law-abiding citizens. They want law and order, as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) said so eloquently a few moments ago. They deserve law.an'd order, being law-abiding citizens, and in return for the confidence placed in us by our law-abiding constituents we should spare no effort in providing that law and order for them. One means of doing so is by instituting this inquiry which has now been proposed to us. Aside from that small proportion of our population who are law breakers there is a smaller proportion, happily, which has placed itself beyond the law and has decided to become incorrigible law breakers. Many of these people have been escaping custody. It is not alarm that is being created by this debate, as some have suggested, it is an expression of concern. This is the expression of our concern.
What happens in these circumstances to those who are charged with the responsibility of ensuring the safe custody of these convicted persons, the guardians, the wardens at prisons? Unless we in parliament act now, we will be having increasing difficulty in retaining those who are trained and recruiting the replacements and, I think we should add, in recruiting policemen. Then, surely, we will be in trouble. Their confidence in their jobs must be restored and our actions will contribute to the restoration of that confidence. Our law and the penalties under our law must be applied. Those who obey the law demand it- disobedience of the law requires it.
Many speakers who have preceded me have said-and I agree with them-that our law is a good law and our philosophy of law is right. We must not allow it to be distorted. The maintenance of our law rests on discipline, Mr. Speaker, and discipline may have to be imposed. It may be necessary to determine who among those who resist discipline in detention will have to be detained. I maintain that these are non-rehabilitable, but that is a matter of judgment. There must be a means of determining who is rehabilitable and who is not, and once that is done the methods of rehabilitation can be developed and can be effective.
In the process of selection, we must use some pretty refined and sophisticated techniques. I do not believe they are all in place yet. We are still experimenting, but we must not experiment at the cost of our fellow law-abiding citizens. Any margin of doubt must go in favour of society. Those who cannot be rehabilitated should not be granted parole or leave of absence unless they can, in subsequent days, prove their capacity to live within the confines of the discipline that we must uphold.
This is a matter that we must leave to specialists, but concurrently we must tighten up the administration of our penitentiaries with higher technical in-put for the entire
Penitentiaries
penal system. And I have a feeling that the minister does not entirely disagree with me. Although I would not wish to put words in his mouth, I was very pleased to hear he was fed up with the developments that had taken place when he was out in British Columbia. The Canadian law-abiding public is fed up.
As a guide to the improvement of this administration, a good point of departure is a review of where we are now in the whole penitentiary system. This can be accomplished by inquiring into the temporary absence system, security in the penal institutions, the parole system and, generally speaking, the administration of penalties arising out of the commission of crime. We have plans to get this inquiry under way soon as a result of the action taken in the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee this morning. And while this inquiry is going on, Mr. Speaker, prison guards and inmates should know what the rules of incarceration are. As a result each will know the role he has to play. Let all know who is likely to get parole, and who has earned parole. Let all know how parole can be earned, how weekend passes can be earned and how they can be lost. These privileges can not be earned escaping but by performance and proper conduct within the penitentiary.
What we all look to also is the full meaning of the mini, the midi, the maxi, and I suppose the super-maxi institutions in the penal system. Is it a matter of graduating by good conduct from one grade to another, depending on deportment? And are paroles granted in super-maxi institutions? This whole system must be investigated. Recommendations must be drawn up and approved by this House. That process is now in train as a result of the committee's action this morning. How better to get such an investigation on the road than by a select committee of this House representing all parties, all regions,- all professions to be found here in this House? I support this proposal with every firmness I can muster.


Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the penitentiary system, its administration, security, parole, and the system of temporary absences. I would like to discuss something which comes within the perimeters of this debate, the parole system, which is so much a part of our penitentiary set up. The parole system, as you know, is supposedly a system by which prisoners who have served time in jail can be given an opportunity to go back into society and produce, in the sense that society can accept them as well deserving citizens who are willing to use their knowledge and efforts for the betterment of society.
We release prisoners who are supposedly rehabilitated into a society that is unwilling and unready to accept them. There is a girl in British Columbia who wrote to me recently about her problems under the parole system. She tried to make amends, to look for a job, and to give something to society. She was turned down by each and every employer to whom she applied. In fact, she listed 89 different companies that turned her down because society was not willing to accept her. This is something we cannot accept in a civilized society because we should be willing to forgive and forget. Can we understand a situation like this, when people who have served their time and are willing to make amends become disillusioned and, as a result, go back into the prison system? Are we willing to
26314-23J

May 15, 1973
Peni ten tiaries
accept this? Are we willing to accept the idea that such people are non-persons who cannot be accorded the privileges of a decent citizen of society?
We talk about the cost of the prison system. That cost will not be any less if we continue on this road and treat these people the way this girl was treated. But I must say I was very happy tonight, after talking to her mother over the telephone, to learn that she has just been accepted on the staff of the non-status Indians in British Columbia, Maybe these people who have suffered for so many years understand her plight and are willing to accept her. Are we so sanctimonious that we are unwilling to forgive? Are we willing to give these people the chance that they want? Criminals are not all hardened criminals. Many inmates of jails have been peaceful citizens. The fact is that it is quite possible for many of us to land in jail some time or other, because at one time or another we have broken laws. In fact, we may find ourselves in the prison system that we are investigating right now and, if we do, when we get out of that system we may find ourselves in the same position as that girl in British Columbia found herself.
Criminals are not born, they are victims of the environment. As victims of the environment they find themselves formed according to how the environment wishes them to be formed. It is unfortunate that so many of us look within the prison walls and are not willing to look outside the prison walls that are so much a part of the whole system. There are many organizations that are willing to help but cannot because of lack of money or staff to handle the cases brought to their attention. I have spoken to personnel of the Elizabeth Fry Society in Vancouver and was impressed by what the lady in charge and the society is doing. If we are going to investigate the prison society, let us confer with those who have worked through the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society and find out how we can help them through financing and by every means at our disposal.
We must teach society to accept those who were once convicted and have served their time. We must have within our law the means to encourage employers to accept those who have served their time and are willing to be productive. We must put our Christian principles into operation if we believe in Christian principles.


