1975-11-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the existence of restrictive regulations by the Canadian Transport Commission seriously limiting domestic and international scheduling in Canada by air carriers other than Air Canada and in view of the statements of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) both inside and out of this House that he was prepared to remove or amend these restrictive regulations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to immediately make a statement on motions outlining the particulars of changes to be made to regulations of the Canadian Transport Commission to facilitate reasonable competition with Air Canada by other carriers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity arises from the complete deadlock in the negotiations between the post office and postal workers. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the government to appoint a mediator in the postal dispute who would be instructed to attempt to achieve a settlement within 72 hours and failing this would publicly submit recommendations to be considered forthwith both by the government and by the membership of the postal workers' union.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important matter of pressing necessity.
Since interest rates are mainly responsible for higher housing costs in Canada and considering that it has become urgent to reduce those excessive interest rates to make the purchase of a house financially attractive to every Canadian and as the federal government has already taken the first step by introducing a bill aimed at granting assistance under the form of an interest-free loan during the first five years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the federal government take the necessary steps so that the assistance granted under the form of a loan free of interest during the first five years be extended to the duration of the loan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in regard to a document issued by the Prime Minister's office a while ago entitled "Questions and Answers on the Initial Guidelines" and circulated by Colin Kenny, director of operations in the Prime Minister's office. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin, as follows:
That in view of the fact that Executive Consultants Limited of 151 Slater Street, Ottawa, whose president is a former employee of the Prime Minister, namely, William Lee, have reproduced exactly and in entirety under their own letterhead and apparent authorship for circulation to their clients the exact document issued by the Prime Minister's office on government guidelines, the House requests the Prime
9182

November 18, 1975
Air Transport
Minister to state whether this firm operates under contract with his office, whether anyone in the Prime Minister's office or the government has an interest in this firm and, specifically, who gave Executive Consultants Limited permission to copy and misrepresent as their own this government material.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion of pressing and urgent necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Considering that construction workers and mechanics have to pay for their own tools which they need for their work and that tools are very costly; that without these tools, workers cannot do their work, and to encourage workers and protect them against excessive price increases of such tools, in spite of the fight against inflation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That this House request the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) to introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to permit deductibility of cost of workers' tools from their income.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the guidelines issued last Friday by Mr. Walter McLish, director of civil aviation in Canada, to make the English language the only language to be used for air to ground communications on instrument flights and visual flights at more than 9,500 feet of altitude, while no provision prohibited the use of French before, and since this could seriously affect and even disrupt completely the air service of the government of Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House be allowed to discuss immediately this important matter which turns out to be somewhat comical and inconsistent, since
[Mr. Cossitt.)
on the one hand, the government of Quebec, which made French the official language of the province, would be forced to accept unilingual-ism in that field and, on the other hand, the federal government, which advocates bilingualism at a substantial cost, has just imposed through these guidelines English unilingualism in that same field.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the 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.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the acceptance by the provinces of the federal guidelines relating to the anti-inflation program. The minister having been unable to give the House any assurance that the Province of Quebec will follow the federal guidelines within the jurisdiction the province is reserving to itself for its own administration, can the hon. gentleman give us any assurance with respect to the Province of Saskatchewan, for example, where the Speech from the Throne appeared to indicate that the government of Saskatchewan might want certain modifications? Has the minister been in touch with the government of that province and can he assure us that the federal guidelines will apply there within the area of provincial jurisdiction?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: As I
told the House last week, there is to be a meeting of officials of the federal and provincial governments substantially on the question of the guideline program tomorrow and the next day. I hope to be able to report more fully to the House after that meeting as to the final position of the various provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask whether the government is presenting to this House, to the country and to the premiers of the provinces a uniform program to be applied across Canada, a program which involves the acceptance of the same guidelines in all the provinces? Or is it the position of the government that this is a matter for each province to determine for itself?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the legislation speaks very well for itself. With regard to the areas subject to enforcement, we have made it clear that except for the public sector the industries affected will be covered by federal legislation and that the federal jurisdiction will
November 18, 1975

apply. With regard to the public sector, we have given the provinces the option whether or not they will choose, as Ontario has, to put the administration of the public sector under the federal government body or whether they will choose their own.
With regard to his earlier statement, may I say we have had the assurance of the Quebec minister that he will be co-operating with the present program. As I have already said, the Quebec bill speaks for itself; it is virtually the mirror image of ours.
As to what the remaining provinces do, as I said last week we hope that they will come to an early conclusion, as several provinces already have. If, in effect, they choose to put the public sector under the federal bill, it will apply in the same way from one province to another.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REASON FOR BASING PROGRAM ON INFLATION FACTOR OF EIGHT PER CENT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: And if they do not, the program will go forward on the basis of variations from province to province. May I ask the Minister of Finance a question arising out of the report attributed to the Department of Finance that the rate of inflation next year is expected to be 9.2 per cent. If that is the federal government's prediction behind the control program, why has the federal government outlined its program on the basis of an 8 per cent inflation factor for the first year of the program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I can respond to the remark made by the hon. gentleman with regard to the program, I have said that all provinces have indicated that they support the line that the federal government has taken. I hope he will not attempt to misrepresent, either in this House or outside, the fact that we do have this general support for the program and the method to be followed. In Quebec, as a matter of administration, that particular body may decide otherwise; that is inherent in letting each province exercise its own jurisdiction. It seems to me that I find in his remarks criticism of the fact that we have given the provinces this option, and that in the exercise of this option the provincial tribunal might find otherwise.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Transport regarding the anti-inflationary policy. In view of the press release by the Minister of Transport on November 14 under the heading "railways to be subject to inflation guidelines", and in view of the legal precedent established last winter when the appeal court reversed the decision of the CTC respecting livestock freight rate increases, is the government not misleading the Canadian public in its white paper guidelines by advising federal government regulatory agencies
Oral Questions
to employ powers that they do not have? Surely, the government must have known this.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little difficult to handle that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members who find that amusing may try and explain the question to me because it is certainly not very understandable in its form, and I say that with all respect.
The position of the government is that certain regulatory agencies have powers in relation to rates, and those may be employed in applying the anti-inflation guidelines. In addition to that, in the case, for instance, of rail rates and the CTC, to which the hon. member may be referring, the CTC does not have regular or ordinary power to object to, or interfere with, rates filed by the railways. But, of course, the CTC can assist in the determination of whether or not the 95 per cent margin rule is being followed, as an example, or whatever other rules the guidelines dictate. In those circumstances, the CTC may draw this to the attention of the administrator as soon as he is in a position to act, and he will have power to act under the bill now before parliament.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will address to the Minister of Finance. In view of the remarks of the minister in this House on November 14, as recorded at page 9081 of Hansard, respecting the CTC decision on November 3 in regard to the British Columbia Telephone Company, that "cost of services to Canadians can be effectively controlled", I ask the minister whether, if the CTC is not able to enforce the guidelines, the AntiInflation Board will indeed be the authority that will really carry out the guidelines respecting livestock freight rates?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true with regard to the regulation of telephone rates that the CTC has been given the specific responsibility of setting the maximum rates chargeable by any company. It was in the exercise of this jurisdiction in applying the guidelines under the anti-inflation program that the commission has reduced the application of the British Columbia Telephone Company. As the hon. member knows, the CTC does not have the power under the laws, as I understand it, to reduce rates in any particular case. It could well be that under those circumstances an application to the Anti-Inflation Board might be appropriate for the purpose of regulatory control.


POST OFFICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that the discussions between the post office and postal workers have obviously broken down, a fact which I think was confirmed in the debate last night, and
9184

November 18, 1975
Oral Questions
in view of what the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday that at this point, to use his words, the government would not consider appointing a mediator, I should like now to ask the Prime Minister whether the government today would consider appointing a mediator in that dispute, giving that individual a 72-hour time limit within which to conduct mediation and bring forward a report and recommendations on his findings, providing he does not obtain an agreement?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the NDP will realize, the appointment of a mediator in a sense implies that the government would be prepared to modify its position. The NDP leader knows that 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. If that implication is not there, I fail to follow the reasoning of the hon. member. Negotiations have reached a state of impasse and there is a strike on. The hon. member knows that this has happened in thousands of cases before where there have been strikes. If, for reasons of the greater good of Canada and of the economy, we cannot modify upward our proposal, there does not seem to be any gain in the nomination of a mediator. I must'say that the New Democratic leader did not make the case any better by suggesting increases which would total something in the area of 52 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification, and not attempting to score debating points. I respect the Prime Minister in this regard as I do not think he is attempting that either. Rather, I am trying to get to a solution. As the areas outlined for discussion would indicate that movement might have been made on either side, with no disposition on my part or that of my party to suggest that this movement ought to take place clearly in the direction of the union, and in view of the fact that the minister said in the debate last night and outside the House that there were non-monetary matters the government might be prepared to move on, and considering that talks are now deadlocked and with no presumption in respect of what a mediator would recommend, I should like to direct the question again to the Prime Minister. Given the open-ended nature of this assignment to a mediator with a specified time limit of 72 hours, does the Prime Minister not think this attempt would now be worth making?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the New Democratic leader is concerned with non-monetary matters I can practically give him the assurance that the Postmaster General would be prepared to sit down with the union anytime to discuss those matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I realize and appreciate the interest of the New Democratic leader in seeing this strike, which is of great inconvenience to the Canadian people, brought to an end. That is why I say quite clearly that the Postmaster General, who is nodding his assent, is prepared to meet

with the union as far as non-monetary matters are concerned. As far as monetary matters are concerned, I think the NDP leader must realize that we have to bring inflation under control and we cannot bring it under control unless we have the support of all sectors of the economy, and that cannot be forthcoming when we have suggestions for increasing monetary benefits such as the NDP made last night.


John Edward Broadbent: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I suspect will be futile. In view of the fact that discussions are not taking place now on either monetary or non-monetary matters, is the Prime Minister saying that the minister is now prepared to sit down in an open-minded way-


Mr. Mackasey:: I always was.


John Edward Broadbent: -and discuss the issues which are currently in dispute, or is he saying that he agrees with the Postmaster General, that what we need now, as he said in the House last night, is one good, long strike, and let us get it over with?


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has just stated that a supplementary monetary benefit would amount to 52 per cent. If the 52 per cent increase becomes effective, it fully and directly comes under the cost of goods. After deduction of personal income tax at a 30 per cent rate, the real increase is only 37 per cent to pay for the 52 per cent added to prices. So how does the Prime Minister expect workers to keep up with prices in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This will be achieved in a very simple manner, Mr. Speaker. When we propose in the forthcoming year salary hikes of 8 per cent plus 2 per cent, these 8 per cent are in fact a cost of living increase. The 8 per cent are equivalent to what we expect the Consumer Price Index will be next year. We have indicated that if the CPI is more than 8 per cent, we should allow wage-earners to catch up. All the cost increases about which the hon. member is rightly concerned, are therefore included in the consumer price index and authorized accordingly under the basic formula proposed by the Minister of Finance.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I am afraid the Prime Minister does not understand what I mean. Once the government allows that increase in the worker's salary, that is 8 per cent, plus 2 per cent, that total is added to the cost price of goods without, by so doing,
November 18, 1975

creating any profit since industry will not be allowed to make any profit. But the government will continue to levy income tax on the increase of 8 per cent plus 2 per cent. So, if income tax is levied at 30 per cent or 20 per cent, which the worker does not have, he still has to pay the cost price of goods which includes the total amount. According to the government's formula, how will the worker manage to pay those prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's question better. My reply is that, obviously, the matter of income tax is not taken into account, as the leader of the Social Credit Party indicates, in the formula of the government. But that also applies to all members of our society who have to pay income tax. In the case, for instance, of those who live off dividends, and not among the wealthiest, we tell them that dividends will not increase this year that does not mean they will not have to pay higher prices and income tax. So, once again, Mr. Speaker, our anti-inflation formula is not intended to free the people of their responsibility of paying taxes to the government, on every level; it is meant to control the inflationary spiral, and that is what we mean to do.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another supplementary question.
The prime minister does not seem to grasp my point. When the 8, 2 and 2 per cent increase within the guidelines is added to prices, the businessman is not a entitled to a profit according to the government's basic data, therefore, how could he pay taxes on non-profit activities? The industrialist or manufacturer will not since we are dealing with cost price, while the wage-earner will pay taxes on his 8, 2, 2 per cent salary increases. What does the government suggest in such a case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is getting technical, Mr. Speaker, but I believe I can answer the hon. member's question. When we say 8 and 2 per cent, this means the wage-earner will be able to receive an increment of 12 per cent, for example, since the costs have increased by 8. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the salary increase is 8 per cent, the other 2 per cent concern productivity and the remaining 2 per cent are for catching up.
Therefore, according to the hon. member's own argument, salaries went up by 8 plus 4 per cent while prices went up only by 8, therefore the hon. member will get 12 per cent to purchase something which went up by 8. That means he will be ahead.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Solicitor General in the continuing story of Sky Shops. Can the hon. gentleman assure us that the current RCMP investigation is also looking into the practice of Sky Shops Export Ltd., and
Oral Questions
other companies involved in federal airports, making gifts to various federal officials, not only as detailed in today's issue of the Globe and Mail but also on a wiser scope and involving items of larger value?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the RCMP is looking into all aspects of this matter.


AIRPORTS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. Has he perused the letter from Eric Winsor, an official of the Department of Transport, to Sky Shops stating that they should desist from applying pressure in Ottawa for the extension of the lease, but rather should negotiate through local channels in Montreal, as was the case with all the other concessionnaires, and would he table this letter together with all other correspondence from Mr. Winsor?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have seen that letter.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Why is the federal government attempting to stop the crime probe resuming right now in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me to be precisely the question that was answered by the Minister of Justice yesterday.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Has the minister or any other official in his or any other department been in contact with the Quebec government concerning the new Quebec bill to ensure the financing and holding of the 1976 Olympic Games? What about the further indirect financing sources which might be developed between Ottawa and Quebec and referred to yesterday by the Quebec Minister, Mr. Goldbloom?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we are fairly regularly in touch with the

November 18, 1975
Oral Questions
Quebec government and the city of Montreal on this matter. However, the federal government does not intend to introduce further legislation to amend the financing formula of the Olympic Games at this time. I understand that my colleague, the Postmaster General, announced last week a plan designed to improve some programs which have already been put forward by his department to help the self-financing of the Olympic Games and this, within the framework of the policy already worked out by the government.


CONSULTATION WITH UNITED STATES ON BORDER SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Olympic Games, I should like to put a supplementary to the Solicitor General.
In view of the most recent decision of the American Treasury to reduce quite substantially, if I am not mistaken, the funds appropriated for customs stations along the Canada-U.S. border and traffic control between our two countries, can the minister assure the House that the security of the 1976 Games will in no way be affected? And can he indicate if, since that statement was made, there have been any discussions in this regard with his U.S. and Quebec counterparts?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the story which appeared in the press has not yet been confirmed by American authorities. The RCMP will be in touch with them about this, but in any case we intend to have as effective a security on our part as is necessary to combat any terrorist activities at the Olympics.
* * [DOT]*


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question to put to the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is in reference to Keith Latta, a Queen's University law professor who was convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence by the Supreme Court of Alberta, a judge sitting with a jury. In light of the fact that there has been much publicity and serious concern by people, including lawyers, that not only was this a conviction on circumstantial evidence, which is always dangerous, but evidence has come to light since the jury rendered its verdict, which can be found in the file of the department of the attorney general of Alberta, has the minister personally reviewed the depositions and has a decision been made on the application by Mr. Latta's lawyer for either a new trial or a hearing?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, apparently an application was made under section 617 to

my predecessor. The department has carried out a detailed examination of the material available to them, but I have not yet personally rendered a decision on the application.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that the conviction was on circumstantial evidence and the law governing the same is very complicated, as the Minister of Justice knows, and difficult even for a lawyer to understand let alone a jury, and in light of the fact that additional evidence has come to light favourable to the accused to the effect that the deceased was allegedly threatened by known or unknown people in reference to a debt owing to a gambling joint in Las Vegas, would the minister give the case his personal attention and study it very carefully? I ask him to consider very seriously ordering a new trial in reference to this matter as it was a conviction on circumstantial evidence.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the seriousness of the situation, of course, and I will act in a way that the hon. member asks me to. I will certainly make a decision on the matter when it is fully reviewed.


ALLEGED REFUSAL OF NEW TRIAL FOR KEITH LATTA
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he is prepared to make a statement on motions or otherwise in the House of Commons indicating the reasons the Department of Justice refused a new trial in the case of Latta.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has not refused a new trial. A decision under section 617 is my decision which has not yet been made.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the decision to interrupt the construction of a second airport in Toronto (Pickering), can the Minister of Transport tell me if the funds appropriated to the initial stage of this project could now be used to construct or improve airport facilities in those areas of the country still not providing essential air services, for instance, in northwest New Brunswick, where the need for a decent airport is particularly urgent?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no precise question of reallocating money from one airport toward another, but the question of airport facilities for north New Brunswick is being studied and I expect a report on the question very shortly.
November 18, 1975


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the CBC news report last night that the minister's advisers had predicted that the inflation rate will not be substantially changed or affected by the new controls program, may I ask whether or not he had that advice from his advisers prior to the cabinet's decision on controls?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did
not see the report personally, but it was reported to me and I checked with my advisers who indicated to me that they had made no such forecast. They have been having discussions with various provincial governments and with others with respect to a number of possible cases and certain eventualities, but in no sense were they forecasting a specific figure for 1976.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask the minister whether the reported forecast that the percentage increases in wages would be less was an accurate forecast in the report last night, and if it was, does the minister still believe that wages are a major cause of inflation? If not, does he intend to amend the guidelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I pointed out, what they are talking about there, if it is the document which the department has in mind, they are talking about examples rather than making forecasts.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am having difficulty finding the right minister, but I shall direct my question to either the Minister of Communications, the Prime Minister, the House leader or the Acting Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that there is a postal strike in progress and that hundreds of thousands of people across Canada cannot get in touch with their members of parliament through other means, is there anyone who can give an answer to a member of parliament who is trying to get back to constituents, and who cannot get through because of the postal strike? Is there anyone who can do something about this stupid and inadequate telecommunications agency on the hill and provide more lines with which to communicate with Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite like to talk but they do not like to listen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


James Sydney Clark Fleming: As I reported to the hon. member during the late show a couple of nights ago, the telephone system in Ottawa, especially relating to the House of Commons, is now in the process of being expanded so that it will not only take the existing loads, which have been very heavy because of the problem of the postal strike, but also so that it will have some room left for expansion over the next several years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: Because I have been hearing the story since 1968 that it is going to be improved, and because people in isolated areas in Canada cannot participate in Canadian activities, is there anyone opposite who can provide an answer and provide a service to all Canadians in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


ABORTION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Did the minister receive a deputation and a petition from Le Reseau d'Action et d'lnformation pour les Femmes about removing abortion from the Criminal Code and if so, how did the minister respond to that petition?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I received the delegation for about an hour this morning. I discussed this whole subject with them. I gave them the terms of reference of the Badgley committee. The delegation was possessed of a good deal of knowledge about the whole question, and I suggested they should contact the chairman of that committee, and apart from giving me the information, provide the chairman of the abortion study committee with the same information. I also suggested that they might want to locate a private member in the House who would table the petition in the House, as has been done with petitions on similar matters in a similar way.


FINANCE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: He's back again. He is a one
day a week man.


An hon. Member:: How is the campaign going?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 18, 1975
Oral Questions


William Heward Grafftey: Is it the view of the Prime Minister that in order for the restraint program of the government to work we must have immediate fiscal and monetary reform? If so, when is it the intention of the government to present specific measures before the House to stimulate the private sector and to get the economy moving again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member recalls the white paper which was tabled a month ago, he would know that the fiscal and monetary policy is referred to there. We are continuing the general posture we adopted on fiscal stance in the budget of last June, which as the House knows, is a rather expansionary one and therefore intended to encourage continued growth in Canada.
On the monetary side, of course adjustments are made from time to time. The hon. member is aware that the Bank of Canada increased the bank rate in the month of September to nine per cent in an effort to ensure that there not be an inflationary rate of expansion of money.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In answer to my question in this House on November 7 regarding restoration of rail service to Glenwood and Hill Spring, the minister informed me there may be a requirement and a role for the Canadian Transport Commission. Since that time the CPR has notified Mr. Harold Boucher, President of the Chamber of Commerce in Magrath, that it is awaiting word from the CTC. Would the minister inform the House where the confusion lies, since the CPR says the bridge has to be restored in order to provide service?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is not very much confusion about the fact that the bridge has to be restored if service is to be provided. The question is the cost of the bridge and alternative ways of providing adequate service in the area. With the CTC we have been considering the question of the use of trucks immediately to move grain from that area, and some steps are going forward toward this end.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: In view of the fact the minister has stated that the bridge has to be repaired, would he inform the House why the CPR hauled 15 loads over the bridge but now refuses to haul any more and has cut off service to people in the area?


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure at which stage the hon. member refers to the materials having been hauled. As I understand it, the bridge is not safe for service and therefore cannot be used to provide service in the ordinary course.
|Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary to the Department of Communications, in the absence of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank A. Philbrook: Or a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank A. Philbrook: Is there any influence the ministry can exert on the CRTC to afford more flexibility to local cable vision companies regarding their choice of TV stations so that communities can have the choice of watching the programming they prefer, such as educational TV?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, no. This is within the jurisdiction of the CRTC, but interested parties can go before the CRTC, particularly when licensing of cable operations comes before that body, to make clear their views.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that it is almost 2 Vi years since there was any change in the basic amount of either old age security or the guaranteed income supplement, and in view of the fact that senior citizens are not enabled by the indexing formula now in effect to keep up either with the cost of living or the standard of living, may I ask whether the government will consider at this session an increase in the basic pension amounts set out in the Old Age Security Act?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member stated the basic amount paid under old age pension has gone up regularly during the past two years and more particularly it continues to do so every three months under the escalation clause provided in the legislation. Indeed, a new increase is expected on January 1 next.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even though the minister did not answer my question about an increase in the basic pension rates, may I ask with respect to the indexing of pensions whether the government is considering changing the formula so that escalation will be up to date and will be related to the costs of those goods and services which pensioners actually have to buy?
November 18, 1975


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the question has already been considered. As the hon. member knows, Statistics Canada is now reviewing the basis under which the consumer price index is determined. However, I say once again to the hon. member that if we were satisfied with relying on those services which the elderly buy in preference to others, in some cases the increases might well be lower than those now granted under the consumer price index.


INCOME TAX ACT
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Within the framework of the fight against inflation conducted by the Canadian government and in order to help workers in the low or average income bracket, who are the first victims of inflation, does the Prime Minister intend to submit to his cabinet amendments to the Income Tax Act so as to permit deductibility, minus depreciation factor, of cost of tools used by and necessary to workers who earn their living with them, such as mechanics and workers in the building trades?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is already a provision in the Income Tax Act providing deduction of a given amount that workers can use to deduct the cost of these tools from their taxable income. If the hon. member's suggestion goes beyond the present situation, I take note of it to discuss it with the Minister of Finance, so that he may consider it in his next budget.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Was the Minister of Justice indicating the Solicitor General's policy regarding the RCMP when the Minister of Justice told the western provinces last week, as reported, that in future they would have to get along with a very drastic reduction in the services of the RCMP and that attorneys general had been given three weeks to comment to the minister?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if the Minister of Justice said that. He and I were in Edmonton last Friday, to discuss several matters with the provincial governments, including the new RCMP contracts. We propose a new sharing formula for double task RCM policemen who are to carry out federal and provincial duties in the provinces. We did not say personnel
Oral Questions
would be reduced. Actually, we hope to increase the numbers of personnel in those provinces.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding what the minister said, do those proposals indicate that there could be a serious reduction in RCMP services available to the provinces? I am thinking of the RCMP being used either as provincial police or, in some cases, municipal police.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, no, the proposals did not in any way indicate any reduction in services. Some provincial ministers said that some municipalities may not want to continue with RCMP services if there is to be a 2 per cent increase in cost; but we did not indicate we would withdraw or reduce service. Actually, in many respects we hope to increase services.


REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN CHEESE IMPORT QUOTAS
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and relates to the serious state of the Canadian cheese industry. As in the last ten years Canadian cheese exports have fallen from about 32 million pounds annually to about 12 million pounds, and cheese imports risen from 15 million to 50 million pounds, can the minister indicate when he will announce a decrease in Canada's cheese import quotas?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to announce this today although, as was indicated by the reaction from my side of the House, I am under considerable pressure from hon. members on both sides to re-examine this matter. I am now in the process of so doing.
*	He *


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and relates to his decision, as leader of the Liberal party's Quebec wing, to solicit donations directly from executives of supposedly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and relates to his answer to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, to
9190

November 18, 1975
Oral Questions
the effect that we will not allow known terrorists to enter Canada. Can the minister indicate under whose auspices a minister's permit was granted to Shafik Al-Hout and if security checks indicate he is not a known terrorist or member of a group promoting international terrorism?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-and this was repeated by the President of the Privy Council-that the policy has been long established and most recently repeated as to how such ministers' permits are granted. The PLO is considered a prohibited organization, but members of the PLO who are not themselves known terrorists are not denied ministers' permits. They require them, and they are granted when the person concerned is invited by a reputable Canadian organization and if the visit is to be for a short, specific period. The person in question was examined under these criteria. As reports indicated that he, himself, was not a known terrorist, he was permitted entry for a specific period, and the purposes of entry were known.


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the refusal of the CPR last week to do anything about the disparity in freight rates between Okanagan apples and Washington apples, and as the loss to B.C. apple producers shipping to eastern Canada is to be a projected $318,000, will the minister take action to rectify this unfair competitive advantage in favour of United States apple producers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the minister has no power under the present law to take action.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Transport.
Since all countries of the world use their official language or languages in air transport and communications, besides English, could the minister tell the House what is his policy regarding the use of French in the province of Quebec, considering the instructions his department sent recently to the various control towers in the province of Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, without quite accepting in its entirety the premise of the question, I confirm that the use of the French language
[Mr. Epp.)
has been permitted on VFR flights in relation to five airports in Quebec. The question of any move relating to IFR flights at other airports is being studied in relation to the safety factors involved. Certainly, at this time IFR flight communications are conducted in the English language only. There has been general approval to move in the direction of French and English advisory communications in Quebec and steps in that direction will be taken as soon as possible.


POSSIBLE DEFERMENT OF INCOME TAX ON RETURNS FROM GRAIN SOLD ON CASH BASIS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Considering what the parliamentary secretary said in Regina on November 10 about the mailing of the 1975 and 1976 Canadian Wheat Board adjustment cheques, may I ask the minister if the grain producer is to understand that the minister will not allow an election for tax purposes with regard to grain that was sold on a regular cash purchase basis?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be impractical to permit individual producers to adopt a different tax position in relation to their specific cheques. We have decided to defer until January 1, and therefore to the 1976 taxation year, the adjustment cheques in relation to those who deferred their initial price. In the case of the others, the general wish of farmers, as confirmed by the recent vote of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, is that the cheques should be issued as soon as possible for the 1975 year, and that is planned. Contingency plans are going forward, to assure that the cheques can be delivered to farmers if the mail strike continues.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Charles Neil: for leave to introduce Bill C-417, to amend the Income Tax Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clarify the matter of away-from-home expenses for taxpayers who are employees of persons whose principal business is passenger, goods or passengers and goods transport and the duties of employment require them regularly to travel away from the place to which they would normally report for work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
November 18, 1975
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition including about 5,500 signatures and requesting the repeal of the present abortion legislation, so that abortion be removed from the Criminal Code; the immediate release of Dr. Morgentaler and the cessation of all proceedings against him and against others on the same grounds; the creation of medical clinics where interruptions of pregnancy could be done in all security and in healthy conditions, once the woman involved has made her decision in conscience. This petition was given to me by Le Reseau d'Action et d'lnformation pour les Femmes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 2,982, 3,209, 3,285 and 3,286.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): For each of the fiscal years (a) 1971-72 (b) 1972-73 (c) 1973-74 (d) 1974-75 (e) 1975-76 what was the budget of the (i) Assistant Secretary for Security and Intelligence (ii) Government Operations Secretariat (iii) Priorities and Planning Secretariat?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: (a) See Note 1.
(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)
1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76
Assistant Secretary for Security and Intelligence Government Operations Secretariat
Priorities and Planning Secretariat
196,242
92,090
226,764
217,575
138,442
226,370
241,973
179,819
245,519
243.000 205,600
325.000
Order Paper Questions
Note 1: In fiscal year 71-72, financial records were maintained for the complete office rather than on a secretariat basis.
Note 2: The figures given in (b), (c), (d) and (e) include cost relating to salaries, travel expenses and professional and special services, (b), (c) and (d) are actual expenses while (e) is the 1975-76 forecast.


Mr. Howie: How many positions are there in the Department of National Health and Welfare office in Fredericton, New Brunswick (a) how many are designated as bilingual (b) what are the positions?


Marc Lalonde: Seventy-six continuing full time position. Ten term positions, (a) Twenty, (b) Canada Pension Plan: District Manager; Social Allowance and Services: Eligibility Clerk; Income Security: Regional Director; Secretary to Regional Director; Information Clerk; Field Officer; Registry Clerk; Typist; Generalist Clerk (4); Chief, Family Allowance; Supervisor, Family Allowance; Supervisor, OAS; Processing Clerk (3); Chief, OAS/GIS; Processing Clerk, Term.


Mr. Peters: For the year 1974, what was the approximate amount allowed to each tobacco company operating in Canada as deductible expenses for cigarette advertising?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Data on deductible expenses for cigarette advertising is not compiled as a general statistical item. In any case, release of such information on a single corporation would be prohibited by Section 241 of the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs print at public expense and on Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs paper a speech entitled "Notes for a Speech by The Honourable Andre Ouellet on the Third Reading of Bill C-2" and, if so (a) how many copies were printed (b) what was the total cost (c) what are the reasons justifying this expenditure when the speech could be reprinted from Hansard in the usual manner (d) to whom were they distributed?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: (a) Yes, 800 English; 300 French, (b) $165. (c) The speech was never delivered in the House of Commons. Due to the time limit, the Minister was unable to speak on third reading of Bill C-2. For this reason, his prepared text was circulated to enable those interested to have additional information on this important Bill which is of concern to the Canadian public, (d) Members of the House of Commons and Senate, the Press Gallery, National Press Building, Canadian Press, United Press, Ottawa daily newspapers, CBC, Information Canada and Directors of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
9192

November 18, 1975
Government Annuities


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,143 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Elzinga: 1.	How many applications were submitted under the Local Initiatives Programme for the Constituency of Pembina in (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75 (d) 1975-76?
2.	What were the names of the organizations that applied for a grant and what was the amount of money they requested in (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75 (d) 1975-76?
3.	Which organizations received grants and in what amounts in (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75 (d) 1975-76?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Knight Andras: that Bill C-75, to increase the rate of return on government annuity contracts, to increase their flexibility and to discontinue future sales thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the 67 years since its inception, the Government Annuities Act has given Canadians some guarantee of financial security for their old age. The other day the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) told me this act was given second reading the day he was born.
The benefits provided by the annuities program filled an important void in those early days when there was an obvious lack of retirement plans and programs. We have to remember that we did not then have old age pensions, the Canada Pension Plan or the many private pension plans we have today. Due to the many initiatives undertaken by governments and the private sector, we have come a long way since then toward ensuring the basic economic welfare of the retired citizen. During the past decade, various government and private pension plans have been developed and are constantly being revised to keep pace with the demands of changing circumstances. It was with these considerations in mind that the government announced its intention in the last budget to introduce the bill which is now before us.

This act, called the Government Annuities Improvement Act, will, among other things, increase the rate of return on government annuity contracts to 7 per cent per annum, increase the range of their flexibility and discontinue future sales of annuity contracts. It will bring government annuity contracts up to date so that present annuity contract holders-there are some 280,000 of them-will no longer be subjected to the relative disadvantages of the present contract interest rate structure which varies from 3 per cent to 514 per cent. Raising the interest rate to 7 per cent brings their rate of return closer in line with rates offered in the private sector.
I would like to emphasize, however, that the annuities account should be regarded as an investment portfolio accumulated over the years where interest rates could vary from 4 per cent to the current 9 per cent or 10 per cent. The average yield would be situated somewhere between these two extremes. Consequently, the 7 per cent rate is based on a close study of the current yield on various public and private investment portfolios.
Our objective was to determine a rate of return in line with comparative investment yields and one that can be expected to remain current for some time. For example, if you examine the average yield on composite funds of life insurance companies operating in Canada, you will find that in 1974 it ranged from 7.1 per cent to 7.8 per cent. To be on a comparable basis with the government annuities where the government pays the cost of administration, these figures should be reduced by one-half per cent for administration expenses to 6.6 per cent from 7.3 per cent.
Even if you project these figures upward for 1975 by 0.2 per cent to 0.3 per cent, members will note that the 7 per cent rate proposed in this act is still in line and is even somewhat above the average rate of 6.5 per cent on the total national debt and the effective yield of 6.8 per cent on the government superannuation account. Though a 7 per cent rate is reasonable by current standards, it must be easily adjustable in the future. Accordingly, the rate of return will be subject to periodic review depending on future fluctuations in interest rates.
Let me give a few details about how the new rate will be applied to both matured and unmatured contracts in order to illustrate the effect of the change. For the 106,000 persons with matured contracts, the contract rates presently range from 3 per cent to 5!4 per cent, and percentage increases in actual payments under this act would range from 32 per cent to 10 per cent, respectively. The average percentage increase in annuity payments would be approximately 22 per cent. Because the new rate is retroactive to April 1, 1975, it will mean there will be a back payment for holders of matured annuities.
There are about 175,000 persons with deferred contracts valued at $640 million, that is, with contracts that have not yet matured. From April 1, 1975, these contracts will earn 7 per cent on the accumulated premiums and interest. For most contracts, the annuity at maturity will be increased accordingly. However, in the case of about 150 pension plans covering some 45,000 persons, the allocation of the increase must be decided by the terms of the plan itself.
November 18, 1975

To illustrate the effect if the increased interest rate is maintained, we can take the example of 4 per cent contracts not covered by special pension plan arrangements: there would be a 33 per cent increase in the annuity if it matures in ten years and a 77 per cent increase if it matures in 20 years. In addition, at maturity the annuity payment would also be increased in the same way as for the matured contracts.
One consequence of these changes is the need to raise the current $1,200 ceiling on annual annuity payments in order to accommodate the effects of the increased interest rate. This, too, as hon. members will note, is provided for in the bill. The cost of the 7 per cent increase in the rate of return is estimated to be an additional $38 million for the 1975-76 fiscal year, but we have estimated that the total additional cost to the government will slowly decrease in future years as more annuities mature.
The second major aspect of the bill reflects the proposal that no further annuity contracts will be sold after the act comes into effect. This will apply immediately to individual and group contracts. However, new registrations would be allowed covering existing employer-sponsored group contracts during the three years ending March 31, 1979, to give employers adequate time in which to make alternate arrangements with the private sector.
Our decision to cease further sales of annuity contracts is not based simply on the confidence we have in the servicing abilities of private and public institutions. More fundamentally, it springs from recognition and acceptance of the reality that average yearly sales of government annuities have been decreasing steadily over the past 27 years to a point at which only 11 new contracts were sold last year. Obviously, other public and private enterprises have been doing their job reasonably well and the need for a government program of this type has largely disappeared. Nevertheless, as I indicated earlier, we shall continue to administer existing contracts, and that will take us well into the twenty-first century because of the unelapsed time applying to so many of them.
The bill also provides for a number of housekeeping changes; some solutions which have been developed to deal with problems which have arisen in the past. By and large, these changes are self-explanatory, though I shall be glad to deal with them in more detail if requested during the committee stage.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to the fact that this step to enrich annuities is unprecedented and it is not legally required of the government. There are many people who have some part of their investments locked into low-interest rate bonds, mortgages, and so on. Nevertheless, I think we all agree that government annuities are a special case. No one could have foreseen the current interest rates at the time the contracts were entered into, and the government now intends to protect in this fashion the investments of those individuals who had the foresight to provide for their retirement.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, this bill arose out of an announcement in the June 23 budget that legislation would be introduced to increase the interest paid on government annuities held by some 270,000
Government Annuities
Canadians. We welcomed this announcement in the June 23 budget. It was probably the only item in that budget which I sensed was universally accepted. It was the least the government could do for these persons, the thousands of Canadians who over the years had purchased government annuities in good faith, with the idea in mind that those annuities would yield a secure return on the investment and provide a source of income when they had left the work force.
I commend the government for taking action to recognize the needs of those who hold these annuities. Over the years during which these annuities have been offered for sale-that is, from 1908 to the present-the interest rate ran from 3 per cent to a maximum of 514 per cent. That is not a very dramatic increase over a span of 67 years. During that period, thousands of individuals purchased annuities to provide for their retirement and employers purchased them as a means of providing pensions for their employees. Most of those individuals, and all the pension funds with substantial holdings of annuities, have been in severe financial difficulty for a number of years. I believe it is worth noting that 82 per cent of the premiums received from individual annuity contract holders were deposited under registered retirement savings plan contracts.
I hope the action the government is proposing is a prelude to similar action in accordance with a formula designed to alleviate the plight of holders of perpetual government bonds. Many of these unfortunate individuals purchased perpetual bonds on the understanding that when the last coupon was clipped the bonds would be called. However, this was not done. All we heard from the government was the announcement that perpetual bonds would be redeemed by 1990. Mr. Speaker, these bonds would yield only 30 per cent of their face value if sold today. I urge the government to develop a conversion plan for them as soon as possible, thereby ending this rough justice.
We do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to take up much time of the House debating the bill before us. Three or four of my hon. friends will probably wish to take part in the discussion, but it would be our desire to have the bill sent to the committee of the whole for consideration there. I gather, though, that we cannot get the consent of all parties to such a course.
There are some matters, though, which we feel the minister might explain. For instance, we would like to know how the cost of the increased interest will be shown in the estimates. It has to be presented somewhere, of course. We should also like the position of short-term government employees clarified. We want to know what is intended to replace the system which has operated in the past under which they have converted these annuities, and the course of action they might be allowed to take.
As I say, we do not intend to take up much time on this bill. We are prepared to see it pass all stages today and I hope others taking part in the debate share this view. Thus we may alleviate the plight of these people. I am sure hon. members on all sides of the House throughout the past few years have had letters and communications from constituents of theirs explaining their plight. Many of these people are school teachers, clergymen, pension fund holders, all of

November 18, 1975
Government Annuities
whom have explained the difficulty that they are having funding their pensions with the low rate of return on government annuities.
I commend the minister and the government for bringing in the bill and I urge them to act with all speed. Let us get the bill through committee in proper order and return it to the House so it can be passed with all possible haste.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has already indicated, and as I have mentioned on one or two previous occasions, I have a lifelong interest in this legislation. However, it is not quite as long a time as my hon. friend in the back row is suggesting. It so happens that on the very day I was born, June 18, 1908, the House of Commons debated second reading and then passed through committee on the whole the bill which we know as the Government Annuities Act. Those who made up the House of Commons of that day were divided among members who thought they were getting into an area that was no business of government, and members who were proud of the fact that the government was taking a step to assist Canadians in providing for their old age.
The maximum amount of annuity that was payable under the original act which was given second reading on June 18, 1908, was $50 a month. We have come a long way since then, in many respects. The minister correctly pointed out that this legislation over the last 67 years has enabled many people to provide themselves with a measure of security in their old age. The legislation has made this possible not only through the purchase by individuals of contracts; it has also made it possible for many employers to set up employee pensions plans under the aegis of the Government Annuities Act. Therefore, I stand here today, 67 years later, and salute the members of the House of Commons who on June 18, 1908 brought this legislation into being.
Like the hon. member who preceded me, I welcome the fact that this Government Annuities Improvement Act is going to make certain improvements in Canadian government annuities. I shall have something to say on the other side of the coin in a moment or two, but first I warmly welcome the fact that for many holders of government annuities and for many persons who are receiving payments on their government annuity contracts it will be good news to hear that their payments are going to be increased.
As I understand it from the schedule attached to the bill, a schedule that is referred to in clause 5, the increases that recipients of government annuity payments can anticipate run as follows. If one is drawing payments from a contract that was based on a return of 514 per cent, the increase in those payments will be 10 per cent. If the contract was based on a 5 per cent rate, the increase in the payments will be 14 per cent. If the contract was based on a 4 per cent interest rate, the increase in the payments over what is now being received will be 22 per cent. A contract that was issued when the rate was 3 Vi per cent will give, now, an increase in the payments of 29 per cent. And, down at the bottom, if a person had a contract that was issued when

the rate was only 3 per cent, the increase he will now receive in his annuity payments will be 32 per cent.
It is also to be noted that these payments are to be retroactive to April 1 of this year. I share the hope of the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) that this bill will not take an undue amount of time to get through, but it will not really have any effect on the amount of money the recipients of these payments will receive because whenever the bill does go through the payments will be retroactive to April 1. Also, of course, the recipients will have to wait for the postal strike to end before they get their cheques anyway. In any case, we of the House of Commons of 1975 are making a significant improvement in the legislation that was passed by the House of Commons in 1908.
May I add to what was said by the previous speaker to the effect that although the minister was justified in saying that the government was not legally required to increase payments under the Government Annuities Act, the government was morally required to do so. When the government established the principle of escalation with respect to old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, veterans' pensions and allowances, judges' pensions, members of parliament pensions, and on down the line, and then added a bonus in certain cases to payments made on Canada savings bonds, it seemed to me that the government was dragging its heels by not taking action to increase payments made under the Government Annuities Act.
I agree with the comment already made that once this has been passed, something equally worth while ought to be done with respect to those perpetual bonds of 1936. I join with all those who have said that the act of the government in declaring that these bonds will finally be called in 1996, I think it is, which is recognition that they cannot go on forever, does not really answer the problem for those who have held these bonds for a long time. There are these other matters that ought to be attended to, but at the moment we are discussing the Canadian government annuities program and the provision under which there will be the increased payments by the percentages to which I have already referred. This is a decision of the government that the House welcomes and which I am sure we will support unanimously.
The other side of the coin-I should say this right away- is that although these improvements sound fairly good when reading them out, the result is that the persons on these annuities will again be put on a fixed income basis so far as their government annuity contracts are concerned. It took us a long while to win the point that retirement income should at least be geared to the rise in the cost of living, but I go further and say that it should be geared to the rise in the standard of living or rise in the gross national product. At least we have it geared to the rise in the cost of living, and that is reflected in old age security, the guaranteed income supplement payments and all the other payments I mentioned a moment ago.
I contend that the same should apply in respect of government annuities. I noticed that the minister made no reference to these increases being related in any way to the
November 18, 1975

rise in the cost of living. He based it entirely on what has happened to interest rates over the years. The fact is that those who have government annuity contracts and are drawing payments under those contracts are persons who are drawing them as part of their provision for their retirement years. It really hits older people very hard when the cost of living goes up and only some of the elements of their income are escalated. I think the return from government annuities ought to be treated in the same way as other forms of retirement income and a formula should be devised for the increase to take place every year in accordance at least with the rise in the cost of living. Every time I say that, I feel I must get in my point that it should be in respect of the rise in the standard of living. But we have not reached that yet; that is one of the goals we still must attain.
Indeed, this action reminds me of something that was done by the Parliament of Canada in respect of retired public servants. For many years, and I mean many years- decades, in fact-we tried hard to get an increase in the pensions paid to retired public servants. The first move in that direction was made during the parliament of 1958 to 1962 when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister. I hope the fact that what I shall say in a moment will be partly critical and will not offend my friends to the right. The fact is, that government made the first move in doing something to increase the pensions of retired public servants, and it was a good first step but it was a one-shot move. All that happened under the bill that was passed during the days of that Conservative administration was the inclusion of a provision to add a percentage to the income of retired public servants.
It was most welcomed when those retired public servants got it, but a year later, two years later or three years later they found that the situation was worsening again, so the day came in about 1969 or 1970 when the Liberal government was finally persuaded that it ought to go not just for a one-shot increase in the pensions of retired public servants but ought to establish a formula for those pensions to go up year after year in accordance with the rise in the cost of living.
I submit that the same thing is happening again. Here we have the present government doing what the Conservative government did in about 1959 or 1960, bringing in a one-shot increase in payments payable under the Government Annuities Act. But it is not finishing the job. I suggest that these payments should be put on a basis so that they will escalate, just the same as other forms of retirement payments escalate under various provisions we have made.
That is the main criticism I make of this bill. Welcome though it is, and generous though this increase may sound, if you are at the bottom of one pile and the top of the other, or vice versa, that is it: you get that increase, and the new rate that you get from your government annuity stays at that rate for the rest of your life. That is not good enough, and no one should know it better than this government because this government realized through experience that what the Conservative government had done for retired public servants, though welcomed at the time, was not good enough.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Don't be unkind.
Government Annuities


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) seems to want it both ways. He says: "Don't be unkind". Perhaps he is telling me not to be unkind to the Liberals.


Walter David Baker: That's a different thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I made it clear that I was giving the Diefenbaker government credit for having made the first move in respect of pension increases for retired public servants, but it was a one-shot move that had to be improved. We have the same situation today; we have a one-shot move and I do not think it will stand up.
When you realize the government is discontinuing the sale of government annuity contracts, it seems to me this is all the more reason it should protect the position of those who have contracts under this legislation. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I think I should go on to say that I regret the fact that the government has proposed to discontinue the issuing of contracts under the Government Annuities Act. Of course, it is not rescinding the Government Annuities Act; it will have to go on for another 50, 75 or maybe 100 years, for all I know, until all the persons who now have contracts have lived out their days. So the Government Annuities Act has to continue. But as the minister has said, once this bill is passed and becomes law, no more individual contracts will be issued except in a few cases where substitute contracts are written for those already in existence, and after March 31,	1979, no additional
employees can be enrolled in any group plans already in existence.
I suppose that one of the reasons I do not man the barricades about this and really say we should not let this part of the bill go through is, of course, the fact that the government has let the position of government annuities deteriorate in relation to other forms of retirement income that individuals or companies can purchase. That reminds me of the lobby that has gone on for years against the Canada Government Annuities Act. One has only to read the debate the day the original bill was given second reading, to which I have already referred, to note there the concern that the government might be getting into business that should be the preserve of private enterprise.
I remember with particular vividness the year 1951. We had been campaigning, quite a few of us, to get the Canada Government Annuities Act improved, and in that year the government finally agreed to take action. The minister of labour of that day-the Government Annuities Act came under the minister of labour in those days-brought in a bill to amend the Government Annuities Act, making a number of improvements, putting government annuities in a position where they would be competitive with annuities and contracts that could be purchased in the private sector.
We welcomed the bill. It was a bit of a pleasant surprise to have the government make the improvements that were included in that legislation. It came in for second reading, it was passed and referred to one of the standing committees. In those days bills did not go to standing committees automatically; the rule was to deal with them in committee of the whole and it was the exception to send a bill to a

