1976-01-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising from information given the House by the government yesterday which appears contrary to the facts concerning the holding in custody and questioning of four Canadian citizens by allegedly Russian KGB agents after they made a forced landing by air in Cuba on December 30. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That in view of the statements by pilot Robert Carter that his group received no assistance from the Department of External Affairs while held in Cuba and that he was not contacted immediately on their return to Canada by Canadian officials, the House requests a full investigation and statement on the facts of this matter by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; and further, the House instructs the Prime Minister during his current stay in Havana to make representations to Prime Minister Castro in regard to this unwarranted and unlawful holding of Canadian citizens on Cuban soil by Russian KGB agents and that he advise Mr. Castro that Canada is not prepared to tolerate further incidents of this kind.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a case of urgent and pressing necessity. As Canadian National Railways has embarked on a program of reducing services to passengers even though no new rail transportation policy has been established by parliament, which cut-backs result in the lay-off of workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House deplore such actions by the CNR and call on the Minister of Transport to instruct the railway companies that they are to
improve and encourage passenger rail service until such time as parliament has instructed them differently.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing importance.
Considering that the use of the metric system is quickly progressing in our country, considering also that Canadian consumers must be protected against possible commercial abuses by some monopolies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House consider without delay the steps to be taken to avoid price increases as a result of a decreased quantity of the product delivered to the consumer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is in regard to the recently announced intention of Canadian National Railways to suspend its Super Continental passenger service across Canada for economic reasons. I suggest to this House that this matter should not be decided solely in

January 27, 1976
Medical Research
terms of economic considerations. As transcontinental rail service was one of the foundation stones of Confederation for the west, and remains so today for many western Canadians; and considering that most developed countries are today expanding and improving their passenger rail services as a relatively inexpensive, energy conserving mode of travel, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Transport take the necessary steps to ensure that the Super Continental passenger service be maintained and that the CNR be instructed to direct its efforts to the expansion and improvement of passenger rail service for the benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43, a motion which I am sure all members will recognize as one of urgent and pressing necessity. I cannot imagine anyone saying no. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House calls on the government to introduce this week, along the lines recommended unanimously last June by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, legislation respecting pensions for Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



PROPOSED REFERENCE OF FREEZE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH TO COMMITTEE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of inflation, the freeze of the medical research budget is resulting in the cancellation of many good research projects and the loss of many research jobs. In the long run, it will result in much increased health costs in this country. I move,

seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for study and report.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the Olympic Games represent in the international area an activity whose prestige will be shared by the whole of Canada; and since the so-called federal programs related to Olympic stamps and coins are not a financial participation by the federal government but financing directly provided by the individuals of every province, including Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbi-niere (Mr. Fortin):
That this House consider the feasibility of the federal government assuming the eventual Olympic Games deficit, since Canada will be the main beneficiary in the international area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance who yesterday I thought was looking for the new society but found he had only gone as far as Toronto,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: where he said to the Canadian Club "The prices and incomes control program itself is now well
January 27, 1976

launched." As it is well over three months since the Prime Minister launched this program in the presence of the first ministers and as only one provincial government has now signed an agreement with the government of Canada, I presume the minister now has some concrete information to back up his statement. I am sure he will want to share this information with the House. How many provinces are ready or near ready to sign?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that within the fairly near future five more provinces will be in a position to sign agreements under Section 4 Subsection 3 of the law. In the case of the province of British Columbia, we recognize that, because of the very recent change in government, it would be unreasonable to expect them to maintain the same timetable as the others. With regard to Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec, we will be looking for an early decision on their part. Happily there will be a meeting of finance ministers next week. I will be pressing upon the remaining provinces the desirability of bringing to a conclusion the rather extensive discussions that have been going on with regard to the agreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Minister of Finance consider the program well launched with three or four provinces apparently expressing substantial reservation about signing? I assume that participation by all provinces is essential to the success of the program in view of the way it has been set up. Is the minister prepared to state a deadline by which he expects all provinces to be in on the program either administering their own aspect of it or turning it over to the federal authority, the Anti-Inflation Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that issuing an ultimatum to the provinces in that way would not be the best method of getting continued co-operation. Certainly, that is not the course of action I would take in this regard. The hon. gentleman referred to substantial reservations. I do not find them substantial. A number of provinces have sought to negotiate special conditions in consideration of their coming into the program. We said to them that we feel all provinces should come in on a substantially equal basis.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-EFFORT TO OBTAIN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS GROUPS FOR PROGRAM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: My supplementary arises from the minister's statement that the program was well launched, and the impression in the minds of some of us that there is substantial resistance to the program still in certain sectors of the economy. Could the minister tell us what he is doing, or what he is advising the Prime Minister to do, to bring the various groups of this country together and continue to sell the program? Is this being left to the officials of the AntiInflation Board? I ask these questions particularly in view of the emphasis the Minister of Finance placed in his speech yesterday on the limited recognition here in Canada of the substantial interdependence which exists between the various groups making up our economy.
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Both I and my colleagues will be continuing discussions with the major interest groups in the economy of Canada. Indeed, I would anticipate in the next four or five months a very extensive absence from the House as I meet these various groups throughout the country and have an opportunity of putting the government's viewpoint.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-NATURE OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUESTED BY PROVINCES AS PREREQUISITE OF JOINING PROGRAM
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Presuming that one of the objectives is near-unanimity on the rules, regulations and conditions across the country, would the minister be good enough to indicate the nature of some of the special conditions he has just mentioned? Do these have any reference at all to the time limits suggested by the provinces involved or request that the federal government put a set time limit on the control program? How does the time frame fit into the presence of near-unanimity, or the lack of it, across the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: think it is fair to say that that has not been the issue. I might add that it would be unfair to individual provinces to make public the cases they have been putting, but I would refer the hon. gentleman to the statement on television last night by the minister of finance of Saskatchewan in which he indicated the special circumstances he was seeking to have recognized.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive why it would be unfair to let the people of this country know the conditions which each of the provinces are seeking. If any other hon. members know, I would be glad to hear from them. In any event, I would ask the minister whether some of these conditions involve special requirements having regard to professional fees and, if so, which provinces have made such a request and what type of professional fees are concerned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, who was once a provincial minister, used to know that the provinces were very jealous of the positions taken up by their individual governments. He might like to address himself to his friends in Alberta, for example, and ask them whether they would like to have placed on public record the objections they are bringing forward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am asking you!


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-POSSIBILITY OF ACHIEVING PRICE PARITY THIS YEAR
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since one of the perfectly legitimate objections the United States government has to the operation of the

January 27, 1976
Oral Questions
Canada-U.S. automotive agreement has been the complete failure of the Canadian government, after ten years, to obtain price parity for identical products on both sides of the border, resulting in a situation in which Canadian consumers can pay up to $500 more than Americans for the same car, I should like to ask the minister whether the government is now prepared to assure the people of Canada primarily, as well as the Americans, that price parity will be achieved in automobile products this year.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks about the reaction of the U.S. government I am not sure whether he is referring to statements which were alluded to yesterday in press reports. I would point out that in fact the view expressed yesterday was not that of the United States government-I wish to make that clear. Nor have I seen the formal report; merely press stories on it. As to the question of whether we can guarantee parity in the current year I would not, for obvious reasons, wish to make that kind of commitment; I am not satisfied I would be able to carry it out. However, I can assure the hon. member and the House that we are working toward parity, and this will clearly be one of the matters we shall be discussing not only with United States interests, that is, in terms of government interests, but also with representatives of the automobile industry here in Canada as well, during the meetings now going on in connection with the auto pact.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since not only this minister but his two predecessors made the same kind of general statement, I should like to pick up one point in what the minister said. The minister said he was not sure that he can carry out a commitment this year to achieve price parity. Given the federal government's control over tariffs and over tax policy, why is it not possible for the government to use these weapons with the automotive companies in Canada in order to achieve price parity?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: For the simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that to use those in isolation might put in jeopardy the whole concept of the auto pact. Surely, the approach must be the one that we are undertaking now, which is to make a thorough assessment of the effects on both sides of the border and to aim toward what I have already stated to be my objective. Hon. members have said that it has been the objective for many years, but the fact is that we are getting closer to parity and I hope we can continue to narrow the gap. Nevertheless, I want to know from the companies in specific terms why the gap exists, and it is for that reason that I am initiating talks with them.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN PERMITTED LEVEL OF PRODUCTION IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would urge the minister to make that appropriate move toward the United States. So far as Canadian workers are concerned, is the government now proposing to the United States that one of the changes that should be made in the pact is to guarantee 
to Canadian producers the right to produce in dollar value North American automobiles and parts, on an annual basis averaged over two or three years, to the actual level of consumption of cars and parts, that Canadians actually consume?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will not feel that I am evading his question, but I am not going to disclose in public what our negotiating stance is going to be in specific terms. If the hon. member is talking about our getting full value in terms of Canadian participation in the auto pact, the answer is yes and I am pursuing that aggressively on behalf of the government. But I do not think any benefit would be served here by talking in specific terms about what we are going to say to the Americans.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I intended to put my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but, in his absence, I shall address it to the Minister of Justice.
As the conversion to the metric system naturally entails certain problems which are of concern to consumers, and as I have been advised that companies which control the sale of sugar in our country are about to sell it in metric quantities but at the same price as the former weights, can the minister tell the House whether questions have been put to him in this regard, what those questions were, and what steps he intends to take to remedy the situation and ensure that consumers are treated fairly?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the particular transactions that the hon. member mentions have not been brought to my attention. I would ask him to do so and I will happily take them up with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and determine whether they are in breach of the packaging and labelling act, which provides that weights and measures may be shown in the metric system. I encourage him, if he thinks that consumers are not being treated properly under the law, to bring such cases to my attention.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the question I have just put, and because the same problem will eventually arise with regard to the distribution of oil in Canada, will the minister take appropriate steps to protect the consumer, and ensure that advantage is not taken of metrification to increase the price of oil while delivering it in smaller quantities?
January 27, 1976


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, there are a number of steps being taken at the moment, and I say quite frankly, in some instances consumer groups feel these are inadequate; in other words, perhaps our position that consumers should be educated but that they should be responsible for determining whether they are getting fair value, does not go far enough. I am in sympathy to some degree with that point of view, and we are looking for techniques and methods whereby we may be able to reinforce the educational program. As the hon. member will also appreciate, it is very difficult to know how one might undertake what I might describe as policing action in terms of every gas pump and retail outlet in the country. It is a difficult problem but I am sympathetic with the basic premise of the question and we are looking at it to see what we can do.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to let us know what has happened regarding the much promised national housing warranty scheme which I understand has been dropped after the government had discussed it and after promising it for three years?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, certainly we have a great deal more to be concerned about because of the large number of houses that are being built.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I must indicate that this government works well with the private sector setting targets and meeting them together in the housing market.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: With particular reference to the warranty scheme the hon. member has raised, I must express disappointment and failure on my part, for which I take full responsibility. I had hoped there would be a national scheme, involving all interested groups, and independent in nature. Progress had been made at the last meeting but this did fall through and I am sorry for that. Having said that, I will be pleased to see a high standard of provincial programs in place and will continue to work with all elements of the housing industry and at every level of government to make certain Canadians are protected, and that there are satisfactory standards set across the country which meet the regulations. Certainly, this will apply in so far as any housing in which CMHC is involved, which is about 40 per cent of housing in Canada today.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, is the minister stating that there is a jurisdictional problem between the federal and provincial governments? If this is the case, surely some-
Oral Questions
thing can be worked out between the two in order that the consumer will be protected? There have been many cases of shoddy and rotten houses being built and we were looking for this warranty to protect the consumer.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, sure there is a question of jurisdiction, but that is not the only problem. I thought we had resolved the jurisdictional problem at the last meeting I had with the provincial housing ministers, but other elements came into this. The consistency of the provinces was not apparent at the last meeting. Certainly I share the hon. member's view that we must have adequate standards and we are working toward those standards. They may vary somewhat as between provinces, but we will have standards that apply to CMHC housing in which we are involved and which will perhaps set a pattern. I hope to see uniform standards very quickly across the country. Rather than waiting and continuing to try to get a national scheme going, I felt we should assist in getting provincial schemes started and we will continue to co-operate with them in this regard, especially in those provinces where assistance is needed.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that the money supply in Canada has gone from about $30 billion in 1970 to $72 billion in late 1975, and keeping in mind that in 1974 the average rate of increase in the money supply was 18 per cent, is the Minister of Finance satisfied that the new monetary policies announced in the white paper have allowed the government to reach a trend in the growth rate at the present time? What direction is this trend taking and what is the minister's anticipation in respect of that trend?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I share with the governor of the Bank of Canada the intention that the money supply should grow at the rate of the real growth of the economy, and in addition plays some part, but not all, in the price increases we are experiencing during the current year. The figures in most recent months have, of course, been subject to an aberration because of the effect of the postal strike. There was indeed a substantial increase during that six week period. There has been a reduction in that figure again and our hope would be that we could very shortly get within the guidelines the governor set, which would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent to 13 per cent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the monetary policies within the government's anti-inflation program, and bearing in mind that short term interest rates seem to be firming up in that the industry is forecasting an increase of about one half of one per cent in the next few weeks in mortgage rates on homes, would the minister advise whether it is still the government's policy to maintain a very high interest rate through
10344

January 27, 1976
Oral Questions
the bank rate and thereby attract that much more money from the United States.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the conditions are somewhat different in Canada and the United States. We do expect there will be a differential for the time being between the two markets. I just comment that it seems to us that the relatively higher interest rate, the level that is prevalent at the present time, is a necessary concomitant of a reduction in the money supply.


EFFECT OF LONG-TERM DEBT ON THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the heavy inflow of money through provincial borrowings and shortterm money due to our high interest rate, does the minister feel that this assumption of so much long-range debt will be detrimental to the Canadian economy in the next year or so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a rather complex question but I think I would have to say at the present time, in light of the drop off of our merchandise exports because of the economic conditions in our principal markets, that for the time being at least the success of Canadian borrowers in placing issues abroad has been of assistance in dealing with the balance of payments deficit. I would have to concede that we should watch with particular care lest the value of the Canadian dollar go to a level where it could represent economic problems for us in a broader and longer sense.


