1975-11-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief motion to read, one which I hope will find ready acceptance and which could be adopted without debate.
In view of the utterly tragic and needless toll taken by traffic accidents each year, which has spared few Canadians from the misery and grief that accompanies the inquiry or death of persons close to them, and which is responsible for the loss of over 6,700 Canadian lives a year, and in view of the singular potential held by safety belt usage for a dramatic reduction in such senseless destruction, as has been recognized by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the legislature of Nova Scotia and, now, the Government of Ontario, in their commendable actions to ensure that this potential is not lost to Canadians, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont:
That this House encourage and support the efforts of all provincial governments across Canada in implementing laws designed to protect Canadians through the legislated use of safety belts.


Mr. Speaker:: With some reservations having to do with the urgency of the motion, I suppose I might ask whether there is the necessary unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
As part of the anti-inflation policy of this government where it is necessary and obvious that we must fight unemployment seriously and efficiently while trying to
beat inflation to the ground, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That this House request the government to table before hon. members of the House a global project for efficiently fighting chronic unemployment in our country as soon as possible, with particular attention to the most deprived areas and the fact that the winter season is coming quickly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Over one year ago the Minister of Labour appointed Mr. Justice E. D. Bayda a one-man commission to investigate grain handling through the Port of Vancouver and to make recommendations with respect to alleviating delays arising through labour disputes and other circumstances.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour has indicated on numerous occasions that the report of Mr. Justice Bayda will be of considerable importance in helping to ensure uninterrupted grain deliveries through the Port of Vancouver in the area of labour-management relations, and in view of the fact that the government has been in possession of the report and recommendations of Mr. Justice Bayda for over four months now, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West:
That this House direct the Minister of Labour to demonstrate his own dedication to avoiding unwarranted delays by immediately tabling the report of Mr. Justice E. D. Bayda.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Family Allowances
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


AGRICULTURE
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a question of pressing and urgent necessity related to the tobacco industry in Canada. Whereas the cost of production of flue-cured tobacco has increased from 1974 to 1975; and whereas the buyers of Ontario flue-cured tobacco are paying less on the auction markets than was paid at the same date last year; and whereas there is much farmer dissatisfaction with the current market prices, to the point of closing down the auction warehouses; I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That this government, through the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, launch an immediate investigation into three areas of the tobacco industry. First, the buying practices and prices paid for Ontario flue-cured tobacco on the auction floors; second, the pricing of cigarettes to the Canadian consumer; and third, the possible curtailment of the export of Canadian tobacco through the pricing methods being used by the companies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present under Standing Order 43 a motion the urgency of which will be quite clear. In view of the fact that the government's decision to combine the November family allowance payment with the December payment and to send out only one cheque, which will not be sent out until the month of December, will cause a great deal of inconvenience and in many families real privation, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to reconsider its decision to combine the family allowance payments for November and December into one cheque to be delivered in December, and to make every effort to deliver the family allowance cheques for November as soon as possible, certainly before the end of this month.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister following his quite correct statement yesterday that the government has limited the maximum amount of monetary benefits it can offer to the postal workers as a result of its general guideline program of controls. Has the time not arrived when parliament should be asked to intervene to restore this essential service, since the government has already restricted in fact the scope of collective bargaining on the main issue in dispute?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion before to indicate that there should not be confusion between the government's anti-inflation program, which does in fact indicate guidelines within which we hope collective bargaining will fall, and the right to collective bargaining itself. We have taken the position that employers and employees should take notice of these guidelines and find themselves bound by them in a voluntary sense. But they are only bound to negotiate in good faith. The Anti-Inflation Board will intervene if it finds that a collective agreement arrived at is not within the spirit and the letter of the guidelines.
We have interpreted the guidelines in a way which has permitted the Postmaster General to make an offer to the union. Beyond that offer it is our judgment that we cannot go without risking the offer being struck down by the Anti-Inflation Board. It is really a matter of judgment. At the present time parliament itself has certainly not indicated overwhelming or unanimous support for the position of the government, but we are letting the strike process take its normal course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how the Prime Minister reconciles that comment with his response to the leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday, where he is reported at page 9184 of Hansard as saying:
-because of the anti-inflation guidelines we are limited in the maximum amount of monetary benefits we can offer at this time. We have gone to that limit and I think it would be misleading the people to name a mediator with that implication.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not equally misleading to pretend that the government is not asking parliament to restore this essential service because this would interfere with the collective bargaining rights given by parliament, when in fact the government has already modified that right very substantially.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition must have missed part of my answer. I answered that very question and I will repeat my answer in another form, just as the question was put in another form. I said that in our judgment this is as far as we can go as an employer within the guidelines. That remains our judgment, Mr. Speaker. It does not mean that the right of


collective bargaining is taken away. It means that this employer is trying to follow the spirit and letter of the guidelines, and has said this is as high as we can go. If we thought we could go higher there would perhaps be justification for a mediator. We do not think we can without breaking the guidelines, and if this is our thought it is our duty to make no greater offer than this because we would be subject, at least theoretically, to a fine if we went beyond what we think is as much as we can offer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, fully agreeing with the Prime Minister's statement that the government is limited by its general policy as to what it can offer, and accepting that, is it not correct that the Prime Minister is simply playing with words when he pretends that it would be interfering with a right given by parliament to bargain collectively when in fact that right has already been restricted? Is the Prime Minister not playing with words when he suggests that this right has not been severely circumscribed, and will the Prime Minister frankly tell the House what is the real reason he does not come before the House to ask parliament to restore this essential service in these circumstances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, it is not correct to make that assumption. The government as an employer has bargained in-


An hon. Member:: He is playing with words.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government has bargained as ably as we can to achieve a result that was not inflationary but which would be fair to the employees. That is why there is a strike because our judgment is obviously not shared by the union leaders. At some point in every strike which adversely affects the public interest, parliament as a whole may be called upon to endorse the government's position, if the government wants to put the question before parliament, and perhaps legislation to bring the workers back to work.


Mr. Horner:: Haven't we reached that point?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have not reached that point yet, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, the logic of the Leader of the Opposition does not lead me in that direction. I repeat, we have as an employer made an offer which we find is reasonable and fair. The union itself has decided to go on strike. At some point in the future perhaps this parliament will be asked to say whether the government is right in its offer or not.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-PROPOSED SECRET BALLOT ON GOVERNMENT OFFER
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister concerning his answer last Wednesday to a question in the House in which the Prime Minister said the idea of special legislation under which a government supervised vote would be conducted was "a proposition which might be worth considering at a later date". I should like to ask today, in view of the continuing post office shutdown which is causing untold layoffs and bankruptcies across the country, and in view of suspensions by the union in
Oral Questions
Vancouver of workers circulating a petition urging a secret ballot, is the government now giving active consideration to this proposition and, if so, when will the government be able to advise us of its intention?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a repetition of the previous question. I would just give the usual answer. If the opposition is to get queasy as soon as the strike begins to last and economically hurt one or the other of the parties, surely its remedy-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It hurts the innocent party.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -surely its remedy should be that there is no right to strike in the public service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some members of the House seem to take that as a religion, but until that is the law of the land, Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that a strike is a strike and it hurts people. That is the very nature of a strike.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that at sometime the government might consider action by parliament. I should like to remind him that the government has legislated the end to strikes three times in the last few years.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-REQUEST FOR RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Considering that the best solution to the postal strike is one that is acceptable both to the workers and to the post office, and considering that the postal workers have indicated their continuing willingness to negotiate and as recently as a press conference at noon today said they want negotiations to resume in which they would be flexible on all matters, I should like to ask the Postmaster General if the government would indicate an immediate willingness to resume negotiations as early as this afternoon.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must confess I have not heard the union's request to resume negotiations through the media or from their unofficial spokesman here. I recall my parting words when we suspended negotiations. I said we were prepared to resume any time the union felt like calling 998-9620. There are 18 different extensions and I would be more than happy to resume this afternoon so long as the union understands there is no flexibility in the monetary items as I have already explained. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there are as the union has pointed out many other areas that could be negotiated. We could, for instance, lower the shift premium.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There seems to have been a rather complete answer up until this point. Perhaps we could get to the supplementary.


Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the minister just acknowledged it was the government which suspended negotiations and not the union, I should like to ask the minister why a request that was made in a communication that was delivered to the President of the Treasury Board last Friday asking for the resumption of negotiations has not yet been replied to by the government.


An hon. Member:: They mailed it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, l am quite prepared to say that we suspended negotiations. After 11 months of meeting demands, at least 25 beyond the recommendations of the judge, and faced with a demand at the last moment by the union of a 35-hour week, a $2.73 pay increase, not over 30 months but 26 3A months, longetivity pay and increased holidays beyond what was offered as well as 18 other monetary issues, I thought it was time to suspend negotiations until they came to their senses and understood there is only so much money. I am prepared to go back to the negotiating table and re-arrange some of those monetary issues. Possibly those in the top bracket might be prepared to sacrifice some money and give it to those at the bottom end of the scale.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since what the minister has just said, if I understood him correctly, is that the government suspended negotiations because it is taking a fixed view on the monetary issue and therefore was not willing to talk about other matters and broke off negotiations, is the minister then saying the government is prepared today to let the union know it will resume negotiations with the same flexible attitude on the issues under dispute as the union has indicated it is willing to approach all matters at this time.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When events unfold the hon. member will understand, in his attempt to be an honest broker, that he is simply prolonging the strike unnecessarily and that there are many things that go on in private in the field of negotiations that cannot be revealed. The hon. gentleman should know what I am talking about, and if he does not, if he wants to jeopardize these informal negotiations, then he is going about it in the best possible way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House whether the salaries of the members of the Anti-Inflation Board have been disclosed and whether they comply with the government guidelines?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board has received the status of deputy minister grade II with a salary range between $49,000 and $60,000. Mr. Pepin has, however, accepted an intermediate salary of $54,000 which is quite commendable since he has lost his M.P. pension amounting to some $8,000 a year. The deputy chairman is at the DM I level with a salary range of $40,000 and $50,000. Mrs. Plumptre has, however, insisted on receiving the salary she had as chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, that is $40,000. Finally, the other members are paid $200 per working day-less than what is often paid to consultants or what they could get in their profession.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Over the past several months has the minister had discussions with or representations from the Portuguese Ambassador regarding displaced persons from Angola, and, if a further airlift is required by the Portuguese to remove their people, is the minister considering the use of Canadian armed forces aircraft?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations recently with the Portuguese Ambassador in which we discussed two questions: first, the possible economic cooperation between Canada and Portugal, and the response of the Portuguese government to the invitation extended by Canada to engage in discussions toward some forms of economic co-operation, and in that respect we expect a mission from Portugal to hold these discussions in Canada. On the question of persons who may be leaving Angola for Portugal and who may wish to come to Canada, the ambassador reiterated a request from his government that we give favourable consideration to taking additional people into Canada. I assured the ambassador that we would give further consideration to the representations which he had made.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As we attempt to identify the government's fiscal and monetary stance within its so-called anti-inflation program, would the minister indicate what would be his current estimate of revenues in the fiscal year 1976, bearing in mind that he has already indicated he feels the deficit shown in the June 23 budget would still be his current estimate of the deficit in our budget this year?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is useful to attempt to give precise figures as the year goes on. As I indicated, the judgment at the moment is that we would remain within the same frame as indicated.


POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER SPENDING PROGRAMS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On October 30 the President of the Treasury Board indicated that he felt government spending would be held within his original limit. We now know that it is $1 billion in spending higher than originally shown in the budget of June 23. I should like to ask the minister to confirm whether the President of the Treasury Board was correct when he indicated that the total remains unchanged, and that if the Minister of Finance has some fresh announcements to make, he will make them. Has the minister any fresh announcements to make with regard to further spending programs with respect to the budget announced on June 23?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not
at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support given by the hon. member to the principle of legislation to enforce wearing safety belts in vehicles. I am as happy as he is about the developments that have occurred in Nova Scotia and Ontario. I hope the other provinces will display the same courage in this endeavour. About the hon. member's bill, I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with my colleagues, but I still believe that the best formula would be to leave this matter with the provinces rather than ask the federal government to enact special legislation.


COMPULSORY USE OF SEAT BELTS-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES TO ACHIEVE UNIFORMITY
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the comments within the last day by the minister
Oral Questions
of highways in British Columbia about the need for some uniformity and standardization, and considering the amount of interprovincial traffic there is in this country, has the minister and/or his officials been in consultation with the B.C. minister, and are plans currently under way to assist in some useful standardization and uniformity so that more satisfactory results can be achieved from this legislative initiative?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the whole question of road traffic safety, there is a very important initiative which has been under way for some time co-operatively between the federal government and the provinces, and this is showing up by way of a good number of new technological devices, as well as advertising, and an indication to people about how to best go about safer driving. I think all of this is bound to produce some good results.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the minister has had conveyed to him by the Minister of Labour the concern of the union leaders at Westinghouse Canada in Hamilton and has indicated he will meet with the union officials to assure them, as best he can, of the security of their jobs, what ongoing action is the minister taking to resolve this matter, bearing in mind that if the delicate matter of the use of the name Westinghouse in Canada is not cleared with considerable speed, there will be serious erosion in the level of orders on the books of Westinghouse, and 'it may lose some of its very expert key personnel?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, once again I must remind the hon. member that his use of the word "delicate" emphasizes why I must answer with extreme caution in this case. On the matter of the relationship with the union, as referred to in my answer the other day, we have been in touch with them this morning and indicated that we will meet with them-that is, I, my officials and any others who may be involved-at a time when such talks might prove to be productive, but that may not be for a matter of two or three days because to the best of my knowledge negotiations and talks between the interested parties are still continuing.



ATTEMPTED TAKEOVER OF WESTINGHOUSE BY WHITE CONSOLIDATED-POSSIBILITY OF RENEWED APPLICATION TO REVIEW BOARD

William James Kempling: The minister indicated Monday that a new application could be made to the foreign investment review agency by the parties involved in this matter. Can the minister indicate that if an application were made, it would be given priority status before the agency in an effort to resolve this matter?


Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, I think that is hypothetical at the moment. What I was quoting to the hon. member was the law, which indicates that any applicant who is turned down can re-apply. Whether the applicant in question wishes to re-apply is something which that company alone can decide.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with agreements arrived at or accords achieved at the recent economic conference convened by the Republic of France and in which Canada was spurned as one of the participating countries. Will the minister say what is the nature of the agreement which has been arrived at, apparently between the secretary of the treasury of the United States and the French foreign minister, an agreement which has been presented to 18 other countries to ascertain their support? The agreement I have in mind is the one which will lead to the monitoring of currency exchange rates on a daily basis and intervening to stabilize them whenever they appear to fluctuate without underlying economic reasons. This agreement on world economy, the most important ever arrived at between the nations, is one which I would appreciate if the minister could acquaint the House with and also with what the attitude of the Canadian government is with respect thereto.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief in my reply to the right hon. gentleman. We have not yet been asked to concur in any conclusions which were reached at the summit. When we are asked and when we receive a formal proposal, we will then consider it. However, that is the situation at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say that Canada has not received this plan? The other 17 nations have, and surely Canada is not going to be spurned again.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I merely reiterate that I have not received any proposal seeking Canadian concurrence in an agreement between France and the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Canada is out in the dark again.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTERS EXCHANGED WITH FRANCE IN RELATION TO ECONOMIC SUMMIT MEETING

Mr.  R. Gordon. L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman agree to table or to make public the letters exchanged between the president of France and himself about the six-nation meeting at Rambouillet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not customary to make public exchanges of correspondence between heads of governments. I received letters from other heads of government on this matter as well as from President Giscard d'Estaing. If it is in any way helpful to the hon. member, I could say that the letter, apart from being very courteous, indicates the reasoning, which the president gave publicly, for not inviting Canada; namely, the reasoning that this would enlarge the summit in a way which if Canada came in, other countries would have to participate, and so on. This is not the Canadian view, and as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated, we are not in agreement with that view. However, that is the substance of the letter, and it is nothing the president has not said publicly already.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: My question was for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, but because he is absent from the House, I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Because of the disastrous effects the strike in the pulp and paper industry is having on the economy of this country as a whole, but more specifically on areas such as Gaspe, which is not very healthy as it is, and because also of the refusal to negotiate, which I feel is dishonest on the part of several employers, and since Bill C-73 has not yet been adopted by Parliament, could the minister use the influence attached to his position to convince these employers to sit down and negotiate as soon as possible?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I most certainly am, Mr. Speaker. I do not see any reason at all why the employers in question will not sit down to the table with the union and endeavour to bargain collectively at this particular time, and I would urge them to do so.