November 18, 1975
Government Annuities
standing committee. However, this bill was sent to a standing committee.
I remember at the time wondering why it was given that treatment, but I soon discovered the reason was that there were quite a few bodies who wanted to appear and to make representations. I have never met so many insurance company heads and executives in my life, not even when we had the Canada Pension Plan before a special joint committee. They came here in force to try to persuade us that we should not proceed with that government bill which, as I say, was designed to improve the Government Annuities Act at that time.
I remember that we had a meeting of the committee one day and it looked as though we were going to lose the vote to support the bill and send it back to the House. If I can be a bit reminiscent about it, a friend of mine-he is still a friend even though he is in the other place-David Croll, was on our side and felt that this bill should be improved and we had to get it through. Between us we agreed that we just did not have the manpower in the committee, at that meeting, to win the vote se we managed to keep it going until adjournment time in order to get another meeting of the committee. David Croll assured me that there were members like the late Lionel Conacher and others on the Liberal side who were not attending that morning but whom he would get to the later meeting and we would win.
Sure enough, when we met the next time all the members were there and we carried the day. The bill was passed in the committee and was referred back to the House. But that was the end of it. It was reported back to the House for third reading, and when we asked the minister when we would have third reading we received no satisfaction. In other words, the insurance lobby had persuaded the government not to go ahead with the 1951 bill that would have improved the Government Annuities Act.
The minister says today that the number of sales of contracts has been dropping over the last 25 years. Well, I have been reciting something that happened 24 years ago. It is true that because government annuities have been allowed to deteriorate, the number of persons wanting to buy them has gone down greatly. That, of course, I suppose is the reason they are now to be discontinued altogether. I think this is unfortunate. I believe it would have been better to make further improvements to the Government Annuities Act so that persons who do not feel they are providing enough for their retirement through old age security, the Canada Pension Plan and other pension arrangements, could invest in their government through Canadian government annuities.
I regret very much that the ground has been prepared during these 20-odd years for the day when there would seem to be no case for continuing the sale of Canadian government annuities. So, Mr. Speaker, I regret that there are those clauses in the bill that will discontinue the sale of individual contracts and will provide for there to be no more registrations of employees, even in existing group contracts, after March 31, 1979.
The minister suggested today that this legislation over these past 67 years has helped a lot of people make provision for their old age. I agree. But the fact is that we now

have other arrangements. We have old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan and many more employee pension plans both in the public and the private sector, and therefore the need for this now is not as great as it was in 1908 or in many of the years that followed. I agree. But if the government wishes to boast about the provisions that have been made and tell us how wonderful it is that we have the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan and retirement pension plans for public servants, members of the RCMP and members of the armed forces, and so on, I submit the government is morally obligated to see to it that those programs are put on the best possible basis.
Today I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) whether the government intended to do anything in this session about the basic amount of old age security. I received his stock answer which was no answer at all to my question. He reminded me, as if I do not know it, that there is a quarterly escalation of old age security.
In a supplementary question I tried to remind him that that escalation is always behind and does not relate to the goods or services older people actually have to buy, and that as yet we do not have a perfect system of security for the retirement years of our people. If the government now proposes to take away this one means of retirement income that has been there for many years, it is morally obligated to make improvements in the other forms of retirement income. Therefore, I again call for a substantial improvement in the basic amount of old age security; I call for improvement in the public service pension plan and the RCMP and armed forces plans with which we are dealing under Bill C-52 before another committee. I call for action on the part of the government to get the railways of this country to put their pension plans on a better basis. I say we should not take away something that is there until we have improved the other plans that are supposed to provide for the retirement of our people.
I shall end where I began. The debate of 1908 to which I referred is an interesting one to read. The members of that day felt they were breaking new ground to be interfering at all in the provision of old age retirement. Some members were concerned. I have not taken the time to read what Their Honours in the other place thought about it, but I can guess that they found it quite shocking. We have come a long way from that day to the recognition that governments are obligated to provide for the security of our older people. I will not only agree, but assert that the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan and other forms of benefit are much better than the Government Annuities Act itself, but I regret that it is being removed completely without more substantial improvements being made in the other forms of old age retirement income.
I welcome the percentage increases that those now drawing annuity payments will receive retroactive to April 1. I welcome the fact that in respect of contracts still in existence and not yet matured the r.ate will be 7 per cent as from that same date. But I regret that there is not in this legislation a formula for escalation year by year. As for the other forms of retirement income, you know, sir, and this House knows that the battle for further improvements in all our pension plans will go right on until we win.
November 18, 1975


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the references by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to that great parliament of 1908. He spoke with such reverence and affection that I thought I may have misread history. However, I find that I have not done so. That was the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; I believe he was in power at that time.
The hon. member spoke of that government with such affection that I thought perhaps he had been a member of parliament at that time. But I checked the parliamentary record while he was speaking and found that was not so. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has gone to his just reward, and the government of that day eventually went to its just reward and other governments came into play, including the party which is now the official opposition.
The whole history of pensions, the protection of the disadvantaged in Canada, whether one party or another has been in power has been a history of progress. While there may be comments made from time to time, partisan or otherwise, in front of or behind the curtains of this House, in respect of that progress, the men and women of that day who took those steps, regardless of the party to which they belonged, took them in the hope there would be improvement for those who were intended to be beneficiaries.
I think it is important to remember with regard to this piece of legislation that perhaps it marks the beginning of the end of an era. We must remember there was skepticism in the business community. It was an unusual idea in 1908 that there should be this kind of provision for one's old age; therefore, the private insurance companies and financial institutions, which are now the everyday common carriers of the type of protection the annuities are meant to provide, would not touch it with a ten-foot pole. However, the government of the day recognized that there was a problem.
We have progressed a considerable distance past the point where it can be said that the government is the only kind of organization that can provide adequate protection. In fact, this kind of protection against the vicissitudes of old age has reached the point at which it has become much more popular, so popular that the private carriers are deemed to be able to do this work. I think it is important because it relieves to a certain extent the government of the day from the expenditures that are necessary under a program such as this and allows it to look to other programs that are also necessary in our community.
I think it is important because there is an implicit recognition here that there is an opportunity in the private enterprise sector of our economy for that aspect of our economy to function. The government is recognizing that at least in this field they can begin to phase out in a just and equitable way the particular kinds of coverage which were intended by the government in 1908.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre passed rather lightly over the opportunities for Canadians to invest in their country through investing in annuities. But that, too, is being provided for in a different way. If investment in one's country is a criterion, I think we have to look at the Canada saving bonds program which is a
Government Annuities
form of investment in one's country and in which much more flexibility is provided for the owner of the bonds, in terms of his use of the fund during the time it is required. The necessity for this kind of program is not nearly as apparent from that point of view.
I am one who supports, as a matter of principle, the indexing of pensions and I have spoken in the House about that. We will have the opportunity to deal with the whole broad field of public service pensions when we deal with Bill C-52. There is there a form of indexing, although it is not quite in the sense that has been mentioned, in that the governor in council has the right to look at the conditions and to advance interest rates if it becomes necessary and, I suppose, to advance them dramatically. The minister has indicated that conditions have become such that the government must have this power built into the regulations. The government is saying, in effect, that they really cannot predict the conditions and that the Minister of Finance will not predict or forecast what either the growth rate or the inflation rate will be-and that is one of the terrors of our time, quite frankly, for the person who has recently purchased or will purchase a government annuity as some protection against financial insecurity in old age.
What is really happening is that the government is saying in this piece of legislation that things have become so bad and so difficult that even the experts are failing to predict what the conditions will be in the business and financial communities, with all our income controls and anti-inflation programs, for senior citizens and others. Perhaps it is an admission not just of the failure of the government but of the failure of our economic system in the scheme of things. That is why the minister has seen fit to put in place some form of index-I use that word in the broadest sense-j?y regulation.
The fear that I and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have, quite frankly, is that the event will follow the necessity for indexing and by using this kind of system the minister has taken upon himself the considerable onus of ensuring what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said would happen, that is, that the increases in the return will match what is happening in the community to a great extent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is it not a fact that as the bill reads, the gowsrnor in council has power by order in council to vary the 7 per cent rate that applies to maturing of contracts but hardly the power to vary the escalation rates that apply to pensions which are in payment, and is that not a serious lack?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member is quite correct in that, and I think it is a deficiency. I was not arguing that it was not; I was merely saying that there are at least the rudiments of the beginning of some form of indexing or flexibility which is necessary. The matter to which the hon. member has addressed himself is an indication of how great the vigilance of the minister and of the government must be, because even though these annuities will apply to a smaller and smaller group of Canadians, the fact is that they are the foundation stone of many of the pension plans and retirement plans of Canadians who have nowhere else to go at this point.

November 18, 1975
Government Annuities
We have indicated that we will not take up much time with respect to this bill. I think the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) said that we would be prepared to give consent to have this matter considered in committee of the whole House in order that any questions remaining may be answered and the matter cleared up today, which I think is in the best interests of the owners of these contracts. I do not think there would be controversy on this matter, and I hope such consent will be called for when the minister closes the debate.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are finally getting around to the business of correcting the injustice done to those people who have been holding government annuity contracts for so many years. This bill is long overdue and I doubt that we will take much time in debating a matter that should have been settled long ago. While I realize that we cannot go back in years and grant a higher rate of interest on these annuities, we might at least have gone back to January 1 of this year and not just to April 1. This would have made up a little for what these people have lost through the great increases in interest rates that we have experienced over the past ten years.
I thought the government would have set the interest rate on these annuities at 9 per cent to 9.5 per cent, the same as the current savings bonds. I do not see any difference in collecting public money by subscription, whether you call the program an annuity or a bond issue. If government savings bonds realize a rate of interest of 9% per cent per annum, why should there not be the same rate of interest for another bond issue? Just because an issue is called by a different name does not mean it should qualify for a lower rate of interest. We should have taken the opportunity to do this last fall when the government set the new interest rates on savings bonds. At that time my party called on the government to establish the same interest rates for annuities as for savings bonds, but we had to wait a full year for that to be done.
The provisions of this bill would have been speedily passed through this House any time in the past ten years. While my colleagues and I welcome all the changes proposed in the bill, we should still like to see annuities more on a par with savings bonds. With regard to the restriction on further sales of annuity contracts, there is no likelihood of anyone opting to buy annuities, even at the new rate of interest of 7 per cent. I am pleased that the government will allow interest to accrue on annuities after the death or disappearance of the annuitant. That will at least be of some advantage to beneficiaries of annuities. However, I do not see any provision in this bill for people who are now holding annuities where the interest payments have stopped. Perhaps the government has some plan to correct this situation.
I am also pleased with the provisions which allow for more flexibility in managing the annuities, such as the provision allowing for the payment of moneys due on annuities to be paid into a registered retirement savings plan. I notice, too, that all restrictions on the changes which a beneficiary might make in an annuity contract 
have been removed, giving these annuities the same flexibility as other bond issues.
In conclusion, I should like to draw attention to clause 11 of this bill which allows for the future setting of interest rates for annuities by order in council. This should give to the government all the authority it needs to raise the rates from time to time as long as any of these annuities remain in existence. With these remarks, I hope we can receive co-operation from other parties in the House in bringing this long overdue legislation into effect. This will help those people who have put so much trust in the Canadian form of justice but who have been denied that justice in the field of saving for their old age.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I can make no claim, as was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to having a lifelong interest in this particular form of annuity. At the outset of my remarks, however, I do declare that I have an interest in this form of annuity. While absent from Canada during the war years, when one was not able to take overseas all the pay he was drawing, or when one wished to leave something behind by way of savings, I did this and my father invested in a Canadian government annuity in the expectation that the time would come when I would draw the full $100 annuity. At that time it sounded like a very valuable form of investment.
Having declared this, I do not want to be prevented from entering this debate because, as the minister knows, the announcement in the Speech from the Throne that the government was to introduce legislation amending and upgrading Canadian government annuities aroused tremendous interest across the country. I and many hon. members of this House received many letters asking when this legislation would come forward, how much the increase would be, and when it could be expected.
I therefore concur with my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), that this legislation is long overdue. The 4 per cent rate is so outdated in present-day terms that I think the government was forced by the number of supplications received from its annuitants to move. I am not sure it would have moved had there not been these letters and requests. Because of the interest this matter has aroused throughout Canada, we now have this legislation before us, but we had had it for only a week.
When I first quickly read the legislation I thought I might propose an amendment or two, either with regard to the rate of interest or to the backdating of the legislation beyond April 1, 1975. I was thinking of those who had the prudence 30, 40 or 50 years ago to set aside some small savings in the expectation that they would be receiving their annuities in full form in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. They could not then have realized how small the annuity would be in terms of its purchasing power. In terms of savings, the amount saved in the 1940s and 1950s and put aside for-let us say $100-the $50, $20, $25 or $28 is just about the value they are now getting out of it.
On that 4 per cent there was no saving whatsoever. I had therefore thought I might try to move back the date when it would be applicable, or suggest an increase in the rate of interest. I was deterred from doing so for two very good reasons. One, of course, is that in the present circum-
November 18, 1975

stances of restraint, and having heard the figures given by the minister when he moved second reading of this bill, that for 1975-76 alone it would mean an increase of about $38 million, if my figures are correct. To suggest another year back would at least double that figure. Therefore, I refrained from taking that course.
However, I do feel that had the government acted much earlier, the increase in the back payments to bring the annuity up to its 7 per cent rate would have been easier to agree to. I am always learning about things in parliament and I have absorbed much in the course of my being in parliament for about three years. I know that in regard to a bill involving an increase in the expenditure of money or the attachment of public funds there has to be a recommendation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may put me straight on this, but I notice there is no recommendation in this bill. I hope the bill is not defective in this respect and that we will be able to proceed with it.
I welcome the degree of flexibility attached to this bill. Clause 3(2) accords the governor in council authority to regulate in respect of an annuity the 7 per cent rate, with 7 per cent as a floor. It will never go below 7 per cent, as I read the bill. In terms of excessive inflation, it might go above that figure but never below. That suggests, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, that those holding an annuity at 3 per cent can be assured $132 per month; at 3.5 per cent, $129; and at 4 per cent, $122. I hope the minister is nodding his head in affirmation. Those holding a 5 per cent annuity will draw $114, and those holding the 5.25 per cent, $110. Annuity holders will welcome this news.
I am not sorry to see the government no longer involved in the sale of annuities. Their sale goes back to June, 1908, when individuals bought annuities from the government. If people could have bought private annuities more easily, their private annuities would have borne rates which accommodated themselves to changing circumstances. Perhaps the rates could have been renewed every five years. Annuitants would not have been stuck with 3 per cent, 3.5 per cent or 4 per cent annuity rates. The inflexibility was written into the original act. Private companies obviously would have concluded much more flexible agreements with annuity purchasers and provided for the periodic re-examination of interest rates. I am glad that the government is no longer involved in this activity.
Nowadays a prudent saver can put aside money in many ways: he can invest in a Canadian business, buy government bonds and otherwise provide for his family's future. He can invest in his country. I am glad that opportunity is becoming more widespread. Therefore, calling this legislation long overdue, welcoming many of its features, I will not delay passage of this bill on second reading and its going to committee for further study.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up much time talking on this bill, although I wish to bring a few points to the minister's attention. Like most members, I have received substantial correspondence from constituents on the subject of government annuities, perpetual government bonds, etc. Many people purchased annuities and perpetual bonds before we
Government Annuities
experienced our present degree of inflation. All their complaints are similar, namely, that when they made their original investments they considered them to be good, substantial, so-called blue chip investments. Inflation was virtually non-existent and they visualized their future as being reasonably stable. Their horizon was unclouded and they bought such investments to provide for their retirement years.
When I heard that the government was to bring in legislation to increase the effective rate of interest on annuities but terminate their sale, I became concerned. The fact is, people are involved with governments and, like it or not, dealing with government is different from dealing with a private concern. The government's determination to end the sale of annuities is a glaring admission of the government's failure not only in annuities but in bonds generally. It is a failure to adapt to circumstances and the economic needs of those most in need. Primarily, of course, we are talking about senior citizens and the elderly who contributed to their country by working diligently over the years. They put away money for their retirement years but now, because of present-day conditions, they are under a great disadvantage and severely inconvenienced. That being so, it is appropriate for hon. members to raise their voices in protest and ask the government if this bill is fair and if something more could not be done to help these unfortunate people.
I realize that my suggestions involve considerable expense. Some of my colleagues suggest that the bill should be retroactive, that increased interest should date back to the original date of purchase of the annuity. Annuity holders are asking for more interest. They do not say that the effective rate should be, say, 7 per cent back to the original date of purchase, but they do say that the rate could be indexed to bring it in line with the rate paid by a reasonable investment in the years intervening between the original purchase and the present. If a fair and reasonable rate at the time of purchase was 3.5 per cent, that was the going rate for investments but it is too low now: it is now unrealistic. The government in its announcement of this bill indicated that it is ending the sale of annuities because it says there is insufficient interest in this type of investment. To me, that is an outright admission that people are losing faith in government investments.
I now take issue with some of my colleagues who say the government should get out of the annuities business. I feel that the government should play a certain limited role in the field of annuities. Certainly, it raises money by selling bonds and notes but it is under the social obligation to involve itself in a reasonably limited scheme of annuities. It should make them available primarily to lower income people who have not enough money to provide for their retirement through contracts with private companies. I, for one, am sorry to see the government leave the annuities business. I suspect it is leaving because of its unfortunate experience in that business and the serious complaints it has received:
I said at the beginning that most of us receive letters from our constituents. I have received a number. One from a constituent illustrates the plight in which many find themselves. The writer is a fine person, a widow in my constituency who has made a substantial contribution to

November 18, 1975
Government Annuities
her community, province and country. Among other things, she has worked very hard all her life. In 1954 she purchased a government annuity. She invested her savings of $12,000 through the office in Saskatoon and, I believe, made payments over three years. After she finished making her payments she reconsidered the investment. Even then she had serious reservations, and at her own expense travelled to Ottawa to see the director of the annuities branch. She asked if she could withdraw from the annuities scheme but was advised that it was a firm contract in the same way as if she had dealt with a private corporation. The government was not prepared to make any exceptions to the rule. Therefore, she was tied in, if I can term it in that way-


An hon. Member:: Hooked.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will say tied "tied." You can put your own interpretation on it. She was in fact tied into the scheme and could expect no relief or exceptions to the rule if she made a petition or formal request to the government. This woman was then advised that the scheme in which she was involved was a straight annuity concept. She was told that if she did not take the option to put it into a guaranteed scheme for a period of years, in the event of her death over the next few years, there would be no residual interest on the part of her estate with respect to any of the funds she had invested in the annuities scheme. Rather, it would simply terminate and the contract would be finished.
As a result of receiving this information, this woman opted for the annuity guaranteed scheme for 20 years. That was well and good. I understand she received an effective rate of 3'/2 per cent on her investment. Another aspect of this contract which I find rather inequitable is that when this lady reached the age of 65 years, not only was she still receiving the same interest rate of 3lA per cent but by virtue of the operation of this annuity the amount that she received in old age security was deducted from the annuity. Therefore, she received something like $40 less each month than she would have received had she not been in receipt of old age security. We have spoken about the inequity of return on interest rates. However, I find it a very disturbing situation when a government plan penalizes a participant by virtue of the fact that he or she is receiving old age security payments because they have passed the age of 65.
When this matter comes before the standing committee I will be interested in hearing from the minister whether provisions of this sort contained in annuity schemes will be amended to make the scheme more equitable and to underline the concept of an annuity. It should be on the same basis as if one had an annuity with a private company. It should not be affected by the kind of payment one receives from the government as a matter of right having attained the age of 65. In addition to speaking to me, this lady has apparently spoken to the CBC ombudsman. I understand there may be some discussion of this particular problem on that program before the end of this month. I can only hope that this complaint, which was brought to the attention of the minister, had some effect in precipitating this legislation. If that is the case, I suspect Mrs.

Margaret Jenkins, a very distinguished constituent, will be happy that her complaint and petition have had this effect.
While this legislation may not go as far as one would like, it does go a certain distance toward bringing some equity to these investments as of April 1, 1975. I join with other hon. members in commending the government to the extent that they have taken action to make a more reasonable return available to participants in the annuities scheme.
In writing to me, Mrs. Jenkins pointed out that if she had purchased $12,000 worth of government bonds at that time, she would have received $540 a year, or $10,800 for 20 years until April, 1975 at which time she would have received back the $12,000. She would still have had her capital. What she has now is a guaranteed period of 20 years with her $12,000 investment. She receives something in that vicinity but she has used up the capital investment. This woman has children. She feels she has contributed to society and to her country. She saved money. Quite frankly, she does not believe she has received proper consideration. During the course of the committee proceedings I hope the minister will give serious consideration to what else might be done for people in this situation.
I am certainly in favour of restraint in government expenditures. However, there is an area of government priority that must be considered. I refer to those who are unable to take care of themselves, the disadvantaged and the elderly. These persons have a very high priority. Restraint in government spending can well take place in other areas. A rearrangement of priorities in spending would not be difficult in order to make some reasonable provision for people in the categories I have mentioned.
During the course of the committee meetings, I ask the minister to let us know whether there is any additional provision which might come within the royal recommendation, by which we can make some gesture toward persons who will receive minimum benefit from the provisions of this bill, those whose annuity contracts are coming close to termination. These are special cases. The government is regarded by citizens in somewhat different terms than private companies. I therefore ask the minister to set up within the annuities branch an administrative tribunal to look at individual cases and grant relief with respect to applications where a particular hardship or need is shown. It is all right for those who have a reasonable income to just look upon this as an investment, but many people in Canada rely extensively on this kind of investment.
It seems to me the minister would do Canadians a great service if he were to consider setting up a mechanism within the department through which applications or petitions could be made by people who are most seriously affected by inadequate interest rates over the years; they might be given an opportunity to seek relief additional to that proposed in the legislation. In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity afforded me to take part in this debate. I have spoken for rather longer that I intended, but I had certain things I wished to say with regard to this piece of legislation.
November 18, 1975


Donald W. Munro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain the absence of the Royal recommendation from the copy of the bill I have. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned the royal recommendation. I see that I have a pre-first reading version of the bill, one which does not contain the royal recommendation and I should like that correction to stand.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to intervene briefly in this debate because I, along with others in this chamber, have received letters and telephone calls from people who have asked for the very thing which is being granted in the bill now before us.
In the past, when a great many people, now older people, purchased government annuities, they did so for two reasons. First, the 4 per cent interest rate was not unattractive when compared with the bank interest rate and the interest rate yielded by other easy investment opportunities at the time. In the second place-and this was perhaps the major reason-they felt that if any investment was gilt-edged and secure, a government annuity stood in that category since it was backed by all the resources of the country.
Then a few years ago when inflation began taking hold of the economy, their investment looked far less attractive and members began receiving letters pointing this out. Several hon. members have referred to these letters but I do not believe any have been put on record. I intend to quote one of them because it expresses in a forcible way the plight of those concerned. It is from Sydney W. Mason, R.R.l, Selkirk. He writes:
Dear Mr. Knowles:
In the sixties, the government promoted the sale of Canadian Government Annuities to provide a retirement savings plan. Many people like myself put in sums in excess of $1,000 per annum as a responsible provision to retirement. In course of time the government annuity was taken out and a monthly income established. This is administered through the Unemployment Insurance Commission ... These annuities were established at a rate of 4 per cent on the capital and since that time have been paid on that basis. As a fixed income it does not change, and I am sure in those days nobody anticipated the high inflation or the rise in interest and it seems to me the government could well pay a yearly bonus to reflect conditions today, not on the basis of 4 per cent. This was appreciated in the case of Canada savings bonds where a bonus was brought in last year, and old age pensions and welfare have been geared to inflation, but those of us who had the foresight to provide for ourselves without government support are penalized and the government is "ripping us off" by investing our capital and paying us at 4 per cent.
That, I think, is the crux of the situation, and no doubt representations of this kind are the reason Bill C-75 is before us today. Following such representations as I have quoted, I wrote to the then minister of finance, now the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) and among other things I said:
It would be reasonable to ask the government to index annuities in the same manner so that their value is not completely eroded.
I was referring to the indexing of bonds.
I draw this matter to your attention at this time because no doubt in the near future you will be introducing a new budget in the House of Commons and it would be the opportune time to take some steps to protect the income of people who have government annuities and other low paying interest bonds.
I do not by any means claim that this letter prompted the minister to take action, but no doubt letters addressed to
Government Annuities
him and representations by hon. members generally encouraged him to take the step he did. The 7 per cent interest rate is to be commended. It is a great improvement on the 4 per cent figure I have mentioned. I think, though, it might be better to index the interest rate rather than provide for its adjustment by order in council. It seems to me it would be fair to index it in accordance with the cost of living, the consumer price index, and so on. Even the 7 per cent rate is not particularly attractive when one considers the interest which can be earned on savings deposited with banks, or on savings bonds. While good, the 7 per cent rate could certainly be increased without hurting anyone.
I was interested in the proposition the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) made about the need to look at the perpetual government savings bonds which are held by large numbers of people across the country. These are a millstone around the necks of their holders, in terms of investment. The interest rate is abysmally low. This is another item about which my constituents have been making representations to me, and there is a growing need for action in this area.
In conclusion, I express the hope that agreement will be reached, as the debate closes, to go into committee of the whole. Let us get this bill through and get the money into the hands of the people concerned as soon as possible.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I say, first of all, that I regret the failure of the House leader to obtain unanimous agreement among the parties to sending this bill before a committee of the whole House after second reading. It is not always easy for members interested in particular pieces of legislation to find places on the various committees which are created. A person having an interest in Bill C-75 would find, with some surprise, that the Department of Manpower and Immigration was going to handle it as originally introduced or referred to in the House by the Minister of Finance.
Be that as it may, I have a few questions which are not really suitable for debate on second reading. This is forcing members to get placed on the relevant committee if they have detailed questions they want to ask on clause by clause study. It could just as well, and more expeditiously, be done in committee of the whole. Many of us had also hoped that this bill would be given third reading today. I am glad it is not the party to which I belong that has put the roadblock in the way of its speedy passage.
There are two or three comments I would like to make, and I hope the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) will be able to answer my queries in his summing up. This being one of the dwindling number of government long-term borrowings on which Canada Pension Plan rates of interest are based, that is, the rate the provinces pay the federal government for the use of Canada Pension Plan moneys, is it the position of the government that their actions concerning this bill are entirely altruistic? In other words, does the prospect of raising the interest rate with respect to the Canada Pension Plan have any bearing on the decision, and does this measure indicate that the government's other long-term securities may be subject to adjustments-the government's definition of a long-term security being that it must be of 20 or more years' duration? There are very few