INDUSTRY
Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I know he would not wish to disclose negotiations as he pointed out to hon. members opposite, but considering that over 1,000 employees of the Douglas Aircraft Company have been laid off, forecasting perhaps the ultimate closing of that great plant, could the minister say whether he is integrating Douglas into the complex of the aircraft manufacturing industries he has already assembled which I think would be a very far-sighted act on his part.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member and the House know that some involvement by McDonnell Douglas in a so-called revamped aerospace industry is one of the proposals that has been put forward. It is not by any means the only one. Unfortunately, as of this moment a restructuring along those lines would not be of significant benefit to the employees concerned because the problem arises from the lack of sales of commercial aircraft around the world. However, I can inform the hon. member I have notified my office today to arrange a meeting with the

union concerned at the McDonnell Douglas plant and also I will be meeting with officials of the McDonnell Douglas plant sometime within the next fortnight.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD ALLEGED POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT BY BOARD MEMBER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: Bring back the Avro Arrow.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a question which does not concern aircraft. In view of the fact that Jack Biddell, a member of the Anti-Inflation Board, announced that construction companies with more than five employees will probably be brought under the program, that rules regarding profits will have to be modified and that there are political considerations to dividend restriction, can the minister say what right board members have to make political and policy announcements. Is it because the minister is afraid to do so in the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No,
Mr. Speaker. As many people who know him recognize, Mr. Biddell is like the other members of the board, a particularly strong personality. He, of course, may have these views. To the extent they do not coincide with government policy, he is expressing his own views.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that some 17 or more collective agreements have now been interfered with by the board and an appeals tribunal has not been established and therefore the unions do not have a right of appeal, I should like to ask the minister when the appeal tribunal will be established and whether or not he will direct the board to refer those agreements to the administrator so that he can make a ruling.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is suggesting a course of action which is not provided for by the law.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which I believe will be the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the rate increases of the Northern Canada Power Commission in the Northwest
January 27, 1976

Territories and proposed for the Yukon territory which exceed by four times the government price guidelines recently announced, is it the intention of the department to set up a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act with power to inquire into the whole operations of Northern Canada Power Commission and in particular the reasons for these exhorbitant rate increases to power users in an already high cost area.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I shall convey the question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance with regard to the program in respect of which he hoped to obtain the agreement of the provincial governments. Are the governments of the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories to be treated de facto as separate governments for the purposes of this program and, if so, does be anticipate obtaining agreement with those two areas of Canada and those two governments in order to involve them in the program so that the Anti-Inflation Review Board might have some jurisdiction over companies of the nature I have just mentioned.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the law passed by parliament provides for agreements between the federal government and the provinces. As he knows, the two territories are not provinces. With retard to both the public and the private sector of course the Anti-Inflation Board has jurisdiction.


Erik Nielsen: I have one final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that it is government policy to give heed to the provisions of the Interpretation Act which regards the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories as provinces, will he not be seeking this kind of agreement under this program as he does with regard to federal-provincial agreements? Will he not be doing this with the territories in the same way he does with the provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman is making an unsound assumption.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). On December 30, 1975 the minister announced his intention to tighten controls on the east coast lobster fishery. He stated that by January 20, 1976 a minority of
Oral Questions
licence holders will receive notification that their lobster fishing privileges have been called into question.
In view of the controversy created by this announcement, is it the minister's intention to make a statement on this matter in the House, or will he convene a special meeting of the Fisheries and Forestry Committee in order to explain the yardstick to be used by his officials when determining those who will be permitted to continue lobster fishing in Canada.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, both suggestions have merit. On the other hand, I would hope that those who discuss this matter would look very carefully at the communique and that those concerned will read carefully the letters they receive and realize that there is a procedure for appeal if they have not been treated fairly. There is a committee to hear their appeals. I have said very clearly that this policy will be applied in the most flexible way possible. But there is one basic fact, and that is we are trying to preserve the stocks of lobster for those whose livelihood depends on fishing and not for those who are involved in other professions and other types of industrial work.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the minister for that reply. Of the
20,000	odd people now participating in the Atlantic coast fishery, would the minister indicate how many people he hopes to drop from the lobster licensing rolls? Will lobster fishermen who, when the season is closed, for example, work on off-shore scallop draggers or in the west coast fishery, be affected and how will this program affect the young men desirous of engaging in lobster fisheries?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no intention to penalize those who are involved in other forms of fisheries. On the contrary, it is our intention to preserve the pool of lobsters for the professional fishermen.
With regard to the second point, it is my hope that a good, sound management policy will make it eventually possible to allow for licences to be issued to young people willing to enter the fishery profession if we manage that stock properly.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Will he assure the House that in areas where the lobster fishing season is short and it is impossible, by the nature of the circumstances, for fishermen engaged only in the lobster fishing operation to make a living thereby, that a person who takes the initiative and is self-employed in another occupation during the remaining ten months of the year will not be penalized thereby?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make it plain-and I am certainly happy to repeat what I have said because I know that this policy is a difficult one to implement-that in no way am I trying to remove from the fishery those who are part-time lumbermen or part-time farmers and who have to do other things for a living. We are concentrating this initial limitation on those who are fully employed in other fields of endeavour besides the fishery.
21130-33%
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
January 27, 1976

Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he indicate whether in his opinion the anti-inflation guidelines should apply to the price or rate increases proposed by municipally operated agencies across the country, such as the Scarborough Public Utilities Commission which has recently announced a substantial rate increase of 21.7 per cent effective January 1, 1976?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult more fully on the agreement entered into with the province of Ontario in this respect. In general terms, it is expected that the guidelines will apply to all such public bodies but that the responsibility for the enforcement of many of them will rest either with a regulatory tribunal in the province or with the provincial government. In the event of that monitoring indicating a situation which would require action by the administrator, it might, under some circumstances, be appropriate to have a reference from the provincial government to the administrator.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the government appears at least to be determined to put an end to any meaningful transcontinental rail passenger service, can the minister inform the House if the respective railways, that is CNR and CPR, had any input into the decision to reduce the service, or has the decision been solely that of the Minister of Transport and his department?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say at this stage that the hon. member's suggestion is quite incorrect, that the government is determined to put an end to a meaningful transcontinental rail service. I hope to be making a statement to the House quite soon in order to give an indication of government policy in this regard. It is our view that we must put an end to the practice of having bad train services and that where a train service is to continue in this country it should be good.


Jack Burnett Murta: I should like to ask the minister two questions in my final supplementary. First, will he indicate to the House when he is prepared to make that announcement and, second, does the minister not feel that reducing the service alone with no improvement, or virtually no improvement, will ultimately spell the end of rail passenger service in Canada, which is in effect what the government is doing at present?


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to confirm to the hon. member, as I told him a few moments ago, that I hope to make a

statement in the House on Thursday. He will see then that in fact we believe there is a way to maintain good passenger train service in Canada.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD POSSIBLE REVIEW OF DECISION IN IRVING PULP AND PAPER CASE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, has the government given any consideration to overruling the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to rollback the wage settlement negotiated between the Irving interests and the pulp and paper workers in New Brunswick? Does the government review these decisions and will it consider this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can respond to that question. The answer to the first part of the question is that no, we would not propose to rollback the board's decision in this regard. Of course, we pay very close attention to each of the board's decisions.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my questions is for the Acting Prime Minister. Over one month ago, late last year, in reply to a question in this House regarding the stagnant Harbourfront Park in Toronto the minister stated "we have been looking at economies in all directions". Because of the fact that the 1972 election goody is well into its fourth year of preparation and is undoubtedly incurring substantial administrative and other carrying costs, can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House whether or not the government has found the direction it is looking for, and is he prepared to advise the people of Toronto as to when this project is expected to be completed?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the question. If I got its import, the full intent of the question is when the project is to be completed. Certainly, there is no deadline for its completion.


An hon. Member:: When is the next election?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Hon. members opposite have a very peculiar idea of what this project is all about. If they would like to see the report, it will be made public this Friday and presented by the Harbourfront Council to the three levels of government involved. It will give them a better idea of what is to take place. It will be presented on Friday at the City Hall in Toronto at six o'clock. If the hon. member would like to come, I should like to invite him at this time.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for Urban Affairs for his reply, although it was the Acting
January 27, 1976

Prime Minister who started this project. I have one short supplementary for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is he in a position to advise the House as to what the administrative and other carrying costs have been during the last four years, and can he in fact assure the House that the final cost will not exceed the original estimate of $30 million?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I would be pleased to get the cost figure for the hon. member. I cannot give him an assurance on the actual acquisition cost because due to inflation it will be somewhat higher than expected, but not nearly as high as figures which have been estimated in the press. As a matter of fact, I have had some confirming information this morning which is rather gratifying that acquisition costs have not accelerated as much as they might have been expected to do.


FINANCE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the new government in British Columbia has announced its intention to reduce its royalties and super royalties to the mining industry, has any offer been made yet by the federal Minister of Finance to the new government in British Columbia that he is willing to respond by ending the double taxation set up in the Turner budget of 1974?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker the present law is that enacted by parliament earlier this year, and of course it would be quite inappropriate for me to propose a tax change of that kind outside the budget framework.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the minister has just said about the legislation will he indicate, as he did to the people of Toronto the other day, if he is calling a budget for May, 1976 whether he intends to deal with the subject in the budget so that people who plan to invest in the resource industry in Canada can have some indication that if the provinces reduce taxes the federal government would be prepared to match the provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should anticipate the content of the budget in any way at this time.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister give
Oral Questions
consideration to referring to the Anti-Inflation Board and the Canadian Transport Commission the proposed Canadian National rate increase on the Montreal-St. Lambert-St. Hilaire and on the Montreal-Portal Heights-Deux Mon-tagnes routes, which became effective February 1 this year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have given a general instruction to the Canadian Transport Commission to examine rates over which it has some jurisdiction in order to assist the Anti-Inflation Board in its work. I will take note of the hon. member's suggestion regarding these rates and see if they are being examined by the CTC.


RESEARCH
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In light of the very sharp reaction of the executive director of the Science Council of Canada and the president of the National Research Council who have indicated that the proposed freeze or cutbacks in scientific research will have profound and long lasting effects upon scientific research in Canada, is the government reconsidering the freeze and cutbacks announced by the President of the Treasury Board in December?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government does not intend to review the decisions that have been made this year. We will watch developments and if in subsequent years it appears that an adjustment would be desirable a decision will be made at that time. I think it is an indication of the seriousness of the government's effort to cut expenditures. It does run counter to a great deal of propaganda to the effect that the government is making phony cuts.


EFFECT OF FREEZE ON MEDICAL RESEARCH PROJECTS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of the statements made by medical researchers from virtually every medical college in Canada that the cutbacks or freeze in funding for medical work for this year will mean not only a cutback in projects for the coming year but abandonment and permanent cutbacks on medical research teams that have been assembled with a great deal of effort over the past dozen years? Is there anything the minister can tell the research community about how to avoid the tremendous difficulties that they have predicted?
Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I wonder whether the silence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare means that he was not listening. Could I repeat my question? May I ask the minister whether-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH POSTMASTERS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the 8,000 postmasters in Canada have been without a contract since October 6 last year, and in view of the fact that the Canadian Postmasters' Association put its modified position before the government over three months ago, when will the government make its proposals available to the association and when will negotiations be resumed?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure they ever broke off, but I will get more detailed information for the hon. member before tomorrow.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary for the Postmaster General. In light of the fact that the minister has indicated to the press that the morale of the postal service is at an all time high, and in light of the fact that there is severe depression among postmasters in Canada over their existing salaries which are below those of junior officials may I ask when the government is going to address itself to this very serious problem?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine negotiations would be a lot easier if hon. members such as the one who just spoke did not resort to political expediency to muddy the waters.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A final supplementary. I should like to refer the minister to his statement to this House in Hansard of December 3. In view of that statement, the minister might be prepared to change the answer he just gave.


RESEARCH
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Acting Prime Minister is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North dealing with the freeze on the research budget. In view of the fact that this freeze will result in the downgrading of research programs in this country, could the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether it is now government policy that this country depend largely on other countries for research information since we are not doing any research of our own?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


STUDY OF MEGA VITAMIN THERAPY
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I make reference to a question I asked on December 17 in regard to megavitamin therapy and orthomolecular psychiatry and how far the government study that the minister had previously acknowledged had progressed. The minister responded that the investigation had not been completed and later said that he could not give a firm date for completion. Since I have learned from departmental officials that there is no study-the study has not-


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


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. When may we expect further amendments to the Unemployment insurance legislation which I understand relate to the number of weeks an applicant is eligible for UIC to the number of weeks that applicant has worked in the Canadian job market?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, without confirming the precise nature of the matters the hon. member is referring to, when I spoke on second reading of Bill C-69 I indicated further amendments would flow from the comprehensive review that has been undertaken. I anticipate that would be within the next few months.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I want to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Following the answer I received from the Secretary of State on November 1, 1974, in which he mentioned that there was a plan for the establishment of a French television station in Rimouski which would be equipped to produce programs, could the minister tell the House what has been done in that regard?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: In
the absence of the Secretary of State, I think I can confirm that there is indeed a project for the establishment of a second television station in the Rimouski area, that negotiations are now taking place and I am confident these negotiations will result in the not too distant future in the opening of the second French station the residents of that region want.
January 27, 1976


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Last evening in the adjournment motion the minister was asked about the special report that he is holding concerning solitary confinement requested in 1974 by Inger Hansen, the correctional ombudsman. I should like to ask the minister whether it is his intention to table this study and if he intends to use it as part of the reforms promised in the second omnibus bill.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, immediately after the correctional investigator tabled her report last year and suggested that we set up an inquiry on segregation, we did so. We appointed a Mr. Vantour who immediately started his studies and gave his first report in December. That report is now being translated and printed and will be made public in February. We will use that as the basis for changing our segregation policy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think I have the word now, Mr. Speaker. Last night the Solicitor General was also asked about his reply to Mr. Justice Healds' decision respecting the use of solitary confinement. Will the Solicitor General reply to that judgment, make a formal statement, or will his actions involve changes in legislative terms?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, we decided not to appeal the judgment of Mr. Justice Healds of the federal court whose remarks were related to segregation at B.C. penitentiary and not at other prisons. We are going to use the Vantour report, to which I referred in my previous answer, to bring about changes in segregation generally in the penitentiary service. That report will be public.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the twenty-second report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Order Paper Questions


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: 3,586, 3,667, 3,676, 3,681, 3,702, 3,703, 3,752, 3,786 and 3,891.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the average processing time for applications for disability pensions under the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	Does the time involved reflect an improvement over the figure given as two and one half months in the answer to Question No. 1,545 and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the Canada Pension Plan have in place procedures by which it can identify seriously ill applicants for the purpose of giving these individuals accelerated processing prior to imminent death and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare satisfied that the processing of applications for disability pensions is done within a reasonable time frame, especially for those applicants with serious disabilities threatening imminent death?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Fifty five days.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	The Minister of National Health and Welfare is satisfied that the processing of applications for disability pensions is done within a reasonable period of time; however, ways of reducing this processing time further, through improved efficiency, are under consideration. It should also be noted that when a disability determination is not completed at the time of death of the contributor, processing of the application continues and any resulting benefit is paid to the estate. In addition, upon death, applications for survivors' benefits are immediately processed and benefits paid to the survivors of the deceased.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What (a) is the number (b) are the names (c) are the addresses of those who participated in competition 75-PO-QUE-E-OC-83, Postmaster for Barre, Quebec, which closed on June 30, 1975?
2.	Did all application forms reach the Post Office Department before June 30, 1975?
3.	Which applicant was chosen and at what hourly salary?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. There were two persons who participated in Competition 75 PO-QUE-E-OC-83, Postmaster, Barre, P.Q.

