1978-02-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of pressing and urgent necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has provided his colleagues on the government side with a 28-page paper on unemployment for use in speeches, mailing and other misguided propaganda efforts by the Liberal party. This paper, which contains a long list of excuses for the government's failure to solve the unemployment problem, was prepared at taxpayers' expense by civil servants in the minister's department; a practice not unknown to the Liberal party. I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House strongly condemns yet another example of the Liberal party wallowing at the public trough, requests ministers to stop using civil servants for political purposes and, furthermore, demands that the "minister of unemployment" correct the large number of factual inaccuracies and gratuitous comments contained in the document, and that this be carried out at the expense of the Liberal party.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of the Standing Order, such a motion can be presented for discussion only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the report that another fishing vessel is trapped in ice in one of Nova Scotia's small harbours, the second such report in less than a month, and since Canadian Coastguard officials in Halifax are unable to respond to this type of emergency because they lack
adequate ice-breaking capability, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That this House urge the Minister of Transport to take immediate action to ensure that the Canadian Coastguard service in Halifax is equipped with effective ice-breaking vessels, preferably of the hovercraft type.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented, under Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the denial of basic human rights in Argentina, and the continuing record of murders, torture and military intervention by the military regime there, and in view of the sale of the Candu reactor and nuclear technology by Canada to Argentina, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the suspension of the sale of the Candu reactor and nuclear technology by Canada to Argentina until
1.	New elections are called under the provisions of the constitution
2.	Full trade union rights are reinstated
3.	All political prisoners are released
4.	Adequate assurances are forthcoming that nuclear technology will be used only for peaceful purposes, including the signing of the International Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and
5.	Basic human rights are restored.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the motion to be presented for discussion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
2734

February 10, 1978


NORTHERN PIPELINE-REQUEST NATIVES BE EMPLOYED IN CONSTRUCTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an urgent and important matter.
Considering that pipeline builders and unions have said that natives do not have the necessary skill to obtain specialized jobs in the construction of the pipeline, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government order that specialized training courses be made available to natives so they may benefit from employment stemming from the construction of the pipeline.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Bearing in mind the extreme importance of the ferry service between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the provision and maintenance of such a service being one of the original conditions of confederation, and having regard to the degree of public concern over the rising cost of utilizing the service, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Transport report on the cost of the ferry service from Borden, P.E.I., to Tormentine, N.B., presently provided by the CNR, as compared to the cost effectiveness of the Wood Island to Caribou run provided by Northumberland Ferry Limited, and in the meantime provide increased subsidies so that rates on the Borden route do not jeopardize either the maximum utilization of the service, nor the jobs of the employees who provide it, both considerations being of vital concern to the area at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning an important matter of pressing necessity respecting the limited number of Canadian citizens who are not now eligible under the provisions of the prisoners of war legislation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook):
That this House urges the Minister of Veterans Affairs to consider introducing appropriate amendments to the prisoners of war legislation so that compensation provided therein will apply to those who are Canadian citizens and were prisoners of war or escapees in World War I or World War II and who fought alongside the Canadian armed forces.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the CBC refuses to televise live the question period across Canada, and in view of the fact that this week it did televise "The Champions" and this morning's press conference by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which rated a big zero in terms of quality, news value and legitimate public service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That this House reminds the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that its mandate is to provide the Canadian people with balanced programming, and not to serve as a propaganda arm of the Liberal party and, furthermore, that the CBC offer all parties equal time in the future when it decides to broadcast live a press conference by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 10, 1978


CONDEMNATION OF MINISTER FOR PUBLICATION OF &quot;WESTERN GRAIN STORY&quot;-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, grain farmers on the prairies are now receiving a booklet, which 1 have here, extolling the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) for his so-called decade of challenge and achievement of the Wheat Board. Because this is such an outrageous example of electioneering at the public expense, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House severely reprimands the minister for using public funds to produce the odiously partisan "Western Grain Story".


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the deteriorating financial position of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, as exhibited by the corporation's inability to make the final payment to the fishermen, and in view of the questionable marketing practices which have been taking place recently, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House direct the Minister of Fisheries to conduct a full, independent Financial audit of the FFMC, and that their Findings be tabled in this House within 90 days.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Apart from what has been described by the
Oral Questions
Hon. Walter Gordon as the degrading and soul-destroying nature of the present high level of unemployment, my question is prompted by the following facts which by now should be well known to the minister. Given the fact that as of January 26 more than 37 per cent of the unemployed have been unemployed for three months or more and we have arrived at a point in time where half of the unemployed no longer qualify for unemployment insurance, and given the fact that this represents an additional burden on the provinces, some of whom have had to cut back on welfare payments, is it the government's position that unemployment no longer represents a financial disaster in this country?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member uses figures with the cunning of a con artist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The situation, in fact, is that these particular figures are incorrect. The hon. member and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition were citing 40,000 as the number of people who had gone off unemployment insurance and had, therefore, gone on to the welfare rolls. This information was made public. The fact is that about 4 per cent represents the number of those who actually use up their benefits and end up on the welfare rolls of the provinces. The figure 30,000 is more appropriate to something over the course of a year, rather than the course of a month, as the hon. member's figures will bear out.
I think high unemployment is tragic, and we are doing what we can at the federal government level, with myriad programs, to alleviate the situation. But the situation is not helped by using figures in this particular way.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I can take a lesson from the hon. minister in being a con artist, because he tried to con his own colleagues in this scurrilous, misleading document which he circulated to them. It says, among other things, that "unemployment no longer represents a financial disaster".
My next question to the minister-again I quote from this document, dated February 7, to members of the Liberal caucus, produced at public expense-refers to his statement, among others, that the present "UI program is well conceived and administered". If that is so, will the minister please tell the House why it is necessary to spend over $1 million on an advertising campaign warning Canadians against the abuse of unemployment insurance?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, here, again, the hon. member is making a selective choice from the particular document.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They are your words; it is your document.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In comparing the situation, the paper goes on to make it very clear that the unemployment situation today is
80031-32%

February 10, 1978
Oral Questions
not the same as it was during the disastrous 1930s, when there was no unemployment insurance under the Tories.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It talks about the impact of unemployment not being the disaster it was during the 1930s, when there was no unemployment insurance and when there were, in fact, no welfare schemes such as we have in place at the present time. That was the point of that statement. Of course, the hon. member, again-for whatever purpose-is being very selective in the information he takes from the document.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the document is very honest. If the hon. member will read it, he will see it indicates where the unemployment is, that it is extremely high among the youth- about 15.2 per cent. Nothing is hidden; that information is available to the opposition, if they are interested in facts. But they are interested in hyperbole.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the only honest and straightforward statement in that document is this one in the final conclusion:
We have not got perfect answers to the unemployment problems facing Canada.
That is the only statement in this document I can agree with, or any other Canadian could agree with, for that matter. Is it now the policy of the government, notwithstanding ten years of a multimillion, indeed, a billion dollar DREE program, that the serious unemployment situation in the five eastern provinces is the result of, and I quote, "a ... combination of cyclical, long-term structural and, to a lesser extent, seasonal factors"? After ten years of DREE the government now admits that we have structural problems in the Atlantic provinces. Is that the view of the government? If so, what steps does it intend to take to improve DREE programs, given the fact that the five eastern provinces, with less than half the population of Canada, have more than half of the unemployment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that simply points out the honesty of the particular statement which was made available, and is available, to the opposition. The fact of the matter is that neither DREE nor any other program can overcome some of the seasonal factors that are in place in the Atlantic provinces. The fact is that this was recognized some time ago, and it was this government which brought forward the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which is an indication that help is required there. The fact that the heaviest emphasis of the Young Canada Works funding, and all other funding, takes place in the Atlantic provinces is another recognition by this government of the structural problems in that area. If the hon. member has better schemes and better ideas, we have yet to hear them.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister table the document; and if not, why not?


GOVERNMENT PROGRAM FOR JOB CREATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a couple of questions to the minister regarding this very shameful propaganda document delivered to the Liberal caucus, which dismisses lightly the traumatic experience of our more than one million unemployed. I quote from the document as follows:
The design features of a program to use UI funds for direct job creation have yet to be completed.
This is a shocking revelation, in light of the fact that the minister led this House to believe he had a design and a plan. Why has there been this foot-dragging? When can we expect the design to be completed, given the fact that in February and March more people will be on the unemployment rolls?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, this is a fantastic conversion. It was the hon. member and his party, and the hon. member for Nickel Belt, who moved amendments to take job-creation and worksharing out of the bill which I brought in last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is a lie. Withdraw that remark.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If the hon. member will remember, I indicated that there were difficulties with the administration, and putting that program in place would be difficult. Rather than waste taxpayers' money on a program which was not carefully thought out, we felt it was better to work very hard on the design features. In the interim, there are over 675 people working in Canada today who would not have been working if we had listened to the opposition parties and removed that provision from the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is deliberately misleading the House, because this party supported job-creation. That outfit was the one that did not go for it. I want the minister to withdraw that comment, now.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Given the fact that in this rotten document the minister has indicated there are no perfect answers to the unemployment problems facing Canada-which in my view means the government has no answers whatsoever-and given the fact the OECD, the Economic Council of Canada and the Conference Board of Canada have answers, unlike the minister, his department and the government, is it the intention, now-did you see what the Prime Minister did? He is using another gesture of derision when we are talking about a very serious subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 10, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member has put a question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not like the Prime Minister making light of a very serious subject.


Mr. Clark:: He laughs at the unemployed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration whether it is the government's intention to take the advice of these very respected bodies, which in my view can bring some relief to the unemployed and assist the economic development of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that he, in fact, moved an amendment to withdraw the work-sharing provision from the-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is a different story; don't talk about that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member was so negative about every innovative feature we attempted to build into that act that it is tough to remember those he supported and those he did not. Certainly he was opposed to work-sharing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you withdrawing your false statement?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have already indicated that the hon. member made the amendment.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you withdrawing your false statement?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am withdrawing my statement on job-creation, but not on work-sharing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you withdrawing your false statement?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition think the hon. member is not capable of handling his own argument? The hon. member is a very competent and capable guy; he does not need help from the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are right.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in that particular statement, we do not have perfect answers. We have some of the answers. Obviously, they are not perfect.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You have no answers.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Obviously, they need improvement. Only the opposition, according to them, can take any credit or find the funds necessary for improving this situation. They have all the perfect answers. We have some of them. They are not perfect. We are trying to be honest with the Canadian public in our
Oral Questions
approach. We are not holding out false hopes, as has been done all too often by the opposition.


REQUEST PRIME MINISTER ASK FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: The smiler.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact, with all due respect, that the Minister of Employment and Immigration does not seem to have any ideas, and perhaps we need a fresh face, will the Prime Minister ask for the resignation of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and give some of the competent backbenchers an opportunity to bring in fresh, new and innovative solutions for the plight of the unemployed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-SIZE OF PIPE TO BE USED IN CONSTRUCTION-CANADIAN CONTENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration should not be too hard on the hon. member for Hamilton West, because before long the hon. member will be voting for the government's iniquitous pipeline bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I turn my back to you, sir.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. When the National Energy Board announces its decision on the pipe to be used for the Alcan pipeline, particularly the portion between Whitehorse and Caroline, which is the principal part of the Canadian section, will it be stating a specific type to be used, or will it simply be recommending tests on two or more alternative kinds of pipe? 1 ask this question in light of the assertions made by President Carter when he recommended the Alcan pipeline to the U.S. Congress. One of President Carter's assertions was the following:
The choice between larger-diameter and thicker-walled pipe will be made at the conclusion of a testing program to assess the safety and reliability of the two alternatives.
As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, the decision as to what kind of pipe will be used involves perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs. Will the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not received,

February 10, 1978
Oral Questions
nor has the government received, from the National Energy Board a recommendation on pipe size. It is expected that a recommendation will follow reasonably quickly after we have received the final results of the United States study which is under way and is near completion. I hope we will get these results within a few days and that it will be possible for the National Energy Board to study them and make a recommendation to the government.
With respect to testing, it is not my expectation that there will be burst tests in order to resolve this question, nor do I think it is the intention of the government of the United States, at the present time, to propose further physical testing. The word "test" which is used in the Canada-U.S. agreement is subject to various interpretations, but in the present context it is not expected that we will be faced with further physical burst tests.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister knows, the precise answer to my question is extremely important in terms of jobs created in Canada. I would like him now to answer my question. I grant that there might be some possibility of misunderstanding it. Will the recommendation which is coming from the NEB be for a specific kind of pipe for the Canadian portion between Whitehorse and Caroline, or will the recommendation be that further tests or consideration be applied to one or more alternative kinds of pipe?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the recommendation of the National Energy Board and I do not want to prejudge what the NEB will do. However, 1 will tell the hon. member what I expect. I expect to receive, in the form of advice to the government, a very specific proposal with respect to pipe size.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister had indicated that he hopes the NEB will be making its decision within a few days, and I understand from other conversations that it may be a week from Monday. If it is going to come as early as a week from Monday, and since the recommendation is absolutely central to parliament's decision on the pipeline as it affects the cost of the pipeline and Canadian jobs, Canadian content, why in heaven's name is the government going ahead with second reading debate on the bill next Monday, in advance of the NEB recommendation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There has been a request from hon. members opposite to bring forward this bill.


John Edward Broadbent: From where?


Mr. Trudeau:: All last fall you were asking for it.


John Edward Broadbent: Don't give us that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In fact, there has been criticism about delay in bringing the bill forward.


John Edward Broadbent: From whom? Be specific.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I said, members of the opposition.


John Edward Broadbent: Not us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member wants me to give him chapter and verse at a later date, I shall; but he will not find that information in the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a very valid concern about reaching a decision on the bill before, for example, the declared intentions of the government are made known. I will certainly attempt to accommodate that concern in the handling of the bill. I believe it is quite possible, however, to begin discussion of the bill on Monday, admitting that the information should be before the House before a decision is taken, for example, on second reading.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-REQUEST NATIVES BE EMPLOYED IN CONSTRUCTION
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council.
In view of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister-I only hope he is listening to me-has already mentioned job security in connection with the northern pipeline, could he advise the House whether its purpose is to hire native people, as they are directly affected by the environmental, social and economic aspects of this project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it will certainly be the intention of the pipeline company and the government to employ the greatest possible number of native people and northerners in the construction of the pipeline. In the course of the debate I think it will be possible to indicate to the hon. member more detail as to what plans are under way to achieve this objective.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-TRAINING COURSES FOR NATIVES EMPLOYED IN CONSTRUCTION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G£rard Laprise (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that both the contractors and unions involved have already stated that natives lack the necessary know-how to perform specialized jobs, could the minister advise the House whether special training programs have been devised for northern natives so that once the construction project has been completed they may stay on to look after its operation.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the plans are being developed within the Department of Employment and Immi-
February 10, 1978

gration, to provide the necessary training. As the hon. member knows, there will be a considerable number of permanent jobs once the pipeline is completed. But a large number of jobs will be available in the construction period. Obviously, it would be our intention to ensure that training is made available for potential employees once the pipeline is in operation.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration about this secret piece of paper that is an excuse and an alibi and was distributed only to members of the Liberal caucus. It has 25 pages in both French and English, and was obviously prepared by officials within the minister's department.
Could the minister tell the House how many departmental man-hours went into the preparation of this and the other pieces of paper referred to in the foreword by the minister, and how much the preparation, printing and distribution of this material cost the taxpayers of the country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to give the hon. member an exact figure at this time. I suggest it is much less than the time and effort my department has to put out in order to correct some of the misinformation spread by opposition parties.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Because this is a further example of the confusion that exists in the minds of some people in the ministry respecting government interests and Liberal party interests, would the minister be prepared to table this piece of propaganda? As a further supplementary, I wonder if he would tell us why this paper was sent only to members of the Liberal caucus, rather than to all members of this House?


An hon. Member:: They are more gullible, that's why.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was not necessary to table it. I gather that members of the opposition have a copy of it. They are doing a little bit of selective reading, and then calling it propaganda. I am quite prepared to make this paper available to all members of the opposition. The reason it was sent to Liberals is that they seem to be the only ones interested in facts, and not fiction.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES BY SOVIET NATIONALS-TRAVEL PERMITS ISSUED TO SOVIET PERSONNEL
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It refers to yesterday's revelations and actions regarding Soviet espionage activities in this country. Could the minister tell the House if the government has received any assurances whatsoever from the Soviets and/or the RCMP that no further subversive activities are going on in Canada by the Soviets? If he has not, would the minister consider discontinuing the issuance of special travel permits to all Soviet personnel operating in Ottawa until realistic assurances are received that all such activities by them are discontinued?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is not reasonable to expect that the Soviets would give me the kind of assurances the hon. member requests. I am sure they would say there is nothing improper going on. I think the hon. member knows that the RCMP has an ongoing role, and from time to time is undoubtedly investigating the various intelligence activities of foreign governments.
On the question of travel permits, I do not think it would be appropriate to end all such travel permits. I can assure the hon. member that when they are asked for the reasons, these are examined very carefully. I should also point out to the hon. member, as he ought to be aware, that in other countries we seek travel permits for our representatives in order that they may carry out very important duties, including work on some family reunification cases in which the hon. member is very interested. I do not want to be self-defeating in this exercise.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to remind the minister that the government issues roughly 1,000 travel permits per year.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Otto John Jelinek: My supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the seriousness of this matter, and the numerous allegations that subversive espionage activities are far more widespread than is generally presumed, will the minister indicate whether he will consider initiating a far more extensive investigation into subversive espionage activities in Canada as a whole, and at the same time make the screening of foreign diplomats working in Canada far more stringent than has been the case up to now?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, I would point out that the facts made public yesterday reveal the high excellence of the security service of the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 10, 1978
Oral Questions


Mr. Blais:: I am satisfied that the service is one of the most excellent, in terms of that sort of counter-espionage work, in the western hemisphere, and I am encouraging them in any way I possibly can in fulfilling their responsibility.