November 18, 1975
Government Annuities
securities in a government portfolio, and removing a Canadian annuity fund from that portfolio is going to affect Canada Pension Plan interest rates.
I think clauses 3 and 4 leave one in a considerable fuzz about the real rate of increase in pay-out. Annuities being paid out prior to April 1 will now be increased to 7 per cent interest. With a 4 per cent bond, this represents a 75 per cent increase. I am very curious as to why, with a 75 per cent increase in the rate of interest, the maximum rate of pay-out under the attached schedule is 32 per cent. That is the maximum increase, ranging down to 10 per cent for 5!4 per cent annuities. Perhaps the minister can clarify that matter for me when he sums up.
I would also ask the minister if he would be kind enough, when closing the debate, to give some assurance to the House regarding clause 19, which provides:
This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
I hope the minister will assure us that the date of proclamation will follow very speedily after third reading and royal assent and that there will be no undue delay. Constituents of all hon. members are waiting eagerly for this long-awaited increase in annuity. Some have watched their purchasing power dwindle gradually over the years. This bill is, as has been said, long overdue and I am pleased to support it. I hope it will get speedy passage.
I close on a lighter note. I would ask the minister, or anybody, to explain to me the intriguing phrase in clause 8, "the purchaser has died or gone out of existence". I must confess I have been puzzling over how you go out of existence rather than die. I had no idea that there was an alternative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: If the
minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, may I make quick reference to the suggestion that we continue right through committee of the whole. I would have been willing to do so had I understood that this was planned in agreement with all parties, but regretfully that was not my understanding and I have made other arrangements. I hope we can deal with the bill expeditiously in the standing committee where it would lend itself perhaps to more detail.
If there are problems in getting on the committee, as one or two members understandably have indicated there might be and if there is no compromise I will be glad to answer any detailed questions and make sure that answers get back to hon. members. I realize that this does not get them on the record, as it were, but I think it will be of some assistance. Members may send their questions to me tommorrow; obviously I cannot deal with them all at this stage.
Since the bill will be going to committee I will not attempt to touch on any of the matters raised. As for the authority in the bill for the governor in council to vary the rate from the 7 per cent figure, as in clause 3(2), I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) expressed concern as to what would happen under the schedule if the rate were increased to 7 per cent, 8 per cent

or whatever, just to take an illustration. It is the assumption, supported by the authority in clause 5(2), that the governor in council would also have power to vary the schedule governing interest rates. I think we are on all-fours in intent, but in committee I think I will be able to establish that that authority is in the bill.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) mentioned a case concerning an annuity. A lady had had a contract and on reaching pensionable age found that her rate of pay-out was being varied. I will take the opportunity to check that because it sounded very much to me a matter of edict by the government. I am told that it is very likely, based on the original contract she entered into and in order to have a more convenient arrangement, at her option she chose an earlier commencement date for the annuity and then deliberately phased in old age security, or whatever the supplemental benefit was. It is a little difficult to change horses in midstream, as it were, but that may be the explanation in that particular case.
With regard to the real rate of pay-out increase, I am not sure why there is confusion there. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) was quite accurate in the figures he placed on the record, as I heard them. The $100 payment, depending on the schedule, is increased in proportion to the percentage rates at the back of the bill.
As for the expression in clause 8 "died or gone out of existence", I admit that puzzled me a bit. It is really the difference between a human and a corporation. Humans, unfortunately, die; corporations go out of existence for all sorts of reasons. There may have been a better way to put it, but that is the intent of that somewhat amusing use of language.
With regard to the proclamation date, we are only reserving the implementation of this legislation in order to have the opportunity, after receiving the authority of the House of Commons, of proceeding with a certain program of administrative measures getting them in line. This will be done as quickly as possible because we are very keen to get the cheques rolling. Hopefully, this will coincide with the availability of delivery of the cheques. I look forward to discussing the bill in more detail in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

Stanley Ronald 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the House leaders opposite for arranging that this bill be called at this time. I hope it will be possible to refer the bill to the
November 18, 1975

Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs after appropriate debate and to have the bill passed by this House and the other place by Christmas. I recognize, as does the government, the concern of Canadians for the whole question of prevention and detection of crime, and peace and security. This is a major concern that is surpassed possibly only by the concern of Canadians for inflation.
The government believes that Canadians have the right to enjoy a sense of safety on their streets and in their homes and cities, a right that has long been the hallmark of our country's way of life. There are many Canadians who feel insecure in this regard at this time. The policies and initiatives which the government will bring forward to the House in the months to come will tackle the issue of how Canada must respond to social and cultural changes. Initiatives will be forthcoming in a number of areas. Some, as hon. members know, such as the national attack on inflation, are already before the House. Others, such as bills which I and my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), are working on now will be introduced shortly. They are currently in preparation and under consultation on a priority basis with the attorneys general of the provinces and others.
This bill which was introduced by my predecessor, now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), during the month of July and introduced today for second reading is part of a series of measures which will demonstrate, I think, in a full and firm manner the government's determination to respond to the real and legitimate concerns of Canadians. I hope we can get it into the committee after appropriate debate in order to deal with both the substantive and technical amendments provided for in Bill C-71 in the precise way that committee hearings allow.
The criminal law amendments bill is one of a number that have been and will be introduced in a continuing review by the government of the Criminal Code. This ongoing reappraisal of substantive, procedural and evidentiary aspects of criminal law is necessary if criminal law is to reflect the changing attitudes of Canadians and to provide for more effective means of law enforcement against criminal activities. It also provides the means of evaluating the effectiveness of some earlier changes with a view to ascertaining whether further modifications or improvements are needed.
Increasingly, crime is taking on an international aspect and the amendments dealing with conspiracy and laundering are aimed at these particular problems. Changes in our mode of life, such as the increased use of credit cards, have made it necessary and desirable to introduce provisions dealing specifically with credit card theft, fraudulent use of credit cards and theft of telecommunications services.
The amendments that are being introduced in Bill C-71 result, in some instances, from particular problems that have been encountered and in others from a general realization that the present provisions are inadequate to meet changing conditions. These amendments are designed to remedy the problems that have been encountered or are anticipated.
Criminal Code
Many of the amendments contained in the bill are the result of representations made by the criminal law section of the Uniform Law Conference, the Canadian Bar Association, the attorneys general of the provinces, law enforcement authorities and the general public. These representations are indicative of the participatory nature of the amendment process whereby all segments of the public are involved. I will at a later date, when further amendments to the Criminal Code are introduced, be discussing both these amendments and the work of the Law Reform Commission in the whole area of criminal law reform which will be going on over the next few years.
The main objectives of the bill are fourfold. They are to update certain areas of the criminal law to reflect the changes in public attitudes; for example, provisions dealing with pinball machines and interprovincial lotteries. The second is to take account of crimes which have recently become more prevalent, such as fraudulent use of credit cards, as I have mentioned. The third is to strengthen the provisions of the Criminal Code where problems have persisted, such as bail, drinking and driving offences and cattle theft. The fourth is to modernize provisions dealing with the legal process and criminal procedure, such as rape and related sexual offences.
I want to deal, at second reading, only with a number of aspects of this series of amendments. One of the major problems facing law enforcement authorities across the country in recent years has been the inroads made into our society by organized criminals, white collar criminals or syndicated crime, as they are variously called, who are adept at using the legitimate institutions of society as a means toward illegal ends. For example, consider the case of bonds or securities stolen outside Canada's borders, then passed through various front companies to be converted into cash. At the present time, section 312 of the Criminal Code cannot be used against those proceeds of theft but only against the actual goods or moneys obtained by theft, even if it can be proven by investigation that these proceeds do indeed derive from an illegal act.
By enlarging the scope of this section of the Criminal Code, as this bill purports to do, to make it an offence knowingly to possess the fruits of criminal acts whether committed in Canada or not, we will be placing in the hands of law enforcement bodies a potent weapon against organized criminals. It will no longer be possible for Canada to be used as a laundering facility along organized crime's cash flow process.
Another provision of this bill which will greatly assist police forces in deterring the activities of organized criminals and of terrorist organizations is the proposal to make it an offence to conspire in Canada to commit an offence outside the country, or to conspire outside Canada to commit an offence within our borders. Canada should not, and will not, tolerate being used as a base from which to plan crimes. If, for example, the directors of a company incorporated in Canada conspire to fleece investors in another country, they will be liable to a charge under this section of the Criminal Code.
In the second case, this section will make it an offence to plan a crime in another country for commission in Canada. This will apply to groups who plan, for example, to commit acts of violence or terrorism within our borders, even if

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
those acts are not considered illegal in the country in which their planning occurs. This provision could have application, although I know the House would join me in hoping that it will not, in the security measures established for the 1976 Olympic Games to be held in Montreal.
The second area of the bill I want to touch upon is that relating to rape and related sexual offences. An area of the criminal law system which has been much discussed in recent years is the procedure in cases of rape. The complaint, and it is well known, is that the trial procedures through which a rape victim must go are almost as much of an ordeal as the crime itself, and that often it appears as if it is the victim who must stand trial for having suffered the assault, rather than the accused. The amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in this bill are aimed at minimizing the embarrassment the victim must undergo, thereby increasing the number of rapes that are reported and prosecuted. They also, I think, reflect society's changing attitudes toward this crime while keeping in mind the rights of the accused.
Under the provisions of this bill it will no longer be mandatory for judges to warn juries that the victim's testimony, if not corroborated by other witnesses, is an unsafe ground upon which to convict. This provision has been seen by some as discriminatory to female victims of rape and attempted rape. The repeal of the statute requiring judges to caution juries will put an end to such discrimination.
It has also been said that the cross-examination of the victim, by counsel for the defence, on her moral character and previous sexual conduct reaches the point of harassment. Under the proposed amendments contained in this bill it will be necessary for defence counsel to show cause, in a voir dire in camera, that the evidence sought in such cross-examination is-of such sufficient importance that it would be unjust to exclude it. The proposed amendments would further allow the exclusion of the public from the trial or any of the proceedings of the case. The amendments would also require judges, when either prosecuting or defence counsel has applied for such an exclusion, to consider the application and give in writing the reasons for denying the order if the judge does not agree.
As another means of protecting the victim of rape, the judge shall prohibit publication of the identity of the complainant when requested to by the prosecutor, which often is a particular matter of concern in smaller communities. The judge will also be required to consider a change of location for the trial and give reasons in writing if he decides not to order a change in venue. These procedures are designed, as I say, to spare the complainant the embarrassment of having the circumstances of the case become known in her community. They will also serve, I believe, as further encouragement to the victims of rape to come forward and report the incident to police so that justice can take its course and so that the harassment which has been associated with many rape trials will no longer prevail.
The third area of the bill upon which I wish to touch involves clauses 47, 48 and 53 related to bail. The Bail Reform Act was passed by this House in 1972. The primary

objective of the act was to prevent an accused being unnecessarily detained in custody before trial of his case. It has become apparent that there is a need to tighten up some of the provisions where abuses which are potentially damaging to the integrity of the system of pre-trial release have arisen.
The general rule remains that when a person arrested is brought before the judge, he must be released on bail unless the Crown satisfies the judge that grounds for detention exist. Detention may be justified either on the ground that it is necessary to ensure the attendance of the accused at trial, or that it is necessary in the public interest. In certain circumstances, however, it is the accused rather than the Crown who should bear the onus of showing detention pending trial is not necessary in the public interest. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of our legal system but its uncritical application to the earlier stages of law enforcement, such as pre-trial release, may give rise to unjustifiable results.
The accused, rather than the Crown, should carry the burden of showing he should be released, in three exceptional circumstances. The first of these situations occurs where an accused is awaiting trial for a previous indictable offence. There has been much publicity about persons released on bail on successive occasions while awaiting trial on as many as four or five charges. The present provisions are unlikely to discourage potential offenders and may foster an unhealthy disrespect for the criminal law. An amendment to deal with those who commit an indictable offence while on bail will shift the onus to the accused and remedy the imbalance.
Second, the person who has previously abused the liberal release provisions will now also bear the onus of showing why he should be released from custody pending trial. At the present time this is not the case. To shift the onus to the accused where he has previously contravened a release order is justified, keeping in mind the general principles of the Bail Reform Act.
Third, under the bail reform provisions, the foreign or non-resident accused is dealt with in the same way as an accused domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada. The one expressed exception is that the judge may, on release pending trial, require a case deposit. In some cases, the deposit has been treated as a licence to abscond. It then becomes unlikely the offender will be apprehended and brought to trial. To meet this problem, the amendment shifts the onus to the non-resident accused.
At present, the second ground for detention that the Crown must establish is that the detention of the accused is necessary in the public interest or for the protection or safety of the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if he is released from custody, commit a serious criminal offence involving serious harm or an interference with the administration of justice. The basic test is whether detention is necessary to the public interest. The likelihood of serious harm is only one of the factors to be considered.
The reference to serious harm may influence the court- and it is my belief it has-into giving too narrow a construction to the main test. The words "involving serious harm" are therefore deleted by these amendments. The onus on the Crown will be to establish that there is a
November 18, 1975

substantial likelihood of the commission of a criminal offence. I think those proposed changes to the Bail Act are important to correct and remedy some of the criticisms that have been made of the Bail Reform Act passed in 1972.
The next matter upon which I should like to touch is the overturning by courts on appeal of jury verdicts. As hon. members know, there has been recently a celebrated case in which an appeal court, hearing an appeal against an acquittal by a jury, imposed a guilty verdict on the accused. Under the provisions of this bill, appeal courts will no longer be empowered to reverse a verdict of acquittal. Instead, they will only be empowered to order a new trial of the accused or dismiss the appeal.
The next matter upon which I should like to touch is begging while armed, which is a matter of concern, I know, in the city I come from and in many of the large urban centres across Canada. Panhandling, or begging has become a phenomenon affecting our major urban centres over the past few years. Often the beggars are young transients, and often, too, they conspicuously wear knives while asking for money. To many people, the sight of a knife on a youth who has stopped them to ask for a hand-out is a threatening situation. The other day we listened to a member read letters from his constituents. I could show him long, thick files from constituents of mine touching on that particular situation. Amendments proposed in this bill will make it an offence under the section of the Criminal Code that deals with assault to impede or accost another person while wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation of a weapon.
The next area I would touch upon is drinking and driving. One of the obvious major causes of violent death in Canada is the motor vehicle accident. Too often the root cause of the accident that kills or maims is the impaired or drunk driver. Amendments proposed in this bill will both stiffen the penalties for impaired driving and allow preventive police action to remove the impaired driver from the road before he can cause an accident. The penalties for impaired driving will be increased to a maximum fine of $2,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both. The minimum penalty will be $50. For a second offence, the penalty will be a minimum of 14 days imprisonment, up to a maximum of one year. For each subsequent offence, conviction will bring a minimum jail term of three months, up to a maximum of two years' imprisonment. The provisions of this bill would also empower judges to impose a conditional discharge in lieu of conviction, which would require the impaired driver to undergo curative or rehabilitative measures.
In the area of preventive policing, police would be empowered to conduct roadside screenings of drivers they have reasonable cause to suspect of having alcohol in their blood. This measure is not a substitute for the breathalyzer system but is a supplement to it. There have also been, which I will discuss in the committee, discussions in the press and with the attorneys general relating to the suspension of driving privileges by a magistrate. I have had discussions with the attorneys general about this, which I will discuss with the committee when the bill is there.
Other amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in this bill concern themselves with attacks made against diplomats and other internationally-protected persons
Criminal Code
within Canada and make it an offence to commit or threaten to commit an act of violence against the official or private premises of such a person. Following discussions with the provinces, measures are proposed to strengthen the provisions of the Criminal Code against off-track betting and to impose minimum sentences for second and subsequent convictions for bookmaking and running an illegal messenger service.
Recently, theft of telecommunication facilities has become widespread through the use of illegal black boxes which can circumvent the electronic accounting machinery used by telecommunications companies. Amendments proposed in this bill would prohibit the manufacture, possession or distribution of such devices without lawful excuse. This bill would also amend the Criminal Code to make cattle theft a separate indictable offence punishable by a maximum of ten years' imprisonment, and also establish stiff penalties for the theft of credit cards or to forge, use or deal in forged credit cards. The amendments will also allow the courts to try the offender in a credit card case in any area of their jurisdiction where he has committed such an offence.
Generally speaking, those are the measures in Bill C-71 which I have gone through quickly. As I have said, I urge that after appropriate debate in this House the bill go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where each of the amendments can be examined in detail and then referred back to the House. I think they reflect the continuing concern of the general public, of our law enforcement authorities and of the Government of Canada for the preservation of law and order in our society. Too often in recent days there has appeared to be an imbalance in this regard, and it is important that the interests of the public at large be safeguarded against certain individuals and groups in our society. At the same time, obviously we must ensure that the interests and rights of the individual are protected, but this protection can never be at the expense of society as a whole.
I emphasize again that this bill dealing with a series of amendments to the Criminal Code which are both substantive and technical will shortly be followed by further amendments to be introduced by the Solicitor General dealing with a large range of substantial changes to the Criminal Code which I hope can be introduced before Christmas.
I repeat my thanks to the House leaders for their cooperation in having this bill called at this time, in the hope that it can be dealt with in committee and passed by the House and Senate before Christmas so that members of the House, and especially those who are interested in criminal matters, will be free to devote their full attention to the next series of criminal law amendments which will be forthcoming shortly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Madam Speaker, I should like to join the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in thanking the House leaders and others for co-operating in bringing forward this bill at this time. I want to tell the Minister of Justice that I was very pleased to receive an answer from him today during the question period, not because of the kind of answer he gave me but

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
because I think that in principle he is on the right track. My question was in reference to-I certainly do not want to debate it at this stage-the Latta murder trial.
I asked whether a decision had been made at the department level under section 617 because it was stated in an article in the Edmonton Journal and in the Albertan that the decision had already been made. But the minister made it very clear that this is a ministerial decision and that it will be made at his level, no doubt with the guidance of his officials. I think this shows that the minister is on the right track and I wish him well in his position as the new Minister of Justice. I think it is an honour to rise to the position of the highest law officer of the land.
Ever since I entered parliament, all the ministers of justice have been excellent, both in our party and in the Liberal party. I always had the fullest co-operation of the former minister of justice and of his predecessor who was later minister of finance. I know that the committee and members of our party will receive the same co-operation from the new minister and I wish him well.
I should like to discuss briefly the amendments before us. I might say at the beginning that we are prepared to see them go to committee for study. I foresee possible amendments being proposed and some questions being asked of department officials and of the minister to determine the effect of some of the changes that are being made in this package. I think it should be made clear that this is a package which confirms what the minister said when he first took office; that is, that he would get tougher with criminals and that as a result the government will be able to do something to reduce the ever-increasing rate of crime which is not only occurring in this country but also in other nations in the western world. The minister said openly and honestly that a similar bill was before the House under another minister of justice. Except for one or two small improvements it was really a patch job that did not bring about the control of crime in any substantial way.
The present Criminal Code of Canada is, at best, a haphazard arrangement based on British precedent, historical accident and outdated mythology. Since the implementation of the code, changes have been made by amendment in order to bring the law up to date, but we have failed to scratch the surface. I thought that that was the function of the Law Reform Commission, but we seem to be as far away from that ideal as we were four or five years ago.
I should like to refer to some of the sections which I consider to be antiquated, archaic and outdated. Let us look at the code. We can trace the foundation of the Criminal Code back to the work of Sir James Stephen. His draft code of 1868, along with Burbidge's Digest, which was really an edition of Stephen's work in a Canadian context by Mr. Justice Burbidge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, became the Canadian Criminal Code in 1892 after being presented to the Parliament of Canada by the then minister of justice, Sir John Thompson. Many of the sections of the Criminal Code have not been amended since 1892, and even if they have the same direction in our jurisprudence is maintained.
As I have said previously, the development and improvement of the code over the past 75 years has largely been by

way of amendment. The desirability of proceeding in this manner has been challenged by many people, one of them being a leading Canadian authority, professor Alan Mewett who, in an article entitled "The Criminal Law, 1867-1967" which appeared in the Canadian Bar Review, stated:
The numerous amendments present a shocking indictment of the process of criminal legislation.
Later he added:
But it is not a cause for congratulation that Sir James Stephen would be quite at home with the Criminal Code of 1967.
I think that is a challenge to the minister. Although I am not being critical, I say that it is time we were able to do the job in the various departments of parliament. I know that this bill has been around for some time. In spite of the complexity of government today and of parliamentary responsibilities and duties, it is our job to get this bill before a committee. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether the same unhappy conclusion reached by Professor Alan Mewett could not be drawn in 1975 or in 1976. Of course it could.
What, then, should we be looking for when we consider reform of the Criminal Code? The notion that crime can be placed in a single category is erroneous. Violent crime creates a climate of fear in the streets of our growing cities. Violent crime is on the increase in Canada, so that no one feels safe in the streets of our major cities, in the apartment blocks, in laundromats or even in garages. White collar crime, though important in economic terms, is much less visible than are crimes of violence.
The material cost of crimes such as petty theft, consumer fraud, violations of the Combines Investigation Act and embezzlement, dwarfs, in economic terms, all crimes of violence. It seems to me that perhaps we should philosophize for a few moments. To control violent crime and white collar crime we must have laws which are practical and acceptable to modern interpretations of life and human behaviour. That is why, when I come to the specifics of the amendments, I should like to see the code brought up to date and streamlined to modern times. These amendments should probably have been moved 10 or 20 years ago, and even then they would have made very little impact on the change in human behaviour, as far as crime in Canada is concerned.
The value of proper laws and proper law enforcement cannot be underestimated with regard to the control of crime, but I have felt for years that we must get at the breeding grounds of crime. What are those breeding grounds? Crime breeds in cesspools of injustice. Wherever there is injustice, crime will breed. It breeds in the urban slums or in the fast-growing cities of Canada. Urban poverty makes people the victims, not the masters, of their environment. A bad environment becomes the hereditary property of succeeding generations. When I travel to various areas of this city, I see children who are forced to play on concrete and cement without necessary parks which are large enough to be playgrounds. The situation is worse here than it is in Calgary. These children are brought up in conditions which foster crime.
November 18, 1975