January 27, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	The Applications for Employment forms were dated June 18, and June 28, 1975. Both were received before June 30, 1975.
3.	The selected candidate was Mrs. Jeanne d'Arc St-Pierre. Her appointment was effective September 20, 1975 and her salary is $101.40 per week based on a 39-hour work week. The name of the other candidate cannot be disclosed in this instance as it would be contrary to Section 25 of the Public Service Employment Regulations which reads as follows:
The name of a person who is a candidate for a position, unless his name is on the eligible list established for that position, and the information and material supplied by or on behalf of the candidate, unless the candidate is appointed to the position, shall not be disclosed, without the consent of the candidate, to any person who is not directly involved in the process of selection for appointment to the position.


Mr. Matte: 1.	What are the (a) names (b) addresses of those who participated in competition 75-PO-QUE-(E)-OC-163, Postmaster for St-Luc de Vincennes, Quebec, in the Constituency of Champlain, which closed on December 1, 1975?
2.	Did all application forms reach the Post Office Department before December 1, 1975 in spite of the recent postal strike?
3.	What is the name of the successful applicant and what is the amount of weekly salary?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1 and 2. There were four applications received in Competition 75-PO-QUE-E-OC-163, Postmaster, St-Luc de Vincennes, P.Q. Two applications were received in the Vincennes Post Office before December 1,
1975.	The two other applications were inadvertently sent to the Public Service Commission at Ottawa. The Zone Manager on learning of this error on December 1, arranged the following day to have the two persons concerned complete new application forms. By December 3, the Zone Postmaster had obtained these two applications.
3. The selected person was Mr. G. E. Massicotte. His salary is $76.95 a week based on a 32 Vi hour work week. T.ie names of the other candidates cannot be disclosed as this would be contrary to Section 25 of the Public Service Employment Regulations which reads as follows:
The name of a person who is a candidate for a position, unless his name is on the eligible list established for that position, and the information and material supplied by or on behalf of the candidate, unless the candidate is appointed to the position, shall not be disclosed, without the consent of the candidate, to any person who is not directly involved in the process of selection for appointment to the position.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What amount of money was obtained by each of the recognized political parties under the provisions of the Election Expenses Act in 1974 and 1975?
2.	In each case, what was the total amount of money deducted from taxable incomes in 1974 and 1975?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. Pursuant to section 13.4 of the Canada Elections Act, the chief agent of a registered political party is required to transmit to the

Chief Electoral Officer, in respect of each fiscal period of the party, a return of the party's receipts, such return to be transmitted within six months after the end of the fiscal period to which the return relates. Currently, there is only one party which falls within that period and has submitted a return. However, pursuant to section 230.1 of the Income Tax Act, registered agents of a registered party must submit to the Minister of National Revenue a return covering all contributions received by the registered party in the applicable calendar year. Further, in accordance with the aforementioned section of the Income Tax Act, the Minister is required to forward a report to the Chief Electoral Officer containing statistics comprising total contributions shown on the returns received from the registered agents pursuant to the foregoing. In a report to the Chief Electoral Officer dated October 31, 1975, the Minister reported the following contributions received by registered parties in the period August 1, 1974 (effective date of the Election Expenses Act) to December 31, 1974:
Contributions
Received
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada	$ 725,853.64
New Democratic Party	1,431,267.82
Liberal Party of Canada	1,059,427.16
The Social Credit Party of Canada	1,914,253.70
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada	-
Communist Party of Canada	-
Since the returns to the Minister of National Revenue are on a calendar year basis, the 1975 report has not been received.
2. To date, the total amount deducted from federal tax payable on T1 returns (Individuals) for political contributions in 1974 is $1,246,000. It is not possible to give a breakdown, by party, of this amount since the allocation is not given on the T1 return. Information for 1975 and for T2 returns (Corporations) is not available.


ELIGIBILITY OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL TO ENTER PUBLIC SERVICE COMPETITIONS
Mr. Forrestall: 
Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: No. A member of the Canadian Armed Forces would be eligible to compete in closed competitions restricted to parts of the Public Service in the Atlantic Provinces only if he or she were stationed within the geographical and organizational limits prescribed in the area of competition.



Mr. Forrestall: Will the government permit members of the Canadian Armed Forces born in the Atlantic Provinces but not stationed there, eligibility to
January 27, 1976

enter closed competitions offered by the Public Service but restricted to residents of the Atlantic Provinces and, if not, for what reasons?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: No. The commission is restrained by the provisions of section 13 of the Public Service Employment Act to the consideration of a prospective candidate's place of residence rather than his or her place of birth. Where the area of competition, determined for a particular closed competition, prescribes that candidates must reside within stated geographical limits, only those candidates residing within those limits are eligible for appointment.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Post Office Department during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Has the government any plans to introduce door to door mail delivery service in Steinbach, Manitoba?
2.	Has a survey been taken by post office officials as to whether door to door mail delivery service is desired by residents of Steinbach and, if so, what were the results of the survey?
3.	Does Steinbach presently qualify for door to door mail delivery and, if not, what criteria are not met at the present time?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Not known-Survey to determine status of Steinbach is planned for the spring of 1976.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What are the (a) names (b) positions (c) salaries of persons on the Anti-inflation Board earning more than $20,000 per annum?
2.	In what departments were they employed before going to the Anti-inflation Board?
3.	What was their salary in their previous positions?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I am advised by the Anti-Inflation Board as follows: 1, 2 and 3. As of December 12, 1975, there were approximately 300 persons assisting the commission to set up operations. All but 35 of these people were borrowed temporarily from a number of government departments who paid their salaries and retained their files. The balance were administrative support personnel. Since the enactment of the Anti-Inflation Bill staffing is being carried on in accordance with the Public Service Employment Regulations.
Criminal Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I address the House briefly at the third reading stage of Bill C-71 and recommend the adoption of this bill on third reading. As hon. members know, the bill went to the committee. It incorporates a number of desirable changes in the Criminal Code, but it will be impossible for me at third reading to discuss all those changes which were examined so carefully by the committee. As hon. members know, the bill was first introduced on July 17 last. During the fall session of parliament, before Christmas, it received careful study in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and was reported back to the House just before Christmas. I am most grateful for the work done by the members of the Justice and legal affairs committee and grateful for the assistance they have given me with this bill.
This afternoon I shall mention only four aspects of Bill C-71, namely, provisions relating to juries and courts of appeal, those relating to amendments to the Bail Reform Act, amendments relating to organized crime and amendments relating to drinking drivers. Once these amendments are proclaimed and become law, it will no longer be possible for a court composed of a judge and jury to have its verdict of acquittal reversed and a conviction substituted by an appellate tribunal. The jury system has throughout the years, and for generations, proven to be a system that produces justice which is both understood and accepted in our society. If hon. members accept what is proposed in this bill, the law will be clear and in future a person who chooses trial by jury can only be convicted by a jury.
While the particular case which brought this issue to a head involved the prosecution of Dr. Morgentaler for a violation of the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code, the fundamental principle involved in the amendment sweeps beyond the controversy that swirls about those provisions of the Criminal Code relating to abortion.
Second, I want to touch on the subject of bail. With respect to the bail reform legislation which was enacted in 1972, the legislation reflects amendments which are considered desirable in the light of experience since 1972. Since becoming Minister of Justice, I find, after talking to
21 130-34

January 27, 1976
Criminal Code
lawyers, including defence lawyers, citizens, judges, prosecutors and police officers, that much concern has been expressed that people who are dangerous to society are obtaining bail too easily. Over and over, in criticizing the criminal justice system, people say to me, "Mr. Basford, we agree with the underlying principle of the Bail Reform Act, but it is being abused and taken advantage of."
The amendments which are incorporated in this legislation are badly needed and have general acceptance and endorsement both at the federal and provincial levels. The law must also seek to protect society as well as the accused, and it seems not unreasonable to me to require that certain types of accused should have to convince the magistrate that they should be released on bail. It seems not unreasonable to me that certain classes of accused persons should have the onus put on them to show that they should be released. Pursuant to the amendments now before the House, those on whom the onus would fall would include, first, those who while out on bail commit another offence under the Criminal Code; second, those who violate the bail provisions upon which they are out; third, non-residents of Canada; fourth, those charged with murder; and fifth, those trafficking in or importing narcotics or conspiring to traffick in or import narcotics. It seems self- evident that society at large is entitled to the assurance that those five groups will not be granted bail without first having to convince a magistrate or judge that they should be granted bail.
The general rule under the Bail Reform Act remains. It is, I think, a good principle. It remains the rule for all other accused persons, that is, for those who have been arrested. If an accused has been arrested, he should be released unless the Crown satisfies the magistrate that detention is necessary to ensure that the accused will appear at his trial, and that it is necessary for the safety or protection of the public: this may include consideration of any substantial likehood that he will commit a second criminal offence. That is to say, all classes of accused other than the ones mentioned will be released under the provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1972 unless the Crown can show that there is a likehood thct they will not appear for trial after they have been released, and that detention is necessary in the interests of the protection and safety of the public, which includes the likelihood that they will commit a second offence and therefore should not be released.
My concern in moving the amendments in Bill C-71 and the further amendments I moved in committee was to ensure the protection of the public against the likelihood that the accused would commit another offence while out on bail. As hon. members know, however, we in this House can write all the laws we want, but if they are not argued by police or by Crown counsel and are not properly applied by magistrates, they will not effectively protect the public interest in accordance with the principles that underlie the legislation. These amendments, when proclaimed, will give to police officers and to prosecutors a proper legislative basis upon which to argue the granting of bail. Obviously, if they cannot meet that test provided in the legislation, the accused should be out on bail.
Any tightening of the bail provisions may mean that more accused are in custody awaiting trial, although the

objective of these new provisions is to protect the public from such persons while awaiting their trial. It is essential, in the interest of justice, that everything possible be done to speed up the process between the time of arrest and trial, and not only to speed up that process, in the interest of those who are ultimately found to be innocent, but also to avoid some of the game-playing that goes on in court by professional criminals and their advisers. Of course, the more delay between the time of arrest and the time of either declaration of innocence or conviction, adds to the immense cost to the taxpayer and to the cost of the whole administration of the criminal justice system. Therefore, it is essential that at the federal level, parliament, and the local levels, positive steps be taken to ensure that the process between arrest and acquittal or conviction is as effective and speedy as possible. Bill C-71 contains some provisions that will assist in that regard.
The measures relating to summary conviction trial, the elimination of grand juries in all provinces except Nova Scotia, the provisions relating to absconding offenders during preliminary hearing or trial, the changing of the eight-day rule on adjournment, and the provisions relating to loss of jurisdiction are some measures that are no longer required for the protection of the accused before the courts.
Obviously, this is only an initial step in the much larger process of reducing the time between arrest and trial and of improving the whole process of the criminal justice system. I am looking at steps within my department, in terms of reorganization, by which it can be more effective toward this end. I am discussing, examining and exploring with members of the federal Law Reform Commission what they can do in terms of recommendations to speed up the process between arrest and trial. At the moment, I am quietly talking with provincial attorneys general because, of course, much of the question of administration of justice is clearly within their jurisdiction. We are discussing ways in which we can work together to accomplish this end. I have pointed out the provisions in Bill C-71 which I think are important with regard to changes to the Bail Reform Act to overcome what I view as very legitimate criticisms of the original legislation which has been open to abuse and taken advantage of.
I want to address myself briefly to the question of organized crime. As hon. members know, the activities of organized crime in some parts of this country have come very dramatically to light and public attention by reason of the provincial commission of inquiry into organized crime in the province of Quebec. One of the problems in this connection is the ease with which the procedures of crime, including organized crime, may be hidden and diverted from the law enforcement process through laundering devices.
Hon. members will appreciate that in the area of commercial fraud, more and more sophistication is being brought to bear. With a view to counter-attacking in that field, Bill C-71 provides an amendment by which it will be possible to deal with what is generally known as laundering of moneys acquired by unlawful conduct. The essence of the proposed amendment strikes at criminal activity on a national and international scale. Under current law, it is an offence to be in possession of property obtained illegal-
January 27, 1976

ly whether in Canada or elsewhere. Under the proposed amendment, it will also be an offence to be in possession of proceeds of any property obtained by an offence committed either in Canada or elsewhere. For example, stocks and bonds might be converted into forms of property and passed through various companies which appear to be legitimate but are actually controlled by organized crime, thus hiding from detection. The amendment would allow those proceeds, or fruits of organized crime to fall within the ambit of the Criminal Code and the ambit of our law enforcement officers.
The amendment relating to organized crime is, as hon. members know, under these provisions. The growing international nature of criminal activity has prompted a new provision of the Criminal Code whereby it is made an offence to conspire in Canada to commit an offence out of Canada, and to make it an offence to conspire out of Canada to commit an offence in Canada. Regarding the first case, Canada should take a stand against those who use Canada as a planning base for criminal activities. An example of the first situation would be where directors of a company incorporated in Canada conspire in Canada to fleece members of the public or investors in another country, bringing great disrepute upon legitimate Canadian investment dealers and investment promotion.
The second case is aimed at deterring people who may or may not be Canadian citizens and who plan criminal activities in another country for actual execution in Canada. An example of the second case is where persons abroad conspire to commit in Canada acts of violence whether or not such acts are criminal in the country where the conspiracy takes place. For example, a group of terrorists could conspire outside Canada to commit acts of terrorism within Canada.
In relation to organized crime, I mention just in passing the measures relating to the obliteration of serial numbers which assist law enforcement officers in relation to some international aspects of car thieves, and measures relating to making this an offence. I am paraphrasing the legislation. This bill makes it an offence knowingly to use stolen or fraudulently obtained credit cards which, again, are a device of national and international crime.
The fourth point I want to raise with regard to Bill C-71 relates to drinking and driving. As hon. members are aware, parliament in 1969 adopted the breathalyzer test and made it an offence for a person to have in his system .08 per cent of alcohol while driving. The legislation also provided that where a peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that someone was impaired, he could require him to submit to a breathalyzer test. If the person refused, the refusal in itself constituted an offence. The new amendments are designed to enable law enforcement authorities more readily to identify persons who because of their alcoholic condition should not be on the road.
It should be borne in mind that roadside screening does not in itself establish guilt or innocence, but is merely an aid to indicate whether or not a driver should be required to submit himself to a breathalyzer test. The roadside screening test can only be applied when a peace officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in
Criminal Code
his body. I believe that the awful carnage precipitated by drinking and driving on our streets and highways, partly because of drinking drivers, is in itself justification for what these amendments propose. One need only be reminded of the facts to recognize the seriousness of the situation. In 1974, 6,000 deaths occurred on our highways, and 230,000 injuries. The amount of $1.3 billion was lost because of these deaths, $1 billion were lost as a result of absence from work associated with traffic accidents, and medical bills amounted to $250 million.
It is often impossible to say how many of these deaths and injuries are directly related to drinking drivers, but we do know that the proportion is high. It seems to me, therefore, that this alarming and awful carnage which is reflected almost daily in headlines in our newspapers is in itself justification for what these amendments propose as a means of providing law enforcement agencies across the country with a proper and legal basis to run roadside screening tests to deter those who drive an automobile after having taken alcohol.
I am sure hon. members will recognize the areas I have touched upon today as areas of serious concern to law-abiding citizens everywhere. The bill before us contains a number of other amendments which have been discussed both in this House and in committee. I emphasize that all the amendments are designed to improve the present law in one way or another. Some are purely technical in nature. Others-and these are the ones which I trust will be particularly welcomed by professionals and laymen alike- will contribute to the protection and control of individual as well as organized criminals.
In closing, I wish to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for their work in carefully examining this bill in committee. I commend the measure to the House and hope it will pass in an orderly way so that its provisions may be proclaimed and this country may have the advantage of the improvements it contains.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my first words this afternoon must be to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) for exercising a very important ministerial discretion in the Morgentaler case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a result, Dr. Morgentaler will have the right to a new trial. I think the minister would be the first to agree that the suggestions made to him with reference to this matter, particularly in reference to the right of appeal after the accused had been acquitted by a jury, came from a very distinguished lawyer in this House, a former prime minister, my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am very happy that the new Minister of Justice has sufficient flexibility of mind to enable him to accept the suggestion made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and, of course, by other members of the House who joined with him. Once again, I congratulate the Minister of Justice. I hope that in exercising the kind of discretion he exercised the other day, he will bear in mind
2 1 1 30-3414