SALE OF REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-POSSIBILITY OF PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION IRRESPECTIVE OF RENEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the $15 million loan the government is making to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for the purpose of proceeding with the preliminary stages of the construction of the CANDU reactor in Argentina. In view of the fact that the minister has told the House that the agreement is being renegotiated because the original agreement did not have provision for escalating costs which could result in AECL having a loss of $100 million to $160 million, may I ask if this loan to AECL


means that the agreement has been successfully renegotiated or does it mean that the government intends to proceed with the construction of the CANDU reactor in Argentina irrespective of whether the agreement of 1973 is renegotiated?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I told the House last week the Argentine government has been advised of the Canadian government's wish and intention to renegotiate the commercial terms of that particular contract. There was a meeting several months ago, I think in the middle of August, and there is to be another one within the next few weeks at which time the bargaining would get down to the fine strokes. As to the question of the $15 million standby loan, that is to provide financing of AECL so that it can continue to honour the terms of the existing contract.



SALE OF REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-PROCEDURE TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED IF SAFEGUARD AGREEMENT NOT SIGNED

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Canada and Argentina have not yet concluded an agreement regarding nuclear safeguards, I want to ask the minister what procedures he has set up for AECL to recover its expenses from the government of Argentina in the event there is no safeguard agreement or that a successful renegotiation of the 1973 agreement is not completed?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been stated in the House that we feel we are very close to a successful conclusion of the safeguards agreement. I would hope that would be signed before the end of the year.



THE MINISTRY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Prime Minister. As nervous tension among his backbenchers is rising daily and obviously, as each hovers close to their telephone waiting for the call to come through advising them that they are the new minister of communications, would the Prime Minister do the humane thing and make the announcement in the near future so that these poor wretches may get back to a more stable state of mental health?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were as perceptive of these vibrations as he says he is, perhaps there would be a bit more rotation on his own side to let some of those backbenchers come forward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I brought him along! A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, regarding the reason that the appointment has been open since October 14 last. Is the minister aware that
Oral Questions
today when Conservatives meet each other, they do not say, "Hello", or "How are you" but raise their right hand and say-"Hochelaga"!



FISHERIES


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries).
In the light of the announcement made by the minister about an agreement with Norway regarding Canadian offshore limits, has Norway recognized only the Canadian jurisdiction to determine a fishing area, or have they recognized as well the claims made by Canada about everything which relates to an economic zone?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check into the actual wording of the agreement. But if my memory serves me well, it is only concerned with fishery. I will check into it and advise the hon. member.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister advise his colleagues and particularly the government House leader to have a motion put down to refer the annual report of the Foreign Investment Review Board so that the operation of that agency and the principles on which it has proceeded to date could be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, as has been requested by a number of people, to see how they are getting along?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no quarrel with the principle of getting full discussion on the first year's operations by whatever appears to be the most suitable means of doing so. I will be glad to discuss it with the House leader, and advise the hon. member in the House.



FINANCE


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind the Saskatchewan government's contention that the nationalized potash industry will be tax exempt, would the minister give the


Oral Questions
federal government's position on the taxation of Crown corporations in the provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything to add to the statements made by my predecessor in this connection. In more general terms, we do not feel the provincial governments should use their jurisdiction, whether by way of royalties or by way of Crown corporations, to prevent the federal government from getting a just return for national purposes from the taxation dollar. In that sense, I think we will need to have very close regard for the form that the Saskatchewan proposal takes and we will examine it very closely before making a further statement.



HEALTH SERVICES


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that the Ontario minister of health today closed the community hospital in Chesley, Ontario, the first of 20 such closures planned in Ontario, depriving such areas of much needed medical facilities? The hospital serves some 8,000 area residents who will now be required to travel to Owen Sound where the medical facilities are overtaxed. Would the minister use his good offices to urge the Ontario government to restore.this essential service to the area and do everything in his power to prevent the closure of the 20 essential community hospitals?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of the hon. member at the closure of this particular institution. I will be pleased to bring his representation to my colleague, the minister of health in Ontario. The hon. member will recognize, however, that the administration of the hospital system is the responsibility of the province.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Last Friday, the office of Mr. McLish, director of civil aviation in Canada, issued a guideline stipulating that only the English language is to be used for air to ground communications in almost all cases, which revives an important debate and could have serious consequences, including disrupting the air service of the Quebec government. First, can the Prime Minister say whether the federal government has had anything to do with the issuing of this guideline and, second, can he tell the House how it is possible to reconcile this guideline, aiming at strengthening unilingualism in air to ground communications, with the language policy of the federal government, which

advocates bilingualism and even spends a lot of money for that purpose?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, several Liberal members having expressed their concern to me about this matter, I have had the opportunity of examining the file. I listened closely to what the Minister of Transport had to say yesterday in the House. There seems to be misunderstanding about that matter and since emotions run high on the subject I feel that it is important that the present position of the federal government should at least be understood. The instructions alluded to by the hon. member, and about which much has been written, is not new. It is a repetition of the situation that existed, thanks to the initiative of the former Minister of Transport, and which consisted in extending bilingualism to five other airports in Quebec, under certain circumstances. So, that experience marked the progress of bilingualism. The situation remains the same now. The government wanted to make an effort to see if bilingualism and the importance of security could not be reconciled. The government is very much concerned about those two elements: the effort was successful but should be studied further. Therefore, neither the House nor the people should think that there has been a withdrawal with regard to that stand. The position was progressive, it remains so, and I trust there will be more progress. But those instructions are nothing new, neither one way nor the other.



HEALTH SERVICES


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which perhaps more appropriately should have been supplementary to the question asked by his backbencher. Now that the government has again thrown into jail Dr. Stephen Wigby of Watson Lake, what steps has the minister taken where it is his responsibility to provide medical services for the community, and surrounding areas, served by his department and that doctor until the doctor is released from jail?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the government does not throw doctors into jail; the courts do.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since it was at the instance of the minister's department that Dr. Wigby was charged and thrown into jail for failing to comply with medicare requirements in the Yukon, what steps does the minister intend to take to provide medical service while this doctor is in jail?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my department is always trying to provide medical services in the north in the best possible way. In this particular instance, arrangements are being made to ensure that these people receive high quality service.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of information recently received that the ecumenical committee of cooperation for peace in Chile (Copachi) was closed on Saturday, November 16 by order of the Chilean junta with four of its lawyers, a number of priests including its Jesuit former secretary, Fernando Salas, and a number of people associated with the council including one woman six months pregnant, being arrested or mysteriously disappearing and in view of Amnesty International's latest report documenting torture under the military junta in Chile, specifically referring to inhuman treatment of women detained by the junta's secret police-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Turn the page.


John R. Rodriguez: Don't be so anxious. Has the government approached the Chilean junta to protest this disregard for civil and human rights and if the government has not done so, does it intend to do so now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have frequently expressed our concern about the situation in Chile at the United Nations and elsewhere. The government of Chile is well informed as to our attitude on the situation in that country.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the federal government made a decision to reject the Manitoba provincial government's request for the construction of a dairy processing plant in Manitoba by the name of Crocus Foods Limited, a plant, I may add, that was not needed in the first place?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker the department will make a decision shortly about this matter. However, the hon. member will have to wait for the two parties to publish their decision.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with the indulgence of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would like to express my best wishes to the Prime Minister on his visit to Calgary on Sunday. Is the right hon. Prime Minister, the gentleman from Montreal, giving odds on the outcome of the intellectual and cultural contest on Sunday, Grey Cup '75?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not a betting man. If I were, I would bet that the Polish Canadian who sits opposite will be disappointed next Sunday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: How about betting on the next election?



POST OFFICE


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Postal union members in British Columbia have been threatened with expulsion if they continue to gather names demanding a secret ballot. What protection if any have these workers?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as public servants, they do not have to belong to a union. If suspended, they can continue to work and under the Rand formula, so long as it is accepted, their job is not in jeopardy. If they are threatened with violence, they will have the full support and protection of the proper authorities. If there is any intimidation, as there was in Regina the other day, there will be arrests. The only regret I have about the arrests in Regina is that one of the two who were arrested is a non-postal employee named O'Sullivan. There is one of that name missing from the House of Commons today. I do not know if that is a coincidence or not. However, I can assure the hon. member there will be full protection of the police against intimidation and threats. In so far as expulsion from the union, union membership is not a requirement to work in the post office.



STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-POWER OF PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD TO ORDER SECRET BALLOT ON GOVERNMENT OFFER

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that a substantial majority of the House has indicated they favour some form of secret ballot of the union membership, has the government satisfied itself that the Public Service Staff Relations Board has the power to order such a secret ballot? If not, does the government intend to introduce an amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Board Act making this possible?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, Section 18, in the opinion of some people, does provide the Public Service Staff Relations Board with this authority. However, this is really academic because when


Oral Questions
and if some time in the intermediate and long distant future such legislation is needed, that legislation could provide the Public Service Staff Relations Board with the proper authority and with the proper penalties at its disposal in the event there is any resistence by the unions against the secret ballot on behalf of their workers. Of course, that is a long way away.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister inform this House whether his department or some other arm of the federal government has established a plan to follow very closely the way in which the commitments of the final act of the European conference on security and cooperation undertaken at Helsinki last July are being fulfilled or violated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, a review conference will be held in Belgrade two years hence, in 1977. That is where it will be possible to assess to what extent the principles adopted at the Helsinki conference have been implemented. We have obviously expressed our concern that these principles be implemented, but this will be determined when the evaluation is made at Belgrade.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It is with regard to the postal situation. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to allow the postal strike to continue so as to keep the public's mind off this anti-inflation policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In his absence, I will direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. On July 4, 1972, the former Secretary of State told the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts that the National Film Board would no longer be exclusive recipient of government commissions; it would now have to compete with private producers for all contracts awarded by any federal department or agency. Do the President of the Treasury Board and the Secretary of
[Mr. Mackasey.)
State intend to proceed with the intentions of the former Secretary of State and allow private producers in the film industry to compete on an open market with the National Film Board for government contracts?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot reply specifically to the hon. member's suggestion. I shall contact the Secretary of State and inform the hon. member of the outcome of our discussions.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I raised a point of order with respect to the business of the House prior to the oral question period at 2.15. Your Honour ruled that there could be no point of order raised during that period with respect to difficulties arising in connection with motions under Standing Order 43.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to hear the preamble by Your Honour to the putting of the question, and in this instance it was difficult for me and a number of hon. friends seated around me to hear any objection to that particular motion. I know that earlier this week, on Monday, at the time of a similar circumstance, as reported in Hansard on page 9101, when a motion had actually been put Your Honour permitted the leader of the New Democratic Party to inquire, on a point of order, whether there had been unanimous acceptance of the motion.
In the same way, since it was not possible to raise the matter at the time, I would ask the opportunity tomorrow, while motions under Standing Order 43 are being considered, to put my motion, reserving the right to see whether there is unanimous acceptance.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises an interesting point of order. There is, of course, a fundamental difference between the two situations. In the situation in which the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was involved a few days ago, it was the impression of the Chair that no one had withheld consent. Any hon. member, of course, was in a position to express b's resentment or unwillingness to extend unanimous consent. Further, any hon. member, even though not saying it, might have heard it from an hon. member sitting close by. It is one thing to permit a member to say that the House should take action which it can only do by unanimous consent, when it does not have unanimous consent. On the other hand, when the Chair puts a motion and hears a dissenting voice, that is the end of the matter; unanimous consent does not exist.
So this situation is quite the reverse. Although the hon. member might not have heard a dissenting voice when I asked if there was unanimous consent, I clearly heard at least one and that left me in no position to put the motion or to ask the question a second time.
The ruling I made was simply to express some concern that the revision in our procedures is such as to put a rather self-policing feature on motions under Standing Order 43. We are limited as to time, and in any case they cut into the question period. Accordingly, since they are rather self-policing in that regard, I have withdrawn


extensively from interfering with the subject matter vis-avis the words used in the rule, "an emergency matter". I did, however, express some misgivings as to whether in fact a statement by this House with regard to the use of safety belts had any urgency to it.
In any case, I resolved the doubt in favour of the hon. member, as I usually do. I put the question and I heard a dissenting voice. It would seem to me that, with slight variations or some indication that there might be a willingness to proceed with the matter tomorrow, the hon. member ought not to be in any difficulty, although perhaps he might consider whether that rule might not be as opportune an approach as, perhaps, tabling, with unanimous consent, a notice of motion by this House at the appropriate hour which would meet with unanimous approval. However, that might be something for the hon. member to consider.
While I am on my feet, there are two other outstanding points of order. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) raised a rather interesting objection to the treatment of a question he had placed on the order paper. I am very pleased to advise that, since the matter has now been considered, it is my understanding that there is consent in the House that since the hon. member had received a response by the government which indicated that his question would be answered some time later, under those circumstances his question ought not to have been taken off the order paper. I understand that it is now unanimously agreed that the hon. member has a good point and that the question ought to be reinstated, with the unanimous consent of the House, for an answer later.
To deal with the second point, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) put forward a bill for first reading yesterday. The Chair, noting that the subject matter of the bill pertains to the creation of new exemptions or different treatment for exemptions from taxes, would have serious misgivings that that bill would infringe upon the financial initiatives reserved only to the Crown. In the circumstances, the only fair thing to do is to warn the hon. member now that the next time the bill comes forward for consideration, he would be expected to make some procedural justification for the bill being advanced at that time. There certainly has been some concern about that question.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation |

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture, in both official languages-Mr. Daudlin.
(Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings. |
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,118, 3,179, 3,187, 3,246, 3,269 and 3,492.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Columbia Engineering Analysts and Consultants in Vancouver to explore the history and the future of the uses of particle board and, if so, in what amount?
2.	On what date is the report to be completed and released?
3.	For what kind of distribution was the study conducted?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes, in the amount of $65,125.
2.	Report is nearing completion and release can be expected before year end.
3.	The study will be available free of charge to any interested parties.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many employees are in the Complaints Division ("The Consumer, Box 99") in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	What was the cost of maintaining the Division in the year 1974-75?
3.	How many complaints were received from each province in the past fiscal year?
4.	How many were resolved (a) in favour of (b) against the complainant?
5.	What is the cost of maintaining the Division as related to the cost per application?
6.	Has an evaluation been made to determine the success factor of complaints made to the Division and, if so, what are the details insofar as it concerns the value to individual Canadians?