An hon. Member:: We all believe in them.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: I am sure there are many who do. However, words alone are not enough; there must be action. We need action. We must have this investigation. In order to have a complete investigation, let us not do it only within the prison walls but outside as well.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to say a few words in this important debate concerning the many escapes from penitentiaries, particularly in the last few months.
Living about 13 miles from the Drummondville penitentiary, I have been witness to the alarm and fear in which the population of my town and region have lived following many escapes from Cowansville. One of the escaped pris-

oners, for example, a notorious crook, spent the first night after his escape in a house three doors away from where I live. That shows to what extent, in our supposedly well-protected society, we are placed in a very serious and dangerous position by a prison system in which disorder reigns, authority has lost all its power, and criminals draw up their own rules, make threats and command those who represent the law.
Propagandists of all hues, for example, politicologists or sociologists, are allowed into the penitentiaries to distribute all sorts of literature aimed at indoctrinating the inmates and causing uprisings.
Here is a very good example. In March 1973, a supposedly eminent Montreal criminologist, Mr. Andre Norman-deau, Ph.D. went to the Cowansville penitentiary to hand out literature about the Parti Quebecois, give a lecture, and distribute a document entitled: "The manifesto of a candidate for the Parti Quebecois political convention in the constituency of Mount Royal", the constituency of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Clause C of this manifesto includes the following: The Parti Quebecois leadership's criminal justice program. Inmates were allowed to print and distribute this manifesto, organize teach-ins, discuss, meditate and make propaganda about the Parti Quebecois manifesto by Mr. Andre Normandeau.
Mr. Speaker, this strikes me particularly since I know very well the problems of the Cowansville penitentiary. It is because the penitentiary authorities have no moral or other support from the Canadian justice or the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Allmand). Last night again, not 24 hours ago, at the Cowansville penitentiary, during a meeting of penitentiary officers, they were informed that if any one of them wounds or kills an inmate while exercising his duties, the government does not hold itself responsible for any legal procedures against the officer, damages caused or costs incurred to defend himself before the courts. In fact, the officer will have to get help from friends or relatives or defend himself alone against the procedures which may be taken by the inmate or his parents. On the other hand, the government will assume the costs of legal assistance to help the criminal defend himself against the officer who represents justice.
Before such risks, Mr. Speaker, the officers have refrained from doing their work for fear of losing their jobs and through fear of threats from the inmates to the officers or members of their families.
Mr. Speaker, I know personally some officials whose life is hell among murderers because the law does not give them any protection.
The authority of penitentiary officials over inmates is not recognized by the government; fqr instance, they can throw their supposedly badly done steaks at the officials who can only smell those steaks which the inmates refuse to eat and which the officials cannot afford for themselves or for their family.
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has also mislead the House or he is not aware of what is going on at Cowansville. Out of about 400 inmates, 100 should be kept in maximum security penitentiaries while the minister told the House that 25 or 30 inmates should be held there.
May 15, 1973

Mr. Speaker, if we want to have order in penitentiaries, if we want the laws to be obeyed, the officials, those who represent justice, the officials who are in charge of order must be protected by the law and have moral support from the judicial system and the Solicitor General of Canada.
Officials are keeping out of the way, they do not want to see anything, they let things go because they have no personal protection against hundreds of criminals in penitentiaries and, in order to keep their job, they let everyone free with the results we have known in recent months.
Mr. Speaker, it is urgent that we establish an inquiry commission made up not of those who must live with the problems but of persons completely independent of the present penitentiary system and who could consult both inmates and officials and see what is wrong with the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I know personally of certain rules which are supposed to exist in the penitentiaries and here again because the officials did not get any support, they are right to be afraid because we leave them alone to defend their case against any legal action; they do not wish to set the inmates against them. Everything is permitted, in the penitentiaries.
Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to hear certain officers who really want to fulfill their duties, but who in the circumstances cannot have the law respected, do their job, actually ensure the protection of the inmates, the maintenance of order in the penitentiaries while securing human conditions for the inmates, considering that those persons have committed a crime, that they have been condemned by courts of law and that the officers must ensure that justice and order are respected in our Canadian penitentiaries.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speeches on this matter from both sides of the House. Like all questions that are moral as opposed to being political, there are two points of view, two concepts wrestling with one another. On the one hand, we have the matter of rehabilitation of the prisoner which is something that is worthy of any civilized society to pursue. On the other, we have the question of the protection of that civilized society. Throughout this debate has run a thread and upon that thread this question balances.
I have now come to the reluctant conclusion that in certain respects, the Solicitor General's department, the department under which the Penitentiary Act is administered and the administrators of the penitentiaries have failed. Perhaps to a certain degree, the court system may have failed in that there has been an overbalancing in favour of the rehabilitation of the prisoner. Apparently the escapes, the crimes committed while people are on parole and the crimes committed while people are on temporary absence have demonstrated that. This is a demonstration to the public that perhaps rehabilitation of the prisoner has remained uppermost and the scale is balanced in that direction as opposed to the protection of society.
Rehabilitation is important. I support the concept of rehabilitation. If there is to be any doubt or weighting of
Pen i ten tiaries
the balance on one side of the concept or the other, it ought to be in favour of protection of society. Basically, that is the thread that has passed through this debate. There was concern that that aspect of it has been neglected, perhaps wilfully, perhaps not. None the less, that has led to the concern expressed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). At long last, and somewhat reluctantly from the government's point of view, the attention of this House and, hopefully the country, is being focussed on this very important question.
I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). He stated that he had practiced in the courts for 17 years on both the criminal and civil side. I practiced in the courts for the same period of time on both sides of the law. I have also practiced on the prosecution side. I had the honour to prosecute people brought to justice in Ontario. I have also defended, including capital cases. I listened to the debate that preceded this on the question of whether we ought to have capital punishment, not have it have it in part.
I have perhaps dealt with my constituents in a little different manner. I have asked them to talk to me, not just mark an "X" on a piece of paper which is an easy thing to do, so I can reason and discuss with them. I talked both to those who are vehemently or mildly in favour of capital punishment. The majority of people I talked to took that position. They are very concerned about what is happening in the penitentiary system, the operation of the Bail Reform Act, temporary absence and so on. The majority of them clearly said to me that if they could be assured that society would be protected, they would not want to add another life, albeit the life of a criminal, to the list of people who are the victims of harshness and cruelty in the community.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) ought to take the words of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) to heart. He ought to withdraw the bill so that it can be considered, not in an atmosphere filled with heat, but in an atmosphere where sane and sober thoughts will guide its consideration through this House.
The hon. member for Vancouver South also spoke of confidence in the legal system. The reform that any civilized person wants in the parole system and any other system of incarceration, bearing in mind the protection of society, will not come about unless the people of this country have confidence that the system is working and there is indeed built into it protection. There is a duty upon this government and all members of the committee to ensure that the committee examines in the fullest, widest and most open way every aspect without fear. If members of this House or the committee say the committee should go into the prisons of this country, perhaps on a selective basis, I will agree with them. If they say this committee ought to travel, I will agree with that. If they say this committee's functions are to be carried on in the most public way, I will agree with that.
The committee should examine not just the prison system, but the parole system. They should determine why it has become the habit of the federal Parole Board not to examine prisoners on a face-to-face basis. Is it because of a shortage of staff? If so, this government and this country should move to remedy that. If it is because of some other