January 27, 1976
Criminal Code
another matter which is before him now, the Latta case, concerning a member of my own profession, a distinguished scholar, a professor at Queen's University who was convicted in the city of Edmonton by judge and jury of the very serious charge of murder.
I wish to refer to this matter for a few moments before we consider some of the changes in the Criminal Code, because it is relevant to what I have in mind. One of the greatest problems related to appeals in serious criminal cases is that unless there has been a mistake in law by the judge in instructing a jury, or unless-this is very rare- the decision of the jury is so perverse that this in itself becomes a question of law, it is seldom if ever that a court of appeal will upset a verdict.
I mention this having regard to the seriousness of the case and many submissions which are now being made, in the hope that the Minister of Justice, having made use of an unusual procedure in granting Mr. Morgentaler a new trial, will not be deterred from exercising the same kind of ministerial discretion on other occasions when the need arises. It may be that he will be subject to some criticism. It may be suggested that if he were to do the same thing twice in one year, or twice during his tenure of office, he would be following a new kind of practice. But I maintain that these are unique cases, cases which call for the kind of assessment which has been made by the Minister of Justice.
I wish now, on third reading of this bill, to put forward a few facts in relation to the increase in crime. I hope that the Minister of Justice, who inherited this legislation from the former minister of justice-hon. members will recall that when he first took on the job he talked about bringing laws before parliament to control the ever-increasing crime rate-did not leave the impression, and I am sure he would not do so, with the public at large that Bill C-71 is the instrument he had in mind to bring about these necessary amendments to the law to stamp out organized crime and reverse the present tendency of the crime rate to increase.
I want to put a few facts on the record having to do with the increase in crime, and I wish the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) were here while I do so. In 1974-75 the murder rate in Canada went up by 18.8 per cent. Breaking and entering increased from 48,625 in 1974 to 54,982 in 1975, that is, a rise of 11.3 per cent-something like inflation. Consider the increase which has taken place in the crime of robbery with violence. We have heard a lot of talk about legislation to control the possession of handguns and other firearms. It is like Alice in Wonderland: jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today. The present Minister of Justice can be distinguished from the former minister and the one before that. He is one Minister of Justice who did practice law. He has had some experience at the bar as defence counsel. I do not know whether he ever prosecuted or not, but he is one Minister of Justice who isn't all theory.
In 1974 there were 1,214 robberies with violence and firearms, and in 1975, 2,106. That is an increase in crimes of robbery with firearms and guns of 70.9 per cent in one year. Crime is on the increase.

Kidnapping is one of the worst types of crime society is facing today. People who are in responsible positions and getting a salary like the former minister of finance, of $200,000 a year, are always in danger of their children being kidnapped when they leave school or go to the park, or their wives being kidnapped for purposes of extortion. Not long ago I raised the case in the House of a girl who was kidnapped, put into the trunk of a car and kept there for nine or ten hours while the car was put in the garage. She was very lucky to survive. Across the line a very important case concerning Patty Hearst is commencing with the picking of the jury. Kidnapping and extortion are the worst type of crime; they are a plague and a blight on people who cannot defend themselves. Kidnappings increased in 1974 by 40.1 per cent, so I hope something will be done to provide in our law a deterrent to this crime. Before leaving that subject, every person in public life is in danger of having members of his family kidnapped, and so are others who are not able to defend themselves as we may be able to. With regard to rape convictions, there were 348 in 1974, an increase of only 4.3 per cent. Crimes of rape, kidnapping, robbery with firearms, breaking and entering and homicide are all on the increase.
My good friend the Minister of Justice dealt with bail reform, which he would be the first to admit the former minister of justice introduced. I think all practising lawyers realize that bail should be the right of every citizen, but it is a right that has to be used with some caution. As the minister said today, there are many cases in big cities of a person out on bail committing the same kind of crime with which he had been charged, perhaps in a different place and under different circumstances, and he does so several times before the first offense is brought to trial. I am glad that that hole in the bucket has been plugged.
I want to bring to the attention of the House something that happened over the Christmas recess. I was telephoned by some newspaper people in connection with a case in the city of Hamilton. It had to do with the law we passed regarding wiretapping. I had some reservations about putting so many "ifs" and "buts" into that law. Although it is very easy to criticize it, it is far easier to see the weaknesses of a law once it is in operation.
I understand that certain police officers obtained authorization through the Crown attorney, under the act, to obtain an order to wiretap a telephone conversation. I believe that the chief or the deputy chief of the city-I do not know his name, since I was called on the telephone- discovered that one of his chief officers was involved in syndicated crime. When the Crown attorney attempted to put in the record of the telephone conversation as evidence, the defence, and properly so-I will not bother to read the section of the Code-objected to it on the ground that they had not obtained authorization regarding the other party to the conversation who was talking to the police officer, and so the evidence was ruled inadmissible.
As a result, a very responsible and highly placed public official, one who administers the law of this country in that city, had the telephone conversation been put in as evidence would have been connected with some syndicated crime, yet he walks the streets today an innocent man. I have had similar experiences, as I know have the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member
January 27, 1976

for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and other lawyers, where you can successfully defend a man on some technical ground of this nature. The law must be administered fairly and squarely.
My point is this, Mr. Speaker. All of us are for reform. We all want to see the best system of justice. None of us wants to read about the sort of thing raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-solitary confinement in jails and poor conditions in our penitentiaries. We want to better those conditions. But at the same time, particularly at this period in our society, we must weigh very carefully the reforms we do bring in. Such reforms might have been beneficial a few years ago, but today, with the new kind of criminal mind and syndicated crime, we must not allow some pretty dangerous people to go free so that they can plague society with the kind of behaviour to which all of us who are trying to be law-abiding citizens object.
When the minister took office he said-I do not think I am misquoting him-that he would bring in laws, which he would ask parliament to pass, that would control crime. I have already indicated the percentage growth of crime in one year. I realize the minister inherited this bill, but I hope he has other measures in mind for controlling crime, particularly kidnapping which is on the increase, and extortion which is a horrible crime.
I should like to refer to one thing the minister said when he was before the committee. I think he was advised by the president of the Canadian Bar Association so he would not be saying anything that was incorrect. Several members of the Canadian Bar criminal law section gave evidence before the committee and I want to put on record what the president said about the Canadian Bar. Although I think we should always get direction from the Canadian Bar and the Bar Associations, and without being at all critical in saying this, often the presidents of those associations have a civil law or corporate law practice and are not experienced in the rules of evidence and the terms and provisions of the Criminal Code.
I think the impression was left that the president of the Canadian Bar Association endorsed the changes that were made, but the head of the criminal section of that association had this to say at page 26 of committee report No. 32 for December 4, 1975:
There was some comment in one of the issues of a house journal of the Canadian Bar Association which indicated to me as a reader, and I believe to my colleagues, that the president of the Canadian Bar Association was basically in favour of Bill C-71. The then president was Mr. Somerville. Certainly it is our position that he did not speak for us. We were not consulted. We do not think that he consulted the criminal justice subsection of the Canadian Bar Association, particularly in view of the resolutions which were later published in the same organ but in a later issue. We feel that there is no excuse or no reason to believe that the practising members of the bar, the criminal bar, who belong to the Canadian Bar Association feel any differently than we do about these amendments.
He criticizes some amendments that I will deal with right now. What I wanted to point out was that the criminal section of the Canadian Bar Association did not endorse some of the changes that have been made. What are some of the changes that have been made? I have dealt
Criminal Code
previously with some of these, so I can do so now quite briefly.
I endorse the change in reference to corroboration under the rape section. I would go even further than that in respect of the right of defence counsel to cross examine the complainant regarding her past sexual experience with others or the person named in the complaint. As the new amendment is worded, the judge can grant leave if he finds it is material to the defence of the accused. I think that is good, but I would issue this caution, a caution I have often repeated: rape is one of the easiest charges to lay and it is sometimes one of the most difficult to defend. The whole thing hinges basically on the question of consent. I have pointed out very carefully during any discussions about this subject that even a prostitute can be raped. This involves basically the question of consent.
The removal of the right to cross examination is good, because often the complainant is treated more like the accused and it is very difficult for a female to give evidence under those circumstances. On the other hand, I hope the courts will consider very carefully these exceptions. There may be cases where this is necessary, because a conviction under the rape section is a very serious thing and carries a penalty of life imprisonment, depending on the circumstances. In endorsing that amendment, that is a caution I would put forward.
Let me go into something else for a moment. This has reference to the breathalyzer test. There is not a member of parliament nor a member of the legislature, whatever his political views may be, who would not agree with the Minister of Justice and many other speakers who have said that alcohol and gasoline just do not mix, or that the incidence of accidents in the cities, particularly those with heavy traffic, increases proportionately to the amount of alcohol consumed.
On the other hand, one has to exercise a little caution when changing the law in respect of liquor. I guess I am being pretty brave with my political life when I say this because I may receive some criticism as all the publicity has been in favour of the use of the breathalyzer. But we must remember that it is certainly against our common law when we change the concept of a person being innocent until being proven guilty. The breathalyzer is a good thing, but once you have been forced to take a breathalyzer test you have to go on the stand in your own defence. You may be totally innocent but belong to the Civil Rights Committee of Canada and refuse to take a breathalyzer test, and in that event you are guilty. The first offence may involve a fine, but on a second conviction you will go to jail, and on a third conviction you are liable to imprisonment for three months.
Like many others, I have asked the Minister of Justice why he has included this mandatory sentence. I asked the Minister of Justice, in respect of violence with the use of firearms, why he did not also include a mandatory jail term of a number of years in the penitentiary. Surely there should be some such penalty for extortion and kidnapping. The minister has said that he has never believed in a system with that kind of jurisprudence, even in criminal cases, because he has felt this should be left to the discretion of the criminal judge in sentencing. Let me go very quickly to the point I am trying to make. Surely if we are

January 27, 1976
Criminal Code
to have a mandatory sentence in respect of a second conviction for refusing to take a breathalyzer test, we should have a mandatory prison sentence for people convicted of going into banks and kidnapping children and wives for the purpose of extortion. That seems only logical.
Let me say something about the sale and consumption of liquor in this country. I suppose it is true to say that many of us have been called to many bars. Let me point out the hypocrisy of many governments, and I am not referring particularly to this government. In 1974 the federal government took in, through excise duty and customs tariffs on liquor, $278,140,199.83. In 1975 the people were much more dry and much more thirsty, and the federal government obtained revenue from the sale of liquor amounting to $310,915,395, an increase of about 11.8 per cent. I do not have similar figures in respect of provincial revenues, but I have read articles that would indicate the provinces take in about the same amount.
One only has to go to the embassies in this country to find out how much tax is being charged on a bottle of liquor. I understand the embassies pay $2 or $2.25 for a bottle of liquor for which I pay $7.85 at the liquor store- when I go, which is not that often.


An hon. Member:: And that's not very good rye.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone points out that that is pretty cheap stuff. The point I want to make is that governments are getting millions of dollars a year from the sale and consumption of alcohol in one form or another. The provinces have jurisdiction over various cocktail lounges and all sorts of outlets. All the provinces and the federal government have to do is sit back and wait for the revenue to roll in.
All the police in this country have to do is sit and wait for people to come out of these bars or to leave their country clubs after playing golf some afternoon. I do not know where we would find all the jails to hold all these people if every one of them was given a breathalyzer test. One only has to drink two average drinks of two ounces or one and a half ounces to come within the limit. What I am suggesting is that there is a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of governments of this country, because the more the people drink the more revenue governments obtain, yet the same governments have almost adopted a policy of prohibition in respect of drinking offences. There has to be some balance.
The thing I do not like about this new section is that it says the peace officer must have a reasonable suspicion before requiring an individual to take a breathalyzer test. In the criminal law as it stood, the peace officer had to have reasonable and probable grounds for such belief. An officer could not just stop anyone that he felt should take a breathalyzer test. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that the peace officer must now only have a reasonable suspicion. So road blocks can be set up and there is no difficulty. If one does not take a breathalyzer test, one pays a fine on the first occasion and on the second and third occasions one goes to jail for a period of up to two years. I think that is correct; yes, it is imprisonment for not more than two years.