André Ouellet: 1. The authorized strength of the Individual Consumer Assistance Unit, Consumer Services Branch, is 12. The Unit handles all consumer complaints and enquiries dealt with by the Department at headquarters. Under a decentralization program completed on April 1, 1975, the field offices have assumed responsibility for dealing with the bulk of this workload.
2.	The Individual Consumer Assistance Unit did not exist as such in 1974-75: The Box 99 activities were carried out as part of the programs of the five functional units which comprised the Consumer Services Branch at that time. Total expenditure by the Consumer Services Branch


Order Paper Questions
in fiscal year 1974-75 was $682,000 and 47 man years were used.
3.	Complaints and Enquiries by province for fiscal year April 1, 1974-March 31, 1975-for the headquarters and field activities
	C	E
Newfoundland	549	120Prince Edward Island	195	62Nova Scotia	2,094	472New Brunswick	1,618	389Quebec	6,301	8,482Ontario	10,680	6,231Manitoba	1,253	186Saskatchewan	1,386	408Alberta	1,586	303British Columbia	4,292	1,151Yukon	44	6North West Territories	42	16U.S.A. & Other	168	17930,208	18,0154.	Company Action-Complaints for fiscal year April 1, 1974-March 31, 1975. (a) Adjusted, 4,319; Adjustment Offered, 1,147; Partial Adjustment Made, 446; Goodwill, 283; Total: 6,195. (b) Disputed (Not Adjusted), 681; No Reply from Company, 411; Company Explanation (Not Adjusted), 2,261; Total: 3,353. (c) It is impossible to classify the remaining 20,660 complaints into either (a) or (b). Some were of a general nature; others did not contain adequate information; some were referred to other federal or provincial departments or agencies and in some cases legal action was required.5.	Total expenditure by the Consumer Services Branch for the fiscal year 1974-1975 was $682,000. During this period, the staff in Ottawa answered some 16,281 of the 48,223 complaints and enquiries indicated in 3 above. The Branch utilized approximately 47 man years on a wide range of consumer service activities, including the handling of complaints and enquiries. In 1974/75, the Branch was responsible for: Handling of consumer complaints and enquiries; Preparation of background materials for the preparation of pamphlets, brochures and fact sheets for consumer information and education work; Preparation of background material for the preparation of television shows and radio shows for consumer information; Drafting of speech outlines and collating of speech material for sue in speaking engagements to consumer groups; Preparation of analytical reports and research into consumer problems; Providing guidance to the consulting service in the field; Development and guidance of the Consumer Help Office program. In 1974/75 there were no employees dealing solely with consumer complaints and enquiries and it is thus impossible to arrive at a cost-per-complaint/enquiry figure. The same situation prevails with respect to the costs of handling complaints and enquiries in the Department's regional offices since complaint handling is only one of several services provided through the regional offices.6.	No formal evaluation of the success factor has been undertaken. The ever-increasing numbers of Canadians who use Box 99 seem to indicate that a valuable service is
| Mr. Ouellet. |
being provided. For example, though much of the work handled by Box 99, Ottawa was shifted to the regional offices as of April 1, 1975 statistics for the period July 1-September 30, 1975 for Box 99, Ottawa, reveal a 21 per cent increase in compalints and a 94 per cent increase in enquiries over the same period in 1974. Comments on this service received by the Department are another indication of its value to consumers.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Were the Independent Film Producers consulted or informed about the agreement between CBC and the National Film Board when the two agencies discussed the signing of a $900,000 co-production agreement?
2.	Has CBC and/or the National Film Board hired between 27 to 37 new camera and crew units for producing films of Canada and, if so, how many were (a) new to the industry (b) residents of Montreal and Quebec City (c) members of the Canadian Association of Film and TV Producers?


Miss Colirte Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board as follows: 1. No. The CBC and the National Film Board have been holding discussions on the production of a number of programs but no agreement has been reached.
2. No.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the life span of the $50 air mattresses purchased by the Department of Supply and Services for use by the Department of National Defence?
2.	Since January 1974, how many of such air mattresses have been procured?
3.	Does the Department of Supply and Services rely on a single supplier or do they request tenders for the item?
4.	What attempts have been made to interest other qualified manufacturers to bid on the specialized air mattresses?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. These special air mattresses have a potential life span of seven years, barring any unforeseen damages through use. The mattresses are repairable and when damaged are repaired with the use of a special kit issued for that purpose.
2.	Thirty thousand eight hundred forty-five.
3.	No. Competitive tenders are invited for each requirement.
4.	DSS is continually seeking additional sources of supply for this commodity. Representations have been made to other potential suppliers through correspondence, visits to plants and through meetings. Relevant specifications and samples of the mattresses have been sent to manufacturers to stimulate interest. Alternative methods of construction have been considered to allow more suppliers an opportunity to compete but these changes have not proven to be satisfactory in field use.


Mr. Schumacher: Has the (a) Prime Minister's Office (b) Department of Transport (c) Department of External Affairs (d) Department of National Defence (e) Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (f) Department of Agriculture (g) Department of Labour (h) Department of Manpower and Immigration (i) Department of the Secretary of State (j) Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made any arrangements, or are they planning any arrangements, for the (i) transportation to Canada and return (ii) accommodation (iii) hospitality (iv) transportation in Canada, of any foreign Heads of State or dignitaries in connection with the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976 and, if so, what is the nature, or projected nature of such arrangements and what is the projected cost in each case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: See the reply to question No. 2,334 of April 21, 1975. There have been no further developments to report since the reply to the above mentioned question was tabled.


Mr. Reynolds: What was the total amount paid to outside consultants by the government in the years 1973 and 1974 and what is the estimate for 1975?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: See question No. 151 of October 1, 1974 and question No. 897 of November 19, 1974 for years 1973 and 1974 respectively and the Public Accounts for year 1975 estimate.
| English |


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, on June 20 I placed question No. 2,833 on the order paper in the following terms:
1.	How many consultants were hired by the Fisheries and Marine Service, Department of the Environment, in the past two years?
2.	(a) What were their names and salaries (b) what was their length of employment?
3.	Were public tenders called before they were hired?
In the last five months I have asked three times for an answer to that question. It has not been answered and I should like to ask, through you, sir, just what the government is trying to hide.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) brings us, again, to the subject of the right of hon. members to expect answers to questions. That point was raised in different forms yesterday or the day before by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty). It was raised earlier this session, with respect to starred questions, by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). It was raised more recently by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) in the context of whether a decision ought to be made by the Chair about the regularity of questions on the order paper, or whether it ought to be the right of the government to make an answer indicating that it disagrees with the procedural regularity of a question on the order paper.
I would take this occasion to bring to the attention of all concerned that one would hope that before the Chair would begin to break new ground in the handling of questions on the order paper and, indeed, various considerations which have been put forward, the members of the procedure committee might direct their attention to the
Motions for Papers
entire subject of the handling of questions on the order paper, whether or not the matter ought to be reviewed and whether the understanding or regulations ought to be updated.
In light of the review we undertook last Easter on oral questions which really fall, with respect to the regulations, under those which were first established for questions on the order paper or written questions, I wonder if it is not time, now, to ask the procedure committee to direct itself to the entire question of questions on the order paper in order to try to resolve the many misgivings and concerns which have been raised. Certainly it would seem to the Chair, at least, that this development might take place as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
| English]
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Would Your Honour be good enough to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 59? I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
[Tea't|


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on the development concept involving the provision of full income support to unemployed claimants while they pursue various courses of training to enhance their skills and abilities.
[English\
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: The programs mentioned in the hon. member's motion have worked well over the past five years but are currently under study by the commission. The study is complemented by a pilot project in the province of Newfoundland. However, neither the study nor the pilot project are expected to reach fruition until mid-1976. Consequently, a formal report on these programs is not available and we would therefore request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Marshall:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Criminal Code



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the nineteenth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating he has examined the petition laid upon the table by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Dupont) and found it acceptable as to form.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
| English \

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-71, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Crown Liability Act, the Immigration Act and the Parole Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the sitting last night I had the opportunity to say a few words with respect to these amendments to the Criminal Code which the minister brought forward yesterday afternoon. I was mentioning that the action taken in this legislation to deal in particular with drinking drivers reflects a basic concern on the part of the government that we try to deal with what I referred to last evening as a growing epidemic.
The minister's move, on the part of the government, to introduce stiffer penalties is, in my estimation, both good and bad. It is good in the sense that it recognizes the problem that we are dealing with and with which we have not as yet effectively come to grips. It is bad in the sense that it may encourage people to believe that primarily through introducing this type of legislative amendment we will achieve a substantial reduction in the number of tragic accidents that take place and the number of even more tragic fatalities, or that it might also have a general impact on the number of people who believe that it is safe for them to drink to excess-by which I mean beyond one drink, or at the most two-and still get behind the wheel of a car and drive.
I have been struck in recent weeks, because of tragedies that have occurred in this country and elsewhere, with the growing concern and renewed calls for gun laws to deal with situations which from time to time lead individuals who are mentally disturbed or criminally minded to use guns as weapons of personal destruction. There is no doubt that many Canadians as well as people elsewhere are exercised by the easy availability of hand guns and other similar weapons.

Surprisingly enough, I have also come to realize that people do not share the same sentiment with respect to the number of people who believe that it is within their right, or at least that it does no great harm, to operate a motor vehicle while effectively under the influence of alcohol or some other drug. Yet to me the two situations are extremely similar in nature. They are both examples of the use, the illegitimate use if you like, of very dangerous weapons.
The fact that the automobile is not primarily thought of as a weapon is part of the mythology of our time. But if we total the hundreds of thousands of deaths which occur annually in this country as a direct or indirect result of the actions of drinking drivers, we would be shocked and I think would move to call for the most widespread and effective program that we could introduce. I realize it would not be totally within the domain of the federal government to outline such a program and put it into place, but we would certainly work quite closely, as we do with any other major problems or issues, with other levels of government, particularly the provinces.
In a recent study carried out by the Ministry of Transport on night-time driving, it was shown that one driver in four who was stopped in the course of a random hailing down of motorists driving at night was found to have been drinking. That is an indication that what we are discussing here is not a few people who are criminally minded, people we would consider to be socially irresponsible; we are dealing with what is a widespread social phenomenon, though not a problem where legal enforcement or punishment would achieve the desired result.
It is not as if we were dealing with organized crime. We are not simply dealing with a few people who will be effectively deterred by the kind of increased penalties that are set out in this legislation. As I think the minister is well aware, there are a number of well documented studies that question, in effect, the deterrent impact of legislation and whether or not it can eliminate the widespread practice of drinking and then driving.
The fact is that we have not really begun to consider what it would take to eliminate or substantially reduce the number of people who consistently drive while under the influence. I am inclined to believe the increased fines are really inconsequential. I do not think that the present fines structure accomplishes very much. It may have some deterring or economic impact upon those in the lower income levels, but it does not take into account those in the middle or upper income levels of society for whom a fine is merely a minor irritation. It may be true that the move toward an indictable offence the second time around may have some kind of general psychological, deterrent effect, but I am not overly optimistic.
I believe we are dealing with a societal and community problem of very widespread proportions. I believe these legislative amendments introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) are useful only to the extent that they relate to a series of other measures which will be adopted both at the federal and the provincial level. Unless we are prepared to deal with the wider aspects of responsibility, education and rehabilitation, we will come back here three to five years after putting this legislation into effect and we will see little or no change. Indeed, even with this legislation in place, three to five years from now we might


not have noticed any substantial decrease, and perhaps a possible increase, in the number of people who are arrested and charged for these kinds of offences or, more seriously, the number of those involved in tragic accidents.
This question concerns not only the Minister of Justice, who has well defined responsibilities in his department, but other ministries of government as well. I have heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) express great concern at the general problem of alcoholism in our society, and perhaps he, in concert with other ministers, such as the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), will have to give a great deal more time and attention to the way in which a concerted and comprehensive approach to the problem can be taken.
As I mentioned last evening, the province of Alberta has spent a good deal of time experimenting with a rehabilitation program. The province should be assisted and encouraged in this endeavour. Driver education and re-education programs involving the showing of films on alcohol and driving, as is the case in Alberta, and a general raising of awareness levels would be of some assistance, and it is undoubtedly true that a general alcohol education program for use in schools or by voluntary organizations should be encouraged and would fit very closely within provincial jurisdiction.
The province of Ontario as recently as last year produced a study showing that an increasing number of young drivers are involved in alcohol-related accidents. What impact does that have on the way in which young people are gradually brought into the world of driving in our society? In what way do we ensure that, through driver education programs in schools and through the actual procedure of driver training, temporary drivers' permits and actual driving examinations, there is included at every step of the way a very close relationship to the awareness of the individual of the impact that alcohol, drugs and other mind-distorting materials have on a young person's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely for himself and for others who use the highway?
We have usually regarded this kind of program as somehow peripheral and, while important in itself, not of fundamental importance in making sure that it is part and parcel of an individual's awareness as he undertakes the responsibility of driving an automobile. As I said last night, part of the problem is that things do not happen overnight. Just as we have grown accustomed to having the automobile with us-in this century we have been using the automobile as a basic means of transportation-we have grown accustomed to the epidemic proportions of those who are maimed or killed in traffic accidents.
I think it is really instructive to realize that is spite of the tens of wars that have been fought in this century, two of which we reminded ourselves about recently in our annual Remembrance Day ceremonies, and in spite of the wars that continue even to this day, there have not been as many people killed in all these conflicts as have been killed in traffic accidents in this century. When we relate this to the fact that almost every second traffic accident that occurs is the direct or indirect result of the intemperate use of alcohol or other drugs, we realize we have a
Criminal Code
problem of epidemic proportions and we know something must be done.
I mentioned the education aspect not in the narrow sense but in the very broad sense that would ensure there is an absolute awareness of the relationship between the intemperate use of alcohol and one's responsibility as an automobile driver. I think this has to work itself all the way through every aspect of the whole framework of the operation of the motor vehicle in our society.
We now have a situation in most provinces where insurance laws really act as a disincentive to the reporting of drivers who are guilty of being impaired. I wonder how much leadership the federal government has played assisting provincial governments and major insurance companies to see that there is no disincentive aspect that does not in some way or other incorporate a sense of responsibility for those who have offended the law in this way.
I have mentioned the need for education. I would also like to mention the need-this goes squarely to this bill before us this afternoon-for greater vigilance in respect of the enforcement of these provisions. It is a well known fact that there is one season of the year when the police, federal and provincial, are extremely active in the use of the breathalyzer and other forms of detection. That is, of course, during Christmas and the New Year when there are many parties and perhaps people are much more inclined to get behind the wheel of the car after attending a party when they are not sober or fit to drive.
I think that kind of selective approach is really unsatisfactory because it is obvious to me that we are dealing with a consistent pattern which is not at any one level of society, in any one part of our country, or at any one time of the year. Therefore, if we are to toughen the legislative provisions in this regard, definite action should be taken by our police forces, federal and provincial, to ensure that there is a year-round crackdown and activity in respect of ensuring that this law is enforced. In this way, people will know that if they are irresponsible enough to leave their own home or, more likely, to leave a public drinking establishment and are not capable of handling an automobile, the chances are extremely high that not only will they be stopped and questioned, but they will be arrested and charged.
I should like to make two other points which I think are important in this regard. I have said that I think the action within this legislative proposal is not in itself sufficient, though it will be of some assistance. Governments, particularly the federal government, have to consider the more fundamental question about the degree to which it has become socially acceptable to drive in this country while under the influence. I wonder how much real information we have about the types of drinking drivers that exist in this country, and how much we really know about the most effective way of getting through to them with the message that it is not right, not safe, and is simply no longer acceptable to drive while under the influence.
I think, quite frankly, we need a special task force. I mentioned to the minister last night that some months ago-I believe it was in April of this year-I produced from my own province of Prince Edward Island a report on highway safety because of our particularly shocking situation in respect of accidents and fatalities on the island. I
9246