RCMP-REQUEST SECURITY RESOURCES BE ENLARGED
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that some estimates place the number of personnel in the RCMP security service at a mere 400 operatives engaged in counter-espionage activities, is the minister giving immediate consideration to providing the resources, personnel and otherwise, so the RCMP can more adequately cope with increased espionage activities?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the hon. member's information. The information relating to our security service is highly confidential, and hon. members on that side should recognize the necessity of keeping it confidential.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the minister misunderstood my question. I am suggesting that he should give immediate consideration to increasing the number of officers operating in that field within the RCMP, so that it might cope more adequately with what appears to be ever-increasing espionage activity in this country.


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not misunderstand the question. I indicated that I am not going to comment on the number because it is classified information.
In reply to the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley, I indicated that I am satisfied the operation is one of the best in the western hemisphere and that it is discharging its duties in accordance with the mandate this government has given it. I am mindful of the need to review, from time to time, the total personnel engaged in this sort of operation. I can judge as well as the hon. member when additional requirements are made known.


INDUSTRY
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or the Prime Minister. Since it is now evident, in spite of previous representations, that Cuba is going ahead with its plan to build a stainless steel mill with a very large capacity, and since this mill will be in direct competition with Atlas Steels in Welland and Tracey, Quebec, and since the world market for stainless steel does not need the influx of this product, will the minister assure the House that no Canadian government money or

money from the Export Development Corporation of Canada will be used to assist this project?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should bring to the attention of the House that my former seatmate and colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Denis and the hon. member for Laurier, are today celebrating 14 years as members of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This must be a retirement party.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some are more fortunate than others. In reply to the hon. member's question, if Cuba decides to build a stainless steel mill, that will be their decision, not ours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Export Development Corporation does not give assistance to the building of steel mills or plants; it gives assistance to the sale of Canadian-made goods. Most of the time those Canadian-made goods create a good deal of employment in this country.


FINANCE
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, in the absence, again, of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the President of Privy Council. It is now over a week that the cabinet has had before it the statement of damages submitted to them by the province of British Columbia concerning the Algoma appeal on wide-flange steel beams. The Minister of Finance told us in the House that the matter was under consideration. Is the President of Privy Council in a position to announce the relief requested by the province of British Columbia in order to save 2,000 jobs in the steel fabricating industry? If not, when will he make such an announcement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under consideration by the government. We hope to be able to make a decision and an announcement in the near future.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I hope that he has found his tongue today.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: You have never lost yours.
February 10, 1978


John R. Rodriguez: On Monday next, three days from today, 3,000 workers in the Sudbury basin will lose their jobs. An Ontario select committee came down with a report on Wednesday which offered several solutions to the problem of the 3,000 people being laid off in the Sudbury basin. This report was supported by all the Liberals on the select committee of the legislature.
When I raised this question in the House yesterday, the minister had not bothered to obtain a copy of the report. In view of the fact that a meeting was held last evening, can the minister now tell this House his government's position with regard to the Ontario select committee's proposals to save these 3,000 jobs?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a crime to wait until you have seen the information before you express an opinion. There are occasions when it seems the hon. member is prepared to shoot from the hip without knowing the facts. If he had looked at the record or listened to the reply of the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology last night during the adjournment debate, he would have found a very full and complete answer. It dealt with the meeting I held yesterday afternoon with the minister of resources of the Ontario government, and the chairman of the select committee.
If the hon. member had read the record, he would also have discovered that the chairman of the select committee disclaimed any support for the stockpiling proposal which the select committee made. When they came to see me yesterday, they told me clearly that the Ontario government does not support the select committee's report. It is not an Ontario government document. We did agree that the most profitable way to proceed would be to try to get the two parties together, that is to say, the companies and the unions, to look at the work-sharing project.
I understand the hon. member is against work-sharing. At one time he moved a motion to remove work-sharing from the UIC. I suppose he is now being consistent in trying to cover that up. It might be worth trying to explain to his constituents why he did that, because I believe it offers the best chance to try to work out a very painful and grim situation in Sudbury.


John R. Rodriguez: Notwithstanding the horse manure
preamble of the minister-and it is interesting to note that the minister has not disputed this fact-the Ontario select committee estimated that the social and material costs to the taxpayers of Canada will, conservatively, be between SI50 million and $200 million through such programs as UIC and Manpower retraining. Is the minister telling this House that he is prepared to trade-off the human cost against the few million dollars it would cost to stockpile, along with all the other proposals, including work-sharing? Is he prepared to trade-off the human cost and material cost for the interest-free loan proposal of the select committee?
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it very clear, in answers in this House, that we are interested in trying to ameliorate this situation, not create greater problems. All the work that has been done indicates that any additional stockpiling program would create greater, not lesser, problems.


John R. Rodriguez: This minister and this government have rejected all suggestions for preventing the lay-offs which were put forward by members on this side of the House, the trade union movement and local municipal officials. It has not even responded to the immediate and specific proposals of the United Steelworkers of America which were sent to the Minister of Labour on December 18. What does the government intend to do, specifically, to prevent the lay-offs of 3,000 workers in the Sudbury basin from taking place on Monday next?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have gone over this ground many times. We have done everything in our power to try to ease a very difficult situation. I am not sure the hon. member is as interested in easing the situation as he is in trying to make some political capital out of it. Quite frankly, 1 find that terribly offensive at this time. His efforts might have been much better devoted to trying to bring together the two sides, the company and the union, in order to work out something to help the workers.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. For the past four years the minister and his department have been negotiating with the city of Winnipeg for the purchase of 111 acres on which a new defence research centre is to be built. This is an unusual length of time to be negotiating the purchase of a piece of property. Can the minister bring us up to date? Does the government intend to purchase this property? If no final agreement can be reached, will the hon. gentleman abandon the plan and seek an alternative site in Winnipeg, since the present situation is causing no end of problems for the city, for residents in the area affected and for developers?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: It is
true that these negotiations have taken a long time. The municipality is encountering difficulties in obtaining easements for the land. However, the negotiations are continuing and alternatives are being pursued.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I might point out that the federal government has the power to remove the obstacles to the purchase of that property. Has the minister, or have any of his officials, spoken with the mayor, offering another proposal, that if the request for the defence research centre were dropped, the

February 10, 1978
Oral Questions
department would build a new air command headquarters at the air base?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Several alternatives are being explored, Mr. Speaker.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. It is interesting to note from recent press announcements that the minister is finally communicating with the minister of communications of Quebec and intends to have further talks with Mr. O'Neil. Does the hon. lady intend to hold talks with other ministers of communications across the country, so as to arrive at a cohesive policy of co-ordination with respect to communications, particularly cable communications?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I offered the Quebec Minister of Communications that together we look into the ways in which we could share the authority in the field of cable television. I offered him no less than I did the communications ministers of the other provinces. The hon. member surely knows that I have already started discussions with Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where I signed an agreement, as well as with Ontario. At the federal-provincial conference of communications ministers to be held at the end of next March in Charlottetown, we should be able to take stock of the situation; in other words, the file is being dealt with. I am trying, of course, as suggested by the hon. member, to evolve a cohesive policy of co-ordination between the provinces for, as everyone knows, their requests vary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: With reference to the latter part of that answer, does the minister intend to delay discussing with the House leader the introduction and second reading of the communications bill, so that these discussions and/or the ministerial conference can be concluded before we begin debate on the bill?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, who has strongly and vehemently claimed that the government is handling well the economic problems facing the country. Since the Gallup poll produced last Wednesday states that only 27 per cent of the people believe the government is handling the economy properly, while 59 per cent believe the economy is being handled poorly, and since this is the key issue upon which the people will decide the outcome of the next election, will the right hon. gentleman screw up his courage and slip out to the Governor General's this afternoon and let the people decide who is doing what to whom?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is relevant to the announcement made yesterday concerning the expulsion from Canada of 13 members of the Russian diplomatic corps. In view of the fact that the reporter Paul Jackson claims a scoop and broke the story at 11 a.m. on Thursday in Edmonton, could the minister tell us whether, as a result, the RCMP was compelled to interrupt this crucial investigation, thus preventing full and further disclosures of crimes against Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker; I think the record speaks for itself in that regard. There is nothing to that suggestion.


CANADA-U.S. PIPELINE AGREEMENT-INPUT OF PROVINCES
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. It has to do with the Canada-United States pipeline agreement. As the agreement requires the acquiescence of provinces which will be affected by the pipeline, and since the co-operation of British Columbia was conditional upon certain demands made in a telex of August 15, 1977, would the President of Privy Council

February 10, 1978

be prepared to table that telex in the House of Commons, as we do debate the bill on Monday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 will consider that suggestion. Usually, the consent of the province concerned is required before tabling such communications. I might add that discussions with British Columbia are continuing. I had a meeting with the minister concerned, in December, and I hope to see him again at an early date.


Frank Oberle: Since the concurrence of the province is very crucial to this project, can the minister tell us whether this telex has been discussed with United States officials and whether they are happy with the demands made by the province in its communication of August 15?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not discussed matters of concern to Canada and British Columbia with American officials.


FISHERIES
Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. It has to do with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and very serious problems which could affect thousands of Fishermen in all three prairie provinces. Is the minister now prepared to tell the House whether or not he will order an independent audit of the financial affairs of the FFMC?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: The hon. member, surely, owes it to the House and the Canadian people not to smear a corporation which is trying to help fishermen, by talking about "serious problems" without identifying them. If the hon. member is referring to the slowness in the movement of Fish, he should know-and if he does not, he is not representing his riding properly-that we took in a large quantity of Fish, which we would not normally have been taken in, in order to try to help the fishermen. Market conditions have improved, and I expect the Board will be able to make a final payment soon.
As far as the accounting of the corporation is concerned, the Auditor General examines its books, and I have full confidence in the Auditor General. I would point out, too, that the board includes representatives of the provinces and of the fishermen: four or five Fishermen are on the board. I hope that before smearing the corporation, the hon. member will check his facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Perhaps the almost indifferent attitude the minister has shown toward the FFMC-


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


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Is the minister suggesting that it is irresponsible for the new minister in the province of Manitoba to ask for an independent audit of the books and financial affairs of the corporation? Is it not remarkable that a provincial minister should be talking about withdrawing from the FFMC? Is it being suggested that he, also, is being irresponsible by making such a statement?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is yes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Fisheries has shown there is no limit to his venal politics.


THE MINISTRY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Prime Minister in the hope that he may have reconsidered his decision to hide from public view information about the standards he follows when appointing hon. members to the cabinet. My question is simple and direct. Before appointing the present and previous solicitors general to the most sensitive security portfolio in the government, did the right hon. gentleman, personally, ask each of them whether there was anything in their background which might lead to blackmail or otherwise compromise the ability of that person to carry out his responsibilities as Solicitor General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that this question was asked yesterday, and I answered it to the satisfaction of all reasonable people.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons whether, before appointing ministers to the most sensitive security portfolio in the government of Canada, he asks questions, personally, to determine whether or not there is anything in the background of the person he is appointing to this sensitive portfolio which might compromise the ability of that person to carry out that responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will realize that in his special capacity, yesterday I hesitated to interfere in the repetition of questions. I am sure that when he examines the record, he will see he was pressing the same question several times. I did not stop him yesterday. However, after its being asked twice today and four times yesterday, I must say there has been repetition of the same question.

February 10, 1978
Tabling of Documents POINTS OF ORDER


MR. McGRATH-REPLY GIVEN BY MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I hesitate to take the time of the House on a point of order but it is merely for the sake of accuracy in the record. Today the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) accused me of making inaccurate and misleading statements. I want to say for the record that I can stand behind and document every statement I have made in this House, which is more than the minister can do, having already admitted misleading the House.


MR. HNATYSHYN-PARLIAMENT HILL-USE OF FACILITIES FOR LIBERAL PARTY CONVENTION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the substantial interest in the topic and the understanding we have that the government House leader was to discuss the matter respecting the use of the premises on Parliament Hill for the forthcoming Liberal convention, I wonder if Your Honour can tell the House whether the government House leader has had those preliminary discussions and whether you will be in a position to report to the House in the near future or make a decision with respect to the point of privilege which was raised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated in dealing with the question in a preliminary way on the matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) I said I would keep the matter under reserve while I had consultations with the government House leader, who is the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. McEachen). I can tell the House that I have had some preliminary conversations and it seems to me to be useful that the matter should be the subject of further consultations and conversations between us. I will endeavour to finalize the matter and report to the House as soon as possible. I have reason to believe that will be within the next two or three days.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the second volume of the Snavely Report on Grain Transportation.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE AND OF AGENDA FOR FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the same standing order, Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table correspondence, in French and English, with the provincial premiers concerning the first ministers' conference next week, including the agenda for the meeting which has been approved now by all premiers.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), and in accordance with section 22 of the Auditor General Act, I have pleasure in tabling the audit report of the office of the Auditor General, in both official languages, for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1977.


DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ACT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-419, to amend the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to accede to the request to explain my bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act to require the government twice yearly to publish a list by country of all alleged infractions against Canadian law for which diplomatic immunity has been claimed. While the vast majority of foreign diplomats in Canada are honourable guests in this country, a small portion of them are systematically abusing their diplomatic immunity.
I believe my bill is unique because it was researched and prepared by a number of political science students attending Wilfrid Laurier University, nine of whom are seated in the south gallery.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
February 10, 1978
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 797, 973, 974, 975, 989, 990, 1,026, 1,030, 1,031 and 1,245.
1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mrs. Pigott: 1.	What was the total number of houses built under Section 40 of the National Housing Act (a) nationally (b) in each province?
2.	What amount, including start-up funds, sustaining grants and bridge loans, was allotted for such construction (a) nationally (b) in each province?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1 and 2. See table following:
Activity Under the National Housing Act, Section 40(1* 1950-October 1977<2>
Province	No. of Units	$Newfoundland	2,989	48,989Prince Edward Island	819	10,638Nova Scotia	11,970	157,931New Brunswick	2,067	34,360Quebec	796	7,997Ontario	7,432	80,730Manitoba	1,551	25,306Saskatchewan	7,821	134,152Alberta	1,199	17,903British Columbia	7,910	119,437Yukon Territory	78	1,901Northwest Territories	222	4,747Canada Total	44,854	644,091
01 Includes rental, sales, co-operative, and rural and native housing. !21 Data for 1950 - 76 are net, data for 1977 are gross.


Mr. Howie: What was the total amount spent under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme in Fredericton, New Brunswick by (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick (c) Fredericton, in the fiscal year ending March 31 (i) 1977 (ii) 1976 (iii) 1975?


André Ouellet: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: the following loans and grants for the Neighbourhood Improvement Program under the National Housing Act have been approved for Fredericton, New Brunswick:
Grants	Section 27.2 $000	Loans	Section 27.5 $0001975-	20	1975-	1976-	27	1976-	-Jan.-Oct. 1977-	131	Jan.-Oct. 1977-	-
Order Paper Questions
Grants made under section 27.2 may not exceed 50 per cent of the cost of selection of a neighbourhood, acquisition of land, construction or acquiring and improving recreational or social facilities, developing occupancy or building maintenance standards; and not exceed 25 per cent of the cost of improving municipal and public utility services for the neighbourhood. The municipality and/or the province provides the remainder of the funds required.
Note: The calendar year is the fiscal year of CMHC.


Mr. Howie: What was the total amount spent under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme in Fredericton, New Brunswick by (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick (c) Fredericton, in the fiscal year ending March 31 (i) 1977 (ii) 1976 (iii) 1975?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (a) The following loans were approved under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, Section 34.1 of the National Housing Act, in Fredericton, New Brunswick:
Loans Units $000
1975	40	68	3331976	256	426	469January-October 1977	109	200	292
Note: The calendar year is the fiscal year of CMHC.
(b) and (c) Neither the province of New Brunswick nor the city of Fredericton contributes to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program.


Mr. Howie: Is consideration being given to extending the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme and Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme to Marysville, Barker's Point, Nashwaaksis and remainder of Devon areas of Fredericton, New Brunswick?


André Ouellet: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: the government of the province of New Brunswick has not participated in the Neighbourhood Improvement Program in 1976 and 1977, and does not intend to participate in 1978 even if the programme is extended beyond its scheduled expiry date of March 31, 1978. Marysville, Barker's Point, Nashwaaksis and the remainder of Devon areas of Fredericton will, therefore, not be able to participate in the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and the associated Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program during 1978.

February 10, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, how many loans were made under the AHOP programme to persons in New Brunswick in (a) Fredericton (b) York County (c) Sunbury County?


André Ouellet: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: in the First ten months of 1977, loans made under the direct and private AHOP programs in New Brunswick are shown below:
Location	Loans	Units	$000
AHOP Section 34.15			
New Brunswick	43	43	1,192Fredericton	-	-	-York County	-	-	-Sunbury County	-	-	-AHOP (Private) New Brunswick	449	451	14,190Fredericton	40	40	1,290York County	50	50	1,619Sunbury County	31	31	1,043


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, how many loans for senior citizens housing accommodation have been made for projects in New Brunswick in (a) Fredericton (b) York County (c) Sunbury County?


Harvie Andre: 1
am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: in the first ten months of 1977, CMHC approved the following loans for senior citizens projects in New Brunswick: one loan under section 15.1 of the National Housing Act for 30 units and $462,000 and three loans under Section 43 for 30 units and $647,000. (a) Fredericton, nil; (b) York county, nil; (c) Sunbury county, one loan under section 15.1 for 30 units and $462,000.


Mr. Beaudoin: Were any houses built in the Constituency of Richmond under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the dollar value?


André Ouellet: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: the Neighbourhood Improvement Program is intended for the improvement of the amenities of neighbourhoods and the housing and living conditions of the residents of such neighbourhoods and not for the construction of housing.