In order to launch a major assault on crime we must attack the conditions of despair and denial of human opportunity in which crime can grow. However, crime still thrives under conditions of affluence. It seems strange to say that it is the white collar, economic crime which is eroding our system, sometimes categorized as a capitalistic system, promoting more and more controls and less freedom. Carried to a conclusion, this kind of crime against our society will lead us further down the road of controls and stateism.
In brief, police courts and prisons cannot by themselves control crime. I have never been convinced that prisons control crime. I cannot believe, in 1975 when I walk through the penitentiaries of this land and see people incarcerated in small cells, that there can ever be any real rehabilitation and reform. It may be that we live in a soft society and that we should not let them do hard work, but under certain conditions which safeguard society surely they should be permitted to do certain human endeavours-they would be not only of benefit to themselves but also a pride to society-so that they could be rehabilitated and reformed. However, under the conditions in which people live today, even on a first offence people are incarcerated. These places do not offer much hope, but, I would say, despair.
We must also deal with the underlying causes of crime, the immense and stubborn forces which pervade our environment, form our character and determine the quality of our lives. Through long-range effort in a new land of bountiful resources, we in Canada can surely conquer poverty and ignorance. We have conquered disease. Surely we can conquer discrimination, although I am not sure we have not gone too far. We should be conquering family breakdown, injustice, social tension and despair. Certainly there will be domestic despair if we have divorce laws which are too harsh. But on the other hand I see despair when in either a professional way or in my capacity of service to my country I see children with only one parent, and some of them deserted completely.
I have seen women across this land who have been deserted. They can go on welfare because of the number of children left with them and because they are without proper care centres, but they have to carry on in an environment which in the end surely does not lead to the creation of the best of citizens. And this is through no fault of the women in question. Hundreds of thousands of men have deserted their families and moved to other provinces. We have a kind of Balkan state in this country where alimony and maintenance claims cannot be enforced. These men walk away and leave their responsibilities to society.
While we must strive to uproot the cause of crime, we must put our practical minds to work in amending the various sections of the Criminal Code in such a way as to guarantee the law's respect and so that it shall not protect the rich while constituting injustice against the poor. Some say there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor, but the law is identical for all Canadians. We have gone a long way, even in my time here in this House. In addition, the provincial legislatures have gone a long way.
It is not the law which is different for Mr. Jones, who is in poverty, or for Mr. Green, who lives in affluence; it is
Criminal Code
the implementation of the law, the ability to hire the proper kind of expertise either by way of legal counsel, sociologists, psychiatrists or psychologists to help these people and to give them the same opportunity. An example of this, although not of this country, is the case of Patty Hearst. She can afford a better trial than her friends who were arrested with her because she can buy the best witnesses, the best psychiatrists, the best doctors and, I hope, the best lawyers.
Whether we like it or not, human behaviour being what it is, we only have to look at the book "A Matrix of Evidence" to determine how important it is to have highly trained and skilled people in the field of defence and in the field of representing the state when there is a prosecution. I have often felt we should have a special school for prosecutors, because many of them develop the idea that they are involved in a war. They feel that when they go to court, they have to win their case. When the Crown, which is the state, is being represented, this must be done in the fairest and most equitable way. The facts must be laid before the judge, or the judge and jury, whether they are for or against the accused. It is only for the defence to puncture the hole and to give the accused the best advantage under the law, because we must remember that when an accused sits in the prisoner's dock he has a large police force and the power of the state against him. Many times in my life I have seen very efficient counsel for the Crown, but not always the most efficient for the defence.
It is for us to bring excellence to every aspect of the administration of criminal justice, to correction, to courts and to law enforcement in every jurisdiction in Canada. Laws must be reformed. That is what we are going to do today and tomorrow. They must be repealed if enforcement is impossible, if the majority of people find them unjust and no one pretends to obey them and, above all, if no one is willing to enforce them. Surely this is the purpose of amending the Criminal Code; at least, I hope it is.
Before I discuss a few of the things with which the minister dealt, I might say that in my opinion the government has failed miserably in its fight against crime. Perhaps all governments have. According to the latest figures released by Statistics Canada, violence is up 10 per cent, about the same rate as inflation. Last year there were 545 murders in Canada, of which 450 cases were solved and 95 remain unsolved. The rate of violent crime in 1974 was up almost 6 per cent over 1973. In preparing for what I was going to say, last night I read that in the United States 19 violent crimes are committed every minute. There are 220 million people in the United States, and I would say that our ratio of crime would be identical.
Sometimes we are very complacent and point across the border or to some other country, but crime is on the march. Like all cities on the prairies, over the years Calgary has grown, but I never thought I would live to see the time when a secretary in my law firm would leave the office at around six or seven o'clock and be mugged, as they say, on the way home. A lady who has served in our firm for some 20 years was twisted around and her purse, credit cards, and so on, taken. Women on the streets are being dragged into churches and dark corners and raped. In my city and other cities housewives lock their doors as soon as their

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
husbands leave, for fear someone will enter the house and commit rape or other violent crimes.
The amendment concerning rape as contained in clause 8, on page 7 of the bill, is technical. This amendment would abolish the requirement of a warning as to corroboration in the case where an accused is charged with rape or another sexual offence referred to in section 142 involving a female. Further, this amendment would exclude questions concerning the sexual conduct of the complainant with persons other than the accused in cases where the offence charged is rape, attempted rape, sexual intercourse with a female under 14 years of age or indecent assault on a female, unless notice of such questions has been given and the presiding judge, magistrate or justice considers them necessary after a hearing in the absence of the jury and the public. In other words, the court must use its discretion.
Let me deal with corroboration. I support this concept, although I shall be raising some questions concerning it in committee. There is a reason for our rule of corroboration. Rape is the easiest offence to charge, the hardest to defend. So, wise men and women over the years have said that when this serious crime is charged, which at one time carried the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, there must be some corroboration. Usually that corroboration is given by an indirect, third party. The law said that the complaint must be made as quickly as possible. If the woman, on arriving home after the alleged offence, complained, say to a friend, mother or husband as soon as possible after the commission of the offence, it was held that her complaint constituted a form of corroboration. The rule of corroboration has been necessary to ensure that no person will be convicted unfairly of a crime carrying the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Sometimes there are two accused persons involved in a rape. This brings me to my next point. Let me tell hon. members about a certain case. Some years ago it fell to my lot to defend two young fellows, 21 years old or so, who had been charged with rape. They were driving a girl home from one town in Saskatchewan to another ten miles away. As they drove, a certain discussion took place between the driver and the female and finally the other fellow left the automobile. According to the facts elicited at trial, a certain proposition was made to her and she said she would do a certain thing provided a certain birth control device was used. The driver called his friend back to the car and asked if he had a certain birth control device. The friend said he had, but would not part with it. The offence, or affair, then took place. According to the female complainant, those two fellows attacked her and only when she broke down under cross-examination at trial was there any admission of the events previously alluded to. So one can see why corroboration is necessary. That is why a judge charges a jury that it is dangerous to convict unless there is some corroboration of a material particular of the complainant's story.
As the Minister of Justice said so clearly this afternoon, defence counsel, in order to discredit the complainant, would cross-examine on her sexual experiences with other people and, in all probability, prejudice the jury with respect to the accused. Sometimes one felt the complainant was on trial, not the accused. Let there be no doubt that a prostitute can be raped. It is all a matter of consent or, as a 
famous judge said, a question of salesmanship. At any rate, the provision which will remove the right to what we call the envelope list, that is, the right to cross-examine the female on her other sexual experiences, is sound.
The right to cross-examine on character is retained, provided certain conditions are met. An application must be made, after proper notice, to the judge and the matter must be argued in the absence of the jury. Counsel can apply to the judge for permission to put questions to a female complainant about her other affairs with those she has charged with the offence because, human behaviour being what it is, it is possible that a female complainant will allege rape for a number of reasons when rape may not have taken place. Therefore, the proposed provision is good. Some ladies belonging to an association whose name escapes me would prefer the crime of rape to be called assault. They want the name of the crime changed as the very word "rape" carries with it unfortunate connotations. I suppose there is merit to calling the crime an assault as often a female person is assaulted and bodily harm done.
I am worried about the publicity given to crimes like rape. Publicity may be entirely bad. For example, two weeks ago our newspapers carried reports of a fellow in Calgary who had too much to drink and went on a hunting expedition. He went to the zoo and shot one of its fine animals. I think the Globe and Mail carried the story. Obviously, a reader imitated what he had read. Yesterday, according to reports, a fellow went out to an animal farm and shot a lion and tiger which had cost $25,000. I am not accusing the media, but it seems to me that too much prominence is given to crime. You see a certain crime reported one day and not too much later you will hear of the same crime committed by someone else in the same community. This happens right across the country. I do not think the media should carry such intimate details of crime.
We read of knives being used as weapons of submission in cases of rape. No sooner is such a crime involving a knife or a gun reported in one community than the very same kind of crime, using the same weapon, is committed either in the same community or in the area covered by the newspaper or media. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has shown that psychotics watching violence on television may be influenced by what they see and so encouraged to commit the very same "perfect" crime they see depicted on television. Only when they are caught in real life they will find that lawyers do not whisper to judges as they do on television programs.
I suppose the community is entitled to know what goes on in its midst. I do not know the answer. I hope we can call witnesses before the committee who have studied this from the psychological and psychiatric point of view. The more you build that kind of publicity, the more you build that kind of crime. That is an answer I would like to get in committee.
I want to deal with another subject of the bill, procedures. I have read the bill very thoroughly. I told the minister at the outset what I thought. I pointed out the danger of changes in reference to rape cases. I now want to deal with some of the matters in procedure that have been
November 18, 1975

changed. My concern about changing procedures for many offences where the Crown can elect that the person either under a section-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. At this time it is only the general principle of the bill that is being debated, not a reference to a particular section.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that. I am dealing with that in a general way. The minister talked about the procedures. I am talking about procedures in principle. I did not read clauses 33 or 34. I will certainly adhere to Your Honour's rule in that regard.
I point out the dangers of one procedure that was changed in many sections. I could name the sections, but I am keeping this on a very high plane. In these sections, according to the procedure people may be charged with an indictable offence or on summary conviction. It may be a matter of theft of $200, criminal negligence, or many other things. What I do not like about that kind of procedure is that the Crown, not the accused, has the right to elect whether it will be a charge on an indictable offence, which generally carries a penalty of imprisonment, or on summary conviction, which carries a penalty of a fine. In a number of sections this power is being given to the Crown. From who do they generally get their information? The police. If the police do not particularly like a person, or for some reason think that one offence is a tougher offence than another, they will recommend that it be tried as an indictable offence. In this way it permits discrimination.
After hearing the evidence, if a person is to be convicted the judge should have the discretion of deciding whether it should be an indictable offence or summary conviction because the penalties differ.
There is something else that I wish to point out. Where an offence is indictable and calls for more than five years' imprisonment rather than a summary conviction or an offence that calls for less imprisonment, you have to get the consent of the Crown in order to get a fine in lieu of imprisonment, or a suspended sentence. That was one of the hardships in the old drug sections under the Drug Act which called for five and ten years on soft drugs. In many cases where people deserve only to be fined or suspended and placed on rehabilitation, the judge had no alternative if the Crown wanted them sent to the institutions of crime that I have discussed. I think that places it on quite a high plane.
Another fundamental and basic principle to bear in mind is that in all criminal cases, as is true in all others, the onus of proof, that is to say the duty of proof, rests upon the Crown from the beginning to the end of the case. By that mean it is for the prosecution from start to finish to carry the burden of proving the case that they undertake to prove. If the Crown falls short of satisfying you as a tribunal of fact beyond reasonable doubt that all of the essential elements going to make up the crime as charged have been established, the Crown fails and, giving the accused the benefit of any doubt that arises, the accused should be acquitted.
There is one clause that goes to the matter of principle. If you are the navigator of a ship or the driver of an automobile and you become impaired or drunk, if they take a breathalyzer test and charge you, that is one thing. How-
Criminal Code
ever, under the new clause this can be done two or three hours later. What does this mean? Most people may say that this sounds reasonable, that the fellow was probably drinking when he got off the ship or out of his car. It is highly probable that after the fellow left the ship or the car he went home and had a couple of highballs. In order to prove that the state of his mind was not impaired at the time he got into an accident with a ship, and I do not know whether this applies to a vehicle, but if not it eventually will, he must show that he became impaired in the two hour interval before the breathalyzer test was taken.
The results of the breathalyzer test can go into evidence. This reverses the fundamental right of jurisprudence that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The accused must go on the stand or he will be in a sorry state. He must say that it is true that at the time he took the breathalyzer test he had so much in his blood and, therefore, would be guilty under the Criminal Code if he were in charge of either of these vehicles and became involved in an accident. He must prove that he had the highballs after he left the car or ship.
I do not like to see jurisprudence reversed. Once you start that trend, and it was done with the Income Tax Act, you will find that the onus is always on you. You are guilty until proven innocent. I look at it the other way, innocent until proven guilty. That is why I raise this matter which has come to my attention in this bill.
There is one other matter of procedure. For 20 years lawyers practising law in the bar associations of the respective provinces, the Canadian Bar, lawyers with experience in criminal law when taking an appeal from a summary conviction had to go to the district court or county court by way of trial de nova, which means a new trial before the higher court with the same or new witnesses. All lawyers know what I am talking about.
Under the code 20 years ago you had to file a notice of appeal within 15 days after conviction, do something else within 15 days, and set out reasons for appeal in the paid notice. It was a very tough procedure, much tougher than appeals for more serious crimes. We fought that procedure. Finally the ray of light hit parliament. I think it was under the former Minister of Finance. He agreed to a simple document of appeal being filed to the effect that a person wanted to appeal a summary conviction at such and such a place at such and such a time. The clerk advised the various people, and you were through with it. After fighting for 20 years I can say that there was little change. More young criminal lawyers were out of court because they made a mistake in procedure and the issue of justice was never tried.
Now what do we find? The easier procedure is being repealed, and appeals will be accordingly prescribed by the rules of court set by the provinces. Who makes the rules? The judges. I always get suspicious when handing over that function to any group of people, whether they be parliamentarians or judges. Do you think the judges are going to make those rules to create more work, or do you think they are going to make the rules simple to give the kind of justice that yourself, myself, and all members of this House want to see for the Canadian people?

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
How many people know who makes the rules for court? They are made by judges. I would rather see the power left in the hands of the Code in a very simple form, and I hope to move an amendment on that in the committee to widen it out. It took us 20 years to get that changed, and now it is a reform for the worse. While I am dealing with that, let me deal with one other reform.
In the Code it sets out that you have to get an appeal book, and it costs you so much a folio or a page. That should be removed. The most expensive thing in an appeal is not your lawyer. If I am going to appeal a verdict in a serious case like rape or murder what is the most expensive part of the appeal?
We have legal aid-it is much better today, but it has only come in over the last short while. The thing to do is to get your 1,000 page appeal book. Some appeal courts, and I have this experience, pay one dollar a page. Now they are insisting that every case to which you refer-and you may only refer to a part of it-must be xeroxed and put in the back. If you have had anything to do with the cost of xeroxing you know it will cost 20 cents a page.
Appeal books cost thousands of dollars. There is a member here who has just finished a civil law suit. He could tell you what his appeal book cost. It cost him more than his lawyer. Thank goodness we now have legal aid because I remember that many people came before courts of appeal I appeared before, and the judge would say, "Where's the appeal book?" The poor accused would say, "I can't afford one." I've heard it said that, "If you cannot afford one you cannot come here and discuss it, because we don't know what you are charged with and we don't know what the evidence w^s."
When you start tampering, dickering, and fiddling around with costs, such as the cost of an appeal book, you would be all right with legal aid, but there are lots of places and cases where legal aid does not apply. I would like to take a hard look at that because I probably will never get another appointment in Calgary for discovery, or an appeal book as long as I live. The fees that are earned today on appeal books in many, many cases are higher than the lawyers' charges and sometimes they are pretty exorbitant.
Those are some of the things I had in mind. I am not going to deal with the question of the Morgentaler case- one of my colleagues will be doing that-except to say I am pleased with the result of a triumph of a great lawyer. I might call him by name although it breeches the ethics of this House in procedure, John Diefenbaker, the right hon. member for Prince Albert. He properly called on the minister of justice-the former one-the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) to bring amendments in to the Criminal Code that no court of appeal should have the right to substitute its view as to a verdict of guilty or not guilty rendered by the bulwark of our freedom.
Originally the former minister of justice described his concern over the court of appeal overturning a jury verdict of acquittal as "largely hysterical". Well, I am going to be one of the hystericals tonight, because it is there, hysterics and all.

I would say this in fairness to the Supreme Court of Canada. In my opinion, for what it was worth-and this takes nothing away from the principle the right hon. member for Prince Albert brought forward-I said when the reform of abortion came in it would not work. We have abortion committees in the hospitals in Calgary. They have not got such committees in the hospitals in many places in Quebec. That is a matter of principle and a matter of conscience, and both are right in that regard. But there is the same operation going on in the City of Calgary that Morgentaler did in the Province of Quebec because they didn't have any committees. Theirs are legal, but because the others are done without a committee they are illegal. Here I would say-and I take the words from Oliver Twist-the law is an ass.
The Supreme Court of Canada doesn't make the law; we make the law. When they said on the evidence that Dr. Morgentaler was guilty the court was right because without a committee authorizing the abortion he was breaking the law. The court had the power under the statute to change the verdict. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert was right in that regard, to suggest bringing in that reform. And that is all I am saying about that. That is a change on which I congratulate the minister and I must congratulate the former minister because, as you so fairly said, Madam Speaker, it was a bill prepared by the former minister.
I do not intend to say much about bail, but I will say that really what they have done is to take the onus off the Crown and put it back on the accused. But the Minister of Justice cannot be blamed for that-he voted for it and so did many of us; I think I voted for it too. It was a government bill, though, and that change was made by the government, by a former minister of justice. Now all they are doing is just putting it back. That's why when we tinker-that's a good word, tinker-with little things, especially academics who sometimes have not had any experience, we don't know what we do.
I sometimes talk to police officers and I sometimes talk to judges across this nation. They tell me that you no sooner lock a fellow up for robbing a bank than he is out on the street because of the bail rules, and he is doing another bank robbery, back into jail, and out again in another week doing it again. There are thousands of cases like that across the land. And the pressure which has been brought on the Department of Justice to get that changed has been great. It is a good change. It is a matter of good principle.
I want to talk about the crime of theft for a few moments. Under this bill things are changed back to what they were 30 years ago. It used to be $50, now it is a few hundred. If it is $200 you can have a summary conviction charge laid and just be fined.
There is one thing I would like to mention to the minister for his consideration. That is fine and I agree with him. But you know what it does? It creates a haven for shop lifters. They go in and steal a hat, overshoes-a lot of things are stolen. I think when they get the second, third or fourth crime they should be tried on-and I mentioned the word a few minutes ago-an indictable offence. Those are some of the thoughts I have; it will be a haven for shop lifters. I can just see it.
November 18, 1975

I had a case dealing with that just lately. A couple of boys went in during the summer holidays and they changed the high record price to the cheap record price. So they were getting $10 records for $1.50. You know the tricks of the trade when it comes to that. I would ask the minister to take a good look at this theft section reform.
I see the Minister of Justice looking at me. I have done all this in 30 minutes and I did not think I could do it. I must congratulate myself in that regard. In summary I would say that we are going to support the amendments going to the committee. We hope that the committee-it's a good committee, Justice and Legal Affairs-will co-operate with us to get the best expertise, the best witnesses, to examine very carefully these sections and the changes to be made.
I would like to pay a compliment to the Department of Justice. In my experience, they are always very good to come with the explanations either outside the committee- and if you need help they will give it-or inside the committee. So we are prepared to support these changes with some idea that we might go for bail reform, on the question of rape as to its terminology, and we might ask them to slow down in some of these fields which are not thought out.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Urban Affairs; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-National Defence; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-External Affairs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Criminal Code
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Madam Speaker, before launching into my remarks on Bill C-71, may I congratulate the minister on his appointment. I think he has done a fine job in different portfolios. I remember him as minister of consumer and corporate affairs where he did a pretty fair job; in the portfolio of minister of urban affairs where he attempted to do a good job; and in the portfolio of minister of national revenue where he also did a good job. He is now in the very important portfolio of Minister of Justice and I wish him well. He is very competent and a very compassionate minister, and I am sure that in these times it is important to have the confidence of members of parliament and the public that one will do a good job.
Bill C-71 is one of a number of bills that the minister is proposing to bring forth to amend the Criminal Code. As the minister said in his statement, it is very important to balance the interests of the public with protecting the interests of the individual. We live in a violent world, and I guess we are the authors of this situation. You cannot have wars, TV programs and movies showing violence, without having problems, and we do have problems.
It is necessary to look at the total framework of life and at the different ways in which we can make the necessary changes to our life at home, at school, and in the community. It is really a question of attitude. All the amendments in the world will not change those attitudes; it is the individual who must change. Until the individual changes we will have to continue making amendments to the Criminal Code to prevent the violent acts that are being performed today.
There has been a recent influx of new Canadians, and our immigration program in the future will bring many more new Canadians to Canada. New Canadians have made a great contribution to the Canadian community, but one of the things I find striking is that when new Canadians come in contact with the law they have almost a mental and physical paralysis in meeting the law. It is very important that we develop laws that they and all Canadians can understand and comply with.
In building the right attitude toward the law it is necessary to strengthen and supplement other areas of life. I am talking about developing a healthy economic community and decent housing. I think these are instrumental factors in developing respect for the law. Even though we live in an age of violence I think there is a duty upon us to change the attitudes of individuals.
We are discussing this bill this afternoon, yet there are only one or two reporters in the gallery. The gallery should be filled with reporters, and the public galleries should be filled with members of the public so they can learn what are the attitudes and ideas of the minister and of the government and the members of this House. Unfortunately we have a full house for the question period but when it comes to a piece of legislation that will directly affect the lives of all of us, both the public and reporters are absent.
Bill C-71 is one of a number of bills to amend the Criminal Code in substance, in procedure and evidence, to reflect changing attitudes and to strengthen the enforcement of the criminal law. It has four main job objectives. First, the bill updates certain areas of the criminal law to

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
reflect changes in public attitude; second, it creates new offences for certain practices which recently have become more prevalent; third, the bill strengthens certain areas of the existing law; and fourth, it modernizes criminal procedures and evidence.
The minister, as his press release indicated, said that this bill is the work of consultation with different groups in society, namely, the criminal law section of the Uniform Law Conference, the Canadian Bar Association, the attorneys general, the law enforcement authorities and the general public, and these consultations have resulted in the changes in Bill C-71. I heard the minister say that he hopes the bill is passed in the House and in committee by Christmas. I hope he will ensure that witnesses come before the committee to give their views regarding the different changes contained in the bill. It is important that we have the police give their views regarding bail reform, that we have the attorneys general give their views regarding drinking and driving offences, and we should have certain members of the general public give their views regarding how the proposed changes will affect them.
As a simple example, many of us have received representations from humane societies across the country regarding cruelty to animals. I do not think the change made in the bill in this respect goes far enough, but I hope representatives from the humane society and other groups will be giving us their views.
I said that the legislation updates certain areas of the criminal law to reflect changes in public attitude. May I give the House a couple of examples. We are now going to make it legal to operate pinball machines provided the prize is a free game. This has been a problem that has spread across the country in many communities. Pinball machines appear to offer a very inoffensive game for people to participate in, yet those who do have been harassed by law enforcement officials because it is a criminal offence coming under the definition of slot machines. The minister has taken up the challenge and made pinball machines legal, provided the prize is a free game.
As for interprovincial lotteries, it will now be legal for lottery tickets issued by one province to be sold in another province provided the other province agrees. Again we have had difficulty regarding lottery tickets being sold in one province with the lottery being operated in another. We have to accept the changes that have taken place in this area. Personally I am not in favour of lotteries, but there seems to be a general feeling among the public that lotteries should prevail.
The second area is the creation of new offences for certain practices which have recently become prevalent. The most striking practice among the public today is the fraudulent use of credit cards, either trafficking in them or fraudulently using them. This is a credit society. I am sure many of us recall our parents operating in a cash society, never buying anything until they had the cash available. Today people buy a lot of things without cash but on credit, and they use a credit card which facilitates such purchases. However, there have been many abuses. Many people have trafficked in these credit cards and have used false credit cards. The result is that if a person loses a credit card he has real problems in trying to recover the card or in cutting off the credit in case the card is used by

some other person. Therefore I think this is a necessary move because of the change in the buying habits of the public.
The second area is the theft of communications services by electronic devices used to avoid payment of telephone charges. I had not heard of this use of electronic devices which people put on their telephones in order to circumvent a charge for a long distance call for which they are responsible. This is a sophisticated world in which we live, and these people use these sophisticated devices to avoid payment. This brings up to date the law with regard to theft of communications services.
The minister went into some detail about laundering the proceeds of crime, more especially securities converted into cash by persons or companies. We now have a great deal of white collar crime. White collar crime is committed in the laundering of the proceeds of criminal acts. The police have had great difficulty in convicting these people because of restrictions in the definition of laws. This is very necessary in view of the inflow of laundered moneys from other countries to Canada and, I am sure, the outflow of laundered moneys from Canada to other countries. It is important to curtail the activities of persons who participate in this type of nefarious scheme.
The next area is in respect of conspiracy in Canada to commit an offence outside Canada, and conspiracy outside Canada to commit an offence inside Canada. Again we have white collar crime operators who set up companies for the sole purpose of fleecing other persons in other countries. This conspiracy has been very difficult to stop because of securities legislation falling under the joint jurisdiction of federal and provincial governments. This is a step in the right direction to stop that type of fleecing by individuals engaged in these operations.
Another area that has been taken care of relates to international protection of persons such as diplomats and representatives of foreign governments who will now be protected against attacks upon their official premises or private accommodations. In this violent world we have seen these attacks on embassies, foreign diplomats and representatives, and the police and governments have been powerless to lay charges. This is a step in the right direction of developing international law under which appropriate charges can be laid when offences take place against these diplomats and their property. Those are the areas in which new charges have been created because of recent practices of individuals.
The third area is in strengthening certain existing laws, the most dramatic example of which relates to bail reform.
Back in 1972 many of us were proud of the then minister of justice for bringing forth the bail reform act because we knew of the many hardships and inconveniences being imposed on people, more especially those without money who often lingered in jail because they could not obtain bail. It is to the credit of this government and the former minister of justice that this was brought forward.
We have had the experience from 1972 to 1975 in which there have been abuses of the general principle of that reform by offenders, and this has created within the community a sense of outrage at the conduct of certain crimi-
November 18, 1975

