1973-12-03

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-235, to amend the Criminal Records Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to eliminate the bureaucracy that exists at present when a former inmate tries to get a pardon from his sentence.


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

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada and to amend the National Energy Board Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Stevens: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the county of Simcoe, in the province of Ontario, who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during each of the years 1971 and 1972 and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: For loans approved in 1971 and 1972 in Simcoe county, the following lawyer was retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans: 1971, R. Noel Bates, Barrie, Ontario. 1972, Nil. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to this lawyer. The following lawyers were retained in 1971 and 1972 to handle legal actions resulting from loans in Simcoe county on which the borrowers had fallen into arrears: Fees and Costs Paid, 1971: Conder, Sugg, Bigelow and Miller, $138.20; 1972: Nil.


Mr. Stevens: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the region of York, in the province of Ontario, who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during each of the years 1971 and 1972 and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Stanley Ronald Basford: For loans approved in 1971 and 1972 in York county, excluding Metropolitan Toronto, the following lawyers were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans: 1971, Ross B. Linton, Newmarket; 1972, Nil.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	For what reasons have so many people been handling Box 99 auto complaints, what were their problems in handling such complaints and will a specific auto complaint section be established within Box 99?
2.	(a) What percentage of Box 99 motorist complaints have been investigated since 1969 (b) what percentage have been settled to the consumer's satisfaction?
3.	What percentage of Box 99 staff are (a) French (b) English (c) bilingual?
4.	What are the names of the staff of Box 99 and what is the background, qualifications, training and experience of each?
8332

December 3, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The Branch Director responsible for the operation of Box 99 assigns staff to handle automobile complaints and inquiries as required by the volume of work in this area. The problems presented are concerned with quality; guarantees and warranties; goods, services, or money not received; repairs and servicing; alleged unethical practices; prices; safety; advertising; standardization; labelling; and packaging. The Consumer Services Branch, which operates Box 99, was recently reorganized. There now is a Travel and Transportation Unit, which encompasses automobile complaints and inquiries. There will be five officers in the unit.
2.	All complaints which were received by Box 99 have been investigated either through referral to another government agency with specific jurisdiction in the area of complaint, or through direct mediation of the dispute by the department. It is impossible to assess what percentage has "been settled to the consumer's satisfaction".
3.	It is assumed that parts (a) and (b) refer to mother tongue. The appropriate figures for the present Box 99 staff are: (a) English, 78 per cent; (b) French, 22 per cent; (c) Bilingual capacity, 33 per cent.
4.	As a matter of principle, information in personnel files has been regarded as not returnable by the government.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	For what reason does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs refuse to handle consumer car complaints referred to it by the Automobile Protection Association, a national consumer auto protection service group?
2.	How are patterns discerned from the complaints received by Box 99 and how are the larger issues dealt with?
3.	Would the Minister give the percentage breakdown on each car model of the auto complaints received last year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has not refused to handle complaints referred to it by the Automobile Protection Association.
2.	Monthly complaint statistics are collected through Box 99, which provide some indication as to the areas of changing consumer concern. In submitting proposals for changes in regulations and/or legislation under federal jurisdiction, and in proposing possible consumer information programs, these areas of changing concern are taken into consideration.
3.	It is the general policy of the department not to release statistics concerning specific companies or products.


Mr. MacKay: What policies does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have on auto consumer protection?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: For all types of consumer complaints it is the policy of the department to review all complaints from

consumers, all referrals from other government agencies and from private consumer groups where that group has been unable to resolve a given complaint. Where a specific problem may not be resolved through existing legislation the department uses its mediation efforts to try to resolve a given complaint. It is the policy of the department to attempt to reach fair and equitable settlements which are satisfactory to both parties to a dispute, given the circumstances surrounding each individual complaint. Where legislation exists which would resolve a given consumer complaint, the department makes use of it if it is legislation that it administers, and if it is not, it refers the complaint to the appropriate government agency. The department functions as a mediator in attempting to resolve the specific problems of individual automobile owners. It also watches trends in consumer complaints concerning automobiles, to determine whether a given manufacturer should be approached on behalf of all owners of a particular vehicle.


Mr. MacKay: In light of the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on warranties and the Federal Trade Commission in the United States report on automobile warranties, is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs prepared to initiate, with consumer involvement and provincial representation, a national study of automobile warranties?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Generally speaking, purchasers' rights under warranties and guarantees such as automobile warranties fall within the area of provincial jurisdiction. However, certain provisions in Bill C-227 to amend the Combines Investigation Act are intended to control deception in the use of warranties and guarantees and to ensure that if they limit in any way the rights that would otherwise be available to sellers under provincial law the limitation is clearly stated.


Mr. MacKay: Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs initiated any action in connection with lowering the price Canadian consumers have to pay for automobiles?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has no statutory authority to control retail prices of automobiles. In so far as the federal government has present means of influencing prices of automobiles such means are in the hands of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and have been employed by him.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to establishing a specific auto complaint section within the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
December 3, 1973


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Please refer to the answer to question 2,244, part


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to initiating, with consumer and provincial involvement, a national study of auto warranties?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Please refer to the answer to question 2,250.


Mr. Mather: 1.	How many auto and petroleum cases has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs taken up?
2.	What were the names of the companies involved?
3.	What percentage of such cases were concluded to the satisfaction of the complainant?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. The records of the Consumer Services Branch show the following statistics for recorded complaints on motor vehicles and accessories, from 1968 to the present. This classification includes petroleum products for use in motor vehicles. For comparative purposes, the total number of complaints received for all categories in each year is also listed:
	Motor Vehicles and Accessories	
	(and associated petroleum products)	Total complaints
1968	. 238	3,1091969	622	6,6831970	1,235	13,5581971	1,475	14,2181972	2,138	17,4431973 to September 30, 1973..	2,221	15,193Total to September 30, 1973.	. 7,929	70,2042.	It is the policy of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs not to reveal the names of consumers lodging complaints with Box 99, nor the names of specific companies or products complained against.3.	There is no strict definition of "satisfaction" which would allow the department to answer this question.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	(a) Who were the architects for Rochdale College (b) how was the selection made (c) what were the total fees and expenses paid to the architects in respect of this project?
2.	(a) What general contractor built Rochdale College (b) were tenders called (c) what was the bid of the successful contractor (d) was a representative of the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation present when tenders were opened and, if so, what was the name of that person?
Order Paper Questions
3.	(a) At what price did the builder acquire the land for Rochdale College (b) at what price was the land charged to the project by the contractor?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. (a) J. Malcolm Wells and Elmar Tampold were the architects for Rochdale College, (b) The basis of the selection of the architects for Rochdale College is not known to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (c) Architects fees and expenses are subject to contractual arrangements between the architect and the borrower and are paid by the borrower.
2.	(a) Rubin Corporation was the general contractor for Rochdale College, (b) Tenders were not called for the construction of the Rochdale College, (c) Not applicable, (d) Not applicable.
3.	(a) The price at which the builder acquired the land for Rochdale College is not known to CMHC. (b) The land cost submitted by the borrower for loan application purposes was $1 million.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	(a) Who were the architects for Pestalozzi College (b) how was the selection made (c) what were the total fees and expenses paid to the architects in respect of this project?
2.	(a) What general contractor built Pestalozzi College (b) were tenders called (c) what was the bid of the successful contractor (d) was a representative of the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation present when tenders were opened and, if so, what was the name of that person?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. (a) J. Malcolm Wells and Elmar Tampold were the architects for Pestalozzi College, (b) The basis of the selection of the architects for Pestalozzi College is not known to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (c) Architects fees and expenses are subject to contractual arrangements between the architect and the borrower and are paid by the borrower.
2.	(a) A. C. Murphy Construction Ltd. and/or Galway Realty Ltd. (Galway Realty Ltd. is a subsidiary of A. C. Murphy Construction Ltd.), were the general contractors for Pestalozzi College, (b) Tenders for the construction of Pestalozzi College were called by the borrower, Co-operative College Residences Incorporated, (c) The bid of the successful contractor was $5,450,000. (d) The calling of tenders is the responsibility of the borrower. CMHC was therefore not represented at the opening of tenders.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	(a) Who were the architects for Waterloo College (b) how was the selection made (c) what were the total fees and expenses paid to the architects in respect of this project?
2.	(a) What general contractor built Waterloo College (b) were tenders called (c) what was the bid of the successful contractor (d) was a representative of the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation present when tenders were opened and, if so, what was the name of that person?
8334

December 3, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. (a) J. Malcolm Wells and Elmar Tampold Were the architects for Waterloo College, (b) The basis of the selection of the architects for Waterloo College is not known to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (c) Architects fees and expenses are subject to contractual arrangements between the architect and the borrower and are paid by the borrower.
2.	(a) A. C. Murphy Construction Ltd. and/or Galway Realty Ltd. (Galway Realty Ltd. is a subsidiary of A. C. Murphy Construction Ltd.), were the general contractors for Waterloo College, (b) Tenders for the construction of Waterloo College were called by the borrower, Co-operative College Residences Incorporated, (c) The bid of the successful contractor was $1,719,313. (d) The calling of tenders is the responsibility of the borrower. CMHC was therefore not represented at the opening of tenders.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	(a) Who were the architects for Tartu College (b) how was the selection made (c) what were the total fees and expenses paid to the architects in respect of this project?
2.	(a) What general contractor built Tartu College (b) were tenders called (c) what was the bid of the successful contractor (d) was a representative of the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation present when tenders were opened and, if so, what was the name of that person?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. (a) J. Malcolm Wells and Elmar Tampold were the architects for Tartu College, (b) The basis of the selection of the architects for Tartu College is not known to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (c) Architects fees and expenses are subject to contractual arrangements between the architect and the borrower and are paid by the borrower.
2. (a) A. C. Murphy Construction Ltd. and/or Galway Realty Ltd. (Galway Realty Ltd. is a subsidiary of A. C. Murphy Construction Ltd.)(b) Tenders were not called for the construction of Tartu College, (c) Not applicable, (d) Not applicable.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	(a) Who were the architects for Neill-Wyeik (b) how was the selection made (c) what were the total fees and expenses paid to the architects in respect of this project?
2.	(a) What general contractor built Neill-Wyeik (b) were tenders called (c) what was the bid of the successful contractor (d) was a representative of the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation present when tenders were opened and, if so, what was the name of that person?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. (a) J. Malcolm Wells and Elmar Tampold were the architects for Neill-Wyeik College, (b) The basis of the selection of the architects for Neill-Wyeik College is not known to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (c) Architects fees and expenses are subject to contractual

arrangements between the architect and the borrower and are paid by the borrower.
2. (a) A. C. Murphy Construction Ltd. and/or Galway Realty Ltd. is a subsidiary of A. C. Murphy Construction Ltd.) (b) Tenders were not called for the construction of the Neill-Wyeik College, (c) Not applicable, (d) Not applicable.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What legal firm acted for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in respect of the mortgage on Neill-Wyeik College?
2.	What was the total fee paid?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Mr. A. J. P. Cameron, of the firm Cameron, Brewin and Scott, Toronto, was retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in respect of the mortgage on Neill-Wyeik College.
2. Legal fees in connection with a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loan are paid by the borrower and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, therefore, does not have any record of the total fees paid to Mr. Cameron.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What legal firm acted for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in respect of the mortgage on Pestalozzi College?
2.	What was the total fee paid?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Mr. John D. Richard, of the firm Gowling and Henderson, Ottawa, was retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in respect of the mortgage on Pestalozzi College.
2. Legal fees in connection with a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loan are paid by the borrower and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, therefore, does not have any record of the total fees paid to Mr. John D. Richard.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What legal firm acted for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in respect of the mortgage on Waterloo College?
2.	What was the total fee paid?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Mr. J. K. Sims, of Kitchener, was retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in respect of the mortgage on Waterloo College.
2. Legal fees in connection with a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loan are paid by the borrower and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there-

fore, does not have any record of the total fees paid to Mr. J. K. Sims.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What legal firm acted for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in respect of the mortgage on Rochdale College?
2.	What was the total fee paid?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Mr. R. J. Wright, of the firm Lang, Michener, Cranston, Farquharson and Wright, Toronto, was retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in respect of the mortgage on Rochdale College.
2. Legal fees in connection with a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loan are paid by the borrower and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, therefore, does not have any record of the total fees paid to Mr. R. J. Wright.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What legal firm acted for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in respect of the mortgage on Tartu College?
2.	What was the total fee paid?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Mr. Peter Zinko, of Toronto, was retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in respect of the mortgage on Tartu College.
2- Legal fees in connection with a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loan are paid by the borrower and CMHC, therefore, does not have any record of the total fees paid to Mr. Peter Zinko.


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What date was Robert Owen Cooperative Limited incorporated?
2.	What are the names of the directors and officers of the corporation in question?
3.	What are the names of any solicitors and law firms who have acted for this corporation to date for any purpose?
4.	In the negotiations for a loan or loans from CMHC, what are the total amounts of mortgage moneys that have been applied for?
5.	Have any moneys to date been advanced to Robert Owen Cooperative Limited for any purpose?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. There is no federally incorporated company by the name of Robert Owen Co-operative Limited. However, the Robert Owen Development Co-operative, Inc., was incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario on January 1, 1970.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Information on the directors and officers of the company may be obtained by applying to the Companies Branch of the Government of Ontario.
3.	Information is not available on the names of any solicitors and law firms who have acted for Robert Owen Development Co-operative, Inc.
4.	Robert Owen Development Co-operative Inc., has not applied to CMHC for a loan under the National Housing Act.
5.	Not applicable.


[Stage Direction]
(Supplemen tary)
Mr. Dick: How much of the $83 million allocated to the 1973-74 Local Initiatives Program will be made available to (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario (f) Quebec (g) New Brunswick (h) Prince Edward Island (i) Nova Scotia (j) Newfoundland (k) Northwest Territories (1) Yukon?


Mr. Mark MacGuigart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) British Columbia, $9,096,000; (b) Alberta, $3,636,000; (c) Saskatchewan, $2,326,000; (d) Manitoba, $2,981,000; (e) Ontario, $11,527,000; (f) Quebec, $27,409,000; (g) New Brunswick, $5,017,000; (h) Prince Edward Island, $945,000; (i) Nova Scotia, $4,581,000; (j) Newfoundland, $4,507,000; (k) Northwest Territories, $511,000; (1) Yukon, $285,000.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) What rates are paid, per square foot, by retail outlets for (i) main floor space (ii) second floor space in the area (800 Block Granville and Robson) of the Information Canada Building in Vancouver (b) what rate is paid by the government for the entire main and second floors of the Information Canada Building (c) is this rate competitive with those rates paid by other retail outlets in that area and, if not (i) for what reason (ii) what is the estimated overpayment in rental fees for the next five years?
2.	(a) What is the appraised value of the building occupied by Information Canada (b) did the government not consider it expedient to purchase rather than rent the building and, if not, what saving was effected by rental rather than purchase?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
(a)	(i) Main floor space, $2.60 to $12.00 per square foot. The $2.60 rate is a lease negotiated 10 years ago. Several leases are in the $4-$8 range and include a percentage of gross sales in addition to the square foot rental, (ii) Second floor space, $3 to $8 per square foot. Several buildings in the lower range $3 to $5, are either walk-up or with old elevators, poorly maintained and without air conditioning.
(b)	The rate is $11.11 per square foot per annum, (c) (i) The rate is competitive. Four of the more recently negotiated leases (1970-73) reveal basic rental rates between $10 and $12 per square foot, with adjustments for additional revenue based on a percentage of gross annual sales.

December 3, 1973
Order Paper Questions
The rates paid in nearby centres, such as Pacific Centre (700 Block Georgia) and Royal Centre (1000 Block West Georgia) vary from $14 to $22 per square foot per annum, (ii) There is no overpayment of rental fees to be estimated. The rate paid is competitive in consideration of the location, size, traffic flow and similar criteria.
2. (a) The market value of the property is estimated to be in the range of $1,000,000 to $1,300,000. (b) At the time preliminary investigations were being made to locate possible locations for the Information Canada facility, the owner of the subject building indicated the property was not for sale. Furthermore, future Crown construction would provide space for this operation.


Mr. Corbin: 1.	Has the Department of External Affairs received complaints concerning SAC aircraft from the U.S. Loring Air Base which fly over Canadian territory at more or less low altitudes in the area including Saint-Leonard, Grand-Sault, New Denmark and Perth-Andover and, in particular (a) the unpleasant noise caused by such aircraft (b) the fact that such aircraft are armed with nuclear devices (c) the fact that such aircraft were flying over Canadian territory?
2.	How many complaints were received, from whom and on what date in each case?
3.	What was the response of the government in each case?
Hon.-Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs): 1. A check of relevant files back to 1968 reveals that no complaints concerning SAC aircraft from the U.S. Loring Base have been received by the Department of External Affairs.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many non-Canadians are in the Canadian Penitentiary System?
2.	How many are in penitentiaries on drug offences?
3.	Has the government considered a policy of deportation rather than prison terms?
4.	Are the same figures available to the government for provincial institutions and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. Six hundred fourteen, as of 12 October 1973.
2.	Nine hundred fifty-nine, (includes 177 non-Canadians).
3.	While the matter of sentencing persons to deportation in lieu of other kinds of sentence that can be imposed is not a matter that is under consideration by the Department of Justice, consideration is being given to amending the law in order that persons may be deported while on parole.

4.	No.


Mr. Howard: Since January I, 1958 has any person, who was at the time of the visit a Member of Parliament, visited the federal penitentiary at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and, if so, what is the name of each such person and the date of each such visit?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.
Visitor	Date of Visit
The Hon. Davie Fulton Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada	April, 12 1959
The Hon. L. T. Pennell Solicitor General of Canada	March 26-27, 1966
The Hon. G. .1. Mcllraith Solicitor General of Canada	March 8, 1969
Mr. Frank Howard, M.P. Mr. R. Thomson, M.P. Mr. .1. Skoberg, M.P.	April 3-4, 1970
The Hon. Jean-Pierre Coyer, Solicitor General of Canada	August 5, 1971
Mr. Colin Gibson, M.P. Mr. John Gilbert, M P. Mr. Mark MacGuigan, M.P. Mr. Robert McCleave, M.P. i Mr. Terrence Murphy, M.P. Mr. Kenneth Robinson, M.P. Mr. Gordon Sullivan, M.P. Mr. Donald Tolmie, M.P. Mr. Henry Latulippe, M.P.	June 4, 1970 Members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Rt. Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, M.P.	October 21, 1972
The Hon. Warren Allmand Solicitor General of Canada	March 9, 1973
Mrs. Alhanie Morin, M.P. \ Mr. Stuart Leggat.t, M.P. 1 Mr. Reg. Stackhouse, M.P. Miss Flora. MacDonald, M.P.\ Mr. Norval Horner, M.P. '	September 24, 1973 Members of a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were copies of political addresses given by the Minister of Agriculture to the Prince Edward-Hastings Liberal Association on October 12, 1973, the Youth Conference of the Toronto and District Liberal Association on October 13, 1973 and the Simcoe North Liberal Association on October 13, 1973, printed and distributed at public expense and, if so (a) how many copies were produced in each case (b) what was the cost involved in each case (c) what was the total number of persons receiving copies in each case (d) what is the description of all groups of persons to whom such distribution was made?
December 3, 1973

2.	What is the total number of addresses made by the Minister of Agriculture since he assumed his portfolio to political gatherings that have been reprinted and distributed at public expense?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Copies of speeches delivered by the Minister of Agriculture for Canada were printed, and distributed, at public expense, on October 12 and October 13, 1973. The speeches were not political addresses, in the partisan political sense, but reviews of policies, programs and proposals, (a) 1,995 copies were prepared, 1,460 in the English language and 535 in the French language, (b) The direct cost was $189.79. (c) The copies were distributed to 1,845 people, (d) The copies were distributed to members of the news media and the public who have specifically asked the Department of Agriculture to provide them with the text of all prepared speeches delivered by the Minister of Agriculture. Anyone who requests copies may obtain them by applying to the Information Division of the Canada Department of Agriculture.
2. The Minister of Agriculture for Canada has delivered up to October 15, 1973, 57 prepared speeches. This number is one-tenth of the number of speeches he has been requested to make. Every speech made has been distributed to the news media and public. The Minister of Agriculture has delivered most of these speeches on week-ends or Wednesday nights.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Canadian Transport Commission on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Normal information services operating expenditures (including salaries) in 1972-73 were $48,685, and in 1973-74 to October 31 were $30,179.
2.	Nil.
3.	Nil.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Economic Council of Canada on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Order Paper Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. 1972-73, $8,645; 1973-74 to date, Nil.
2.	Name: John Doherty & Company Limited; Address: 46 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario; Purpose: Advertising for the submission of briefs with regard to this Council's Special Reference on Cyclical Instability in Construction.
3.	Nil.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to the answer to Question No. 2,322, what are the names of those officials of the government presently represented on the International Committee operating under the auspices of the American Bureau of Shipping to investigate technical matters concerning submersibles and what are their responsibilities within the Department?
2.	What other nations are represented on this Committee and on how many occasions and at what dates has this Committee or sub-committees thereof met to discuss the standardization of external adaptors since January 1, 1972?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Ministry of Transport representative for technical matters concerning submersibles on the American Bureau of Shipping Special Committee on Submersible Vehicles is Mr. W. E. Bonn. Mr. Bonn is Superintendant, Hulls Inspection and Standards, Steamship Inspection, Marine Safety, and his responsibilities are as follows: Under the direction of the Chief, Steamship Inspection Division of the Marine Safety Branch at Ottawa Headquarters, organizes and controls the planning, development and co-ordination of departmental programs covering the inspection of ships' hulls, structural fire protection systems, assignment of load line, damaged and undamaged stability, flooding and heeling systems and associated machinery and equipment, programs for the design and approval of ships subdivision, and the design and operation of ships in Arctic waters; provides direct supervision to assigned staff at headquarters and functional supervision to field inspection staff.
2. The above-mentioned committee consists of 31 members from both industry and government and has representatives from five countries, viz., U.S.A, Canada, Switzerland, France and the United Kingdom. Canada is represented by five members from the industry, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Ministry of Transport. The book "Guide for the Classification of Manned Submersibles" produced and presently being modified has been the subject of the two meetings held since January 1972. The standardization of external adaptors is a high priority item for the next meeting, tentatively planned for early December 1973.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many polar bears were shot in Canadian territory (a) by licensed Eskimo hunters (b) by non resident sportsmen using Eskimo licence privileges in 1971, 1972 and 1973?
2.	What is the latest official estimate of polar bear population in Canadian territories?

December 3, 1973
Order Paper Questions


John Mercer Reid: In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned: Statistics for Canada 1. (a) 1970-71, 395; 1971-72, 411; 1972-73, 429. (b) 1970-71, 5; 197172, 10; 1972-73, 9.
2. Approximately 10,000.
In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned: Statistics for Northwest Territories 1. (a) 1971, 385; 1972, 406; 1973, 421. (b) 1971, 7; 1972, 9; 1973, 8.
2. Approximately 8,000.


Mr. Godin: 1.	By province, what are the average salaries paid on Indian reserves to the (a) band leader (b) secretary-treasurer (c) members of the executive?
2.	Are Indian owners of apartment houses which are rented to non Indians subject to any rental controls?
3.	Is there a regulation on the number of housing units they may own?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Band leaders, secretarytreasurers and members of the executive do not receive a salary from the department. However, salaries can be paid by bands out of their funds but this varies on the various reserves and the information is not available.
2.	The department does not maintain a record of any apartment houses on Indian reserves that may be rented to non-Indians. However, if there are any, there are no controls imposed by this department.
3.	There is no regulation imposed by this department on the number of housing units Indians may own.