Criminal Code
called the report "Half in Five". The message of the title was that if we took some definite action-and this is one of the areas we are discussing here in respect of drinking drivers-we could expect to reduce the traffic fatalities and the number of accidents by as much as 50 per cent in the next five years in the province of Prince Edward Island.
I spent a great deal of time on this report dealing with the problem of drinking drivers, because I believe it to be one of the important elements in the province. One of the conclusions I mentioned in regard to the report was that I felt the time had come to have a special task force to look into the very wide-ranging and pervasive aspects of drinking as it affects those who operate automobiles in our province and in the whole of this country.
The resources of the government of the province of Prince Edward Island are obviously limited. Perhaps they are limited everywhere in this kind of restraint. But it would seem to me to make sense, in terms of federal-provincial responsibility, if both levels of government could agree to put forward the funds for the kind of task force that could really make an examination of some of the long-term questions regarding the drug impairment that occurs and the willingness or unwillingness to accept responsibility in the operation of motor vehicles on our highways.
I have already said, and I will not repeat it, why I think that kind of a study would be important and useful. It could have a number of good recommendations resulting from it. There are a number of questions I should like to see raised, not only in analysing all the social ramifications of this large-scale phenomenon in our society but in analysing and suggesting, perhaps, some ways in which we could get at the problem.
We have never spent much time thinking about the co-responsibility or joint responsibility that exists in this regard. While we have these legislative amendments before us, it might well be worth while for the minister and his officials to consider whether the time is not rapidly coming when there must be some kind of joint responsibility exercised by those who are in an automobile and who may not be under the influence but are being driven or chauf-feured by someone who obviously is under the influence. I wonder whether that kind of co-responsibility is not a matter for some form of legal enactment.
In addition-and this is perhaps more of a hunch than a factual conclusion-since a large percentage of the people who are on the highway under the influence have left public premises, it might well be that those who operate those premises have in fact a legal responsibility. What is occurring now in my own province is that in some instances these licensed establishments, if it has been proven that people have in fact left under the influence on more occasions than is acceptable, are simply closed down and their licence is lost. This is more of a judgment matter within the particular jurisdiction of that province than any kind of general law or requirement under the Criminal Code of this country.
However, I believe it is a criminal act for people who, being aware that individuals are going to use their motor vehicles while under the influence, when they may have contributed to that situation, allow it to occur. Perhaps one

of my basic difficulties is that I am not enough of a lawyer-in fact, I am not a lawyer at all-to know hotv that would effectively be put into the law without jeopardizing any other aspects of basic individual human rights.
As long as we have the scope of tragedy, the extent of carnage that is occurring on the nation's highways in this day and age, and as long as we allow many of our fellow Canadians, young and old, to become victims, sometimes maimed and invalided for life because of those who assume they have some important right to drink and drive, we will not be acting responsibly unless we introduce the most comprehensive and effective program possible.
Therefore, I support the initiative that is taken in this instance by the minister but I would urge him and his colleagues not to leave it at that, believing that by itself this measure will be sufficient to solve this very difficult problem.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. Let me simply say that Bill C-71 now under consideration is a technical measure. Its only objective is to update our Criminal Code. Now what is the Criminal Code? It is the sanction of values accepted by society, the sanction of ethics and rules of conduct generally endorsed throughout Canada. It is the sanction, because those rules are accepted by the entire population. Unfortunately, certain strata of society or some individuals refuse to comply with them. Therefore, we have to draw up some regulations to force them one way or another to abide by those rules of conduct or ethics, either through the courts, the police force, the penitentiaries or prisons. Since the Criminal Code is that sanction of rules of conduct or ethics established and accepted by society, it must always be up to date and follow the changes in that total acceptance of values by society which is per se quite changeable. I thank the minister for bringing in these amendments to our Criminal Code through Bill C-71. As I say, these amendments are very technical and tend to fill some gaps that have developed in the course of years.
Indeed, one must not confuse Bill C-71 now before us, a housekeeping measure, with the long awaited amendments that will necessarily follow the findings of the Law Reform Commission which, in recent months, has supplied us with all kinds of work documents and studies on the various aspects it has considered, particularly family law, evidence, sentencing, judicialization, all law matters that have to be reformed in depth. We are waiting for the results of these works with great impatience and I hope we will see them soon embodied in a bill introduced in this House.
Therefore these technical amendments cover aspects of the Criminal Code in almost every reach in sections of current application, be it theft, rape, internationally protected persons or still, more technically, in the field of procedure. In the procedural area, for instance, this bill proposes a number of improvements which law practitioners had been requesting for quite some time. These include Clause 94, page 60, to amend the section on the trial de novo system in summary conviction matters so that, when the


amount is somewhat minimal and when an appeal has been filed, there must be a new trial.
Therefore these provisions on de novo trials will be amended so that courts of higher instance may assess more easily the evidence introduced before a court of first instance, without the appellant having to establish again this evidence. In this respect, I share somewhat the fears which the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) expressed when he said that giving such a power of assessment to courts of appeal could cause problems in terms of court accessibility. I feel however that this difficulty could be examined in committee, as most of the clauses in Bill C-71 for that matter, for it is in committee that they should be examined in detail one after the other.
Since we must discuss the bill's general principle on second reading, I will concern myself with a question perhaps a little more important, that is one of the two or three items dealt with by Bill C-71 which may be of major importance and show, like a lighthouse would do for a deep water harbour or still water zone, what the global reform of criminal law will be like in Canada.
I want especially to discuss the amendments relating to evidence with regard to rape cases. I also want to discuss the protection granted to individuals having diplomatic or international status. I feel there is a gap in this area in Canads which Bill C-71 is trying to fill. There again we will review in committee the consequences of those new sections of the law.
What I want to discuss more fully is the provision about the corroboration and the amendments to the principle of evidence in cases of rape or other sexual offences, amendments brought in by Bill C-71.
Corroboration is a somewhat strange legal phenomenon. In fact, this stratagem of proof, if I can use such terms, was originally introduced in common law to support the evidence of witnesses whose credibility was questionable in the minds of the jurists of that time. We know that in common law and in criminal law, especially in Canada, one proof is enough to convict a person. The one proof is sufficient, precisely to the extent that the credibility of the witness can be estimated.
Now, for instance, in the case of rape, the jury can convict somebody of rape on the strength of the victim's evidence alone. But rightly or wrongly, it has been considered for a very long time, in sexual offences, that because of the emotional aspect involved, the credibility of the witness was questionable to say the least. I want to point out here that, probably more wrongly than rightly, the judge was requested, when making his address to the jury, to make sure he pointed out the dangers of condemning the accused merely on the strength of the victim's testimony. And so, what is corroboration? It is the possibility for the jury of weighing a second proof, a secondary testimony, secondary in the sense that it must not necessarily be related to the main proof. What does that mean? That if, for instance, there is an element of proof with regard to the victim, another element of proof, which differs from the other but is related in a way, of course, to the main accusation, then, there is corroboration and it will be easier for the jury to pass judgment on the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Criminal Code
Therefore corroboration was a type of judicial animal developed specially for particular cases such as sexual crimes, or for cases where children appeared as witnesses, where they are unable to swear to their testimony, or again in the case of perjury, treason, false evidence and finally the testimony of accomplices.
They are quite particular cases where corroboration is necessary, cases where the credibility of the main witness may be very doubtful. Then, we can again ask ourselves if in cases of rape or sexual offences we should demand corroboration. I think that some historical considerations are necessary and that we must realize that 200 or 300 years ago the status of women was not the same as today. The status of women has much improved to become in 1975 equal to that of man.
But 300 years ago the circumstances were different and women perhaps considered as merchandise. What was rape at the origin? It was the fact of taking a woman without the consent of her legal owner, her husband, her father or someone else. The principle of corroboration may stem from that because at the time women were unimportant and it was then necessary to produce more evidence than in normal cases in order to condemn those who made an attempt against that property.
We realize that this concept now belongs to the past particularly in this womens' year that gives official recognition to that principle of equal status on which we all agree. So that whole concept of corroboration and sexual conduct in cases concerning women should be changed and the elimination of corroboration, or rather the address to the jury, is a positive step in this direction.
It is not enough. I think we should come to a more comprehensive and less sectarian definition of sexual offences and stop making reference to sexual offences involving female persons, and try instead to clarify this concept of sexual offence so that it is embodied in the whole section of Criminal Code concerning assaults. It could be an ordinary assault, an assault causing injury, a serious assault, a less serious assault, in short a sexual offence is generally an assault in the broad meaning of the term. I for one would favour the incorporation of offences of a sexual nature into offences of the "assault" type; we should stop considering sexual offences as a little sordid. They are sometimes sordid, but not always.
It is often said that 60 per cent of the cases of rape happen between people who know each other intimately. Therefore I think the scandalous nature should be removed from sexual offences. We must stop referring to sexual offences as being mainly related to female persons. We should include all these types of offences-rape, indecent assault, sexual assault on people who are less than 14 years old-in the sections on assault which are complete, precise, by adding one definition or two to the general nature of assaults; it will be possible to include these offences in sections on assault, thereby removing a little of this scandalous context from the Criminal Code.
So Bill C-71 aims at correcting what had almost become the victim's trial in cases of rape by removing the address to the jury in respect of corroboration, and I think it is a very important step forward. Once again, I agree a little
9248


Criminal Code
however with the reservations made yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary-North (Mr. Woolliams). I appreciated them very much. His very wide legal experience will no doubt be of great help in committee when we study in depth the clauses of Bill C-71. I shared his reservations when he wondered whether henceforth the credibility of the witness could really not be questioned if all emotivity surrounding sexual crimes was truly abolished, and if evidence by the victim alone was really sufficient in rape cases for the jury to render a guilty or non guilty verdict in every case.
I submit, Madam Speaker, as is documented by psychological, empirical and other studies, that the jury is somewhat less stupid than commonly imagined, and that jurors are much more alert and educated now. They can judge by themselves, without the need for an extra witness and for someone to show them the road to follow. They can now judge by themselves the credibility of the witness about to speak before them, and the greater or lesser weight of his evidence.
The jury as an institution and its importance have been been discussed at length. In my view, the jury may be the most remarkable institution in our criminal law, in that twelve people that may not have a solid legal background are asked to examine, in their conscience, the facts that are presented. The jury must therefore rely on facts, and weigh them according to their merit. They must also assess the witness's credibility. I feel they are fully capable to do so without the need of concepts as archaic as corroboration, especially in cases of criminal offences.
In my view, the final solution to all offences in that nature would be, in order to strip them of any obscene aspect they now have, to include them altogether with the sections on assault. This will solve a number of problems concerning evidence, appreciation, publicity and credibility, and all the evidence problems that have developed and that arise in this kind of court proceedings.
Madam Speaker, I said I would be brief, I believe this is a housekeeping kind of bill, to update the Criminal Code. I do not think there is much to say in substance, except that it was necessary precisely to enable legal practitioners to use the Criminal Code in a sensible way. We are all looking forward to the implementation of the comprehensive reform of the Criminal Code following the studies of the Law Reform Commission. We hope that this in depth- really in depth-reform will enable us to do away with all the dead-weight that has accumulated for centuries in the Criminal Code. We hope a thorough study will be carried out to define the goals we aimed at with the Criminal Code, and insofar as the whole matter of crime and fight against crime through a criminal code will be questioned, I shall be satisfied. Until then, I only hope that Bill C-71 will be passed shortly, for legal practitioners badly need it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, like the previous speaker, I wish to make a few remarks respecting Bill C-71, to amend the Criminal Code, superficially I should say, since it is only meant to update the present Criminal Code pending a more thorough reform. However, when that bill was introduced, the Minister, in his introductory statement, said himself that it was somewhat a minor one in that it does not deal with the problem of crime proper in Canada, but is only designed to update
(Mr. Lachance.]
some sections of the act. But the great weakness of this bill is that in updating the legislation, we are updating something which is already faulty. The spirit of the Criminal Code remains exactly the same. The deterrent aspect concerning organized crime and the various types of crimes is also left out. We are only redefining terms, redefining and reclassifying crimes, such as rape, breathalizer tests, paroles, robbery, voluntary homicide, highway safety rules and the power to take proceedings in the case of technical flaws. It will be possible to take proceedings against escapees.
This bill takes the same approach and is in the same spirit as what we have always known in the past concerning our procedure which is, in my opinion, faulty, our crime prevention system, our penalty system and our criminal rehabilitation system. A typical example of this can be seen on page 32 of the bill, in subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 46, which read as follows:
46. (1) Paragraph 454(1)(d) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
In other words, this is only a more exhaustive explanation of the existing act. We are not changing the spirit of the law or our philosophy or our approach, we are simply redefining words. This clause goes on as follows:
"(d) the peace officer or officer in charge is satisfied that the person-
-meaning the criminal-
-should be released from custody, whether unconditionally under subsection (3) or otherwise conditionally or unconditionally, and so releases him."
Further on, in subclause (2), we see once again that the officer in charge-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that at this stage, he must speak to the general principles of the bill and not to a particular clause.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. With all due respect, I am precisely giving a specific example of one of the philosophies of the bill as allowed under the rules of the House of Commons which provide that, at this stage, only the principle of the bill may be discussed.
So this bill deals with parole. Before I was interrupted, I was trying to show that this bill not only does not change our approach to the Criminal Code, but retains the same defective approach, in that just about anybody will Still be able to grant paroles. Indeed, in the same breath the minister tells us: Hurry up, pass Bill C-71 and a little later if you are nice, if you pass Bill C-71-which does not change anything in a defective legislation-we promise you, following the study of the Law Reform Commission, a more in-depth reform later on. And only at that time will we deal either with capital punishment or the use of drugs, prevention, parole.
The minister promises, Madam Speaker, to discuss philosophy as you wish, one of those unheard of reforms. He promises a drastic reform of the Criminal Code, so that Canadians will feel safe at home. Well, that same minister not too long ago humbly agreed to put his head at stake if


the death penalty was applied to certain criminals guilty of the capital murder of peace officers or prison guards.
Madam Speaker, we now have an act that has been in effect for a certain number of years, that is consolidated, but that this cabinet refuses to administer on the pretence that a minister refuses himself to administer it, otherwise he will put his head at stake. It is more or less blackmail in any case, and yet the law exists, the philosophy of the law exists. That is the crux of the matter. We were promised legal reforms but in the final analysis they do not amount to anything, they do not bring a new approach.
Madam Speaker, we have been told the same old story over and over again. I will not mention those 1974 statistics that are available, nor those for 1973 because they would startle you. I would rather quote the 1972 figures on the Canadian crime rate, which happens to be one of the subjects Bill C-71 deals with.
As the previous speakers have said, the crime rate in Canada is up by 13.9 per cent. I would like to add that in 1972 there were 2.9 victims of premeditated murders per
100,000	population, compared with 1.9 in 1971. This means an increase of one victim over that period. By the end of 1972 there were still-but that is another aspect of the problem-74 unsolved murders. This year in the city of Montreal alone, the Canadian metropolis, over 175 or 180 murders were committed. In 1972, 1,244 persons were charged with murder, including, 1,168 adults and 76 children, which points out another aspect of the crime problem in Canada, namely juvenile delinquency. How many probation officers do we have in our rehabilitation establishment for youngsters? If the minister says he is that interested in rehabilitation, how many probation officers do we have to help our youngsters who, due to a bad family environment, to evil influences, to inexistent or broken families take to the streets to commit burglairies or other offences, are sent to juvenile detention centres where they learn every possible trick to commit other offences, because such institutions are schools for criminals-and I dare say this for I personnaly visited some of them a number of times.
Madam Speaker, one just has to spend a day or two at the welfare court on Bellechasse Street in Montreal. It is worth going there to see teenagers and children testify before a judge who does his best to understand them but who cannot replace their parents.
When given a second chance, those young people have no assistance and are misunderstood just like the criminals who are supposed to be rehabilitated. We should not then be surprised, Madam Speaker, if society is not prepared to co-operate and join in the rehabilitation of criminals.
Madam Speaker, we have to pay a certain price if we want the individual to be respected in our society or if we want to have order in our community and among others, the government and our legislation must encourage our police forces and lend them efficient and daily support.
Here is a very specific example. Let us suppose that an armed burglary occurs in a jewellery shop. The owner is notified and calls the local police. The police arrive on the premises. Their specific role is to protect the life of the citizens and their property. That is what they are paid for.
Criminal Code
They go there to protect jewels or a private business, those policemen must then be ready even to risk their lives-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Lapointe is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Marceau:: Madam Speaker, no doubt the remarks of my hon. friend are interesting but I think we will be considering a legislation that will deal with capital punishment and all those matters which will then be relevant. Right now I would ask the Chair to remind the hon. member that he is not talking about the subject matter of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Lapointe should note that the bill also bears on the Parole Act.
I was listening to the hon. member, and he tried to relate his remarks to the release on parole of prisoners. For the time being, I invite the hon. member for Lotbiniere to continue his speech.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, I go back to this very specific example. Police officers, on behalf of all, governments and society, will attempt to preserve not only the citizens' life but also their property. They have to make a choice, and that choice is made on our behalf, in the name of society and that of this country's authority, namely to do everything to protect themselves and protect the citizens' life.
If gangsters use weapons, police officers must also use them to defend society and property. This is where the whole tragedy occurs; we are talking about it today and the Law Reform Commission, does the same and we will talk about it again if the minister honours his promise to proceed with an in depth reform of the Criminal Code.
When our law enforcement authorities obtain equipment which is at least equivalent to that which is available to gangster chiefs, forces are matched; laws must be applied on the basis of our trust in our police forces.
Well, it is the opposite which happens now in our society, for policemen are doing their jobs, risking their lives arresting gangsters, and often losing their lives or their limbs in the process, as was recently the case in Victoria-ville, Drummondville, Moncton and several other communities. Later on, gangsters are put in jail where they live in comfortable cells, judgments in their case are quickly rendered and, not long after that, we hear that they are out again and that they have committed other crimes. Who decided that they should be released and why? Very often, some of them are even paroled by mistake. Such was the case recently in Montreal. They have to run after the prisoner. Madam Speaker, the morale of our law enforcement authorities has never been so low. Even if we adopted the most beautiful gold-lettered Criminal Code unanimously endorsed by this House, if in daily practice we were not able to give our enforcement authorities the necessary confidence and the assurance that they are backed up by the legislative authorities, we would have wasted our time. This is true whether we want to maintain law and order or administer this legislation.