If it is right to lay down those penalties, then it is right to have mandatory, minimum penalties for people who commit rape, armed robbery with violence, or use firearms. We cannot have it only one way. A great deal of advertising and promotion has been going on day after day and week after week on television. I know severe steps must be taken to stop the mixture of gasoline and of alcohol, and we are dealing with that. However, when we deal with the law, the law must be practical and, above all, it must be just. It can be just only if it is just in respect of all offences. Why should we pick out merely that one? There is not even a minimum sentence, under certain circumstances, for criminal negligence of manslaughter. Those are the things which concern me.
There is one other point I should like to make. The new law is quite flexible. Appeals from summary convictions are called trials de novo. A trial by summary conviction means that the person is charged with a lesser offence. The Crown may charge a person with an indictable offence, which involves a more severe penalty than summary conviction. If a person is convicted on summary conviction, the appeal is from the provincial judge, formerly the magistrate, to the district court, and all the evidence may be presented again. The whole matter is reviewed in the form of a brand new trial. In fact, witnesses may be called, at the appeal to the district court, who had not been called previously.
I suppose there has been some abuse of that practice, because lawyers sometimes would have a trial run before a provincial judge and then go to the district court. There is something I wish to point out which I know the minister and hon. members who have practised law understand. In the provincial courts, judges have to sit all morning. Anyone who attends these courts will realize how many cases a judge hears in a day. The judge does not have time to weigh all the pros and cons. There is, of course, the safeguard that in exceptional cases the whole thing can be reviewed by the district court. In some cases the magistrate merely says, on the basis that the Crown witnesses and policemen are honest, that he finds the accused guilty. That is a finding of fact and there is no appeal unless there is a rehearing and a re-evaluation of the witnesses.
That is the weakness of our system. A judge who is a friend of mine, in many cases takes the position that wherever the plaintiff's evidence differs from that of the defendant, he accepts the evidence of the plaintiff. Then the court of appeal is in the position of having to say it is sorry, but the judge has clearly decided the facts and the appeal is on those facts. The court of appeal points out that the judge did not believe the evidence on one side but he believed the evidence on the other side. We got this half a loaf from the minister. We are all happy that he repented. He said the law would be left similar to what it is, but that there will be an application to a district court to direct whether or not there shall be a new trial.
There is only one flaw in that. Knowing judges as I do- many of them are good friends of mine and I hope they remain so-they are liable to say that they do not want all the hard work involved, and very often will not exercise the discretion. It will become a very rare discretion, if ever it is used. I am not at all happy with that amendment, but
January 27, 1976

it is better than no loaf. We can only hope that the rules in respect of that kind of discretion will be made by judicial law.
Having said that, our party accepts the changes in the Code. I have pointed out some weaknesses. Some of the weaknesses I have pointed out are my own ideas. On the whole it is good legislation. My last word to the minister is that if he has a package with which he thinks he can cut out or reduce crime, I wish he would bring it forward, because he inherited this from the former minister and he must have a package somewhere which he can bring in. He said he would bring in legislation to look after crime. I would hope, when he is thinking about that, we might have the same kind of royal commission or inquiry they have had in the province of Quebec to find out where all the crime lies. Had we not had that inquiry in the province of Quebec we would never have known about all the bad meat. Why, in the name of justice, the Liberal federal government challenged the legislation, the authority and the jurisdiction is beyond my comprehension, because that opened a can of worms. I am glad they held the inquiry. We have been begging for the same thing on a federal basis.
I am glad to see the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) here, because he has a good point. The other evening I watched a psychiatrist on television who said that the human mind at a certain age is exposed to violence day after day and hour after hour. He said this will affect the mind and some people will resort to violence. I understand that Miss Judy LaMarsh is conducting a very important inquiry in the province of Ontario. I hope the federal government will follow suit and have a similar inquiry across the nation to find out what effect this has on the children. This psychiatrist went further than I would. Had I said that, I would have been accused of being a redneck or something similar. The psychiatrist said that the exposure of youth in the drug stores to pornography hour after hour and week after week may be the reason that the number of rape cases is so high. He went that far. I do not know if that is right, but I do say we should set up an inquiry to find out what some of the experts in these fields feel about this problem. Maybe if we had those facts, the people who draft the legislation under the direction of the minister would be able to bring in some laws to clean up society.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, first of all, to congratulate the minister on a very sensitive, compassionate and sensible judicial decision in the Morgentaler case. I want to start off by giving the minister a pat on the back so that he will be in a better position in respect of some of the other remarks I shall make.
I think we should speak for a while in the House about the things that are not contained in the bill. I know the answer the minister will give is that we should wait. As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said, it is jam tomorrow. The minister will say that this omnibus bill will solve all our problems. I have been here since 1972, and I and all members are waiting to see what kind of approach the government will take to crime. We must talk in this House from time to time about the causes of crime. After listening to the hon. member for Calgary North, I must say I am sometimes confused in respect of some of his
Criminal Code
comments about crime, but I want to give him credit for what I believe to be a very progressive statement he made on second reading of this bill. We may disagree from time to time about the right approach in terms of penalties, but I think the causes of crime he outlined in Hansard on November 18 should be repeated in this House because I think he covered one of the real problems which we are not attacking. This is what he said:
-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.
That is a very progressive statement on the subject of crime. If we are to deal with the causes, we must not only examine where criminals come from but we must examine who they are. I would suggest that if anyone goes to our maximum security institutions where we find the worst offenders, those people about whom we cannot do anything, it will be found that the average prisoner there has an education of about grade 6. These people have been rejected, first by their families, then by their school and then by their peers. So they isolate themselves into a tiny group. That group is consistently made up of people with a strong ego and high intelligence, people who are anti-social and quite often with a learning disability. Also, quite often they are mentally ill. One could ask how they became mentally ill, whether our institutions have made them that way or whether they were that way before.
What I do not see in the bill, and what I am hoping the minister will attend to perhaps in the next bill, are the M'Naghten rules. I hope he will take another look at the question of whether we are applying a proper standard in terms of those who are mentally ill and are committing crimes, because I can tell you that in the maximum security institution in my riding a great many of those people should be in maximum security in a mental hospital and not in a penal institution which is not able to provide any help for them. I am not suggesting they should be released; I am suggesting that many of those who have damaged psyches should be under treatment and should not be placed in solitary confinement, and they should not be released until we are satisfied that they have recovered.
There are people in those institutions with paranoid delusions about the people who put them there, about the defence and prosecuting lawyers and about the judges. They are ill and they can be dangerous if released. What I am saying is that we should take another look at the M'Naghten rules. We should get back to the question of whether anti-social behaviour is the result of mental aberration and whether it should be treated, or considered a crime and punished. I look forward to a reassessment of that question.
I am disappointed at the fact that when the minister came to the question of organized crime, he did not mention the co-ordinated law enforcement unit in British

January 27, 1976
Criminal Code
Columbia which I think should be given some credit. John Hogarth and his group in British Columbia have really done an excellent job, and I am pleased to see that the new government in B.C. is carrying on the program of co-operation at all levels to get to the top of the drug rings and to move up in the scale of people we arrest, because up to now we continue simply to catch the small fry, which does not really solve any of these criminal problems.
One of the things that is not in the bill, and it concerns me a great deal-I know it concerned the hon. member for Calgary North on second reading-is the question of publicity during a trial and the effect that such publicity can have on an individual. When I was defending people while practicing law, I knew that the fact that the name of the man who was charged appeared in the newspaper was as good as a conviction, because the penalty for a person who is brought into total disgrace in his community through being charged with an offence and having his name published can often be worse than the conviction itself.
We had this tragedy in Ottawa not too long ago when a person charged with a sexual offence committed suicide because of the nature of the alleged offence and the terrific embarrassment to him and his family. We in the profession often are so closed in in our own little world and are so closed in in the game of the adversary system in the courts that we sometimes forget the human realities of the people whom we represent and we forget the effect on them.
I say that that is a violation of the presumption of innocence to a very serious extent because, although I do not disagree with the public's right to know, what I say is that the public's right to know is not necessarily the instant that the charge is laid. So long as the information reaches the public, the principle of freedom of speech and the principle of the open court system is not eroded.
I am pleased to see the minister paying such close attention to the debate, and I hope he will take another look at the matter of the right of the public to be informed and when it should be informed. The refusal to publish the proceedings of preliminary hearings can be very useful both from the point of view of the defence and the prosecution. When you are defending someone who is charged with an offence-let us assume that he is charged with a sallacious offence such as indecent assault on a young person-surely letting the public know who this person in their midst is after conviction is soon enough. Doing so beforehand is tantamount to sentencing that person to purgatory for the rest of his life. Sometimes the press is most insensitive in its anxiety to see that all the information is released. People from the press are sometimes terribly insensitive regarding the right of the individual to some privacy in a serious situation.
Another area that we should consider, in terms of publicity, is the effect not merely on juries but on the whole public of violent and sallacious reporting such as we get in some of our worst magazines. I am not referring to the major dailies, which tend to be a little more responsible, but I look with sadness at some of the publications we see on our local newsstands which use crime in a most exploitive way and which pander to the worst emotions in the population. That could clearly affect the judgment of a jury picked for a trial in such a case. So I am asking that the minister give serious consideration to redesigning the
[Mr. Leggatt.)
rules concerning publicity around the courts, particularly with regard to charges that are laid.
I want to say a word or two about the individual in our society who, either through brain damage or bad environment-no matter how it happened-is incapable of feeling any remorse for his crime or compassion for the victims of his crime. It seems to me that if we are going to make any progress in terms of reducing the incidence of horror and crime in this country, we will have to identify the psychotic, dangerous personality much earlier. That does not mean to suggest that punitive action should be taken earlier. It simply means that an assessment should be made such as we do for those with learning disabilities and other problems in schools. Let us try to identify someone who is acting in an anti-social way in the early days of his school life, and see whether some assistance can be brought to the community to prevent the kind of dangerous and violent activity which occurs. Admittedly, there are very few such people, but there are enough to make our society feel suspicious that we are under attack by criminals.
The right answer for those who are worried about a break-in of their house, or a mugging, is not to get a dog, lock the door and buy a gun; the right answer is total community response to the problem of crime, the community working co-operatively toward a solution. I have talked in this House many times about the proliferation of guns and the fact that it is not a solution to crime. Not only does it not solve crime, but it does not provide any protection to the individual. Anyone coming to your house to break in will probably bring a gun along for protection if he thinks you have one. In fact, at the moment the chances of being robbed are greater if it is known that you have a gun, because that is one of the things most people in the business of breaking and entering are seeking.
I am concerned about some of the things that are not in this bill, Mr. Speaker. The law reform commission's study on local enforcement in the Toronto area should be looked at. Statistics on declining crime in that project area showed that through community involvement, instead of throwing everybody into jail or charging them, the number of family disputes and minor crimes has dropped. Our police must be part of the community and not be isolated in cars. I should like to see the policeman back on the beat, knowing everybody in his community so that a rapport or relationship could develop and he could prevent crime before it occured.
Our emphasis continues to be on increasing penalties after the crime occurs. We should move into the area of prevention through the local police officer anticipating the problems in his area. He can only do that if he knows the people and develops a personal, friendly relationship with those for whom he is responsible. There is no point in giving the policeman the responsibility for enforcement of traffic regulations in the whole city of Vancouver when he should be maintaining law and order and preventing crime in an area known to him and where he is known to the people who live there.
I should like to say a word or two about the bill itself, Mr. Speaker. This party supports it. We think some of the provisions are progessive and some of the drafting of the
January 27, 1976

bail reform provisions is excellent. One provision on which I have not heard too much comment is begging while armed. This has been a major problem in the Vancouver area, I do not know about other areas, and the minister is to be congratulated for responding to the problem.
I have some reservations about the changes in the impaired driving provisions. In a sense, mandatory penalties are an erosion of judicial discretion. Perhaps those judges who have complained from time to time about the mandatory sentencing provisions should look at the way they co-ordinate sentences. Our of the reasons for mandatory sentencing in Canada is that the public is obviously dissatisfied with the penalties imposed by the courts. If we could better co-ordinate sentences and the reasons for sentencing, perhaps we would not need a mandatory sentencing provision. Quite often in a case where there is real merit, where a mandatory sentence should not be imposed, the courts have no discretion and as a result there is severe injustice.
I am not upset about the increase in mandatory penalties in view of the epidemic of driving offences in the country. I think a lot of people have reservations about the roadside screening provision, however. That is clearly a departure from the normal responsibility of the police officer to have both reasonable and probable grounds to conduct an investigation. I sympathize with the minister on this. It is a massive problem in Canada and I believe we will need more roadside screening in order to reduce the present carnage on the highways. I should like to see the minister use his influence with cabinet to apply to accident prevention the huge liquor profits and taxes that accrue to both the federal and provincial governments.
I should like to say something else about liquor, Mr. Speaker. In cases of motor manslaughter, where the driver had too much to drink, it is sometimes difficult to get a conviction. Some members of the jury may be saying, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". There is considerable sympathy for the accused. Sometimes members of the public get upset about acquittals in cases of criminal negligence. They do not understand that in this country we are all guilty of drinking liquor. It is a problem to judge how much liquor one can drink and then whether one should drive.


An hon. Member:: It is a terrible habit.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is a terrible habit and we should all give it up.


An hon. Member:: If I were a Liberal, I would give it up.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Especially at $7.80 a quart as the hon. member for Calgary North suggested. But, Mr. Speaker, because it is such a culturally acceptable activity it is difficult for the Crown to get a conviction in a liquor offence. If you have 12 drinkers on a jury, you have a job on your hands. I think we should take note of the fact that we are heavy drinkers in this country. The hon. member for Calgary North suggested that in his area the country clubs were being screened and that police waited outside to catch people going home after a pleasant evening. That has been going on in the beer parlours in my riding for a long time. The police have been pretty thorough in picking up drinkers, but I am a little tired of beer parlour operators
Criminal Code
allowing people to stagger out of their premises and into a car, to be immediately picked up.
Surely there is some responsibility on the part of those who sell liquor to be careful about how much people have had to drink. Surely they should cut them off before it is too late. There have been instances where people have been helped out of a hotel, got into a car and then were arrested when they left the parking lot. I think those who operate hotels had better accept more responsibility in terms of preventing carnage on the highways.
I am delighted with the provision on theft under $200 which will now become a summary conviction offence. This is long overdue. People involved in shoplifting or offences of a minor nature formerly had a record of an indictable offence and this affected their future when applying for a job with a major corporation or the civil service. Shoplifting has been a widespread epidemic and the discretion to make it a summary conviction offence is useful. Actually, in some circumstances kleptomaniacs who may have engaged in stealing could be granted a conditional discharge where appropriate.


Mr. Baldwin:: Where is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) (Rosedale))? The hon. member has exactly described the fiscal policies of the government.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In this country it is unlikely that you can obtain much that is worth while for $200 or less. The increased penalty in the cruelty to animals provisions is also worth while, although I do not know why there is a maximum sentence of two years. Cases involving great cruelty to animals could warrant a more severe penalty. I congratulate the government for introducing discretionary powers for taking an animal from its owner because he has been cruel. This provision is particularly useful in cases involving people without the resources to look after animals.
I shall now talk about the rape provisions of the bill. From a legal point of view, these changes are substantial and useful. So far, the Criminal Code has been male oriented and our approach to rape has also been male oriented. I can give hon. members examples of what I mean. I remember a case involving two young lads who were charged with rape. I defended them. They had picked up a girl hitchhiker. I have no sympathy at all for any judge who says to a girl like that, "Why were you hitchhiking?" In that case I think she had a perfect right to hitchhike. Males hitchhike. Why should she be placed in a special category? Why should she be different, merely because she is a female, and not be on the highways? Why should she not be there? The implication of the judge's comment was that she was out there looking for trouble. In that case my clients were acquitted, but for other reasons.