Mr. Baker: 1.	Which companies (or company) were contracted by the Royal Canadian Mint to manufacture coin cases?
2.	Did the purchase orders include cases for newly minted Olympic coins?
3.	On what dates were the contracts entered into and how much was each contract?
4.	Did the Royal Canadian Mint call for tenders before entering into the above contracts (or contract) and, if so, what other companies made bids and for what amounts?
5.	On what basis were the contracted companies (or company) selected by the Royal Canadian Mint?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1 and 2. The Universal Package Corp., Montreal, was awarded a contract for coin cases for Olympic coins.
3.	A contract was awarded on August 10, 1973 for $600,000 for coin cases. A second contract was awarded on August 20, 1973 for $225,000 for coin capsules. These capsules to be used for other coins not packaged.
4.	Yes, the Royal Canadian Mint did call for tenders. The following companies were requested to submit originally designed sample cases and a price which was to include all packaging machinery, conveyer systems, etc., that would be necessary for automatic packaging: Calumet Warehous-

ing and Distributing Ltd., Toronto; Major Box and Wire Works Ltd., Montreal; Cooper Canada Ltd., Toronto; Gunther Mele Ltd., Brantford; Queen Leather Products Inc., Montreal; American Packaging Corp., Montreal; Arrow Cases Mfg. Co. Ltd., Toronto; Premier Leather Goods Co. Montreal; R. H. L. Plastics Ltd., Montreal; Dominion Tool and Metal Products Ltd., Montreal; Universal Package Corp., Montreal. Of the above, the following submitted originally designed packages at various prices: R. H. L. Plastics Ltd. 1 Sample, 1.2 cents per unit, plus $17,000 for packaging machinery; American Packaging Corp., 2 samples, 4.3 cents per unit and 4.75 cents per unit; Premier Leather Goods Co., 1 sample, 8.1 per unit plus approx. $300,000 for automatic packaging; Universal Package Corp., 3 samples, 8.75 cents per unit, 11.75 cents per unit and 15 cents per unit.
5.	The cases were chosen on the aesthetic quality, durability and general suitability of their original design for the $5 and $10 silver coins. The decision was not made by the Royal Canadian Mint but was made at a meeting of the Olympic Advisory Marketing Board at one of their regular meetings. This Board is composed of representatives from COJO, Treasury Board, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Post Office Department, Department of Finance, Royal Canadian Mint.


Mr. Crouse: Has the government any plans for a new federal building in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) what is the estimated cost of this building (b) what is the target date set for its construction (c) on what date will it be completed?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes. (a) It is not customary to reveal estimated costs before a contract has been awarded, (b) The fall of 1974.
(c)	The spring of 1976.


Mr. Gleave: Has the Bowden Correctional Centre in the Province of Alberta been purchased by the government and, if so (a) on what date (b) what price was paid (c) on what date were prisoners housed in the facility and if prisoners are not housed in the facility, on what date does the government feel the facility must be available for its designated use?


William Warren Allmand: No. However, the purchase of the Bowden Correctional Centre from the province of Alberta is currently the subject of active negotiations between federal and provincial authorities, (a), (b) and (c) not applicable.


Mr. Stevens: What was the average price of a new house in the third quarters of 1967, 1970 and 1973 in (a) York region (b) the city of Toronto (c) Metropolitan Toronto, excluding the city of Toronto?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing
December 3, 1973


Mr. Reynolds: How many pounds of butter are currently in storage in Canada and what is the policy of the government in disposing of this butter?


Eugene Whelan: As of
November 1, 1973 there were 55,075,000 pounds of butter in storage in Canada. Butter stocks held by the Canadian Dairy Commission are made available for sale at the butter support price of 71 cents per pound.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Has a decision been taken to refuse to award the Indo-China Medal and the Viet Nam Medal to civilians, both men and women, who were assigned to duties in those theatres at one time or another from 1954 to 1973 and, if so, on what grounds was it decided to favour the military components and exclude the civilians?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The government of Canada has decided to approve acceptance of the International Commission of Control and Supervision (ICCS) Medal for Armed Forces Personnel only. The main reason for not authorizing civilians to receive such a medal, despite the Canadian government's full awareness of the latter's outstanding performance, was the fact that the many civilians who had previously served in Viet Nam and in comparable operations elsewhere in the past had not been similarly treated. This decision is in keeping with previous and normal practice in the foreign service.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Will the Minister of Transport require Mr. Rathie to give up his position in his private company to assure fair representation from him as a member of the National Harbours Board?
2.	Has the Minister admitted that a conflict of interest exists and, if so, what action has been taken in this matter?


Jean Marchand: 1. No.
2. The Minister of Transport does not recognize that there is a conflict of interest and accordingly has not required the resignation of Mr. Rathie.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the National Capital Commission a research project underway involving the pollution and contamination of Pinks Lake in the Gatineau Park and, if so (a) on what date was the project initiated (b) what are the names of those involved in the project (c) what are the qualifications of each researcher (d) are they ordinarily employees of either the National Capital Commission or the Public Service and, if not (i) on what basis are they remunerated for their services (ii) what is the total amount paid in salary and expenses to those involved?
2.	Who has been in charge of this project since its inception and on what basis was he selected for this position?
3.	(a) On what date will the project be completed (b) will the findings be made public and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Who has responsibility for acting upon whatever recommendations are contained in this project?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: 1. Yes. (a) July 1972. (b) Dr. M. Dickman, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, (c) M. Dickman PHD; Fresh Water Ecology-Zoology, U.B.C. Post Doctoral Limnology, Uppsala Sweden, (d) No. (i) Contract, Department of the Environment, (ii) $7,100.
2.	Dr. Dickman was requested to carry on the specific study of Pinks Lake upon completion early in 1972 of a much larger study which included Pinks Lake and four other lakes in Gatineau Park. The larger study indicated that additional work was required to determine the source of nutrient pollution.
3.	(a) Field work completed, report in process of assembly as of November 12. (b) Yes.
4.	National Capital Commission in consultation with Department of the Environment.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by R. de C. Grey, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to (a) Washington ($110) (b) Washington ($217) (c) Washington ($197) (d) Washington ($188)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) To
attend meeting of the Council of International Actuarial Association, (b) To attend meeting of National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
8340

Order Paper Questions 2. Brussels, September; New York, June.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-PURPOSE OF TR{P MADE BY MR. W. G. SCHNEIDER


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by W. G. Schneider of the National Research Council (salary range: $37,500-$42,000), to Paris ($716)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. (a) Discussion with President of 'Centre national de la recherche scientifique' (CNRS) pertaining to Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Project, (b) To attend Ministerial Meeting of 'Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development' (OECD).
2. (a) June 1971. (b) October 1971.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Since the inception of the Opportunities for Youth Program and the Local Initiatives Program, how many projects approved under these two programs in each province had as their objective the production of a film?
2.	How many of these projected films were actually produced?
3.	Has the government any information as to the actual number of times which these completed films were shown to audience groups?
Return tabled.



MULTICULTURALISM PROGRAMMING

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many representations including letters have been received criticizing the paucity of multicultural programming?
2.	Does the government plan to utilize satellite TV distribution to provide non-official language programming and, if so, in what languages and to what areas?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO CANADA MONDE-WORLD

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Canada Monde-World receive funds from the Department of the Secretary of State in 1972 and, if so, on what dates, for how much and for what purpose?
2.	Has Canada Monde-World received or will it be receiving funds from the Department of the Secretary of State in 1973 and, if so, on what dates, for how much and for what purpose?
3.	Who signed any applications or requests received by the government from Canada Monde-World for such funds?
4.	Is the government aware of Mr. Jacques Hebert having any connection with Canada Monde-World?

5.	Were any representations of any kind whatsoever made on behalf of such grants by the Prime Minister or anyone whatsoever acting on his behalf?
6.	How many persons were or will be recipients or beneficiaries of such funds and, specifically, what was or will be the average amount spent per person by the government?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN CANADA

Mr. Rowland: For each of the past five fiscal years, for each of the aircraft manufacturing companies in Canada, what grants, loans or other financial assistance were provided by government departments or agencies (a) in what amounts (b) under what programs (c) for what purposes?
Return tabled.



COST OF TRIP MADE BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE IN AUGUST

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost to the taxpayers of the trip to various parts of the world made in August by the Minister of National Defence and by those accompanying him?
2.	(a) What government aircraft was used for this trip (b) how many miles did it travel (c) how many flying hours were involved (d) on what dates did it leave and return to Canada (e) what was the total cost of its operations during the time involved?
3.	(a) What were the names of all crew members of the aircraft (b) what were their total expenses paid by the government, including salaries?
4.	(a) What were the names of all other persons carried on the aircraft at any time during this trip and, in each case, what amount if any, did they contribute to transportation costs (b) did the government pay any sums whatsoever towards any expenses of these people and, if so, how much in each case?
5.	What would have been the cost to the government of transportation if the Minister of National Defence had made this same trip as a passenger on a commercial airline?
6.	(a) How many members of the press accompanied the Minister (b) how were they selected and by whom (c) how many were from the Minister's constituency or Province?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-INCOME TAX

Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of April 1 in each of the years 1953, 1958, 1963, 1968 and 1973 (a) what was the number of employees in the Department of National Revenue processing personal income tax returns and, secondly, processing corporate income tax returns (b) what was the number of persons auditing such personal income tax returns and such corporate income tax returns?
2.	For the fiscal years ending March 31, 1953, 1958, 1963, 1968 and 1973 what was the number of personal and, secondly the number of corporate income tax returns (a) filed and, in each case, what was the total tax paid (b) audited and, in each case, what was the tax re-assessment?
Return tabled.
December 3, 1973



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Economic Council of Canada on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN CONSTITUENCY OF ELGIN

Mr. Wise: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all government employees presently working in the constituency of Elgin?
2.	With what department is each employee in the constituency of Elgin associated?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES TENDER MPE

[Stage Direction]
0274-2-8322/3/4/5
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	With respect to the Department of Supply and Services tender MPE 0274-2-8322/3/4/5, has the government awarded a contract for item 1(B)AO, parcel sortation systems for the bulk mail facility and letter sorting plants to Mclnnis Co., of Windsor in association with Arrowjet General of Frederick, Maryland (a) did Feranti-Packard of Toronto in association with Speaker Sortation Systems submit a tender (b) did Speaker Motions of Canada in association with Speaker Motions of Milwaukee submit a tender (c) what was the price of the tender in each case?
2.	Did the Canadian Post Office Project Officers report that the Mclnnis bid did not meet the specifications of a performance type contract and, if so (a) did DSS review the Mclnnis tender (b) was the tender award increased from $1,760,211 to $4,160,436 (c) was a similar review made of the other two tenders?
3.	Of the three companies involved, which tender included mechanically assisted loading as specified under the provisions of a performance type contract (a) was the Mclnnis bid upgraded to include mechanical loading (b) what was the revised cost of this upgrading (c) what is the technical competence and experience of Mclnnis Co. in this specific area of technology?
4.	(a) Which of the three tenders were supported by the Post Office Project Officers from the standpoint of technical competence and actual experience in manufacturing the 1(B)AO parcel sortation systems essential to meeting delivery requirements (b) which tender did the Consultants on the Project, Cole-Sherman Associates of Toronto, support from the standpoint of technical competence and actual experience in manufacturing parcel sortation systems, with the vital delivery date in mind?
5.	Was the Canadian Post Office Project Officer on this project withdrawn from the evaluation process at the request of DSS?
6.	What is the practical experience of each of the three companies submitting tenders in actually manufacturing and supplying postal sorting equipment?
7.	(a) Did the American affiliation of Mclnnis Co., Arrowjet General, change ownership to the American Chain and Cable Co., since submitting the original tender (b) is the Canadian affiliate of ACCO, the Canadian Mechanical Handling Systems, a competitor of Mclnnis?
Oral Questions
8.	What is the Canadian affiliation of the other two companies submitting tenders?
9.	Has the project been delayed by the negotiations with the Mclnnis Co. (a) was the original delivery date October, 1974 (b) has it now been delayed and, if so, until what date?
10.	What is the estimated daily cost of slippage on delivery date?
11.	Which of the three companies have been involved with other contracts for CPO Mechanization Project (a) what are these projects (b) has the performance been satisfactory?
12.	Is there logistic and training compatibility between the bulk mail facility and the Mclnnis equipment?
13.	(a) Is it the practice of DSS to award contracts on the Canadian Post Office Mechanization Project, without regard to technical competence (b) what are the criteria in making these awards?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On October 15 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) gave his version of answers to some of my questions on the order paper on the subject of lawyers receiving business from the government. Specifically, I refer to his answer to question No. 2279 in which the minister gave what he said were names and addresses of lawyers given business by his department in the province of Nova Scotia during the last fiscal year. Included in this list was the name of Mr. A. D. Mclnnis of Antigonish, who subsequently advised me by letter dated October 17 that he had in reality not received any such business from the Department of Justice, that he found the inclusion of his name by the minister annoying, and that he desired clarification of the matter.
May I draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary starred question No. 3028 placed on the order paper on October 22 in order to clarify the situation as requested. That was 42 days ago, Mr. Speaker. I can see no reason whatsoever that would justify such a long delay in furnishing what should be a very simple answer.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, such delays can only make one suspect the accuracy of the minister's entire list, and surely the minister in fairness to Mr. Mclnnis-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the news of a further increase in the tax reference price of Venezuelan crude oil. Can the minister inform the House what this will mean in terms of increased product prices to Canadian consumers
8342

December 3, 1973
Oral Questions
east of the Ottawa Valley line and when it might be expected to have any such effect upon consumers there?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we cannot be sure it will necessarily result in an immediate price increase. I would think it would be a matter of some weeks at least before a price increase would be felt in the crude feedstock supply to eastern Canadian refiners. At that time I think the government will have to look at the cost situation and see, in light of recent increases, whether any further increase would be justified.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister tell the House whether the increases in product prices he has already approved, the most recent of which went into effect a couple of days ago, have now taken into account all previous offshore crude price increases, that is, previous to the most recent announcement by Venezuela, or are there still more price rises to be anticipated as a result of previous increases in offshore crude prices without even taking into account the most recent increase in Venezuelan posted prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the two most recent increases take into account increases that occurred during the autumn, specifically from the end of September to early October and the one between the middle and the end of October which resulted from substantial increases in both Arab and Venezuelan prices. I believe there was an increase in the late summer, in August, which was not covered at the time the restraint went on. That has not been recovered, but I am not anticipating that it will be the subject matter of an application for a price increase. At the moment I am not anticipating any further applications.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. In view of the close contact the minister has established with the government of Venezuela as a result of his visit there, is he in a position to tell the House whether we should anticipate any further increases in the posted price of Venezuelan crude in the near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that in the course of our discussions with Venezuela they never made any commitment with regard to price; it was really on the question of supply that they expressed interest in a possible accord. As to whether additional increases will take place, I think this may depend on the international supply situation, and it may very well be that the Venezuelan government will find a basis for further increases in its tax reference price as the months go on.


INTENTION RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO PURCHASE OIL FROM VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT AND LIFTING OF PRICE FREEZE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Has the government given any further thought to setting up a government agency to purchase oil on a government to government basis? As I understood his answer a moment ago, Venezuela has not yet decided to take its royalties in kind

rather than in money. May I ask the minister whether further discussions have taken place so that the Venezuelan government may be encouraged to take them in kind on the basis that Canada will have a government purchasing agency to deal with the Venezuelan government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a correct description of our position that we have not attempted to persuade Venezuela to follow this practice, although we have indicated to the Venezuelan government that we would be interested in discussion with them if they took the decision to take royalties in kind.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Prime Minister, whichever wants to answer, whether it is not a fact that the Venezuelan decision to take royalties in kind might well depend on whether a customer like Canada had a government agency to deal with them? If that is the case, can the government take faster steps to set up the necessary agency?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the decision whether to take in kind or not would depend on factors other than the presence of an agency. I would agree that over the longer run the possibility of effecting that kind of supply agreement would certainly be assisted by the existence of such a corporation in Canada. I hope to be able to announce to the House in a relatively short period of time the government's decision in the latter regard.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister or the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, although he is absent, whether it is still the government's intention to abandon the price freeze on January 31 and to allow prices across Canada to increase as of February 1 and, if so, to what level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the government of Alberta has commenced a legislative session today involving certain amendments to its legislation with regard to the taxation of oil royalties in that province arising, in part, from price increases. At the moment we are having discussions, and I expect to have them again this week, with the government of Alberta on this matter in which the question of the price from February 1 onward is intimately involved. At the moment I cannot be more precise than that.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE OF NEWFOUNDLAND ON LOW AND FIXED INCOMES TO MEET INCREASED FUEL OIL COST
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the price of fuel oil in Newfoundland has doubled in three years and is now substantially higher than in the rest of the country, and as per capita consumption is four times the national average, may I ask the minister, especially in light of the high unemployment rate in that province, if he has had any talks with the government of Newfoundland, or with the Atlantic provinces for that matter, with a view to providing some direct means of federal assistance for those
December 3, 1973

people on middle, lower and fixed incomes who are hardest hit by the fuel price increase?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I told the House before, I sent a telegram last week to my colleagues. I have not had an answer from my colleague in Newfoundland but I have received one from my colleague in Prince Edward Island. It seems that the provincial ministers concerned are taking appropriate steps at the present time to make sure that those in need are not going to be caught short of the money necessary to meet their needs with regard to fuel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last Friday I asked the minister whether he was going to make public the analysis of the survey his department is doing among 1,000 corporations in Canada on the consequences of the energy crisis. At that time the minister did not indicate clearly whether the government would or would not do so. I therefore ask the minister now, does he intend during the present week, for example, to inform the House of his findings from that survey?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think, at this stage of the analysis, it is still too premature to make any announcement of that kind.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OVERLAND OIL MOVEMENT WILL BE IN OPERATION WHEN SEAWAY CLOSES-SURVEY OF FACILITIES
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Having regard to the fact the Montreal-Lake Ontario section of the seaway will close two weeks from today on December 16, can the minister give any assurance that overland oil movement will be in operation at that time when the St. Lawrence movement is curtailed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give assurances in the kind of figures with which I responded to the hon. gentleman last week. As I mentioned at that time, there will be considerable investment required in both loading and unloading facilities and also in the repair of existing rolling stock. We certainly hope that some part of this will be available. We are actively considering additional meas-
Oral Questions
ures that the government of Canada can take in order to enhance overland oil movement.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. On November 28 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that the Minister of Transport was completing a survey with regard to the overland system from Sarnia. Has the minister completed this survey and, specifically, has he been in touch with the appropriate trucking firms?


Jean Marchand: Excuse me, but I did not hear the first part of the question. Could the hon. member repeat it?


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. On November 28 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that the Minister of Transport was completing a survey with regard to the overland supply system from Sarnia. Has the minister completed the survey and, specifically, has he been in touch with the appropriate trucking firms?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are in touch with the trucking firms as we are in touch with the railways to see what can be done next winter if we have to transport oil from Sarnia to Montreal.


William Herbert Jarvis: Will the minister tell the House what specific steps he is taking to ensure that overland oil supply will be in operation before the St. Lawrence freeze-up?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that is a wise thing to do. The first thing we have to do is find the rail cars and trucks that will be in a position to move the oil as soon as it is necessary to move it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from the possibility of gasoline rationing in the United States. Has the minister consulted with his American counterparts to get an agreement from the Americans to ensure that the interests of Canadians abroad will be protected so they will not be stranded there if gasoline rationing is introduced in that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would not think that Canadians who wish to travel in the United States would be exempted from those kinds of measures. I should think they would want to comply.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What specific measures will the minister be taking on behalf of the Canadian government to protect the interests of Canadian nationals travelling abroad who find them-

December 3, 1973
Oral Questions
selves trapped there? Is the minister not concerned about the interests of Canadians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned. I think we can look after the interests of Canadians in this regard. However, I do not think we should create the impression that we should be free when Americans are subject to rationing.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister reached any decision or can he report on the request for runway relocation at the Winnipeg airport in order to reduce air pollution, noise and for safety reasons?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. We are still discussing this with the municipality.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Will the government be taking immediate steps to acquire land in preparation for runway relocation?


Jean Marchand: As soon as a decision is reached.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-STARTING OF CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING, OWNERSHIP
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister give any more information on the extension of the pipeline to Montreal as to when he expects the construction of the pipeline to start, whether financing has been lined up and whether or not it will be publicly owned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot report very much more since my meeting on Friday with the representatives of the pipeline company. I hope to be able to do so within a relatively short period.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the minister assure us there will be adequate steel to construct the pipeline and have it completed by 1975?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My information is there will be, Mr. Speaker.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-AVAILABILITY OF STEEL
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Indus-

try, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister or his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, been in touch with the steel companies of Canada in order to obtain advice whether in fact there will be steel available to commence the pipeline at this time? My information reveals that this will not be possible before March, 1975.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I met with the presidents of all the steel companies of Canada on Thursday of last week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now that the minister has advised he met with the presidents of the steel companies, will he take us into his confidence, answer my question and let the House and the people of Canada know whether in fact there will be sufficient steel in order to carry on with this pipeline?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, just 15 seconds ago my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in answer to another question indicated there will be no problem and that sufficient steel can be made available to build the pipeline. I did not feel it necessary to repeat the undertaking that had already been given.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister advise us as to the date he indicated to the steel companies when the government wishes to start construction of the line? Can he give us some indication so we may know what time we are talking about and the completion date?


Alastair William Gillespie: My colleague has already stated that an announcement will be made in due course.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact Canada has no resident ambassador in Riyadh and bearing in mind the importance of obtaining fuller knowledge of Arab oil policies affecting Canada, will the minister consider having an invitation extended to Sheik Yamani, Saudi Arabian oil minister, and his Algerian counterpart, to visit this country after the conclusion of their visits to western Europe and the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take this suggestion under consideration.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: In the same process, would the minister consult with the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence with a view to having these gentlemen invited before that committee so that we might enlarge our limited knowledge of the relations between their part of the world and our part of the world?
December 3, 1973

Oral Questions


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon, Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West): I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the right hon. gentleman tell the House what negotiations have taken place with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec with regard to the location of the pipeline extension to which he referred in his statement a week ago Thursday night? Can he also advise the House whether he is satisfied with the information given to him by his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that he can guarantee the line will be completed by 1975?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the
first part of the question, the answer is that I have not been personally involved in this discussion of location. As to the second part of the question, the answer is yes.


FINANCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been addressed to the Minister of Finance but in his absence I direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact the federal government is putting up some $3 million under the winter works program for the building of a new $32 million metropolitan Toronto reference library, and in view of the fact a number of local community planning groups have expressed strong opposition to this project, particularly because of lack of consultation with them, will the federal government seek to have the proposal deferred until it can be looked into further and appropriate consultation undertaken with the community?
[ Translation]


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I took due note of the hon. member's question and the Minister of Finance will reply to him as soon as possible.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the parliamentary secretary, when speaking to the minister, call his attention to the fact that renovation of the present building and the provision of additional parking space might well enable the needs of the library to be met adequately with a saving of more than $20 million?


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ASCERTAIN FROM PRESIDENT
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Now that the minister will be meeting face to face with the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: I don't know what the hell is so funny about it.


An hon. Member:: It came from your own side.


Donald MacInnis: -will the minister ascertain from the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation why a miner with 45 years service has been denied and is being denied a service pension on the basis that he is receiving a compensation pension?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice. I have already had three hours of face-to-face conversation with the gentleman in question and I shall be continuing these discussions tomorrow. The matter the hon. member has raised is one I propose to bring up with him, and I hope to have some answers for the hon. gentleman shortly.


Donald MacInnis: Am I to
understand from the minister that the letter he wrote several weeks ago to the president has not yet been replied to?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the purport of that question escapes me. I am not at all certain what is meant by it.


Donald MacInnis: Then let me ask a supplementary by way of explanation. Did the minister not inform me that he had written to Tom Kent to inquire as to the status of the compensation payments which were being used to subsidize pensions, and did he not receive a reply long since to the letter he sent to Tom Kent?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my meetings with the president of the company is to discuss these matters. I am expecting to get an oral reply from him and will discuss the matter in detail, just as soon as I know what he says.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister take me up on my request to be at the meeting along with himself and Mr. Kent when these matters are being discussed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 3, 1973

Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if I were absolutely certain that such a meeting would be simply face to face, I would comply.