May 15, 1973
Pen i ten tiaries
reason, that reason should be found. If they do not change this, whatever flimsy amount of confidence there is now in the parole system and the operation of the Bail Reform Act, and it is flimsy indeed, will be washed away. That would be a tragedy for this country and for our civilized community. It will for a long time to come be the source of great injustice to those who under the present system could benefit from parole.
The subject we are considering transcends in importance many of the other issues which have been before us. I say to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) that we have no wish to return to the dark days with respect to our penal system. None of us has taken that position, and I think the hon. member was rather unfair to my hon. friend from Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) in criticizing the speech he made. But we do want to return to an age of reason when a civilized community can expect its government and the institutions operated by its government to protect it against whatever prompts criminal behaviour, against whatever causes some criminals to be incapable of reform.
If we accept the statement that all criminals are victims of their environment, we are saying that completion of a criminal act is a matter of accident. We all know that this is too sweeping a generalization. We want to take the mind of a criminal and change that mind by working on the conditions in which he finds himself. We want to give that chance to those worthy of a chance. At the same time, we want to protect society against those who are unworthy of such an opportunity. This should be the principle behind the committee's investigation.
I am glad it is to be a committee of elected members. I do not believe this work should be foisted upon judges. Judges, by virtue of their position, are not called upon to answer to the public. In a sense, therefore, they are irresponsible in a way in which a committee would not be irresponsible. I welcome the motion and I support the concept that the work be carried out by a committee of this House. The committee has the ability and will, I hope, possess the necessary expertise to inquire into these matters and ensure that society regains the confidence which is lacking today. Perhaps if this is the result, the attitude of society toward the important subject we were considering earlier will be changed as a consequence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? I rise simply to ask whether perchance the time has come at which there might be some discussion through the usual channels about the possibility of bringing the debate to a conclusion at a reasonable hour. If this cannot be done through the usual channels, maybe it can be done through some unusual channels.


Erik Nielsen: There are not many left on this side of the House who wish to participate in the debate. I have six names on my list, and there is my own short contribution concerning the mechanics of this inquiry upon which the standing committee is about to embark. With the tolerance of hon. members, I think we should be able to conclude within the next hour unless, of course, there are speakers from the other parties who wish to enter the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have none here, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Most unusual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In light of what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has said, I wonder whether there could be some discussion, perhaps behind the Speaker's chair. Possibly we could reduce the length of speeches so that we might save some time while still allowing everyone to speak who wishes to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As the hon. member knows, that can only be done by unanimous consent. While these discussions are taking place, perhaps we can hear the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie).


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to add my support to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), a motion which goes to the root of many anxieties which plague so many Canadians at this time. If we do not decide now that positive action is called for, and if we do not then take decisive action, I am afraid the whole question of who is the prisoner and who is the jailer will be academic. We are on the verge today of losing sight of who it is who needs and deserves the protection of the law.
Things are so bad today, with respect to the prison system, that if it were not for the fact that people who are walking out of our prisons almost daily were not hardened criminals, the situation would be hilarious. In fact, in light of the unfavourable publicity being directed to the department of the Solicitor General I am surprised he even allows some of these people into jail! However, the situation is anything but hilarious when we consider that some of these people are murderers, rapists and thugs, people who do not hesitate to use violence on anyone they may meet. We are familiar with recent examples of criminals escaping from prison to commit heinous crimes in order to get transportation, food or money or just to "get back" at the society which put them behind bars.
Contrary to the contention of many people, these prison inmates are not just a bunch of mixed-up kids. They were put in prison after being convicted of crimes, often crimes of violence; they were incarcerated only after exhausting all the many avenues open to them under our judicial system. The most disturbing aspects is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his appointees in the penitentiary service insist on discussing the situation merely on the basis of reform, rehabilitation and parole. This makes about as much sense as a speech by Jackie Onassis on poverty.
The fact is that it is ridiculous talking about reforming a prisoner unless he makes himself available to be reformed. It has almost reached the point at which a prisoner in a Canadian jail simply will not wait around unless he happens to like it there. If he likes the food and is free to kick the guards and other prisoners around, and if he can run the prison the way he wants it run, then he just might hang around for a while. This is not good enough. Before we undertake to do anything by way of reform or rehabilitation we must ensure that when a lawbreaker is sen-