Mrs. Holt:: You should not defend the guilty.


An hon. Member:: But they got off.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is right. I must say that I had every sympathy for the poor girl. We saw in court a display of male chauvinism which I think was quite wrong. Second, I am glad to see a stop being put to the sort of salacious

January 27, 1976
Criminal Code
snickering one sees in rape cases. In the past, the previous conduct of the complainant has been examined and the defence in such cases has inquired if she is a person of good repute, and so on. I take some responsibility for what happened in the case. It was my job to cross-examine the poor young lady, but I was as discreet and reasonable as I could be in that cross-examination.


An hon. Member:: If that was the law, how dreadful.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Just a minute, Simma-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Will the hon. member please address the Chair?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am trying to explain to my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), that those engaged in defence work have the responsibility to defend their clients to the best of their ability. The point is that the law was wrong.


An hon. Member:: You should not have done it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The law was wrong, and I congratulate the minister for recognizing that the law was wrong. At the same time, everyone in this country is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and those engaged in defence work must do their best for their clients. The resources of the Crown are immense. It has the police, all the facilities of the law and all the resources of the state. The defendant has just his lawyer to look after him. We should not say to defence lawyers, "You should not use all the tools available to you." I merely say that the minister has introduced a useful change in the law. Frankly, there is no reason why a female's sexual history should be raised in court. I wonder if the bill goes far enough in changing the rape laws. I suppose we shall have to wait and see.
I now turn to the bail provisions. I think the draftsmanship is excellent. The amendment does not offend anyone's sense of civil liberties and does not negate the principle of presumption of innocence. The onus provision is just about right for dealing with the kinds of problems we face with regard to bail. I have some reservations about the summary conviction appeal provisions, and the abandonment of the trial de novo can make appeals more complicated. The profession was concerned in the past because many people lost their appeals on technicalities. We are still concerned about technicalities and want to see the rights of the accused protected.
When I began my remarks I congratulated the minister for his sensitive and good legal approach to the Morgental-er case, which involves the erosion of the power of juries, and erosion resulting directly from the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal in that case. I still prefer the judgment of 12 people to the judgment of one man. I particularly trust the judgment of 12 people on questions of fact. Their judgment is based on common, everyday experience. They live the same kind of life as their peer group or the accused may live. I trust people who drink in a beer parlour to find out what happened in a beer parlour.
It was a sad day for the majority of Canadians when the time-honoured system of the jury was eroded by the appellate court decision. Certainly it was a sad day for the majority in the legal profession. Bear in mind that those 
who serve on juries serve at great sacrifice to themselves. They find the work difficult and taxing. If we allow courts of appeal to impose their verdicts on the verdicts of juries, the morale of all jurors will be destroyed. Why take a couple of weeks trying a murder trial, if the court of appeal will not think you smart enough to determine the facts of the case and impose its judgment on the judgment of the jury? I congratulate the minister for adopting exactly the wording of my private member's bill with respect to appeals. I am glad to see the stature of juries restored. However, although there is much good in the bill, there are also weaknesses in it.
I support the call of the hon. member for Calgary North for a commission to look into violence and pornography in society. I am not sure whether the hon. member outlined or suggested terms of reference for the commission. We must recognize that the medium is the message and is massaging the people, as McLuhan said. For example, consider how remarkably similar were the killings that took place at Brampton and the killings that took place in Ottawa recently.
Many crimes of violence depicted on television are duplicated in the community by some poor, sick soul who was inspired by what he saw to do some vicious, antisocial, criminal act. We should also study the effects of pornography. The rape rate is down this year, so that I am not sure if the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North hold true. But we should study the effects of pornography and see if it dulls the senses. We should not wait for the Ontario commission to report, as there are many other urban areas in Canada. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to setting up a proper inquiry into the effects of violence as depicted on television, on radio and in the newspapers, and the effects of pornography as depicted by those three media. Particularly, let us look at the movie industry which is depicting hard-core pornography and has been for some time.
We must again look at the people in our institutions and ask ourselves what effect our laws will have on them and why they were sent there in the first place. The public's first reaction to violent crime is either to urge that the criminal be hanged, or that we lock him up and throw away the key. We should not ignore these options, because they are valid options at which we should look, but we must think about prevention. These are not preventive measures at all. We must get back to the question of the kind of society we live in. We live in a highly competitive society, a dog-eat-dog society. Sometimes the dog at the end bites the ankle of the one in front. If you are going to do anything about the causes of crime, you have to make this a more humane place in which to live. You have to bring the community together, but not in a dog-eat-dog, free enterprise system.


Mr. Francis Fox (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-71 now before us contains a series of amendments to the Criminal Code which constitute the first stage, but a very important one, of the government legislative program. The purpose of this program is, in fact, to assure in Canadian society the mainte-
January 27, 1976

nance of the physical security climate needed for the individual and social development of Canadians. Bill C-71 includes several amendments to the Criminal Code, amendments that have not held the attention of the media until now despite their significance. Some of these concern organized crime, such as the one that makes it illegal to use for legal purposes funds obtained in an illegal manner, as well as the one that makes illegal any conspiracy in Canada to commit offences abroad.
Also to be noted are substantial changes when it comes to bail, particularly in cases of murder charges, relapse into crime or drug trafficking. These changes, Madam Speaker, are meant to ensure greater protection against those who infringe on the basic social contract by attacking the basic right to physical security of any individual living in society.
Though they may not deal with the problem of organized crime, other amendments are nevertheless aimed at improving protection of the civic right to physical integrity. Thus, very stiff penalties will be imposed for impaired driving. I hope that those penalties will be noted, that they will receive wide publicity to reduce the number of impaired driving cases. The corporal as well as material damages specifically described with the support of statistics by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), damages caused by people who have had too much to drink and insist on driving, are really excessive. I hope, Madam Speaker, that these penalties will lead to the consideration of the seriousness of this antisocial behaviour.
Finally, some amendments will protect the rights of the victim. The victim of a rape will no longer have to submit, except with the judge's authorization and in camera, to a thorough cross-examination of her background which often seemed to make her an accused rather than a victim.
Finally, the Criminal Code is amended to make sure that an acquittal by a jury can no longer be changed in a verdict of guilty by an appeal court. Indeed, I should like to mention in passing in this regard that it is obvious that when courts of appeal, whether the Quebec Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, have in fact reversed the decision of a jury, they have been acting under an existing provision of the Criminal Code and have been in fact entitled to judge the case in question in view of the situation of the law at that time. It was up to Canadian Parliament to amend the Criminal Code. The situation at that time no longer corresponded to the needs of today's Canadian society.
I would like to come back briefly, Madam Speaker, on two or three aspects of the bill, namely the laundering of illegally obtained funds, bail provisions and drunken driving. First, let us consider the laundering of money obtained through crime: it is a well known fact-and several cases of this nature have been brought to light during the sittings of the CECO and other investigations into organized crime in Canada as well as in the United States-that organized crime is making an increasing use of illegally obtained funds, for instance, money obtained by prostitution networks, by trafficking of narcotics and drugs, by rings of motor vehicle thieves, and by something which is well known in certain areas of the south shore and Montreal, namely the protection industry. It is a well known
Criminal Code
fact that these illegally obtained funds are used to launch honest business ventures.
Under section 312 of the Criminal Code it is an offence to have in your possession an illegally obtained property. Under the amendment proposed in the House today, in future not only will the possession of illegally obtained funds be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code, but also these funds can now be followed to their ultimate destination. This means for instance that if organized crime starts a business venture with funds obtained through the sale of stolen bonds, these funds will now be subject to the law.
The amendment goes further, and I believe it should be pointed out. It even forbids the use in Canada for legal purposes of funds obtained through underworld operations abroad. These are therefore important amendments, particularly in respect of organized crime when criminals try to lay out their illegal gains to advantage by buying commercial firms and operating legal activities.
I consider, Madam Speaker, that this is an extremely important development in Canadian jurisprudence. This is an additional tool we are giving to police forces, investigators and governments at both levels, provincial and federal, in Canada, and which will allow better control over the underworld and the mafia's sprawling operations and activities.
As to the bail, Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about it for a few moments. If there is an aspect which retains the attention of the public, it is very often indeed that of bail. Mass media do emphasize cases of people charged with an offence and who are let out on bail. We hear of it every day.
Madam Speaker, I think it is with good reason that many such cases are given prominence, particularly when the individuals released on bail commit an offence while out on parole.
In order to ensure better protection for society, Bill C-71 proposes thorough amendments to the Criminal Code as regards bail in certain specific cases.
At this moment, any person charged with a criminal offence must be let out on bail, unless the Crown attorney shows to the satisfaction of the court that the public interest requires he be imprisoned until his trial.
Bill C-71 establishes four exceptions to this principle. In these specific cases, it will be the responsibility of the defendant to show the court why he should be free pending his trial. This is therefore a reversal of the burden of proof which is very important and which should provide the public with additional protection without, however, depriving the defendant of his right to avail himself of the principles in which we all believe and, more particularly, of the principle of presumption of innocence.
In four very specific cases, it is the defendant rather than the Crown who will have to assume the burden of proof. It is the defendant who will have to prove that he is not a public danger and, secondly, that it is to be expected that he will appear before the court at the moment determined for his trial. First, when someone is charged with having committed a criminal offence while on bail, he will have to reverse the burden of proof himself. A citizen of a country other than Canada will have to do the same.

January 27, 1976
Criminal Code
In both latter cases we are dealing with amendments which were brought forward to the committee by the Minister of Justice himself (Mr. Basford). They concern charges of murder, of conspiracy to commit murder or of drug and narcotic importation or, once again, conspiracy and traffic or drug and narcotic importation.
It goes without saying that very often, particularly in the case of drug trafficking, the criminals are freed on bail and shortly after return to the street to continue this traffic of drugs which has proved so disastrous for Canadian youths in particular.
Evidently, as I have said, this does not in any manner affect the principle of our criminal law which presumes any person is innocent until proven guilty. There are nevertheless cases when, for public protection, it is necessary to ensure the presence of the accused in court. We then have to be much stricter and the present Minister of Justice as well as the Crown had no hesitation in adopting a harder line and being very strict towards the accused.
In those cases, as I have already pointed out, it will no longer be incumbent on the Crown, and this bears repeating, to prove why the accused should be held in custody until his trial, but instead, it will be up to the accused to prove why he should be free, to the satisfaction of the judge. The burden will be that much heavier.
Madam Speaker, it should also be noted in passing that the government intends to impose considerably more severe sanctions for drunken driving. Once again, inebriety at the wheel, which plagues our society, is a practice that leads, all in all, to tragedies, as well for the driver as for innocent victims, because of a lack of control or because the wheel was not taken over by someone else when too much alcohol was consumed.
Madam Speaker, I should also like to note how interesting it is that a good part of the population should be aware of the penalties now provided for by the Criminal Code for drunken driving, as a result of having been accused of driving while intoxicated, according to the rate of alcohol stipulated in the Criminal Code.
For a first offence, the maximum penalty is therefore increased. At this time, the law provides for a minimum fine of $500, or three months in prison, to a maximum fine of $2,000 or six months in prison.
For a second or third offence, there are minimum prison sentences, the judge not even having the option to impose a fine. He must sentence the person convicted to a period of detention, while for a second offence the maximum sentence is raised from three months detention to one year. And in the case of any subsequent offence, the maximum sentence is increased from one year to two years imprisonment.
Now, this clearly indicates, Madam Speaker, the interest taken by the drafters of this bill in this serious problem, and their decision in conscience to try to put an end to these abuses and emphasize the seriousness of such an act. Those are some of the amendments contained in this legislation. As I said earlier in my remarks, Madam Speaker, this is a first stage which will soon be completed by the peace and security program which the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada, I hope, will launch in the near future.

A society which is concerned with the interests of citizens must favour the establishment of a social system which meets the aspirations of its members. Daily facts demonstrate that society must take the necessary measures to isolate those who refuse to abide by the rules and that as long as it is required by public interest.
The Criminal Code is one of the instruments which allow us to settle some situations. We must always remember that that instrument of social control is used when rules are not respected. Moreover it cannot in itself contribute to reducing the derogation rate and the solution in many cases rests with other human disciplines and government programs which ensure to all Canadians a rather high minimum level in the education field and the opportunity to develop themselves and to realize their own destiny.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, I just wish to make a few comments. I hope you will permit me to make them, although they are not all tied closely to the bill. I have looked for an occasion to say these things for some time. I am saying them in a personal way and expressing a personal point of view. I do not intend to launch into a wide ranging discussion of crime or the Criminal Code. I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of my hon. friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams); the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), and others. They were very interesting remarks of a constructive nature dealing with the causes of crime and other matters.
It seems to me that generally there is no simple approach to the question of maintaining law and order. Certainly we cannot cope with this problem by thinking simply in terms of detection and punishment. But there is no point in pretending-I am sure none of us does-that it is simply a matter of reorganizing the community, that if we had the proper spirit and took the proper precautionary measures in advance there would be no crime to contend with afterwards.
I suspect we have to attack crime on many fronts. For example, there is a vast difference between highly organized crime on the one hand and the kind of crime which reflects slum conditions, poverty, and so on. I would myself welcome the kind of inquiry which many speakers inside the House have called for, an inquiry into the causes of crime, an inquiry into the effects of violence on television, among other things. As I say, I suspect we have to attack the problem on many fronts, and although many of us have hobby horses we like to ride, none of them, perhaps, would take us very far by themselves.
My hon. friend from Calgary North attacked the idea of minimal and mandatory sentences in connection with breathalyzer convictions. I agree with him 100 per cent. I cannot understand why the government would sponsor minimal or mandatory sentences in connection with something like this. Generally, I express disapproval of the whole idea of a minimum sentence, so what I am going to say with regard to breathalyzer tests is in no way derogatory to or divergent from the view expressed by my hon. friend. However, I will make one point with regard to
January 27, 1976