GASOLINE AND FUEL OIL-SUGGESTION THAT MINISTER ASK PROVINCES TO REDUCE TAXES
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
As the sales tax on gas is 25 cents a gallon in Newfoundland and New Brunswick and 7 per cent on heating oil in British Columbia, has the minister pointed out to his provincial colleagues that a reduction in the sales tax would be greatly appreciated by consumers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, such a suggestion was made at the last federal-provincial conference of energy ministers in Toronto and my provincial counterparts replied in the negative.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY NATURAL GAS PIPELINE-REPORTED WITHDRAWAL OF POSSIBLE PRIVATE FINANCING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of persistent reports that the private sector is withdrawing its original interest in financing a Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline, has the government an alternative plan for getting this vitally needed outlet for natural gas built if private financing is not forthcoming?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of the question. I have had an opportunity at a very recent date to discuss their proposals with the Canadian Arctic gas study group. They have indicated their intention in the relatively near future, within a matter of several months, to make application to the appropriate regulatory authorities both in Canada and in the United States for a pipeline. The gentlemen were kind enough to indicate that the emergence of the El Paso alternative proposal in Alaska was a matter of concern to them, and also that they were concerned about the situation in Canada vis-a-vis native rights in the Mackenzie valley. Subject to these concerns, I believe they will be going ahead at an early date to seek regulatory approval.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY NATURAL GAS PIPELINE-INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF NON-DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR PENDING SETTLEMENT OF NATIVES' CLAIMS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he written a letter, or has

anyone in his department written a letter, to the Northwest Territories Indian Brotherhood or the Fort Wrigley people informing them that the government is establishing a corridor eight miles wide, four on either side of the Mackenzie River, within which no development will take place until such time as native claims in the Northwest Territories have been negotiated to a settlement?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know precisely which letter the hon. member is referring to since I and my officers have written often to the Indians of the Territories, but I shall investigate and report to the House. Of course, all required measures will be taken to protect the interests of the Indians, for certain indications have perhaps been so interpreted by the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has to do with the Greenpeace III vessel. Since the government of France has released the Greenpeace III in Tahiti some 7,000 miles from Vancouver, I should like to inquire whether the government of Canada is insisting that the ship be delivered, or is the government planning alternatively to assist David McTaggart financially in its return?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is considering the alternative, which is to help Mr. McTaggart bring the vessel back to Canada.


Mark Willson Rose: I wonder whether the minister would be a little more explicit. Since McTaggart is under medical orders to stay within 12 hours of a hospital because of an eye injury suffered during the French boarding of this vessel on the high seas, is Canada demanding reparations or compensation from France and, if so, what is France's attitude to these demands?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the first question related to bringing the ship back to Canada and the answer I gave was that we were considering assisting Mr. McTaggart financially to bring his ship back. The second question related to the damage that he claimed he suffered at the hands of the French navy. We have been pressing this case with the French government, so far without success.
December 3, 1973


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the recent situation at Kenora indicates that native people are having to resort to sit-ins to get attention given to their problems, will the minister assure the House that he will not extend to his district offices the practice of putting up steel walls to keep the Indians out, and will he accede to the request by petition of his departmental employees to remove the steel obstacles to Indians entering the department's head office in Ottawa?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to reply to the hon. member who once more is late with his news. If he goes to the building he will see there is no more steel wall since last week, when I gave orders to take it away.


Charles Joseph Clark: May I have the assurance that the practice of putting up obstacles to keep out native people will not be extended to district offices, as I asked in my original question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will take all the necessary steps to make sure these people have access to my officials and my department, but I will never put up with people who want to use violence in order to make their point.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister assure the House that in the meantime he has not taken official action to rename the headquarters building of his department "Fort Chretien"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does the crash survey now being taken by his department indicate that the minister has changed his mind about the prediction he made on November 26 that next year will be a very good year?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker. I think next year will be a very good year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister give the House an estimate of the effect on capital expenditure in 1974 resulting from the energy crisis?


Alastair William Gillespie: The last analysis we did on this clearly indicated that the business community expects to increase
Oral Questions
its capital investment very substantially, by over 20 per cent. I have had no reason yet to modify those figures.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the minister is still giving information based on the pre-energy crisis situation. Can he give us more up to date information? In particular, can he give us an estimate of the effects on Canadian industry of the energy induced slowdown in the United States economy, especially in so far as it affects dollar volume and the number of jobs?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the current situation is too indefinite at the moment to make any forecast.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence but in his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary could answer it. The question relates to an incident at Tolstoi, Manitoba, this past week in which a number of civilians were terrorized by a militia unit on exercise. Does the parliamentary secretary have some explanation for the incident, and would he indicate to the House whether any disciplinary action is being taken against those who perpetrated the incident?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this was an unfortunate incident that should never have occurred and steps are being taken to see that it does not occur again.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the Canadian Transport Commission held lengthy hearings at Barrie last July 10 to 13, when over 40 briefs were presented in favour of the establishment of a rail passenger service between Barrie and Toronto, with weekend extensions to Collingwood and Meaford, and taking into consideration the ever-increasing highway congestion and the energy shortage, will the minister take the necessary steps to expedite a favourable decision in this matter as soon as possible?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I received this report this morning and I will be happy to look into the matter and make a decision.

December 3, 1973
Oral Questions ENERGY


POSSIBILITY OF URANIUM STOCKPILING PROGRAM IN LIGHT OF OVER ALL SHORTAGE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the over-all energy shortage, has the minister considered the possibility of a uranium stockpiling program? I am particularly interested, of course, in that part of north Hastings where there are four uranium mines sitting idle.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have not specifically considered new stockpiling. We anticipate that with an improvement in the international price for uranium there will be a greater incentive to some of our existing Canadian mines to bring capacity back into production again. I would expect a bright future for the north part of Hastings County in particular.


WHEAT-REASON FOR DELAY IN PAYMENTS TO ONTARIO PRODUCERS UNDER TWO-PRICE SYSTEM
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture regarding payments to Ontario wheat producers under the two-price system. A few weeks ago we were informed by the grains division of his department that a formula would be worked out and payments made before too long. I understand that the formula has not been worked out and nothing has been done. What is the reason for the delay and when will things be straightened out?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the $8.3 million are to be paid out to Ontario wheat producers under an agreement we have with the Ontario Winter Wheat Marketing Board. As soon as we receive information from that board, these payments will be made. We are awaiting that information at the present time.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In view of the rather inconclusive result of the communications conference last week, does the minister intend to proceed with legislation to merge the regulatory functions of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission with the communications committee of the Canadian Transport Commission?
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier).)


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. However, we have taken no final decision on this because of the legislative requirements of the government program.
[ English]


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the desire stated by the minister at the conference to negotiate, discuss and consult with the provinces, will the federal-provincial officials committee that is supposed to meet early next year have any legislative input?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the legislation as a whole, we promised the provinces we would discuss it anew with them before introducing it. But I warned at the federal-provincial conference, and the hon. member must be acquainted with my statement, that concerning the first part which deals primarily with the federal government's straightening out its own affairs, that we would consider ourselves free to legislate without any further consultation with the provinces, especially because the latter seem in no rush to hold another conference.


PARTICIPATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IN FUTURE CONFERENCES WITH PROVINCES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Before any further conferences are held on the very important subject of communications, which is rather vital north of the 60th parallel, will the minister ensure that there will be representation at future conferences from the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the provinces' proposal goes even further: it suggests that the next conference be held in the Northwest Territories.


Erik Nielsen: Good.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of the government's proposal for a detailed study of a Canadian program on controlled thermonuclear fusion and the setting up of a management committee comprised of a group centred primarily in the province of Quebec, I should like to ask the minister if requests for inclusion in the proposed study have come from universities in the western provinces which are engaged in similar research studies?
December 3, 1973


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, such surveys are not usually made public because of the representative character of the researchers entrusted with them. This feasibility study will make a complete inventory of the situation, including, I trust, the excellent studies performed in Edmonton.


Randolph Harding: Would the minister consider enlarging the present five-group, management committee which has been set up for this proposed study, to include other research groups interested in thermonuclear fusion or, alternatively, that when a draft proposal is prepared a representative group from across Canada will meet to examine that draft and come up with proposals to be submitted to the government?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, when I have the report of this research group, I will be able to provide for participation by the Edmonton group. This is a feasibility study project and we have not yet decided whether we shall launch a thermonuclear fusion research program.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he advise the House whether the cabinet has reached a decision on increasing the allocation of funds for the LIP program?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that decision has not been taken yet.


Jack Marshall: In view of the lateness of the season and the widespread disappointment in respect of many thousands of applications, is the minister able to indicate whether there is hope for these applicants and will he make an official announcement, hopefully, before Christmas?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, until such a decision has been made I do not think there should be any inference drawn as to when this will happen. When such a decision is made it will be announced.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister presently giving active consideration to an across the board raise in benefits paid to
Oral Questions
preretired Devco miners and their dependants to compensate them for the greatly increased cost of living with which they are faced?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, there was such an across the board increase a few months ago. I am speaking from memory, but if it is not now linked to the cost of living escalation I believe that is the intention. Therefore there would be something of this nature for the workers concerned. I will be glad to look into the matter and get an answer as to exactly how the program works.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the continuing decline in the supply of quarters and dimes by the Royal Canadian Mint, in view of the problem of retailers in having enough change available, and as conditions will worsen between now and Christmas, what steps is the minister taking to increase the supply of silver coins in order that this problem can be overcome?
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, we are now minting coins at full capacity, and this is even causing problems with our personnel. However, we are negotiating with our personnel representatives in order to minimize the coin shortage.
[ English]


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister take into consideration a cutback in production for export in this connection?
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in fact we do not wish to destroy the markets that we have developed outside Canada, but we have certainly reduced our activities in these markets to meet the demand within the country.


DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF SUPPLIES ALLOCATION BOARD
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is he able to say now when the energy conservation board which he announced on television will be getting under way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe notice of this procedure was given and it is probably on the order paper now.

December 3, 1973
Oral Questions


Thomas Miller Bell: Even if legislation is necessary, will the Prime Minister give the assurance that he will have a minister other than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be responsible for this important task in the coming months this winter?


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER GIVE PRIORITY TO SECURING AGREEMENT WITH ATLANTIC PROVINCES ON OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of Premier Regan's statement that an agreement between the Atlantic provinces and Ottawa on offshore mineral rights can be secured as soon as we can get federal officials to find time for a meeting to complete the negotiations, will the Prime Minister give priority to such a meeting so that the development of our energy resources in Atlantic Canada will not be further delayed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the delay cannot be attributed to us. I missed the first words of the question and therefore I do not know to whom the words are to be ascribed.


Mr. Fairweather:: To Premier Regan.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand they are Premier Regan's. I can only say that I wrote Premier Regan and the other Atlantic premiers and, indeed, the premier of Quebec, a very short while ago indicating to them our desire to proceed with this. Until now they have been proceeding as a group of five provinces. But recent development indicated they were no longer a group. I wrote them saying we wanted to continue the discussions with either all five or a smaller number, but would they let us know as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition and then call orders of the day.


OIL PRODUCTS PRICES-NATURE OF GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING TO COMPANIES ON PRICE INCREASES BASED ON INCREASE IN IMPORTED CRUDE COST
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A number of days ago he indicated that, in exchange for the voluntary agreement by the companies to freeze product prices, he had agreed that increased cost of imported crude could be passed on by way of product price increases. Could the minister indicate very briefly just what the nature of his or the government's undertaking was to the companies with respect to increased prices based upon increased costs of imported crude and how long this undertaking given by the government is to remain in effect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the undertaking is essentially in the form described by the Prime Minister in his statement of September 4 and as expressed subsequently, that identified increases in costs of eastern refiners relat-

ed to increases in the price of their offshore feedstock could, upon satisfaction to the department and to myself, be passed on in higher prices. This would, of course, be for the period that the prices are under restraint as they are at present.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I gather from an answer given earlier today that the minister is reviewing this position?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Reviewing the position with regard to eastern refiners?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At the moment I have had no indication of additional cost increases, but since the cost increase involved in the Venezuelan decision is at a very much lower percentage than the previous one, I would require further satisfaction that indeed there would be any kind of penalty to the refiners from absorbing this cost increase rather than seeking to pass it on.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English |

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order with respect to the order of business that has just been called. I think it could be said that there have been some discussions about the order of business this afternoon, and that there are a few difficulties because of the absence thus far of certain members. With respect to Bill C-191, there are a couple of report stage amendments to it in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who will not be here for an hour or so. It was suggested that we might move on to Bill C-190, order No. 43, but I am told that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who has put down amendments to that bill, will not be here for an hour either. It was suggested also that we might deal with the residential mortgages bill, but the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) is not here. I suppose all this adds up to the fact that it would be a good day to deal with family allowances and the Canada Pension Plan-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -except that since we are prepared to give third reading to those two
December 3, 1973

bills without debate, they would not take much time. In any case, we could do those bills a little later.
In the light of all this, I think there has been an understanding that I would be permitted to move the first of the amendments in the name of the hon. member for Skeena on his behalf, on the understanding that if he arrives while the debate is still in progress, he will be permitted to speak at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering also whether hon. members would not feel that motions Nos. 1 and 2 might be moved for debate together but voted on separately. They seem to deal with substantially the same matter. It would be a little difficult to contrive two debates on these separate motions. If this is agreed, I will put both motions to the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I suggest that this could be agreed to, and also, in view of the circumstances to which I have already alluded, perhaps the debate might be permitted to deal generally with the question of enlarging the Parole Board. I understand that there are a number of members who want to speak in those terms. But that fits in with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act, be amended in clause 1 by inserting the following as subsection 4.1(2) immediately after line 13:
(2)	Two of the ad hoc members shall be persons of Native Indian origin.
And by renumbering the subsequent subsections accordingly.
That Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act, be amended in clause 1 by inserting the following as subsection 4.1(3) immediately after line 17:
(3)	Two of the ad hoc members shall be persons who have
served a period of time in a penitentiary under the jurisdiction
of the Parliament of Canada whether or not such persons, at the
time of their appointment, have been granted a parole.
And by renumbering the subsequent subsections accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose at this point to speak to motion No. 1 and to speak briefly. It seems to me that the motion, in fact, speaks for itself. The proposal is that at least two of the ten ad hoc members who are being added to the Parole Board by Bill C-191 should be persons of native Indian origin. We are all sadly aware of the fact that a disproportionate number of those in our penitentiaries are of native Indian origin. This raises a social problem and a matter of social concern to which we should be giving thought in many ways.
It does seem a crime, if I may use that word in this context, that proportionately so many more of our Indian and native people find their way into our penitentiaries than is the case with those of other racial backgrounds or origins. It is the feeling of these people, and I am sure that others like myself have had ideas along this line, that greater sympathy, a greater understanding of the plight of
Parole Act
the native people in penitentiaries, would be accorded if there were some members of the Parole Board actually of native Indian origin. As a matter of fact, there are good arguments for putting persons of native Indian origin in other positions of authority in our correctional system, and representations to that effect have been made by organizations representing our Indian and native people.
I recognize there is always a question raised when it is proposed that any board or body should be constituted on a quota basis. We run into this situation on the question of giving equal representation to women on various boards. We run into it in the case of English and French speaking Canadians, and so on. Yet there are times when, in order to get a principle established, it does seem necessary to make a proposal such as this. Therefore, I suggest that my colleague from Skeena has made a proposal which ought to be considered. I trust that in the discussion of this proposed amendment, ideas will be forthcoming as to what we might do to show more concern for and more helpfulness to our native Indian population. At this moment, however, I urge the House to give its support to this amendment calling for at least two of the ten ad hoc members of the Parole Board to be persons of native Indian origin.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a few words on behalf of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) with regard to these motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Isn't he here, either?


Marc Lalonde: First, I wish to say that the Solicitor General is in Victoria today to discuss with the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on corrections to be held in Ottawa between December 12 and December 14.
The essence, and the intent, of Bill C-191 have been fully outlined by the Solicitor General in previous debates, and also in his appearance before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. It would seem that the only outstanding matters to be considered relate to the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). As pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the two amendments suggest that two of the proposed ad hoc members of the Parole Board be native people, and that two others be former inmates. While the Solicitor General fully appreciates the intent of the hon. member's amendments he did make it clear, I believe during second reading, that he would use the expansion of the Parole Board as an opportunity to broaden the base of the board in a significant way. However, I submit that it would be unwise to require, by law, the appointment of any individuals according to race.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indeed recognized this difficulty in other cases, saying it would be quite inappropriate to start spelling out in all our bills relating to various boards detailed compositions based on linguistic representation, regional representation and sex representation. If the hon. member for Skeena were here, I

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
could tell him that some hon. members sitting behind me would be saying a few words to him for not making any mention of female representation on the board. If one can make a case for former inmates and native people, then one could make a very strong case for adequate representation of women on that board. In actual fact, there are a number of women who are inmates, and who are subject to parole at various times.
I would like to assure the hon. member for Skeena, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the list of names currently being considered by the Solicitor General for appointment as ad hoc members of the Parole Board reflects the necessity of bringing broader participation of all parts of the community to the board's deliberations. The concerns expressed in the hon. member's amendments are very much in the mind of the Solicitor General, and he would like to take them into account when considering appointments to this board. But once more, Mr. Speaker, in terms of a general principle governing the constitution of government boards, it would not be quite appropriate, and not really in the best interests of the operations of those boards to start specifying all kinds of requirements with regard to representation and composition. We believe there is more to be said for allowing greater flexibility, leaving it to the various groups in the community to make sure that the government of the day takes into account the various clientele which a board like this is called upon to serve, and letting the minister be answerable in the House as to the quality of the candidates he would choose for recommendation to the Governor in Council for appointment to a board.
Once more I say that the government is sympathetic to the principle of representation put forward in the amendments. It is, indeed, the intention of the Solicitor General to take those concerns into account when appointing ad hoc members; but we suggest it would be preferable to leave it to the Solicitor General to make sure there would be adequate representation of the various sectors of the community. I repeat that if we continue along this line, we could end up requiring regional representation, linguistic representation and sex representation. There is no end to the definitions of this type that one could put into such a bill. Therefore, while expressing sympathy for the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Skeena, I would urge the House to reject them as not being appropriate for this particular bill.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is my view that increasing the size of the Parole Board, which the act now says shall consist of not less than three and no more than nine, by adding another ten ad hoc members to it falls for short of solving the problems that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is burdened with in the responsibilities placed upon his shoulders under the Act establishing his department.
The policies being followed by the government which are malting parole problems proliferate are not going to be solved by the simple addition of numbers. When you have government policy being followed by the board to the extent that, in effect, the board is overruling the findings of judges and juries, and imposing an entirely different sentence from that imposed by a judge at a trial or on appeal, even though this falls within the board's powers, it

can be seen we are close to the root of the problem. I wish to cite a number of cases in support of what I have just said, one being the case of William Kraft.
Before getting into that, let me say that the root of the present attitude, which I think results in a policy that this government is following; was established by the previous solicitor general in 1971 who then had responsibility for penitentiaries. He established the precept that from now on the policy is going to be to stress rehabilitation over and above all else. That is one of the factors that is set forth in the provisions of the Parole Act now which has to be considered by the Parole Board when considering parole. But when putting that policy into effect, it seems that the emphasis has been placed, decidedly and emphatically, on rehabilitation rather than on the protection of the public.
How far the pendulum has swung, according to Judge Bewley, is evident in the case of Robert Leroy Barber who was convicted of 19 criminal offences between 1950 and 1964 including theft, breaking and entering, assaults on police, and possession of unregistered firearms. In 1964, he was convicted in Toronto of robbery and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. He was paroled on May 28, 1969. While on parole Barber and an accomplice, Clarence William Kraft who had 22 previous convictions, robbed a bank in Deep Cove, North Vancouver of $34,602 on June 18, 1971. That was just a little over two years after his first parole. Police dogs tracked them down in bushland and there was a gun battle in which 500 rounds of ammunition were exchanged. An RCMP constable and a police dog were wounded and a second dog was killed. Barber was captured and Kraft killed himself.
When the RCMP asked for cancellation of Barber's parole, a national Parole Board representative in Vancouver refused and the reason given was "because Barber was not guilty until proven guilty". Fortunately, the judge before whom he was arraigned denied him bail. When Barber was being sentenced for this latest crime,-he received 17 years for attempted murder and robbery-the same parole representative spoke on his behalf and stated that he felt the man could still be rehabilitated. That is only one of several illustrations of the deeper concerns that beset the Solicitor General than simply increasing the number of members on the Parole Board.
There was a comparatively recent case in the city of Ottawa where an individual was out, I think, on temporary leave of absence or day parole. He had been serving a sentence for a violent crime. While he was out he applied for and was granted a LIP grant, the purpose being to help rehabilitate convicts who were coming out of prison. While he was undertaking this work in the city of Ottawa he was arrested for attempted murder. That is the kind of concern that most Canadians have with respect to the function of parole in this country. They feel that the government is placing undue emphasis on the rehabilitation factor set out in the Parole Act. There are three such factors and I cannot put my finger on them at the moment, but rehabilitation comes last on the list.
I am not speaking against the fact that rehabilitation is one of the criteria that should be considered when parole
December 3, 1973

is granted, but I am voicing my opposition to placing that factor at the very top of the list and placing emphasis on it and it alone. There is a hard core of prisoners with whom extreme care must be taken before any parole is granted.
I am sure many members read the Globe and Mail editorial page this morning. Under the heading "Last word" appeared the following:
Judge Douglas Latimer did his best to be emphatic in dealing with a man convicted of raping two 16-year old girls at knife point while on parole from a five-year prison sentence for raping a third girl. He sentenced him to life imprisonment plus 15 years and ordered that he serve the three years remaining on his first sentence.
However, a National Parole Board spokesman said the man would be eligible to be considered for parole again in seven years-one of those little pronouncements that seem to suggest judges are often wasting their breath.
When the Commons extended the trial ban on capital punishment it incorporated in the Criminal Code amendment a provision that full parole for a convicted murderer would be impossible until he has served between 10 and 20 years, depending on the sentence handed down by the judge. Day parole or temporary leave would be withheld mandatorily for the first seven years.
The principle is sound. It should not be confined to cases of murder.
That is what Judge Mulligan and Judge Bewley were saying when they were highly critical of the actions of the Parole Board. Indeed, the board can make decisions without any reference to the convicting judge or any of the convicting court officials. It seems to me to be the prudent course for any parole policy that in all cases of parole of a person convicted of violent crime, there should be a mandatory provision requiring consultation with the judge who had an opportunity of seeing the prisoner at first hand. It used to be a policy of the National Parole Board that they would consult with the judge. Perhaps it is the tremendous case load that has caused the government to steer clear of that kind of policy. According to my information, in 1970, there were 5,923 parolees; in 1971, there were 4,965 and in the first six months of 1972, 1,938. That represents a 24 per cent drop in paroles granted at federal and provincial institutions over the same period in 1971.
I think it is a proper observation that the Parole Board's decisions are often made by academics, such as sociologists and criminologists, without consultation with the police or the courts. For that reason, I find the amendments brought in by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) of some attraction, but in a moment I will say why I and others cannot support them at this time. The result of the amendments would be the appointment of people who have some knowledge of human nature outside of academia. In any event, these academics and sociologists and criminologists, expert as they may be, have no consultation with the police or with the courts that cause the convict to be sent away.
Judge Bewley of British Columbia has stated that:
we want the law changed to make the Parole Board an advisory body which would be required to consult the judge who passed the sentence before considering an application for parole. That would keep the power where it belongs . . .
I have a lot of time for that opinion and I think it would avoid a lot of the very curious errors that have been made in the past through the actions of the board.
Parole Act
Let us consider the case of Daniel Ceklay. In September, 1968 in the Georgia Hotel in Vancouver, Ceklay shot a man in full view of hotel patrons. On January 31, 1969, he was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 4'A years. In 1970, he was released on parole, just a year and a half after he entered the penitentiary. He had four previous convictions for crimes involving personal violence and threats. In September, 1970, a bare three months after he was paroled, he and an accomplice badly beat a man in a hospital bed, in full view of attending nurses. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment.
The Canadian chiefs of police have argued that parole is a privilege rather than a right, and that society's rights must prevail over those of the individual. The police chiefs have also asked for closer co-operation between parole authorities and policemen. It must be extremely discouraging to law enforcement agencies of the country which have spent laborious hours, days, weeks or months accumulating evidence for putting behind bars criminals for ten, 15 or 20 years, to see those same individuals paroled at the earliest possible moment.
Since the Parole Board's creation in 1958, some 40,505 men and women have been given parole. Of those, as at December, 1972, 6,182 had violated parole regulations or committed offences after their release under supervision. The Parole Board's rate of failure has increased, from that date, from 8 per cent to 15.2 per cent. Notwithstanding the fact that paroles, in general, have been cut back the failure rate has increased even more. Mr. Choquette, Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec, criticized recently the administration of parole in this country.
Speaking, for the Quebec Minister of Justice, to the province's association of police chiefs and firemen, Mr. Robert Normand, Quebec Deputy Minister of Justice, outlined some of the province's main concerns with regard to the Canadian parole system. According to the deputy minister, the system is inadequate and needlessly open to criticism. His main comments on the system were these: first, a convicted person should not be granted the same benefit of reasonable doubt when seeking parole as was granted during the trial. Mr. Justice Mulligan of British Columbia also makes the same point. Second, the factors affecting the sentence decision should be reviewed when considering the parole of a convicted person. I submit that they should be reviewed. Third, unlike Great Britain, Canada does not conduct in depth consultations with the judges who sentenced the prisoner seeking parole. That point is being made from one end of the country to the other. The legislation still omits provision for that kind of mandatory consultation.
Also included in that speech was a comment on what is termed as an "intimidation" file, which was created as a result of recent unrest in Quebec. Where there is sufficient evidence, the file will be used by police to sentence those involved in subversive actions in the province. He concluded by saying that general police matters are presently being discussed by a ministerially appointed group, headed by Mr. Charles Cliche.
I have only a few more brief comments on the bill before us, sir. This bill provides for an increase of ten ad hoc