tenced to jail he is kept there for the duration of his sentence. As it is now, and as it has been for too long, the prisoner is the sole object of the government's sympathy.
Too often we hear of riots in our prisons and we hear afterward that many of the guards are tried or disciplined for being too rough with the inmates. We hear how tough it is for prison inmates, but we ignore the complaints of prison staff-that their lot is even rougher than that of the inmates. I would like to point out to my colleagues in the House that we must not lay the blame for what is going on at the feet of the present Solicitor General. He has not been in that position long enough to be able to get a full count of how many prisoners are at large. When he took over his post there were almost as many convicts outside as inside our jails. Anyone who was sentenced to prison under the previous Solicitor General knew that he would not have to stay in prison unless he really wanted to do so. There were many avenues open to him. If he wanted to go to Spain, for instance, he knew that he would be able to get a passport and be allowed to leave the country. If he just wanted to go into town and take a job, he could get help either from inside or outside the prison.
In short, Mr. Speaker, when the present Solicitor General took over his office the prison system was in a shambles. Under the previous Solicitor General we saw a breakdown of the Bail Reform Act. We saw a complete breakdown of the parole system. We saw instances where convicted rapists were allowed weekend passes from prison to commit still more crimes of rape, undoubtedly feeling that they would never be suspected of crimes while they were serving a sentence. The simple fact is that they were not serving terms, at least not in the accepted sense of serving a term. What is to be gained in having a court try a suspect at great expense, find him guilty and then sentence him to prison, only to have him released on his own recognizance as though he were a soldier on a weekend pass? What can we possibly gain from a system that permits a suspected bank robber to be free on bail, or without bail, and which allows him to commit crimes in order to raise the price of a good defence lawyer? This has happened, as the hon. members here know only too well.
Adding to the confusion we have the justice minister placing the blame for this mess in one quarter, the Solicitor General blaming someone or something else, the courts and judges placing the blame on the laws, and finally the police blaming the whole system. There is an old saying that applies to the military, and it also applies to high political office. It goes something like this: "The chief can delegate authority, but he cannot delegate responsibility". The person who is in charge of the show must be prepared to accept responsibility for it, whether it is a success or a flop. In the case of the penitentiaries system, the parole system and the bail system, the present Solicitor General deserves some measure of sympathy for the mere fact that he has agreed to accept responsibility for the mess they are in, and he has at least admitted that things are not as they should be. He has called for an investigation, possibly because of the pressure brought to bear on his office from the official opposition, and he deserves our support in such an investigation.
Peni ten tiaries
I do not envy the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. The former Solicitor General had an uncanny talent for creating confusion and for laying to waste the best laid plans of mice and men. Some of the appointments he made while in that office are clear evidence of his inability to choose the best man for the job, and unfortunately some of those appointments will give the present Solicitor General some sleepless nights. If and when the full scale investigation of the penitentiaries system is undertaken, I hope that it will extend into the area of political appointments to important posts in the system. Some of the jobs handed out to political hangers-on are jobs that call for a large degree of expertise in the prison administration, and I think that the investigation should include the appointment of a former post office employee to the post of commissioner of the penitentiary service. There were excellent people near the top level of the service who had spent their entire working lives in the service. It would have made a great deal more sense to look in their direction for a commissioner when the appointment was made. I cannot help feeling that some of the problems we are experiencing with the penitentiaries system start at the very top of the administration.
While I can commiserate with the new Solicitor General, and I might even sympathize with him. I must say I am disturbed by his statement that he is satisfied with the 18 per cent failure rate in the operation of the parole system. I am afraid that I cannot feel comfortable with a minister who admits that he is satisfied with failure. I would have preferred to have him say to this House that he would not be satisfied until he had achieved zero failure rate in the parole system, and while this is not likely to happen, at least it is a more worthy objective than the acceptance of an 18 per cent failure rate. As it is now, we do not know what sort of objective he has in mind, and it is important at this point for us to at least have some idea as to what he hopes to achieve, and what steps he proposes to take in order to accomplish his objective. His suggestion that a study of the whole situation is needed is a good start. It would be difficult for any of us to suggest at this point what remedial action should be taken to bring some order back to the system-the penitentiaries, parole, and all of the other aspects of the correctional system.
But, Mr. Speaker, the first step is obvious to all of us. Convicted lawbreakers have been sentenced to prisons in our country, and they were sent there so they would be separated from the rest of society. The first step must be to take whatever steps are required to ensure that they are kept in those institutions. While I will not argue the point that our prisons are overcrowded, that is not a valid reason for allowing prison inmates to walk the streets of our cities while we are working out the solutions to the problems.
If inmates are getting help from prison employees in making escapes, these people must be rooted out. If more guards and other personnel are needed, then they must be hired. But these people must be hired on the basis of their suitability for the job, rather than for their political persuasion or favours to the party in the past. I do not think that this is a really serious problem. What I do believe is that there is a serious breakdown in the prison service at or near the top of the administration. When that is cleared up, we will find, I am quite certain, that the other prob-

May 15, 1973
Penitentiaries
lems can be cleared up in short order. Until the day when the rank and file employees in the penitentiaries system come to believe in the competence of their superiors, right up to the top of the system, we will be faced with a morale problem. As long as we have such a serious morale problem among the guards and correctional officers, we will have riots, protests, prison breaks, and general disorder throughout the system.
Let us stop blaming the guards for the shape the prisons are in, and let us stop directing all of our sympathy towards those people who have been sentenced to prison. Our whole perspective is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is time for us to make it clear to the inmates of our prisons that that is just what they are, and that they are going to have to earn everything that they receive in the way of consideration. Our primary job is to protect the innocent from the guilty, not the other way round.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). He has inherited a problem created by his predecessor as a result of a policy of permissiveness advocated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the former members of his cabinet. The matter has now come to a head like a boil on the back of the neck of the Solicitor General. We live in a supposedly civilized country. A civilized country is one in which its citizens, the average man and woman on the street, you and I, Mr. Speaker, can live without fear of violence. People are concerned about their own safety and they are concerned about the safety of their families and their friends. They read almost daily in the press, they see and hear on television and hear on the radio of persons granted bail committing further crimes. They hear of escapes from prisons of dangerous criminals, or they hear of persons who have been convicted of serious crimes being allowed out shortly after committal, either on a daily pass to work or to attend university or in some cases to attend hockey games. I find it very difficult to explain to a law-abiding constituent who has sacrificed to send his children to university why someone who has broken the law, can, while in jail, at the expense of the state, attend a university and obtain a degree. In some cases, these people end up with a government job.
I feel we have the wrong perspective. The intellectuals, psychiatrists and some politicians, for some reason or another, are of the opinion that if someone commits a crime he or she is not to blame, but that society is to blame. Who makes up society except you and I, the man on the street, the person doing his best to equip himself in our society, raise his family and be a good citizen? We are told that we are at fault. I suggest that is a very ridiculous theory. If a child misbehaves in class at school, do you pat him on the head and say he is not at fault, then punish the rest of the class? I am not suggesting that we should not concern ourselves with rehabilitation, but rehabilitation is a very complex matter. We must first look at the purposes of our laws and the penalties provided. The protection of society must be the first and foremost consideration. This is more important to me than rehabilitation, and it must be given first priority.