breathalyzer tests and related matters such as the mandatory requirement to wear seat belts and the attitude some people seem to take that it is a requirement which somehow infringes their personal liberty.
Their attitude seems to be that it is somehow an infringement of personal liberty for parliament to pass a bill requiring a person to wear a seat belt or to take a breathalyzer test. Madam Speaker, I am almost a fascist when it comes to the carnage on our highways. I am prepared to take a very tough position and support very tough legislation with regard to the carnage which takes place on our roads.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have no God-given right to drive a car on a highway; that is a privilege granted me by the province or state. Any legislature or the Parliament of Canada has a perfect right, indeed a duty, to impose safeguards and precautions upon me while I am driving on the highway. I am not the only one who drives on the highway; others do, too. I have no God-given right, either, even if I were alone on the highway, to drive in any way I please or to do any damage to myself or the car.
I simply say as fervently as I can that I believe our legislatures and this parliament have a heavy obligation to improve safety on our highways and to cut down carnage. I do not want to be intolerant, but I have very little time for anybody who argues that they have a right to refuse to take a breathalyzer test if stopped on the highway and asked to do so, that somehow this is an infringement of peronal liberties. If people want to drive a car on the highway, then they have to be prepared to accept and comply with measures considered by legislatures and by parliament to be necessary. I have no right to drive a car without using a seat belt if the legislature of my province or if the Parliament of Canada, if it were within the jurisdiction of parliament, require me to do so. As I say, Madam Speaker, my rights are not being infringed; I am exercising a privilege.
In view of the amount of carnage being done by people on the highway, when I was in provincial politics and premier of a province I felt that we should take very tough positions to reduce the damage taking place on our highways. I do not intend to stay in public life very long, and this is one reason I have seized upon this opportunity this afternoon to express as strongly as I can my deep personal conviction that some people, at least, seem to be confusing a privilege to drive on the highway, a privilege granted by the state, with some God-given fundamental right that never existed.
I hope that parliamentarians and legislators will pursue this course of being tough with people who violate the laws and rules governing the conduct of motor vehicles on the highway. I think we have taken far too lax a view of the consequence of things like speeding and careless driving. I want to tell the minister that I will give him my full support for being as tough as he wants to be toward people driving while impaired and toward imposing reasonable methods of picking these people up-and if it happens to be me, that is too bad.
Citizenship
That, Madam Speaker, is what I wanted to say this afternoon. Let us not confuse ancient and fundamental liberties with driving on the highway, which is a privilege granted by a province or the state.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CITIZENSHIP ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner that Bill C-20, respecting citizenship, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to address myself to some elements of Bill C-20 and to my concerns with regard to this bill. Although I can see some advantages flowing from it, there are also some very serious concerns. My principal concerns relate to qualifications for citizenship, qualifications that are deemed to be of a very serious nature. It is a very solemn undertaking indeed to accept not only the benefits of citizenship but the responsibilities that must inevitably accompany the privilege of being a Canadian.
This bill would permit a person to qualify for citizenship on the basis of allowing every day spent in Canada to qualify as a half day prior to being registered as a person lawfully in Canada. I think that is a gross error. Certainly, with my knowledge of the facile way that people can move across the border between Canada and the United States, this has to be an error. With my knowledge of the sloppy manner in which some people have been admitted to Canada, it is an error.
I recall a young lady who, as a part-time employee of customs and immigration, made a suggestion to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in 1974 to the effect that people coming to Canada through various border crossing points, claiming they were landed immigrants, should be able to provide some form of official identification issued by the ministry. This identification should take the form perhaps of a plasticized identification card giving a description of the person to whom it was issued, together with a recent photograph. We are asked to provide that sort of thing when we apply for a passport. Indeed, every member of the House of Commons has this kind of identification.
This very valid suggestion was passed to the minister and accepted by him, but like so many other suggestions that are made to some ministers, that was the last we heard of it, even though the minister himself endorsed this very concept in writing. As it stands now, we have no idea how long a person has been in Canada prior to the period when they begin to qualify for citizenship on the basis of a full day in Canada equalling a full day in their application for citizenship.
This brings me to the next provision in clause 5, that for every day during which the applicant was resident in

January 27, 1976
Citizenship
Canada after his lawful admission in Canada he shall be deemed to have accumulated one day of residence. That is for a period of three years, Madam Speaker. According to the bill, he shall be conversant with at least one of the official languages. He should have a knowledge of Canada, and not only a knowledge of Canada but an understanding of Canada. I submit it is one thing to have a knowledge of Canada, and another thing to have an understanding of Canada and the manner in which this country, our people and our governments operate.
On the basis of my experience with citizenship judges, I must say that some have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the very basic concerns of Canadians. This is often brought to light at the time these people make application for citizenship. I know there are those in this House and in this country who feel a person after three years should qualify for citizenship. I also know in my own riding, where I have a very wonderful cross-section of people of various ethnic origins, that the value they place on Canadian citizenship, something they have worked for and earned, is much in excess of the token three years that this bill provides. I almost get the feeling that this is sort of a citizenship for sale or bargain day agreement. Let us make it easy, open the borders and allow them to pour in!
I do not think for one minute that a person has to express any bias or that there should be any implication of being labelled a bigot or a racist when you suggest that the regulation remain as it is with a five-year qualification for citizenship. Certainly we have those who have never adapted to Canadian citizenship or to Canada. I suggest to hon. members that three years is indeed a very brief time in order to reap the rewards of Canadian citizenship, and that five years is a much more acceptable standard and one that is easily appreciated and understood by a cross-section of Canada's ethnic groups.
There are certain provisions for the loss of citizenship, and certain provisions for those who may have lost their citizenship to regain that valuable status. With reference to clause 7, I wonder just who is going to advise the person who has reached the age of 28 years that it is now time to apply for that status for which he should have applied earlier. What happens to the fellow who has not been informed? Are we looking at some broad-brush advertising scheme to be conducted once a year by Manpower and Immigration just to assure that this man or woman is fully aware of the regulation?
It is bad enough for most of us to try to keep track of all the regulations from day to day, without this kind of nonsense being inserted in the bill. I cannot really see the merit or the value of it. I think provisions for Canadians are well covered in other areas of the bill and I see no need for this particular provision.
Thank heavens, however, that the minister in his wisdom has decided that those women who were British subjects prior to 1947 can now, on application to the minister, obtain a certificate. There are no more outspoken people in the matter of their right to vote and their Canadian citizenship than those British who by virtue of previous legislation were, quite frankly, denied their right to vote. Of course, it is easy to say that they never applied

for citizenship, but in every other context they have considered themselves to be Canadians. They have considered themselves to be proud Canadians and British subjects who have contributed to the economy of this country by paying taxes and in every other way doing their jobs. I am relieved at least that clause 3 of this bill will make this provision, particularly for women, who are the most outspoken of those who are very proud to be Canadian citizens. I suggest it will be incumbent upon the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to give this part the widest possible publication.
It will be incumbent upon members of parliament to let their constituents know precisely the facts of this particular provision so these people can apply. Many times these British subjects have spoken to me, saying that if that be the case and they cannot vote without having applied for Canadian citizenship, they surely will not vote. In some respects that is an unfortunate attitude, but in other ways, in view of the contribution these people have made to the community, I cannot really blame them.
When we get to the question of examination for citizenship, then, Madam Speaker, the weaknesses of the system are becoming in fact more apparent. One of my concerns is that there is lack of uniformity by citizenship judges in dealing with applicants. This lack of uniformity, leaving it up to the individual citizenship judge, is going to be very seriously compounded by the three-year provision.
Not too long ago I listened to the complaints of several applicants for citizenship who appeared before a judge in my riding. Can you imagine the question being put, to somebody from Iran applying for Canadian citizenship, who had examined, studied and learned to speak one of our official languages and tried to become part of the fabric of Canada, having resided here for the qualifying period in excess of five years: "What can you tell me about white faces?" If he had asked me, I would not have been able to provide the answer, as I am sure very few members in this House could.
This judge asked: "What can you tell me about white faces", and that is the way he put the question. If he had said: "Can you tell me about white faces", I might have said: "You are talking about cattle, or Herefords." I could tell him something about Hereford cattle. But what in the world could we expect a man from Iran to know about white faces? I am sure the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) would have been hard pressed to figure out what that judge was talking about, and he should know if anyone should.
Another applicant was asked to talk about the pre-Cambrian shield. I think that is very important to the student of geology, or possibly to the student of geography, but just how relevant is it to a requirement for citizenship in Canada? These are only two of several examinations where applicants for citizenship have really, in effect, been put down by the examining judge. That is why I ask, if these people are having difficulty in five years in responding to the questions of this judge to whom I referred-and how many other citizenship judges across Canada are asking similar questions-how many problems are they going to find generated by the three-year provision? Are we going to have a different style of questioning? Is it to be primarily textbook questioning, or are we really going to deter-
January 27, 1976

mine that these people truly sense what is Canadian and have some knowledge about what is Canada?
Madam Speaker, I simply cannot accept the basic premise or idea that citizenship is for sale at bargain prices and for bargain requirements. I am also concerned about the requirements for citizenship and the discretionary power to the governor in council or the minister with reference to refugees. We are indeed fortunate in Canada that we live in a democracy and that to all intents and purposes, save and except for the ever-increasing, burgeoning government legislation, we are as free as we are and do not live in a police state. When a minister has the discretionary power to examine the applications of refugees or those who claim refugee status, it is so easy for a minister to say he really cannot conceive how that person should feel he or she can be a refugee from such a fine country as Poland, or such a fine country as Hungary or any other iron curtain country. I know whereof I speak, Madam Speaker.
I know, Madam Speaker, that very shortly I will be making an appeal to the minister. May I say, also, that I have made a recommendation to the minister that you should have a cabinet post. Perhaps my message will get through to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I think there would probably be unanimous consent if the question could be put to a vote.
To continue, very shortly I expect I will be approaching the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with reference to the problem of persons who claim refugee status. I am sure this same problem has been confronted by more than one member of parliament. I really do not think that, as Canadians, we have fully grasped the total loss of freedom there is in the police type of state that exists behind the iron curtain and the satellite countries. I do not think we understand the situation in respect of a woman who reaches age 65. Such a woman is old long before her time, she is bent and torn and is no longer of any value to the state. She is a person who must be clothed, kept warm and fed.
We do not seem to understand that these are the people who are granted exit visas to visit Canada and the United States or any other country in the free world. However, in the case of an attempt to obtain an exit visa for some young, productive worker, whether male or female, then a different connotation is put on the application. I would ask members to observe the manner in which persons from behind the iron curtain are handed their visas when they line up to receive them. If they are being granted a visa to visit one of the western countries, they find that when their visa is being presented to them it is thrown to the floor so that the applicant must bend down to pick it up.
If I, as a Canadian, report to the police in Budapest or at some other place while I am entering or leaving as an alien, that is different. Then my visa or passport is handed to me. If I should be a worker contributing to the economy of that particular country, and should apply for a visa to leave that country, even for a short visit to relatives in another country, then my application is treated with a great deal of disdain and there is a great deal of discouragement.
How many young people from the iron curtain countries do we see in Canada as visitors? The answer is, damned
Citizenship
few. When such a visitor wishes to stay, what assistance are we prepared to give? When such a person must return to his or her country, what consideration is truly given to the application to remain in Canada? Do we believe that these people have no problems when they return to the police state behind the iron curtain and that they will be accepted with open arms? If we do, how very naive we are.
It is not my intention to protract the debate on this citizenship bill, because there are some advantages for some people. I realize the government is anxious to see it pass. However, I must protest strongly the bargain rates for citizenship and join many Canadians of all ethnic origins who say they want to work for their citizenship, that they are prepared to work for it and do not mind the five years. They feel that is a short enough period in which to gain the values and the benefits and respond to the requirements of being a Canadian. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to address you on this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I should like to advise the House of the questions to be raised tonight during the adjournment debate.



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 Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-Penitentiaries-Reason for delay in building new penal institutions in British Columbia; the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-Air transport-Possibility of restriction on unilingual pilots- Government position; the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)-Agriculture-Reduction in federal share of costs of crop insurance-Government action to offset.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner that Bill C-20, respecting citizenship, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
[Stage Direction]
January 27, 1976
Citizenship
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I am naturally quite pleased to take part in this debate since for several years I have had the honour of introducing in the House some bills dealing with amendments to the Citizenship Act. I was therefore happy when the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) introduced Bill C-20 dealing with amendments demanded for a long time by the members as well by various groups other than French or English in Canada, unfortunately called ethnic groups. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that I dislike that term; I prefer the term "future new Canadians" or "prospective new Canadians." There is in this legislation, and I refer to clause 5, a clause I am very much interested in, since for some four years I have called for such changes, asking the government to reduce from five to three years the required period to hold permanent residence in Canada before getting or applying for Canadian citizenship. I wish to thank my colleagues and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) for having listened to my arguments and now to submit them for study to the House and committees in order to enact the new Canadian citizenship legislation. Canadians who had been accepted-I should rather refer to them as future new Canadians-to become landed immigrants will certainly be extremely happy, as soon as this legislation is passed, to send their application to become Canadian citizens after three instead of five years.
I could never really understand why in a country where communications are so fast, where it is so easy for everyone to have a full knowledge of our institutions, why then, one had to wait for more than five years to become a Canadian citizen. I submit Madam Speaker, that a three year waiting period is quite sufficient for those who have decided to get a Canadian citizenship.
And I am glad that we will soon have this new designation. I am very careful and I regret that my friend the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not here now. In fact, when I talk about British citizen and Commonwealth citizen I know that this matter interests him very much and that he always listens very carefully. I wish to tell him through the chair that I am glad that soon in our Canadian passports, if this citizenship legislation is passed, we will replace the words "a Canadian citizen is a British subject" by "a Canadian citizen is a member of the Commonwealth". I think that it will enhance our Commonwealth status to have in our passports the words "Member of the Commonwealth" rather than "British citizen" with all due respect to those who in another country are called British citizens. It is something I wish to emphasize.
Of course, I would have been glad had this government found advisable, at clauses 40 and 2 concerning oaths of allegiance, to follow the Canadian constitutional trend and change the oath of allegiance. For those who could be very sensitive and nervous I repeat that I can live with this bill, that I will accept it as it is but I wish to say to this House that I would prefer that all new citizens take an oath of allegiance to Canadian institutions which, once again, could be helpful to those who now refuse to take the Canadian citizenship because they think they are taking an oath of allegiance to the head of another country when everybody knows that the Queen, who is the Queen of England, is also the Queen of Canada. But I hope that some day, some of my colleagues opposite wherever they are
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
sitting at that time, when I will be older, will themselves propose that change. However, I wished to say that I would have preferred to see that change in the new Citizenship Act.
Madam Speaker, I wish to make some further comments. I think it was time for this legislation to provide equality of rights for men and women. This is so elementary, so logical that I do not see any reason why I should waste the valuable time of this House trying to show how these amendments to the Citizenship Act are justified.
Of course, I am also pleased that soon our youth-
-those for whom under the bill the age of majority is reduced from 21 to 18, the age of federal enfranchisement.

Of course, Madam Speaker, it was logical I think that our young Canadians now be able to exercize their right to vote at the age of 18, that they enjoy such freedom and that, even if their parents decide otherwise, they have the privilege of asking for Canadian citizenship.
I therefore congratulate the minister for his wisdom and for listening to us-but there again I do not want to get involved in any partisanship. Representations were made by both sides of this House. However, I must say that since I have been interested in this matter for many years, I made such representations to different ministers and when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State, I had even advocated making such changes, to which the minister had agreed. I now realize that this government is determined to increase these means to provide our citizens with further services, which I will explain, Madam Speaker, since it is important that our friends in the press- [English]
These people are the ones who will give great publicity to this new immigration law or citizenship law or any new laws at great length, so that Canadians will learn about these changes.