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
members to the National Parole Board. This enlargement of the National Parole Board was promised by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in his June 1 statement to the House on the penitentiary system and the new regulations concerning parole and temporary absences. I have not seen these new regulations. I believe that the old regulations which are still appended to the Parole Act are not by any means comprehensive.
In his nine-point statment last June, the Solicitor General promised that legislation would be introduced at the earliest opportunity to amend the Parole Act, to permit the appointment of ten additional ad hoc members of the Parole Board. He said that these ten members will be assigned in teams of two to the five parole regions of Canada and will deal primarily with day parole and panel hearings in the institutions. This step will enable the National Parole Board to deal with a considerable backlog of cases that require detailed consideration, and simultaneously satisfy the new volume of decisions on day parole that will come before the members.
The Parole Board at present is composed of nine members and 34 officers. On May 1 of this year George Street, Chairman of the Parole Board, announced that the Parole Board was discontinuing its practice of face-to-face interviews with inmates because of the heavy case load of applicants. He explained this decision on a May 20 appearance on the television show "Question Period". He explained that interviews were being stopped at the present time "until we get more members and the Board is re-organized, because we just couldn't keep up." He noted that the number of cases reviewed in 14 years by the Board went from 5,000 to 17,000 every year. Then, as the Board started to travel, he said, "We got more and more applications and more and more work." One of the most essential processes in any parole system, sir, is that of face-to-face confrontation, face-to-face interview between the applicant for parole and the parole officer. I hope, at the minimum, that the increase of ten ad hoc members will permit a reimplementation of that kind of work.
Mr. Street also pointed out that half of the Board's work deals with provincial prisons. I say in passing that there has been a good deal of criticism directed at the Chairman of the Parole Board, as evidenced in committee hearings and as voiced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I, for one, have every confidence in the abilities of the Chairman of the Parole Board, Mr. George Street. Instead of dwelling constantly on failures and attributing these failures to one individual, perhaps we should be looking at some of the progressive and meaningful things Mr. Street has been doing in his administration of the Parole Board. I certainly want to say now that we emphatically endorse what he is doing. He is doing a good job.
I should like some questions to be answered. I do not suppose the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who is doubling for the Solicitor General, will be able to answer these questions. I wish to ask whether the increase of ten ad hoc members to the Board will permit reinstatement of interviews with inmates. Second, are there any plans to decentralize the Board by having panels stationed in different parts of the country so that institutions can be visited on a more frequent basis?
[Mr. Nielsen.)
Third, are there plans to increase the number of parole officers? I understand that there are some 34 such officers at the moment. Fourth, what will be the effect on the Parole Board of the new regulations regarding parole and temporary absences. Will the expanded board have some input into the system of temporary absences, which are not the concern of the Parole Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask two more questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps with the consent of the House the hon. member might be allowed to complete his remarks, although his time has expired. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my fifth question is this: has any consideration been given to restricting the Parole Board to federal institutions only? The corollary to that is, will some functions of the Parole Board be transferred to provincial parole boards, in cases where there are such boards, or are provinces to be encouraged to set up parole boards, in cases where there are not such boards, in order to decentralize this function. Lastly, when will the Huguesson report be released? If it recommends, as is widely rumoured, amalgamation of parole and temporary absence procedures under the National Parole Board, will the Board be able to handle the increased workload, given its already existing backlog?
Those are questions I should like answered before being asked to vote on this measure. Also, I must say at once that we cannot go along with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena, because inasmuch as he suggests that we ought to include on the Board two Indians or persons of native origin, or two persons to be drawn from those who have served some time in penitentiaries, or others, we should, as the minister pointed out, open the door to a wide range of people, who, it is suggested, might be left off. The female sex has been mentioned. I can imagine such a provision would open the door to insisting on their being given persons of French speaking origin and five persons of English speaking origin. Breaking down the composition of the board by race, sex and colour would be unworkable. I would be content to have the power to appoint members exercised as in the past in the hope we might get some people a little closer to the earth, and a little further from academia, making the practical decisions that are made by the board. I thank the House for extending my time.
[ Translation}


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I will say only a few words on Bill C-191 because I do not intend to participate in a lawyer's marathon. I have always considered that lawyers were most interested in such problems as they give them another opportunity for fighting among themselves.
I am quite surprised at this bill being submitted now. We believe that the National Parole Board has enough members now. We are being presented Bill C-191 aimed at
December 3, 1973

increasing by ten the number of members and moreover it is suggested that two Indians, perhaps also two Esquimos as well as two ex-convicts be appointed. But why not also appoint two life convicts to complete this group? This is done in the name of equity. As regards the number of members, I do not know whether the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) found that their number was not all proportional to the population and whether he wants to be fair. Even though the board would include two Indians, two ex-convicts and so on, it would not be proportional to the population and I fail to see what those extraordinary members have to do with parole.
Besides, I have always found that the board often neutralizes the law. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am merely speaking as the man in the street because I am not a lawyer. However, people are wondering why the public at large no longer believe in justice or law. It is that after having discussed a bill for weeks and months to try to adapt it to our society, we immediately note, as we have seen today, that lengthy discussions are held to create a parallel instrument which would neutralize the effects of that legislation.
When a bill is introduced to provide security for society, it seems that every effort is made to restrict it covertly in order to eliminate all security provisions which it included. This is why 90 per cent of the people today do not believe in justice or law, because when sensible legislation is passed, everyone says: Something will happen and the security provided under the legislation will be eliminated. It is precisely what is happening today.
With respect to parole, the board should, as the hon. member who spoke before me said, discuss the case of a prisoner before the judge who sentenced him. But now, even if a jury is most cautious and a judge sentences an individual to a term of one or two years, a board can destroy all that has been done, even without asking for permission to do it. That is becoming ridiculous. So one wonders if that is not a gimmick to give even more problems to lawyers and have them fight more.
Lawyers are probably not busy enough, and still do not make enough money. That is why they are looking for work. So they have a prisoner sentenced, and that costs a lot, but it costs even more to take him out of prison so they can have him back and thus make even more money.
I have attended coroners' inquests for 30 years. I saw so many of them that I lost all faith in them. I have seen so much politics involved in courts of justice that I now call them courts of injustice.
Instead of introducing further amendments to constantly destroy the present legislation, let us rather try to have it appreciated by restoring confidence within the population and respecting sentences handed down by the courts. If the government appointed judges, it must have had confidence in them. When you appoint a jury, it is because you trust it.
I do not agree with the present jury appointment process whereby all members of a jury must be acceptable to the accused. Too often the accused accepts the members of a jury because they are favourable to him. Furthermore, we do see terrible things. That is why we must absolutely get back to the act which says that if a judge has any
Parole Act
authority, this authority must be respected and not destroyed by a parallel group that pulls all sorts of strings. By doing this, we shall restore confidence among the people. I repeat that the people have no more confidence in justice.
We must try and restore that confidence and not introduce amendments such as those. Therefore, we cannot approve this amendment.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I intervene in debates of this kind in connection with a bill sponsored by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) but there are some points I should like to make with regard to the two amendments proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
First, may I say I do not support the amendments. It is not that I object to what the hon. member is trying to achieve. On the contrary, I am definitely of the opinion that men and women of experience whose origin is among our native peoples could make a very effective contribution to the parole system as members of the Parole Board. What I do find objectionable is that the hon. member is seeking to impose a quantitative requirement. He says that at least two members of the board should be persons of native origin. Upon the basis of this approach, we might well prescribe minimal representation by other groups which also have an interest in the operations of the Parole Board. I do not think it accomplishes anything to say there should be a minimum of certain categories of people on any board.
Similarly, I think it would be the most unjust thing in the world to include at least two persons with criminal records, people who had served time in an institution. We hope that the records of persons who are rehabilitated are forever extinct. There is provision in other legislation that pardons can be obtained so that a man's record can be expunged completely when he has paid his debt to society. As for the hon. member's suggestion, what a way to indicate to everyone concerned that two members of the board are people who have served time. It would be like asking them to wear a badge saying they had prison records. I cannot accept this. I realise that the hon. member wishes to see on the board persons who have had experience, as it were, on the other side of the table. Well, there may be something in that idea but there is no way in which it could be implemented by passing a law saying the board should include representatives of Canadians who had served time in correctional institutions.
It seems to me that the record of the Parole Board has been unjustly attacked all too often by the hon. member for Skeena and others. The board is having an extremely difficult time attempting to cope with a situation which is, in many instances, beyond its capacity, bearing in mind that Canadian law has a predilection for throwing people into jail. It is a national characteristic in this country. There is hardly a statute carrying a sanction in which the penalty section does not say: Throw him into jail! What is the result? Naturally the consequence is an overblown prison population.

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
It seems to me we would be far wiser, both from a social point of view and from a financial point of view, to prescribe that in the case of a first offence or, indeed, of a second and third offence in minor matters, culprits should be sentenced not to incarceration in an institution, but to a period of restricted conduct; they would have to report to a probation officer on a regular basis for a determined period. To my mind, it is a downright shame that so many of our statutes, so many of the offences under the Criminal Code should call for a prison sentence. No wonder so many young men and women continue in a life of crime. No wonder the percentage of recidivism is so high. I am no expert in prison administration or penology, but one has simply to be aware of what goes on, to read what appears in the press, and to listen to what is said in this House from time to time to know that this is not the answer.
It seems to me the Parole Board should be allowed wider scope, that increased personnel should be made available for its work. People who have done time in a corrective institution, and native people, certainly, because we know our prisons and penitentiaries contain an altogether disproportionate number of inmates who are of native origin, can certainly make a valuable contribution to its work. Why not a ticket of leave system, a system of probationary sentences whereby an individual must show by his own good conduct and prove by his good behaviour that he merits a return to the full freedoms of society. In this way he would be left outside an institution and not be subject to the very severe restrictions of a corrective institution where all kinds of negative influences are at work. Frankly, the man who can go straight after having served time in a prison or in a provincial jail does so in spite of the system, not because of the system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In these circumstances, I think the personal criticisms that are often made of the chairman of the Parole Board by the hon. member for Skeena, personal and bitter charges against the chairman, are totally without foundation. I am sure the chairman himself would be the first to say that the board is not perfect and that all their decisions are not correct. But they do what is humanly possible, and that is all we can ask them to do. The same could be said of the courts. If we impose upon them a greater burden than that, then let the individual who does so himself adopt that course of conduct. I think we would then hear a lot less criticism of individuals by others who are engaged in much less onerous tasks.
Having said this, let me turn to one area in which I believe there could be improvement. I refer to the degree of liaison between the Parole Board representatives in the various provinces and the local penal administration authorities in provincial jails. As the House knows, many times the Parole Board is quite prepared to entertain an application for day parole in certain cases.
I had a case a while back that was a combination of bureaucratic idiocy which translated itself into the thinking of the magistrate who sentenced a barber to some 60 days in jail, without the option of a fine, because the man

had wrongfully taken benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. He had entered into a scheme of repayment, the whole thing having been done with the connivance with his employer. The individual had a wife, two children and another on the way. The magistrate, in a spirit of zeal to try to enforce an unenforceable and unworkable Unemployment Insurance Act, sentenced the man to 60 days. His employer said that if day parole could be arranged they could keep the man's job open for him.
This man's wife got in touch with me and the whole thing was arranged without any difficulty with the Parole Board. She had seen the Parole Board to start with and the Parole Board worked very expeditiously on the matter. However, once the decision had been made by the Parole Board, it took three to four days for the provincial jail authorities in Edmonton to process the decision and to have the man transferred from the provincial jail to a detention centre where he would be granted day parole. He almost lost his job, notwithstanding the fact that as far as his employer could do so he was going to try to keep his employment open for him. The alternative as far as society was concerned was that the wife and two children would go on welfare and the man would have been without a job.
I think the original decision of a mandatory jail sentence under the Unemployment Insurance Act for an offence of wrongfully drawing benefits to the tune of just over $200 was totally wrong. It is ridiculous to send the man to jail for that. He is the type of individual who should be on probation, and it seems to me this is the sort of thing for which we should strive. In the city of Edmonton, the former RCMP divisional barracks or administrative offices have been taken over and turned into a day detention centre where parolees can report, some to carry on their jobs, some to attend school and university while technically serving the remainder of their sentences for relatively minor offences. These people are those who have already indicated they are well on the road to rehabilitation. I think this is the natural and progressive step forward.
I should like to see the duties and the scope of the Parole Board expanded, with less people being sent to jail and more being put on probation. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, I do not propose to support these two amendments.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has brought us face to face with the problem of discrimination. Most of his speeches in this House have usually been speeches about discrimination against Indians and other groups in our society, but now the hon. member for Skeena is himself practising discrimination. He is saying that we should not discriminate against the Indian, we should discriminate for the Indian. The reason I say that is that he is well aware of the evidence that has been set forth in the Ouimet report, and also in the report on the status of women, which detailed acts of discrimination against the Indian people across the country. As a result of this discrimination, there is a very high ratio of Indians in our prisons today and this is rather unfortunate.
We have before us Bill C-191, the provisions of which add ten additional ad hoc members to the Parole Board. The hon. member for Skeena has said that if we are going
December 3, 1973

to do this, then in view of the high number of Indians in penitentiaries today we should impose an obligation on the Parole Board to have at least two of their number be representatives of our native Indian people in Canada. I rise to support that motion. I do so, first of all, because of the high incidence of Indian people in our penitentiaries, and secondly because of what the minister said in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The minister indicated that the kind of person who would be added to the board would be a retired judge, a person with experience in law enforcement, and probably a social worker. I do not think that is an appropriate mix to compose the Parole Board.
This is the reason the hon. member for Skeena has brought forth this motion. There has been no assurance by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) that he would include on the panel of members of the Parole Board people from different walks of life. It is very easy to get a professional person to serve on the Parole Board. Although he probably brings with him an academic training and experience in the field, he does not bring with him the day to day experience of the people with whom the board will be dealing.
One cannot help but support the main principle of the bill, which is to add ten additional ad hoc members to the board. But one does hope that the members who are appointed have that experience that would make them better suited to fill this position. Therefore, I think we owe the hon. member for Skeena some credit for bringing this question of discrimination to our attention. We have the Huguessen report on parole and the Senate carried out a study in this regard. It is now necessary that legislation be brought forward in the near future to implement the recommendations of this report, as well as the recommendations of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
In the meantime, we have a tremendous backlog of applications. It has been said by the minister that we must deal with these parole applications. He has also said that because of the volume members of the Parole Board have stopped personal interviews with prison inmates. They have also stopped some of their official hearings. All that is taking place at the moment is a review of the reports by members of the Parole Board. As suggested by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), with the addition of 10 members we will be able to reinstate prison interviews of inmates and parole committees that will travel to different institutions to hold hearings.
It was a great step forward when the Parole Board was split into small committees which visited penitentiaries. I think the hon. member for Skeena, having a tremendous background in respect of some of the problems inmates have not only within institutions but on the outside, and having broad and specific knowledge about discrimination against Indian people in the courts and within the institutions, as well as within the structure of our parole system, was right when he suggested there should be a change in the composition of the Parole Board and that there should be discrimination in favour of our Indians rather than against them. It is very easy for us to suggest this, but if we discriminate in favour of the native Indian people I am sure we will hear screams for discrimination in favour of
Parole Act
other groups in our society, and perhaps even on the basis of sex.
This amendment provides the opportunity of dealing with discrimination imposed against our native people. I realize the need for a strong parole system, as paroles and probations are two necessary steps in integrating prisoners back into society. It should be pointed out, and I am sure the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) will do so, that there is a high recidivist rate in Canada. With this in mind, there is a duty on us all to make sure our probation and parole systems work, that our retraining programs are devised in a way that will ensure the rehabilitation of these citizens. Our Indian friends face a problem not faced by the rest of us, and I am sure that the hon. member for Skeena wanted to underline this fact when bringing these motions to our attention.
We now have an opportunity to help these people. The statistics respecting the number of Indian people in our penitentiaries are staggering. Another fact we must consider is that Indians do not, on many occasions, receive legal assistance. I would be quick to say there has been a tremendous improvement in our legal aid, but there is still a long way to go. By adopting this amendment in relation to Indian people, I believe we are taking a big step in the right direction.
The second motion, and I understand we are dealing with them both at the same time, deals with the appointment of former inmates to the Parole Board. I suggest this is a real challenge. I think there is a tendency for most people in our society to look at those who have been convicted of a criminal offence and sent to penitentiary in a different way than they look at others. It seems to me that people who have been convicted and have been in jail may have something to offer a parole board. These people have knowledge about the situation inside our penitentiaries, and I think they could make a contribution that cannot be made by sociologists, psychiatrists and psychologists. In this way our Parole Board can get first-hand knowledge about discrimination taking place not only in our penitentiaries but also in respect of our educational system and our system of employment.
What I have suggested would represent a step forward in our penitentiary system, but such a step requires a great deal of courage. Hon. members who have spoken today have displayed some reluctance to take such a great leap forward. During the capital punishment debate, many members professed to be against capital punishment but then proceeded to set forth certain exceptions. I think we must have courage in order to cope with this grave problem. By adding two members of the Indian race to the Parole Board, and by adding two members to that board who have had prison experience, I think we will move a long way toward coping with this problem. I hope we do not get tied up in an academic approach to this matter.
I trust that the Solicitor General will take to heart what has been suggested this afternoon, and I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will indicate that he thinks this is a good idea. These members would be ad hoc members of that board and subject to reappointment. This is not absolutely necessary, but I hope that hon. members will not be too restrictive or

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
too discriminatory in respect of the appointment of these members to the board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister wishes to rise on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: A few questions have been asked of me by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). If hon. members were to agree, I could give him the answers now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister, who has already taken part in the debate, is to be given the opportunity to reply unanimous consent would be required. I could put the question now, or perhaps I could put it after other hon. members have spoken. Is it agreed that the minister have the right to reply now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: I will only take a few seconds, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for allowing me to put on the record answers to some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Yukon.
First of all, he asked whether the changes that are proposed in this bill will allow the reinstatement of face to face interviews. The answer is, yes. This would mean a significant improvement in the services provided by the board to the inmates. We certainly hope also that there will be a significant improvement in the assessment of the various cases that come before the board.
Second, the hon. member asked whether there would be decentralization by regional panels pursuant to this amendment. There again the answer is, yes. Our intention is to set up a series of two man teams who would sit in the various regions and who would be responsible for the inmate population in the territory to which they have been assigned. This again would allow for a much greater contact with the inmate population and would give opportunity for gaining greater personal knowledge of the cases by the members of the board who would be present in the various regions in the country.
The third question deals with increasing the number of parole officers. I am advised that there has been an increase this year but the problem, it is felt, really lies with the Parole Board itself, in the sense that the members of the board were overworked and, because of their limited number, they could not cope with the type of service they would have wished to provide to the inmate population. Also, there has been an increase in the number of probation officers, and although one can expect a normal increase, it is not planned that there should be a substantial addition to the number of probation officers in proportion to the number of people on the Parole Board.


Erik Nielsen: How many are there?


Marc Lalonde: I am afraid I could not give the hon. member the exact information. He will have to ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand).
So far as the effect of this proposal on temporary absences is concerned, this matter is being reviewed. At present it is under the jurisdiction of the penitentiary

services. We hope that the Parole Board, in its new form, will be again in a better position to have personal contacts with both the inmates and the prison administrators in each region and will be in a better position to perform its duties.
The fourth point had to do with Parole Board activities, and the take-over by the provinces in this field. Discussions are taking place on this very subject at present, and I suspect that the Solicitor General is discussing this matter in Victoria this afternoon. Some provinces have shown interest in this respect, others have not. This subject will be on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference which is to take place between the 12th and 14th of December in Ottawa. So, we will have to await the results of that conference to find out exactly what the situation will be.
The last question concerned when we would release-


Erik Nielsen: I was reading old notes.


Marc Lalonde: The report was released on June 22. I could not believe my ears when I heard the hon. member and realized how well acquainted he was with what goes on in the House.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to clarify one point in his answer. He referred to two members of the Parole Board sitting in various regions. Will the decisions which they make at the local or regional level be binding on the whole board? I could put it more clearly. For example, a panel of board members sits at the Drumheller institute or at Prince Albert and makes a decision there. Does that decision need to be reviewed again in Ottawa? That is one of the problems. Everything will be moving smoothly if those decisions are binding on the board.