Criminal Code
Somewhere in this bill, there is a provision on road-side screening devices. It is the same thing. This is enforced every day. That is what is meant by protection of society. Many people would like to go through red lights and stop at green lights. That is what I would like anyway. But the law is not made that way, Madam Speaker. We have to abide by it. There must be some order in society. We really must have the mind and the will to enforce it.
That is why I cannot believe in the seriousness and goodwill of the government when it agrees that the Minister should put his head on the block on the matter of capital punishment, when we already have a legislation which is not enforced or which the cabinet refuses to enforce.
Madam Speaker, that is why I am very sceptical about the mini-reform which Bill C-71 constitutes; finally, it is nothing but a very superficial rewrite.
I would describe it as window dressing. It will allow some policemen to say that the federal Parliament takes care of order in society, but it will change nothing in the rising crime index in Canada, the failure of the rehabilata-tion program in the last four or five years. Nor will it change anything in the speed with which justice is done today. We need but look at the number of people who wait for months and months before appearing in court; nor will it change anything in the type of scandal we read about in the newspapers, and which are brought to light thanks to the extraordinary work of the Quebec Police Commission probe into organized crime. Full pages of it are published; yet, we had a Criminal Code. I remember how, in 1968, we studied the omnibus bill which dealt with all manners of subjects.
I remember the then Minister of Justice saying how wonderful the bill was, that it was a new approach. It was fantastic, it would allow the tracking down of gangsters to come, thanks to the use of electronic wire-tapping devices. Well, this is more of the same. It demonstrates once again that our approach is erroneous, that we are not really sincere in the fight against crime, that we are not really efficient in the rehabilitation of criminals.
Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve my remarks on this subject. Since it bears on general points, I shall certainly follow this bill closely and, unlike the minister, I am not overly anxious to approve a bill which, ultimately has virtually no meaning. It would be important to tell the minister that his endeavour, his patience in listening to us are basically a waste of time since this bill changes absolutely nothing but words; it contains no in-depth change.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Madam Speaker, may I first of all identify myself with some of the remarks made by the hon. member who immediately preceded me in this debate, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). I think it is just as germane, with all respect to the interven-or, to discuss what is not in a bill as it is to discuss what is in a bill; that is, to discuss, particularly on second reading, what is contained therein.
I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and I agree with

what he said. He said that this bill is an updating of the Criminal Code, a housekeeping measure, simply another in the series of patchwork measures to amend the Criminal Code. Those who have been victims of the old Criminal Code, or those of us who act as counsel, may have other views. I am delighted to see the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) here; I am sure he is familiar with the legislation.
For many generations we have been living with a code that has been, because of public pressure or otherwise, or government leadership, subject to updating from time to time. I do not want the minister or anyone else to misunderstand my remarks. This is absolutely necessary in any moral legislation. But those of us who agree with what was said by the hon. member for Lotbiniere feel that perhaps the time has come to approach the code in a different way and take a broader view.
I do not want to prolong this debate and I intend to confine my remarks to that part of the bill related to sexual offences. I should like to deal with some of the others becaue they concern all of us-problems of the highways, problems of alcohol and all the heartache and sorrow they bring, as well as the bail provisions-but in the interests of time I shall deal only with that part of the bill relating to sexual offences.
I have no complaint about the substance of these amendments and I am most anxious that the bill move into committee where there will be the opportunity for questioning and applying some flexibility. I should like to find out what prompted the wording of some of these amendments, and where the government intends to go with them; what threat they feel the amendments will answer in our society. What concerns me about this bill and many of its predecessors to amend the code is the lack of responsiveness or responsibility to come to grips with the whole spectrum of sexual offences.
Yesterday, the minister spoke of this bill as being part of a series of measures that would be responsive to a real, genuine concern of Canadians. I agree absolutely. He spoke of an ongoing review of the Criminal Code to reflect the changing attitudes of Canadians. I agree with that. We have to be responsive. When people are fearful of bodily harm or of property damage, we as legislators have to be responsive to those genuine concerns. I agree with the four aspects that prompted this legislation. The minister spoke, first, of the need to develop updated information; second, of the need to respond to the recent prevalence of certain crimes; third, of the need to deal with persistent problems that recent attempts had not been successful with; and, finally, he spoke of the need to modernize procedures. I agree that all of this is responsive government action.
This has happened with the Criminal Code for years. I can only refer to it as a patchwork of certain areas. We are responsive to that particular action whether it be because of pressure in our constituencies, interest groups bringing it to our attention, or any number of other sources of pressure put upon us. What I question when I read a bill like this is the responsibility of this reaction. I am not saying that the bill is irresponsible. I do not say that at all. I question whether there is the responsibility that is necessary in this type of reaction. What is lacking, in my opinion, is the responsibility to deal with the larger prob-


lem. The hon. member for Lotbiniere dealt with that. In the area of sexual offences, we are dealing with only three or four offences.
In my opinion, more responsible action, rather than a responsive reaction, is called for in dealing with this part of the code. I do not confine that observation to sexual offences but I think it happens to be a rather good one. It happens to be the one we are dealing with in Bill C-71. I have had limited experience in the criminal courts. I practised criminal law for a while and thought I knew a little bit about it. When preparing for this debate, I was amazed at the vast variety and number of sexual offences contained in the Canadian Criminal Code. Some are specifically crimes against women. In other words, the sex of the victim is what we look for in search of that provision in the code which prohibits a certain form of behaviour. Others are simple crimes, unacceptable behaviour. It is the nature of the behaviour rather than the victim either directly or by implication being sexual behaviour.
Statistics Canada lists 14 categories of sexual offences. These are not individual offences, but categories. I am not an individual who becomes enthralled by statistics, but I could not help noting in the Statistics Canada report which covers three years-1969, 1970 and 1971-that in two of those years, 1969 and 1970, there were only nine of the 14 categories in which more than 15 convictions were secured in that calendar year. In 1971, the third year covered in the report, there were only seven categories with more than 15 convictions. I find it rather remarkable that there were numerous categories of sex crimes in which 15 or less convictions were registered in any year.
At the other end of the scale is the relatively high number of convictions in one or two categories. I find that in the category of indecent assault on a female there is roughly double the number of convictions than in any other category. I think we can draw only one conclusion if we look at this question intelligently and objectively: this charge has become a catch-all; it is a basket clause for all clauses where we cannot register convictions for much more serious crimes. When there is any doubt about how the Crown prosecutor will proceed with regard to a sex crime, he will proceed with indecent assault on a female person. In my opinion, the incentive which must exist to do that indicates there is something basically and seriously wrong with the Criminal Code in this particular area.
Second, the Statistics Canada report impressed me by the fact that there were extremely low conviction rates in many areas compared with the number of charges laid. In terms of percentage, in many cases there was well below a 50 per cent conviction rate. On the other hand, on the specific charge of indecent assault against a female, the conviction rate was between 75 per cent and 85 per cent. Again, something has to be seriously wrong when within this group of 14 categories we find that in 1971 there was only a 48 per cent conviction rate for attempted rape, 42 per cent for corrupting morals, and 49 per cent for rape, while indecent assault on a female or indecent assault on a male had a 75 per cent conviction rate. There is something inherently and basically wrong with that structure when we have such a variety not only in terms of number of
Criminal Code
convictions but in terms of convictions based on the total number of charges laid.
Third, the Statistics Canada report reveals that except for convictions for rape and procuring, over 50 per cent of convicted sexual offenders were either fined or given suspended sentences. I find it very difficult to determine the reason for this, particularly having in mind the maximum sentences that these various charges carry. The maximum sentences that can be imposed at the discretion of the judge are extremely high, yet over 50 per cent of the cases, with the exception of rape and procuring, resulted in fines or suspended sentences. I cannot reconcile all these very compelling statistics. They indicate that at least one section of offences under the code is not operating in the way one would expect. What concerns me on this last point of 50 per cent being fined or given suspended sentences is the possibility-I go no further than that-that our courts do not attach that degree of seriousness to these offences which one would expect of the judiciary, especially in light of the maximum sentences judges are capable of imposing for convictions under these sections.
I might also refer the minister to the Statistics Canada report which is entitled "Statistics of criminal and other offences, 1969, 1970 and 1971". In particular, I would ask that he note the rather substantial number of charges for indictable offences that were reduced to lesser offences. All of us who have practised in the criminal courts are familiar with the situation of plea bargaining, for example, where one is able to convince a Crown attorney to proceed on a lesser offence. In this particular area, however, I am astounded at the number. I do not wish to quote the statistics; they are available to the minister and his departmental officials. I am referring to cases reduced from indictable offences to lesser offences. All of this makes me wonder whether the Criminal Code is really in touch with the realities of the seventies.
I have to wonder when, if ever, the minister and his department will come to grips with the over-all problem of dealing effectively with the whole range of sexual offences or the whole range of other offences in the code. There are several offences against property, offences against the person, and so on. Let me confine myself to this aspect today, namely, sexual offences.
I am very impressed with the material I received from the Law Reform Commission. However, I am afraid I have been impressed before. I have read reports that have come to grips with the very difficult, over-all problems. As a practising lawyer, I have never been the beneficiary of any approach by government at the federal level other than a patchwork one desperately trying to keep our code up to date. In other words, I ask the minister at some stage to resist the historical tradition of this approach to the code.
I suggest, in all seriousness, that certain law school classes-I think specifically of criminal law and evidence classes-occupy a very large percentage of their time with the professor pointing out to the students the anomalies, inconsistencies and contradictions that inevitably are available to such a professor because we have approached our criminal justice for such a long time in the manner I have described.
In looking through the Statistics Canada figures, I wonder why we still have a provision for the offence of


Criminal Code
seduction of female passengers on board vessels. I think it is still in there. It certainly was in 1971. I am sure at one time it may have been necessary. I can imagine the period of large immigration of young women coming to Canada to work as domestics, being away from home, without protection of any kind, on a very long and difficult sea voyage from Europe to Canada. Maybe at that time it was essential that something be done, although I rather doubt it; I think other sections could have covered it. Why, in the seventies, we should be preoccupied about the seduction of female passengers aboard vessels is something which escapes me.
There are other provisions we should be questioning. Rather than reacting to the difficulties of society in a somewhat reactionary manner, we should be working out more positive responses. Why should we be so concerned about sexual intercourse with a female employee or with the seduction of a female between 16 and 18? Surely there are other parts of the code capable of dealing with this type of behaviour. When I look at the section covering seduction of female passengers on vessels, I think it would be more pertinent to worry about the seduction of female passengers on motor bikes, or hitch-hikers. If we want to regulate, let us do so with regard to female passengers on motor bikes, and female hitch-hikers. I do not think we should be reacting; I think we should be acting.
I am afraid the code is a series of regulations which display little leadership. There are many things we can discuss in committee. There are questions to be answered, and possibly some amendments to be made to these amendments. I hope that at some stage we shall begin dealing with things that are a little more pertinent. I have to ask myself and my colleagues in this Chamber, what is "previous chaste character"? Is it credibility we are looking for? In four sections of the code, if I am correct, the words "of previous chaste character" are operative words for the court to consider. I have to ask myself why this is in the code. There are, obviously, certain circumstances in which credibility, pattern of behaviour, or any number of things may be interpreted in the light of previous chaste behaviour, but surely we need not make operative words such as "of previous chaste character" of such importance.
Again, I wonder why, except in rather remarkable circumstances, we should identify the sex of a victim. Indecent assault of a female is one thing; indecent assault of a male is in another section. I ask myself why we are so preoccupied with identifying the sex of a victim. There may be occasions upon which this is necessary, but if we agree with this type of wording, why should the sex of the animal not be specified in offences involving bestiality? It is as absurd as that. I would hope that when changes are forthcoming in response to the work of the Law Reform Commission or otherwise, the minister will come to grips with that sort of question.
With respect to Bill C-71 as it deals with rape and related offences, we are dealing of course with myths, as we always do. The myth is that a "bad woman" is incapable of being raped. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) dealt very effectively with this aspect yesterday. We have to deal with the myth that the credibility of a "bad woman" is immediately in question. I was never sure

what that phrase meant. As a lawyer, all I knew was that it was of benefit to hurl as much dirt as possible in the direction of such a woman, hoping that some of it would stick and that the jury would disbelieve what she said. We avoid making a value judgment as to what is good or what is bad; we simply try to paint her bad or good without asking ourselves what is good or what is bad in today's society.
I am just trying to help the minister because I have a great deal of respect for him. I hope he will not be tempted to follow a course based on reaction but, rather, that he will act positively to lead the code in directions which are not only more practical and more realistic but more in keeping with the integrity of the House, of the department and of our fellow Canadians.
I shall not deal specifically with the various sections. On second reading I would prefer, rather, to generalize. I wonder whether the minister should not be thinking of completely eliminating the offence of rape. When I consider all the aspects the Crown must prove in a rape case, I can think of behaviour which lacks those certain elements but which might be far more offensive to the victim, or to society, than rape. One important part of a rape case is proof of penetration. I can think of behaviour toward a victim which is far more dangerous than that-although it is, of course, a serious matter.
My hon. friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said yesterday that perhaps we should be thinking in different terms. I suggest this to the minister for whatever it is worth: I wonder whether in this whole area we should not be thinking in terms of assault rather than intercourse. After all, that is the nature of a rape case; it is intercourse by assault. If you can prove there has been no assault, you can prove consent, which is a good defence. If we really wanted to come to grips with this area of the code, we would be thinking in terms of assault. The nature and the degree of the assault would be reflected in the sentence. If it were a horrendous assault resulting in grievous bodily harm, that would be dealt with in terms of the sentence. The crime would be criminal assault on a male or a female. I do not know why we should not consider that aspect. It is not necessary that bodily harm result, though, again, if bodily harm did not result that would be pertinent to the sentence imposed on persons committing such offences. I very much question whether it matters whether the victim is a male or a female. I think we should be directing our minds to these points.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken more time than I had intended, but I feel strongly about these matters and I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution. These amendments, regarded in a very narrow light, are good. They are another in a series of amendments that have been made over the years. If we continue our present course, I suggest our successors will likely see the same amendments 20 or 30 years from now. I hope that in his new portfolio, in which I sincerely wish him well, the minister will regard the Criminal Code, not as legislation that should be patched, plugged, enlarged or restricted but, rather, as a great challenge, one that the minister is capable of coming to grips with. Speaking for myself, I look forward to the time when legislation is introduced, not dealing with iso-