Mr. Beaudoin: On December 6, 1977, did CMHC approve projects for the financing of family units ($500 for the new owner) in the (a) Province of Quebec (b) Constituency of Richmond and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the dollar value?


Harvie Andre: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: the program of the $500 federal government grants to first-time purchasers of new homes was in effect between November 1, 1974 and October 31, 1975. There was, therefore, no activity under this program in 1977.


Mr. Beaudoin: Did CMHC take part in housing co-operative projects and, if so, what amount was allocated in (a) Canada (b) the Province of Quebec (c) the Constituency of Richmond?


André Ouellet: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: in the first ten months of 1977, CMHC financed co-operative housing projects under Section 34.18 of the National Housing Act, as follows: (a) Canada-33 loans for 842 units in a total amount of $26.3 million, (b) province of Quebec-12 loans for 162 units, for a total amount of $2.5 million, (c) Municipal counties of Richmond and Wolfe, Quebec-nil.
Note: Data on activity under the NHA, compiled by CMHC, are based on municipalities and municipal counties in Quebec and not on federal electoral constituencies.


Mr. Herbert: Does the Superintendent of Insurance ensure that monies payable to an estate upon the death of a policy holder be payable upon request at any point in Canada?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Being a contractual matter, the place of payment of insurance is subject to the terms of the insurance contract itself and the laws of the province in which the contract was made. The federal insurance acts do not empower the superintendent of insurance to take any action that would bear upon the place of payment of insurance money within Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 10, 1978



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Erik Nielsen: That this House deeply regrets the failure of the Solicitor General to adopt and implement the sixty-five unanimous recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Penitentiary System in Canada, and therefore directs the government to adopt and implement forthwith the whole of these recommendations to promote meaningful penitentiary reform and to prevent further hostage incidents.


Mr. Speaker:: Members will note that pursuant to Standing Order 32(1 )(k) and Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on this motion will expire this afternoon at the ordinary hour of adjournment.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before embarking on the main points which I will make in this debate, I would like to outline how the subcommittee on penitentiaries was set up.
In August, 1976, after a rash of prison violence across the country, our leader and his caucus decided the situation was so serious that it required action on the part of the government, which was dragging its feet in meeting the horrible situation that existed. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) prior to the assembling of the House that year set up a special committee of our own caucus on this side to inquire into and bring forth solutions to settle the unrest in the penitentiary system in Canada. Some three weeks after that decision which was made by our leader, the then solicitor general approached me and suggested that there should be a parliamentary committee set up in order to cope with this problem which was rapidly getting out of control.
Throughout my time in this House I have not been hesitant in showing my partisanship in the debates in this House. But because of the serious nature of the problem in the penitentiary system confronting the country, in my view it was crucial that a unanimous report be presented and accepted by the government to provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the committee. With some considerable difficulty I attempted to convince or, rather, I urged hon. members who were chosen to serve on that subcommittee to work by crossing party lines to ensure there would be no partisanship in the work of the committee. In all of my time here I have never seen any committee of parliament operate in the unanimous fashion in which that subcommittee worked. That says something about our committee system generally which, in my personal viewpoint, is rather useless as the system is now operated.
The single, shining example of an exception to the uselessness of the general commitee system is the work of that subcommittee on penitentiaries, operating under the aegis of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Penitentiaries
In 1975-76 there were no less than 69 major incidents in Canadian penitentiaries, including 35 hostage-takings. This was pointed out in the evidence before our subcommittee, but it was even more lucidly and eloquently pointed out on more than one occasion by the distinguished hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who chairs the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and who chaired the subcommittee on penitentiaries. I think I speak for all members who served on that committee when I applaud the manner in which the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville conducted those meetings, and mention his subsequent papers, prepared and delivered to various organizations across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I commend the reading of those papers to hon. members. Being the honest and forthright person that chairman is, he had some very critical things to say in those papers he wrote. I am going to refer to two of them now. The first is contained in a speech he made to the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on October 1, 1977. I quote from page 8 of the text which states:
As I sense the state of mind of members of the subcommittee, we are not prepared to accept anything less than the full implementation by the government of any of the important recommendations of the report.
He sensed our feelings correctly. That report was passed to the government with the full intention of all committee members that it was a package, and that it would serve no useful purpose to pick away at the report, adopting and selecting a recommendation here and a recommendation there. There were 65 recommendations in that report and the general sense was correctly stated by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, our chairman, that the package had to be adopted as a whole if meaningful reform was to be achieved.
The other quotation to which I wish to refer hon. members is from the same speech made on the same day, at page 12, where the hon. member had some complimentary things to say about the then solicitor general. As an aside at this stage I might say that in my personal view the then solicitor general exercised good judgment, paid a good deal of personal attention to the recommendations of the report, and put forth a genuine effort to ensure that its major recommendations were adopted. He was not entirely successful in that, and that is wherein lies my disappointment, I am sure, a disappointment shared by several others on the committee.
The quotation I wish to put on the record from page 12 of the hon. member's remarks on that occasion is as follows:
Since I have already complimented the minister where it was his due, perhaps 1 may be permitted to say, without fear of misunderstanding, that his initial response to recommendation 29 is not entirely satisfactory. Of course, the important point is that the the system be operated in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice, and this is fully accepted by the minister's failure to unambiguously endorse the proposition that all penitentiary directives should be recognized as regulations have the force of law (thereby giving rise to rights owed to inmates as well as duties owed by them) can only reinforce the tendency of penitentiary administrators to evade the rule of law in this area. Two parliamentary committees within a few months have now insisted that commissioner's directives can no longer be allowed to subsist as a species of sub-law

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
within penitentiaries. I hope that the minister will announce his agreement at least with the principle.
In order to achieve the unanimity in that committee of which I spoke a few moments ago, and there were many of us who thought that the recommendations should go much further than they did, and others who thought they went too far, we reached a middle ground, a compromise on all of these 65 recommendations in the hope, which is not entirely unreasonable, that having unanimity, with the government members sitting on the committee united with members of other parties, the government would have no recourse but to implement those recommendations. If they are not adopted and implemented, this only points out the uselessness of the committee system even more strongly than I feel it to be now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: There can be no purpose in members travelling throughout Canada visiting almost every maximum-security institution, almost 25 per cent of the medium and minimum security institutions, as well as half-way houses, and travelling into other countries as a committee and as individuals to examine penal systems outside Canada, in order to come up with fresh ideas for the purpose of assisting in the reform of our system, spending all that time and taxpayers' money, if in the face of that unanimity the government rejects that package of recommendations from the committee.
Other members on this side, notably the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), will be addressing themselves to some shining examples of our own provincial systems where procedures and methods are working that do not exist in our federal system. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Fries-en) will be speaking in respect of specific incidents at the British Columbia penitentiary, past and recent. Hopefully there will be time for the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) to engage in the debate as well.
Members receive a great deal of reading material during the normal course of business here, but I hope they will read that report and the recommendations contained therein, because I think if they do so, particularly the government members, they would add their urgings to the government to implement those recommendations.
I want to speak for a moment on the extent to which I and my party believe the recommendations should have gone. As I said, we compromised in order to achieve unanimity in the committee.
In the area of the system itself, based on the observations that we made and the conclusions we came to in the committee, it would be our recommendation that we look at some alternatives to incarceration. When dealing with non-violent offenders against property, greater use should be made of such sanctions as restitution, fines and sentences to community service. The Criminal Code should be amended to allow far greater flexibility for the use of such measures.

With respect to the scope of the system, the government should commence early discussions with the provinces with a view to merging the federal and provincial correctional services under suitable federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangements. Adequate cost-sharing arrangements should be worked out, along with standardization of training, pay, and benefits. A ten-year program should be established whereby the merger may be accomplished in phases. In that fashion, a standard treatment would be achieved for those unfortunate enough to be incarcerated in the present system. Under present constrictions there is a double standard existing throughout Canada. This is because each province is responsible for the treatment of its inmates within its jurisdiction. We should strive toward the standardization of the entire system in the country.
During my visit to Europe in January of last year, I saw examples of standardization. Because of the nature of the countries I visited, it was easy to achieve standardization. The benefits of the system in those countries were manifested wherever I travelled, whether it was Germany, France, Denmark or Holland. I was impressed with the progress being made and the approach being taken in Denmark where I visited several prisons. I was convinced that the penal system and our approach in Canada are in the dark ages compared with that country's policies and approach.
With respect to the operation of the penal system in Canada, the government should adopt in the policy-making process the concept of a penitentiary board. Other than just the necessary secretarial record-keeping staff, as was recommended in the report, that board should have no fulltime employees attached to it. It should function as a vitalistic structure and not just another level of bureaucracy. That is one of the difficulties the minister's department is facing at the present time when considering this report. It is having difficult accepting the recommendation of establishing an independent advisory board and policymaking body.
Citizens advisory committees can play a more functional role in the system. These committees should attempt to solicit the support of business and labour for institutional work release programs. An example of this plan can be found in Prince Albert where inmates have formed a committee and exercised discipline on their fellow inmates who were permitted to go out into the community and work on projects with the co-operation of labour and the community. Approximately 30 inmates were released daily to work on projects, and none of them have failed to return. There was an unimportant exception to that, which is not relevant to what I am discussing now.
This program worked well. It contained the highly desirable system of internal disciplining of inmates. Work was being parcelled out by that inmates' committee. Because of a ridiculous regulation which prevented back-to-back absences, the program was discontinued on the recommendation of the Parole Board. I do not know whether that situation has been corrected, but I hope so.
February 10, 1978

With respect to the operation of the penal system, we heard disappointing evidence from inmates with regard to parole and mandatory supervision. The decision of the Parole Board to revoke paroles should be reviewable by the courts. Minor violations of the terms of parole should be punishable by temporary reconfinement, during which time the inmate would not lose time served on his sentence. This measure as well should be reviewable by the courts.
With respect to our position vis-a-vis staff, it is our belief that the system is sadly lacking in good policies concerning recruitment, career opportunities, and discipline. One of the major reasons for hostage-taking incidents is the fact that there is constant conflict between inmates and staff because of improper attitudes on the part of both. A shining example of how that can be corrected existed in the institutions we visited in the United States.
The Canadian penitentiary service should be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. It should establish hiring, career planning, and dismissal procedures of its own, using the standards of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a model. Recruitment standards for the service should be raised, and all applicants should undergo appropriate personality testing to determine their suitability for correctional'positions. Also they should be subjected to security clearance.
Further, the Canadian penitentiaries system should provide regular upgrading courses and educational leaves to improve the quality of its staff and make it possible for employees to rise in the service. In this connection, an attempt should be made to generate personnel trading-off programs with other countries. If that were implemented, Canadian personnel in the penitentiaries system could work in the Danish system or in the American system at places like McNeil Island, San Diego, etc. This exchange will result in benefits to the system. There are several further recommendations with respect to staff which I do not have the time to put on the record.
The next matter I should like to deal with is the care of inmates. Despite assurances that the committee's brief is being accepted by the government with respect to a building program, 1 have some doubt. All we are doing is building more warehouses, the police are arresting more people, and the courts are sending more people to jail, when diversionary programs could prevent that kind of growth of prison populations. The Criminal Code must be looked at in order to achieve changes and have other methods of sanction employed. With respect to the ongoing building program, it should be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. This may mean that there will have to be more flexibility on the part of the government in its policy of constructing new institutions close to large urban areas. The report speaks of work communities and the like.
Generally wherever we went we found that the feeding and clothing of inmates was bad. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville has pointed that out on more than one occasion. We found some serious deficiencies with respect to medical
Penitentiaries
services, about which the hon. member for Oxford will be speaking.
We found very serious deficiencies in the treatment of inmate grievances. We on this side urge the minister that inmate grievances should be handled at the first level by a board consisting of two inmates and two staff members, with a member of the administrative staff sitting as chairman and voting only to break ties. This board should have the authority to decide upon the validity of a grievance and to make recommendations to the institutional director regarding possible solutions to inmate complaints. We believe that an inmate should have the right to appeal the decision of the director or the grievance committee to an arbitrator.
In different words parts of these policies are in the recommendations of the subcommittee. The arbitrator should be a person drawn from outside the system and appointed by the director. Such a person should be of good standing in the community and be possessed of arbitration skills. If a resolution of an inmate's grievance cannot be arrived at, the inmate should be able to appeal directly to the commission. No inmate should have to wait more than six weeks before receiving a final answer to his grievance after it has been passed on to the board of review or the commissioner's office. If more time is required the inmate should be so informed, and the reasons for the delay should be fully explained. Some progress has been made in this direction, but far from enough. This kind of system is now operating, with good results, in other countries.
This package of 65 recommendations as a whole may look quite radical to the officials in the pentitentiary system. 1 think that attitude might be changing slowly. The in camera hearings with respect to the progress of the implementation of some of the recommendations made by the subcommittee have been very useful. They have brought the members of that subcommittee into direct communication with those responsible for advising the minister on policies. We feel that we are making some progress in changing their thinking, and I say this without any disrespect to the top echelon staff involved. We would like to avoid the assessment by them that these recommendations are truly radical.
There are further recommendations with respect to inmates which I will not have time to put on the record, but let me stress that it is my belief that the recent incidents in B.C. and at Dorchester are a direct result of the long delay-nine months since the government has had the report-in implementing some of the more crucial recommendations of the report as they apply to inmate reform procedures and staff reform procedures. We are back to square one. There was not a single hostage-taking incident or a single incident of violence during the entire time that the subcommittee was doing its work. The report was tabled last June. Nine months have gone by. I for one am extremely disappointed-and that disappointment is shared by other members of all parties who sat on that subcommittee-that we have not moved more positively, aggressively, and quickly to implement the recommendations.

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
Had we done so, it is my belief that these incidents could have been avoided. Only by the adoption of this package of recommendations will peace be restored within the system.
While I am not attributing the slaying of Michel Roy in Montreal directly to faults in the system, there can be justification for drawing the conclusion-perhaps speculation is more accurate-that the slaying occurred as a result of the conditions which still exist in the federal system, largely around Montreal, Quebec. Nothing is improving there, and hence the violence. I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) can expect more of it unless the government ceases its foot dragging.
I want to emphasize recommendation No. 65, that is, for the ongoing work of the subcommittee. In response to a question asked of him yesterday, the Solicitor General said he had no intention yet of reconstituting that subcommittee. He could on his own initiative see to it that that is done by discussing it with the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and I am certain that that standing committee would, with alacrity, accept its responsibility and reconstitute the subcommittee so that we could have a steady and ongoing review and exercise a monitoring input to assist the government to achieve a solution to this very serious problem.
One of the central features of the report is inmate labour. Idle hands turn only too often to evil intent. Inmate labour is essential to any well functioning penitentiary system. In Denmark, if I may draw a contrast again, a sanction against recalcitrant inmates is to take away from them the right to work. It is the reverse here. If they wish, inmates are allowed to sit around all day. They do not have to participate in any work programs, and much time is available for frustrations which they encounter in the system to seep to the surface and to break out into violent incidents.
I recommend to the Solicitor General a close study of that Danish system. A state corporation has been set up to market on a worldwide basis prison products made by inmates within the prisons. Essential to the success of the Danish scheme, the labour union movement there is deeply involved. That labour union co-operation must be had in order to achieve success. We are moving far too slowly on the recommendation of the subcommittee with respect to inmate work programs in this regard. The approach seems to be to get back into the market gardening business as an experiment. Some institutions are getting into the manufacturing business, but our suggestion is that all inmates who are physically capable of working should be required to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: No more than 20 per cent of the inmate population should be employed in institutional maintenance, and those who are should be paid a reasonable wage for their labour. I think all subcommittee members were unanimous in their feeling that it is absolutely disgraceful to set up a wage structure in a prison which does not permit even the bare necessities of hygiene to be purchased on a daily basis. That wage structure is so niggling that it ought to be disposed of.