Marc Lalonde: I am subject to correction in this respect but I remember having discussed this matter with my colleague and his intention, if I remember well, was that those decisions at the regional level would be final. However, the Solicitor General might contradict me when he comes back. So far as I can remember, the intention was to decentralize the operations of the board and to make sure that decisions are made by the people who know the inmates and who know the local conditions. However, once more I would like to stress that the Solicitor General might say that I was wrong and that I misinterpreted the situation.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that the addition of ad hoc members to this Parole Board will solve the concerns of the people of Canada. Indeed, the whole question of people being allowed out of the institutions only to commit further crimes and further damage to lives and to property, is of concern to all Canadians. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) mentioned the fact that a person on parole who comes from my area had twice committed the crime of rape. I want to mention another one to you. It is the case of a man on parole, again from my constituency, who was previously charged with drug offences. He was out on a nice weekend pass, and was again picked up for drug offences.
December 3, 1973

The problem is that too much effort has been expended by the Parole Board on allowing persons out on leave from the institution, persons who have clearly not demonstrated they are prepared to integrate into society. The people of this country are most concerned about the attitude that has been displayed by this government over the past years towards public safety. It is time they paid attention to the people of Canada and said: we will not allow people who have not reformed and who are still a menace to society to wander in the streets of this country. The thinking seems to be that since the rehabilitation, of the inmate may be helped by parole the rest of the people can take the consequences of the government's lack of ability to come to grips with social reality. Recently we had the example of a person released on a weekend pass who murdered the daughter of a prison guard.
How can any of us possibly be in favour of this kind of activity? If adding ten members to the Parole Board on an ad hoc basis will help, I compliment the minister for that addition. But unless there is a change in attitude in respect of allowing people their freedom prior to completion of their sentences, there will not be an improvement. This bill will only be a cover up for the problems that have occurred.
It may be that our prison system itself is totally at fault. Indeed, there has been more than ample evidence before a committee of this House which has yet to report that our prison system does little if anything to rehabilitate people, to reform people so that they can once again integrate into society. The number of persons who are allowed out of our institutions, either on parole or on completion of their sentences, and who return to those institutions again, and again and again, is overwhelming. Well over two-thirds of the people who serve time in our institutions return to serve time again. That is a disastrous situation.
It is high time the government introduced methods into the administration of our penal system that would rehabilitate people and thus enable them to integrate into society once more. It is high time the government took the clear stance that until the authorities were clearly satisfied that persons in institutions were properly able to integrate into society, those persons should stay in our institutions. Surely, the government has an obligation to protect those of us who perhaps need protection from the avarice, from the crime, from the brutality of some members of society who really do not fit into society.
I wish to refer to the amendments before us. They propose two things. They suggest that the Parole Board have at least two members representing the native culture of this country, and another two members who have had experience in the penal system on the other side of the fence. I commend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for bringing these to the attention of the House. But I, too, can see all sorts of reasons why it would be most difficult to talk about people of various racial backgrounds, people of various social experiences and backgrounds.
Certainly, we need good people, but one of the deep concerns is that the people serving on the Parole Board, and the people suggested by the minister for these ad hoc
Parole Act
jobs, are people who come from the goody-goody side of society. They are people who really do not know what it is all about. They have studied. They have gone to university, and they know something about penology. Maybe they were good police officers. Maybe they were fine lawyers at one time. But what do they know about sticking a knife in somebody's back, or how to make a zip gun in a penal institution, or how to sneak heroin, marijuana or cocaine into that institution? What do they know about imposing discipline in a penitentiary? They are goody-goodies, and they really cannot analyse whether a person has reformed and is able to go back into society. So, they go by the record. Some pretty competent people are criminals. Anyone who knows his way around knows how an institution works, knows how to fill in forms, knows the right things to say at the right time, and before the right officer.
It does not matter that the officer is not a member of the National Parole Board. The criminal can satisfy the guard on duty. He is a cute fellow, and he can persuade the parole Board that he should be allowed out. We need somebody who understands the criminal mind, who understands what is going on in an institution, who understands when someone is really ready for parole or just wants a night out on the town, or wants to return to work in his old profession. Making X number of judges or X number of former police officers or members of the Public service ad hoc members of the parole board is not good enough. The amendments proposed by the hon. member for Skeena stipulate that the board have a couple of native people on it, and a couple of ex-inmates. I suggest that the minister should not be bound to do either. Perhaps he should have more than two native people and more than two ex-inmates on the board. He should not be bound by exact numbers, but he certainly should have people on the board who are not just goody-goodies. The minister should appoint people who know what is going on in the institutions, who could get inside the prisoners, who would understand when they are ready for parole, and when they are rehabilitated.
We have all had experiences in our constituencies of people allowed out on parole or probation. Recently in my riding one young man was allowed out on parole. It was said that he was going to be able to get a job and do all sorts of wonderful things. He got out in June. He had 12 offers of jobs from the Manpower organization. He has not taken one of them. He finds he can live well on welfare. I do not know what else he does for a living, but I am sure he does not live only on welfare. When will he be back in the institution? He will be back probably as soon as the police catch him. Clearly, he was not ready for parole. Yet we let him out of the institution so that he can be put on welfare, so that he can engage in his other activity again, so that he can keep the police officers busy, keep another court busy, and provide work for more lawyers and legal aid people before he goes back to jail.
That is not rehabilitation. That is not the proper use of parole. But that is the kind of thing that has gone on and is going on. If adding ten new members to the Parole Board will help, that will be great. But first the board itself must look seriously at how it is operating, to see if it is going to get down to business, to see if, as suggested by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), it gets the judges report at the time of the original sentencing, to see

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
it makes sure that there are proper in depth interviews, that there are good psychiatric reports, and helps to ensure the prison system is encouraging the proper attitude among inmates so that they are ready for work again.
But there is no point in having remission of sentence and putting a person out on the street early just because somebody thinks it might be a good idea, or somebody thinks that if he got out of the institution he would be able to rehabilitate himself. The chances are he will not. The chances are he will be back again. The chances are that the people of Canada will suffer from his crimes again. That is not the answer. What we need is a complete investigation, as a result of which the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) will reorganize the whole system so that we do not have the problems we have had in the past and which continue.
Mr. Speaker, the whole question of putting people to work and getting them rehabilitated is the most important penal reform this country has to face. It can only face it with a Solicitor General and a government that is prepared to look the problem in the eye and not use parole as an easy method of emptying the prisons. We must have a government that is prepared to engage in a concentrated effort to make it possible for those who are serving time in our institutions to be reformed. We must have a government that is prepared to make it pretty clear that parole will not be used as a method of rehabilitation, but that parole will be used for those persons who have been rehabilitated. In the past, parole has been used as a method of rehabilitation and that is not the proper use of it. The penal system must be reorganized to accomplish the rehabilitation. The parole system is a system whereby you say to someone who has been rehabilitated that he can now go out because he can take part in society. It should not be used, however to push people out of jail in the hope that they will rehabilitate themselves in society.
Mr. Speaker, one of the finest institutions or groups that I have seen operating in the province of Ontario, a and one of the few good things to have come out of the LIP program, is an organization called "Operation Springboard" which was basically sponsored by the United Church of Canada. This is an organization that, through ex-convicts, attempts to relate to convicts presently in prison so that when and if they are paroled or discharged, they will be able to fit into society. It is an organization of ex-inmates working to help straighten out those persons now in prison. I have spoken to the Solicitor General about this organization and I know he is impressed with its record, but even that record is pretty bad. Members of the organization have told me confidentially that most of the people they work with cannot be helped yet most of them are given parole.
This brings me to the second amendment which refers to the use of ex-inmates as members of the National Parole Board on an ad hoc basis. Operation Springboard is an organization run by ex-inmates. Ex-inmates know what it is all about; they know the problems of rehabilitation and they know the numbers of persons allowed out who are very quickly brought back in again. The success of that organization could well be the beginnings of a model system whereby we might learn how to rehabilitate prisoners, by using ex-inmates.

I want to make it clear that I do not believe the National Parole Board should be used as a method of clearing the jails; rather it should be used as a method of allowing those persons who are clearly able and rehabilitated, to leave the prison system. We should not just allow people out because we think they might go straight. That is not the way the Parole Board worked in the past, and I ask that it not be the way the Board works in the future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, we are at the report stage of the bill which provides for an increase of ten ad hoc members on the National Parole Board, and we are considering two amendments moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), one of which reads:
Two of the ad hoc members shall be persons who have served a period of time in a penitentiary under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada whether or not such persons, at the time of their appointment have been granted a parole.
I should like, first of all, to say a few words about a matter which seems to have been misunderstood by the media at times as well as by people considering the Parole Board. We should differentiate between the function of the Parole Board and the function of those persons in authority who are granting temporary releases. If we look at the record of the Parole Board under the chairmanship of George Street, I think we will find that they have done an excellent job. They try to weigh very carefully each case as it comes before them and, except for a few mistakes,-and nothing can be perfect when you are dealing with human beings and human behaviour, especially with this type of person-they have done excellent work. I should like to congratulate the minister for increasing the number of members on the board, but the number of officers should also be increased.
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who is piloting this bill in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) who is at a conference, if these two members of the Parole Board were meeting in different regions, whether they would have binding authority to make decisions on any persons coming before them for a hearing. I would hope that to be true because I think the most important aspect is not increasing the number of parole officers, but is to make certain that these hearings are held at the regional level. In this way, the various institutions in western Canada such as those in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia would be served. I would hope that hearings could be held in those areas so that people could come before the board there rather than having a number of applications of deserving people delayed for a long time.
I know what the hon. member for Skeena is trying to do, and I am somewhat sympathetic to his amendment which would put two native Indian people on the Parole Board. Unfortunately, if you go to a police court you often find a line up of Indian people on drunk charges or some other minor charges. Because many of them do not have the money to pay fines, they find themselves incarcerated. I am sympathetic to the idea, but I am going to oppose it. That is not because I think it is a bad idea. I oppose the amendment on the ground that we should not specify certain groups of people the members of which are eligible to sit on the board. You might say that those serving on
December 3, 1973

the board should be of Scottish origin, or of French origin; that there might be French-Canadians or English Canadians, or people whose origins were Ukranian or German. I cannot accept that. Surely, we are all Canadians. That is the very basis of the Bill of Rights and the hon. member's amendment would fly in the face of the Bill of Rights.
I hope that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and his department will make sure that one or two board members are native people, that is, representatives of the first Canadians. Perhaps the matter could be remedied in that fashion. Discriminating, and saying that we should have two from this group and two from that would divide the nation, not into two parts but into many parts. I have never subscribed to that idea. We are all equal as Canadians, and all equally citizens of Canada. If the Bill of Rights means anything, it means that.
The hon. member, in his second amendment, suggests that there might be some sense in appointing to the board two people who have served time whether in federal or provincial institutions, as they may be better able to understand the situation with which the Parole Board would be dealing than some other people could understand it. I cannot accept that suggestion, either. The next step might be to say that the judges in our criminal courts should be men who have served some time in these institutions to which they are sentencing people appearing before them. I do not think anybody in his right mind would accept that theory. On the other hand, bearing in mind our advance in jurisprudence and understanding, the fact that someone has served time but has rehabilitated himself should be no bar to his serving as an officer of the Parole Board. If the authorities were to consider that suggestion, we might go some way towards what the hon. member for Skeena is trying to do. Nevertheless, I cannot accept what he is proposing. The best I can suggest is this; When new officers are to be appointed to the Parole Board, consideration might be given to some of the proposals the hon. member has made. On the other hand, I cannot, and I am sure the Canadian people cannot, accept the hon. member's suggestion with regard to the personnel making up the board.
In Canada, of course, we work under two programs, that of the Parole Board, and that of temporary releases. As I said at second reading, most failures in this area have occurred under the temporary release program. Although I did not vote for abolishing capital punishment, Parliament abolished that penalty. We should not slide back in this area. The minister has said that back-to-back absences and temporary releases would be abolished. In those cases involving people who have committed murder, cases in which capital punishment does not now apply, surely the whole board should decide whether that kind of person should be released.
In this regard I need only refer to the Head case. That man committed a second murder while out on temporary absence in British Columbia. I also refer to the Swearngen case. He was sentenced for murder in 1963. He was released for a Christmas holiday, and duplicated the crime for which he had been originally sentenced. I mention merely these two examples; there are dozens of other examples. I hope that when the Solicitor General sets up
Parole Act
the enlarged board, and brings in rules and regulations under the new act, he will specify that the whole board must sit in review before anyone who has been sentenced to life is allowed to go free, without supervision. Otherwise, we will run into the same difficulties we experienced with the temporary release program.
The Globe and Mail took the skin off George Street for certain mistakes he is alleged to have made. Those mistakes had nothing to do with the Parole Board; they had to do with the temporary release program, over which the Parole Board has no jurisdiction whatsoever. The Parole Board was given a black eye for those things which had happened under the previous solicitor general, who practically ruined the way in which the system had been operating for a number of years.
We have in Canada approximately 9,000 people in federal penitentiaries. In 1962-63, it cost, on average, $3,380 to keep one person in prison, for a total cost of $23.9 million. In 1971-72, the cost per inmate was $9,325, almost double the 1962 cost, for a total national bill of $79.8 million. It has been suggested that in Canada more people, proportionately, are in federal and provincial institutions than in any other nation. I, therefore, support progressive and, indeed, aggressive parole programs under which inmates can be released from various institutions in order that they may rehabilitate themselves and join the stream of society.
On the other hand, in cases where people have been convicted of violent crimes, there should be no release from an institution until there has been a hearing by the full parole board, backed by reports of psychiatrists, psychologists and all those whose work is necessary if an adequate decision is to be made. That should be done before violent criminals are allowed to return to the street, to the main stream of society.
Having said that, I do not think there is much more I can say about the hon. member's proposals. As I said on second reading, this bill is a move in the right direction. Nevertheless, I must oppose the amendment, for reasons which I mentioned in my opening remarks.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to this debate and heartily agree with some of the suggestions and comments which have been made. I also disagree with some other aspects of this debate. We are dealing with something that is of extreme concern to all people of this country. I think, as well, that we are dealing with an issue that is not easy of solution. The answer will be difficult to arrive at. In the final analysis, I think we will find that there are many differences which will still be unresolved at the conclusion of the debate. I am thinking particularly of the parole system.
In thinking of parole, I am also reminded of other problems which have arisen in connection with the administration of justice. Recently, a feeling of insecurity has been created in this country as a result of what happened under certain programs involving penal reform and the administration of justice. The people have felt in some cases, while recognizing the problems involved, that there has not been adequate concern or recognition of the importance of the safety of the citizens of Canada.

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
The question we are considering today poses a great many problems. I agree that, in many respects, the Parole Board has done an admirable job; nevertheless, I am not going to join those who have given the board bouquets, even though there are many instances in which the board's decisions have been justified. I can think of many instances in which the board's decisions have not been wise. In many respects, it has completely overlooked some fundamental problems and not paid sufficient attention to the activities of those to whom it is extending parole not for the first time, but for the second time, or, perhaps, the third time.
In a recent debate the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) referred to the fact that you can pass out bouquets and perhaps reserve some judgment. He stated the situation is similar to a doctor saying he has saved two thirds of his patients, so don't blame him for the other third who became worse. In some respects, the Parole Board has functioned adequately. There are other cases which deserve some attention and concern on the part of those who are in authority. If we were dealing with something less than human life or the lives of many humans, perhaps the government would be justified in having a permissive attitude towards our policies governing social reform, the administration of justice, the granting of bail, parole and so on. The fact is, the security and protection of society is very much at stake.
The incidents revealing errors made by the parole board and those engaged in the granting of temporary absences, involve human life in general. I do not think that we can somehow say we are going to counterbalance these errors by some successes that have been achieved. The parole board ought to give serious consideration to its activities, and certainly the minister concerned ought to pay attention to some of the criticisms that will be and have been levelled during this debate. There have been violations of parole by inmates. Crimes have been committed by those who have been let out. This has horrified Canadians in various communities. In addition, great harm, and in some cases death, has resulted foi many Canadian citizens. Perhaps we should not blame the Parole Board altogether because they have to rely upon professional advice in assessing the various cases.
Our attention was drawn to a situation that was brought to light by a story in the June 4, 1973 issue of Newsweek. The reference was to an incident in the United States, but it can also be considered in light of certain situations that exist in Canada. The article relates how a young boy 15 years of age, who was mad at the world, killed his grandparents. I want to point out the possibility of error, even on the part of professional men. I quote from the article:
Two court-appointed psychiatrists examined Kemper and declared him no danger to society. "He has made an excellent response to the years of treatment,'' one of them report. "I see no psychiatric reason to consider him a threat to himself or any other member of society."...
But the psychiatrists were to be proved tragically wrong.
The result was that he went out and engaged in further criminal activities. Most psychiatrists admit the problem is almost unsolvable because specialists have no way of

predicting anti-social behaviour. I again quote from the article:
Usually, court-appointed psychiatrists rely entirely on an interview, often cursory and seldom lasting more than an hour. And if the patient is clever enough, he can deceive the examiner.
Dr. Bernard Diamond of the University of California, a founder of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law and one of the nation's outstanding forensic psychiatrists stated:
"If a person lies or restricts his response, it may be impossible to determine whether he is mentally ill."
Therefore, we do recognize the problems of those who are responsible for our parole system. I do not think it is altogether a determined attitude to clean out our penal institutions, although some may have that attitude. I certainly do not agree with it. I would like to see our penal institutions without any inmates, but I would not like to see them empty at the expense of the safety and security of the community. Therefore, I would express continuing concern over the administration of justice and the granting of parole in our society.
As I mentioned before, we have tied in with the problem of the parole system the granting of temporary releases or the pass system. Even though these programs are administered by different agencies, we must recognize that they are part of a situation that has created confusion, uncertainty and fear, as well as undermining the credibility of our system. In addition, these incidents have brought about a situation in which the implementation of a sensible and sane penal reform program faces a great deal of opposition. This is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the whole problem.
It is all very well to try to get people out and see them rehabilitated. I believe we ought to bend our efforts in that direction. However, we must recognize that if that is done without proper consideration and care, those who are released will continue to perpetrate acts of violence and infringement of the law. This will not encourage society in general to say this is a good program and should be continued. They will say it is not working. They will back away and say they do not want anything to do with it. The poor results of the program were dangerous for the minister's predecessor, who stated that rehabilitation was going to take precedence over the safety of individuals. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) saw fit to move that gentlemen to another position. Questions are now being raised as to whether he is adequate for that new portfolio. Perhaps the situation we have today is dependent upon the particular course that was established during the administration of the former minister. The present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is taking a more wholesome attitude with regard to this matter. I regret that he is not able to be here. I know he is engaged in activities in other parts of the country and I do not say anything about that. However, I do regret that he is not able to be with us today.
The minister must give a great deal of attention and consideration to the citizens of this nation. He must realize that if he is going to expect the co-operation and assistance of communities and individuals in rehabilitating or assisting to rehabilitate these people have to follow the law. It must be a very carefully planned and supervised type of operation and program. We realize the present
December 3, 1973

bill is somewhat limited, but it does open up the whole matter. It appears to me that adding members of the Parole Board will not be effective in meeting the major problems which confront the board at the present time, although it may lead to some improvement. The minister said he was studying the Huguessen report and would be introducing legislation later to implement some of its recommendations. It seems to me that for the present at least, he is not prepared to go very far in carrying out those proposals. We await further legislation which will disclose his own thinking with regard to what is contained in that report.
Two amendments have been proposed. One would require that two of the additional members of the board would be from the native peoples. I have a great deal of sympathy with the motivation which prompted the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to put forward this amendment. We read from time to time of the high percentage of native people who run afoul of the law for various reasons and find themselves behind prison bars, so this is a matter of real concern. Perhaps there is some ground for feeling that white people cannot understand the thinking of the native people and, on the basis of the treatment accorded to the native people down through the years, that discrimination may be shown against them by the Parole Board in the absence of native representation. Nevertheless, I agree with other members who have argued that to accept the amendment would be to create a precedent which would be unwise, since in the establishment of other boards and commission in the future we might find ourselves resorting to a similar operation although it would be extremely difficult for every facet of our community or society to be represented on these boards. Thus, I do not think the course recommended by the hon. member would be a wise one to follow.
His second proposal was that the board should be comprised of two members who had been, in a phrase used by my hon. friend from Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), "on the other side of the fence." I should not like to see this recommendation find expression in the act itself. I am reminded of a situation which arose when an Opportunities for Youth grant was given in respect of a study of the drug situation. Some of those who conducted the study were drug addicts and, of course, they recommended that drugs be freely available. That, of course, was to be expected in the circumstances. I do not think anything should be written into the law along the lines suggested by the hon. member, even though I believe such people as he mentioned should not be barred from participating in the work of the board in certain circumstances.
A number of examples of violation of parole on the part of various individuals have been brought to our attention today. I shall not take up any time by referring to such cases, but I wish to conclude by saying that though offenders should be given every opportunity to rehabilitate themselves we must do everything possible to ensure that those who have committed violent crimes, especially, do not return to become a danger to society.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to join my
Parole Act
colleagues on both sides of the House to applaud this amendment to the Parole Act. I support the principle of this bill without qualification, Mr. Speaker, because it is long overdue. It is so long overdue that I feel compelled, before continuing with my comments on the measure, to ask a question: Why has it taken the government so long to discover that the Parole Act no longer serves the purpose for which it was designed?
At the present time, the Parole Board is based in Ottawa and it is hopelessly understaffed. This has been known for a very long time. We did not need a royal commission or a task force to tell us that. It has been common knowledge for a long time that the Parole Board has abandoned the practice of interviewing prisoners face-to-face because it could not keep up with the backlog of requests for parole hearings. Because of understaffing and because of the growing backlog of requests for hearings, the board has been forced, in many cases, to grant parole on the basis of incomplete information. It was inevitable that the board would hesitate in some cases to grant paroles which were justified, and it was also inevitable that some of the paroles which were granted would prove to be bad risks. The evidence of this can be seen in the extremely high rate of parole violations. It is a sad fact that a great many parolees in the past two or three years have committed serious crimes such as rape and murder after being paroled.
While I support this amendment, and while I applaud any move which would increase the number of members and officers of the Parole Board, I must confess I have some reservations about how effective the measure would be. I have witnessed too often the way in which the government uses bona fide situations such as this for partisan political purposes. No safeguards are built into the bill to prevent the government from using it as an opportunity to reward party hacks and camp followers. Parliament Hill and many of the government agencies are crawling with defeated members of the Liberal caucus in the last parliament, and I am apprehensive that the bill before us will be used to look after those who have not yet been suitably rewarded.
In this connection, I must ask whether the procedures and practices followed in the past by the Parole Board will still govern the new, enlarged board. There is a demonstrated need here for a clean sweep. The entire parole system has fallen into disrepute in the past few years and the dedicated, competent members of the board ar^ under the same cloud as those who are disinterested and incompetent, those who, in fact, are members because of certain services rendered at some other time and in some other capacity. It will not be enough just to swell the ranks of the Parole Board. We must ensure that the Board is given new guidelines, terms of reference which are in line with present day situations and needs. I would like to see the board granted sufficient flexibility to enable it to deal with applicants on a personal basis, but in view of the failure of the parole system in the last couple of years, especially with regard to leaves of absence of prisoners, this would have to be approached with great caution.
There are many aspects of the parole system that must be reviewed, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt we will find
8364

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
that our basic approach to parole and rehabilitation needs updating. While I have been an outspoken critic of the sleazy and haphazard administration of the Canadian penitentiary system and of our parole system, this is not to say that I have no feeling for the plight of the offenders and prisoners in our society. I recently spent some time in the B.C. Penitentiary as a visitor, and I am just as aware as anyone else that these are people that we are dealing with, and that they must be treated humanely and with a view to returning them to society when their debt has been paid. However, I feel perfectly justified in criticizing this government when I look at the record. There is no doubt whatever that in many cases the sympathy of this government is misplaced when you examine its policies and some of the bills that have been tabled to deal with the problem of violence in our society.
I have some sympathy for the unfortunate people who decide to follow a life of crime and who resort to violence to achieve their ends. However, the weight of my sympathy and concern is for the unfortunate victims of criminal acts. It is very difficult for me to muster up any sympathy for a prisoner in one of our prisons who, having been given a leave of absence on humanitarian grounds, commits murder upon an innocent Canadian citizen. This is happening over and over again today under the present prison administration and the present Parole Board administration. I maintain that it is extremely difficult for even a member of parliament to remain purely objective and to think about these acts humanely.
An amendment to the government's capital punishment bill, passed in the last few weeks, allows a judge to specify that a convicted murderer must serve from 10 to 20 years of a life sentence before becoming eligible for parole. This is an improvement over the old policy whereby the same murderer could qualify after serving only seven years. Unfortunately, this provision applies only to a person convicted of murder. This provision should have been extended to include other types of crime, where the perpetrator could reasonably be considered unworthy of sympathy or consideration. I refer my colleagues to the case of a young man who was recently sentenced to five years in prison for rape. While on parole from his sentence he raped two 16 year old girls, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, plus 15 years. This man will be eligible to apply for parole in seven years.
I said earlier that I would like to see the Parole Board function under rules and regulations that are flexible enough to allow them to assess each application for parole on its own merits, and the case of the rapist I just mentioned is certainly a case in point. If it were possible to keep this man from committing further crimes, then I am sure that anyone would be in favour of putting him back on the street. But the only guarantee that we have right now is that he remain in custody. If, on the other hand, I thought that a future Parole Board would turn this man out on society after he had served the seven-year minimum, then I would do everything possible to see that the Parole Board was denied this authority.
In another case that I am about to cite, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether or not the Parole Board has in fact exceeded its authority. If not, and if the board can overrule a sentence imposed by a judge, then this is certainly
the time and place to re-examine the terms of reference of the board and the regulations under which the board functions. I refer to the case of a Hamilton judge who recently sentenced a youth to a prison term, plus ten strokes of the lash, for committing a brutal and vicious assault on a 95 year old man. After the sentencing the youth directed a torrent of verbal abuse at the judge, mouthing obscenities as to what the judge could do with the sentence. The Parole Board afterwards wiped out the part of the sentence, imposing lashes and in my view also wiped out the deterrent value of the sentence.
What is the point of giving a judge the authority to pass sentence on a convicted offender if a Parole Board is granted even higher authority? I would be interested in knowing just what procedure the Parole Board was required to follow in wiping out that sentence. If this is a blanket authority, then I will call for a review of that and other levels of Parole Board authority. We have a provision for appeal in our judicial system, and it sets our system apart from most others in the world. If there had been any feeling on the part of the convicted youth that his sentence was too harsh, then he could have appealed the sentence, using counsel provided by the courts. This is the proper way to contest or protest a decision of a judge; the authority to overrule a judicial decision should not be vested in a quasi-judicial officer.
We are being asked to consider an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Ho.vard), a member who enjoys my esteem and my high regard. That hon. member proposes that the enlarged Parole Board be composed of at least two persons of native Indian origin as ad hoc members. He further proposes that two of the ad hoc members should be persons who have served a term in a prison administered by the federal government. I am aware of the purpose of the hon. member's proposed amendments, and I would like to say that I am sympathetic to both amendments. However, I would be apprehensive about making appointments to the board on those recommendations. In the first place, there is the danger that such appointments would destroy or inhibit the objectivity of the board's assessments and decisions, and we should make every effort to ensure that its objectivity is not inhibited or even put in question. My own view is that the board should be constituted in such a way that it will be required to seek the advice and counsel of people of the same native group wherever practicable, but only in cases where Indians or Eskimos are involved. We would tend to isolate people by race or for a multitude of other reasons if we carried this idea to its extremes; what we are really after is a fair and objective assessment of an individual's ability to live in our society and accept its responsibilities.
As I have stated before, I want to see every effort made to prevent anyone from using the Parole Board for partisan political purposes. I noted in a speech on this subject on May 15 of this year that the present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) inherited an awful mess from his predecessor, and a large part of it stemmed from the fact that political appointments to important positions in the penitentiary system destroyed its efficiency and undermined the morale of career employees in the system. We have seen enough of this type of appointment in the federal public service, and I do not want to see any more of it in the vitally important parole system. I would not like the

December 3, 1973

Parole Act



[Stage Direction]
Solicitor General to think that I came here today only to criticize and complain about the way he is trying to do a difficult job. My purpose is neither to bury nor to praise him, and just to show that I do have a warm spot in my heart for the minister I would like to conclude by throwing him a bouquet.
I am in wholehearted agreement with his proposal to restructure the parole service on a regional basis, and to attempt to restore the practice of having parole officers interview applicants on a face-to-face basis. I might recommend also that the parole service attempt to get some input from family members, police officials who are knowledgeable about the applicants, and any other sources of useful background data. In conclusion, may I say that this return to a personal approach to assessment of parole applicants is the best move that has so far been proposed. But I wonder if we are realistic in proposing the addition of only ten more members to the board. Will this be enough to allow the board to clear up the enormous backlog in applications for parole and for temporary absences, and at the same time do justice to the new applications that will be forthcoming?
This is a question that we should be answering now rather than later, along with such questions as whether the National Parole Board should also be dealing with provincial prisoners, whether the board should be empowered to overturn sentences by a court, and whether or not the board should try to cope with the separate problems of temporary absences as well as parole of sentence. These should be worked out in more detail. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I express the hope that the minister will have answers ready for my questions, as well as other questions that are being asked today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House of the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment as follows: The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher)-inquiry of the ministry; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-external affairs-Garrison dam diversion, North Dakota-further action by Canadian government-consideration by International Joint Commission; and the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blen-karn)-Public Service-amount of increases offered by government to those at lower levels.