lated amendments to the code but demonstrating a really genuine and new approach to criminal justice in Canada.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, with my non-legal mind I have been listening to the arguments made in this debate particularly on the subject of assault. I know I will get myself into a great deal of trouble if I, in a non-legal way, try to discuss the subject in the way the previous speaker did. However, I have always wondered why cases of assault have not been divided into various categories, such as grievous assault and other kinds of assault, which establish a distinction in the minds of people between assault on a man, assault on a boy, assault on a woman, assault on a child. Each one of these assaults has a different name, and the newspaper reports of them usually are as detrimental as the changes themselves. Much has been said lately about the problems a person may face if he is the victim of assault, to the extent that in Ontario victims are compensated. Eric Silk has been on a commission adjudicating cases brought for compensation for victims of assault, and surprisingly not nearly enough people who have been assaulted want to apply for compensation for their traumatic experience.
The amendments to the Code are, in the main, legalistic but a number of changes reflect public opinion and some of them can be discussed by laymen as well as those trained in the law. I should like to refer to several of the clauses in the bill indirectly and discuss them.
One part of the bill of interest to me is the change to the Criminal Code prohibiting possession of devices designed to obtain telecommunications service without payment. When I read this part of the bill I asked myself whether it was an attempt by the federal government to correct what happened in the province of Quebec recently when Bell Canada took someone to court for using extensions not provided by the company. It appears to me that the government is now putting forward this sort of legislation to make it easier for telecommunications companies to protect themselves in a field in which they legitimately believe they have the right to make charges for equipment, when that same right is not given to other utilities.
When you buy water from your local town, or a sewage connection, you are entitled to put in a Crane bathtub or one from New Departure, or any other make of bathtub. You do not have to use one supplied by the town. You do not have to use taps approved by the same authority. All you have bought is water service and you put in the connection. It is true there may be some municipal by-law limiting the number of people living in the house, probably because they do not want the sewage system to be overloaded. The water service is often metered and you pay for the amount of water used, but, as I say, they do not insist on a specific type of facility being provided.
The same is true with hydro. One of the things that the founder of Ontario Hydro, Sir Adam Beck, took into consideration when hydro was bought by the Ontario government from a number of private companies was that they would supply electrical power and facilities at very low cost. The company then started to manufacture electric light bulbs and a number of other attachments of an electrical nature for which Ontario Hydro were trying to
Criminal Code
set a standard. Finally, this idea was abandoned and anyone could buy an appliance so long as it was of an approved type. For example, a Moffatt stove can be connected to an electrical circuit-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member is dealing with the amendments to the Criminal Code. Perhaps he would limit his remarks to the amendments to the Criminal Code.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, on page 20 of the bill a clause has been added which affects use of services in the field of telecommunications. It is my impression that what the government is trying to do is to give back to Bell the right to own and supply, for a fee, all facilities used in telecommunications systems, including house telephones. The courts in Quebec told the telephone company they are only entitled to charge for that which belonged to them or for additional facilities that they put in.
There are a number of companies that sell telephones, recording devices, answering services and a whole range of facilities that meet standards of approval. These items are not provided by the telephone company on lease but are owned by the householder who has them installed. I used the example of hydro, water and a number of other facilities so as to indicate that in no other field has a utility demanded more than entrance into the premises and payment for rental of any equipment provided by the company at their expense.
I hope the minister is aware that a number of private companies sell telephones and provide answering services. If he is working only in the interests of Bell Canada to ensure that only Bell facilities are to be used, he is doing a disservice to the public. I hope this is not his intention. I hope he is not objecting to people using crystals that are used for channels already being used by other facilities. It is not illegal now for you to buy a crystal, if you know the type you want, for a scanning device. It is not impossible or illegal for you to buy such a crystal and use it.
I hope the minister is not, through this all-embracing clause, trying now to do something that was an oversight in the previous legislation regarding wiretapping. I will not pursue this matter, but I say that from the public point of view it may be very upsetting to find that we are now passing a piece of legislation that will give the right to a telephone company to come into your house and tell you what type of device you may use, being only those devices the company is willing to rent you, rather than allowing you to buy the facility or device for installation according to your own requirements.
The second point I should like to touch upon concerns another very difficult problem about which the minister may have had some thoughts. Perhaps he may always have been so well off he has never bought a used car. Therefore, he may well believe that the police have the right to arrest you with the presumption that you are guilty until you prove your innocence. When one buys a used car it may well be that that car has been stolen, or contains parts that have been removed from stolen cars.
9254


Criminal Code


Mr. Basford:: Madam Speaker, may I correct the impression of the hon. member by informing him that I bought a used car this spring, and this summer spent $750 for a new transmission.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, the minister should have checked, because there should be a serial number on the transmission. If it was a rebuilt transmission, it probably came from some other car and in that case he should be skeptical, because the car from which it came may well be a car that was stolen for the purpose of supplying used parts.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He bought it in Vancouver.


William Arnold Peters: I am not suggesting anything wrong on the part of the minister, but if he bought a transmission that was rebuilt, it may well have come from a car that was stolen just for that purpose. I am not suggesting that is what happened, but that is what he is suggesting should be the law in these amendments.
Automobile models in recent years have a small identification tag close to the windshield on the front dash, where it can be seen. In the past there were serial numbers on only the chassis and the engine of a car. I am sure most people in this House have never looked at the number on their engine to see whether it corresponds with the number on the dash. It is up to the Crown to prove, first, that a car was stolen and, second, that the person buying that car knew it was stolen. We had a very bona fide car dealer in my home town, supposedly, from whom a number of people bought cars. It was later found that he was buying from a stolen car ring in the Rouyn-Noranda area and all the cars he was handling were stolen. When this was discovered the people who had bought cars from him found they did not own those cars. It seems to me that is a big enough penalty without saying in the legislation they are guilty of an offence for buying those cars.
If a person knows his car is stolen at this date, or even that changes have been made in the serial numbers, then he is guilty of an offence. If we make this change, it appears to me that in a non-legalistic way we are saying that such an individual has the onus of proving that he did not know the vehicle was stolen when he purchased it. Therefore, such an individual is presumed guilty until he has proven his innocence. That is a mistake and will lead to abuse. But it fits in well with what this government is doing in many cases; it is taking away the rights of the individual.
Let me give an example. This government has put through legislation that allows the police to search you at airports. Perhaps it is extending that now to the highways, so that the police can sit outside hotels where they know people are drinking. They can wait for these people to come out and immediately arrest them. In such a case the police will know that those people did not spend two or three hours in the beer parlour playing horseshoes, or whatever they play in beer parlours.


An hon. Member:: You wouldn't know that.


William Arnold Peters: They play darts, or whatever it is they play on those small tables-not pinball games.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I don't know.


William Arnold Peters: Stan has never been in too many beer parlours, either. But these games are somewhat like curling, which you play on a small table.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Shuffleboard.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, shuffleboard. It is not likely these people have spent three or four hours in that beer parlour playing shuffleboard without having something to drink. The cop can just sit outside and when these people come out, get into their cars and drive out onto the road, the cop can arrest them. The individual does not have to give any indication that he is driving improperly by crossing the line, or something of that nature. The police will automatically pick him up. This will be a beautiful way for the lazy cop to get his quota: he will probably be able to pay his salary very easily in a small community.
Every time there is a dance in these communities, the police could sit on the roadside and pick up the people as they come out, and they would be presumed guilty. It seems to me it would be much fairer to say that all beer parlours in the country could serve only two drinks to each person at any one time, and if more than two drinks were served the bartender would be guilty of an offence. This might be better than allowing them to sell as much as they can, and then send them out on the road where the police can pick them up, knowing full well that if they stop every car they will get a conviction in 75 per cent of the cases.


An hon. Member:: Think of the increased conservation of gas.


William Arnold Peters: This may be a way of curtailing consumption of gasoline because the police would not have to do very much driving: they could just park at the one place and wait for the customers to come to them. I suppose they do this in regard to bawdy houses. That is why the police do not like freelancers on the street, because they have to go and look for them rather than standing outside the bawdy house waiting for the men to go in and then raiding the place.
It seems to me the minister is doing a lot of things, in response to public demand for law and order, that really will not create law and order. It seems to me that many of these things favour the police and do nothing for the individual. I am sure if you asked people in this country how they felt about prohibition, you would find they were not in favour of it; yet they might agree to allow the police to sit outside our hotels arresting everybody who came out onto the street. That is an exaggeration, but that is what appears to be said in these amendments.
We have had great difficulty in providing any kind of defence to the breathalyzer. I remember suggesting on a number of occasions when the breathalyzer legislation was brought in that there be a method provided allowing the defendant a breathalyzer sample for his own use. You will remember that the then minister of justice, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) promised that when a breathalyzer sample was taken, a sample would be provided for the use of the defence. To my knowledge, that has never been successful and has been discontinued.
What we are really saying in this legislation is that these people on the road are guilty, so the police might just as


well take along a receipt book and collect the fines. With the changes proposed in this legislation, they might just as well confiscate the cars and take the drivers down to the hoosegow, because they are going to receive a sentence in any case. I think the public should know that, or should be aware of the fact that this is exactly what is going to happen under this legislation. That is why I am opposed to it.
There are many changes proposed that are necessary and worth while, and we should congratulate the minister for them. I am not particularly bothered by the clause in respect of cattle rustling. I think it is amusing that we should go back 100 years and insert a special provision to prohibit cattle rustling. However, I am completely in agreement with those who maintain it is a very serious problem, even if some people derive quite a good living from it. It is a serious offence. The offence is always related to the price of the animal. There is difficulty involved in meeting the normal requirements of proof when only the insides of the animal are left in someone's field.
There are some interesting offences. One which I believe deserves an explanation from the minister is the one concerning begging. I would think the minister would be ashamed to include such a clause in Canadian legislation. When we have to legislate in the way they do in India or in some of the near East countries to prohibit begging, then I think we should do something about unemployment and the payments paid to welfare recipients so that this would no longer necessary. When we find it necessary to write legislation, in 1975, to prohibit begging, this says something about our society which would be better left unsaid.
There is another clause in which I am interested, although I am not qualified to speak on it and I hope no other member of this House is. It involves the problem of detention of the mentally ill. It relates both sentencing and the question of whether or nor these individuals should be tried. In my area, I have found quite often that the psychiatrists to whom these people are sent are crazier than the people sent to them. Often these people could be certified under any definition we might use. I know some of them. They would not meet any of the criteria a normal person would use in determining sanity. I know a young lad in my riding who had a serious problem. He was sent to Penetanguishene. When he returned, his doctor informed me that the would probably never be normal again. We sent him there for examination, and that is what happened to him while he was there. It seems to me this situation is often repeated.
Places like Penetanguishene would be very good places in which to produce horror movies. There probably are not too many places where one would find the kind of people who are in charge of such institutions. The people in these institutions to which we refer people are not the types who can do anything for them. I respect the judge who is sympathetic with these people, who remands them for examination and then sends them to places where he hopes something can be done for them in the way of assistance, so that they will come back with a recommendation for further care which will eliminate the need for a trial in respect of the offence they may have committed. Then
Criminal Code
there are judges who sentence people for a period of more than two years simply so that they will be able to get them into a federal institution where they can obtain psychiatric help. I have visited many of these institutions and I believe that such a judge is misguided. I believe more serious consideration should be given to this matter.
There are good institutions. I think particularly of the Clark clinic in Toronto. It has a very good reputation. Unfortunately, it is not one of the institutions to which people can be sent by a court. This institution has done remarkable work with disturbed people. It is the kind of institution to which I believe judges think they are sending people.
In this bill we are making a number of amendments concerning the mentally ill. I believe this to be one of the worst problems we have in our whole criminal structure. In this regard, I do not believe we are able to obtain the type of advice that is needed for our courts, our prosecutors or the defence. When a person is sentenced, he is frequently sent to a place at which he will receive absolutely no assistance in correcting his mental difficulty. In many cases, the difficulty will merely be accentuated because of loneliness, frustration, segregation and the other things which quite often are the fate of those committed to penitentiaries because of unacceptable, antisocial crimes.
It is right that we should try, in respect of the Criminal Code, to correct some of these things in relation to the mentally ill; but if there are no suitable institutions to which people could be sent, then it seems to me we are merely satisfying our own conscience by passing this legislation. I am sure that any lawyer in this House who has had anything to do with criminal law, and has seen a person committed to our mental institutions, knows full well that such an individual is being sent into a situation which will cause the deterioration of his condition and certainly will not help him overcome the anti-social condition he had which took him out of society in the first place.
One matter which has not received attention in this bill is that of adjournments. Sometimes when a person is charged with a small offence and attends court, he finds that the defence lawyer is not feeling good on that day and adjourns the case. Such a person has the expense involved of bringing his witnesses again and hiring a lawyer. The next time he attends court, perhaps in another two weeks, the Crown prosecutor may stand up and ask for an adjournment because he has a golf game or some other important activity. On another occasion, the judge may decide that he does not want to hear the case at that time because his holidays are coming up. Believe me, this happens very regularly during the summer. In some instances a case is adjourned for two months.
It seems to me that when many of these cases are adjourned for periods of eight or ten weeks, justice is not being done, it is not seen to be done, and in my opinion it is being abused by those who are supposed to protect the judicial system. I am quite sure there are legitimate reasons for cases being adjourned, but I do not think the excuses I have heard on a number of occasions in court are legitimate excuses which warrant bringing the person charged back into the court week after week at considerable expense, and sometimes at the loss of his job.
2995 6-3412