Under the Danish system inmates earn an hourly rate, plus bonuses for over production. The inmates have banks in their prisons. The system adopted over there not only pays inmates a reasonable rate for the work they do but also enables them to pay for their room and board, which prevents the state from having to pay that cost. Inmates are able to send money to their wives and children, but inmates' wives and children in this country are supported by welfare.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired. However, there may be unanimous consent for him to continue his remarks. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: We suggest that the penitentiaries in this country be allowed to compete for contracts on the open market. In choosing its areas of production the system should bear in mind both the degree of job training a given industry will provide inmates, and the financial profits to be made from such industry. A Crown agency should be established. This is one of the heart and core recommendations of the report.
A Crown agency should be established to oversee the administration, accounting, sales and marketing operations of the prison industries. The individuals serving in this agency should be selected by the commissioner on the basis of their business enterprise.
Each individual inmate in prison industry should be paid on the basis of the amount he produces. There should be other, non-financial incentives offered as well, such as paid holidays and extra earned permission.
Vocational training programs could be vastly improved. Perhaps the minister will have an opportunity to visit the prison at Ringe in Denmark to view the beauty of that maximum security institution and its functions. The recidivism rate is less than half that of Canada because inmates leave there with a work incentive, able to cope with society, and make a useful contribution with far less chance of ever returning to prison. I believe the recidivism rate in Denmark is in the area of 40 per cent. One of our provincial institutions about which the hon. member for Oxford will speak later, has a similar rate because of policies adopted there which are applicable to highly dangerous criminals.
I charge the government with neglect, Mr. Speaker. I do so in the kindest possible way and in the hope it does not disturb the establishment of the subcommittee pursuant to recommendation No. 65 of our report. I want the attitude that was present in the committee to continue. If the committee is not reconstituted, if the recommendations are not adopted and implemented rapidly, the neglect which is apparent in British Columbia and Dorchester will get worse. I am sure this feeling is shared by all members of the subcommittee. Unless the government acts on this report with alacrity, I am sure the next time the committee embarks on this exercise we will be looking at ashes. I thank the House for the extra five minutes, Mr. Speaker.
February 10, 1978


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for setting this motion down for debate.
I should also like to thank him for the non-partisan way in which he has explained this problem, and I hope to speak in the same manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Members on every side of the House have some criticisms of this matter. We hope that the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) will listen to them. It would be dangerous to the extreme if the crises that occur from day to day within the system were used for any narrow partisan advantage in terms of the continuing debate about the prison system in Canada.
The motion reflects the view of this party that there is disappointment and regret that the report of the subcommittee has not been adopted, has not been implemented, and that far too much time has passed since it was submitted. Those of us who sat on that committee did not get what we wanted in the report. Perhaps the Solicitor General has failed to understand that. A variety of views were expressed-views as different as my own, as those of the former member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, and those of the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), but there was a tremendous amount of good will among members, which is expressed in the first sentence of the report. It was there because of the description of the crises in the system. All members accepted that fundamental premise and decided, since that is the state of the system, it is more important than anything else. No one wanted to get a vote out of anything, but everybody wanted a change in the system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I want to quote from the beginning of the report because it is vital to understanding the disappointment that is going to be expressed by members of this House. The very first recommendation on page 2 reads:
A crisis exists in the Canadian Penitentiary System. It can be met only by the immediate implementation of large-scale reforms. It is imperative that the Solicitor General act immediately on this report as a matter of the utmost urgency.
The disappointment sets in when one examines the response of the former solicitor general which was as follows:
While there are serious problems which must be resolved, doubt is expressed about use of the term 'crisis' to describe a situation which has been of ongoing concern for some time. It should also be noted that the subcommittee was established as a result of disturbances in three institutions in a system containing 54.
I am disappointed that the former solicitor general of that time did not read our report particularly carefully.
The history of the penitentiaries system and the acceleration of the crisis is outlined on page 5 of the report as follows:
In the 42 years between 1932 and 1974 there were a total of 65 major incidents in federal penitentiaries. Yet in two years-1975 and 1976-there was a total of 69 major incidents, including 35 hostage-takings involving 92 victims, one of whom (a prison officer) was killed.
Penitentiaries
That is why the committee came to the conclusion there was a crisis in the system. It is not good enough for the then minister to say it is not really a crisis, that it is an ongoing problem. The acceleration of violence within the maximum security system is a crisis. I would have felt much less disappointment if he had accepted our proposition as stated. Then I would have believed that we were going to move quickly to adopt the report.
My second major regret concerns recommendation No. 65 on page 167, which reads as follows:
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should have a permanent reference during the rest of the 30th Parliament and for the 31st Parliament to enable it to review the implementation of this Report in the context of the criminal justice system.
That recommendation was also rejected. Yet it seems to me it would not have been very difficult for the government to accept it if it was serious about implementing the report. It should have agreed to change the system and allow the committee to function as it has in a non-partisan way. What was the government worrying about with regard to the continuing operation of the committee, Mr. Speaker? What it was worried about was that it did not want to be pushed too hard with regard to making the tough changes. We in this party are ready to accept that there are some hard decisions that have to be made. As we indicated, none of us got all we wanted under the terms of the agreement.
We recognize that the changes, particularly with regard to the public service recommendations, the development of a Crown corporation and putting flexibility into the system, are going to be hard. You will have to fight the bureaucracy on them. One thing this government has to demonstrate is that it is willing to fight the bureaucracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It has to demonstrate that it is willing to take on the mandarins who have run the system for so long and who have resisted any change. If it would change that, the Solicitor General would have my whole support. However, I must say that we are getting very impatient. We are tired of waiting. We want to hear from that task force. We could have heard from them in this instance if the Solicitor General had adopted recommendation No. 65, which he has not.
I want to say something else about the crisis in the system. The Solicitor General and his officials must be the last people in Canada to believe still that there is not a crisis in the system. There is a question which the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) was instrumental in inserting in the report. It is a quote from Sir Winston Churchill in the House of Commons on July 20, 1910. We in this party have not been noted as great devotees of some of the statements of Winston Churchill, being a somewhat Conservative politician. However, what he said in 1910, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out, stands just as much today. He said the mood and temper of the public with regard to the

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
treatment of crimes and criminals are one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. By any measurement, this country fails that test completely.
Why do I say it fails that test? All 1 have to do is refer to the judgment of Mr. Justice Heald in the case of Darrell versus Heald.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Darrell was his name.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The inmates of the penthouse at the British Columbia penitentiary decided to test whether the standards under which they were kept met anybody's level of civilization. I want to quote some of that judgment. It may tell us how low we have gone in terms of the way we are administering our prison system.
In that case, one of the famous or infamous inmates was Andrew Bruce. The other was John McCann. Before going into that particular case, I apologize to Mr. Justice Heald for including him in the style of cause.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I hope it is not profanity.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I hope it will not affect my future in the law business. In any event, one of the individuals in that particular case was Andrew Bruce. Andrew Bruce has been in trouble all his life. He, out of a large family, is the one who has had the most trouble. He spent time in juvenile homes. By the time he got to be 17, he was sent to the B.C. Penitentiary as a result of some serious property crime. Then he got his first taste of the penthouse. He was subsequently released.
In 1970 Andrew Bruce committed a particularly vicious murder. He went back to the B.C. Penitentiary and spent some two years in a cell which, if I recall correctly, is about four by six. He has spent most of his adult life in that particular cell.
I do not say this to justify for one minute any of the vicious and horrible crimes that Andrew Bruce has committed against society. However, I do ask members of parliament and members of the public to ask themselves whether we have reduced the risk of repetition of crime by the way we have treated Andrew Bruce? Is he any less likely or more likely to commit a crime?
Let us look at John McCann who spent 754 days in that cell continuously, with a half hour of exercise. If you bring a man in as a bank robber and put him in the hole, you cannot release him. You can hang him, but you cannot release him. If you release him, he will come out a murderer.
We sit here worrying about rates of recidivism. That is where the rate of recidivism comes. We are not rehabilitating these people, but turning them into dangerous, vicious killers, every day that we allow these conditions to prevail in the solitary confinement areas of our maximum security prisons.
There is no question that this is a difficult subject in terms of the public. The public is rightly concerned and upset with the rate and viciousness of crime. However, I plead with members of parliament and the public to understand that when you get on the wheel of punishment, you do not reduce

the rate of crime. You increase the rate of crime and the viciousness of it.
I recall visiting a prisoner in the psychiatric section of Laval. For two weeks this prisoner had pleaded for psychiatric help. He was in for bank robbery. We always get conned when we go through a prison. However, he said he felt he could kill someone when he gets out. We got him his psychiatric treatment, but I really worried about that particular individual.
You cannot examine the prison system just with statistics. You have to examine it in terms of the people living in the cages and what you are going to do with them when they get out, because most of them get out. One way or another, they find their way to the streets. The public is not protected. What is our answer, and what is the answer of the government?
One of the major recommendations we made in this was that we have to start diversion programs with regard to those who are convicted of criminal offences, particularly with regard to property crime. Fifty per cent of those who live in maximum security institutions such as the B.C. Pen, Laval or Millhaven, are there as a result of property crime, not violent crime. However, we have seen no changes to the Criminal Code which would give the courts the kind of flexibility to allow them to sentence prisoners to work in the community to pay off their debt to society, or to pay the victim and thereby work off their debt to society or, indeed, through fines.
We have to be more flexible than just putting people in cages and saying, "Now you are paying your debt to society". They are not paying their debt to society. We are paying $17,500 a year to keep them. That is the current price to keep an inmate in prison.


Erik Nielsen: It is $20,000.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The hon. member for Yukon says it is $20,000.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, this morning I was discussing whether the Solicitor General should have responded to the assertion in the subcommittee's report that a crisis existed within the penitentiary system. I referred to the famous judgment of Mr. Justice Heald with regard to the infamous penthouse at the B.C. Penitentiary and I want to read into the record a portion of it which describes an area in the prison known as the penthouse. This is what the judge said after examining the conditions there:
These cells with concrete walls, floors and ceilings have a steel door with a six-inch peephole that opens only from the outside. The prisoners sleep on a concrete paiiet covered by a four-inch thick foam-rubber mattress. They have a foam-rubber pillow and a couple of sheets. A 116-watt bulb burns until about 10
February 10, 1978

p.m. when a 25-watt bulb is turned on for the night. The prisoners sleep with their heads one foot from the open toilet at the rear of their cell, so that the guards can see them in hourly checks during the night. If the guards cannot see their face, and evidence they are breathing, they will pound on the door until the prisoner moves. The guards said they did this to make sure the prisoners hadn't escaped or committed suicide.
It should be understood that there are some inmates who spend three years in such conditions. It is not just a matter of spending ten days, or 15 days, or 30 days there-for that length of time they might be tolerated. McCann spent 754 consecutive days in solitary confinement. Often one hears the argument, "Look at what they did to their victims." I agree that these men have committed atrocious crimes at the expense of society, but surely the standards we impose should not be those adopted by those who commit these crimes. Surely they should be civilized standards, because the way in which we treat the worst elements in our society reflects the standards which our society seeks to uphold. On this score, Canadians have a great deal about which to search their hearts.
The subcommittee recommended that in terms of the Criminal Code we should move into areas of diversion. I quote from paragraph 190 of the report:
Many witnesses testified that if Canada builds prisons, those prisons will be immediately filled. Conversely, if alternatives for prison can be found for the majority, who are not dangerous, some of the existing buildings will be emptied. Thus, before entering into a multi-million dollar construction program, less costly and more productive alternatives should be introduced.
Perhaps the Solicitor General would comment on the construction program proposed by his department. I realize that for him this is a new portfolio, but a number of figures have been put forward as to the extent of this program. My information is from a report which I would be happy to give to the Solicitor General. It states we are building 26 new institutions and that the estimated cost will run about $460 million over the next five years. We will be adding another 3,326 additional beds to the prison system. At the moment the total program will construct 4,712 new beds and we will be phasing out 1,386 old ones. The net figure is 3,326 new beds over a five-year period.
I would suggest that we are following a construction program which will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you provide beds inmates will be found to fill them and the courts and judges will continue the present archaic system of punishment without rehabilitation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired. If he seeks unanimous consent of the House I am ready to ask the House if it will allow him to continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I wish to thank the House, Mr. Speaker. This construction program is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I submit that if the Solicitor General would examine the demographic figures he would find that the crime rate curve has been flattening over the years, in spite of the violent crime which we
Penitentiaries
have experienced in Canada. Take a look at the facts and the statistics. In 1974 there were 545 homicides. In 1975 that figure increased to 620. In 1976 the homicide rate was reduced to 597, that is, by 7 per cent over 1975. If you use the population base figures and, taking the crime statistics, fix them to 100,000, which is the way judicial statistics are usually calculated, we find there has been a decrease in the homicide rate of .3 per cent. All violent crime curves are now on a down trend. The high point on the curve was reached in 1968.
In Canada people who commit the most crime fall into the 17 to 28 age group. After the second world war when there was the baby boom, when the crime peaked on the curve in 1968, a large percentage of the population was in that age bracket. Since then, crime has been slowly declining. With proper planning the crime rate would probably flatten out. It may not decine further but the population will continue to increase at a faster rate than that of the crime rate.
Therefore, while we may need some emergency construction, I would urge the Solicitor General to re-examine this massive building program of some $460 million. I appreciate that some new institutions will have to be built to alleviate immediate problems, particularly in the British Columbia penitentiary area. However, in terms of the total cost we ought to re-examine what we are doing.
I would like to cite some other interesting figures to the Solicitor General. In 1970 the total cost of running the penitentiary service was $70.6 million. In 1976 to 1977 it was $256 million. We are spending a lot of money but I do not think we are spending it wisely. We have not examined the trends carefully enough. There is no point in building a lot of "warehouses" in this country. The way the bureaucracy operates in Canada they will find a way to fill those warehouses. They will fill them with humans. This is not the way to solve the problem of reducing crime and, in the process, of rehabilitating criminals.
At the beginning I wanted to state that I support the motion before the House. It has been most carefully worded. It is traditional that we in this party will amend a motion which emanates from the official opposition. In examining this particular motion I can see nothing to amend. They have asked for the adoption of the 65 recommendations. Those recommendations came from every political party in this House, and it is a non-partisan motion reflecting the political views of the public as represented by the members on that committee.
In the three major areas of failure in implementing the report comes first of all the question of staff training, salaries and pensions, the idea of upgrading service to the RCMP model, and improving the morale of the service. There is nothing like money to improve morale. If you provide pay increases for correctional officers you will improve the morale of those institutions right away.
The second disappointment was the rejection of a recommendation with reference to regions. We want the warden to run his institution; we do not want him second guessed by region. We want the highest paid official in the region to be

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
the warden. He has the toughest job. He has to be able to walk down the range and quell anger before it gets out of control. There is no point in promoting wardens in the region out of maximum security institutions. That is a trend that suggests the warden is not the most important man. The warden in maximum security prisons is the key man in the system. If he has the right philosophy and is tough enough, the institution will be well run. Having the bureaucracy located in a high rise in downtown Vancouver directing the region and second guessing the warden is a mistake.
Perhaps the key recommendation in the entire report was the development of a national prison industries corporation, a corporation that would change the structure internally in those prisons and would provide work, compulsory work. I am not against a person who has committed a crime being sentenced to work. We all have to work. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told us there were no free lunches the other day. To sentence a person to work does not mean you are sentencing him to a ball and chain. It means that he will have the chance to make a productive contribution to society. Those inmates must be able to structure their day and put in eight hours like everyone else. The national prison industries corporation should be in place now. It is due to negligence and delay that this has not been done.
To those people in a community in the trade union movement and the business sector who object to the idea of their products competing with products made within a prison, I say that manufacturing can be tailored entirely to producing those items we buy abroad and that our own industries have not seen fit to make. That will not upset the general market area; if it does, it will be only slightly. It will provide wages for prisoners and compensation for victims as well as board and room for those who are sentenced. There is no reason why they should not pay for the cost of their keep or a significant part of it.
The Solicitor General has not agreed that we are in a crisis. We have had crisis management. The concern of the Solicitor General's department has been in the area of diffusing the next hostage-taking incident. We are asking the Solicitor General today to adopt the report so that long term strategy can be planned to change the atmosphere within the system. If that is done it will reduce the number of deaths, hostage takings and murders. We will be on our way to changing some of those statistics we were talking about earlier on rehabilitation.
I have tried to make this a non-partisan approach and I hope the Solicitor General will as well. I wish to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who did a superb job for the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am surprised that he is still outside the cabinet walls, and that is no reflection on our present Solicitor General. I do think new blood is always useful for a Liberal cabinet. I want to thank the House for its indulgence in listening to these remarks. I hope the Solicitor General now

appreciates how vital and important it is that he adopt all the recommendations, and to show his expression of good will I expect him now to rise in this place and say, "I accept recommendation No. 65", that the committee be reconstituted so that we can get on with the job.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who has been kind enough to let me speak immediately after lunch, for which I am very grateful him. I hasten to add that I am anticipating with great pleasure the remarks he will make, I suppose, immediately after me.

In order to reply first of all to the comments of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), I might indicate I very much appreciate the tone of this debate. I was a bit apprehensive yesterday when I read the motion. However, I did recognize that it was brought forward in order to bring to the public's attention the very serious matters with which we are presently dealing, and I appreciate the motion having been advanced at this time by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who, as we all know, has a number of other irons in the fire.


Erik Nielsen: With no embarrassing vote.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, we are always happy to have votes in this place because we have a very good record in terms of results. Having said that, that is the only partisan remark I will be making.
I want to advise you, Mr. Speaker, that since assuming office about a week ago yesterday I have had some, albeit brief, opportunity to acquaint myself with the many important and difficult issues confronting the ministry of Solicitor General. As I stated very soon after my appointment, one of the principal areas of concern is that of corrections, an issue in which I have had a long-standing personal interest. I practised before the criminal Bar prior to my election and formed very strong opinions in that area.
My first week on the job has given me the occasion to see what is being done in this field right now, and what is being planned for the immediate future, and it is for that reason I welcome this opportunity, as I have indicated.
As a member of the House and, indeed, as a member of cabinet, I followed the work of the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada with a great deal of interest, as I did in respect of the publication of the report itself and my predecessor's August response and the November progress report. I strongly endorse and let there be no question about that-I give my own personal endorsement to the statement of support made by my predecessor in respect of the general thrust and philosophy of the report, and I share his sense of urgent commitment to far-reaching, and 1 repeat that term far-reaching, reform in corrections.
February 10, 1978

The subcommittee's excellent report presents Canadian corrections with a unique opportunity, as well as a challenge, and 1 welcome the fact I can be at the centre of the action that is being announced. It is an opportunity I do not intend to let pass, and a challenge that, indeed, I welcome. I intend to honour the undertakings made last August, and renewed last November, before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs by my predecessor. I fully intend to work closely with the committee on the implementation of reform.
The subcommittee may not be in existence, but that subcommittee reported to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and, as all hon. gentlemen know, there has been a very intimate exchange between members who prepared this report, my officials, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker). In fact I will be tabling a detailed recommendation by recommendation progress report before that committee at the time of its consideration of the main estimates in the next few weeks. As was the case in November and December, I expect this forum will provide for a constructive and specific examination of the issues with which we are concerned.
Before describing in more detail the mechanisms which have been set up within the ministry for implementing the report, and giving an idea of the progress which has already been made, I would be remiss in failing to make reference to several recent events. Those events are, of course, the widely reported "threats" against CPS staff, the brutal and tragic slaying of Michel Roy in Montreal, and the hostage-taking incidents at Dorchester and the B.C. penitentiaries. I want to repeat today my expression of deep condolences to the family of Michel Roy, and also my application for the 15 years of dedicated service he gave to the Canadian Penitentiary Service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Let no one, Mr. Speaker, make the mistake to believe that such criminal and unforgivable actions support the cause of the reforms we are dealing with today. It would rather be the opposite. As indicated last August, the permanent public support for reforms such as those suggested by the parliamentary subcommittee depends on the display of a responsible attitude on the part of both the inmates and those pretending to speak on their behalf. The efficient implementation of the important changes which I am going to describe requires a stable climate in our institutions. As regrettable as those incidents may be their only results are to build up tensions and fears thereby working against the prospects of positive changes.
Then I would like to point out, referring to Michel Roy, that a short time after the subcommittee's visit at the Archam-bault Institute there was a series of very deplorable incidents which showed that very serious measures would have to be taken. We then appointed Michel Roy who indeed managed within a relatively short period of time to bring back this institution under control. For this reason, I believe all subcommittee members should be grateful for that. Mr. Speaker,
Penitentiaries
I must surely be speaking on behalf of all hon. members when stating as strongly as I can the government's adamant refusal to yield to intimidation or blackmail.