PAROLE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to do my part to keep these motions before the House until the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) arrives to support them. I am not that favourably disposed to his amendments, but I think he should be given an opportunity to support them if at all possible. The purport of the hon. member's amendments is to establish a quota system in respect of appointments to our National Parole Board.
At the outset, I must say that I am opposed to artificial quotas in respect of any judicial board or, for that matter, any other organization associated with the day to day activities of our penal system. The best example of the application of a quota system to an organization, and how it can hurt such an operation, is to be found in the experience of the Democratic party in the United States in 1972. Following the 1968 national convention of that party in the city of Chicago, a so-called group of reformers captured control and decided to open participation in that party to a number of formerly outside groups. This covered black people, young people, females and all sorts of others who were from that point on recognized as official working members. Then, we saw what happened in 1972 when that very effective compaigner, Senator George S. McGovern, was nominated as the presidential candidate. I think it is well recognized that the operations of that so-called reform party were not too effective.
I think we should have some second thoughts in respect of the imposition of quotas as related to our native people and ex-convicts. This is a bad principle, and I do not think it could fail but to have a bad result on the parole system of this country. I have no objection to the appointment of two people of native origin to our National Parole Board, but surely the criterion to be followed should relate to the qualifications, educational or otherwise, of the people involved. Surely this should be the first consideration in respect of whether individuals should be appointed to this national board, regardless of their ethnic background. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) should certainly select qualified people for appointment to this board, and I am sure there are many people available who would serve with effectiveness.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to the work done by the Chairman, Mr. George Street. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of that hon. member. Mr. Street has been a very good chairman, and, with the exception of one or two decisions made by that parole board, we have seen an excellent job of administration. When considering the appointment of people to this board, we must consider the people with whom they will be dealing. The prison population of this country has been growing by leaps and bounds
26695-17J

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
and, unfortunately, a significant proportion of that population is made up of Indians.
The Drumheller Institution lies within the constituency I represent. We have heard examples of what takes place in institutions from other hon. members of this House. Let me say that I am pleased to be able to report that the Drumheller Institution has not given the Solicitor General or law enforcement officers in this country very much trouble. Surely, this institution could be cited as an example of a well-run and effective penal reform institution in Canada. A significant number of Indians are imprisoned in this institution. I feel that these Indian people should have representation on our National Parole Board, and I would like to hear the views of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in this regard. I think the efforts of our Parole Board could be improved by such representation. This would certainly be true of the population of the Drumheller Institution, and I am sure the same would apply to the Prince Albert penitentiary and other penitentiaries in this country.
Having regard to the appointment of convicts or ex-convicts on the Parole Board, I do not adopt the same {joint of view expressed by other hon. members because this is a little too close to the Alice in Wonderland approach. That approach is quite common in respect of some problems dealt with by members in this House, but I think it is unacceptable. Apart from the principle of tokenism, I do not think convicts or ex-convicts have demonstrated an ability to serve as effective members of the Parole Board. I do not intend to belabour that suggestion, but I must say I have no sympathy toward this amendment of the hon. member for Skeena.
I think it is useful at this stage to ask a question or two about what is happening in our society to produce such a rapid increase in the prison population. We find it going up and up. We also find that the cost of maintaining prisoners in these institutions is rising at an ever-increasing rate. We find, as well, that there are people who feel that the treatment meted out at these institutions is so desirable that on occasion they have made special efforts to be caught after committing an offence, in order that they may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment; particularly during the winter months in certain parts of our country.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member agree?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In view of the fact that the hon. member represents the riding in which Drumheller penitentiary is located, I wonder if he could give the House some idea of the percentage of Indians and Metis who now occupy the cells in that penitentiary?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I believe it is about 25 per cent, which is a significant number when you consider that there are between 450 and 500 inmates in that penitentiary.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Mr. Danson:: Did you rehearse this, Jack?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member agree?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In view of the fact that 25 per cent of the inmates in the Drumheller penitentiary are Indians or Metis, and that most of the inmates in that penitentiary come from what may be called the southern half of Alberta-and also from other parts of Alberta- could the hon. member give the House an idea as to the percentage of the population of Alberta that is Indian or Metis?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member that information. Perhaps he will be able to dredge it up before he participates in the debate. In fact, I do not know whether the answer to his question can be given accurately, because the Drumheller institution, as I noted before, is an unusual one. It does not create many problems for the penitentiary service or for the Solicitor General. Also, it is unusual in the fact that it does not draw its population from one particular part of the country. Although located in Alberta, it is populated by inmates who come from the four western provinces primarily, and it is mainly reserved for young offenders who have committed their first offence. So I do not know whether that percentage could be applied with relevance to the population of Alberta.
In any event, we now have a problem with the prison population. I think that every hon. member who has any connection with penal institutions knows that far too many people are coming in and there is far too high a rate of recidivism. The situation reached a critical stage at Drumheller in the past summer and a number of mobile houses, or modular type buildings, have had to be erected outside the fence of the Drumheller institution. There are now 50 or more inmates who reside outside the institution's fence. The fact is that the prisoners at that institution are better behaved than others and they do not present much of a security problem. I do not know whether it says anything for the quality of everyday life at that institution when you realize that the inmates do not have to be behind the fence, let alone behind bars, in order to stay there.
I think the House would be better employed trying to attack some of the root problems instead of trying to streamline the parole procedures to see whether we cannot get more people out quicker, particularly in view of the rising population in such institutions. It is interesting to note that the Solicitor General is at present attending a federal-provincial conference on the subject. I believe there will be a continuation of that conference, or another federal-provincial conference held here in Ottawa next week, and it will be interesting to see if any solutions are brought forth at those meetings.
Reference was made in the debate this afternoon to a possible connection between the sentencing judge and the Parole Board. I think there has not been enough communi-
December 3, 1973

cation between the judge who sentences a prisoner to a term of imprisonment and the people who decide whether they should let the inmate out before the term of his imprisonment has expired. I am happy to see that the Huguessen report makes reference to that matter, and that to some extent the amendments to the Parole Act implement that report.
May I say, in conclusion, that I will await the next stage of this bill before participating further.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I am horrified by the decision of the House to group together amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Although I have filed a number of amendments at the report stage of various bills, I have always been cautious in the way I have grouped them. Although I do not want to cast any aspersions upon those who did the grouping, being the member who represents the constituency of Crowfoot, and in that way directly or indirectly representing that great Indian chief, Chief Crowfoot, I cannot allow the present grouping to be accepted without comment.
What the House has done-inadvertently, I might add- is to group one amendment proposing that two native people be appointed to the Parole Board with another amendment that two persons who have served a period of time in a penitentiary be appointed to the Parole Board. In grouping those amendments we are saying, in essence, to the native and Indian people of Canada that an Indian or a native person is equal to one person in jail, whether or not that Indian or native person has committed any wrong or has been apprehended or sentenced by a court. Such an Indian or native person is being assumed equal to a convicted person. I will not be party to such grouping and I hope that a great many members of the House will not be party to it either.
There is one thing we Canadians must acknowledge- that the Indian and the Eskimo are the first citizens of Canada. Whether you like it or not, Mr. Speaker, or whether anybody else in this House likes, it is a fact beyond changing by the present white man who rules Canada, beyond changing by the past white man who ruled Canada, and beyond changing by the white man who will continue to rule Canada in the years ahead. We cannot erase that fact.
As I look around the world today, I see that in many countries the first citizens are coming into their own. Just look at South Africa. Look at any other country you want to name. The original inhabitants are coming into their own. But what are we doing in this parliament? We are creating a sin among sins, one of the greatest sins: we are saying that these people in our penitentiaries are the same as people already serving a sentence. Mr. Speaker, many Indians, many native people feel they are serving a life sentence within a white man's world.
When I looked at these two amendments and saw they were grouped together, I thought a sin had been committed by this House. I could not allow it to go unnoticed. To me it is an important matter. First of all, I represent the majority of the people whom Chief Crowfoot represented
Parole Act
when Canada became a nation. I have always said to myself that I must have a special part in my heart for these people. They are the ones who brought about peace in western Canada. Chief Crowfoot said, "I must recognize that there shall be no continuance of this continual strife between the white man and the Indian. There shall be peace as long as the waters flow, the grass grows green and the sun shines." Of course, I am paraphrasing what he said in his memorable statements in 1878.
As a representative of that group of Indians, I too must recognize the part that Chief Crowfoot played. On coming to Ottawa, representing the constituency of Crowfoot, one of the first things I did was to write a letter to the Blackfoot tribe at Gleichen, Alberta. In it I said that I now represented the tribe of Chief Crowfoot. I wrote that I would do my best to believe what he believed in, in 1878; that there should be peace between the white man and the Indian, and that the Indian's rights and beliefs should be respected. I wrote that I would dearly like to have a picture of Chief Crowfoot hanging in my parliamentary office as long as I represented them. I received a very nice reply from the secretary of the Crowfoot band in which he said it was indeed a pleasure to send a picture of Chief Crowfoot to hang in the parliament buildings in Ottawa, that during his lifetime Chief Crowfoot had visited Ottawa on many occasions, and they hoped that with the return of his picture his beliefs would return with it.
I had no intention to speak on this bill dealing with the Parole Board until I saw that these two amendments were grouped together. I thought this was done out of careless disregard for the Indian people. I asked myself, why is it that 25 per cent or more of the inmates in our jails and penitentiaries today are Indians and native peoples? What have we done wrong as a society? Have we callously disregarded their beliefs, their philosophy and their concept of life? Have we told them, "If you don't adhere to our wishes and our desires, we have no alternative but to send you to jail"? The grouping together of these two amendments reinforces my belief that this is what the white man has said to himself on many occasions and in numerous courts. We have said, "We cannot understand your ways, your beliefs. We care not for your concept of life. If you don't adhere to ours, we will send you to jail." That is what we have said time and time again. That is why in Drumheller penitentiary over 25 per cent of the inmates are native people, as pointed out by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) in reply to my question.
There are some native people in this House, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge they have not spoken on these amendments. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to hear from them their concepts and views. But I say to everyone in this House who is not a native person, let us examine where we have gone wrong. What have we done, not just recently but over a period of 50 or 75 years?
I have just finished reading a tremendously interesting book, "Across the Medicine Line," by C. F. Turner. In this book he describes the problems of the native people 100 years ago. He writes about Chief Sitting Bull, how he fled the terrible Americans and came to live in Canada for several years. It is a recently published book and can be obtained in the parliamentary library. The author tells us the great man that Chief Sitting Bull was. He was a man

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
among men. All the sub-chiefs under Sitting Bull were men among men in those days. I say to hon. members of this House, look around you; how many prominent men do you see in today's Indian race? Is it the fault of the Indians? No, it is because the white man has failed to understand them; in fact, has demonstrated an expressed unwillingness to understand them. He has not cared; he has shown no desire, no love, no appreciation of Canada's first citizens. We have run roughshod over our first citizens. We have said they are "no accounts." On the white man's conscience must rest that responsibility. He has failed to hear, to listen and to pay attention to their problems.
Of course, we have not been as bad as the Americans. We can proudly say that we have not created a Wounded Knee in Canada-yet. But just look at the James Bay project. The courts have played havoc with the treaty of 1812 which the native people up there signed. The courts have played havoc with the conscience, the heart, the beliefs and the soul of those native people. True, the Supreme Court is hearing that case today; but we in this House have allowed the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) to rise in his place and plead that he understands the Indians and encourages them in their fight.
This government has the right to move in and disallow, if necessary, any provincial legislation which it feels is wrong or detrimental to the well-being of Canada and its future. If this House so desired, it could have moved in and dealt with the question of James Bay and the lands involved in the area. It could have revoked the provincial legislation that brought about that problem. But it chose not to do so.
Speaking to the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, I have no harmful thoughts with regard to the chairman of the National Parole Board. He has been in office at a very difficult time because this House has failed to lay down the criteria by which he could administer the Parole Act. I do not have time to go into the whole concept of capital punishment versus its abolition. However, I do say that we have placed the chairman of the National Parole Board in a very difficult position during these past years, because we have failed to lay down the concepts that he must adhere to and he has had to try to judge the mood of the people on his own. He has tried to judge what is best for people who have run afoul of the law and who perhaps can be released.
The only part of this bill that I wish to speak to is the first amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena which suggests that two of the ten ad hoc members of the Parole Board should be native people. How can I disagree with that, Mr. Speaker, when I sit here in Chief Crowfoot's name? Nearly a hundred years ago he said that there shall be peace as long as the rivers flow, the grass grows green and the sun shines. Well, Mr. Speaker, the rivers are running, although more polluted, the sun is shining and the grass has been growing green, particularly in the summertime. In saying that, Chief Crowfoot placed his trust in the hands of the white man and said, in effect, "I acknowledged your greater numbers. I acknowledge your great armaments. I place in your hands a trust that

you will take care of my people, that you will not see them in want or suffering starvation, and you will see them treated fairly and equally."
Mr. Speaker, anybody interested in the history of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or, as they were called at one time, the Northwest Mounted Police, should read "Across the Medicine Line". It tells how the RCMP dealt out justice fairly and equally and won the respect of the native peoples of the plains and of the northlands. Is there a man in this House who can say that we have continued to understand the problems of the Indians and the native people since that time, when over 25 per cent of the inmates of our jails and penitentiaries across the country are native people? What percentage of the Canadian population do they represent, Mr. Speaker? Just 2 per cent.
I ask every member of this House to examine these figures, to examine his conscience and ask himself as he goes to bed tonight if his conscience is clear, as a white man, taking over this land from its first citizens. Let him ask if he has dealt fairly with the native people as Chief Crowfoot would have wanted. There is not a white man in Canada who can say that we have. It is all well and good for us to pass this bill, Mr. Speaker, and make a number of amendments to please ourselves. Normally, I do not support the ideas of the hon. member for Skeena, particularly his socialist ideas. But on this occasion, when he asks that two members of the National Parole Board be native people, I do not think he is going against the desire of most white men in this House of Commons.
There should not be one Liberal cabinet minister rise in his place to say that he is against this amendment. If there is, I hope that every native person in Canada remembers who it was and the political party to which he belongs. It was the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) who gave the native people the vote and told them that the only way they could exert pressure upon the white man was through the exercise of their vote. I hope they remember, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Mar-chand) is a very capable native person, one who has a right to be proud amongst his native people. But if he fails to stand up and speak in favour of this amendment, then I would not blame the native people for saying that he has become one of those who has been washed in some kind of water which has cleansed him of his native beliefs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. Order, please. May I remind the hon. member that his time has just expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not agree with that. I was watching the clock very closely, and I have two minutes left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. We will be able to check.
December 3, 1973


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for further time when the House reconvenes at eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think there is agreement, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was speaking at six o'clock, and when the Acting Speaker called it six o'clock it was suggested that my time had expired. I did not think my time had expired before six o'clock and I did not have the appropriate occasion, in any event, to ask the unanimous consent of the House for permission to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member appreciates that the time is kept, on behalf of the Chair and of hon. members, by the table. The Acting Speaker was advised at the time that the hon. member's time had expired. The Chair will inquire whether there is unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue his remarks. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be agreement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kindness of the House in allowing me further time to speak about the proposed amendments to Bill C-191. Before six o'clock I had been dealing with the amendments of the hon. member for Skeena. Speaking as a white man representing the constituency of Crowfoot, I am disappointed that the House should consider at the same time both amendments proposed by the hon. member for Skeena.
The hon. member's first amendment suggests that two of the additional ad hoc members of the board shall be persons of native Indian origin. His second amendment suggests that two of the additional ad hoc members shall be persons who have served time in a penitentiary under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. I was most disappointed in noting that these two amendments are to be considered at the same time. The idea that Indian or, for that matter, Eskimo people-that is, native peoples- should be equated with somebody who has served in a penitentiary is a degrading idea. That is what I feel, as a member of parliament in Ottawa, representing the constituency to which Chief Crowfoot gave his name. My constituency is called after him.
I felt very humiliated, to say the least, when I found that these two amendments were to be considered at the same time and voted on together. I hope the House will not do that. I hope this House will consider the problems of
Parole Act
the native people and pay close attention to those problems. Their difficulties arise from the fact that they were the first Canadian citizens. Like it or not, they were the first citizens of Canada and we must acknowledge that fact. We cannot lump those people with other people in Canada who have been sentenced to incarceration in penitentiary.
I say, however, that the hon. member for Skeena has moved a worth-while amendment. Mr. Speaker, 2 per cent of Canadians are native peoples, yet of that 2 per cent, 25 per cent are in jail. As white men, no matter what our ethnic background may be, we must acknowledge that fact. We must ask ourselves, why is this so? We must examine the entire problem of the native peoples. Speaking as the member representing the constituency bearing the great name of Crowfoot, I say that the part Chief Crowfoot played in Canadian history has an important bearing on this issue. My constituency in southeastern Alberta is called Crowfoot as a result of the trust Chief Crowfoot placed in the white man in the early 1870s, and in 1877 and 1878. Because of the trust he placed in the white man, Chief Crowfoot said, as I pointed out before six o'clock and as I will repeat in order to imprint the words on members of the House and on Mr. Speaker, "There shall be peace."
He meant that there shall be trust and belief one in another; that is what he really meant. He said there shall be peace, but he meant there shall be trust. There shall be peace, there shall be trust, there shall be understanding: he said those words. He went on to say how long that trust and understanding would remain. He said it would remain as long as the rivers flow, the grass grows green and the sun shines. The rivers are still flowing, the sun is still shining and the grass will again be green in the spring. This is the early part of December and the grass is not green today. But he said those words in the sense that he was placing his trust in the white man for many years to come. He hoped his trust in the white man would be borne out. There was no question about his trust in the Indians. He had trust in them, even though most judges and magistrates might say the Indian had broken faith and had not adhered to the law. At that time Chief Crowfoot said, in effect, "Please believe that we will try to adhere to the white man's law."
I suggest that if hon. members read the book about Sitting Bull they will comprehend the difficulty of the Indian understanding the white man's law. Chief Sitting Bull had a great deal of difficulty understanding the difference between the American and the Canadian law. However, the Northwest Mounted Police explicitly explained the law to Sitting Bull. The Indian of that day accepted the law. Have we understood the explanation of that law? Therein lies the problem. It is easy for normal white men to conceive the law. They do not understand the difficulty. To equate it very simply, 25 per cent of the Indian and native people have run afoul of the law, in spite of the fact they represent only 2 per cent of the population of Canada. Have we sufficiently explained the law to them? I defy any member of this House of Commons to stand up and say we have explained it to them but they are ignorant and dumb and refuse to accept it. That is

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
what a lot of the government's proponents are thinking. I defy any member of the cabinet to stand up and say that. They may couch their words in different language, but that is what they are thinking.
I go back to the time when there was peace on the prairies. That was because Chief Crowfoot put his trust in the white man. He said the white man understands there shall be peace, and the Indian would accept the white man's justice which was laid down clearly and unequivocally. Have we deteriorated from the position which the Northwest Mounted Police took in the late 1800s and early 1900s? You do not have to read much history to determine that question. We have deteriorated from the position laid down by Colonel Walsh when he talked with Chief Sitting Bull. Some members may doubt what I say. If so, I suggest they read the book "Across the Medicine Line" by Turner. They will then understand that we have pulled the rug out from under the Indian trust which Chief Crowfoot placed in the Queen's system of justice.
The first amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena suggests that there be an ad hoc committee of ten members, two of whom shall be Indian or native people. Who in this House can oppose that? Would any cabinet minister oppose that? Nothing would give me more pleasure than to hear a cabinet minister stand up and say he was going to oppose it. I would want the country, particularly the Indians, to hear that. They would realize, not how the white man has broken faith with them but how the Liberal Party has broken faith with them. It is not the white man nor the Conservative Party that has broken faith with the trust Chief Crowfoot placed in the white man's Canada and the law of the Queen of England.
At that time the Queen of England was superior to all persons within this colony. We quite correctly divorced ourselves from the Queen in the sense of having our own rule. We divorced ourselves from what might be called colonial rule. However, we must still adhere to and believe in the basic foundation by which the Queen solved the disruption that could have occurred in this country. We must still believe in that solution. The Queen said there shall be justice and fair play among all people in Canada, that all people in Canada must be here and that justice must prevail.
The white man can no longer say that justice prevails when we have 25 per cent of the native and Indian peoples in our jails. We cannot say that the Queen's wishes or the wishes of the white man, when he signed the peace treaty with Chief Crowfoot, are being adhered to when 25 per cent or more of the native and Indian peoples, who represent 2 per cent of our population, are in our jails. This is an appalling failure by the white man in his understanding of the problems of the native people.
I will watch closely the vote on the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena. I had hoped these amendments would be voted on separately. As I say, it came as a great shock to me to find these two amendments lumped together, the first having to do with representation of the Indian people and the second dealing with representation on the board of people who have served time in institutions of correction.