The second consideration is punishment. In this enlightened day, because of our educational system and the media, I believe all persons in Canadian society know what is right and what is wrong and when they are breaking the law. They are also aware of the consequences of breaking the law. Punishment should be a real thing; it must be an effective deterrent. There is no deterrent and no punishment when a person, upon being sent to jail, is treated in a better manner and receives more benefits from the state than many of our hard-working low income citizens.
Rehabilitation is vital. I have practised law for some 23 years during which time, I have acted as defence counsel for many people, so I appreciate the importance of rehabilitation. However, rehabilitation is important only in the cases of persons who are capable of being rehabilitated. These persons must be assisted to return to this society and take their proper places as citizens of this great country. I suggest that those persons who are not capable of rehabilitation must be handled in such a manner that they are not a danger to society, either through escape or being allowed out on weekend passes. They must endure their punishment.
The inquiry we expect the parliamentary committee to carry out must be a thorough and searching one; an inquiry which will result in a re-examination of our present system of bail, parole and passes. It should be an inquiry which will result in a reorganization of our present system in order that the public will once again feel secure and have the confidence in and respect for our judicial system which they had not too many years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words in connection with this motion to refer this very important matter to a standing committee of this House. I know this is a very agonizing matter for the government and the Solicitor General in view of what has transpired in the last few days and, indeed, what has transpired over the last few years. However, the people of this country are not looking to the Solicitor General, the judicial authority, the police or the courts alone for a remedy to the situation. They are looking to this parliament for the necessary laws and recommendations to ensure that every Canadian is guaranteed the protection he expects in a country which cherishes the values we cherish in Canada.
Others have listed their qualifications in speaking on this motion. I want to assure hon. members who are not aware of the fact that I have perhaps the unique experience of having been not only a defence counsel and a Crown attorney, but of having served for some 15 years as a magistrate and a judge of the juvenile court. I know the problems involved in providing an adequate system of justice.
First of all, I think it is necessary that we put the whole matter in perspective and realize that we are talking here of only those who have been committed to one of the penitentiaries for which the federal government is responsible. We are not talking about the majority of people sentenced to jail to serve their time in provincial institutions. While I know the federal government, through the
May 15, 1973

Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), is responsible for the enforcement of criminal laws in this country, it is only the federal responsibility for penitentiaries we are dealing with here.
The number of people we are talking about is very minimal in relation to the total population and, indeed, in relation to the total number of people who run afoul of the law from time to time. It has always been emphasized by every court of law in this country that in sentencing an individual who has been convicted of any offence there are three basic principles to be considered. First of all, and I say foremost in any court with which I am familiar, the first principle is protection of society. The second principle is the deterrent effect, any sentence might have upon others who might be inclined to run the risk of committing a similar crime. The last principle, and perhaps this is important from the point of view of society, and one which seems to have got out of balance, is rehabilitation of the convicted person.
The problem is, of course, how to reconcile the interest of protecting society from criminals who have committed serious offences with the necessity and interest of society in rehabilitating those persons. I am sure that anyone who has had any experience with the law knows that people who are to be found in penitentiaries in this country are not people who are victims of some momentary transgression. In almost every case I know of where a penitentiary term has been imposed, it has been imposed on a person who has had many scrapes with the law, and in every case it has been a very serious breach of the law that gave rise to that penalty.
midnight)
The problem then becomes one of the penitentiary service, and we are dealing of course with the administration of that service and the program they must have in order to do the job. The important part of the program is the rehabilitation of the convicted person. We have heard many stories of escapes from institutions and many accounts of the inadequacy of the facilities therein, and comments have been made by many people on the type of institution that we must have to adequately house convicted persons to ensure that they will no longer be a menace to society. In order to do this we must take into account the fact that adequate staff is required and, what is perhaps more important, a number of people with training, knowledge and the necessary qualifications.
The matter of how much money society and parliament are prepared to allocate to the penitentiary service for the rehabilitation of prisoners has always been a difficult problem. Because of this there has always been a lack of facilities of all kinds. I submit to the House that this is one of the reasons we are having the difficulties that we have been hearing and reading about in the last few days.
I submit that if this committee is to function properly and carry out the responsibility which we are giving it, it will be necessary for it to look into the type of facilities that are required in order to adequately house prisoners. Whether these institutions are maximum security institutions or any other type, they must be adequate and they must be staffed by properly trained and qualified people.
Pen i ten tiaries
Since, as someone said earlier in this debate, most of the prisoners will eventually return to society, there must be an adequate program to ensure that they are rehabilitated whenever possible. With this goes a system of identification and encouragement for those who can be rehabilitated. The responsibility for this situation is not entirely that of the courts of this country, nor is it entirely that of the penitentiary staffs; it is the responsibility of this government and of all members of the House to see that the necessary remedies are found and the necessary action taken to put those remedies into effect.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this urgent and important problem which affects the confidence of all Canadians in the ability of our system of justice to protect society as a whole.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, it is now Wednesday morning. We started out this debate on Tuesday shortly after two o'clock. I am sure the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) will agree with me that it was not long after 2 p.m. that he started having to field questions on a very difficult and unfortunate situation that has developed within the Canadian penitentiary service. I think the fact that we are still here on another day indicates the seriousness that Members of Parliament place on the situation that has developed within the Canadian penitentiary service, and I hope some of the things that I will say in the next 15 or 20 minutes will be of some value and benefit to the Solicitor General in the role he is endeavouring to fill in that office.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that although he referred to what he will have to say in the next 15 or 20 minutes, the arrangement was to limit speeches to 15 minutes.


Robert Carman Coates: It is very kind of the Chair to remind me of that. I hope I can stop my flight of eloquence in 15 minutes, but if it happens that I cannot, there will not be that many members in the House who will object to another five minutes, especially since I have waited until this hour to make my speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You could do better still and make it shorter.


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggests I make it short, and another hon. member suggested I should sit down. I say to the hon. member who suggested that I sit down that if he paid more attention to what is going on in parliament and stood up more often, perhaps this institution would be better off and the people of Canada would be better off. He happens to be picking up $28,000 a year for being here, and he should be producing some words in this institution that would be of value in solving some of the problems that this nation is facing.
I am standing here at this late hour to try to contribute in solving one of the chronic problems facing this nation in relation to the Canadian penitentiary service and the way in which it is being operated at present. First of all, I say to the Solicitor General, as I have said publicly before this debate, that I think he has adopted the type of approach to the problems related to the penitentiary serv-
3806