I think this bears repeating, and I am sure I am speaking for all hon. members in stating in the strongest possible terms the government's adamant refusal to be intimidated or blackmailed. While on that subject 1 want to take a moment to make it crystal clear that I fully endorse my predecessor's policy of "no deals" in respect of hostage takers, and I fully recognize where that policy originates. It comes directly from the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. As the Solicitor General stated last summer, and which has been amply demonstrated during recent incidents, in conformity with the no-deal policy, hostage takers will be charged under the Criminal Code and immediately upon disposition of those charges will be transferred to a special handling unit. There is one in place and we will have another one in Quebec in April of this year.
Again, let there be no mistake about the determination of the government on this matter. The recent incidents at the B.C. penitentiary and Dorchester took some time to resolve, but they were resolved and the no-deals policy was held firm. It is clear to me that this is the only way to handle such situations, and I applaud the efforts of the RCMP and Canadian Penitentiary Service officers who successfully brought the hostage takings to a peaceful conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: I would now like to turn to an outline of the progress that is being made in respect of the implementation of the report of the parliamentary subcommittee. By the way, Mr. Speaker, members of the subcommittee are pretty well informed in terms of the progress that has been made to date. We have made it a policy of keeping them so informed, and I will be pursuing that policy as well.
In acquainting myself with the structure which has been set up within the Canadian Penitentiary Service to bring about this implementation, as well as with the recommendation by recommendation progress already made, I quickly came to see the truth of a recent remark by the chairman of the sub-committee, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan), who has received the commendation of hon. members who have spoken today. In a speech to the national associations active in criminal justice, delivered on January 27, he said:
-It was abundantly evident in the November progress report that implementation was proceeding at a reasonable pace along lines agreed to in August.
[ Translation]
Last August 5, my predecessor announced that he agreed wholly or partially with 53 of the recommendations of the subcommittee. In November, when we were considering the supplementary estimates, he tabled an interim report which underlined what had been done following each of these recom-

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
mendations. These matters were discussed in detail with the members of the standing committee during in-camera hearings held in December. As I have said, it is my intention to pursue my efforts in this area and to table another interim report containing an appreciation of each recommendation when the committee begins consideration of the main estimates.
Mr. Speaker, in the ministry of the Solicitor General, there is a senior co-ordination group under a new deputy commissioner for implementation. Working under him, there are co-ordinators for implementation in each region and representatives in each institution. Every month, the responsible co-ordination units submit implementation progress reports to the headquarters and to this main co-ordination group in order to ensure that rapid progress is achieved in the implementation. The deputy commissioner has just come back from a trip across the country during which he has met with the senior officers in each region to find out how we could accelerate this process.

On the basis of this information, I will be receiving a detailed monthly update. Again this morning 1 held a briefing to apprise me of the current status of implementation, and I intend that this should happen on a regular basis. That is a brief description of the mechanism by which implementation is carried out and monitored.
Now I should like to turn to the substance of the implementation itself. Of the 65 recommendations in the subcommittee report, 37 have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented as of the end of January. For example, independent chairmen are now hearing disciplinary cases in all maximum security institutions, in accordance with sub-committee recommendation 30. The selection of an inspector general is now under way, and the final choice will be made in the near future, in accordance with recommendation 28. Citizens advisory committees have now been established in almost all institutions, in accordance with recommendation 49. A pilot grievance project is under way at the Saskatchewan penitentiary, in accordance with recommendation 36. Again, a detailed and specific progress report is being prepared in readiness for the standing committee's review of main estimates.
In addition to these 37 recommendations, a further eight recommendations will soon be in the process of implementation. Another 14 recommendations are of a longer term nature and require federal-provincial agreements. Hon. members would agree that is an essential part of our function. Others entail extensive research, others involve the construction of new institutions and facilities.
In reply to the hon. member for New Westminster and in relation to our building program, I would not want him to leave the impression that the amounts being invested are somehow to be additional to those presently in place. The hon. member strongly encouraged a different attitude, a radical change in terms of the occupation of the prisoners. He recognized that the committee made a strong recommendation to have smaller institutions arranged in clusters, and that those institutions ought to be accommodated in order to provide

additional facilities for industrial work, educational processes, and technological training. The hon. member is aware that we must invest in that area, but surely that is an area to which we are addressing ourselves. I am sure he will want to monitor it very closely indeed, and I invite him to do so. There are other changes that will require legislation, which is a relatively long process. That is not to say we will delay recommendations as a result of having to implement legislation. We will attempt to hasten legislation through the House as soon as possible.
With respect to that latter question, I should like to refer to several legislative initiatives which derive from the sub-committee report or are relevant to it. Legislative measures widening the availability of alternatives to incarceration, the diversion process of the Law Reform Commission, such as community service orders-are now being drafted in the context of an omnibus bill which is shortly to be introduced in the House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). This legislation bears on subcommittee recommendation 2, as does the proposed young offenders bill, which is also in the drafting process at the present time. A provision of the miscellaneous statutes amendment bill, which also will be introduced by my colleague, amends the section of the Parole Act dealing with sentence calculation, thus responding to subcommittee recommendation 35.
The subcommittee considered six recommendations to be at the "inmost core" of the report, to cite the chairman's words again. As hon. members are aware, my predecessor referred those recommendations to an interdepartmental working group consisting of senior representatives from the ministry, Treasury Board, the Privy Council Office and the Public Service Commission. Because the impact of those recommendations on the structure of government as a whole was so far reaching, it was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General to give definitive responses on his own authority.

I have been informed of the progress which has been made since I have taken this portfolio, and it seems clear to me that it is really-and I repeat "really"-in agreement with the substance of the recommendations made by the sub-committee, namely the need to turn the Canadian Penitentiary Service into a service which is energetically administered, well disciplined and open to professionals while giving it the authority, and consequently, the responsibility needed to fulfil efficiently its difficult mandate. Because of the implications of the legislative, statutory and administrative measures which are suggested, it also seems clear to me that I should make a detailed and in-depth study of the final position which I shall recommend to my cabinet colleagues.
As I stated in the first eight-I repeat, eight-days I have been in this position, I could only familiarize myself with the main themes and not necessarily with all their ramifications. However, I hope I shall be able to make public the proposals relating to recommendations Nos. 26, 24, 27, 5, 11 and 18 of the subcommittee when the standing committee studies the main estimates. Mr. Speaker, some of these recommendations relate to areas in which I was interested when I had another
February 10, 1978

portfolio, namely matters relating to relations with the unions and relations with the Public Service Staff Relations Board. [English]
Before concluding, I should like to stress again the fact that I heartily endorse the goals for corrections enunciated in the subcommittee report. The 65 recommendations affecting all areas of corrections provide us with an important opportunity. The recommendations with respect to the purposes of imprisonment, the correctional staff, the organization and management of the penitentiary service, justice within the walls, work, education and training, socialization, institutions, prerelease and parole, all represent the fruits of hard thought and dedication. All of our efforts toward the implementation of the reforms suggested are being carried out with the same degree of devotion and the same sense of urgency. Those reforms are fundamental. They will best be accomplished in an atmosphere of non-partisan interest.
I fully agree with the hon. member for New Westminster when he says that as we proceed with these changes there might be incidents from time to time. I cannot guarantee that there will not be some unfortunate incidents. It would be extremely regrettable if, in our deliberations, we should seize upon these events, which are dastardly and barbaric, to score partisan points. I thank hon. members for their attention.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question. In view of the fact that while our subcommittee was sitting there was relative peace and calm in the system, and in view of the fact that the opposite seems to be returning to the system, would the minister give us some indication as to whether he will accept recommendation No. 65 for the recon-situation of the subcommittee in the hope that it can continue to accomplish what it accomplished when it was sitting?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would be belittling the members of that subcommittee if 1 were to agree with what the hon. gentleman is advancing, that because of the formal demise of the subcommittee there has not been a very active role played by its members. The hon. member knows full well that that is not the case. The subcommittee no longer exists, but the committee does. The committee is there to oversee, as it does with regard to estimates, the process of implementation. Surely that is what is important. If eventually it becomes evident that we have to reconstitute the subcommittee for the implementation of the program, I will take that recommendation very seriously indeed.
[ Translation]


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are discussing in this debate is likely to invite all hon. members to study very seriously the great problem of penal institutions. Obviously, it would be desirable that we should not need such institutions but we must face the evidence. We are in a society which is not perfect because it is human, and it happens unfortunately that some individuals do
Penitentiaries
not comply with the law or do not respect the rights of others, so they must be incarcerated for a given period of time.
That is what we call doing penance and it is probably the reason why they are called penitentiaries, because the people there are doing penance. However they are human beings who must be treated with humanity and I believe that if there are some upheavals from time to time in those penitentiaries, there must be some reasons for it. That is why the sub-committee undertook a very complete study of the situation by visiting many penal institutions throughout Canada. It submitted a number of recommendations. It also based its report on principles listed on pages 159 and 160 of the report. The motion blames indirectly, or rather regrets-for this is the most accurate word in the motion-the failure of the Solicitor General to implement the recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Penitentiary System. I do not want to blame too severely the Solicitor General who addressed the House a moment ago, not even his predecessor.
It is not easy to implement every recommendation made by the subcommittee. But we must act and do something as soon as possible.
In the recommendations, on page 161-and I agree with this paragraph of the report-we are told:
A crisis exists in the Canadian penitentiary system. It can be met only by the immediate implementation of large-scale reforms.
I realize that the Solicitor General has plenty of work on hand to overcome the unfortunate situations which exist within penitentiaries, but still we should devote much more time to get to the core of the problem before the situation grows worse.
And the same paragraph goes on to say:
It is imperative that the Solicitor General act immediately on this report as a matter of the utmost urgency.
"A matter of the utmost urgency" means just that. Why? Because nothing is better than going there personally to see what atmosphere exists, in order to make truly valid recommendations. I truly regret that my colleague, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), who sat on this subcommittee, was detained outside the House today, because he would certainly have taken part in this debate and would have expressed much better that I the views and wishes of our party, so that conditions may improve in all penitentiaries across Canada.
This week we witnessed the brutal killing of Archambault Institution Warden Michel Roy. Who was the culprit? I don't know. The inquiry will reveal it one day, but one thing is for sure, a feeling of anger and vindictiveness now prevails against those who are in a position of authority.
I for one believe that even inside a prison, and especially there, justice must reign. Inmates are inmates because they failed to comply with justice, but if they are to have a taste of justice, to know what it is when they are released, then they have to see that men can administer justice, even toward inmates.
2758

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
The role of police officers is not an easy one and neither is the role of prison wardens and prison guards. That is why when we considered in this House Bill C-84 to abolish the death penalty, we asked that the death penalty be at least retained to ensure the protection of police officers and prison guards. However, such was not the will of parliament. I feel it is now advisable to reconsider this matter in order to ensure the full protection which a well-organized community is entitled to expect. According to the report, living conditions are unacceptable in penitentiaries. I realize that the inmates are not enjoying a holiday on southern beaches. However, they are entitled to the essential, that is cleanliness, food and lodging. I feel that we should look into the problem more fully and I urge the Solicitor General to examine my suggestion.
Some four of five years ago, if I remember well, our party put forward in this House the suggestion that inmates should be taught a trade according to their abilities and the products they made from day to day could be sold on the market, providing they did not compete with domestic firms. The revenue accrued to inmates would be put in trust, so they could collect it on being released. In this way, they could leave with some money and hope to remain in the straight and narrow path.
I believe this should be tried. There is nothing like work to keep someone's mind on the right track. When there is nothing to do, the only pastime is to listen to someone else boasting about his past deeds, in our penitentiaries those people talk and brag. Younger inmates are exposed not only to bad examples but also to brainwashing. They are led to believe that once out there is no way they can start anew, they are bound to slip up again.
If shop work were established, and I am sure this could be set up with adequate security, considering the means we now have, I believe this would be true rehabilitation. As I said, it would give some incentive to those at least for whom there is still hope, and when they got out they would have a certain amount of money, it would not have been a totally futile exercise. While doing their time they would maintain good working habits, they would enjoy doing something tangible that would bring them something. We must always leave some incentive. I do not mean paying a salary, not in the least. Only, by working they could expect to accumulate some funds that would allow them to lead a useful life.
Mr. Speaker, this is no joke. I do not want to dramatize, but the day after the director of the Institut Archambault was killed, in the Quebec area, which I know very well, two inmates are reported to have knifed a warden in the Orsain-ville prison, close to Quebec city.
What is an inmate doing with a knife? Where did he get it? How did it get there? Come on, it must surely be a lack of supervision somewhere. There is something wrong, because if there had not been someone close by to rescue that guard who was being held at knife point, I think we would be talking about another murder today.

I think it is important to hire competent staff which could develop a friendly relationship on a daily basis with the inmates so as to gain their complete confidence. You can gain someone's confidence. Take the lion tamers. The lion is not always a gentle animal but you find that with patience, day after day, you can create a friendly relationship with it and turn that ferocious animal into a docile one. I think the example might be stretching it a bit, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to make the point strongly in order to make sure the Solicitor General really understands. He has a very great responsibility in this respect and must find the most competent and patient staff possible. Of course, if a prison guard runs the inmates with the boot and the stick, he is not going to make friends with them, and they are going to say, to hell with the rules. If I were there, I think that is how I would react. So that is why we must train the guards. We must have a training school for our penitentiary guards. There must be a general attitude, a humane attitude, an attitude that could bring the inmates to consider themselves as human beings who are respected and who, while they are paying their debt to society, can nevertheless live decently, at least in an acceptable way.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to draw the attention of this House on the parole system, another extremely serious matter that must be reviewed, because I understand paroles have been granted in recent months. I am not blaming anyone. I am not blaming the psychiatrists either. But in any case, there were two murders I know of and a third one not long ago, a very savage one, in Levis: a seven-year old girl was raped and ripped by an ex-inmate. I cannot say any more about it because the case is before the courts, but the fact remains that there is something wrong. That an accident should happen, I am prepared to accept that, but when that happens too often, then one wonders. What is the Parole Board doing about it? What are psychiatrists doing? What is happening? Is society sick as a whole or is there nothing left to save? I am not prepared to accept that. Here again, a suggestion 1 make to the Solicitor General is to have the Parole Act reviewed with a view to bringing about improvements, corrections and the necessary amendments so as to make that board more responsible and avoid mistakes as much as possible.
The subcommittee reports also deal with the same subject and I wish the recommendations made by the subcommittee would be implemented. It has been said that 53 of them had been adopted-and I was here when the former solicitor general said so in the House-but there are 65 recommendations. The others should also be considered and implemented as soon as possible to improve our penitentiary system in Canada and I think that, if the government moves in that direction as soon as possible, Canadians will be happy to realize that they can count on the government to ensure their security and their protection everywhere.
But there are preventive measures to take: it is not enough to talk about the failures of the systems, they should be prevented. In our society, under the present system, we have a considerable number of unemployed and when unemployment insurance benefits come to an end they have much difficulty to
February 10, 1978

get welfare and they must find another solution to survive. TV programs are teaching violence to our children, our sons and daughters. They show them all sorts of tricks to get hold of someone else's possessions and it is not surprising if they are tempted to imitate what they have seen. I have already asked in the House, and again I ask, that movies shown on our TV network, at least on the national network, be carefully screened. More broadcasting time should be used to educate people and teach them something useful rather than violence.
We simply have to react against that awful publicity. Like other hon. members, 1 receive hundreds of letters against pornographic movies that also feature violence. If people ask us to speak up against those movies it means there is something good left in our society. I am convinced that there is more good than evil and it is our duty to ensure the conservation of what is good and improve what is bad.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to become involved in this debate in which the official opposition has urged the government to implement quickly the recommendations in the report of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure for a second reason. This is a unique debate. It is uncommon in the House of Commons that members from all sides are able to speak as virtually one voice and be in agreement that something should be done.
In my remarks today I will deal with four general areas. First, I want to comment on how the committee worked. Second, I want to say something about the general findings of the report of this committee. Third, I want to consider what has brought to a head the violence in the penitentiaries. Indeed, this is what brought about the formation of the subcommittee. Finally, I want to discuss the solutions as we see them through the hand of parliament.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) explained very well how the committee came about. 1 want to repeat what other members have said, including the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). It was a real pleasure working on a committee composed of members from all parties of the House. We worked in a collective way toward a common goal. The degree of partisanship which existed in that committee was minimal. In fact, when talking to other people I always pointed out that when there were differences within the committee, they were usually among members of the same party rather than across party lines.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the fine contribution made to the committee by the chairman, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). He demonstrated a real capacity for hearing a number of diverse views. As the hon. member for New Westminster pointed out, we all had different views. However, under his leadership we were able to come together and bring forward a unanimous report.
This leads me to make a comment. I do not say it in any partisan manner; I say it in all good humour to the new Solicitor General (Mr. Blais). I smiled a bit when I learned of
Penitentiaries
the new appointment to the post of Solicitor General. During the past months when the present Solicitor General was postmaster general, I urged him to establish a parliamentary committee of all parties to do exactly the same for the post office as this committee had done. I had to smile when I learned he was being transferred to this ministry where he would be confronted with a unanimous report of a parliamentary committee, the very thing I thought should be established for the post office.
The other paradox is this, and I again say this with all respect to the new minister. The chairman of our committee is perhaps one of the most knowledgeable people in Canada with regard to the affairs of prisons. He is a dean of law of a Canadian university. Yet when it came to appointing someone to a portfolio where one of the main concerns was the situation in our prisons, he was passed over. Again I say this with all due respect to the new minister-


Jean-Jacques Blais: I appreciate that.