Why should these two amendments be dealt with together? Is the hon. member who moved them saying, in allowing this procedure, that he lumps all the native people together with men and women who have served penitentiary sentences? I know that many of my constituents who live on reserves believe they are, in essence, serving a penitentiary term, but they don't like that thought and neither do their leaders. I do not accept it in any circumstances. These amendments should be voted on separately, if for no other reason than to clearly show the native people that they are not being dealt with on the basis of equality with people who have served a penitentiary term. The native people should be dealt with as the first citizens of Canada. They were here first, whether we like it or not, and we have occupied their land.
Chief Crowfoot was right when he said peace would be best for the Indian people. Chief Crowfoot said, and I paraphrase his words-let no man hold it against me, because I represent Chief Crowfoot in this House-that the Indians were prepared to sign a peace treaty valid as long as the river flows, the grass grows green and the sun shines, provided the white man was prepared to recognize that they enjoyed certain rights. Can we not accept the proposition that two of the native people should be members of the Parole Board, despite the fact that 25 per cent or more of the persons held in our penitentiaries are native or Metis people?
I will watch closely the manner in which this debate proceeds and I will take it upon myself to notify all of Chief Crowfoot's following, all the descendants of the Indian people whom Chief Crowfoot represented at the signing of the treaty, how the cabinet voted, how the Liberal Party voted on this issue. Is this a matter completely beyond the comprehension of most white men in the House of Commons? Are we not prepared to recognize the problems facing the Indian people? I say we would be wise to support the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to express appreciation to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for moving these amendments on my behalf earlier today when Air Canada and I could not quite agree as to when I should get back to Ottawa.
I think, also, with respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), I should say that while I welcome very much his endorsement of my motion-and hope that it passes-the grouping together at the report stage of various amendments into one item for the purpose of debate is a prerogative of Mr. Speaker under the rules. And that is what Mr. Speaker did: he brought the two motions together in one item as they were considered to be one motion for the purpose of debate. But when the vote takes place on them, they will be separate items. I want to get that point through to the hon. member for Crowfoot, and to others as well.
I am not the first to have thought of this idea of specifically selecting native Indian people to take a position on the Parole Board. I think it is regrettable that we should have to think in these terms, that we should need to select

a particular group of people and say to them, "The law falls upon you so heavily; the law demands that so many of your people go to jail that we have found it necessary to take extraordinary steps to ensure that there should be representation on the Parole Board of someone from the general grouping of people we call native Indians in order that full and proper consideration be given to applications by native people who happen to be in penitentiaries or provincial jails over which the National Parole Board has jurisdiction."
I have some statistics here with application to federal penitentiaries in western Canada. I do not know whether those who compiled them were talking only in terms of native Indian people registered in band lists, or whether they were talking in terms of both registered band Indians and non-status or Metis people. I am inclined to think the former. But the statistical analysis of the numbers of people in federal prisons in western Canada indicates that the range of native peoples in relation to total inmate population is around 25 to 30 per cent. In some of the provincial jails the percentage is much higher-up to 80 per cent, I have heard, in some areas.
People of Indian origin in jail do not receive the same kind of equitable consideration in the matter of parole applications as the non-Indian population. Not too long ago a survey was conducted in the Matsqui institution, a federal prison in British Columbia. On the question of day parole-that is to say, inmates released for one day over an extended period of time-although I do not have the figures immediately available to me, they are in my office, the native Indian people who applied for day parole received parole to a much lesser extent per ratio of population than the non-Indian people in Matsqui. In other words, if you were white and applied for day parole, your chances were good; if you were Indian, the chances were good that you would be turned down. The same statistics apply to temporary absences from that institution; the white inmate population got the advantages, the favourable consideration, whereas the number of successful native Indian applicants was much less per capita.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: That is in your province?


Frank Howard: Yes, in Matsqui institution in the Fraser Valley. I am talking about a particular survey made over a period of time. In so far as paroles were concerned as distinct from day paroles, the same situation prevailed; the white inmate population, or non-Indian population, at Matsqui received better consideration and treatment than the Indian inmates.
I do not know what the case is at Prince Albert, where the inmate population in the Saskatchewan penitentiary is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 to 50 per cent, but I am inclined to think that the same situation prevails because it is the same Parole Board that deals with parole applications and with day parole applications, and I cannot see why they would favour one group in one institution and not favour the same group in another. There is a universal application of the parole criteria.
Parole Act
Some of the reasons given for this, apart from what I consider to be a general lack of understanding on the part of penitentiary administrators and Parole Board officials of native Indian feelings, their home life and culture, in their assessment of the rehabilitative possibilities of Indians I think are fairly scant. But there are other factors that the Parole Board take into consideration. One is home environment. If a person applies for parole, they find out what is the situation at the home he will go to if paroled. I do not mean his family home but, rather, his home community. What are the possibilities there for parole supervision?
For example, the Parole Board discovers that if a native person goes home to the reserve, most times it is in a remote area where the opportunity for parole supervision is much less than it is in an urban setting. If he goes home to an urban setting, the chances are that he was never permitted to get fully into the community in the first place but existed only on the fringe of it. Therefore, his chances, so the Parole Board consider, of making a success of his parole are less and thus he does not get equal consideration in the granting of parole from that point of view either.
Employment is another factor the Parole Board examines. We all know-at least I hope we all know, though I sometimes wonder when listening to the debate in this House whether there is a full appreciation of this-that the native Indian person in society is the low man on the list when it comes to employment. Within the native Indian population there is a high percentage of unemployed. Within the native Indian population individuals have the least chance of finding a job, and I am sure this is a consideration the Parole Board weighs. Thus, the chances of a native in jail getting equitable consideration for parole, apart from the fact that the Parole Board and some officials may be completely ignorant of what it is like to be a native Indian, are far less than the chances of the non-Indian.
In society generally there is not too full an appreciation of the cultural, economic and social position of the native Indian in this land. It is just a simple fact of life that there are large groups of people in Canada who know absolutely nothing about the native Indian and do not want to. His position in society is disregarded, ignored. By many he is considered the invisible man. In jail, apart from the custodial staff I think the same thing applies; there is not any great desire to look upon this person as having any greater or lesser difficulty than anybody else, when in fact he has.
Outside of society there are a number of native people- this applies, I think, to any group that has been treated in the way the native person has been treated-who feel left out of things. They feel denigrated. They feel put down. They feel their position has no appreciation on the part of the great bulk of Canadian society. They feel they have been discriminated against deliberately and consciously, though not so much now as in years past, in terms of education, employment possibilities and the simple, uncomplicated respect that one human being should have for another. They feel rejection or, at the very best, nonacceptance by society.
When the native person comes to town-I think this situation can be duplicated in Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina,
8372

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
Vancouver, any urban centre that attracts people from outside-he invariably lives or finds his associates in a certain part of town. He finds that he has to live on the periphery of society. He finds he has to live on the fringe and does not fully become part of the community. Again he feels left out. He lives in an urban area where drugs and booze are most easily and readily available.
I am not talking in straight terms of native people; I am talking about human beings. History has shown that in times when a person or a group of persons feels rejected, despondent and not wanted, they develop a sharp sense of inferiority, following which it is very easy for them to turn to ways of easing or lessening their internal sorrow. Most often they turn to the use of alcohol, but very often they turn to drugs of various sorts.
I have heard an expression very often from native people in my home area. I do not repeat this in any sense to do harm to the native people, but very often one says to another, "Let's get drunk and be somebody." In other words, what is being suggested is that they use alcohol to rid themselves of their inhibitions. They turn to alcohol as an anaesthetic. They wipe out their misery in this way. I suggest this misery has developed as a result of the relationship these people have with society. That is a pretty sad commentary on what our society has done to the Indian people.
From the easy accessibility of alcohol or drugs, or a combination of the two, it is a very short step to jail. These people wind up in our penal institutions because of their use of alcohol or drugs, or because of what they do as a result of being intoxicated from the use of one or the other. This is probably one reason there are so many Indian peoples in our jails. The percentage of the total Indian population is much higher than the percentage of others in our society. Indian people are not more criminally minded than others. In fact, I think they are less so. Most of them that I know are more honest than a lot of white people. They suffer a great deal of misery and torment in trying to feel their way and find their place, much more so than other individuals in this country.
We are talking now in terms of sociology. We must change our social values. We must give these people a deliberate and conscious respect for themselves in terms of our society. We are talking about life, we are talking about building up respect, and we are talking about family life. This is all-important to the meaningful existence of these people. These are the things we must do in a sociological sense. We must cut down the difficulties faced by these people, many of whom are not able to cope with the everyday strains and difficulties we all must face. As a result, they end up in our jails and penitentiaries.
I think the appointment of native Indian people to our Parole Board would be a wonderful thing. I suggest this in the hope that these people will give the Parole Board some understanding of the difficulties which exist in our penitentiaries: they would impart a great deal of knowledge to such a Parole Board in respect of the discrimination suffered by these and many others of various ethnic origins. As a result, the native people might be given equitable advantages in respect of their parole applications. This

would be advantageous whether these paroled natives go from jail to remote communities or return simply to the urban area from which they came. The whole point is that these people would be returned to society as a result of tenderness and affection, with an opportunity to make good out of prison.
The minister has said on one or two occasions that he would like to appoint Indians to the Parole Board. I have referred to the appointment of two in the motion, but that is an arbitrary figure. No matter what number one hits upon, it is arbitrary. I have always had the feeling that when someone suggests the appointment of one native person to a board, there is tokenism involved. I suspect that is what is happening in this case. I hope the minister is not guilty of that approach to the problem. I remember when Ellen Fairclough was made the minister of citizenship and immigration. That was in the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That appointment was extolled as the most dramatic and wonderful thing that could happen in Canadian society. She was the first woman appointed as a minister in a Canadian government. The fact that she was incompetent did not matter-it was democratic, and extolled as such. I suggest that we should move as far as possible from that approach.
The other thing I have in mind in respect of the selection of one person is that perhaps the minister has a person in mind already. I am not sure that this is the case, but I suspect that the minister has in mind an individual who has an attachment to the Liberal Party. Such action seems to be typical of the record of the Liberal Party. That may be what is being done, because following the next election the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo may not be here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


An hon. Member:: Don't take as much time as Jack Horner.


Frank Howard: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for not realizing that my time was limited to 20 minutes. I will not transgress on the generosity of hon. members of the House. I am inclined to think that the minister has one individual in mind and that individual has had some attachment to the Liberal Party. It is my suggestion that such an appointment might not be the best one.
The number of people to be appointed is, I repeat, arbitrary. Some hon. members might suggest that three or four should be appointed. I picked the number two because of considerations for regional and geographic factors. I do not intend any sort of division, but there are two basic groups of Indian people in Canada. There are Indians who come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Indian Act. These Indians are registered as such on band lists as treaty Indians. Then there is the other group which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal authority or
December 3, 1973

the Indian Act. These are the non-status Indian people; the Metis, as referred to by certain people.
There are these two groups, and I mention two appointees in the hope of taking both groups into account. An individual might be selected from each of these groups to be appointed as a member of the Parole Board. Some hon. members will argue that this is a good or an excellent idea. In fact, I came into the House just before the bells rang at eight o'clock, and a couple of hon. members from a particular party said to me, "It's a good idea, an excellent idea; but I do not think we will vote for it. We don't think we should spell out that sort of thing in the law. We should leave it to the intricate mentality of the minister who may be making the appoftitment as to whether or not at any given time he will or will not appoint someone of native Indian extraction to the board." To me it is such an important question, such a necessity, that I think this parliament is almost duty bound to try to write it into the law and to spell out that that will be such a guarantee.
This is an ad hoc addition that we are talking about anyway. These members would not be permanent members of the board, as are the other board members. They will come and go as the minister determines at any given time. They are temporary. The hope in my mind is that a sense of responsibility about native Indian people in jail can be imparted to the board so that it deals with parole applications by native people on an equitable basis.
I also hope that we will be able to generate within society a sense of respect for people that has not heretofore been very prevalent, so that the population of native Indians in our jails decreases and eventually disappears. As we approach that time, the necessity of having people selected for membership on this board because they are of particular racial extraction or origin will likewise disappear. But until we reach that time, we should nail it down and say that it is necessary to have this type of concern reflected in the laws that we pass, in the hope that it will generate some sense of good feeling in the nation on the part of the board about people in jail who are of native Indian origin, and that the numbers of these people in jail will be cut down eventually to the point of elimination.
There is another motion that deals with people who are ex-convicts. I do not want to make any extended comments about them because of the time factor. I should like to say simply that in another sense, people on the board who have had some experience of having gone through jail, who have been rehabilitated or who may be on parole-because that is what the motion says-should also be appointed to the board and thereby bring to the board a sense of experience that the members of that board do not have right now.
This does not necessarily bring with it greater leniency on the part of the board by proposing to put ex-convicts on it. In fact, the reverse may well be true. We know of a situation in Matsqui prison where a pilot treatment unit that was in existence for drug offenders was presented with two temporary absence passes by the medical director, who received them from the warden and who was told to distribute them as he saw fit among the people in the unit.
Parole Act
The inmates in the pilot treatment unit were undergoing group therapy. The medical director said to them, "I have two weekend temporary absence passes for you people. You decide who will get them". Their first response was, "We can't do that; that is not our responsibility. We don't want to touch that; that is for you to decide". He said, "No, siree. You inmates decide. Start taking some kind of responsibility toward other human beings. And remember this, that if those whom you pick blow it, that's the end of the temporary absence possibilities for a long period of time". The group of inmates wrestled with that problem for some weeks. They were very cautious and careful about their choice because they were dealing with themselves. The two men who received the temporary passes came back on time after the two or three days. Nothing serious occurred, and the system progressed from there on not too badly.
I think the same thing could prevail on the Parole Board if we could get some ex-convicts on it and as parole supervisors and working on the staff. They would have a much better rapport and relationship with and consideration for the person who leaves the jail on parole than is the case now. I think I should conclude my comments on that aspect at this time and again express my appreciation to hon. members for having accorded me a few extra moments.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) speaking in favour of the presence of Indian members within the Parole Board, as well as ex-convicts who would, according to him, bring new knowledge on the matter of parole.
In any event, Bill C-191, an Act to amend the Parole Act, has been reported with an amendment by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, by the Sollicitor General (Mr. Allmand).
Mr. Speaker, the reason I somewhat dislike the present composition of the Parole Board is that they take ages to give us results. We ask them for information, they are not ready to provide it.
If we recommend and not for political purposes, the release of an inmate because we are satisfied that he can find a job, fulfill normal tasks, the Parole Board takes so much time that when we get the answer, the prisoner has usually been released after serving his sentence. This means that the Parole Board is not very fast and does not give proper answers whenever we ask questions or write letters. Often, we write a letter and we get an answer one month and a half later. They always take recommendations into consideration and the stamp of Mr. Street or somebody else is always there. It takes ages to get results.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say that, as proposed in this amendment, we must show discrimination and say: the Parole Board should include two former inmates, two Indian people, two English-speaking Canadians, two French-speaking Canadians, two Ukrainians, two Italians, two French people-


Mr.   La Salle@: We have enough Canadians-
8374

December 3, 1973
Parole Act


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said, it seems to me that we have enough Canadians. I consider Indian people as having full Canadian citizenship. If one of them is chosen to sit on the Parole Board, so much the better. If none of them is chosen, so be it. If English-speaking Canadians, Ukrainians, Polish, Yugoslavs, are appointed, good, but it will not be because they are Yugoslavs, French-speaking or English-speaking Canadians, but because they are Canadians. This is what we want on the Parole Board. The Indian people must be considered the same way as others, no more, no less. If any rehabilitated ex-convicts are appointed, good, but let them not be there as ex-convicts but as Canadians. They have made mistakes, but very few among us have never made any mistake. We have all done so at one time or another. Let them not say: Because they are ex-convicts, we accept them on the Parole Board.
Mr. Speaker, one would have to-


Mr.   La Salle@: One would have to serve a sentence to be a member of the National Parole Board.


David Réal Caouette: -as the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said, one would have to serve time in prison to be a member of the National Parole Board. I believe the main amendment should be to enable the board to expedite things, to solve cases more quickly and not to spend hours before answering requests. If there is a shortage of employees, let us give them employees; a shortage of secretaries, let us give them some; and whenever a member of Parliament writes to them, let them be decent enough to reply as soon as possible. Months go by before they give an answer. I can understand that we can make mistakes, the same way the Parole Board did make mistakes already.
I never recommended the release of a person named Dion for instance who had killed young people in Quebec City. He was released. He killed again, he went to prison, he was again released; he was released four times. The board had considered the record and everything that time.
As I said a while ago, there are mistakes. I once recommended the release of a 19 year old boy in my constituency. It took so many letters: one from the parish priest, one from the mayor, one from the bishop, letters from everybody. Finally he was released. I will not name him but I remember. I forgive him but I do not forget. Once he was released, he arrived in Rouyn at noon by plane and the same night broke into my garage and stole $350 worth of tires. This guy I had recommended for parole, well, he was picked up again.


An hon. Member:: You didn't recommend him again!


David Réal Caouette: No, I did not recommend him for a second time, Mr. Speaker. I prefered that he stay where he was.
Therefore, we can be mistaken like this. I realize that the Chairman of the Parole Board himself can be mistaken, that precautions must be taken. In many cases, the

recommendation for the parole of criminals has been done with much less caution.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, I can name some: Chartrand, Pepin, Laberge, etc., were not liberated by Mr. Street but by the province of Quebec. They could go home during the weekends. During the rest of the week, they could also stay at home, or almost. This was a prison system suited to individuals while the regular system was completely different.
Mr. Speaker, this has nothing much to do with the Parole Board but I should like to make a complaint to the government: the Parole Board is ineffective. It includes dead wood, do-nothings, people who do not answer when we have business with them, who no not follow up on requests or recommendations. They drag on, they make no decisions and then refuse to tell us why. We are told that all this should be kept secret before Parliament! Therefore, I ask the government to urge the parole officers to be more active, vigourous and not so sluggish. Let them not die from lingering illness but give them orders for action.
As regards the amendment providing for the appointment of a couple of Indians and ex-convicts to the Parole Board, I find it secondary. When the hon. member for Skeena suggested that in his province there are more Indians inmates than white inmates it is because Indians do not behave as well as the others.
There are Indians in my riding. In fact there are two reservations. However, I have seldom seen an Indian being jailed. Since those people are behaving there is no need to imprison them. There is no need for us to ask for parole for them because they are not in jail. Therefore, I conclude that the Indians in my riding are behaving better than in the Skeena riding. In my riding the Indians are not jailed whereas it seems that in Skeena they are about all imprisoned.
Mr. Speaker, I have much respect for the Indians which I consider as Canadians. If they do not want to be considered as Canadians, it is up to them. There should not be any preferential treatment for the Indians nor for the French-speaking, English-speaking, Ukrainian-speaking or Italian-speaking Canadians. We are all full-fledged Canadians. Consequently, let us have genuine Canadians on the Parole Board and not do-nothings with marshmallow backbones. We need people able to take their responsibilities and to reply when they are asked questions.
[ English]


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the amendments before the House lead me to consideration of the much broader question of parole and the manner in which it is being implemented. I should like to speak briefly at the report stage of Bill C-191 to urge that the amendments proposed to the Parole Board Act, providing for the addition of not more than ten members to the National Parole Board, be implemented as quickly as possible. The need for a larger, more flexible board with regional representation and regional areas of jurisdiction is obvious when one considers the tremendous backlog of cases now before the board; and as the board assumes
December 3, 1973

wider responsibilities for day parole as well as full parole, that backlog is apt to increase accordingly.
I am not at all sure that ten new members added to the board will be sufficient to handle the ever-growing administrative and time-consuming paperwork that accompanies applications for parole; but at least their numbers will help to distribute the burden of interviews, reporting and judgment that is proving onerous for the presently constituted board.
The proposal to have these new members located in various regional centres across the country will, I trust, restore the former practice of allowing inmates to be interviewed personally by parole panels, a practice which was a much fairer and more equitable one than the present system of forwarding detailed documentation to Ottawa for assessment and adjudication by officials far removed from the penal institution in which the inmate is housed.
The number of inmates in our federal institutions is at an all-time high-approximately 9,000 men and women. Not only have convictions been increasing, but the granting of parole has been considerably tightened up in the last few years, with the resultant overcrowding in penal institutions that now poses such significant problems in our penitentiary system; problems of lack of physical facilities, training programs and, as well, problems of lowered staff morale due to longer work hours and heavier duties. These problems all contribute to the security risk factor, one which poses a potential threat to the communities where penitentiaries are located.
I would like to see the minister move ahead much more rapidly than he has to confront these very serious problems, by utilizing the proposals in the Huguessen report and the wealth of information presented to the committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Hastings. I would like to see the recommendations put forward in the Outerbridge report given early consideration so that a large network of halfway houses can be available for inmates who can be considered for early parole. To accomplish this, a strict screening of applicants for such centres would be required on the part of the Parole Board.
But having visited many of our federal institutions, I am convinced that there are many who should probably not have been incarcerated in such institutions in the first place, and there are others who, having served an initial sentence, would be of more benefit to themselves and to the general public if allowed to operate in a much less restricted atmosphere. Halfway houses under the supervision of the parole service should be able to offer that opportunity. The words of the Outerbridge report make this very clear. An article in the Calgary Herald of September 25, 1973, comments on the report and quotes excerpts as follows:
In general, halfway houses are smaller, more visible to the public, less expensive to operate and they do not require capital construction costs as high as those of prisons.
In addition, if residents are well selected, CRS's-community residential centres-can be introduced without substantially increasing the risk to the community.
The report says "more than 90 per cent of incarcerated offenders are released to the community within two years, and, the question
Parole Act
remains whether the risk to the community is greater or smaller after their incarceration then before."
We submit that it is likely to be greater.
In our opinion, therefore, it seems logical that a high priority should be placed in the developments of alternatives to imprisonment.
Presented at a time when paroles are down and the prison population is rising at such a rate that the Canadian penitentiaries service is contemplating a building program, the report calls for an expansion of halfway houses as "an alternative means of relieving the increasing pressure on our prisons."
I would suggest to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), in his consideration of parole, that the time has come for a revision of mandatory supervision releases to see whether or not this form of release is proving effective or whether it is, in all too many instances, extending sentences in a manner that was not originally intended when the program was introduced. I would also urge that where the facilities are available, such as in Ontario, parole applications for inmates in provincial institutions on criminal charges be processed by provincial parole boards rather than by the National Parole Board. If such a step were to be taken, it would substantially reduce the congestion that now exists at the national level.
When the minister first served notice that he intended to add new members to the Parole Board, I asked him to give consideration to the appointment of a native person to the board and he gave his assurance that this was being actively considered. Having in mind the numbers of native persons in prison and the treatment they are accorded, I trust this proposal is still receiving his very careful assessment.
Finally, I would like to see the Solicitor General initiate a campaign designed to encourage members of the general public to get involved in helping those who have been released on parole to normalize their role in society. That would mean encouraging business and labour to guarantee a certain number of jobs for men and women on parole. It would mean accepting ex-inmates into homes and community organizations in a way that happens all too infrequently. It would mean recognizing that men and women who come out of penal institutions-and let us face up to the fact that they do come out-need all the help, support and encouragement of the general public that they can get in those first lonely, disruptive and frightening weeks and months when they are released from prison.
Russell G. Oswald, commissioner of correctional services in New York state, wrote recently on correctional administration but he could have been speaking to all of us when he said:
Correctional administrators have an awesome responsibility . . .
The disruptive prisoners are in the minority but get excessive publicity. Most of the others are literally crying out for our help so they can climb that steep grade back to decency and constructive community living. We cannot permit ourselves to be diverted from our commitment to meaningful change by those who would try to confuse and frustrate us by their illogical violent behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, it is through the medium of a properly and humanely administered parole system, one which would operate more effectively than the present parole system, that the majority of inmates will be able to climb that steep grade back to decency and constructive community living.

December 3, 1973
Parole Act


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks on Bill C-191, although I do not think there is very much I can add to what has been said within the last hour or so by other hon. members. I was however, happy to hear the favourable remarks concerning this bill, and in particular the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that two of the ad hoc members of the board should be persons of native origin. I think it is time we had something like this on the statute books to accommodate the native population of the country.
I was also very happy to hear some of the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I was rather surprised by some remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). He being a member of one of the minority groups of this country, I would have hoped to hear from him some favourable remarks concerning the bill and in particular the two amendments.
1 wish to direct the attention of the House to some shortcomings in our justice and legal system as a number of people are not fully familiar with the facts. Not many of the native population of this country are judges or magistrates. Not many of the native community are parole officers. Few of our native community are lawyers or justices of the peace. Few of our people are policemen. Very few of the native community are members of the RCMP, the force which polices a large part of our wonderful country.
In the earliest days, the RCMP or the Northwest Mounted Police, whichever one wants to call them, depended to a large extent on the native people of this country. Actually, one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the Northwest Territories occurred not far from my home village of Fort McPherson. It involved the patrol between Fort McPherson and Dawson City in 1910 or 1911. The mounted police patrol was not accompanied by the special constable, the native person who acted as guide. The patrol went ahead without the guide, and perished. The mounted police, even today, take with them special guides in the Northwest Territories who act as interpreters, and so on.
Looking on the brighter side, there are today people of native ancestry who work as court personnel. They explain people's rights to them. This is not enough. Very few of our people serve on juries, including coroners' juries. A large part of our population of native ancestry is serving time in correctional institutions. This is deplorable. That is why I was happy to see this amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Skeena and to hear the remarks of certain hon. members.
To sum up, I feel that the hon. member's proposed amendment will bring improvements. May I point out something else which may be of interest. In early days when the Indian people governed this entire land, this country's policies were slightly different from those of today. Our immigration policy in particular was pretty good. The result now is that we are outnumbered in this country by immigrants. In the matter of jails, we are the prisoners of our guests.
Our justice was also of good quality. Under our policy, lawbreakers of the land were dealt with more humanely.