May 15, 1973
Pen i ten tiaries
ice that we should have adopted a long time ago. I think the Solicitor General, in the approach he has taken in moving across this country and speaking, not just to the wardens of institutions but to the correctional officers and the inmates, is adopting the right kind of approach and in the end I think he will be successful in solving the problems facing the country as a result of the erosion of the system.
I think that is the only way to solve the problem. I would say that his candid and cogent comments in relation to the escapes that have occurred indicate a very real appreciation of the problems with which he is confronted. I believe that the minister is sincere in the task he has accepted and has tried to undertake it in the best possible way, but I believe also that he has some real problems within the Canadian penitentiary service. At the same time, I am fearful that he might be made a scapegoat for the incompetence that is involved in the way these penitentiaries are being operated at present.
I had a long association with the Canadian Penitentiary Service even before there was a solicitor general's department that administered it. At that time it was under the Department of Justice. I was pleased to see the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) here. For many years he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice and worked very closely with me, as did the minister of justice, in the establishment of the first minimum security institution at Springhill and the present-day medium security institution which exists in that town.
It would only be fair at this time to say that the warden, or whatever you might call him now that they have fancy names for people who work in these institutions, of Springhill and the warden of the maximum security institution at Dorchester have done an outstanding job from the point of view of penology and protecting the people who are employed in those institutions and the inmates. I think they performed yeomen service in seeing the lid was kept on, especially at Dorchester. Mr. Bennett, who operates the institution at Dorchester, is a phenomenal person who has had to cope with unbelievable problems from an overcrowding point of view, problems which the Solicitor General, who visited that institution a short time ago and was asked questions about it in the House today, admits are unbelievable from every point of view, overcrowding, personnel, problems associated with inmates and the types of cliques which developed in that institution, and which the Solicitor General in his own way has tried to alleviate. These problems are real. They are real at Dorchester, they are real at Springhill and at every other penal institution. They are real because there has been a breakdown in the penal system.
In carrying out the kinds of inquiries that have been suggested we might assist the Solicitor General in solving some of the problems he faces. Every possible consideration should be given to the undertaking of the studies that have been suggested. I am not a member of the standing committee, but I feel it has tried to do an honest job in producing information for the public and for the Solicitor General by questioning the witnesses who appeared before it. That committee has indicated that it feels a
special committee should be established. The Solicitor General indicates that he believes there should be a judicial inquiry. I think it would not be a bad idea if both were undertaken at the same time so that there could be a correlation of the two types of information produced to see if the same conclusions are reached, and if the same conclusions are reached then the Solicitor General will know where to go from there.
More than that, I believe the Solicitor General has been badly let down by people in the public service who are supposed to be serving him. They have put him into most embarrassing situations in this House and throughout the country because of what has happened at a number of institutions. I say to him that although he is dedicated and sincere, he must also show to members of this House and to the public generally that he is tough, that he is willing to make heads roll when they should roll. And I say that heads must roll so far as the Canadian penitentiary service is concerned because of the kinds of things that have been happening in institutions all across the country.
I do not believe that there is any other answer. The top echelon of the penitentiary service must be cleaned out, fast, before we discover that there are more inmates running around outside than there are in the institutions and before we discover that most of the police forces in Canada are spending more of their time tracking down escaped inmates than in performing their other obligations to the Canadian people. For instance, Mr. Speaker, while I did not say anything about it, I was very upset over the fact that three inmates escaped from Dorchester penitentiary with a gun. Where that gun came from, I do not know. How many other guns there are in Dorchester penitentiary, I do not know. But these three hardened criminals, who had bad records, got out and kidnapped two people. They held them captive for a period of time until the RCMP recaptured them and returned them to the institution.
That is a very dangerous sort of situation to develop in any community. It developed as the result of a gun being smuggled into the penitentiary. Such a situation is very frightening for people in my constituency because there is an institution in it, and Dorchester happens to be only about 15 miles away from my home town, Amherst. When inmates escape from there, they pose a real threat; and when those kinds of inmates escape from Dorchester or St. Vincent de Paul, anything can happen. Particularly, anything can happen when we have the kind of laws we have in Canada today, when no man dies no matter what he does, no matter what crime he commits. There is no such thing as capital punishment, so that a murderer who escapes from prison has nothing to lose. He can kill as many people as he wishes. The most that will happen to him is that he will be returned to prison for whatever time the government and the Parole Board determine is the correct time for him to be there. This is one of the reasons why I have indicated that I will support the retention of capital punishment as strongly as I can. There is only way to deal with a murderer who escapes from an institution; he must know that if he commits another murder he is going to the gallows and that will be the end of his life.
My opinion is that the Solicitor General is trying as hard as he knows how to get some sense back into the

May 15, 1973

penitentiary service. Again I say that many of the people serving under him are doing a disservice to him because they are not nearly as willing as he is to put common sense back into the service. The Solicitor General must get rid of these people, and fast. He must get common sense back into the penitentiary service and into our whole approach to penology. I also say to him that if he does not show that kind of toughness, then no matter how dedicated he may be, he will not be long in that job because the Canadian people want common sense put back into the service. We want to know that when a man is sent to an institution, the government will be responsible for keeping him there for whatever time is required until a rehabilitation program indicates that he is ready to return to society.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I did not have any intention of becoming involved in this debate but I think it only right that I place a few points on the record because I believe that the motion the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) has brought before the House is of extreme importance. The recent incident at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary has sparked us all into action, action which was called for prior to the last general election when people were concerned about law and order and respect for the law.
Society has been concerned for a considerable length of time. The repetition of jail breaks has left society questioning the administration of the penal services, questioning parole, questioning temporary leave and questioning the role of the custodial officer. We have to arrive at a happy balance in this matter, Mr. Speaker, because the penal service which was here yesterday is here today and will be here tomorrow. The question is how we can develop such a system to the point that we will have the necessary confidence in it and to see that it receives the proper funding. The committee has an awesome responsibility. I hope they will travel across the country and visit the penitentiaries to discuss matters with the administrators, the custodial officers and the inmates. Unless they do, the results will not be satisfactory.
I am one who believes that you cannot rehabilitate all those who are sent to the penitentiary, but at the same time I am one who believes that in our advanced form of life those who are sent there are deserving of the opportunity, regardless of how depraved they may be, of becoming rehabilitated. What we have to be concerned about is when a person reaches the stage that rehabilitation is no longer a reality; then we must be extremely concerned and take all precautions that are required.
The minister's neck is on the block. The minister must come up with the proper answers because society demands protection. When we talk about society and the inmate, it is the interest of society, the protection of society, that must be borne in mind. We cannot get away from that. I get very disturbed when I read that prisoners are eating steak when we on the outside, the fortunate ones, are eating hot dogs. We must arrive at a proper balance, but it must be weighted in favour of society.
When we talk about rehabilitation some people would say "dig a hole, put them in there and forget about them".
Peni ten tiaries
What concerns me about that, Mr. Speaker, is that at the end of their term they come out to face society not rehabilitated, and perhaps even more vicious and violent than when they went in. What we have to think about are the alternatives. Do we just put them in jail and forget about them or, in a pragmatic and realistic way, say that during their term in jail they must undergo some program of rehabilitation? I think we must accept the latter view because if we do not, we have been debased and dehumanized. We would be doing a disservice to those we would like to be rehabilitated and to the public which I believe is interested in a reasonable form of rehabilitation.
As I said, we must be concerned about the protection of society. I am an abolitionist because I am concerned about the morality of capital punishment and about the fact that a mistake can be made. I am not convinced that capital punishment is a deterrent. We must be concerned about a proper penal service being established and administered in order that the protection of society shall remain paramount.
The committee has an awesome job. It is expected to solve this age-old problem and have answers within the next couple of months. Whether they can do that or whether the judicial inquiry that the minister has asked for is the better way, I am not sure and I do not think it matters which way it is done. All I know is that at this particular time we are saved by the fact that some chaps are jumping the wall has captured the imagination of Canadians.
I trust and hope that, as a result of this motion, the wisdom of the members who will form the committee will enable them to assess and investigate the situation. Perhaps after due deliberation they will be able to come back with recommendations that will not only satisfy society but that will also satisfy the inmates. We have seen what has happened in the United States; when an inmate is placed in a cell like a dog, he will bark and bite as a dog. The responsibility of this committee is enormous but I have every confidence that it will make the necessary recommendations which the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) can implement in order to make our penal service one of the best in the world.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add a number of comments to the debate on the motion before us. As a result of the deep concern that I, and the constituents I represent, feel, we believe that only by means of a public outcry can our confusion be heard. Apparently this is the only manner in which to move the government into a position where it will tackle and solve certain problems. Old standards are being violated but society today wants us to return to basic standards of behaviour and those who break the law will have to be punished accordingly.
Some people wonder why inmates are given privileges which very often are not available to those in the lower economic groups of our society. They look with disbelief when inmates are given hockey tickets and then escape from the game. If I may mention a case in Winnipeg, the Manitoba government paid approximately half a million dollars for hockey tickets to the games of the professional Winnipeg Jets. These were given to many deserving groups, and I do not quarrel with that, but they were also given to various prison societies. The tickets were then
26314-24J