Bruce Halliday: -who exhibited his abilities at stonewalling in the post office. I hope he does not carry that ability into his new office as Solicitor General.
It is interesting to note that during the interval from when the committee was set up until this report was tabled, there was virtually no unrest in our prison system. There was an expectant mood or air on the part of all people in the prisons, namely the prisoners, guards and management, as to what was going to come out of the report of that committee. This air of expectation has probably changed. In the last month or two, we have seen a renewal of hostage taking and other forms of violence in our prisons. One can suggest this may be partly due to the way the report has been handled.
I think it is fair to say that when the report was tabled and given to the then solicitor general, he had a real concern for the contents of it. We were all convinced of it. However, when one considers the nature of the report and the fact it had to deal with a lot of problems relating not only to the prisoners, the guards and management, it was a little strange that the first people to see the report in the way of advising the minister was a group of officials within the penitentiary service of the minister's department. That was the breadth of the expertise he was calling on to analyse and criticize the report. It led to some of the delays that are of concern to the opposition and, indeed, all members of this House.
We were critical when we saw the first progress report on the committee's report on about August 5. It indicated there was a desire on the part of the ministry to implement a goodly number of the recommendations, albeit not all. As time progressed, we waited for further word as to what was going to be done about the report. On November 29 of last year, we finally received another progress report. It was based on, and to some extent represented, an additional area of expertise which the minister had sought, namely the interdepartmental working group which the Solicitor General referred to this afternoon. In this, we were pleased to see an increase in the acceptance of the recommendations of the subcommittee.
80031-3 3'/2

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
In his comments a few minutes ago, the minister referred to the work being done by the interdepartmental working group and the fact that some of their recommendations required new legislation. Also, some of our recommendations in the report were rather far-reaching and fundamental and involved the development of new legislation.
I am sure the members of the committee would welcome an opportunity to see that proposed legislation very soon. If the minister proceeded now with the drafting of that legislation and if we had the proposed legislation before us at the time the minister appears before the committee in a few weeks with his estimates, I dare say he could count on very quick consideration and passage of such legislation. That would hurry up implementation of this whole report.


Erik Nielsen: All stages in one day.


Bruce Halliday: My hon. friend from Yukon suggests all stages in one day. That is a possibility and I hope the minister will bear it in mind.
There is one all-pervasive finding in this report and it is embodied in the first of 761 paragraphs. It reads as follows:
To sum up the totality of the needs of the Canadian penitentiary system, as we have observed them, in a single word may seem as hazardous as it is ambitious. However, we believe the word "discipline" says it all.
When we look at the implications of discipline in the system we are looking at four different elements. The first involves the inmates themselves, the second involves the guards, the third concerns management and the fourth concerns the general public which also has a part to play in the successful functioning of a penitentiary system.
As 1 said earlier, the raison d'etre for the establishment of this committee and for the debate today is the violence in our penitentiaries. When we consider our prisons in this context, four conditions have to be met. These were outlined by the chairman of our committee during a speech he made in August before the 1977 World Congress for Mental Health. In the course of his comments at that time the hon. member made this statement in general about the subcommittee's report:
I am personally persuaded that real progress in the establishment of these four conditions according to the recommendations of the subcommittee would provide almost complete control of collective violence in our prison system. But a warning is in order. The recommendations, if not exactly a seamless web, are at least an integrated package. Anything short of almost complete implementation will be ineffective.
In the same speech he went on to say:
Unless the government implements all of the essential recommendations of the report it will not have changed the system.
This establishes the reason for our concern. We share the feelings expressed by our chairman. He was talking about four conditions which have to be met before we can control violence in our prisons. These are, first of all, justice. We must provide ordinary, common justice for the inmates.
Second, there must be some alternative to boredom in prisons. There must be some work provided, some opportunity

for recreation, some challenge to inmates to prevent their being bored, apathetic, or in despair.
Third, we must provide some opportunity for the development of human relationships. The hon. member for New Westminster drew attention to this very clearly in his remarks. He showed that in the B.C. penitentiary there was no opportunity for human relationships. My hon. friend from Yukon went into this aspect further by describing what he had seen in the Oakridge division of the Penetang prison in Ontario where the emphasis was placed on the social development of inmates. It was amazing to see the extent to which even the difficult problem of discipline to which 1 have referred was looked after not by the authorities but by the inmates themselves. If an inmate became unruly he was handcuffed to two of his colleagues; he was not handled by the guards at all.
A fourth condition which must be achieved if violence is to be removed from our prisons is reform in the area of management. If there is to be a successful prison system there must be major changes in management. This is one area in which the former solicitor general refused to come to grips with the subcommittee's report. I will give him credit for this: as time went on he became increasingly in tune with the thinking of the committee as far as management was concerned. I must say, though, that he was rather slow.
What has led to the present situation? What is the background to management problems? First, the present system as we have known it for the last couple of hundred years is based upon the concept of militaristic control. The man at the top is the boss. He rules right on down and there is no input from the sides at all. However, during the last 20 years or so things have changed. Fresh input has come from various quarters and it has obviously taken time for the system to adjust. One important change in the old hierarchical system was brought about by the regionalization program which created uncertainty at the penitentiary level. Another was the unionization of the staffs. I am not suggesting there is no need for unions but I do submit that the main role of a union should be in the economic area rather than trying to influence policy, which ought to be decided by management or by some other policy forming body.
Again I wish to quote the hon. member for Windsor-Walk-erville. He was speaking to another group this time, namely, to the conference of Canadian judges in August of 1977. At time he had this to say:
Without a total change of the system the lesser changes which are made will not be of lasting benefit. Our recommendations represent the minimum change necessary to end collective violence in penitentiaries.
He was saying we must implement the report in its totality if we really wish to succeed.
I mentioned earlier that there are four elements in the system which need to be addressed-the inmates, the guards, management and the public. I wish to stress now the importance of good management, because this was highlighted by our chairman. In an address to the Criminology Centre at the University of Ottawa entitled "The Canadian Penitentiary System-A Crisis of Management", he had this to say:
February 10, 1978

I want to turn, now, to a uniquely Canadian dimension of the penitentiary problem, viz., appalling mismanagement on a scale seldom, if ever, seen before in the Canadian public service.
Our chairman spoke even more strongly than I would have done about management, though I share his concern. He went on:
The Americans manage their system from a position of strength. We manage ours from a position of weakness, with weak techniques, and, worst of all, with weak men.
I hasten to add that our chairman would be the first to say there are exceptions. One of the exceptions is in the south gallery this afternoon.
As an over-all view of the management situation I think that what the chairman said was accurate and precise. I would like to conclude by saying a few things about what I look upon as a solution to the management problem in our penitentiary system. My colleagues who were on the sub-committee will be tired of hearing me talk about this because they have listened time and time again, and not one of them has mentioned it today. There are three recommendations 1 want to refer to in particular. I will read them so we will understand them fully. Recommendation 24 reads:
The commissioner should remain the chief adminisstrative officer of the penitentiary system but he should be appointed by and responsible to a board of five members (appointed for five year terms on a staggered basis by the Solicitor General) which would have sole responsibility for the making of policy.
I emphasize that phrase "sole responsibility".
The board must not have an attached bureaucracy additional to the Penitentiary Service. It should report to the Solicitor General and should be required to make an annual report to parliament through the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General in his first progress report referred to this recommendation in these words:
This is one of the most fundamental changes recommended by the committee-
To tie in with that recommendation is recommendation No. 26, which reads as follows:
The Penitentiary Service under the board-
I have just alluded to that; that is the five-man board.
-must be an independent agency of the government not subject to the Public Service Employment Act or the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It should resemble the RCM Police in its discipline and professionalism. Employees should be subject to discharge for misconduct and incompetence.
Once again the comment of the Solicitor General at the time was this:
This is another of the subcommittee's most far-reaching recommendations-
This has not been alluded to at all today by the Solicitor General except in a very indirect way. Indeed, these are recommendations which I am sure his interdepartmental group are looking at seriously, and I do want to say something more about them. There was a third recommendation, No. 62-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has elapsed. He may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Penitentiaries


Bruce Halliday: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 wish to thank my colleagues who are as indulgent today as they have been over the past year when we were working together. We were interested in each other's presentations at all times. Let me quote recommendation No. 62:
The CPS should research the possibility of expanding, in at least one new institution, the Citizen Advisory Committee into a board of governors on an experimental basis. Such a board should consist of about 12 members and should appoint the director and senior administrative staff.
These three recommendations show a desire on the part of our subcommittee to have the public involved in the concepts, policy formation and in the running of our penitentiary system, apart from the management and administrative aspects. This suggests to me that the people of Canada have an input to make into the total penitentiary system which at the present time, under the hierarchical system, is virtually impossible. I agree that we have the citizen advisory committees in some of our institutions but they are rather impotent in most cases. We saw one or two that were effective, but by and large they were not.
My concern stems from a superficial analysis of our public institutions in Canada where people are rendering a service to other people. I am thinking, first of all, of schools, hospitals, universities, children's aid societies, public libraries and police commissions, wherever there is a public institution which renders a service for one group of people to another and results in public input. That input may be by way of an elected or appointed board, or a combination of both.
There is only one other public institution that I am aware of where there is a person-to-person involvement with no public input, and that is the army. That is the closest parallel I can think of to illustrate the point. In the penitentiary system people there have to deal with the most extreme, aberrant persons who have strayed from the normal sociological path which is accepted by society. In that instance there is virtually no effective public input. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the main reasons we are now having trouble with the prisons. This trend will continue because the original militaristic type of system has been destroyed by regionalization and by the input of unions as well.
Let me comment on the approach taken by the former solicitor general, and a few moments ago by our new Solicitor General, to the recommendations which had been approved by the ministry and those which were under investigation. The Solicitor General forgot to mention that the comment of the then minister on recommendation No. 62 was one word: "reject". I was disappointed at that in view of the interest I have in recommendation No. 62. I want to give my colleagues credit for agreeing that that recommendation was worth including on an experimental basis. With due deference to the former minister when I made representations to the acting commissioner a few months ago he made it possible for me to discuss them with two of his senior officials and I did appreciate this gesture. I am looking forward to the next progress report from the new minister. I hope he and his officials are having a second look at my request that the CPS should research the possibility of expanding the concept of a citizen

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
advisory committee into something like an elected board or appointed board.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to cite two more quotations which support this philosophy that we must recognize in order to have peace in our institutions, namely that of effective public input. The five-man board recommended in recommendation No. 24 will be a policy forming board. A similar board or committee at the institution level will implement the policies made at the top. There are lots of precedents in our school jurisdictions to show that this system functions effectively.
In the course of our hearings we listened to Professor Grygier from the department of criminology, University of Ottawa. Part of the question I asked him read this way:
-do you feel that by involving the public more directly in the administration and planning of our prison systems that we would then have a better educated public? Is this a valid sort of conclusion or not?
The reply of Dr. Grygier was this:
I think so, yes. I think the public should be more involved than it is here.
When he said "here" he meant Canada.
Finally, as recently as this morning in the editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail commenting on Mr. Maloney's report on the prison system in Ontario, the last main paragraph reads:
One of Mr. Maloney's major recommendations, however, is that there should be a local advisory body, made up of senior correctional personnel, judges, lawyers, crown attorneys, police and members of the legislature, wherever there is a jail. These local bodies should meet regularly with a similar provincial body to discuss common problems.
Mr. Maloney's suggestion here is just what we suggested in our report, that there should be a committee at the top involving a cross-section of our society, and a committee at the institutional level involving a cross-section, both having effective input in the formation of policy. I would prefer not to use the term "advisory", because that seems to imply it can be ignored. I think it should be a committee that has some power to form policy.
Again I want to thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to continue. May I just conclude by saying we have appreciated this opportunity today of being able to discuss from all sides of the House this very important issue. We want to welcome the new minister to this portfolio, and suggest to him we will be looking forward quite eagerly to the first time he appears before what we hope will be the reconstituted committee as suggested in recommendation 65.


Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it is, indeed, a pleasure and honour to participate in this debate. I say this because it is very appropriate and timely that the House, and particularly the members of the subcommittee, discuss the progress of our report. Later on I will lay the groundwork for the reasons that I accept the motion in principle.
I accept the principle of the motion as it stands in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) because I feel

certain events that have developed since the tabling of the report clearly indicate we must act quickly, and I would urge the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) to do so.
As has been clearly pointed out by the hon. member for Yukon, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), who spoke on behalf of his party, and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), the subcommittee was a very non-partisan one. It saw that we were clearly facing a crisis situation within our penitentiary system. Because of that we buried very quickly our partisanship.
We were truly parliamentarians in the sense that we saw the problem, and this transgressed any political philosophy. This was a problem that required the collective wisdom of different people from different backgrounds. On the one hand we had my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), a reporter for some 30-odd years doing the crime beat and being very involved with the whole issue of the penitentiary system; a number of us were lawyers who added that dimension of knowledge to the subcommittee; and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) who is, as well as being a member of parliament, a physician and surgeon. I remember that every time we went into a penitentiary he would examine the medical facilities.
I remember at Millhaven particularly, which has created a lot of problems, and still does today, the members of the subcommittee pooled our resources and in fact shared information. We split up our time in order to get a proper cross-examination of the witnesses who appeared before us. I can remember giving information to the hon. member for New Westminster, and he in turn did likewise.
That sort of spirited co-operation and non-partisanship was never demonstrated to the public at large because at that time we did not have television following our committee system. This is why I think it is appropriate and timely here today clearly to demonstrate to the public that the committee system can work, and that when there is a very serious problem parliamentarians come to the fore, bury their partisanship and truly attack the problem on that basis.
I think it even more clearly demonstrated that the spirit of this non-partisanship should continue that the hon. member for Yukon before tabling his motion went around the House yesterday giving notice to everybody of what the motion would entail, and he sincerely expressed the hope that it would not destroy the unanimity and spirit of co-operation which we had developed.
I think I can speak for all my colleagues on this side of the House in saying that we agree with the hon. member; this motion he has presented will not destroy that unanimity and spirit of co-operation. As I have indicated, I accept the motion in principle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur John (Art) Lee: What has happened in respect of the sub-committee's report? On August 5, 1977, the former solicitor general
February 10, 1978

the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox), tabled his response. At that time there was an extreme amount of ambiguity concerning that response. He indicated he accepted 53 of the 65 recommendations and reserved decision on six. That unfortunately caused a lot of confusion. He quickly clarified the situation, and by so doing indicated his willingness to co-operate with the committee.
On November 29 of last year the then solicitor general tabled the first progress report. The subcommittee then conducted an in-depth analysis of this report, and during the month of December held a number of in camera sessions with officials of the department and with the task force charged with the implementation of our report.
What are the recommendations that have been accepted? There has been clear acceptance of the principle of equal employment opportunities for both men and women. The department has appointed a co-ordinator of equal opportunities for women programs within the Canadian penitentiary system. Secondly, contact visiting will, over a period of time, as facilities become available, be introduced in the maximum institutions of Archambault, Fort Saskatchewan and even Millhaven. At the present moment contact visiting occurs mostly in our minimum institutions.
The one issue in respect of which I think all of us expressed a high degree of unanimity was the issue of no deals for hostage takers. The government has clearly indicated its support for that recommendation by its actions with regard to the incident which occurred at Millhaven on November 21 of last year.
The department has also established independent chairpersons for disciplinary hearings within institutions. The department has presented a very lustrative list of persons chosen to sit as these chairpersons. It is also in the process of implementing recommendation 36 regarding the grievance procedure where you have a panel of two inmates, two representatives from the staff of the institution, chaired hopefully by an outside person. This system is presently being used in some of the more troublesome institutions like Attica. Members of the subcommittee will remember that well from the film we saw of what happened there. This is a pilot project which is now being undertaken at the Saskatchewan penitentiary. Hopefully when the inherent difficulties of that procedure are worked out it will be implemented on a nationwide basis.
When the report of the subcommittee was tabled, the then solicitor general and the department rejected our recommendation that all directors of institutions report directly to the commissioner. Subsequent to that, in December during the in camera hearings we learned that directors of maximum institutions now will report to the commissioner. This goes a long way toward meeting our first recommendation, which was originally rejected by the then solicitor general. This clearly indicates the government is forthcoming. Also it demonstrates the dedication of the former solicitor general, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, and I congratulate him for
Penitentiaries
implementing many of our recommendations. An entire system cannot be changed overnight. I am confident the new Solicitor General will be as forthcoming as his predecessor.
Many participants in the debate today have referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). 1 applaud him as well. He did an excellent job. In an address before the national association active in criminal justice on January 27, 1978, he said the following:
I have gone into a good deal of detail with respect to progress on the subcommittee report because the process of progressive adoption of a report which here appears is almost unprecedented in government. Normally, a government, wishing to put its best foot forward, will announce at the outset the maximum possible implementation of a report, and any subsequent changes in the government attitude are likely to be by way of diminution of the original impetus and undertakings.
The process in this case has been the exact reverse. Although the impact of the subcommittee's report on the press and public was immediate and strong, the hardened professionals in the Canadian Penitentiary Service approached it rather gingerly, and the minister, even though from the outset filled with good will toward the report, was limited by the attitudes of his subordinates. But since the minister's initial response in August, there has been a steady groundswell of support in the CPS in favour of the recommendations. Things which seemed impossible then now seem possible. What then appeared merely possible now appears probable. The change in attitude of middle and senior management in the CPS was most strikingly evident to members of the standing committee during the in-camera hearings in December. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that it is now possible to foresee an almost total acceptance of the report by the government.
However, the major recommendations which called for taking the Canadian Penitentiaries Service out of the general rules, guidelines and legislation of most govern me... departments is still under study. I urge strongly the new Solicitor General to accept these recommendations unequivocally. To do otherwise invites the continuation of the problems which resulted in the creation of our subcommittee, and the continuation of the kinds of events which occurred recently at the Dorchester penitentiary, in British Columbia, and at Archambault. Members of the committee are fully cognizant of the fact that the Solicitor General cannot guarantee the removal of all hostilities, but they should be minimized as much as possible.
Not only do these major changes have far-reaching implications in the Canadian Penitentiaries Service, but they have far-reaching implications for the government in general. We are dealing with a very unique situation in the Canadian Penitentiaries Service. It is very dangerous to decentralize just for the sake of regionalization. If the departments in Ottawa are duplicated in the various regions, then those departments are not sure if they have line or staff authority.
The committee looked at staff ratios. It was a one-for-one ratio. That indicates a lot of people are working, but are they effective and efficient? There is an extreme amount of confusion within the system. A lot of it is internal, and a lot has been overcome. Much of the confusion is caused by the fact that one must deal with government departments and the Public Service Commission.
I should like to refer to an incident which occurred at the airport here in Ottawa. Some guards were to pick up prisoners, and those guards were drunk. The RCMP officers who were