Criminal Code
I have mentioned that some of the provisions in this bill, I believe, are the result of overreaction on the part of lawyers to a legitimate call for law and order. I also think that a number of things were left out which should perhaps be in this bill. But I hope that members of parliament will not consider it necessary to tighten the laws to such an extent that the rights of the ordinary citizen are jeopardized and he is penalized for actions which he takes which are not detrimental to society.
A great deal has been said in the last few days about drinking drivers. I am impressed with the amount of my money that the insurance company is spending to carry out surveys to find out how many accidents have been alcohol-related. I have paid for these surveys. I have not had an accident for a long time, but my accident insurance goes up and up, partly because the insurance company is trying to protect itself rather than doing something about problems over which they may have some control, one of these being the issuance of large sums of insurance money in the payment of claims, which allows people to drive when they should not be driving.
The insurance companies know very well why they collect such large premiums, and they have control over that money. It is also a fact that drunken drivers have been the cause of far too many fatalities. But I suggest that our criteria are wrong. A police officer judges the situation when he sees a car going off the white line or wandering over the road, the driver driving erratically or behaving in an abnormal way. This warrants the stopping of that car and allows the policeman to ask the driver to step out, and if he has reasonable grounds to suspect the person may be under the influence of alcohol he will take him for a breathalyzer test, against which there is almost no defence.
We did not supply the police with the means with which to test drivers on the spot, but we accept the results of the breathalyzer machine and that becomes the overriding factor upon which to convict the driver. However, the police officer need not observe any unusual behaviour; all we require is that if a driver is stopped and refuses to take a breathalyzer test, regardless of whether he has been drinking he is arrested and may be convicted. Even if there has been no abnormal behaviour and a person is observed only to have left a party, a beer parlour or some function where alcoholic beverages were served, the police officer may wait until the man steps into his car and before he even drives it can require him to take a breathalyzer test and arrest him if he refuses. That may be a great way of raising revenue for the police force, but it seems to me the minister should be fair and should provide the public with some protection against such things as speed traps and the kind of trap I have just described, both of which are permitted under our judicial system and are designed to fleece the public.
Everyone in this country agrees that if a person is unduly under the influence of alcohol so that his judgment and driving ability are affected, he should not be driving. But we do not ask him what his IQ is, and we know there are people who have driving licences whose IQ is very low and whose reactions are very slow. Some very good drivers who have more than the permissible level of alcohol in their blood are able to function much better than some
people who have taken no alcohol. I watched some tests this summer of people who had taken drugs or alcohol, highly qualified drivers who drove cars on the track under controlled circumstances. It was surprising to see that those people did a lot better, even after taking large doses of drugs or alcohol, than most of us in this chamber could do, because they were highly skilled drivers and for them to be half capable still meant they could drive much better than most people.
So I suggest that we should not get carried away and pass laws without providing any defence for the ordinary citizen. We should not take away the rights of an individual on the whim of a police officer. It seems to me that the breathalyzer test is a terrible law and lawyers should be opposed to it. I have spoken to many lawyers, including Arthur Martin, whom I consider to be perhaps the greatest criminal lawyer in Ontario. He agrees that the ordinary citizen has no defence in these cases and that this is deplorable. He said it is unfortunate that we have not been able to develop any kind of equality between prosecution and defence in breathalyzer-test cases and in the operation and supervision of tests, and that we have been unable to give the defence a decent break. The law now extends to drivers who have more than two beers and it would apply even, I am sure, to most members of parliament who visit Your Honour's quarters on occasion and are served refreshments, following which they drive home. Yet we are the people who will vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has never been impaired since I have known him, not even on tomato juice, and this might apply to others here. But there are other hon. members who would be hypocrites if they voted for this provision in the bill which would convict them after drinking 2 Vi beers. This is the kind of change for which lawyers are asking now. We have many prosecutors and defence lawyers in the House who are very learned in the law. They should also be learned in common sense, because they seem to lack it when they get bogged down in the details of the complicated amendments in the bill before us.
I call for some defence of the average person who today may believe that this is a good bill, but when he is arrested will consider he is being harassed and unduly prosecuted. In my opinion, he would have grounds for thinking so. It seems to me that justice should also be carried out with regard to these people.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, having been a member of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs since I became an MP in 1968, I am pleased to take part in this debate, not to lengthen it, nor to make revolutionary suggestions, but merely to voice my frank and sincere views on the proposed amendments.
The bill amending the Criminal Code is one among several others which are part of the permanent review of the Criminal Code, a necessary operation-as regards substance, procedure and evidence-to take into consideration



the development of outlooks and create more effective means to control crime.
It is also seen as an opportunity to assess the results of recent amendments and bring further alterations. Increasingly, criminality takes an international turn. The amendments concerning conspiracy and the laundering of illegal income deal with that problem. Some practices of our modern way of life involve the increasing use of credit cards, which incites and even compels the legislator to attack specifically such problems as theft or fraudulent use of credit cards and swindling in matters of telecommunication.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments introduced at the present time are the result of various cases of some specific problems that have risen and in others, the awareness that the existing provisions have become outdated. These amendments, whose purpose is to remedy some problems that have already risen or that are expected, follow to a large extent the recommendations made by the criminal law section of the conference on uniform legislation, by the Canadian Bar Association, the provincial attorneys general, police departments and the general public opinion. Therefore, it is a participation process involving all segments of the population. Besides, the works of the Law Reform Commission will very likely lead to new recommendations along this line.
The bill now before us, Mr. Speaker, is only one of a series of bills introduced in recent years to update the Criminal Code. To me this updating is necessary if we want the Crimianl Code to remain an effective instrument of control in an ever-changing society.
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed amendments aim at making the code provisions clearer and more precise where there have been difficulties. One of the most obvious areas is that of bail. The main purpose of the Bail Reform Act enacted in 1972 was to prevent an accused from being detained under guard without real necessity before his trial. However, it was soon realized there was an obvious need to make some provisions harsher so as to close the door to abuses capable of jeopardizing the consistency of the pre-trial release system. The general rule remains the same. When someone is arrested and appears before the judge, he must be released on bail unless the Crown gives the judge convincing reasons in favour of his detention. The changes are important, however, for in some cases they hold the accused rather than the Crown responsible for proving that public interest does not warrant temporary detention. Such could be the case of an accused who is waiting for his trial for a previous criminal act, after having abused the liberal provisions of the parole system.
The provisions governing driving while under the influence should be further defined and strengthened. Under the current provisions of the Criminal Code, a police officer cannot demand a breath sample unless he has reasonable and probable cause to believe that the driving ability of an operator is impaired, which is practically without effect, and except for breathalizer tests which, under a number of provincial statutes, law enforcement officers may carry out on the spot and at random, they cannot take preventive measures to discover delinquents.
Criminal Code
Alcoholic drivers are a serious and constant threat on our highways. That is why the amendments proposed today would authorize the police to make road controls, to track down possible law breakers, when an agent has reason to suspect that a person is driving in a state of drunkenness. Of course, we will need the co-operation of the police forces if those amendments are not to be used to the detriment of the population. But I feel we must show confidence in those who are entrusted with the heavy responsibility of keeping order, and who have to use their judgment every time circumstances warrant it.
Mr. Speaker, another objective of the bill is to introduce in the penal code provisions to deal with the crimes that make the headlines in our society. The increase in international gangsterism creates a serious problem for our own forces. That is why we must change our Criminal Code.
Whoever has in his possession what he knows to have been obtained fraudulently commits a crime. However, that provision applies strictly to the object that was stolen, not to whatever it has been transformed into later on.
The amendment introduced today and which I fully support provides that it is illegal in Canada to be in possession of goods or proceeds while knowing that they were obtained by criminal offences committed either in Canada or in foreign countries. This amendment is meant to prevent the entry in Canada of forged goods stolen or illegally procured, but touched up, and to strengthen law enforcement forces in their fight against international gangsterism.
What is the most important, in my opinion, in the proposed amendments, is to update certain parts of the Criminal Code to catch up with the change in the way of thinking of the public. Under the amendments discussed in the House, electric billiards machines, which dispense as prizes free games, are excluded from the group of prohibited slot machines.
This change in the way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, is reflected in the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with electric billiards and lotteries.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recall that in Quebec, games of chance play an important role and are a source of income for a great many people. Now, Mr. Speaker, if a man in Ontario operated a slot machine and was charged, he was fined but the machine was not seized. In Quebec, in similar cases, not only did the offender pay the fine, but the machine was seized, so much so that people in Quebec were being discriminated against and yet they were not operating the slot machines in a more illegal way than people in Ontario.
This provision, Mr. Speaker, will allow people in Quebec to operate the machines and it will create and protect a substantial number of jobs. I know what I am talking about for having been appoached by many people to make representations in order that the legislation be extended to allow Quebecers to take advantage legally and normally of the games of chance, legally controlled. Of course, abuse should be avoided and people should not be encouraged to spend their salaries in games, but there is still a mentality in Quebec which we should respect, and this is to spend large amounts of money on games. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a personal remark and oppose one of the


Criminal Code
provisions in this bill. One of the amendments is aimed at removing corroboration in the case of rape.
I would like to speak strongly against this amendment which I think is not realistic. As attorney for the defence, I had the opportunity, on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, to attend trials with people charged with rape. I had the occasion to face one of the most perfect scenarios prepared by Crown attorneys who urged their clients to wear the most sexy clothes of course, as they were women. A scenario whose purpose is unfairly to influence the jury which from the outset is sympathetic to the woman in the witness box who has been the victim of the abuse. There is, in my view, in that kind of trial, an implicit condemnation of the accused and by removing the corroboration requirement we would place the accused in an unfavourable position to the extent that the basic principle of our legal system, namely that the accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, would practically no longer exist.
I grant you, Mr. Speaker, that it may be difficult for a person who has his first experience in court to express himself easily, to present his problem in a thorough and fair manner, and that, in case of a rape, the victim must be given the chance to explain her case and be protected by the law. But that is a long way from placing the accused in jeopardy. I think the bill goes much too far and does not take certain situations into account, all the more so since rape victims have often placed themselves in a situation which invited the attack. Those women have sometimes placed themselves in a position where they are in-


Some hon. Members:: Ah, ah, ah!


Gilles Marceau: I am not punning, they are positions, which both in theory and practice have induced the accused to succumb, almost unwillingly. We should try to achieve a balance, a form of justice between the accused and the suspect. But I think the legislation goes slightly too far in that respect. Anyway what I am asserting today might well be proved by facts. But I do intend to keep an eye personally in my own area on trials in that respect, and I do intend to return to the charge if it actually happens that the accused, who has a right to be defended, is the victim of an injustice, even if I agree forthwith that rape crimes are sordid crimes which should in no way be protected by the law.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments are the symbol of a constant concern for the keeping of law and order in our society on the part of the public, the police force and the government. We all too often have the feeling of a lack of balance in that respect. It is important that the interests of people be safeguarded and protected from particular individuals or groups. At the same time, we have to protect individual interests and rights. But that protection should by no means be achieved at the expense of society as a whole. I intend to vote for the proposed amendments in spite of the restrictions I voiced. However, this gives to understand that a global reform of law, which is presently being studied by a commission, will be carried out as soon as possible, for criminal and penal law is one of the most important and essential tools for the protection of society. That law should therefore be adapted to the present needs

and take collective and individual rights into consideration. I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion in that matter, and I hope we can pass that bill soon and enforce it just as soon, and bring more amendments to it as often as the need arises.


Mr.  R. Gordon. L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will not take too much of the time of the House, but I am interested in two aspects of the bill and I want to address myself to two particular clauses. I will keep within the Speaker's injunction of not particularizing at this general stage. I want to pay some attention to clause 75; I suppose one might term it the Morgentaler appeal provision. Obviously, the case of Dr. Morgentaler is the reason for this change in the Criminal Code. I congratulate not only the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) but the former minister under whose auspices this essential reform is placed before us.
It is a very fascinating study to look at the Criminal Code and try to discover why Canada got itself into this position relative to appeal procedure. I asked the library of parliament to look at this question when the issue had so much publicity some months ago; then I had some research done by Mr. Arthur Blakely of the Montreal Gazette, who wrote a most interesting column on the subject in the July 2 issue. It was found that this provision in the Criminal Code came about without any debate at all in parliament. I think one member, Mr. Tommy Church of Toronto, objected to the provision. It came about under the auspices of a liberal-both capital and small "1"-member, the late Mr. Ernest Lapointe, minister of justice. As far as we were able to discover in research, parliament passed it without any comment at all.
The origin was in the 1923 amendment to the Criminal Code when the provision for narcotics offences was inserted. The provision was that there would be no appeal. This is a very cursory and rather simplistic comment at this stage of the debate, but years before, in Britain, a criminal court of appeal was set up. As was usual in those days, Canada lagged behind substantially: in criminal cases there was no appeal procedure. Senator McMeans of Winnipeg should be honoured by the Law Society of Manitoba for getting the then government to amend the law and provide for an appeal procedure. In any event, the government bought the package. I am sorry I am falling into using contemporary cliche. I determined that I would never use the word "package," but I find it all around me. We have packages of housing and packages of law. Here I am, caught in the same cliche.
In any event, the amendments were approved by parliament. As I understand it, until the Morgentaler case no court ever reversed a jury's verdict. If I am not correct about this, I hope that at a later stage somebody will tell me so. I hope I am not inflexible. The government has now seen fit to deal with what, more than civil libertarians, anybody who has an interest in law reform must have seen as a serious aberration in the law.
I want publicly to pay tribute to Mr. Blakely for his column and historical research. I hope one day the Law Society of Manitoba will in some way remember a senator


who did something that a government was not prepared to do except as a compromise back in 1930, namely, having an appeal procedure.
I want to refer, as many of my colleagues have already, to the sections dealing with sexual offences, rape in particular. With the greatest respect to a person for whom I have great admiration-the previous speaker-I feel, and I hope we can talk about this at the committee stage, that it is insulting to the victim of rape to say, as I believe he did, that in many instances she is asking for it. This is one of the oldest slanders on women. I am surprised that an otherwise progressive member would fall into the trap. It is an old one, it is an ugly one, and it is one that I personally deplore.
Lord Chief Justice Matthew Hale, the famous seventeenth century English jurist, assured himself of immortality when he wrote the words, "Rape is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, though never so innocent." The trouble with the jurisprudence in this part of the law is that most people would agree with the seventeenth century chief justice. I suggest he was wrong. Rape is, indeed, a most vicious crime. I do not for one minute say that my hon. friend thought otherwise; I just meant that his attitude about victims was wrong.
Four out of five rapes go unreported. It is fair to say categorically that women do not find rape an accusation easily to be made, despite the chief justice who in his time and place was reflecting attitudes of a government of a couple of hundred years ago. Those who do report their rape soon find, however, that it is indeed hard for it to be proved. We have extensive records to show that this is the case. By and large, a successful legal defence is rather easy.
This quotation is from a horrible book-horrible in its statistical data but a very powerful expose on the history of rape. It is called "Against our Will", written by Susan Brownmiller. It is a very contemporary book that was just received by our library. She wrote that the law requires that you examine with caution the testimony of the female person named in the information. There is the injunction that is slanderous, or bordering upon slander. There is no other crime of which I am aware where the deponent is not believed or needs support. However, in the case of rape a man usually does not believe the person; therefore, all sorts of unpleasantness results in the trial. I quote from the book:
That the testimony of the female person should be examined with caution is the bottom line in all rape cases from the moment they are reported to that rarer moment, if ever, when they are actually brought to trial...
To a woman the definition of rape is fairly simple. A sexual invasion of the body by force, an incursion into the private, personal inner space without consent. .. constitutes a deliberate violation of emotional, physical and rational integrity and is a hostile, degrading act of violence that deserves the name of rape.
The fact that many people have been able to speak about this subject freely is a healthy sign. This has been after a good deal of persuasion, mostly by women and, in a very dramatic way, by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. A great deal of supporting documents have been prepared, for example by M. H. Rioux and others, and all have raised our consciousness about the subject.
Criminal Code
I congratulate the government for making a move, but I am saddened by the fact that the move is not the reform called for by the Law Reform Commission. The Law Reform Commission said that the matter of the woman's character should not be relevant in a rape case. I, for one, would have supported the minister had he seen fit to go to that extent.
I have just a couple of other comments to make. One is the interesting discussion by a very modern, contemporary judge, Edson Haines of the high court of Ontario, in Chit-ty's Law Journal of February, 1975. Mr. Justice Haines, in summary, felt a good deal of improvement could be made, not only as the minister proposes but in the attitudes of the various attorneys general and their Crown prosecutors. I hope the fact that in many of our larger cities, rape crisis centres are being established is a positive thing. I also believe that in every case where a woman is laying a charge or laying information, a woman should be present. Most of our police forces now have women police officers and this is something the municipal police forces and the RCMP could very well do.
The code changes must be supported, when parliament adopts the minister's bill, by a change in procedures, a change in our attitude toward this crime. The attitude of many people is that this is just another event in a person's life; it is tragic; it will be a nuisance to try to catch the perpetrator of the crime, and it is all part of the indignity done to women. Witness the newsstands today. I am, heaven knows, no advocate of censorship, but I think there are instances when our respect for one half of the population, or over one half of the population, should lead us to want to exorcise this evil from our newsstands. It is really one of the most insulting things which can be done to a woman.
At any rate, I hope that with this mini-reform-I call it that; I think the minister could have gone a little further; he could have accepted the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission-the attitude of the police, Crown prosecutors and men in general will undergo a fundamental change. I hope many of my colleagues will see fit to try to get from the library Susan Brownmiller's book, because it tells a terrible story, I am. sorry it has taken so many years, in parliamentary terms and in terms of civility, to recognize rape for what it is.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time, I believe, on which I have had occasion to address the new Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Basford) in his new capacity. I should like to express my congratulations to him on assuming this position. I think it is an honour for any member of the bar to be named to such an important portfolio. It is particularly important now, when, as the minister himself said as he opened the debate, concern for the whole question of the prevention and detection of crime and decent security in our country is a matter of great public importance in the minds of Canadians. He also said Canadians have a right to enjoy a sense of safety on the streets and in their homes and cities, a right which has long been a hallmark of our country's way of life. I use exactly the words the minister used in the opening of his