May 15, 1973
Penitentiaries
given to inmates and we had escapes from the Winnipeg arena as well.


An hon. Member:: That was punishment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Watching the Winnipeg Jets was hardly a punishment, Mr. Speaker, though it might be with some other hockey teams! People also question why certain inmates can attend university at public expense. I am not saying this is entirely wrong, but we had a case in our area where an escapee, after stealing property, damaging it and forcing the owner to pay the cost of the damage, was able to attend university and laugh at the rest of us. They question the attitudes which allow this type of rehabilitation system.
I believe our attitude toward crime has, at best, become permissive. Unfortunately, today in our society a person is responsible to no one. It is a basic attitude for too many of our people that one is responsible only to himself. The attitude is: I can do as I please. As long as I do not hurt the other fellow too much, I can do what I please and no one has any business telling me not to do it.
That type of society is one in which I do not want to live. Society has an obligation to teach its young persons basic principles and to expect the middle-aged and old to obey its laws; otherwise, society breaks down and crime increases. We in this country have prided ourselves, perhaps falsely, on the fact that our crime rate is not that of our neighbour to the south, and our cities are safer than those to the south. That may have been the case in the past. Let us not fall into the trap of permissiveness, so that our urban centers will remain the places of safety they have been until now.
The role of prisons is twofold. One is to isolate prisoners from society. Men and women who have broken the law of this country and have been convicted through due process of law have a penalty to pay. If society is to survive, that penalty must be paid. The safety of society through isolating those who insist on breaking the law must be the underlying criterion of imprisonment. We must not lose sight of the fact that incarceration is for the protection of the majority; it is not simply punishment of those who have committed a crime.
Second is the question of rehabilitation. We have now been told that it is not rehabilitation but a reintegration process. This recognition of the need of rehabilitation for members of society is a mark of a civilized society. It is only a civilized society obeying civilized, humane laws which can or will recognize that people who break those laws must be rehabilitated back into the society they forcibly left. Despite the aspects of this society in which we live, the hallmark of our society must be just and equitable laws for the continued well-being of the majority. These laws are not simply for retribution; they are not there for the creation of a police state or for the creation of fear or hatred.
We as individual citizens must subscribe to the laws of this country. If not, we must be punished. While we must be cognizant of the ills in the society in which we live, we cannot allow our attitude to be soft, or one of soft-pedalling those who commit crimes. It might be argued that you

cannot legislate morality. You might even take that argument to the nth degree and say that possibly we do not need any laws. The law is there to provide a standard to which all citizens must subscribe. If citizens do not subscribe to that standard, punishment must be invoked. I believe that punishment is a deterrent, not only to the person against being a repeater but to all of us.
Another point that was mentioned today by various speakers was that of Christian principles. In the society in which we live, Christian principles very clearly teach humanity and the value of the individual. Christian principles and the basic view of the value of the individual gave recognition to and became the underlying principle of many of our laws today. While these Christian principles teach the value of the individual, reconciliation and the re-establishment of brotherly love, they also very clearly teach that justice is part and parcel of the Christian principle in a Christian society.
You cannot have justice without punishment. A person who takes it upon himself to break the law of society must pay the penality which society deems necessary for the crime committed. The rehabilitation concept is one of value. However, I believe that a percentage of the inmates who are incarcerated in our federal penitentiaries have made a mockery of the rehabilitation system. They are the ones who have taken advantages of special passes, weekend passes, temporary passes and any other kind of pass that may be devised from one day to the next. They have often broken parole by committing heinous crimes during the period of parole. These hardcore criminals should be dealth with severly; the maximum penalty that the law provides should be imposed.
Society today is questioning the guidelines governing our rehabilitation system. I wish to cite an example of what happened in a provincial jail at Headingley, Manitoba. The Manitoba government hired an ex-inmate who was to work with the inmates and potential employers as inmates were approaching the time when they would be back in society. The guards in that jail protested the hiring of this ex-inmate. The minister of health and social development for the province, in defending this ex-inmate, said that the man had qualifications. He said the man was qualified because he "had gone the whole route". What an apprenticeship program for that particular job!
In order to return to the rationale of protecting society and providing rehabilitation within the restrictions that must be imposed if society must still be protected, it cannot be said that all persons who are advocating rehabilitation are bleeding hearts. They are moved by the massive number of human lives that have been wrecked by crime. We see young men who have made wrong decisions at a very early age and have embarked upon a road leading to crime and imprisonment. I am sure every member is aware of the tremendous price many of these people pay and the price society has to pay in lost ability and potential.
I suggest to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) that we strengthen our rehabilitation program. Personally, I believe that prison chaplains have made a great contribution in our prisons. I would like to see an increase, not only in funds for but in the role of prison chaplains. We must keep in mind that justice can only be served if
May 15, 1973