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
escorting the prisoners rightly refused to turn them over to the guards. The guards were suspended but were not fired. They should have been fired. This is the type of problem which plagues the Canadian Penitentiaries Service. It has to be the master of its own destiny and come to grips with problems.
The crux of these recommendations is a straightening out of the organization. The previous solicitor general commenced the implementation of some of these recommendations. He appointed a new commissioner, Mr. Yeomans. 1 have been informed by lower and middle management within the service that Mr. Yeomans is the man for the job. He will do the job and shake things up. Some people are somewhat worried about this and phone their members of parliament because they are concerned about the fact that they are losing their jobs or being transferred. Mr. Yeomans is doing a good job, and I encourage the Solicitor General to back him up. In December Mr. Yeomans said: "The only thing I have read about the penitentiaries service was your report". Perhaps the members of the committee are not expert in everything, but we like to think that our report was a good start. If he can implement most of the recommendations, then he is well on his way to doing an excellent job.
Before closing I have a few remarks regarding the recent hostage takings and the murder at Archambault. These incidents should not prevent the government from continuing its reform. I was gratified to hear what the Solicitor General had to say in that respect. Hostage takings and murder are tragic. No one can condone those events. In due course the precipitators will be prosecuted before the courts. One must remember that hostage takings, and probably even murder, are symptoms of the problems in the penitentiaries service and society as a whole. Prisons are in existence to segregate criminals from the people in our society in order to protect the general population. Similarly, within the prison institution there are segregation units such as special maximum units to protect the general prison population from dangerous and violent persons like the infamous Andy Bruce, whom the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) referred to in his remarks earlier.
I have received some letters indicating that if we had capital punishment we would not have any of these problems. As a person who voted in favour of the retention of capital punishment, I say that such a view is very simplistic. To introduce capital punishment solely as a knee-jerk reaction would be extremely foolish. Capital punishment is just one form of punishment, and that must be remembered. During the debate on capital punishment I distinguished between premeditated and unpremeditated murder. I suppose the first degree murder referred to in Bill C-84 is premeditated murder and second degree murder is unpremeditated. People who are knowledgeable about and cognizant of what that means treat the two offences as being distinct; they do not think of capital punishment as a catch-all means of solving all our criminal justice problems.

One other thing I questioned very seriously during the capital punishment debate was the issue of long term incarceration. We must remember that people convicted of first degree murder will be incarcerated 25 years and will be eligible to apply for parole or a sentence review only after 15 years. Members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs have observed that we seem to be moving toward longer terms of incarceration. I seriously question that because long term incarceration creates time bombs. We in the subcommittee never really examined in any great depth problems created by long term incarceration, and to the best of my knowledge the Department of the Solicitor General has not completed its investigation into the ramifications of long term incarceration.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) cited the history of the infamous Andy Bruce, an individual who has been in and out of prison and who has spent most of his adult life in maximum security institutions. During his stay in the B.C. penitentiary most of his time has been spent in the "penthouse" or the super maximum unit. He says he does not condone what he has done, and I agree with him, but one must examine the consequences of keeping an individual in a four by six cell. He becomes a "time bomb".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired. He may, however, continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: I thank my hon. colleagues for their indulgence, and I will try to make my closing remarks very brief.
I think it is urgent that the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) study what should be done with people who are incarcerated for long periods of time, because we create time bombs when we send people involved in hostage-taking incidents back to the super maximum units from which they came.
I am sure the issue of capital punishment will be debated at another time. I do not think it should be confused with what we are talking about here, which is prison reform.
I think I speak on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House when I say that we shall continue the unanimity and the spirit of co-operation which developed during our investigations into the penitentiary system, during the drafting of our report and certainly in our cross-examination, if I may use that term, of the new Solicitor General with respect to his response to our report. For the reasons I have outlined I support in principle the motion in the name of the hon. member for Yukon.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with interest the debate on this motion, which asks the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) to adopt the unanimous recommendations put forward by the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada. Most of the speakers to this point were members of that subcommittee. I was not a
February 10, 1978

member of it, but when it met in the Vancouver area and at the B.C. penitentiary I joined it and participated in hearings there, and the first thing which struck me was the change of mood among the personnel of the B.C. penitentiary service. I had visited the institution on previous occasions, but I had never before seen the marked enthusiasm there was among that staff while the subcommittee was there. It was enthusiasm almost to the point of euphoria, I suppose partly because they were getting some attention. They probably had a long list of what they thought were grievances which they felt had not had the attention they deserved, and now here was a parliamentary subcommittee coming to hear them. This was important to them. I think they had great hope that out of the hearings something substantive would come about to the benefit of the personnel at the B.C. penitentiary as well as the inmates there.
Another group which caught my notice was the group of reporters which followed that sub-committee. Those reporters told me that in all their experience they had never seen a group of parliamentarians working in such close co-operation as that subcommittee. The reporters were also in a state of euphoria. They had great expectations for the results which were to come out of the recommendations made by the subcommittee. They were looking forward to genuine and substantive reforms in the penitentiary service as a result of the work of the subcommittee. When a group reaches that level of hope and when its expectations are not met, a dangerous situation develops because hopes dashed are worse than no hopes at all. Accordingly, I urge the Solicitor General to implement all the recommendations of the subcommittee. If he does, he will see a marked change in the penitentiary service.
I am speaking in this debate because I believe that the events at the B.C. penitentiary in the last ten days probably resulted from the fact that not all the recommendations were followed. If the Solicitor General had taken some of the remedial measures these 65 recommendations contain, very likely he would have alleviated the pressure which has built up in the penitentiary service.
I want to focus on what I think are some of the problems at the B.C. penitentiary. The latest hostage-taking incident involved five prisoners and some visitors who probably collaborated with them.


Erik Nielsen: Some of them.


Benno Friesen: Some of them, not all the prisoners. The hon. member is right. This incident should never have happened. I suppose no incidents of this kind should ever happen, but particularly this one because we now have the benefit of all the information gleaned at the hearings of the subcommittee. We have had that additional education, and this latest incident should never have happened.
I think hon. members generally understand that there is a small group of activists which frequents the visiting area at the B.C. penitentiary. They are repeatedly permitted to visit some of the more dangerous prisoners there, among them Andy Bruce. Among this group of activists are people related to
Penitentiaries
these dangerous prisoners. This group of activists can go to the B.C. penitentiary and visit these hard core criminals almost at will and there seems to be no way to stop it. For two years the staff has had profiles of these activists on file, but the administration seems to be afraid to deal with this thorny problem. Had the staff tried to stop them coming in they would have had to file a series of reports to the administration. At one time it was necessary for prisoners from the SMU to be handcuffed, to have leg cuffs and a double escort when they were taken down to the visitors' centre. That practice has been modified and now they are only required to be handcuffed and to have one escort. The fact that one of these prisoners had a hammer when he went into the visitors' unit shows that they are not being frisked properly. It seems to me that visitors and correspondence ought to be under the jurisdiction of security rather than under the socialization section, as is the present arrangement.
The B.C. penitentiary has a walk-through scanner that would electronically frisk visitors as they come into the unit. They have had it for two years but it is in storage. I do not understand why the scanner is not installed in the visitors' unit to check the people who come in.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) referred to the need for meaningful, creative work for prisoners. I agree '' at this is one of the substantive recommendations that the subcommittee presented that ought to be following right away. I think it is time we realized that for them work is therapy, not punishment. It is a way of working out frustrations and could be a meaningful, creative and satisfying outlet for prisoners.
For some time staff at the penitentiary, especially in the visitors' unit, have been trying to get locks changed. The administration agrees, yet nothing is done about it. When the prisoners ask for new sports equipment, however, they get it. Mr. Speaker, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.


Erik Nielsen: It is not the prison system that is rotten.


Benno Friesen: Of course, the hon. member is right. The Farris commission recommended that there be a daily inspection of the list of inmates going to the classification section and to the visitors' centre. It should be known in advance who is going to those areas. If that list is inspected, how did it happen that five of these people got into the visitors' centre? They knew two days in advance that Andy Bruce was going down there. It should be easy enough to match that list with those who had made appointments to come there.
To digress, Mr. Speaker, I might add that it has come to my knowledge by way of the prison grapevine that while Andy Bruce spent that week or so in the visitors' centre he destroyed all the files. Before he did that, however, he got a lot of information from them, and according to the grapevine he is willing to share that information with prisoners in the general population area. I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) should inform himself of this matter.
2766

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
The simplest dictum regarding a sense of security in any administrative body, not only prisons, is that you must know without question who is in charge. I refer specifically to the comments in this regard of the hon. member for New Westminster. The warden should be in charge and everybody in the institution should know that the warden is in charge. There should be no interception of orders. He should not need to refer to the regional centre for a modification of orders or to check the orders, he is in charge and everyone should know it. The chain of command means just that.
Just recently in the question period, Mr. Speaker, I asked about hiring practices at the B.C. penitentiary. I realize that the subcommittee had a monumental task as it toured the country and could not possibly look into all matters that required examination. One reason I think the committee should be reactivated is so that it can go into places like the B.C. penitentiary and the regional centre in Vancouver to examine areas that could possibly lead to the kind of mismanagement we are facing now.
One of the important questions relates to hiring practices. The present practice is that the Public Service Commission sends someone to act as a commissioner. A board is formed, but three or four members of that board are drawn from within the system. I believe that in other services the Public Service Commission is entirely in charge of the competition, but for some reason or other in this case they send one commissioner who is assisted by three or four members of the penitentiary service. It seems to me this could lead to an obvious conflict of interest. Perhaps we need a complete audit of the staff at regional headquarters, their qualifications, their experience within the system. I do not mean shuffling papers but rather their going into the penitentiary and working there, knowing what it is like to walk on the range and work in the SMU. I think this aspect should be reviewed as well as the hiring practices.
I should like to give the Solicitor General a list of people who have been hired and promoted with indecent haste. I shall not use names as that would not be fair. I will give a copy of the list to the minister, however, if he wants it. I do not say these people are not qualified, but I do say there are people within the system who could be just as qualified and who perhaps should have had an equal opportunity of promotion, which it seems to me they may not have had because they were apparently facing undue competition from people coming into the system.
One individual was transferred from Ontario to British Columbia as a WP3 in September 1973 and by June, 1974 was promoted to WP5 and subsequently to acting WP7. Another individual was hired in 1974 at the WP3 level and subsequently promoted to WP4, a position which requires a university degree. Since this person had only a grade 11 education a grievance was filed and the promotion was withdrawn. When the regional reception centre opened this person was promoted to WP5. Again, it was grieved and the promotion was withdrawn. I understand this person has now been made acting director and at the present time is on temporary assignment
[Mr. Friesen.)
with the Parole Board. People within the system with university degrees had competed for that job. A third person went to the B.C. penitentiary service in 1974 from the YMCA as a WP3 and one year later was a WP5, without any previous penitentiary experience.
Let me refer to another person I have met on several occasions and like very much and who may have all the necessary qualifications. This person, a school teacher, came to the service in 1972 as a casual employee and was promoted to associate director of occupational development at about WP5 level in 1975. As of October, 1977, the position ceased to exist. He is still there, in effect having no job officially. He is in charge of changing the B.C. penitentiary to the regional reception centre. Again I say I like this person. He is a good person. However, it seems he may have had an advantage over some others.
I mentioned another case in question period the other day. A former psychiatric nurse was hired at the WP3 level and promoted in 18 months to WP5. He is now assistant director of inmate programs. Despite short tenure, he won the competition against two others in the system who had an accumulation between the two of them of 14 years' experience as a supervisor and acting director of socialization. I mentioned the other day someone who had worked there for only a year who was promoted from WP1 to WP3 to WP4.
Finally, one man who was hired has now been promoted. One of the astounding things is that, by his own admission, he has had 35 jobs in 30 years. Now he is one of the supervisory personnel at the B.C. penitentiary. Something that bothers me is that the people who sit on these boards of examination for competitions sit for people who work for them later. I wonder whether there is some kind of conflict of interest here.
Are we developing a corps of people who are forming specialist interests in the hiring system which appears by design to exclude resident employees? That is the operative question in the whole system. It is easy to say we need new blood in the system. I agree. You cannot operate a system year after year with the same people having inbred ideas about the way the system ought to operate. We do need new blood in the system periodically. However, it seems we are developing a trend which defies everything that would be sound administrative sense in overlooking the talent that exists.
It may be true that we need sound professional training. I do not deny that. I support it all the way. However, one of the extra ingredients we need if we are going to have effective personnel in any part of the penitentiary service is an awareness such as is gained only by exposure to the atmosphere and the kind of personnel with which you are dealing in the penitentiary service. This is why I support the resolution, which reads as follows:
That this House deeply regrets the failure of the Solicitor General to adopt and implement the sixty-five unanimous recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Penitentiary System in Canada, and therefore directs the government to adopt and implement forthwith the whole of these recommendations to
February 10, 1978

promote meaningful penitentiary reform and to prevent further hostage incidents.
I would like to conclude my remarks with this observation particularly to the Solicitor General. Almost every time there is a hostage taking incident in the B.C. penitentiary, some of my constituents seem to be involved. I have visited them. One is a cook who had a knife pointed at his throat for a while. Some of them were in the classification centre in 1975 when Mary Steinhauser was killed. So I personally know what is going on. However, I hasten to add, lest the Solicitor General wants to ask some discreet questions about the system, that 1 did not get this information from my constituents. Therefore, I hope there will be no scurrying around to try and find out where the information came from, because it did not come from my constituency.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have seldom been so proud of being a member of this House. The tone of the debate today, its content, its seriousness, the lack of partisanship are an indication of the real concern shown by the House for the problem of the penitentiary system as well as the fact, and 1 think it is an essential one, that the House can on some unfortunately very few occasions give excellent performances.
Mr. Speaker, 1 must congratulate the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for his motion and his introduction. It is rather noteworthy that all members who have risen to make comments up to now have basically endorsed the concerns stated in his motion. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps an indication that what should be a basic character of this House, that is an enlightened debate on our institutions with as little partisanship as possible, can only be found in such circumstances.
Several of the former speakers, Mr. Speaker, have stressed the fact that the Subcommittee on the Penitentiary System produced a unanimous report and that its deliberations were, much to its credit, devoid of political considerations. I myself, Mr. Speaker, found it a fascinating experience, as a member of Parliament, as a parliamentarian and as a man, to work with people who are normally political opponents but who managed to set aside those political differences to reach unanimous conclusions on a problem which, though not political but rather institutional, is very serious and demands a quick solution. A solution must be found quickly, Mr. Speaker, and of course, I support the recommendations of the report.
I could not but accept the subject of the motion of the hon. member for Yukon because, once again, I support recommendation I of the report which states that the penitentiary system is in a state of crisis, and the unfortunate incidents in the last few weeks prove that. Despite the efforts made until now to improve the atmosphere, despite the recommendations and changes brought to the system since we have been working at it, the situation is still very serious, and we must give it our whole attention.
Mr. Speaker, that committee worked as a team. That committee, once again, solved internal differences to achieve a
Penitentiaries
unanimous report and I think it is the duty not only of the government but also of the penitentiary system itself, of the administration, to give serious consideration not only to the report itself, for I think the predecessor of the present Solicitor General took this report very seriously, but also to the prompt and extensive application of its recommendations, in order to improve the system by making a number of changes in its operation and particularly in the attitude of the people who work there.
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important to change the attitude of the people because you can always change the institutions or establish new ones, but it is always the people who are part of them who see that they work or not. I also believe that the committee fully realized that the main problem with our penitentiary system was a problem of permanent misunderstanding between the various constituents: the guards, the directors and the prisoners. There was and, as far as 1 know, there still is a wall of mutual misunderstanding we want to break by implementing our recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important at this point to mention the major role the press has played in the work of the subcommittee. Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind that if the press had not covered the work of the subcommittee on a daily basis and if some press members had not covered the work of the committee and developed an expertise in this area, the committee, Mr. Speaker, could certainly not have achieved the credibility it has been gaining as its work kept progressing.
Indeed, when the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) tabled its report, the newspapers, the electronic media, and the editorials lavished their praise for days on the committee for its work and urged the government to implement its recommendations as soon as possible. And then the matter fizzed out and we heard no more for several months until this week, when, following a very legitimate question by a member of the opposition, the press hinted that not only had the report not been implemented but that it had been shelved and not made public.
Mr. Speaker, we know, of course, that the press has to cover many areas and sometimes fails in its responsibility to seek proper information and make a thorough examination of the problem. We are used, Mr. Speaker, to the press sometimes jumping to conclusions and sometimes making irresponsible comments. But in this case, Mr. Speaker, I was deeply shocked to read that the media were suggesting the report of the subcommittee on penal matters had been swept aside, and more could possibly have been done while hon. members know fully well that over the past six months members of the subcommittee, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, have been working in co-operation first with the former solicitor general and hopefully with the present incumbent towards their implementation on a regular, continuing basis. To date, over 50 per cent of the recommendations have been implemented.
80031 -34Yi