Under our system they were rehabilitated without being locked up behind bars. We did not do what is done today. After lawbreakers had gone through our system, they had paid for their wrongdoing and became useful citizens of our country. We should bear that in mind when voting on the hon. member's amendment. Those are the only remarks I wish to make at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House tonight has already received favourable comment from most hon. members who have participated in the debate. I have been checking the debate on second reading and note that there was general support for the motion that the Parole Board should be reinforced with additional new members.
The bill has been brought back for further consideration. It was almost inevitable that amendments would be moved during committee stage for consideration in the House. When hon. members considered the matter, they soon realized that Bill C-191 does not constitute a really comprehensive approach to the problem of parole services. Rather, it was felt that it is an emergency response to the difficulties which have been hitting the headlines of Canadian newspapers for the past few months. The bill suggests that the parole service has suffered from a breakdown in administrative efficiency and that this requires some immediate response from the government.
When the minister introduced the bill, he pointed out that its subject matter deals only with one small aspect of the problems confronting the Canadian parole service at present. We have the excellent report of Judge Huguessen before us. The legislation put forward by the government hardly considers any of the recommendations of that excellent report. The report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs still has to be brought down. Those of us in the House who have been following the deliberations of that important committee realize that we will have to go much further if we are to bring Canadian parole services into line with the needs of the Canadian penal system.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has brought in an amendment which points out one of the weaknesses and deficiencies in our parole service. It highlights the special problems of the native population of Canada. During the period of rapid change and transition in lifestyle, mostly brought on by the fact that our native peoples are migrating in increasing numbers from the rural environment, or the environment of the wilderness, to urban centres, our native people have been finding it extremely difficult to make the necessary adjustments. Inevitably, many of them have run afoul of the law.
Those of us who come from western Canada and have had occasion to visit penal institutions both at the provincial and federal level have been increasingly disturbed by the fact that a large percentage of the population of our penal institutions is made up of native peoples. In most cases it is younger native people who have found it impossible to make the adjustment to living in our complex, urban environment.
I want to speak briefly tonight on penal reform because I have followed the problems of penal reform most of my adult life. Actually, my first employment, at the end of the
December 3, 1973

"dirty thirties," was as a police court and prison worker with the Salvation Army, one of the institutions which early concerned itself about penal reform and rehabilitation services for Canadian people who run afoul of the law. I remember back in the city of Toronto that one of the workers in this field was Mr. Alex Edmison, who at that time was working for the John Howard Society. He was one of the pioneers in penal reform. He has since become an outstanding authority on penal reform in Canada. Indeed, he was on the National Parole Board himself at one stage, and is now lecturing in penalogy at the University of Ottawa.
As I look back over the 30 or 40 years which have passed, I am encouraged to note that we have made some progress toward a more humane approach in dealing with people who find themselves in the toils of the law. It was with considerable disappointment, because of the glaring headlines over the past year or two arising from the breakdown in the administration of the parole system, that we found it necessary to try to plug the holes in this ad hoc, halfhearted way. I had hoped the government would have waited until such time as it had thoroughly reviewed the Huguessen report and received the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs after its long deliberation on the matter, so that adequate amendments might have been brought in to the Parole Act. That will still have to wait further action on the part of this parliament, or more likely, in light of the present trend in this parliament, for another parliament to be elected by the people of Canada.
I suggest that in addition to the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Skeena, we should emphasize in our parole system not only the matter of selecting candidates for parole whether it be long-term, permanent parole or short-term day parole but more adequate supervisory personnel and facilities to assist in the rehabilitation process. The essential purpose of parole is to make it possible for the offender to return to society and become re-established and rehabilitated in society at an early date outside the confines of the penal institutions. To be successful in the rehabilitation process, the first responsibility of the Parole Board is to make an accurate assessment of the rehabilitation potential of the individual concerned.
The emphasis should be on young people who are first offenders, people who are not yet in the category of recidivists that we find all too frequently, particularly in our federal institutions. In many cases these recidivists or repeaters move into the area where they are psychopaths. Regardless of the rehabilitation facilities that might be made available, it would be impossible for them to benefit from the rehabilitation system under the parole program.
With regard to our young offenders, I think it would be almost essential in the kind of society which we are operating today to have halfway houses or youth hostels such as the House of Concord in the city of Toronto. That institution is operated by the Salvation Army and deals almost exclusively with the rehabilitation of youthful offenders. All of these halfway houses or rehabilitation hostels for youthful offenders are operated by voluntary groups. When the government finally comes around to
Parole Act
comprehensive amendments to the National Parole Act, I hope it will take into consideration the fact that this service is absolutely essential to the successful rehabilitation of youthful offenders.
There is one other suggestion I wish to make. There needs to be greater co-ordination and co-operation between the provincial and federal services. As far as I can see at the present time, the provincial parole service and the federal parole service operate in splendid isolation. If we are going to deal with the problem of particular needs in regional or provincial areas of Canada, this can only be accomplished by closer co-ordination between the services of these two levels of government.
The problem the amendment is trying to come to grips with, that of providing specialized services for the growing penal population of our native citizens, must take into consideration not only the special needs of natives but other ethnic groups where they predominate in certain areas, particularly in western Canada. However, this is for the future. All we have to deal with at the present time, is a bill that is responding on an emergency basis to problems that have become widespread in our parole administration over the past several months.
I am not going to refer to some of the scandalous situations that have emerged. They have been discussed many times by earlier speakers during this debate. However, I wish to emphasize that when we get this bill through and when we have the ten additional members on the Parole Board, the minister responsible for the administration of the act should try to plug some of the areas of deficiency that were mentioned during the course of the debate and make the best possible use of the additional manpower.
I refer to only two areas, the need for closer supervision and the need to deal with special regional and ethnic requirements of various areas of the country. We must always keep in mind that this bill deals only with the shadow of the substance. We will not have the kind of parole service required to meet the problems of Canada's penal institutions, as they operate in the complex society of today, until we have an act containing very substantial amendments based on the two reports, one of which is before the government and one which we hope will be in the hands of the government at an early date.


Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, at the opening of the debate today I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) make some remarks about a former minister of citizenship and immigration, the Hon. Ellen Fairclough. I would say to him that there is none so blind as he who will not see. With that I will make no further comment.
I was surprised when this bill was brought back to this House. It came in, like so many other government bills, with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) so proud of what he was doing. He reminds me of the man who thought he was an atheist until he realized he was God. This bill falls far short of where it should be going. We are a saving nation, both in dollars and in human lives. We put the dollars in the bank, and we put the men in jail and let them stay there. We hope they do not earn interest in our society. We do not do a thing, substantially, to rehabilitate them. This is our failure in the parole system.

December 3, 1973
Parole Act
I admire what George Street is trying to do in our society to help our parole system. He fights against innumerable odds. He does the best he can as one individual, but he receives little or no help from the government. This is why we have trouble with recidivists and all the problems we have with our inmates today. Where does the problem lie? We spend thousands and thousands of dollars keeping men in our institutions who need help on the inside for the outside.
I can tell of a situation where a young man of another race was assigned to a penal institution in this country. He was sent there at age 17 and remained until age 33. No one looked after him. He just sat there. No one taught him how to read and write. He was not given any education. He was taught to upholster chairs and chesterfields. A judge on a very routine investigation of the institution found him sitting there upholstering. He wondered why he was there. The amazing thing is he was never sent to that institution. Someone said he was a psychotic, and away he went to that institution for about 15 years. No one looked at this man to see the problem. Really, there was no problem. He had a rough beginning in life as many of these boys do. He stayed there for about 15 years. There was no trial, no judge who sentenced him to that institution. He was just put there and forgotten. This is our penal system.
Bring the matter to the courts for redress, and the magistrate says; "Do not look to me for redress; I was not on duty at that time." I think of this young man put in an institution for 15 years, with no kind of help, nothing going for him. So he is black? So what? He is a Canadian citizen-white, black, pink or purple; I don't care. Surely this is a despicable record and we can do better. We certainly need more parole officers. Why does the government not go the whole way? Of course we need more board members, but we also need more parole officers, people who would go into these institutions, talk with the prisoners and decide whether they are eligible to go back into society.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says there should be natives, or ex-convicts or ex-parolees sitting on this ad hoc group. I do not see any objection to that. I would like to see one representative of the native population on this group, and if I could believe the minister when he says he would arrange for such an appointment, I would be content. Unfortunately, with all due respect, we cannot always believe what spokesmen for the government say. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has given so many different sets of conflicting facts and figures that his credibility leaves a lot to be desired. I am reminded of the small boy who was having difficulty with his arithmetic. His teacher asked him, "Suppose I were to lay two eggs here and three eggs over there; how many would I have laid?" The small boy looked at him and replied, "Well, teacher, I really don't think you could do it."
I feel the same way about this government. I do not think they can or will do what they promise. I should like to leave the legislation as it is, leave it up to good brains and good intentions to decide who shall form this committee. Basically, I do not like the amendment, but I am ambivalent in this respect because the government so often says one thing and does another. However, as I say,

if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will do what he said he would do this afternoon, I shall be content, if I can believe what they say.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can you?


J. Trevor Morgan: Yes, that is the question. And I am not sure of the answer. So maybe I should be inclined to go along with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and opt for one member from the native population. I say this because I think we have a sad story in what the people across the way have done to the Indian people. They have not done it to themselves; we must blame ourselves for the situation. They are victims of their environment and we must take full responsibility.
I look to where the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) sits across the way, and I say to him, "It has been a lousy job." It is time we made use of the abilities and skills of our native people, yet where do they end up? The government has the power to assist the Indian people, but so far it has obviously not done so. The attitude is: let them stay in jail, let them rot. That is what is happening.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Twenty-five per cent.


J. Trevor Morgan: The hon. member for Skeena proposed that somebody on parole should be a member of the ad hoc group. I do not think it should be somebody on parole. I think it should be somebody free of parole, not subject to the sanction and the unction of penal authority. He should be free in what he says and thinks.
I was talking the other day to a young man who was on day parole. He had been found guilty of a drug offence, possession, and had been sentenced to some months in jail. The judge recommended him for day parole immediately, but day parole took about two months to arrange. That is bureaucracy, I guess. He has now become very interested in the John Howard Society and is working to help people who are in trouble as he was. He is a university graduate, a very intelligent young man. It is true he got himself into difficulty, but he is not the first to do so nor will he be the last. It is people like this who should be given an opportunity to help people through one institution or another. He knows the problems. He has been, I suppose you would say, associated with the wrong elements, though I do not much like making comparisons.
My hon. friend from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said we do not need expertise. Perhaps he is right; perhaps some people do lack direct experience. But I do not have tbe gut feeling, if I may use that term, that experts are always wrong. If there is a happy admixture of the two qualities, we shall have reached the position we are seeking. Again I say to the Solicitor General that the bill should surely have been more comprehensive, that he ought not to walk into the House waving a piece of paper as a "be all and end all" when there is so much more to be done. Let us get something done.
We have been here ten months, yet this is the best legislation we can produce to deal with all the problems in penal institutions throughout this country. We have ten
December 3, 1973

additional members. Big deal! If I were on the government side, I would be ashamed of this legislation. It does not begin to comprehend the problems that beset the penal colony in this country-and it is a colony.
We must accept the fact that there are good criminals and bad criminals. So let us have people in these institutions who can separate the good from the bad. I have often gone into a judge's chambers with the Crown attorney while the jury is out to discuss sentence. The judge will say, "All right, boys; if it is guilty, what do you think?" and we discuss the kid in question. Surely we can ask the Parole Board to do the same with the judges. The judge knows how defence counsel and the Crown attorney feel, so for goodness sake let us do something with the Parole Act and consult the judges who are intimate with these boys. They can look up their notes, review the evidence and make a solid evaluation whether there should be parole. They could act in an advisory capacity.
What are our judges for? They are not "dum-dums", sitting up there on the bench doing nothing. They have intelligence just as much as people on the Parole Board. They assess these boys. They have seen the pre-sentence report and heard the evidence, whereas the Parole Board has not. A parole officer does not have time to look over the evidence in a given case to see what were the motivations and what were not the motivations. Is not this what judges are for? They are there to sentence people, to say whether someone is guilty or not guilty if there is no jury. If the answer is guilty, then give the judges a chance to have a say in the parole action. I suggest that only makes good common sense.
What does the government do with the sex criminal? They treat them as if they are armed robbers. Most of these people need psychiatric help, there is no question of that. What facilities do we have in our penal institutions to administer proper psychiatric care, or what knowledge has a parole officer in that field? Before they make an assessment, do they consult the psychiatrist? Are they institutionalized? In Toronto there are doctors like Dr. McKnight who make assessments and say what should be done in such cases.
Even with all these facilities available to us, I suggest the Parole Act is so deficient and the government so derelict in taking action that they have reached a point where they throw up their hands, say they do not know what to do and run away from the problem. I suggest that no problem has ever been solved by running away from it. They typical reaction of the government is to band-aid this and band-aid that. As some wag said to me the other day, with this government it is like "hockery night in Canada", and how true that is. But this reflects on me too, because I am proud to be a member of this chamber. But people say all we do is to take stopgap measures, that there are no long-term programs to rehabilitate those who need our help, because the government lets the situation go on day after day, doing a little bit here and a little bit there.
I wonder why government members sit in their chairs yakking and laughing but doing nothing. The noise across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, tells me what interest they have in what other people think or say or do. I do not say that I am an Einstein or a brilliant criminologist, but at least I give
Adjournment Debate
some thought to what I try to do and I pay attention to the problems besetting this country. When someone else is speaking, I do not yak away and pay no attention. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, as a result of some of the words I hear from across the aisle I do not learn very much, but at least I have the decency to listen because maybe, just maybe, I will pick up an idea, though there is not much hope of that.


An hon. Member:: Not from over there you won't.


J. Trevor Morgan: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast: Man never is, but always to be, blest."
If the National Parole Board has far too much to do, we must realize this. That is number one. Number two: I think the provincial governments must take responsibility for their own prisoners. It is about time the National Parole Board, through this government, said to the provinces that they should set up their own parole system. We have our problems, they have theirs, and we cannot accept responsibility for doing more than we are at the moment. I see no reason why the National Parole Board should, I was going to say "fry the fish" but I do not like that expression. I see no reason why they should settle the problems of the provinces, which should have their own parole system. They only come back to us, and nothing is accomplished because the workload of the Parole Board is too heavy.
Let me say in summary that I do not approve of the two amendments. I would feel much better about saying that if I could believe the Solicitor General when he says a native person will be appointed. Assuming he will, let me go on to say that the answer is (a) let the provinces go to the judges in the matter of parole, and (b) go to the provinces and tell them to set up their own parole system. If such a provision were written into the act, I think we would have something worth while, not the wishy-washy, ad hockery that we have at the moment.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ten o'clock.



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

Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first evening in many a long while that I have had more than one fan on the "late show." I rise to discuss a matter which poses an alarming and insidious environmental danger to Canada, to inquire about what steps the govern-

December 3, 1973
Adjournment Debate
merit is taking to avert this threat and to ensure that in the future this situation will not recur. I am referring to the vast public works project in the United States which, if completed, will pollute the waters of two important river systems that flow into Canada.
This American undertaking, known as the Garrison diversion unit, is located in the state of North Dakota. Construction is already well advanced. This project is designed to divert large quantities of water from the headwaters of the Missouri River and, through a vast network of dams, dikes and canals, irrigate about 250,000 acres of American range and farmland. The run-off waters would then be diverted into the Souris and Red Rivers which flow into Canada in the province of Manitoba. It is these run-off waters which pose the threat of water pollution. By flowing over and through the arid North Dakota soil, the run-off water would acquire a heavy load of dissolved salts and other matters, with the result that the level of salinity in the Red and Souris Rivers would be raised to harmful concentrations.
The consequences of this made-in-U.S. pollution in Canada would be numerous and potentially devastating. The water supplies of the cities of Souris and Portage la Prairie, and many smaller communities as well, would be rendered undrinkable. Economic and social development would be stunted as the river waters would be not only unpalatable but also useless for certain industrial processes. The use of the water for irrigation in Canada would be cut off, even though such use would not itself be polluting. The natural ecology of the river systems would be disrupted, thus posing a wide-ranging danger to fish, animal and plant life.
Such water pollution would clearly stand in violation of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between Canada and the United States which states in article 4 that "waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other." It would further violate principles endorsed by both the Canada and United States governments in the Declaration on the Human Environment at the 1972 Stockholm conference.
The Garrison diversion unit was first conceived in 1965, and since then some $60 million has been expanded in construction of diversion facilities. I have learned that Canada did not become interested until 1967, and only in 1971 did serious consultation begin either at the diplomatic level or between Canadian and American technical experts concerning the hazards we are facing. Last week we learned that the matter of transboundary pollution in the Souris and Red Rivers will be referred to the Canadi-an-American International Joint Commission for study. Canadians, of course, must applaud this move, but it is astonishing and of grave concern that not until this project has been under way for eight years and large sums of money have been invested has our government been able to persuade the United States to take notice of our very genuine complaints and to take action on them.
We may expect, in light of our experience, that the IJC study will be thorough and fair, but its report will not come soon. Will the minister inform the House whether or

not, pending completion of the IJC study, the American government has agreed to place a moratorium on all further construction on the Garrison diversion unit so that the Canadian people will not be faced with a fait accompli?
It is widely recognized that the key issue in making public policies for the control of pollution is good planning-it is the difference between taking preventive measures and trying to clean up the mess afterwards. In future instances Canada must be assured that the Liberal government gets in on the ground floor in defending our environment if it is threatened by the projects of other nations.
Accordingly, I ask the minister: Does the government intend to propose to the U.S. that the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty be supplemented by further standards laying out explicit standards for the water quality of transboundary lakes and rivers? Furthermore, so that formal Canada-United States consultation and study on water pollution matters can be rescued from its current ad hoc level, will the minister recommend that the International Joint Commission be given the power to review and to report on all relevant issues without the need for a prior formal reference from either country or, in fact, as at the present time, from both countries?


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have been aware for some years now of the American proposals for diverting waters from the Missouri basin to supply the Souris river basin for irrigation purposes.
This diversion has been and still is a source of concern for the Canadian government and that of Manitoba because of the possible serious deterioration of the water in that part of the river which flows in Manitoba.
We have repeatedly expressed our concern to the American government, both officially and informally. Our most recent notes to the American Department of State were dated January 25, 1973 and October 23, 1973; in addition, there have been several written and oral exchanges between our embassy in Washington and the Department of State since 1969.

As envisaged at present, almost all thee water used for this U.S. irrigation project would, following use, be returned to waters entering Canada. Without going into all the details of the proposal, the effects we are interested in are the following. First, the tremendous increase of total dissolved solids which would seriously impair the water quality of the Souris and Red Rivers in Manitoba to the extent that the water would not be usable for either human consumption or irrigation in the state in which it enters Canada. Second, very hard, unsoftened water may also affect certain industrial activity, such as laundering and food processing. Water at this level of hardness may also be marginal for irrigation purposes. Further, the increase in nutrient loading may be critical in southern Lake Winnipeg which is presently close to a state of advanced eutrophication. Third, moreover it is apparent that the project as presently envisaged is likely to result in other serious problems of water quality which have not
December 3, 1973

been adequately dealt with, such as increased water turbidity and temperatures. All of these facts are clearly outlined in our diplomatic note No. 432 which the minister tabled in the House some days ago.
We appreciate the concern expressed by a number of honorable members with regard to this situation. Honorable members will note that we have drawn to the attention of the U.S. authorities the implications which this project could have for the intent of the Stockholm declaration and the obligations assumed by Canada and the United States under the Boundary Waters Treaty. The problems posed by the Garrison diversion project do not automatically involve the International Joint Commission under the provisions of the Boundary Waters Treaty. Because this is so, we are continuing at present to deal with the matter at an intergovernmental level.
Until we receive a reply to our October 23 note, it is not clear whether a role by the International Joint Commission would become necessary with respect to this problem. We are confident that we shall have the opportunity to meet with U.S. officials in the coming weeks to seek a solution to this problem, and of course we hope that the United States will respond positively to the request for a moratorium contained in our note of October 23 last. I can assure the House that any solution, as we have repeated in the past, shall ensure that Canadian rights and interests have been fully protected.


PUBLIC SERVICE-AMOUNT OF INCREASES OFFERED BY GOVERNMENT TO THOSE AT LOWER LEVELS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on October 25, 1973, I asked a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) as recorded on page 7212 of Hansard. At that time it became apparent that the government was likely to take the advice of big business-the advice it usually takes-and increase the pay scale to senior members of the public service to some $60,000 per annum, an increase of approximately 20 per cent in pay levels. At the same time, the government was making an offer to junior persons in the public service of approximately 7 per cent over a three-year period.
We understand that the senior people in the service are not unionized, and that this was a preliminary offer. But I address the House tonight on the principles of that offer and on the principles of this government. And while my friends to the left are here, let me say that these are the principles they support when they support this government. There has been in this country, over the past few years and months of inept administration, an inflation rate of 8.7 per cent. A person earning $100 a year ago now has the purchasing power of someone earning $91.30. So they have had a cut of 8.7 per cent in their real purchasing power. This government has the audacity to suggest, as a matter of bargaining, that 7 per cent over three years is all they are entitled to. It may be that the civil service of this country is not too efficient. Many of us in this House have seen the waste of this government. But that waste must be attributed to the management of the government. It must be attributed to the very people who are to be offered the 20 per cent increase. There is no indication that the government will increase its efficiency, its use of people, its
Adjournment Debate
organization of the affairs of Canada, by increasing the pay scale offered to those at the higher level. So in order to save dough, it suggests that those at the lower end of the scale must receive less.
A moment ago I spoke of 8.7 per cent inflation. Analyse that important statistic produced by Statistics Canada, and what do you find? You find that it includes a whole range of things like housing. It includes the fact that a great many people in this country own their own homes, and the debt associated with those homes five or ten years ago at rates of 5 per cent, 6 per cent, 7 per cent and 8 per cent. But the young couple coming to the housing market today, some of them working for the government in junior positions, are not faced with that kind of inflation in housing but with a rate of inflation that in my riding alone drove up the price of houses nearly 20 per cent this year.
While the inflation rate may average 8.7 per cent, we must ask ourselves, what does the average mean? It reflects the advantages for those with some capital in their pockets. It reflects the fact that some families do not have growing kids at home who need more and more food. It does not reflect the fact that some families have had to buy more groceries this year than last year, and that the cost of groceries is up 16 per cent to 18 per cent.
That 8.7 per cent is an across the board figure and when applied to growing families is not realistic. What does the government offer to the junior people on its staff? It offers 7 per cent over three years. I say that that offer is inexcusable. Speaking at this time of year, I say it is the kind of offer that only Scrooge could suggest. There is no justification for an offer to anyone working for the public service of this country that does not reflect the cost of living. We must remember that the bulk of the rise in the cost of living is the result of inept government, a government that prints money to pay its bills, a government that refuses to invoke an incomes policy to control the avarice of big labour and big business.
We have a government that takes advice from big business and big labour, big labour to my left and big business opposite me. This is a government that does not really care about the ordinary people of Canada. This is a government that says it is O.K. if only 20 per cent of the people in the country are able to stay even with inflation, and the rest of us get further and further behind with our grocery bills, mortgage payments and finance expenses. This government cannot be excused for making the kinds of offers it has made to the public service of the nation.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, most salaries in the public service are established through collective bargaining in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. When the parties are unable to reach agreement, the act provides for other methods of dispute settlement such as, in the case of nurses, binding arbitration, or in other cases, conciliation and possible strike action. In the case of arbitration, the arbitration tribunal has full authority to consider all factors including representations from the employer and the bargaining agent. The decisions of the arbitration tribunal

December 3, 1973
Adjournment Debate
is binding on both the employer and the bargaining agent. In such a situation, comparability with the private sector and increases in the consumer price index may be considered by the arbitration tribunal.
In the case of higher levels, particularly deputy ministers and senior executive officers in the public service, the government appointed and has received advice from the advisory group on executive compensation in the public service. The advisory group has now made three reports, the latest of which was released on October 5, 1973. In this report, the group noted the need to establish some degree of comparability with the private sector and noted the pressure from below exerted on executive salaries by salary settlements in collective bargaining. We can
categorically deny any inference that we are trying to restrain inflation by offering minimal increases to the public service, and at the same time affirm that public service rates are comparable with the private sector.
It is very difficult for me to understand how a Conservative member of this House would say that if his party was in power, it would not try to bring in people from big business or would not try to make sure that civil servants in higher positions would be paid salaries commensurate with those paid in business. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. It seems that the Conservatives would settle for people who would be less good than those we have, or would ask people from business to come as missionaries.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, December 4, 1973