Here is one of those changes, Madam Speaker. The minister has allowed the citizenship bureaus to remain open evenings and Saturdays. Unfortunately, the fact is not well known, but I hope the new aspiring Canadian citizens, who are excellent workers, and who often hesitate to take three days off of their precious time to go and apply for citizenship, can thus be better served, for in many cases, the employers refuse to give them a day off to file their application for citizenship, another to appear before the citizenship judge and still another to take the oath of allegiance required to become a Canadian citizen. Facilities will be provided for by the government at its offices in Toronto and Montreal and, I hope, in Vancouver and elsewhere in due course, where there is need for them. Naturally, during a time of austerity, offices should not be opened everywhere, and new aspiring citizens should take advantage of the great number of services already available to them.
I should also like to echo what my hon. colleague across the way, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)
January 27, 1976

said when he spoke of the sensitivity with which the citizenship judges should deal with the applicants.

The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) spoke about the question put by a citizenship judge to a man from Iran: "what do you know about white faces?". I also know a judge who had the temerity, if I may put it that way, to ask a future new Canadian of Italian origin, "what would you do if Canada ever declared war on Italy?" I do not think such a question should ever be asked because it is unfair. We know that the man would probably answer that he would fight for Canada, but I think it is the most unfair question one could put to a future Canadian citizen because never, in my recollection, has any judge ever asked of the hundreds of thousands of excellent British citizens who came from Great Britain what they would do if Canada ever declared war on Great Britain. So I believe that if such a question is never asked of a British citizen it should not be asked of citizens of other countries of origin.
This is a very sensitive matter. This was an English speaking judge in Quebec, and it happened recently. I am speaking in English, but in case I do not say exactly what I want to say it is because I am talking about "la sensibilite" and I do not know how to translate that word.

But I hope that judges will have that necessary compassion when examining witnesses. And since many of my colleagues wish to speak on this subject, I would like to conclude by asking whether the government would not accept amendments in committee on such a possibility. I had requested it and I make a further request today in this House. For a number of years now I have been making representations concerning very old citizens who speak neither English nor French, but whose children are Canadian citizens or applied for and were granted citizenship many years ago. These elder citizens live in a so-called ghetto, without any pejorative connotation. Being quite old they cannot speak either English or French, since they came to Canada at the request of their children now enjoying an adequate economic status allowing them to come to Canada to spend here the latter part of their lives. I wonder if it would not come within the scope of the policy of compassion which the government should apply at all times when dealing human beings if it were to give the Court of citizenship the power to grant citizenship almost automatically to parents and grand-parents of Canadian citizens, even though they may not speak English or French or have a very precise knowledge of Canada. Anyway, when I see questions put to new citizens, I always wonder how many Canadian-born citizens could pass such an examination, and what would be their marks. I am not referring here to members in this House, because I know that members from all sides, whether Social Credit, NDP, Progressive Conservative or Liberal, would pass the exam. But still I wonder if, from time to time, we would not hesitate before providing the answers to all the questions that are put to potential citizens.
It is a question of allowing latitude to the judges. I know that the great majority of them do have the sensitivity needed, this ability to recognize that Canadian citizenship must not be granted to whomever wants it without at least having confirmation that the applicant does intend to be
Citizenship
an excellent Canadian. But it is always good to let those who are entrusted with its final administration, our officials whom I congratulate because I see them at work in the various offices, improve on the process. There is always room for improvement as much in the case of members of Parliament and, naturally, high officials as for lower echelon officials but I congratulate them because generally speaking they carry out their work with excellence and sincerity. Then there remains the question of allowing some latitude to judges. They could best exercice this their latitude if they were allowed to grant citizenship to people at a certain age, perhaps 70, but I would favor 65. Citizenship would be granted to those people who often have been in Canada for 15, 20 years and who will die without ever having the opportunity to learn French or English. Needless to say that I join my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay-West in the wishes he made.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief with my remarks respecting Bill C-20, as I know there are one or two others who would like to speak before six o'clock.
I am in favour of this bill in general principle as indeed I believe are most members. I like the idea of the waiting period for citizenship being reduced from five years to three years. This move is long overdue and I welcome it.
The age of majority will be reduced from 21 years to 18 years. This is a logical step because the age of majority for Canadian citizens in all provinces I believe, and certainly federally, is 18 years.
Men and women are finally to be treated equally. It was a sad commentary on the old Citizenship Act that they were not. Now, for example, children born abroad will derive citizenship from either parent. At the present time a child acquires Canadian citizenship only if the father is Canadian.
Another example is that all applicants for Canadian citizenship will be required to meet the three year residence qualification without regard to marital connection with a citizen. Under the present act only one year of residence is required for the alien wife of a Canadian citizen. The act is certainly bringing into reality in law what has been the actual practice and I am happy about those changes.
British subjects will no longer be exempt from the requirement to be examined by a citizenship judge or to attend a citizenship ceremony. I happen to be only half Canadian as my father was born in England. In my constituency there are a lot of persons of Anglo-Saxon background who are touchy about the fact that some of their traditional so-called rights are being infringed upon. I say frankly, openly, and honestly that I do not know why we should continue giving any special exemption to immigrants from the United Kingdom when those same rights are not given to immigrants from other countries. I am prepared to meet criticism from people of Anglo-Saxon origin in my constituency, and I think this bill is fair to all ethnic groups entering the country.

January 27, 1976
Citizenship
The removal of the discrimination against women is certainly in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. This has been long in coming but I am happy that it has finally arrived in Bill C-20.
The reduction in the eligibility age makes sense since the voting age is now 18. Some people have argued that this provision should have been introduced under the Elections Act. That is a moot point which I will not belabour. In effect this changes things after the fact and this argument has been made previously.
The period of residence required prior to application for citizenship is another important change. It seems obvious that the present five year wait was an arbitrary decision, as indeed is the proposed three year wait. I do not know how we would arrive at the correct figure, whether it be one year, two, three, four, or five, but certainly the reduction is a step in the right direction.
The five year period was probably imposed because very often the wives of immigrants who stayed home to raise their families did not get out into the work force, or out of the home, and so found it difficult to pick up the language. I do not think this should be an obstacle. In cases that I am familiar with, the wives do try their best to communicate, particularly those from eastern Europe or the Mediterranean countries from where most of our immigrants now come. If their children are learning English or French and their husbands are speaking English or French, I do not think they should be held back.
I should like to deal briefly with the powers of the minister. The new act will take many of the burdens off the minister's back, such as the direct responsibility for granting citizenship. However, as my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), stated, under clause 18 of the bill the governor in council may still intervene in the granting of citizenship in cases where a person is thought to be a threat to Canada or "contrary to the public order in Canada". The declaration by the governor in council will be conclusive. I suppose under these circumstances we must have some final authority which can decide whether a person should be granted citizenship. It seems somewhat of an anomaly, however, that on the one hand the bill purportedly takes away final authority from the minister for granting citizenship but leaves the door open for the governor in council to deny it. This point should be given further consideration. Last spring I was involved in fighting to have a certain undesirable individual deported from this country but he is still residing in Montreal. I still think that there should be a right of appeal, which should extend even beyond the final analysis of the governor in council.
Clause 5(l)(b)(i) is vague and needs clarifying. It reads:
for every day during which he-
He being the person who is a prospective citizen here on a minister's permit.
-was resident in Canada before his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence he shall be deemed to have accumulated one-half day of residence.

In other words, someone here on a ministerial permit for one year can count six months towards his or her three years requirement for citizenship. The justification for this escapes me. When this bill was debated earlier the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), to justify clause 5( 1)(b)(i), mentioned an example. He said that say a woman aged 62 comes to Canada as a tourist and then decides to stay. It could take years for her to obtain landed status, but those years would, by way of clause 5(1)(b)(i), not be wasted. I submit that such a justification discriminates against those who are not yet in Canada.
If somebody comes over to visit a relative, say, on a three-months visitor's visa, and has it extended to six months, nine months, 12 months

they go up to as much as 15 months, even two years-that visitor can apply time in Canada toward the three year residency requirement. People can short cut the waiting period that way. Why should not people waiting in their home country be entitled to time for waiting? I suggest that the present provision would encourage people to try to enter this country by the back door approach, as it were. I think the minister should explain this provision fully. As I say, it discriminates against those who are not yet in Canada. That is an important point.
People who are prepared to wait in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, or states in Africa and go through regular channels are being penalized. They must wait the full time. On the other hand, those who come in as visitors and remain on a visitor's visa for three months, six months or one year are entitled to have their days in this country included in the waiting period. The logic of that provision escapes me.
I will not take much more time. Generally speaking, I am in favour of the bill. Let me make one more point and then I will sit down. Clause 33 of the bill has been referred to, and it reads in part:
Real and personal property of every description may be taken, acquired, held and disposed of by a person who is not a Canadian citizen in the same manner in all respects as by a Canadian citizen ...
Obviously this clause does nothing to alleviate the concerns of some provinces, especially Maritime provinces, with regard to foreign ownership of land. The problem is that if provinces act on their own to curtail non-citizen land ownership, will they not be in conflict with this federal law? The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) said in the House on May 21, 1975, that very interesting legal interpretations and court cases could arise whereby non-citizens challenge provincial laws, using federal statutes to back up their case. As other hon. members have said, it will be interesting to see how the minister deals with this question. I hope the minister will clarify the points I raised.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned that this bill, which includes provisions for the equal treatment of men and women in the matter of citizenship, has been delayed before the House for such a long time. We have heard members of the opposition give their endorsement to many major provisions of the bill, including those which provide for the equal treatment of men and women. Nevertheless while the bill remains before the House those very provisions which have been applauded cannot be put into practice. I had personally
January 27, 1976

hoped that this bill would be passed during 1975, International Women's Year, the year in which Canada, with other United Nations member countries, undertook to encourage equal treatment, equal opportunity, and equal responsibilities for women and men in all aspects of our society. This bill is central to the provision of equality for women in Canada.
The report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was tabled in 1970. It included the following recommendation regarding the Canadian Citizenship Act:
... that sections 4 and 5 of the Canadian Citizenship Act be amended to provide that a child born outside Canada is a natural-born Canadian if either of his parents is a Canadian citizen.
Clause 3(1)(b) of Bill C-20 implements that recommendation. It says that a person is a citizen if:
... he was born outside Canada after the coming into force of this act and at the time of birth one of his parents, other than a parent who adopted him, was a citizen;
There has been some debate about whether this provision should be retroactive to cover those children who have been affected by the present Canadian Citizenship Act which does not include this provision. However, it is felt that there are real dangers in granting citizenship retroactively. I am happy to say that the advisory council on the status of women agrees with Bill C-20's treatment of this point. Two other of the royal commission's recommendations were:
... that either citizen-parent may apply for the naturalized citizenship of a minor child ... that, in the case of joint adoption, the child may be granted Canadian citizenship if either of the adopting parents is a Canadian citizen.
Bill C-20 also implements these recommendations. Clause 5(2) provides that:
The minister shall grant citizenship to any person who, not being a citizen, has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and is the minor child of a citizen if an application for citizenship is made to the minister by a person authorized by regulation to make the application on behalf of the child.
This will in many cases cover the problem mentioned earlier stemming from the fact that the bill is not retroactive. As long as the child is living in Canada a Canadian mother will be able to obtain citizenship for a child born before this bill becomes law.
Another recommendation of the royal commission reads:
. . . that the Canadian Citizenship Act be amended so that there is no difference between the requirements for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship by an alien husband and an alien wife of a Canadian citizen.
With the passage of this bill this discrimination will disappear entirely. There will be no claim to citizenship through marriage for either spouse. Spouses of either sex will have to fulfil the ordinary residence requirements.
Finally, the royal commission recommended:
... that the Canadian Citizenship Act be amended to provide for the automatic resumption of Canadian citizenship by women who lost it because they married aliens before January 1,1947.
The bill before the House provides in clause 10(2) for the automatic resumption of citizenship for such women, on writen notice being given to the minister that they elect to be a citizen. The bill does not make this resumption retroactive since it was considered that, to do so, could have an adverse effect upon those women for whom the
Adjournment
automatic conferring of Canadian citizenship without their knowledge could create difficulties.
The bill now before the House includes the provision that a woman who lost Canadian citizenship by marrying an alien before January 1, 1947, can now apply for and receive citizenship immediately as a matter of right, simply on giving notice to the minister. In this way women affected by the pre-1947 law can receive citizenship automatically but it will not be retroactively conferred on them without their knowledge. This bill then, Madam Speaker, deals with five substantial and central recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In fact with the passage of this bill one of the major obstacles to equal treatment of women and men under federal law will be removed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret that the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) wants to talk on this bill but he was already recognized on May 21, 1975, as reported at page 5990. So, he cannot be recognized a second time.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.

Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, I think there is general disposition to adjourn the House for the day. There are events going on elsewhere which prevent the presence in the House of certain ministers who might otherwise be disposed to take their legislation. I would like to move the adjournment of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I indicated to the government house leader when he said he might be making this request, there is a point I should like to raise. There is at least one item under Government Orders that does not require the presence of any minister who is not here. I refer to the item listed as government business No. 27, namely, the resumption of the adjourned debate on my motion calling for the approval of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. That was adjourned on a vote by the government side on December 11. It is on the order paper. Why can today's sitting not go on and this item be called?

January 27, 1976
Adjournment


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, I did consider this possibility, but do not feel that I should call it on this occasion. I would like to say to the hon. member that the government has paid a good deal of attention to the comments made by the hon. member who has made this suggestion, and, to other members of the House. It still has under consideration the question of legislation. If I may say so to my hon. friend, I do not think a resumption of the debate tonight would have any particular effect upon the government's decision. The matter is considered very urgent and is being considered by the government. I would not want the hon. member to think that the resumption of the debate would really speed the decision by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, this matter has been under consideration by the government since last June 12, over seven months. If the consideration is being expedited at all, it is because of what has been said on the floor of the House. I suggest it would be a good idea for the House to stay in session tonight and for the government to hear the views of hon. members on this report which calls for pensions for Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war.


Mr. McKinley:: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, we agreed to go along with the government's request to suspend the sitting this evening, partly because of events
that will be taking place in February which involve this party. We will want a little time off. For that reason we agreed the government should have some time off this evening for a special event.


Mr. Fairweather:: Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of mystery about this. I personally resent the fact that apparently only ministers are to pay tribute to the Hon. Walter Gordon, a gentleman patriot well named by Dennis Smith who wrote a most interesting book. It is the seventieth birthday of the Hon. Walter Gordon. Many of us would like to be in Toronto to pay tribute to him, but apparently it is reserved to ministers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The motion is as follows: moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Marchand (Langelier):
That this House do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon Members: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
On motion of Mr. Sharp, the House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

Wednesday, January 28, 1976