Criminal Code
speech. I think it is important that that be said, because whether we like it or not-and as a lawyer I do not like it-there is a feeling in Canada that perhaps in terms of the administration of justice we have got a bit out of balance.
Perhaps that feeling is caused by the fact that there is a feeling sentences are not long enough, that the administration of justice in terms of penalties is not harsh enough in terms of the realities of Canadian life. Perhaps it has been brought about by the fact that our criminal law is codified. A number of things could have caused this impression. I shall not be partisan, because there will be other occasions when we shall be dealing with other matters and we shall say things about the importance of the administration of justice. Perhaps it is caused, as well, by the fact that we tend nowadays to look, in terms of the administration of justice and the administration of the criminal law, to the causes of crime rather than to the penalties for crime.
For some reason it has gotten about in society that a penalty is not a deterrent. I cannot bring myself to accept that view. It seems, having taken that position, that we have tended to overemphasize the importance of the crowding of the cities, the depletion of good housing and all the other social factors which we say somehow or other make it not necessarily the fault of the perpetrator of the crime. That is the impression, and I think it is a very dangerous impression. I am happy that this bill will go some way toward changing it.
I have no doubt that those things cause a lowering of social conditions and perhaps breed attitudes which cannot be combated by our treatment of perpetrators of criminal conduct, but there is a danger that in some respects, in terms of the administration of the law, we are getting further and further away from the principle that a man or a woman is responsible for his or her conduct, and that if the norms of society are breached there is a penalty to be paid. Perhaps what I am trying to say is that, in terms of the administration of justice, we are perhaps confusing the problem of the rehabilitation of the prisoner with the protection of society.
I, for one, think it is not brutalizing to say that the emphasis ought to be upon the protection of society. That is why we are having demands for gun control; it is not just because of past events. It is why we are taking a more harsh look at capital punishment and a number of other matters. It is just as much part of law reform-and this bill is one with respect to law reform-that we recognize that the enforcement of the law and that the penalties provided for breach of the law fit the crime and the criminal, and it is to this that the court must address itself. An old Scottish judge once said, "Show me the man and I will interpret the law". I think we should consider the wisdom of this ancient Scottish judge who many years ago spoke in that way.
Another matter that is not within the federal jurisdiction but which nonetheless is important to us when we consider any reformation of the law is this. Not only should justice be swift, it should be sure. It should be also fair in terms of what the criminal as well as society can expect as a result of the commission of a certain crime. I

think this is what the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) was getting at when he said, in speaking of the offence of rape and related offences, that really they are all assaults and that we ought to examine the sentences we prescribe for the different kinds of assaults that there are.
I remember speaking to a retired military officer who had presided at many courts martial and appeals from courts martial. He told me that there was no question in his mind, from his experience-which was as great as any judge educated in the law in any province in this country-that there is a deterrent effect if one knows that breach of what are rules of conduct is going to lead (a) to a charge, (b) to a conviction, (c) to punishment fitting the crime, and that this is swift and sure.
One of the problems that was pointed out to me by a provincial court judge in our city, a man young in years but wise in terms of experience, is that what happens in this country generally is that between the time a man is charged with a crime and the final disposition of the trial some six to nine months elapse. This becomes important in considering the effect of bail laws. Our bail laws have been interpreted as saying that, subject to certain conditions, an accused has the right to walk free. We cannot consider the operation of the bail laws without considering the operation of the courts. When a person accused of a crime is then allowed to walk free, police officers with whom I am acquainted have told me that many crimes are committed by people on bail. I should like to see some statistics in this regard and I hope we will have some to consider when we deal with the bill in committee.
I am not suggesting that the slowness of the courts system is the fault of the Attorney General of Canada, because it is not his jurisdiction. I am merely saying that, in considering the way in which we are to interpret the bail law or how the bail laws should read, we should recognize that in terms of the operation of the courts and administration of justice in all of the provinces of this country there is a slowness today which not only can lead to the walking of the streets by people likely to commit offences, but which offers no deterrent since the administration of justice is not swift and sure. I think these are matters we will have to consider as we go down the road and deal with this bill.
I understand the minister wants to speak and close this debate, but I should just like to turn to one other matter raised in the course of the speech of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The hon. member spoke about the road testing provisions of this bill and said they were an invasion of people's civil rights, that they did something to the operation of the criminal law in Canada. With great respect to him, I think he is wrong. In considering this question, the most important aspect has to be public safety.
I look upon the provisions proposed in the legislation as an extension of the public's concern not so much for the person who uses an automobile while his ability to control it is impaired, but for the safety of the person with whom the driver may come into contact. The number of deaths, injuries and maimings resulting from the combination of alcohol and automobile driving is such that we cannot deny that, without some additional protection beyond that which we now have, the public safety will be neglected, and the Attorney General of Canada could be criticized for


Criminal Code
much crime has gone unnoticed. Generally speaking, I hope I am regarded as progressive in terms of the law. I have had the honour to practice in this city for a number of years. I think most members of the bar are inclined to look at the law as a living thing. I think they are also inclined to say from time to time that legislatures do not move fast enough to keep up with the dynamics of society. This is an attempt by the Attorney General and his predecessor to do that, and to the extent they have done so, which I think is reasonable, I look forward to the committee hearings on this bill.
In closing, I want again to commend the Attorney General on his appointment and to wish him well in a portfolio which is extremely important to every Canadian.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take only a few minutes to present one or two points in respect of Bill C-71. I understand there is a disposition to give the bill second reading before we adjourn today. First, I should like to commend the minister for bringing in Bill C-71 and specifically the provisions relating to sex-related crimes and to rape in particular. I recall a lady coming into my office a few weeks ago and describing her experience and the difficulties she faced at the preliminary hearing and those she would be facing immediately after that. I commend the minister for taking a look at this serious problem and bringing in provisions regarding these crimes.
I want to speak very briefly on the provisions in the bill relating to interprovincial lotteries. One might say that the whole matter of the acceptability by the public of lotteries is a foregone conclusion. If we want to measure the success of lotteries in terms of participation in the Olympic lottery or, for that matter, the western Canadian lottery, I suppose we might find that they are very well received. I should like to present to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) one or two points of view. I seriously question whether at this time-I am not trying to be negative with regard to the bill, but I would like to present the concern I have-we are well advised to permit the promotion and use of lotteries for the purpose of raising money for possibly very justifiable and good causes.
Let me draw attention to the promoters and advertisers of the western Canadian lottery who use the slogan "It's my turn". They have clever ads in the hope that you will participate in the lottery. I should like to point out that in this country there are a fair number of provisions in the law to protect the public from misleading advertising and I am wondering if the western Canadian lottery advertisements are not, in fact, bordering on misleading advertising in using that slogan; because if you look at their various ads you come away with the impression that one of the people in the ad is going to win the next lottery, which is not the case at all. They might, but you do not even know if they have a ticket.
The real point-and I would like to present this very seriously to the minister-is whether we are not encouraging, through the provisions in Bill C-71, participation in lotteries which may be for a good cause but the advertisements for which might create false hopes. I wonder whether the bill does not encourage betting on a large scale, and whether it is not just another move to promote more

widespread betting facilities, off-track betting facilities, for example. We know that lottery tickets are being bought by people living at the poverty level who hope to improve their lot. So I would like to present my concern to the minister and say to him that I seriously question whether the legalization of interprovincial lotteries, although they enjoy wide participation by Canadians, is really in the best interests of the Canadian public at present.
The second point I should like to make relates to the provisions regarding breathalyzer tests and alcohol-related crimes. I believe that driving an automobile is a privilege in our society and that it carries certain responsibilities. Many of us have been concerned when another person has been involved in an accident and it is proved that the person involved in the accident was impaired. But often the attitude seems to be that the person was not entirely responsible. There is a feeling in society that a person who is impaired and involved in an accident often gets off easier than the person who is not impaired and gets involved in an accident.
I commend the minister for the provisions he brings in, especially in view of the fact that youth is turning more and more to alcoholic beverages. I shall refer to a study made by Dr. Morris Chafetz, director of the national institute of alcohol abuse and alcoholism in the United States. He points out that in the United States alone, by the tenth grade 50 per cent of the nation's youth report that they are drinking at night in cars. I am sure the minister has other statistics with regard to murders, assaults, rape and other sexual crimes wherein the use of alcohol is an important factor in their commission.
In our society we all feel that we want to be happy and good looking and to remain forever young and have hair on our head. For example, what do we see in the alcohol ads on television? The liquor ads we see show young people who are good looking and having fun together with friends. This is the type of promotion we use. We do not show what happens when there is alcohol abuse. I should like to encourage the minister to enforce our legislation, whereby those who are convicted of impaired driving are taken off the road and their licences lifted for a period of time. I do not believe fines are effective, at least not in our society today. It is one of the risks people have to take.
I said that I would be brief. I commend the minister for taking at least what I feel to be very positive steps. Through a public education system as well as enforcible laws we can show society that alcohol abuse is not to be tolerated and that the carnage on our highways, loss of property, loss of life and loss of family relationships are prices society simply does not want to pay. Rather, we should direct our attention to prevention, and where there is the commission of a crime under the provisions, the law should be very swift and very sure. I commend the minister for this bill.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to have spoken, but I understand there is a feeling that we should finish the bill by tonight, if the minister could assure us that his comments will be completed at least by 6.30 or if we could agree not to see the clock until they have been completed. I really hoped to deal with the question of laundering of funds because I know the government is expert at that. I have here a transcript of the proceedings


where one of the people involved in the Hamilton harbour case pleaded guilty. It makes the most fascinating reading and it is really an expose of how laundering of funds can be carried out. However, I am going to deprive myself of the opportunity to speak about that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Use it
tomorrow.


Gerald William Baldwin: -so that the minister can wind up this debate tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should advise the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to my feet to be kind; then we had the interjection of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It is regrettable that he missed some of the debate because, I think we had a useful, thoughtful and thought-provoking debate yesterday and this afternoon. I regret that the hon. member for Peace River has interjected the first partisan note into the debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, it was not partisan.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In order not to detain members, may I quickly acknowledge very sincerely the kind remarks that many have made on my appointment as Minister of Justice. It is a somewhat awe inspiring position when one considers the predecessors from both sides that have occupied the office in Canada. I say awe inspiring, and somewhat intimidating, knowing the very eminent counsel that occupy places in this House and also those in the House who, while not lawyers, have a very deep and informed interest in matters relating to our criminal law. I truly appreciate the comments and can assure hon. members that I have always tried to conduct myself with an open mind with regard to suggestions on policy coming from all corners of the House, and I shall continue to do so.
We have had a very thoughtful discussion on this bill and other matters relating to the criminal law and the administration of criminal justice in Canada. I am not able to deal with many of the points raised in the five minutes left to me. All I can do is deal with the very useful points that have been made on such questions as rape, bail, drinking offences, conditional discharges, comments about gun control, and other things, when the bill is in committee, which presumably will be next week.
Because the debate did range a little-and I think that was useful-I want to put the bill in perspective and make it clear that this is one of the series of Criminal Code amendments that this House has now become used to. We are putting through the House, almost yearly, amendments to the Criminal Code of a substantial, procedural and evidentiary nature in an attempt, in a very complex society, to keep the Criminal Code up to date in substance and direction. Bill 71 is one of the series of Criminal Code amendment bills offered in an attempt to keep the law up to date.
Many members touched upon a point with which I agree completely-that simply amending the law from time to time or annually adjusting the Criminal Code is not solely
Criminal Code
the way to deal with the criminal law and criminal justice system. This is an important bill which makes important changes to the law substantially and procedurally but, as hon. members have pointed out, there are many other things that have to be done and need to be done.
I want to assure hon. members that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and I will be introducing a further series of amendments to the Criminal Code which are more comprehensive than Bill C-71 and will contain very important measures relating to law enforcement, prevention and detection of crime, changes in the parole system, release of prisoners and many other matters of importance. Some members pointed out that we have to go further than simply amending the law; we have to be concerned about the administration of justice. I agree with that.
At the attorneys general meeting held in Halifax on October 23 and 24, I suggested to the attorneys general and got their consent and approval to the appointment of a committee to examine things such as the prosecutorial responsibility of government. This committee is now at work determining which level of government should be prosecuting which crimes, with the objective of determining which is the most effective rationale and effective distribution of prosecutorial responsibility in this country. I just want to read this into the record:
That the committee be further instructed to report upon the feasibility of specific actions that might be taken, in the form of administrative and other arrangements, for the more efficient utilization of available court facilities and prosecutorial personnel by both provincial and federal authorities in areas of prosecutorial responsibility that are of concern to both authorities.
That is a beginning in the way of dealing with the question that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) raised about the delay in the administration of justice. The object of that committee's work and my work is to ensure that where there are criminals and criminal activity, the matter is investigated, put before a prosecutor, put before a magistrate or judge and dealt with as quickly as possible.
Across this country there are very long case loads. There are long delays between an investigation and a conviction. That is bad for the administration of the criminal law. It is demoralizing to the police officer who, often at considerable danger to himself, especially one working as an undercover agent on a narcotics offence, often at great expense to the taxpayer, and after a long and most thorough investigation, to have to wait six or nine months or maybe a year and a half before the case comes to trial and there is a conviction. That is bad for the morale of the police of this country. It is bad in terms of the criminal community. They think they can take advantage of this system of delays that are occurring in the administration of justice. They feel that because the law takes so long to work, they have a certain immunity. It is also bad from the point of view of the community which asks, I think legitimately, whether in fact the laws of this country are being enforced. Those are three things to which we should address ourselves.
Other members touched upon the Law Reform Commission and its work. I simply want to put it in the context of this bill. The Law Reform Commission has done, and is doing, an immense amount of work in the area of criminal law reform. Over the next three of four years we are going


Criminal Code
to see in this House and in this country a great number of measures to implement some of the proposals of the Law Reform Commission.
The Law Reform Commission has issued working papers on the meaning of guilt, principles of sentencing and disposition, discovery, restitution and compensation, fines, diversion, limits of the criminal law, obscenity, imprisonment and release, the criminal process and mental disorder. Some time in the near future we will have other working papers. At the beginning of the year we will have final reports from the commission on a code of criminal evidence, sentencing, pre-trial procedure, mental disorder and change in the substantive criminal law.
I am concerned, as are other members, that this work of the Law Reform Commission and the money, knowledge and opportunity that has gone into it do not just sit on a shelf somewhere. Already within the department I am gearing up people to take those reports, analyse them and make recommendations. I have persuaded the provincial attorneys general to appoint, with me, a co-ordinator so that there is co-ordination between the federal government and the ten provincial governments with regard to the work of the Law Reform Commission and the implementation of their reports. However, as has been emphasized by
many members, law reform is not solely a question of changing the law in this House or some provincial House.
As the commission has pointed out, and as many members have pointed out, we must change our attitudes, our procedures, our whole technique involving the administration of justice in this country. The work of the Law Reform Commission is important and it is for that reason I recently appointed Mr. Justice Lemaire, who has been vice-chairman of the commission, as chairman upon retirement of the present chairman. Thus, not only will the commission continue to have the advantage of Mr. Lemaire's capabilities but there will be continuity in the work the commission has been doing. I want to tie Bill C-71 into the further amendments which will be brought in through the Criminal Code and with the work of the Law Reform Commission which is very much before me and before the officials in my department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, November 5, it being 6.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Thursday, November 20, 1975