nals. It has been difficult for many of us who supported that bill to persuade those people to understand that the principle of the bill was that an accused was entitled to bail unless the Crown could satisfy the court that grounds for detention existed. The Crown had to assure the attendance of the accused at trial, and had to convince the court that detention was necessary in the public interest. This was often a very difficult thing for the Crown to do in those circumstances, and it resulted in a bad reflection on the principle of bail reform.
It has been necessary to make a change, and this change is good because the main rule still applies, that an accused is entitled to bail in the first instance. The main exception is that the accused will not be released if he is awaiting trial for a previous conviction or if he has previously abused his bail provisions, or is a non-resident. Those are the three main exceptions to the rule. An additional change is that it is up to the individual, that is, the accused, to show why he should not be detained. This is a very important shift in onus from the Crown to the accused.
I think with these changes we will have better co-operation with the police. Many of us have suspected that the police felt the present reform act was operating to their prejudice and jeopardy, and they did not like it. It just did not have that sense of strength necessary for the enforcement of law. I hope the police are now satisfied that we are doing our best to maintain the main principle that a person is in the first instance entitled to bail, providing the Crown cannot show the necessity to detain an accused to assure his attendance at trial, or because of the public interest. I hope the police realize this and feel they have the co-operation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and of all members of parliament in this regard. That is the main area in which the government intends to strengthen the existing law.
Another area relates to drinking and driving offences. There is not a person who has not either himself or through a friend come in contact with the law concerning drinking and driving offences. This has become so prevalent that many Canadians are acquiring criminal convictions under these sections.
It has been obvious to many of us that there are numerous difficulties in the application and procedure in respect of drinking and driving offences, more especially impaired driving, failure to provide a breath sample, and driving with a higher than .08 blood alcohol content.
The minister has attempted to standardize these offences and has increased the penalties. For a first offence the minimum penalty is to be $50 with a maximum of $2,000, six months, or both. On a second offence for impaired driving, or in respect of the other two offences, there is an absolute mandatory term of imprisonment of 14 days with a maximum of one year, and for each subsequent offence a minimum term of imprisonment of three months and a maximum of two years. One can see how important the law is in respect of these offences, and I am happy to see that the government has taken a rather serious attitude to this major problem.
Many deaths have occurred because of drinking offences.
I think it is time we were tough in this regard. These
Criminal Code
changes certainly indicate a toughness on the part of the government. I am rather happy to see that the toughness in some way is softened by the judge being given the alternative to a conviction of imposing a conditional discharge which would require that the person take curative and rehabilitative treatment in accordance with the terms of the probation order. This is an important improvement in respect of people who have an alcohol problem. The happy result of this is that if the person conforms to the terms of the probation in respect of curative or rehabilitative treatment, the conditional discharge will operate in such a way that there will be no conviction, no penalty, and no fine.
The other area concerns roadside screening. The minister comes from British Columbia, as do other members on the government side. British Columbia has had experience with regard to roadside screening of a person suspected of having consumed alcohol. We have not had that experience in Ontario or in the other provinces. This is a new departure.
In the past the police could require a breath test only when they had reasonable and probable grounds to think that the person was suffering from impaired driving. Now under the change in the law if a police officer suspects a person of having alcohol in his blood such a person must undergo a test, and refusal to do so would result in an offence. I think that is one of the preventative measures that should be taken in respect of the serious problem of drinking while driving.
The federal government has vacated the field in respect of imposing a prohibition order concerning driving and is now leaving it to the provinces to impose the suspension and prohibition. This is a result of the conflict we had concerning the operation of federal and provincial jurisdictions. I would hope agreement could be obtained between the provinces so that this would apply universally across the country. Perhaps I am wrong in this view, and the minister will straighten me out in the committee, but I believe a person could have his licence suspended in British Columbia and then move to Alberta where the question would arise whether that suspension in British Columbia is operative in the province of Alberta for the purpose of the offence the minister has left in the code, the offence of driving while disqualified.
I am not sure whether that would apply. I hope the minister would straighten out the members of the committee and the public concerning this where a person has his licence suspended in one province and then goes to live in another province. There is the question of whether that licence suspension or the prohibition would apply for purposes of a criminal offence under the code.
Then there is the matter of theft of cattle and the offence in this regard. I am sure many western members, more especially those from the prairies, will be happy to know that cattle theft will now be a separate offence under the code, with a very harsh penalty of a minimum of ten years' imprisonment. There must have been a fair amount of cattle rustling in the west. We do not have it in Toronto. We have a different type of rustling. This must be welcome news to many people in the west.
The fourth area concerns the modernization of criminal procedures. The most important area is with regard to rape and related offences. If ever there has been a subject which
299S6-31

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
has caused an emotional charge in people it is the offence of rape. It has almost become paranoic in respect of certain people. It has been necessary for the government to update and strengthen the law with regard to rape and related offences. These changes have come as a result of cases in court, publicity, and the harassment of complainants who have suffered as a result of the alleged rape. Therefore we in this party, as I am sure all members do, welcome the changes related to rape.
We welcome the fact that the requirement for a judge to warn the jury of the danger of convicting an accused person if the complainants evidence is not corroborated is now abolished for the offence of rape and related offences. Many people have thought this operated as an advantage to the accused. It may have had this effect psychologically. From my experience and that of others in court I never thought this operated to the great advantage of the accused, although in the minds of many members of the public it did. Therefore the necessity of the judge warning the jury of the danger of convicting an accused person without corroborative evidence has been abolished. Madam Speaker, I will move to the second part of this area after having a good dinner.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, November 5, 1975, it being 6.30 p.m. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner adjournment I was speaking about the fourth area in the bill to modernize criminal procedures and evidence. The main topic is rape and related offences. May I point out to you the amendments indicated in the bill.
First of all the requirement on a judge that he must warn the jury of the danger of convicting the accused if the complainant's evidence is not corroborated is abolished in the case of rape and related sexual offences. The second change is that cross examination on past sexual conduct by the complainant with a person other than the accused will be permitted only if reasonable notice in writing is given. The judge will then decide in the absence of the jury whether the evidence is admissible. The next change is that the judge may exclude the public in rape and related offences on the application of the accused or prosecution, and if the order is denied reasons must be given by the judge for the denial. This may be applied to part or all of the proceedings. The next amendment is that the judge may also order a prohibition on the publication of the identity of the complainant when an application is made by the Crown. The final amendment is that the judge may also change the place of trial in cases of rape and related offences when he deems it desirable.
You can judge from those changes that they are substantial. As I said prior to the adjournment for dinner, rape has become one of the most emotionally charged words in our vocabulary, and there has been a great deal of stress and

strain both on the victims and on the public with regard to this offence. I think that most members of the House and the public at large will welcome the amendments with regard to changes in rape.
I should like to direct my attention to the representations that have been made by different groups concerning the charge of rape. Representation has been made that the charge of rape should be dropped and the charge of aggravated assault should be widened to include sexual attacks. I would like to hear the minister comment on this proposed change, either in committee or when he winds up the debate.
Many people have felt that the technical difficulties with regard to the definition of rape, and also the emotional charge concerning the word, have presented difficulties. Therefore representations have been made that this word should be dropped and that a more precise definition of aggravated assault with regard to sexual attacks should be found. As I say, I think the minister should deal with this either in committee or when he winds up the debate.
The next amendment is with regard to jury verdicts. The amendment states that a court of appeal, when hearing an appeal from an acquittal by a jury, will be limited to ordering a new trial or dismissing the accused. This amendment arose out of the Morgentaler case. A great deal has been said about this case; probably a great injustice was committed as a result of what happened, so many of us welcome this change.
Another welcome amendment is the changing of the offences with regard to theft, possession, and fraud to give Crown counsel the option to proceed either by indictment or by way of summary conviction. This is most welcome because many young people between the ages of 16 and 25 acquire a criminal record and have difficulties obtaining employment. This will directly affect the Criminal Records Act because if a person has a summary conviction offence he need only wait two years before an application need be made under that act, whereas if it is an indictable offence he has to wait five years. Up to the time of this amendment the law was that theft, possession, and fraud were indictable offences, so the minister can be commended for this proposed change.
There are many other changes. There is the amendment with regard to summary conviction appeals with the abolition of the trial de novo. From my experience many lawyers always welcomed the trial de novo, especially when they lost in the lower court, because it gave them a second chance to present their cases and probably to strengthen them. However, now they are going to be confined to the record at the first trial and they may have difficulties, but we can discuss in committee the reasons the minister thought it necessary to do this.
Another change is an amendment regarding grand juries. I think we in Ontario will welcome the abolition of grand juries. I know some of the other provinces have already abolished them, but we in Ontario have not. I think this is a welcome change.
There is one more amendment I should like to discuss briefly, and that is the amendment dealing with people who are mentally ill. I am sure any person who has prac-
November 18, 1975

tised law has been in court on occasion when a mentally ill person has been charged, and the court has been helpless at times with regard to giving some treatment direction to that person. He has had to be confined, and in most cases until his trial came up, but this amendment gives him the opportunity to be remanded out of custody for observation upon consent of the prosecution and the accused. I think this will go a long way in helping these people.
All these amendments with regard to updating the law, creating new offences, strengthening the law, and modernizing the law, result in taking the drama out of court. That may be a good thing because the drama in the past has been in connection with the conviction, and it seems to me that we should shift from an emphasis on convictions to an emphasis on reformation and rehabilitation. If these amendments and other amendments direct us in that way, I think they will be welcome changes.
We in the New Democratic Party will support this legislation. We look forward to the Minister bringing forward other legislation which will strengthen the law and help individuals to take their rightful place in society.
As I said at one stage, violence is the word of the day, and anything we can to do to reduce violence is most welcome. If this bill produces some reduction in violence, if it produces a change in the attitude of people with regard to the law, and develops a respect for the law, then it will have done an excellent job. With those remarks I will close and participate further in committee.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the minister laid before us a bill to amend the Criminal Code. I would be interested to know the number of bills which were introduced in this House since the birth of this country to amend the first bill which created the Criminal Code. People in general wonder if that has become a parliamentary sport. Mr. Speaker, if it is important to have good laws that are fair and equitable for all, it is even more necessary to have those laws obeyed, and particularly to obey them personally whether one is a judge, a lawyer, a legislator or simply a citizen. One must be convinced of that truth.
Laws require changes because they are made for man. Otherwise, laws would be statutory as are all natural laws.
I will say more, Mr. Speaker, the law should be made to protect man against man, and often protect him against himself. And we dare boast we are the most intelligent beings on the planet. Seeing how some people act, free by their will, one is lead to wish God had created them like ordinary natural beings, determined them ad unum. Our will dictates our actions just as our intelligence determines their quality. And since there are no two identical beings, we need laws to make social life a bit more tolerable.
Having said this, I would like first to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) for his new appointment-he holds one of the most important positions in this House-and for introducing Bill C-71 entitled an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Crown Liability Act, the Immigration Act and the Parole Act.
At first glance, Mr. Speaker, one would think that this bill is three-pronged. But after the Minister of Justice
Criminal Code
listed this afternoon all the revisions he intended to make to the Criminal Code, I think it is an omnibus bill. The minister says he will examine the detection of crime with public safety in mind. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is high time a minister of justice introduced major reforms to the Criminal Code to restore public confidence.
How often have we heard people say: There is no more justice nowadays. Everything is permitted in sex and other things. Today's murderer has become almost a hero who is being pampered and lives like a millionaire as guest of the state thanks to taxpayer money, of course, if not the incomes of his own victims. Today there is no such thing as robbery in business, since the real thieves have become financiers. Today there is no more usury, particularly since the government itself has taken the ceiling off the interest rate. We have only high finance and we are surprised to see organized crime rule as absolute master over our country. Mr. Speaker, I said in our country, in our province, but the province of Quebec is not the only one where organized crime flourishes. If you read the paper every day-I have a few with me-you can read titles like these: Vic Cotroni jailed in Toronto. He is the head of the Mafia. Cotroni's heir apparent target of Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime. Disturbing aspects of Paolo Violi's everyday life. Strangely enough, all those names are repeated every day in the papers and those people go on living like nabobs. From time to time, things are made difficult for them, but it all stops there.
We are now told that the province of Quebec has appointed a Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime to try and trace the activities of the Mafia within and without Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I think we could urge all provinces to establish their own organized crime inquiry commission. I look forward to the federal government having its own organized crime inquiry commission. I think that would be a first step towards enforcing laws which we are about to amend tonight, that it would be a start to have good commissions in order to know what is happening first and also know where the killers are and where order in society lies.
I read in a paper from Quebec that the following are discovered during inquiries, and I quote:
Drugs, extorsion, protection: headlines for the Commission of inquiry into Organized Crime. As early as next Monday the commission will initiate a public study of the Benoit project-
Do you know what the Benoit project is?
All we know about the Benoit project is that it will bring under the public eye the traditional activities of organized crime such as extorsion, protection, drug traffic and other equally unattractive activities.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if all provinces as well as the federal government took such initiatives instead of contending that the Quebec commission is not constitutional, it would be an excellent thing. The matter is to be referred and submitted to the Supreme Court, and it would be most unfortunate if the Supreme Court should declare that commission unconstitutional. It is the only commission capable of showing the government where the problem is in order that it may propose legislation to correct it.
The minister proposes in this bill to bring in amendments concerning terrorism and the Mafia. I believe that if
29956-3l!/z

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
we are to enact good legislation we should develop an educated opinion, get date and information to find where the problem is.
If the government is serious, the basic solution would be to establish a board of inquiry similar to that now operating in the province of Quebec, to try and detect Mafia henchmen in Ottawa and Canada as a whole.
In my view, if the minister wants to do a serious job, he must first get the tools to introduce amendments he proposes to the Criminal Code.
The Canadian people want the government to enact more stringent laws if needed. The people want more stringent laws, but their main requirement is that there be respect the law on the part of legislators, those who enforce it and every citizen in general. Speaking to respect what do we do, what did we do to protect those responsible for maintaining law and order?
How often are they ridiculed and derided. This is something I am perfectly aware of, Mr. Speaker, because for 25 years I have been organizing accident investigations and other investigations of every kind. This is where I met discouraged and bewildered police officers, who had every evidence to make a fair case. They were being pushed around by judges who had other things to look after.
This is why I submit we must first protect police officers and ensure they are respected. We still have honest police officers. I have known some who, after trumped-up inquests and trumped-up judgments, were crying because they had been working for three months on serious investigations to bring about justice.
I believe that if we want to amend our civil code and enforce it properly, we shall have to develop legislation to protect those who are responsible for enforcing it.
This bill mentions drunken driving. Mr. Speaker, people are strange and governments are the same. The government favours the sale of alcohol by all available means because it is profitable and fills its coffers. The government establishes a great number of alcohol outlets, and then, when it has promoted and multiplied the outlets, it sets the police after those who have become drunk because of its own illogical actions.
If there were as many public education halls where people could be told how to act, how to fight against bad habits, if there were as many halls where people could be told why they should not drink, why they should not take alcohol, why they should not take drugs, as there are alcohol outlets, and if instead of promoting illegal outlets, the government showed people the damage done by all that trash, there would be no need for all this legislation and amendments to improve our social life.
I agree with the minister that we must bring in amendments to make the roads safer, but I have always noticed that it is when people come out of the outlets which I mentioned earlier that the police can detect more easily those who are not fit to drive, before they have to be put in jail. In the case of those who come out of the outlets promoted by the government, since this is where it gets its money, the police could simply bring them home instead of intimidating them and making them spend the night in jail. This is not being done; instead, the police patrol the roads and arrest one individual who pays for everyone else.

If the people in charge tried to be at these strategic spots, especially during the weekends, we could prevent many tragedies.
As concerns rape, we are very happy that the statement of the victim will finally be able to be used as evidence without a third witness. The old legislation was so poorly drafted that it was very difficult for a rape victim to prove that there had been a crime because the rape had to be committed in front of two other witnesses.
I think that the amendment proposed by the minister will be more equitable for the victim. The bill also refers to conditional discharge. We have noted in past years that the National Parole Board was far too lenient for notorious criminals. And under the present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) our prisons have become boarding houses where the prisoners move at will.
I think that the rehabilitation process have not improved enough to allow such freedom. Nowadays the so-called rehabilitation takes precedence over the security of victims. I wonder whether the Solicitor General is conscious of the dangers incurred by the people when he commutes death penalties and aware that the National Parole Board frees that individual six, seven or eight months after his crime.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General hears enough protests about him to try to change his mind. As far as I can see, after having heard him in the House, he is indomitable; he cannot even see other points of view. Yet, considering how much he travels, it seems to me he should consider it. I read this in La Presse, I quote:


WRATH OF LAW AND ORDER SUPPORTERS ON ALLMAND
[Stage Direction]
-in La Presse dated November 6, 1975, when the crowd shouted to him, and I quote:
"Shoot them! Kill them!" That advice, those orders concerning all criminal regardless of their stature, were given, last night, to Solicitor General Warren Allmand by some hundred citizens of the municipality of Hampstead who claim to support law and order.
Those citizens, lawyers, engineers, judge (one), professors, nurses, housewives, had left their wealthy Victorian homes, discreetly screened from view by peaceful tree-lined avenues in the no less peaceful Town of Hampstead, right after the evening family meal, to hear Mr. Allmand speak to them on the prevention of crime and the control of violence.
The Solicitor General had come from Ottawa expressly to give that conference, as guest of the Hampstead Municipal and Recreation Association. Earlier in the evening, he was calm and smiling. Standing behing the oak lectern in the elementary school gymnasium, basketball nets and gymnastic rings hanging here and there, Mr. Allmand made a speech of some thirty minutes before going on to a question period on the main concerns of his department, on its main objective, namely, he pointed out "to prevent and reduce crime so as to protect society".
Mr. Allmand described in detail, and with supporting data, the steps his department intends to take to achieve its goal. He also explained the program he intends to propose to the government before the end of the year, program aimed at preventing crime and controlling violence.
Having addressed himself to the tragic events that Canadian society has experienced in matters of crime in recent years, especially last year and this year, the Solicitor General considered the issue of capital punishment.
Let us be reminded that Mr. Allmand is fiercely opposed to capital punishment.
November 18, 1975
[Stage Direction]
Did we ask Mr. AUmand for the right to destroy a human life by resorting to capital punishment? Because the execution of a murderer, as he emphasized, does not erase the crime: it destroys another life.
Shoot them, replied the citizens of Hampstead at the microphone when they were not shouting it from their places.
With arrogance and intolerance some told him that he did not know what he was talking about, that he was a moralist rather than a jurist.
One could also read the following:
LES POLICIERS VEULENT "VENGER" LEURS MORTS!
The death penalty being prescribed for police murderers, policemen realize that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) once again tried to laugh at them and that is why today they are all against his proposals and changes. I think that should be food for thought for a solicitor general who wants at least to sound out the people's opinion and give them what they want and not what he has in mind.
Mr. Speaker, there would be many other points I should like to deal with because the minister gave us a whole list of amendments that will have to be enacted regarding criminals. We are quite happy and we expect to be happier still when these amendments are adopted by the House standing committee. Tonight I have touched only lightly on a few clauses of Bill C-71, so as to expedite its referral to the standing committee. I hope that this bill to amend the Criminal Code will promote law and order in Canada so that Canadians may live safe and free in their country.
Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate in view of the importance of criminal law to the people of my city.
At a conference held in Vancouver, sponsored by the Police Commission of British Columbia, the increasing crime rate was discussed. Over the past two years we have had an increase in crime of approximately 13Vi per cent. These figures include crimes of violence, such as murder, assault, robbery, and rape. In the B.C. lower mainland there is a feeling, highly vocalized by the public through numerous open-line shows and in newspapers, that the government is more concerned about the welfare of offenders in society than the safety of citizens.
The federal riding of Vancouver-Kingsway alone, known as quadrant three of the four-part police divisions, is said to have the highest per capita crime rate in North America. In Vancouver east and other parts of the core area there are pockets of serious and sensational violence. These incidents accelerate anger and fear, with blame constantly turned against the government. In some areas the elderly, and women of all ages, will not use streets, parks, or stores in the city core, including such reputable stores as Eaton's and the Hudson's Bay, where they are fearful of entering parking lots or elevators since a recent series of rapes and murders occurred in daylight in those department store parking lots and elevators.
Mayor Arthur Phillips and the police commission have faced up to this through emergency public meetings, and increased the city force by 120, ready for duty by October. Plans for a proposed similar addition next year will have to be scrapped if federal support, and in particular federal activity in the area of the RCMP, is at all reduced.
Criminal Code
Illicit drug use and drug traffic alone are becoming extremely serious, not only in the lower mainland but in British Columbia in general. In our province we have at the very least 10,000 committed users of heroin, Every city, town-even villages and logging camps-has a permanent heroin user population. While Vancouver is still the major drug centre, Victoria, Nanaimo, the Upper Island, Prince George, Terrace, Kitimat, Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Trail and Nelson all have sizeable drug dependency problems, and contamination of youngsters increases yearly.
Other major factors of significance are as follows: up to 1969 the majority of heroin users were in the age group 25 to 29; in 1972 the majority age group had dropped to 20 to 24. Up to 1964 a youngster began to experiment seriously with heroin about age 18; today the age is down to 12 to 14, and a few mainliners are known to be nine and ten. In 1964 those known users under 20 years of age represented but 1.6 per cent of the total number of known users; by 1972 the percentage has risen to 10.6 per cent.
Drug seizures, although an infinitesimal portion of the total amount of illicit heroin brought into Canada, nevertheless are a frightening indicator of the drugs available to the youth of this province and, for that fact, our nation. In 1972, for example, 116 pounds of pure (80 per cent) heroin and 32,831 capsules worth at least $22 million at the uncut price were seized by the police. In 1973, 220 pounds of uncut heroin and 42,381 capsules worth at least $43,500,000 at the uncut price were seized.
Although hospital records are far from complete, the number of emergency treatment cases and hospital admissions for drug overdoses has doubled every two years since 1966.
Finally, in spite of the many pleas for action, Vancouver remains the major transit point for illicit heroin and cocaine. Far Eastern distributors have found it convenient, relatively safe, and comfortable in their dealings with Canadian distributors for trans-shipment to the United States, or as a suitable place to disguise the real point of origin of their couriers, their baggage or their commercial goods.
In speaking with Mayor Arthur Phillips, chairman of the Police Commission, he indicated that though a large number of large drug "busts" had occurred recently he would like to see the RCMP drug squad increased. This would enable the Vancouver City Police to employ men in other vital areas of crime prevention. Needless to say, the drug problem will not be solved simply by increasing the number of RCMP officers. Other measures such as drug education and the proposals contained in this bill, as well as the proposed peace and security package might assist.
The point is that even with this bill and the new crime package which is to be announced I am concerned that unless the federal government maintains its activity, particularly in the area of the RCMP, these amendments and the new crime package on peace and security will prove ineffective. I say this in view of the fact that at the present time RCMP contracts are under re-negotiation. Furthermore, I suggest the federal government seriously consider a program of financial assistance for municipal police

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
forces, the reason being that municipal sources of revenue are limited and cannot adequately take into account inflationary pressures.
I should now like to address myself to the amendments regarding bail. Let me preface my remarks by saying I firmly believe we should not depart from the basic principles of the Bail Reform Act. There is, however, one area which deserves reconsideration.
The drug situation in Vancouver is now reaching crisis proportions. Accordingly it has been suggested to me that major traffickers, particularly those charged with conspiracy to traffic, be automatically denied bail.
At the present time I believe the law is fairly well stated as follows: in an Alberta Supreme Court case, Regina versus McClelland, the accused was charged with two counts of trafficking in heroin. The accused is 22 years old, living with his brother in Edmonton who has offered him a job pending trial. The provincial court judge ordered the accused detained; the accused sought a review of that order. At the appeal hearing the Crown opposed bail because of the seriousness of the charge, arguing that he should be denied bail in the public interest. I shall quote the decision which was reached:
I am not prepared to refuse bail simply because a person is charged with trafficking in heroin or any of the hard drugs even if he has been convicted of the same offence or a similar offence before. If he is charged with trafficking when he is out on bail or otherwise awaiting trial for a similar offence, perhaps the public interest requires him to stay in jail until his trial.
In British Columbia in an unreported decision by His Honor, Judge Meredith, in the case of Regina versus Oikle, the accused was charged on three counts for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking. He had a previous conviction for possession of heroin and other offences unrelated to drugs, going back to 1960. He argued that he had elected trial by judge without a jury, that it would take a year to get the trial on, and that this delay was the basis for a review of the detention order made by the provincial court judge. It was ruled that the detention order should be upheld. The report reads:
The charges suggest that-the accused might have a fairly wide field of acquaintances in the drug market; it is also significant that these charges arose after his conviction for possession. Second, there is a likelihood that if released the accused may commit offences related to narcotics. Accordingly, detention of the accused is in the public interest and for the protection or safety of the public.
From the foregoing cases it is clear that the issue being discussed is that of the public interest. In the Oikle case, public interest appears to be defined in accordance with whether the trafficker is a major one.
It is my suggestion that when the bill before us is referred to committee the committee should examine whether previous charges and previous convictions be used as criteria in defining who is a major trafficker, and that such major traffickers be denied bail.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) for the initiative shown in Bill C-71. I look forward to the peace and security package which is to be introduced later in the year by the hon. gentleman and his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). I might add that it is gratifying to see a Minister of Justice from my own city, and also one who has been Minister of State for Urban Affairs and has a basic under-

standing of urban problems-there is of course a relationship, if not a direct one, to levels of crime.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate as well. I seem to be speaking a good deal today. But I am interested in one particular aspect of the proposed amendments and I hope to deal with that area almost exclusively. It is not that I have any great expertise on the subject I wish to talk about, but assessing the various proposals put forward by the minister on sexual offences, drunken driving, pinball machines and so on, I find that my expertise is not as great as on the topic on which I wish to speak.


