1979-02-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Yuri Shymko (Parkdale):: 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 pressures of world public opinion and intervention by governments, including that of the Soviet Union, requesting full amnesty and the release of political prisoners, have had positive results in Greece, Portugal, Chile and, most recently, in Cuba-with the release of over 3,000 political prisoners-and to promote further international cooperation and detente, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan):
That this House urge the government to make direct representation at the highest level to the government of the U.S.S.R. to grant full amnesty to all prisoners of conscience on its territory, as a gesture of good will, in compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords, assuring Canada's willingness to consider positively requests for admission to Canada.


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.


MILK POWDER EXPORTS TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is presently sponsoring a trade mission to five South American countries to sell milk powder and infant feeding products.
As it is becoming increasingly accepted that the promotion of infant formula is unacceptable in the Third World and in
Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce immediately establish a committee with representatives from CIDA, the Department of National Health and Welfare and Agriculture Canada to evaluate this mission when it returns to Canada and to set up guidelines for milk powder exports so that Canada will not be implicated in any further inappropriate use of infant formula or other milk products in the Third World.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that on November 8 last, as reported in Hansard on page 915, the Minister of Finance confirmed in the House that the inspector general of banks was conducting an inquiry on the part which chartered banks may have played in the devaluation of the Canadian dollar to make substantial profits; considering the fact also that chartered banks have announced record profits for the financial year ending on October 31 last, increasing by as much as 58.6 per cent in one case; in view of the fact finally that the dollar is falling lower from day to day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House direct the Minister of Finance to table as soon as possible a report on the inquiry made by the superintendent of banks on the part which chartered banks may have played on the devaluation of the Canadian dollar.


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

February 6, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
The Postmaster General is continuing the freeze on door-to-door delivery of mail in new suburbs in many cities across Canada which are feeling the pressure of a rapid increase in population, and this notwithstanding a continuing unemployment rate of close to one million Canadians. In view of the fact that many jobs are being eliminated by this continuing freeze, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling):
That the Post Office Department establish this traditional service, thereby providing Canadians with the quality of mail service to which they are entitled and that the money be made available by delaying the costly move to metric announced recently by the Postmaster General and by savings from the unemployment insurance fund.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the announced closure of the National Steel iron ore pellet plant at Capreol, Ontario, at the end of March, the only reason that the U.S. parent company is no longer purchasing pellets from its Canadian subsidiary but from U.S. sources only, resulting in 250 Canadians being threatened with unemployment, and in view of the efforts by the Ontario government and by Harwood Nesbitt to find Canadian purchasers of pellets from this mill, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce take immediate steps to assist the Ontario government in finding markets for the pellets produced by National Steel at Capreol, and to ensure that the plant continues to operate and employ 250 employees, and that he report to the House on motions on the results of his actions within ten days.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: 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 statements made by Ontario's environment minister yesterday indicate that acidic rain originating, for the most part, in the United States is destroying the fish population in at least 140 Ontario lakes, and in view of the fact that the situation poses a serious threat to the environment and to the tourist industry in Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the Minister of State for the Environment to immediately enter into discussions with his provincial and U.S. counterparts to reduce the levels of these pollutants before they irreparably damage our lakes and the tourist industry of central Canada which is dependent upon them.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the very severe hardship suffered by thousands of Canadians who are physically or mentally handicapped, in that such persons have difficulty in finding jobs and securing an income to sustain a lifestyle commensurate with the mainstream of Canadian life, I move, under Standing Order 43:
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to avail himself of the earliest opportunity provided to him by the rules of the House to bring forth measures designed to amend the Income Tax Act in a manner which would give substantial tax incentives to business firms to employ handicapped persons.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 6, 1979