Penitentiaries
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the credibility gained among the population was ruined by the irresponsible comments that appeared in the Canadian press in general. Having said that, I would hope that after today's debate, an enlightened debate if there ever was, the necessary corrections will be made, so that the Canadian people will know that the work of the subcommittee has not been useless and that the government must implement its recommendations and follow them up.
I do not intend to deal at length with the detailed recommendations. Several of my colleagues have touched on certain points but there is one I had more particularly at heart at the time and which still concerns me. It relates to the tendency of the penitentiary system in the past to operate in an unhealthy climate of secrecy. Some of the recommendations of the subcommittee, particularly those relating to the institutions themselves under the title "Organization and Management of the Penitentiary Service", tried to remedy the situation, to find ways, and here again the debate is open-there are perhaps other ways-to put the penitentiary system in the public eye.
Because, in my opinion, when in a system you have people who exercise control over other people, this opens the door to many abuses. We have personally witnessed what these abuses can do to some people. We hope that abuses will stop with the implementation of our recommendations. This implies that the public will know what is going on in penitentiary institutions and will understand the nature and the reason of the policies. This also implies that the hide-and-seek policy used in the past by the Penitentiary Service will stop.
I know that this is a serious charge but I have made it before. This has been said in the past, it has been said by the committee itself, and I repeat it not because there is a illwill on the part of the service, but simply because when things go wrong, there is a tendency to hide things. This is normal. This is why the subcommittee was instituted. This is why we made our recommendations. I think that all the members of the subcommittee will agree with this. We continue to believe that if we implement the main recommendations which aim at opening up the Canadian Penitentiary Service, the problem will automatically be solved.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer in particular to a recommendation which was not rejected by the previous solicitor general and which is still being considered. I hope that it will eventually be considered favourably by the authorities. I am thinking, and one of my colleagues has already talked about this, about the question of a five-member board. The committee made this recommendation deliberately. It is part of a whole series of initiatives which aim at withdrawing as much as possible the Penitentiary Service from direct and sometimes deplorably partisan political influence, as was the case in the past.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we recommended that the employees of the Penitentiary Service no longer belong to the Public Service Alliance in the same way. We recommended, too, that a five-member board be established and be responsible

February 10, 1978
for appointing the commissioner of penitentiaries. We recommended the appointment not of a general controller, but of someone like a general director who would ensure that the guidelines and general policy be followed at all levels of the administration.
Mr. Speaker, we submitted a whole series of recommendations in an effort to streamline the system and to suppress the kind of nebulous atmosphere which still surrounds the policy of the Penitentiary Service.
That commission of five men is not a sheer product of the imagination, Mr. Speaker. It exists in other jurisdictions and in other areas. I therefore urge the Solicitor General to seriously consider this recommendation, to examine its performance, and if needed to propose alternatives. The main thing is results rather than ways and means, if we are to achieve the opening to the outside world we are advocating.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, my intention is not to be too long on this subject. In my view, the report is self-explanatory. Mr. Speaker, the 65 recommendations should be considered in toto, as a whole. It is a package, and any partial implementation would only go part of the way towards meeting the objectives. Of course as my colleague indicated earlier, I realize and accept that institutions as heavy, as big as the Canadian Penitentiary Service cannot be changed overnight.
I accept that studies are needed, and implementation planning. In his remarks, the Solicitor General referred to an assistant commissioner for this implementation. I accept that this may take some time, I accept that over a few months, or even a year, deeper recommendations be gradually phased in. But I would find hard to accept that it be brushed off. I will therefore be waiting anxiously for the Solicitor General's appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with the third interim progress report. Mr. Speaker, after nine months have gone by, we will be in a position to assess the Canadian Penitentiary Service's earnestness, when they suggest they have a firm intention of doing everything in their power to ensure rapid implementation of the report's recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I said I was feeling proud to be a member of this House. I really am, because work in committee, today's debate in this House, and especially the high level of speeches are so many proofs that our parliamentary system is working when we enjoy the confidence and are given the tools needed for its successful performance.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply conclude by quoting, as has been the habit of all speakers in this debate, from a speech made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, who chaired the Subcommittee on the Penitentiary System, before the National Association of Active and Criminal Justice, on January 27, 1978. And I regret there is no procedure for a backbencher to table as exhibit if I may so say-that speech where the chairman summarized the sub-committee's views in such a magnificent way. On page 10 he had this to say, which I fully support:
February 10, 1978

-the continuing pressure of the members of this committee on the Solicitor General and the Canadian Penitentiary Service that has led to a fuller acceptance of the report than was initially apparent. This pressure occurred in hearings on the supplementary estimates in November, during the private sessions of the Committee on its special reference in December, and in numerous outside contacts between committee members and those involved in implementation. The Solicitor General has publicly welcomed this process and has even looked forward to its continuance during the consideration of main estimates this spring. In this respect the substance of recommendation 65, that the standing committee should have a permanent reference to enable it to review the implementation of the report, has in fact been achieved, even though this recommendation was the one which was perhaps most strongly rejected by the Solicitor General from June 7 on. It is now clear for all to see that the minister's only objection to recommendation 65 was as to the form of review recommended, and that he welcomes continuing attention to the substance of the implementation of the report.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we are now doing in this debate. We are putting all the pressure we can on the Solicitor General and the Canadian Penitentiary Service to implement as a package the recommendations in the report submitted by the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada. I would like to repeat that it has been a fascinating experience to work in such an environment, and I thank the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for putting forward the motion now before us.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, since I have come to parliament this is the most constructive and interesting debate in which I have had the opportunity to participate. As many hon. members have mentioned, it shows that the committee system of the House of Commons, if utilized properly, can indeed produce an outstanding piece of work, which is precisely what these recommendations are.
1 would like to pay a personal tribute to the chairman, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), not only for the work he did in pursuance of the arduous and thorough way the committee under his direction went through their appointed task, but for some of the excellent speeches he made which sought to further the committee's work.
As other members have mentioned, the chairman spoke to distinguished bodies such as the 1977 World Congress for Mental Health and the Canadian judges conference and indeed to the centre of criminology here at the University of Ottawa on November 28 last year. These are not all of the speeches he made. They were excellent speeches and provided a valuable adjunct to the work that the committee was doing and sought to achieve.
I wish to pay my personal tribute to members of all parties who worked on this committee. I did not have the opportunity to do this, but I followed their deliberations with a great deal of interest, and as has already been said, the House of Commons and the country owe these dedicated members of parliament a real debt of gratitude for what they have done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Penitentiaries


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I hope the new Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) will take advantage of the high degree of unanimity that exists in the House of Commons and will bring forward some legislation in the near future, although as is often the case passing legislation is a tortuous process. It seems to me, that if legislation were brought forward-and it is essential that that legislation embody all of the recommendations set out in this report-it could be passed through this House with unprecedented speed. It would be an opportunity to demonstrate to the House and the country that, when there is a need for good, constructive legislation, this chamber can provide that kind of expedition and provide it quickly. I hope the Solicitor General will consider this very carefully. It is obvious from the support he has for the concepts effected in the speeches of many members of parliament here this afternoon that he would be able to achieve something quickly which would be long remembered and would be useful to the country.
In her well written and sensitive book, "Kind and Usual Punishment-The Prison Business", Jessica Mitford points out that:
It is surprising to learn that prison as a place of confinement for the ordinary lawbreaker is less than 200 years old, an institution of purely American origin, conceived by its investors as a noble humanitarian reform befitting an Age of Enlightenment in the aftermath of a revolution against ancient tyrannies.
It is heartening to see that the efforts of this distinguished subcommittee were directed toward bringing some humanita-rianism into what has become, a very degrading and brutal system in recent years. In order for this report to be effective I believe it ought to be accepted as a package. Accepting only certain parts of it will waste the thrust of the entire concept.
The key recommendation is the last one. It bears repeating that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should have a permanent reference during the remainder of the thirtieth parliament, and for the thirty-first parliament, to enable it to review the implementation of this report in the context of the criminal justice system. This continuing mandate would have a constructive and stabilizing effect.
While this committee was conducting its deliberations there was a marked lessening in hostage-taking incidents and the general state of unrest in the prison systems. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has just pointed out, there were none. Surely the government can see the wisdom of allowing this committee, which has achieved such a degree of expertise and obviously respect from those people who are part of the prison system and, indeed, victims of it, to have some continuing and direct influence in such an important area of social and government policy.
There have been in the past great abuses in prisons connected with experiments in which inmates were used to test antibiotics, how they responded to psychiatric and neurosurgical techniques, and things like this. This is something, however, that has not been prevalent to my knowledge in Canadian prisons, or at least to the degree it has been in other countries.

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries
One might also quote Lord Byron in this respect:
This is the patent age of new inventions for killing bodies and for saving souls, all propagated with the best intentions.
One of the things that has always astounded me as a man who has sometimes visited prisons and who has practised criminal law is the degree of lawlessness that one finds within prisons. It seems that somewhere along the line our system has broken down completely when it comes to giving people who are to be confined in prison some degree of stability and discipline and a chance to improve themselves in an area where there is a degree of stability and lack of lawlessness.
As Richard Kelly, a judge of the sixth judicial circuit court of the state of Florida said in testifying before the select committee on crime of the House of Representatives in December, 1971:
I would like to say one thing this committee should consider, that one of the astounding facts about prisons is this: That they are probably the most lawless places in our society. This is a dominating factor in every place that there are laws.
Based on my observations, one of the most demoralizing aspects of prison life to an inmate is the fact that in many cases he does not know exactly how long he will be incarcerated. Another thing that demoralizes inmates is the arbitrariness with which disciplinary procedures are carried out, and the way that their privilege of parole is sometimes snatched away in a most arbitrary way for the most trivial of reasons. The committee deals with this in its report which was tabled last June, as, indeed, it deals with practically everything of value. Recommendation 34 rather sets the stage for the part I am going to quote from the committee report:
Institutional libraries must provide adequate material for legal research, especially in the field of criminal law.
I suggest it is important for people who are incarcerated to fully understand the basis of the law that put them there. Also the report goes on to state:
When an inmate enters the penitentiary system, he should not only be instructed clearly and precisely about rules of conduct and the expectations of prison authorities-which is not generally the case now-but he should also be able to know the length of time that he may expect to be in prison. His conduct in prison is significantly affected by the way he defines and understands his goals.
The report goes on to state that it is extremely important that an inmate be able to calculate his sentence, or be able to get a reliable and accurate calculation at the reception centre. If he cannot, as is sometimes the case, the demoralizing effect of this situation is reflected in his own conduct in prison as well as adding to the general level of unrest and hostility.
Let me refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) in his address of January 27 of this year, only a few days ago, to national associations active in criminal justice. He said:
The more time that passes since the report of the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada last June 7 the more completely it appears that the government will implement the 65 recommendations of the report.
I sincerely hope that is the case. Because if the government does not implement the thrust and the intent of this report, then a great opportunity will be lost. In this context I would
[Mr. MacKay.J
like for a few moments to make some suggestions that fit in for the most part with what the report recommends. I must in so doing pay tribute to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who was the guiding light behind many of these recommendations which have found general favour with our caucus. Some of them, I think, are particularly appropriate in the humanitarian as well as in the administrative sense.
The CPS should establish a clear, concise inmate disciplinary code which will be available to, and understandable by, both inmates and staff. There should be no catch-all phrases, and it should spell out the kind of punitive action to be taken against each specific offence. Too often in the present system there is a great latitude that allows for individual vindictiveness on the part of staff as a result of personal animosity built up between certain staff or guard members and inmates.
Disciplinary boards are very important as well, and we feel that the hearings of these disciplinary boards should be presided over by independent chairpersons. It would be the responsibility of such an individual to determine the guilt of the inmate and the proper sanction to be used against him. Local magistrates might make suitable candidates in certain instances for such positions. No inmate should have to wait more than two days before his case is heard by a disciplinary board.
As far as punitive segregation is concerned, this is a very drastic disciplinary measure and should be used very sparingly. Inmates should not be subjected to extended periods of such isolation.
One of the objectives that I think is admirable is meaningful inmate counselling. This should be emphasized more and more. Whenever possible, I suggest that the officers who provide this kind of counselling should be selected from the older and more experienced staff.
Another thing that inmates find very demoralizing is the lack of contact visiting. It seems to me that, unless an inmate demonstrates otherwise by his anti-social behaviour or uncooperative attitude, with proper security arrangements contact visiting should be allowed at all institutions. Any inmate found abusing the privilege should be compelled to receive future visitors in a visiting booth only.
Another feature that so far has been almost, I guess, a complete "no, no," is conjugal visits. It seems to me that if you treat people like animals you will be rewarded by an attitude similar to that of an animal. I see no reason that there should not be, on an experimental basis, a greater attempt to arrange this type of program in the prisons of this country. After all, we have the dubious distinction, I believe, of having more or our people per capita in penal institutions than any other country in the world.


Erik Nielsen: And it works in the United States.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As the hon. member for Yukon says, the program works in the United States and in other countries.
Leaving that rather delicate topic for a moment, one of the programs I have watched with some interest is that program which has been carried out with the co-operation of the Scott
February 10, 1978

Paper Company in my native province of Nova Scotia. It consists of allowing inmates to work cutting pulpwood for wages and under conditions which are comparable to those applying to ordinary contractors. In speaking to some of the officials of that company I am informed that this particular work camp, called Shulie Lake, is located about 30 miles west of Parsboro in Nova Scotia. The inmates and the guards live in the same quarters. The inmates are considered to be employees of the company during the time they work.
There are two phases: phase I involves 12 weeks of training and phase II involves a further 12 weeks during which time the inmates work cutting pulp and are trained at the same time. The inmates aFe paid under the regular system of the industry: they are paid per cord for the wood they cut. They have to buy their own saws and clothes. As they accumulate money, they pay for their equipment. Also they are allowed to put money in the bank. When they are allowed to go home, they are able to pay their own fares from that money. On some occasions they are allowed to send money home for the support of their families. This type of program should be expanded.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) referred to the Dorchester penitentiary in British Columbia. Based on my visits to that penitentiary, it is one of the best institutions of its kind in the country. I was interested in the references to this institution. I see the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) listening as I refer to this particular institution. Perhaps he is closer to it than I am, and has visited it on occasion as well. The committee noted the following:
Although it is about the same age as the B.C. penitentiary, Dorchester rates as one of the better maximum security institutions in Canada. The director, Humphrey D. Sheehan, attributes this to his staff:
It is very interesting to note that. Perhaps it is one of the better institutions because of the relationship which exists between the director, the warden and the staff.


Erik Nielsen: And the inmates.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, the inmates as well. I should like to quote what Mr. Sheehan said:
They are pretty basic down-to-earth people who can get along with others. They recognize that there is a job to be done and that you can do it both ways: you make it tough or you make it easy. I think the stability of the staff, the fact that we do not have a large staff turnover, contributes to this. There is considerable staff experience here and they are familiar with dealing with inmates.
Also I should like to return to what the committee noted, which reads as follows:
The PSAC representatives similarly praised Mr. Sheehan whom they considered to be the "best director in the penitentiary service."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That type of tribute is very heartening to people who are interested in the prison system. My impression of Millhaven is based on far briefer visits and less observation than Dorchester. When I visited that institution, I found it was
Penitentiaries
much more modernistic in many ways. It was a more attractive prison to look at superficially, but there was an air of tension and unrest which seemed to be almost tangible when walking through the halls of that institution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in today's Globe and Mail. It indicates that this is a very current matter which occupies the continuing attention of leading newspapers all over Canada. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) quoted the excerpt which first caught my eye. There is another section of the article which is almost as important. It is based on observations made by the ombudsman for Ontario, Arthur Maloney. In his day he was one of Canada's best criminal counsel.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: And a member of parliament.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, he was a member of parliament, as I have been reminded.


Mr. Paproski:: He was on our side.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I did not know that.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: He must have made quite an impression.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I point out to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) that I am not as old as he is and I do not have the recall of parliamentary jurisprudence. According to the editorial, Mr. Maloney makes it obvious that we are sending far too many people to jail. The editorial reads in part as follows:
He points out that during the fiscal year 1976-1977, "the ministry housed 59,362 prisoners in its jails and detention centres prior to trial." (So much for our so-called soft bail laws.) He quotes the Law Reform Commission of Canada to the effect that this country "is one of the harshest western countries when it comes to prison sentences."-
We must protect our citizens but, as the subcommittee has pointed out, there is a better way to do this. There is a way to treat more humanely people who have run afoul of laws and regulations. This will not only benefit them but society as well.
Since it is nearing five o'clock and the end of this debate, I close by saying that I trust the new Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) and all hon. members in the House of Commons will do their utmost to bring forward legislation which will embody these excellent recommendations as a package. I hope the government brings them forward in a well-drafted bill, and gives the highest court in the land an opportunity to deal with them swiftly and in the same spirit which has characterized the committee deliberations and this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 10, 1978
Penitentiaries


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there are not many hon. members left in the chamber who have not taken part in today's debate. Speaking for the listeners and the observers, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) and I would like to echo what has been said several times today, that this has been an excellent debate. We congratulate the hon. member who proposed the motion. We congratulate those who took part in the debate. We recognize that behind the excellence of this day's debate was the work and the report of the subcommittee. We extend to that subcommittee our congratulations.
Finally, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre and I say that we hope the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) will pay attention to the motion and to what has been said today on both sides of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 13, 1978