penalties are imposed and we insist that they be paid by those who break the laws of society.
I subscribe to the establishment of a special committee as the Solicitor General sees fit, that we proceed to strengthen the law and that we fulfil the trust society has given to us. However, it must be an orderly society. Where heads should roll, let them roll. As this clean-up proceeds, the Solicitor General will have our support and I am sure he will earn the gratitude of all Canadian citizens.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long. I agree with almost everything that has been said by members on both sides of this House. I extend my sympathies to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) because he is in a very difficult position. I was told when I first came to the House of Commons in early January that the job of the Solicitor General was one of the most onerous in the cabinet. I hope the committee, when it is set up, will be composed of people with wide-ranging interests, because with all due respect to the profession of law, lawyers do have limitations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald). She said the investigation should be wide-ranging and indicated that the whole subject of equality in sentencing should be looked at closely. I have for many years read a lot of newspapers and something I read seven or eight years ago struck me as being very odd. A report appeared in a Saskatchewan paper about prison sentences meted out in the province. One individual who had embezzled $12,000 from a bank received a suspended sentence of two years while another who forged a cheque for $75 got a six month jail sentence. Both of these crimes were first offences. Maybe there were differing circumstances but the disparity struck me then as being peculiar. I had noticed many similar anomalies in the intervening years.
There is a great deal of mistrust of our whole system of justice because of the existence of crime and dishonesty in high places. To the south, we find a government which ran an election campaign on the platform of law and order, but which is itself breaking the law. We must remember that a man becomes a prisoner only if he is caught and convicted. Many offenders are never caught or convicted. They still live in our midst.
I have been a school principal for many years and I have dealt with all kinds of youngsters. In the last 23 years I have noticed a great deal of change in our youth. Youth is becoming extremely cynical about the way in which the laws of our nation are enforced, because different standards seem to be applied to different people. When these cynical people reach our prisons, there are problems.
The enforcers of the laws are themselves sometimes its transgressors. Many a time I have had a young person in my office who would say: Mr. Nesdoly, I did not stop at a stop sign; I was stopped and ordered to pay a $25 fine. I said, all right, you broke the law, so you pay it. Then, he said: You know there is a policeman down Main Street who makes a U-turn in the middle of the street; that is against the law, but he can do it; he was not chasing
Penitentiaries
criminals, or anything. Or a local magistrate can park his car on the wrong side of the street without any attention being paid to it. These things have been brought to my attention too many times for them not to contain some elements of truth.
I believe the committee should look at the high proportion of our prison population represented by Indian and Metis people. It seems to me there is a disproportionate number of them in our prisons. Why are they there, and what sort of rehabilitation program is being carried on to help them?
Perhaps we should be considering, too, the question of the location of prisons. Why do they need to be so close to cities? Why not farther north? Some people say they must be close to services. We must remember that Australia was colonized by convicts. So was Siberia.


An hon. Member:: And Newfoundland!


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: I am not going to comment on that remark. I think we should give further thought to the location of our prisons if any new prisons are to be built.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member speaks now, we hope he closes the debate.


Erik Nielsen: I hope so, too, Mr. Speaker. This has been a long debate, an exhausting debate, a debate which could have been avoided had the motion made yesterday under Standing Order 43 been accepted.
One thing I want to mention before I discuss the mechanics of the committee, which is the purpose of my rising, is that I have listened carefully throughout the debate to members from both sides discussing the various aspects of the motion, but no one has yet mentioned the demoralizing effect which the bail reform law and the ease with which escapes are made from our penal institutions has had on law enforcement agencies. Premature parole and the operations of the bail reform legislation are seriously impeding the work of law enforcement agencies and seriously affecting the morale of those agencies throughout the country.
With respect to the committee itself, the reason a select committee of the House was suggested yesterday under Standing Order 43, and today in the standing committee, and by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) was primarily because of these two factors: first, the workload which now lies on the plate of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and, second, the need for acting with haste in connection with this inquiry. The standing committee will not have finished its examination of the estimates of the Solicitor General's department until the end of the month. It will then embark upon consideration of the wiretapping legislation which has been referred to it. Judging from the interest shown in this legislation during the second reading stage in the House, its consideration will certainly take at least until the third week of June.
The committee which will be authorized by the House to study the matters embodied in the resolution before us

May 15, 1973
Peni ten tiaries
must act much more rapidly, so it will be my intention to try to convince the steering committee that a sub-committee of the standing committee be struck, composed, perhaps, of three members from this side of the House and three members from the other side of the House together with one member from the New Democratic party and one member from the Social Credit party. This committee would be small enough to act with flexibility and the degree of haste necessary. I would suggest that it set about its work visiting the institutions which are causing the most chronic problems as well as those which might be described by some in the Solicitor General's department as being models for penal institutions.
In order to set up a subcommittee to accomplish that sort of task it may well be, and likely will be, that the standing committee will have to be enlarged by eight additional members. I understand that discussions have taken place among the House leaders, and the government would not resist an enlarged Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should the committee make that recommendation to the House. I hope it will do so as its very next meeting, and that necessary steps are taken to enlarge the committee by eight members, or by whatever number the committee deems advisable, thus permitting the subcommittee to be formed and to set about its work at once.
The need for rapid action is demonstrated by all who have participated in this debate and by the events that have occurred. I will not discuss the merits here because I hope to be a member of that subcommittee, if the suggestion is adopted, and there will be plenty of time to make my comments at that stage. Certainly I do not want to flog the Solicitor General any more tonight. We are compassionate people on this side of the House and in my view he has been flogged sufficiently today to draw emphatically to his attention the very deep-rooted dissatisfaction, not only of members of opposition parties but members of his own party, with the manner in which the penitentiary system is functioning.	[DOT]
In addition, there have been comments relating to the bail reform legislation, the parole system and the temporary leave of absence program which must convince the Solicitor General that there is a great deal to be desired. We were promised some kind of action by his predecessor well over a year ago with respect to the bail reform legislation, but we have not had action. Neither have we had action with respect to the penal system.
Not all ill winds blow no good, and perhaps the events of the day have had one advantageous effect, at any rate, and that is to focus public attention on this question and to bring Parliament to the point where it finally takes action. It is my hope and the hope of those on this side of the House that we agree to set up a small subcommittee which will have the flexibility and rapidity of movement to enable an early report to be made to the House, hopefully a report that will not be ignored, one containing recommendations that will be accepted by the government and which will go a long way toward curing the problems confronting the Solicitor General's department.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. In accordance with the special order adopted earlier today, I am satisfied that the debate has come to an end. I therefore declare the motion adopted. The House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon, in accordance with Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.55 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 16, 1973