An hon. Member:: Leave it to the other side.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It has been suggested that there may be more expertise on the other side than on our side, but I will not comment on that.
I want to deal with the question of bail reform and the different lengths of bail periods. I should like to start by asking the minister at some appropriate time to advise the House whether or not the amendments that are proposed in Bill C-71 are the full extent of the amendments he is contemplating in regard to bail reform. My colleague from Calgary North did raise this matter in the question period when he questioned the minister as to whether he was contemplating any amendments in addition to those in the bill.
This question also arises from the fact that, after the meeting between the minister and the provincial attorneys general, he was quoted in the press as saying that he felt the Bail Reform Act required amendment and that its provisions should be applied more strictly in certain instances.
I wonder whether the minister would let the House know if any additional amendments are contemplated, and whether he intends to bring in provisions to make bail even more restrictive than the amendments in the present legislation. Let me refer the House to a statement quoted in the Ottawa Citizen for October 23, 1975, headed "Stricter Bail Act Hinted". The article goes on to say:
Justice Minister Ron Basford ... said Wednesday that bail is being wrongly granted in some cases because magistrates and Crown prosecutors have misunderstood the provisions of the Bail Reform Act. "The act itself is a good one", he said, "but in its application it has, in some cases, not been clearly understood by the men on the bench". The minister said it is not uncommon for persons charged in narcotics offences to be released on bail, only to go on trafficking when released. "An offender can often make enough money to pay for his bail this way," he said, "and the only way to put a stop to it is to make the act more strict."
Whether the minister was indicating that the present provisions are sufficient to cover the situation, or whether other amendments are contemplated is not clear. In looking at these provisions it is important to have some idea of the over-all picture and the context in which the amendments are brought forward. I think it is generally agreed that these provisions are desirable. I think the minister is indicating that he has something to contribute. He can remark on this now or later, as he sees fit, but I should like to raise this question with him.
November 18, 1975


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, if it would help the hon. member I would be happy to answer the question now. The newspaper clipping to which he refers was a comment of mine which was directed at-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Procedurally this would hardly be acceptable because the minister has already spoken, and if I allow him to answer questions he loses his right of reply. I hope the hon. member will ask his question, and in using his right of reply perhaps the minister would take advantage of his right to answer all of the questions raised.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a pleasure to hear from the minister, but if the penalty for doing so is to terminate the debate, since there are many others who wish to contribute, I would not want this to happen on my account. Incidentally this is the first opportunity I personally have had to extend congratulations to the minister on his appointment to this particular portfolio. I wish him the very best in his endeavours. He has a big job to do. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has indicated his concern at the growing incidence of crime and violence in this country, and the minister has a great task before him.
Certain provisions of Bill C-71 relate to the Bail Reform Act. While they are, as I have said, welcome,, and I think are generally acceptable, they do not necessarily answer some problems respecting bail and the granting of bail. I echo the comments made by other speakers to the effect that unfortunately what happens is that the rather more sensational types of situations get the publicity and people thereupon perceive that the whole bail system is not functioning in the way it should. For example, we hear about a person charged with the offence of murder or attempted murder who unfortunately is let out on bail under the provisions of the Bail Reform Act, and he subsequently commits another offence of violence. This gets headlines and, as a result, people feel it is not the exception but the rule.
There is no question that most members of the House are inclined to support the general concept of eliminating situations where, for example, little old ladies are incarcerated for long periods awaiting trial. We do not want to see that type of situation obtain in this country. Nevertheless we must ensure that in cases of serious crime some protection is given to the public. This is what motivated the government to propose the amendments that are being put forward in this bill.
There are some areas with which these particular amendments do not come to grips, and I should like to refer to them. It seems to me that under the present law the courts have the right to refuse bail under circumstances contemplated by the amendments. In other words, ' there is power under existing legislation, if the courts wish to exercise it, to ensure that people who may cause difficulty if released from custody will not do some damage or injury, or commit a crime. The problem has been that, for reasons that I hope to develop, the courts have not interpreted the existing provisions of the legislation to accommodate such situations.
Part of the problem is that on occasion insufficient information is made available to the courts. In this techno-
Criminal Code
logical age of computers much more attention must be given to the provision of information to prosecutors and the courts this assessment was made by those involved in the judicial process-in order to determine whether or not an application for bail should be opposed or whether the applicant concerned should be released.
There is no computerized record of people released on bail across Canada. The availability of this information is very scant. I could refer the House to a survey done by Statistics Canada, but it seems to me there is no fund of information which would allow us to assess adequately the effectiveness of the Bail Reform Act. It is therefore difficult to be categorical so far as the success of the bail provisions is concerned.
Another aspect that I do not think the bill deals with is this: under the present situation-and the bill does nothing to change it-if an accused person is granted bail there is obviously nothing to stop him absconding and failing to show up at the hearing. The rule is that an accused must report periodically to the authorities, but the tendency has developed for the police to put the onus on the courts and not to follow absconders unless they commit another offence. If they are caught and they plead guilty to the original offence, their absconding from custody is often overlooked.
This is one area in respect of which the department might possibly give some consideration with a view to determining if it would be worthwhile to develop and encourage a provincial system of exchanging information across the country covering convictions for offences that have been committed while the person was on bail. If this information could be made available to the prosecutors, with the idea of a follow-up to make sure that it is, then I think some method could be developed which would prevent individuals from pleading guilty to a second offence and avoiding, or escaping prosecution on the first offence in respect of which they were out on bail. I think this would be a worth-while endeavour and well received across the country.
These proposed bail amendments are adequate but I am concerned that they will not be applied haphazardly as were the 1972 amendments. The intent of the amendments is to reduce the range of discretion and spell out quite clearly the terms under which pre-trial release can be granted. The result sought is a narrowing of the opportunity for abuse by shifting the onus from the Crown to the accused.
In the preamble to the amendments the Minister of Justice has stated that the need has become apparent to tighten up some of the provisions where abuses which are potentially damaging to the integrity of the system of pre-trial release have arisen. The presumption of innocence, he said, is a fundamental principle of our legal system, but its uncritical application to the early stages of law enforcement, such as pre-trial release, may give rise to unjustifiable results.
The maxim of the Bail Reform Act is excellent, as pointed out by members of this Chamber, but it is one thing to support progressive legislation and another thing to make permissive the principle of that legislation.

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
Nowhere in the original act of 1972 was there a mandate for the Crown to apply bail provisions uncritically. In fact, instructions to the courts were very specific. The accused was not to be released if the court had probable and reasonable grounds to believe that he or she would commit a new offence, repeat the same crime, fail to appear for trial, or frustrate the administration of justice. Thus it often appeared that the failure of the original act was not with its provisions but with their application by the courts. The Bail Reform Act in some instances turned into a revolving door farce in which a suspect was arrested, released, arrested, released, and so on indefinitely. The minister referred to this problem and said it had occurred within his own city.
Statistics on indictable offences committed while on bail are particularly difficult to come by because of the problem of jurisdiction and the variety of reporting systems. As I indicated earlier, there has been a survey made covering federal crime cases. This is a sampling of federal criminal cases for the period January 1, to August 1, 1973. This survey did not cover all cases but, as I understand it, was rather selective. However, some of the results are rather interesting. Some 12,698 persons were included in the survey sample, and I understand approximately 91 per cent were released either by police, by a justice or a judge at some point prior to the disposition of their cases in the courts. Of this number, according to this particular survey, about 6 per cent failed to appear in court at some time.
I am not sure how accurate these figures are because there is a lack of cross-referencing between police and court records. This makes it rather difficult to obtain a completely accurate accounting.
There are some interesting aspects of this survey which I should like to bring to the attention of the House because they do raise some interesting assessments on the way this act has been administered across the country.
In general the survey revealed that the police apparently are exercising their discretion in favour of releasing the accused. Police tend to detain certain types of offenders in custody more frequently than others. For example, only about 5 per cent of motor vehicle law offenders were held in custody, while about 75 per cent of those charged with armed robbery, and about 47 per cent of those charged with breaking and entering were held.
There are variations in the release rate between municipal and provincial police forces, and also between cities. Since this is the first survey of its kind, and there is no comparable information available for the period prior to the Bail Reform Act, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions based just on this information.
The number of persons detained in custody varied from province to province. The figures covering those cases where the police detained the accused in custody varied from New Brunswick with the very low percentage of 4.6 per cent, to Quebec where there were 34 per cent of the people retained in custody by the police. The variations in the rate may be attributable in part to provincial differences in the rate of serious crimes; that is, crimes in which the police have no authority to release the accused. However, this factor alone does not explain the differences between high custody and low custody provinces. The Quebec sample, for instance, showed only 30 per cent of its

criminal code cases, excluding traffic cases, in the more serious category, but it had 34 per cent custody rate as compared with New Brunswick figures of 16.1 per cent and 4.5 per cent respectively.
The next thing which occurred to me about this survey was that municipal police forces, with the exception of those in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, are much more likely to keep an accused in custody than are provincial police forces, including the RCMP. Municipal police forces imposed custody in 36.7 per cent of the criminal code cases handled by them while the comparable figure for provincial police was 15.9 per cent.
The study showed that the police tend to detain certain types of offenders in custody much more than others. For example, 26.3 per cent of persons charged with offences under the Criminal Code, other than motor vehicle and drug offences, were held in custody by the police, with those charged with armed robbery being 75.8 per cent, breaking and entering, 46.8 per cent, and theft over $200
41.8	per cent. Persons charged with drug offences other than simple possession also had a high rate of detention in custody, some 57.8 per cent. On the other hand police released all but 5.1 per cent of motor vehicle law offenders.
A point I want to mention is that the survey revealed major differences in the methods of release employed by police across Canada. The appearance notice, used nationally in 32.2 per cent of all cases, was used in 67.3 per cent of the cases in Saskatchewan, but in only 11.8 per cent of the cases in Quebec. The promise to appear, used nationally in
14.8	per cent of all cases, was used in 39.9 per cent of the cases in Prince Edward Island, but only in 2.4 per cent of the cases in Quebec. The summons was used in 26.3 per cent of all the cases, but its use was much more frequent in the provinces east of Manitoba than in the western provinces or the Territories.
Finally, in half the cases sampled the case was disposed of at the first court appearance. In the remaining 6,284 cases, 1,433 persons were in police custody. Out of those in custody, 1,086 were released upon application to a justice, half of them upon a simple undertaking to appear at trial without any terms or conditions being imposed. Of the persons sampled in the survey, 91 per cent were released either by the police, a justice or a judge at some point prior to the disposition of their cases.
It should be noted that of the 1,149 persons who were not released at all prior to the disposition of their cases, approximately 60 per cent had their cases concluded at their first court appearance, hence the question of release by the courts did not arise.
These statistics raise in my mind the question of the basis upon which the department makes its assessment in respect of amendments concerning bail. It seems to me some consideration should be given to having a much more thorough basis upon which to determine the necessity for amending provisions. Much more should be done in this regard than presently is the case. In addition it would seem to me there is not necessarily uniformity across the country concerning the application of the legislation. I do not say that uniformity is in itself a virtue.
November 18, 1975

However, it would seem there may be cause for the department to think in terms of an educational program in respect of members of the judiciary, the people involved in prosecutions, in order that the spirit of the law may be more clearly understood and so that the procedures would be carried out more thoroughly with a view to obtaining some sort of co-ordination between prosecuting attorneys and the courts. I think this would be worthwhile.
I am sure no one would suggest we should tell the judges how to conduct their courts because in each case they must look at the circumstances. However, I think we must do two things. First, we must provide the people involved with the necessary information, and second encourage, as I mentioned before, the concept of computerization of information and availability of information so far as the prosecutors are concerned, so that in each case they will be able to deal with the matter as effectively as possible and protect the public interest in cases where this is appropriate.
Having made those points I reiterate the fact that it is neither desirable nor feasible to keep a person in jail for a petty offence. Generally there is a backlog of cases in each of the provinces today and therefore trials often are not held for some time after the charge is laid or apprehension has taken place. I think this is another area in respect of which everyone would agree some assistance must be given to the courts and some thought given to improving the efficiency of our courts so that they will be able to deal with the cases expeditiously. If these new amendments are to function properly, the accused will have to do more than assure the court through a promise to behave.
I should like to make some suggestions to the minister concerning further provisions to which consideration might be given. Perhaps we will have to look at the question of bail in respect of a person charged with a serious crime such as murder, or crimes involving the use of a firearm. We could look at the possibility of increasing the penalty and possibly the amount of bail, depending on the severity of the crime committed. It seems to me that an amount of $2,000 with regard to bail for a person on a charge of murder is not a very large amount. I think we should be giving some attention to the question of more serious crimes and our attitude toward bail in these cases. We may want to have a more periodic re-assessment in respect of the person on bail relating to more serious crimes.
I realize that an increase in the amount of bail works against the interests of those people who do not have money, but there are alternatives which might be canvassed, and possibly during the course of our consideration of this legislation before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the minister might respond to this and give us some idea of some of the things that are being considered by the Department of Justice, as well as some of the long-range plans and suggestions the department may have so that we can develop the best possible legislation in the interest of everyone in Canada.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Madam
Speaker, I rise to make a few brief remarks on this very important bill, C-71, which would amend the Criminal Code in several respects which I consider to be very important.
Criminal Code
Since this is the first opportunity I have had, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the appointment of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). He is a colleague of mine from the province of British Columbia. This appointment has been warmly received and it comes at one of the most difficult times we have had in our history so far as justice is concerned. The incidence of crime is serious all over the country. It is particularly serious in the city of Vancouver where the present minister resides. I am very pleased with the remarks he made in his debut as minister. I think the orientation he has to deal with crime in whatever form is the right one.
My brief remarks tonight will be related to the section of the bill dealing with cattle rustling. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) referred to cattle rustling in his remarks. I believe he said there is not any cattle rustling in the city of Toronto. I would not think there would be, but I want to assure members of this House that the question of cattle rustling is a serious problem in this country, and has been for a number of years.
Over the past few years since I have been a member of parliament I have received a number of very serious representations from various groups, not only in the province of British Columbia but in other parts of the country. I have received representations from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and from the smaller associations in various parts of my riding.
I have received suggestions to the effect that the fines are too light and that the Criminal Code is weak and does not address itself to the very serious problem of cattle rustling in a proper manner. This is the reason why I am pleased to note that now there is to be a special section in the Criminal Code to deal with this problem.
The problem was so serious, and I received so many representations from various places, that I introduced a private members' bill dealing with it during the last two parliaments. The bill in this particular parliament is C-337. I am glad it will no longer be necessary for me to press on with this particular bill.
My bill would have achieved a couple of things. It would have provided that every person who commits theft of cattle is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable (a) to imprisonment for ten years where the value of the cattle exceeds $50, or (b) to imprisonment for two years where the value of the cattle does not exceed $50, provided that a minimum sentence in either case shall be imprisonment for one year. This is a pretty tough measure. The thing that cattlemen want in particular is to make sure there is a minimum sentence.
I know that judges in the country do not like to have their hands tied by minimum sentences, so I can see why the Minister of Justice did not accept this particular amendment. But I want to say that the amendment which the minister brought in is acceptable to the cattlemen. It provides that everyone who commits theft of cattle is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years. This is a considerable improvement,
9222

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
and it addresses itself to the seriousness of the problem of cattle rustling.
Under the present law, theft of cattle is dealt with under a general theft provision. If the value of the property is over $200, it is an indictable offence subject to a maximum of ten years imprisonment. Where the value of stolen goods is less than $200, the maximum improvement is two years. Again I want to thank the previous minister of justice and the present Minister of Justice for responding to the wishes of the cattlemen by bringing in this amendment to the Criminal Code. I am sure it will deal in a very effective way with the serious problem of cattle rustling.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I will reserve my remarks to the principles of the bill relating to the proposed changes in the Criminal Code on drinking and driving offences. I have some other remarks on other matters of a detailed nature which I will leave until we go into committee on this bill.
The amendments to our drinking and driving legislation are essentially a good beginning. However, I am fearful that if the new provisions pass as they stand now, their coming into force may be delayed or phased in as facilities needed to implement them are developed in areas where they do not exist now or where they are not yet adequate.
The amendment to section 234 of the Criminal Code allows the judge to impose a conditional discharge on a person charged with a drinking and driving offence. This means that the judge may require that rehabilitative measures are taken respecting the convicted person's consumption of alcohol or drugs in accordance with the terms of his order. In other words, while such a person is taking treatment for alcoholism and abstaining from its use in accordance with the judge's order, no penalty of fine or imprisonment is imposed. If he ceases to obey the order, the penalty is reinstated. In the case of such a conditional discharge, however, there is no record of criminal conviction and no penalty.
If my memory serves me correctly, this follows pretty well the recommendations of the Canadian Barristers' Association. I find that this is an excellent provision, one that goes to the root of the problem of our drunken drivers because it attempts to effect a cure. I think that it breaks new ground in our jurisprudence and, in my opinion, it is the type of thing we should be looking at more often. I commend the minister for bringing in this provision. I think it is a constructive one and it deserves the support of all members of the House.
I have two suggestions to make to the minister. There is a shortcoming in this procedure that comes in mind. If in fact the convicted person receives a conditional discharge and moves to another area where he commits a similar offence, the fact of his former conviction being erased by operation of law may not be known to the court or authorities in the new jurisdiction. This possible shortcoming can be overcome by a simple amendment clarifying the intention of parliament in this regard, and I commend such an amendment to the minister's consideration.
The rehabilitation facilities available to persons qualifying for such a conditional discharge vary from very poor or non-existent in some jurisdictions, to excellent in areas such as the Donwood facility in Toronto. This means that

all Canadians do not have an equal opportunity to avail themselves of rehabilitative facilities, and if everyone is to be equal before the law the full implementation of this section will have to be preceded by some very serious and far reaching discussion between Ottawa and the provinces.
The provinces too will have to give consideration to amending their laws dealing with the suspension of licenses. The necessity for a conviction now forms the basis for the suspension of a license by a province. A conditional discharge carries no record of criminal conviction and thus provincial legislation, if left as it is, would not be applied in these cases.
Another feature of the amendments before parliament is the provision of the roadside screening process. At present under the Criminal Code-as differentiated from provincial legislation-a peace officer can require a breath sample only if he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver is impaired. This new section, which is clause 15 in the amending bill, gives the police the right to conduct roadside screening tests where an officer has reasonable cause to suspect a driver of having alcohol in his blood. In many areas of Canada the implementation of this section too will have to be delayed until provinces train personnel and obtain the necessary equipment. The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the hazard that impaired drivers present to others and to themselves.
The amendment will certainly be a great inconvenience to a large number of people and will increase the cost of police operations, but it will also reduce many road hazards and accidents, and provide greater public safety on our highways. To many people an impaired driving charge is just as serious as armed robbery.
The strict application of this amendment will stop a few impaired drivers, but we should bear in mind that no piece of legislation will eliminate them altogether. Educating the public concerning drunk driving laws and the potential dangerousness of an impaired driver is imperative if we are to reduce the number of persons committing this offence.
Penalties are often inconsistent and based on the severity of the situation. A large number of those who appear in court on a Monday morning are charged with impaired driving, but the penalties imposed in different jurisdictions of Canada vary, and so do the programs for prevention and rehabilitation.
The new amendments before parliament will provide much stiffer penalties for those who are convicted of operating motor vehicles on our highways in a drunken or impaired condition. While the proposed legislation deals more efficiently with the detection and punishment of drinking and driving offences, it leaves one significant omission, and I would be most grateful if the minister would take this up with his provincial counterparts.
There is no mention whatsoever of any responsibility being placed on those who sell alcoholic beverages for a profit. With the inception of criminality being at the stage when a person consumes the alcoholic beverage, it surely must be incumbent on those who make a profit from its sale to provide some means of testing on the premises where the consumption takes place, so that the patron who is just a few minutes away from a serious criminal charge
November 18, 1975

can save himself from a criminal record, and save other people from his becoming a menace on the highway by taking a simple test before leaving a bar, beer parlour, or lounge in an impaired condition and sitting behind the driver's wheel of a car where he becomes a menace to himself and everyone else.
Under the new penalties being imposed, there is a substantial increase. For the first offence the fine limit is increased from $500 to $2,000, and the prison term is doubled from three months to six. For a second offence, imprisonment is provided for not more than one year, where it is now limited to three months, and the minimum term of fourteen days remains the same. For each subsequent offence imprisonment for not more than one year is increased to two years, and the minimum term of three months remains the same. Amendments to the Criminal Code will provide these same penalties for failure or refusal to provide a breath sample, and for driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in the blood. Whereas sections 235 and 236, the breathalyzer section and the high alcoholic blood count section, now provide only for summary conviction offences, the proposed amendments change the import of the code and create duplicate indictable offences.
Normally an indictable offence means that a person is entitled to elect to be tried by a jury. It also makes a serious record and has implications with respect to passports, crossing borders, pardons, fingerprinting and other matters. In addition to creating a new offence for the breathalyzer related sections, the new changes have the same penalties, whether the offences are treated as summary convictions or indictable offences. This is the same situation which now exists in section 234, driving while ability to drive is impaired. This technique has been criticized by the Canadian Bar Association.
Without question the government has in these amendments shown its intention to deal more severely with these offenders. I sincerely hope some of the suggestions I have made will help the minister in his new task.
While I have the opportunity, I should like to congratulate the minister on assuming his new portfolio and to wish him the very best of good fortune.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, as many other speakers in this debate have done, I should like to start out by extending my congratulations to the minister on his appointment to his high office. He has very many distinguished predecessors, and I am sure he will add further distinction to the long line of ministers of justice in Canada. I fully expect that he will exhibit firmness to ensure that crime is restrained, and fairness to ensure that it is administered with justice and humanity.
There can be no doubt that Canadians, like people in many other countries, are deeply disturbed by acts of senseless horror and violence. A general atmosphere of fear, and indeed, in some places of hysteria, exists at the present time, and this bill represents a step forward, or perhaps a few steps forward, but I am sure the minister would be the first to acknowledge that it leaves an awful lot to be done.
Criminal Code
The minister in opening, and other speakers later, have put forward the main features of the bill. I will not try to repeat that. I just want to deal with some of those features. I approve, and I think the House generally approved, of the Bail Reform Act. That was legislation to try to bring about an element of justice in order to ensure that people without substantial means could get their freedom pending trial, rather than leaving the opportunity of bail to those who happened to be wealthier and able to put up the bail required. It therefore had excellent purposes, but in my view the administration of the Bail Reform Act has been woefully weak, and public indignation has been aroused by some incidents. This legislation is a small improvement, and of that no one can complain.
The onus has shifted, particularly in cases where someone is awaiting trial for a previous indictable offence. One indeed wonders how a person who is awaiting trial for a previous serious offence would ever be able to get bail. I wonder whether the machinery of acquainting the bail judge or magistrate with the facts which would make the granting of bail unlikely is adequate.
Are there adequate means for gathering the evidence of previous criminal offences in other jurisdictions before bail is granted? I doubt very much whether there are at the present time, and I hope that with his provincial colleagues the minister will look carefully into that aspect of the matter to find out whether there could not be a more adequate system of getting the facts to the judges and magistrates responsible for granting bail under the act. I think there would be many fewer cases of people being let out on bail who should never be let out, and then committing more crimes, if there were a more adequate system.
I should like to touch on the drunken driving provisions. I welcome them. I think the amendments proposed are excellent. Screening tests by the roadside and the requiring of breath sampling are a necessary protective action for society. There are few hon. members in this House who are unaware of the multiple tragedies caused by drunken drivers. It is absolutely necessary that this wholesale slaughter be slowed down, if it cannot be stopped. I cannot see that to require a person to accept a breathalyzer test is a serious infringement of his rights. It seems to me that it is merely something to help protect society as a whole.
I am glad that the more severe provisions in this field have been tempered by a recognition that even the drunken driver is a human being, and that the convicting judge or magistrate is given the opportunity to grant a conditional discharge requiring that the convicted person accept conditions for curative and rehabilitative measures. There are some people to whom this disease is so serious that they can be convicted and before long be doing the very same thing they did previously.
I particularly welcome what seems to me to be a return to the sound principle that in criminal matters, at least, an acquittal by a jury should be given full force and should stand. It should not normally be interfered with by an appellate court. I think that is right. It is part of our history. The jury system was there giving juries sole jurisdiction to determine the guilt or innocence of people accused of crimes. I think the sole jurisdiction of a jury arose in the days of the industrial revolution where the English courts were sometimes used in cases of industrial
9224

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
strife, alleged sedition, and political matters of that sort. The English courts were used to overturn the verdicts of juries and as instruments of tyranny.
People like the famous Lord Erskine eloquently framed the jury into a potent weapon for assuring the freedom and liberty of the subject, and I must say that I hope when this bill is passed some attention will be paid to the case of an individual who has twice been acquitted in this country by a jury and, as I understand it, is still in detention.
Another feature of this legislation is to be welcomed, and that deals with its international scope. Crime has developed an international scope. We live in an age of terrorism, and hi-jacking is reported in all parts of the world. We live in an age when the diplomat, the representative from a foreign country, is not secure, but is pursued to his garden or his office, threatened, and sometimes seriously injured. This situation is helping to destroy the whole international order. The time has come for the whole international order to take much more effective steps to put an end to this particular menace. We must, by international co-operation, take firm action to end this scourge on mankind.
This bill does not contain any adequate and fair gun control provision, which the minister has promised but not yet produced. The minister having been in his present position for a short time only, it would be unfair and ungenerous to blame him. But I suggest, considering the recent tragedies which have occurred in this country involving the use of firearms, that their control should be given high priority and not mixed with other legislation. Let the minister introduce control legislation quickly and put it into effect.
I commend the minister for this legislation, nearly all of which is worth while and deserves support. Nevertheless, I hope he will speed the pace of criminal law reform, which is urgently needed. In my judgment many sections of the Criminal Code need amending. Many, like the insanity section, are obsolete. Others are inadequate and antiquated. We have begun making improvements but have a long way to go. I wish the minister well in his task, and I say that we urgently need speedy reform of our criminal law.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, this evening I wish to speak on a particular topic which comes within the scope of Bill C-71. Other members have spoken about other topics; with your approval I shall speak on something of great concern to sociologists and lawyers. Probably this is one of the most delicate and controversial subjects involving our criminal jurisprudence.
When we examine our rape laws, nearly every myth about women in modern society is encountered. What is particularly alarming is the great gap between society's changes in values and behaviour and similar changes in our laws. Before the early awakening of an enlightened society, a woman was considered a chattel or mere possession, and any violation of her was measured as a decrease in her value. In medieval law, rape was defined as "capturing or carrying away by force, and it may be applied to things as well as to women." Indeed, rape from the earliest times was looked on as offence against property. This type of attitude dies hard, if at all. Many believe that if a
woman is a sexual person, then she cannot be raped. Thus the woman is at fault, somehow "she provoked the attack." Such ideas are not easily disproven and are often absorbed by women themselves. A rape victim then begins to wonder whether if in fact she did not cause the attack.
Although these myths are rapidly disappearing, other equally outmoded ideas still surround the concept of rape. The most evident is the distinction between "good women" and "bad women." Often when an accused is charged with rape or a related offence, counsel cross-examines the complainant-to the point which some people regard as harassment-on her past conduct and general character. This type of questioning has been allowed as relevant to the issue of consent, and often it is used to attack credibility. Some contend it leads to the appearance that the victim is on trial.
The character of the accused, on the other hand, has not regularly been in issue, unless he puts it in issue. The prosecution is not permitted to question an accused about his character, unless be becomes a witness in his own defence and tries to present evidence of his good character, or other witnesses testify as to his upright character. Neither is the prosecution allowed to question the accused about his previous criminal activities. Therefore it has been quite possible that the previous convictions of the accused for rape would never be divulged in the course of his trial. This is in contrast to the severe cross-examination of the complainant as to her previous moral conduct.
In other criminal trials cross-examination such as this is not permitted. Under the new amendments, evidence of the victim's sexual conduct with a person other than the accused will be permitted only if reasonable notice in writing is given to the prosecution. The judge will then decide, in a hearing held in the absence of the jury, whether such evidence is necessary for a just determination of the case. The judge may permit cross-examination if these matters are particularly relevant. But it would appear that if this amendment becomes law, cases where such crossexamination is allowed will be very rare indeed.
Under the present code section 142 requires the trial judge to warn the jury of the danger of convicting the accused if the complainant's testimony is not corroborated. Under the new amendments the direction is abolished for all offences listed in that section, including rape, attempted rape, intercourse with a girl under 14, and indecent assault. This deletion of the warning is not to mean that a more lax standard of proof is to be applied than in other criminal offences; it simply applies the same standard of proof, that is, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These amendments seem simply to place women on the same footing as men, and place rape in the same category as any other serious criminal charge, which is a step in the right direction.
Amendments to section 442 provide that where the accused is charged with rape, attempted rape, indecent assault, etc., the judge must consider excluding the public when an application is made for such exclusion by the accused or the prosecution. If the order is denied, reasons must now be given. An additional amendment extends the protection to any proceedings rather than restricting it to the trial itself. The order may be made for all or part of the

November 18, 1975

proceedings, and the judge may exclude all or part of the public. Again I suggest that is a step in the right direction.
There has been one noteworthy Canadian study on rape. This was a Toronto study done by Debra Lewis for a Master's dissertation in 1974. In it rape was shown to be a nocturnal crime that seldom occurs in a public area. The typical location in the Toronto study was the offender's residence, followed by a vehicle. Victims fell into the 14 to 19, and 20 to 24 age group, and were from lower social economic occupational categories. Nearly 70 per cent of the victims were single. Referring to the offender, data on arrested offenders was used and applied therefore to only 32 cases. Over 40 per cent of the offenders were over 30 years of age; 75 per cent were white and they were from lower social economic groups. In 60 per cent of the cases in the Toronto study the victim and the offender were at least acquaintances.
Rape seems to be the most unreported of all crimes, and the number of offences that are reported compared to the number in which suspects are arrested and brought to trial is lower than the rate for any other crime against a person. It seems obvious that the reason is the extremely difficult position our present jurisprudence places the complainant in when she seeks to obtain justice for the indignities inflicted upon her.
The changing public attitude toward rape and the determination to mount a real attack on the incidence of rape have been largely responsible for the government's decision to introduce the amendments contained in Bill C-71. There are, however, several very obvious amendments that have not been introduced regarding sexual offences. Use of the words "of previously chaste character" appear four times in Criminal Code sections relating to sexual offences. Among these offences are sexual intercourse with a female employee, seduction of female passengers on vessels, and even the seduction of a female between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Along with the amendments to the cross-examination and corroboration principles, these words should have also been wiped out. This again brings the character of the victim into question, and bases the crime on the prior goodness of the victim.
The Minister of Justice's (Mr. Basford) amendments have scratched the surface of the rape issue. Further intensive studies must be conducted on such aspects as the psychological, physical, and biological results of rape and related offences, before additional amendments and recommendations can seriously be put forward.
The Law Reform Commission has entered into a contract with the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry to complete a series of studies related to sexual offences. The purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing definitions of sex crimes and to recommend new definitions and systems of classification. This project began in May of 1972 and is not yet completed. Let us hope that when it is completed the Law Reform Commission will be more realistic in its recommendations than in some of the lenient philosophical utterings we have heard from this expensive commission in the past. In the meantime, are women of "previously unchaste character" to be denied equality in our criminal laws?
Criminal Code
I suggest it might be more realistic, and this is something for the minister to consider, to treat the offence called rape as a form of aggravated assault. It would remove a lot of the stigma and emotion presently associated with this very ugly word from the emotional and other associations it invariably brings forward in a court of law. I commend the minister for the type of approach he is now using. I hope he will not let the matter rest where it is, but will bring forward other amendments to look at the situation of the law in changing sociological and economic conditions. I see it is approaching ten o'clock. I will confine my remarks to what I have said at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I must advise the House that if the minister speaks at this time, he will close the debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that the minister is anxious to get this through as quickly as possible, but there is another member who is extremely anxious to speak. He is just leaving committee and is on his way to the chamber. I refer to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald).


An hon. Member:: Which committee?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The committee on international development. He has indicated that he is on his way over. I beg the indulgence of the House to allow him to come forward and call it ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member has already spoken on this bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) is not here. Therefore he cannot be recognized. I will call on the minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Perhaps I did not make myself clear on the point of order. The point I was making was to ask the indulgence of the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: That may not be
done. The hon. member for Egmont is not here so he cannot be recognized.


An hon. Member:: Here he is.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Egmont.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your patience. Unfortunately I was in a committee of this House, and it took me a few minutes to get from the West Block to this building.
I listened with interest this afternoon to some of the comments of the minister when he was referring to the various amendments to the Criminal Code. While it is tempting to deal with all of them because they are all of significance to this House and the country, there is one in particular I will deal with because it is crucial with respect to the present situation in terms of an epidemic in this country today. I refer to the situation with respect to the

November 18, 1975
Criminal Code
offences that are committed by those who drink and drive. I have long believed that we have here a situation which has reached epidemic proportions.
As the minister and members on all sides of this House are well aware, each year we incur millions, indeed I think it would be fair to say hundreds of millions of dollars of expenses through hospital costs, insurance costs, and the enormous personal costs as a result of those who believe it is possible to drink to excess, get behind the wheel of a car, and threaten not only their own lives and those of the passengers with them but also other innocent victims using the same and who have the misfortune to come into contact with these vehicles that are essentially out of control.
I will speak a bit more specifically about this tomorrow when I have more opportunity, but I have in recent months attempted to put into effect a series of recommendations with regard to the particular situation in Prince Edward Island. I am not sure whether my office has sent the minister a copy of the lengthy report and study we have done with regard to drinking and driving offences in Prince Edward Island.
While I know Prince Edward Island is not unique in this, we have had a very unhappy history where more than 50 per cent of the accidents that have been caused in Prince Edward Island, and we have a very high accident rate on a per capita basis, have been caused by those who have been drinking and driving at the same time.
The steps that the minister is attempting to take through this amendment to the Criminal Code will be of some assistance. I hope that it is not the sum and substance of what we, as legislators, are able to do either in a federal or provincial sense. I know that much of the implementation of the recommendations that are being brought forward will remain in the hands of those who serve in provincial offices of responsibility. I believe as well that the law in some ways acts as only a final determining factor, and really only finally in a negative sense.
Increasingly we must address ourselves to programs of education and rehabilitation which will be required if we are to deal effectively with this program. The fact, however, is that we have gradually grown into a situation of such epidemic proportions that it is very tempting to believe there is little or nothing that can be done to change the direction and increase of the present situation. I believe that not to be the case.
Certain provinces, and I think of the province of Alberta in particular, have introduced some innovative and helpful programs with respect to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is an aspect that has to be seriously considered, looking at the number of repeat offences that have taken place with respect to those who have been arrested, charged, and subsequently convicted.
I will not delay the House any longer on this matter this evening. I will merely call it ten o'clock, and hope to proceed more specifically on this aspect of the bill the minister has brought before us.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Madam Speaker, like a well polished emerald, the Ashburn Golf Course sits on a hill on one of the sides of the great city of Halifax.
The other day I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) not to permit himself to become an urban vandal by trying to procure the land there for use in a housing development. I did that because Ashburn is a very large part of the gracious living for the metropolitan area of Halifax, and because it opens its doors and the course to all comers. It is not restricted. Indeed, if it were, I would not be arguing this cause in any way in this chamber.
Years ago the developers of Halifax, men of the nature of Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Piercey, and I refer back to the thirties, looked upon Ashburn as a possible source of development. The golfers, notably scared that they would lose this magnificent course, put together a special legal arrangement.
The Halifax Golf and Country Club is owned by a number of people who have banded together in a voting trust to keep this operation as a golf club. I am indebted to Major H. E. Crowell, Chancellor of Acadia University, an octogenarian who shoots his age sometimes on this course, for the information I am now giving to the House. A Halifax lawyer, Mr. F. M. Covert, put together the voting trust. That was about 40 years ago. Since then Ashburn has withstood the assaults of the developers. It helps make the city of Halifax a very pleasant place.
There are other cities within whose limits golf courses are situated. Not all cities have them. Winnipeg is fortunate. The city of Hamilton is fortunate. So is Victoria, British Columbia, and Dartmouth across the harbour from Halifax has its own golf course in the heart of the city. There are other cities as well which can offer this great attraction.
But some cities have seen their downtown golf courses go for housing development. I am thinking of Verdun. Only in the east end of Montreal, as I understand it, does there exist one municipal course. Otherwise people of that great metropolis have to drive many tens of miles before they reach a suitable course.
In the national capital area, Madam Speaker, one of the features which makes it such an attractive place, apart from yourself and some others in this chamber-one of the charms is the presence of a number of golf courses near at hand.
The reason I raised my question with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs was to get some declaration from
November 18, 1975

him that his department and CMHC would not try to take over such land for housing development if there were some guarantee that these courses would be open to the public, forming as they do an essential part of living in a highly civilized style.
I think it would be a terrible thing if all urban areas were simply block after block marching away into an indefinite distance of housing and buildings, without green space or other space for people to enjoy recreation. I hope that when a reply comes from the government there will be a recognition that spaces such as Ashburn should continue as recreational areas, and that the government will never stoop to the weapon of expropriation which is the only way Ashburn could possibly be taken for housing development, since the voting members would see to it otherwise that it was used as a golf course indefinitely.
But I am not thinking only of Ashburn. I am raising this as a larger issue looking ahead at how our cities will be 20, 50 or 100 years from now, and believing there ought to be something in government policy which acknowledges the need for these recreational areas.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this evening to reply in the name of my minister to the question asked by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on November 14. He referred to the possible purchase of the Ashburn Golf Course in Halifax by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I wish to confirm information which I am sure the hon. member already has in his possession to the effect that the board of directors of the Ashburn Golf Course refused the corporation's offer. In the opinion of the board of directors of the golf course, the land was worth between $2.8 million and $3 million, a figure approximately double the price offered by CMHC. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not interested in the purchase of this property at the price asked by its owners as it would necessitate a housing density too high to permit an appropriately sensitive development treatment of this attractive land.
If I may add a personal note, Madam Speaker, I know that officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are looking around Halifax for a suitable site for a housing development. I am sure the hon. member will understand that if CMHC tees off on this objective with its usual drive, it should go a "fairway" toward securing enough green to initiate an attractive and suitable housing development. Let us hope that there will not be too many slices or hooks in the process, and that all levels of government will "putt" forth their co-operation in bringing to Halifax a worth-while development financed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-UNITED NATIONS FORCE IN MIDDLE EAST-POSSIBILITY OF REQUEST FOR INCREASED CANADIAN COMMITMENT
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, when on October 24 I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) if Canada had received any request for increased involvement in the Middle East peace
Adjournment Debate
forces of the UN, I had in mind the broadened UN role consequent upon the Sinai agreement between Egypt and Israel, and the UN security vote in reference thereto.
This was before the recent vote in the UN general assembly which has brought forth in some quarters strong anti-UN sentiments. There have been those so distressed by the vote on Zionism that they feel Canada, because of that vote, should turn its back upon the United Nations and cancel our membership. Others have suggested that we show our hostility to the resolution by refusing to allow into this country spokesmen for the Palestinian people. I would not for a moment seek to judge or appraise the motives of those who counsel such action, but I think these are times when UN supporters should express themselves.
Suggestions that a Palestinian spokesman be prevented from addressing a public meeting in Ottawa do little to enhance Canada's reputation as a democracy. If freedom of speech is to be restricted only to those with whom we agree, it is not freedom at all. The UN resolution on Zionism was unwise, unhelpful, and unnecessary, and it would have been far better had its sponsors dropped it. But many UN delegations viewed it otherwise.
In an earlier day the United States had no difficulty in commanding a majority on almost any General Assembly vote. This condition no longer prevails, and U.S. Ambassador Moynihan's recent comment that the "decent countries" were in the minority side was something less than helpful.
Equally wrong are the suggestions that Canada should, with petulant disdain, withdraw from the UN because the majority of its members supported resolutions we oppose. With all its failings and faults the UN is still indispensable. I well remember the words of that great gentleman, scholar and statesman who the minister will remember, Hon. J. M. MacDonnell, who after a visit to the world body said, "If this organization did not exist we would have to invent it".
Canada is not a combatant in the Middle East conflict. There is no need for us to be pro or anti Arab or Israeli. We claim to be on friendly terms with all. Under such circumstances it would seem unfair to deny a voice to a spokesman for the Palestinian side while welcoming all those who come as spokesmen for the Israeli cause. A million and a half Palestinians live in hopeless despair in refugee camps throughout the Middle East, driven from their homes nearly 30 years ago. They were not consulted when their lands were alienated from them. How cruel to deny them the right to speak as well.
Canada is a founding member of the United Nations, one with a good reputation there. Much of our good will and high regard stems from the fine work of the people who have served on various UN peacekeeping forces in many parts of the world over many years.
I hope that if and when a call comes from the UN it will be given a positive response. Tours of duty in these sensitive areas are not without hardships and difficulty. It is hard not to be convinced that our forces generally are being too long denied the kind of equipment their competence and their duty require. But their capacity to perform their role is widely acclaimed and I am proud of their good

November 18, 1975
Adjournment Debate
record as are the minister and his charming parliamentary secretary.
I hope, therefore, that we will follow the sane advice of Ambassador Rae and of the Ottawa Citizen, which in a recent editorial declared that hysterics are no help. I therefore invite a positive answer from the parliamentary secretary, and I assure her I will do my best to support efforts on behalf of the UN's continuing program to reduce tensions and inhibit the prospect for further explosions in sensitive areas of the world.


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, let me say to my colleague opposite how beautifully his statement was expressed. This being said, I think he will understand if I address myself more directly to the question under consideration, and that is no longer the possibility but the actual request for an increase in the Canadian commitment to UNEF's mandate.
The hon. member knows that four days after his question in the House on October 24, as a result of the renewal by the Security Council of UNEF's mandate involving an increase in the size of the force, a request was received from the Secretary General. This was a request for an increase of 20 personnel for the signals element and 16 personnel for the supply unit of the Canadian contingent, applicable January 1, 1976.
Giving additional information, I should like to remind the House that our present contribution totals 987 personnel for UNEF/UNDOF, which is the largest contribution of personnel to the force by any nation. I too would hope that, as expressed by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), Canada lives up to any new request for its long-term commitment to the UN, and I would say to the hon. member that the government has not yet taken a decision on the Secretary General's request for what I think is a marginal increase in our contribution.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-ATTENDANCE OF CANADA AT RESTRICTED ECONOMIC SUMMIT MEETING IN FRANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on October 28 I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) as follows, and it is to be found at page 8604 of
Hansard:
Will the minister indicate if we have been invited to the restricted economic summit meeting in France in mid-November, bearing in mind that monetary questions are to be raised there? If not, will he explain why we have been snubbed when there will be nations in attendance that have less at stake than Canada?
The minister declined to answer, stating this was something to do with the Department of External Affairs. I then put the same question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), and his answer at that time was that the final decision had not been taken in respect of attendance at the summit, but Canada had expressed and was continuing to express its interest. He went on to state: The hon. member will recall that Canada has received quite important public support for its presence from the President of the United States and the Secretary of State. We are still awaiting a decision that we hope will make it possible for us to attend.

I am sorry the Secretary of State for External Affairs chose to leave the House rather than answer this question, just as he refused to answer the question of the speaker who preceded me.
This is an extremely important point. We now know that the conference was held last weekend and that the leaders of six major industrialized countries announced at the end of the three-day meeting that they had reached agreement on questions of world trade, monetary matters, and raw materials including energy. We also know Canada was not in attendance at the conference. We must ask ourselves in the name of Canada why that is so. We had the minister's word that the government hoped it would be possible for Canada to attend, so why were we refused?
We had more at stake, as I originally posed the question on October 28, than some of the nations that did attend, yet we were snubbed by these nations which chose to hold the meeting. I believe we must begin asking ourselves whether the government's past is catching up in terms of international affairs. Is the fact that we have been failing to live up to our commitments with such organizations as NATO now registering with these nations that state, "If you will not carry your load on economic matters you shall not have the political clout and voice you deem necessary"? I think the time has come when we must put the government on the spot.
In the early 1960's some 25 per cent of our federal spending was on defence, and today it is about 10 per cent. Our defence spending has slumped to 2 per cent of our gross national product, compared to 6 per cent in the United States and an average of over 4 per cent for major NATO countries. I suggest this policy has been shortsighted and we are now paying the price in loss of international credibility and stature.
The summit conference held in Paris was an important matter dealing with economic questions which the government has claimed have an influence in Canada. In fact up until recently the government stated that international conditions were the cause of inflation in this country and that there was little that could be done about that. Now we find the government is in the awkward position of not being invited to this important conference on international matters.
If I may I should like to point out that the snub we have received is possibly due to the widespread feeling among these NATO countries that Canada wants defence on the cheap, with a political voice disproportionate to its contribution. At the NATO conference this fall our allies spoke scathingly of a country which was becoming a sponge within the alliance. One top NATO defence planner said Canada has been one of the weaker brethren, the weakest in fact after Luxembourg, since 1971 when we reduced our forces in Europe from 10,000 to 5,000.
I had hoped the Secretary of State for External Affairs would treat this matter with such importance that he would reply this evening. I am disappointed that he is not here. I believe this is a very important matter. It is important, if in truth the government believes in an anti-inflationary program, that it project itself into the international scene where our voice will be heard on the matters dealt with at the Paris summit. It is not enough to receive an official communique or whatever the government has
November 18, 1975

received concerning that summit. Our ministers should have been in attendance. They know they should have been in attendance. I hope there will be an explanation concerning why we have received this rebuke at the hands of nations which ordinarily we have looked upon as our allies.
We are a big nation. It is time the government projected us on to the world stage as what we are, a significant nation and not one that will accept paltry communiques from those who have made the decisions without having our counsel. I want an explanation, and every member of this House deserves an explanation.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, may I first state that I understood the tradition in this House to be that parliamentary secretaries assist their ministers in answering questions which are dealt with at this late hour of the day. I might also add that the minister might have been quite surprised to hear about the relationship between the Rambouillet summit and our contribution to NATO. I should like to make it quite clear that France did not refuse the attendance of Canada at Rambouillet. We simply were not invited. This is quite a different matter.
If the hon. member opposite were more familiar with the defence budget of NATO I believe he would know that the
Adjournment Debate
position of France regarding NATO would not, in the logic he used, have the consequence of excluding Canada from the Rambouillet conference. Having said this may I remind my colleague opposite that the minister stated more than once in the House that should Canada not be invited to the Rambouillet conference "it would not be helpful"-and I am using his words-and "it would not have a favourable effect on our bilateral position." This is pretty obvious, but it does not mean we take it as a provocation. We hope that our bilateral relations will develop in harmony more and more week after week. We thought it would be very important for Canada to participate in the Paris summit.
The matter at hand involved national and international economic interests. In our estimation, our national and international interests warranted our presence, even though the Canadian market represents only about 22 million inhabitants and cannot compare with the European Community or with Japan. But, the point of view of the host country, the hon. member will recall, I think, was to keep the group of participants to a very limited number.
Still the results of the conference seem very positive and as soon as Canada will have the opportunity to analyse the reports, it will divulge its views on each point on which agreement was reached.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Wednesday, November 19, 1975