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the jobless Figures released by Statistics Canada paint the rather gloomy picture of 977,000 Canadians unemployed, a substantial increase when you take into account the rate of hidden unemployment in the country, because using StatCan's own methodology we have a million and a quarter Canadians unemployed in this country.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, given the minister's and the Prime Minister's propensity to paint such a rosy picture of the economy and of job creation prospects, if the minister could explain to the House and to the country why the jobless rate has increased this month by 120,000.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if one compares the situation this year with last year, there is a decrease in unemployment in that last year we created more than 450,000 jobs from January to January. I think it is a very good result but it is not a satisfactory one. We are always working very hard to ensure that job creation will be better, but one must understand that the participation rate in Canada is very, very high. This month we attained a record high level in terms of the participation rate; in fact, from January to January there were 450,000 more Canadians at work.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, given the minister's reply and his failure to explain why the jobless rate in the country is up by over 120,000, the forecast of the Conference Board in Canada that job creation this year will not exceed 197,000, and the economic forecasts of 4 per cent real growth, will the minister tell the House his latest estimate of job creation for 1979? I am sure the 1.25 million unemployed Canadians would like to know what the prospects are for this year.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, traditionally, come January the number of unemployed is higher in Canada because of the particular working conditions in winter; there is nothing there to be excited about. I want to tell the hon. member that last August the Conference Board had predicted that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment would reach 9 per cent in January and that this rate is now 8.1 per cent, which is better than was predicted.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the forecast of the Minister of Finance is about as accurate as his forecasts of the rate of inflation which he has had to correct from time to time.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The industrial heartland of the country, the famous Golden Triangle, has the highest rate of
Oral Questions
urban unemployment in Canada, 13.6 per cent in the St. Catharines-Niagara region. The unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces now is hovering around 13 per cent, 17.6 per cent in Newfoundland.
Given the minister's propensity to tell the unemployed youth of the Atlantic provinces to travel across the country, and that there is an unemployment rate of 13.6 per cent in the industrial heartland, where are the youth to go? Can the minister tell us where they are able to go to look for jobs?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has neglected to listen to the answers given by the Minister of Finance. The number of jobs actually created, year over year was in excess of 445,000 or 450,000. I think that is something which gives hope to our young people.
The other aspect is that at the government level, given the responsibilities we have for making taxpayers' money available, the job experience training program secured 35,000 jobs for young people, the employment tax credit resulted in 13,000 jobs being created, and now they are being created at the rate of 500 per week. The hon. member talks about optimism coming from the Prime Minister. I think that is appropriate, but also it comes from the Conservative leader of Newfoundland when he said:
We have put our province on a solid economic base for the first time in our history, and I am proud of this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is because they have a Tory government.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Also, the leading minister in Newfoundland said the following:
-a province of growing wealth and promise. I know our province has started an era of expansion and development that none of us has ever known and few can begin to comprehend.
1 should like to point out to the hon. member that most of that funding comes from the federal government:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last October 26 the Quebec minister of state for economic development stated that, according to a study he made public, if no compensatory measures were taken by Ottawa the federal budget cuts would entail a loss of more than 18,000 jobs; since Statistics Canada has

February 6, 1979
Oral Questions
reported this morning that from last month up till today there has been an increase of 30,000 more jobless in Quebec, would the Minister of Finance not recognize today the validity of that study and say what compensatory measures he is prepared to bring before the Flouse?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when we announced our budget cuts last August it was to make sure that the Canadian economy would work in a more proper way and because it had then become necessary to reduce the public sector involvement in the economy. We have developed a policy which helps increase the private sector role in job creation. We have also decided that the public sector involvement could not get higher than its present level. The budget cuts we made in August have had a favourable effect on the Canadian economy since they have re-established a climate of confidence in Canada, and that is why we could report in January that the number of jobs in Canada in relation to January of last year was 450,000 new jobs added to the Canadian work force.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
It is all very well for the minister to remind us that jobs are obviously being created, but the fact remains that Statistics Canada has shown that the rate of unemployment has gone up. The Minister of Finance speaks of all provinces, in which of course we are interested, but I represent Quebec, and it is undergoing difficulties: it has been proved that it will pay dearly for the budgetary cuts. As the minister knows that province well, I am asking him whether he has compensatory measures to offer with a view to remedying that situation which in the last 30 days has grown to seemingly disastrous proportions, especially in the case of Quebec.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the budgetary cuts we made in August were made right across the board, the same all over Canada. If Quebec is experiencing particular difficulties at this time, much of it can be blamed on the provincial government policy that scares both capital and people away from Quebec; if Quebec offered much greater political stability than it does now, its economy would be much healthier.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on another supplementary. The minister claims that Quebec's policy is scaring capital away; how then can he explain the fact that, looking at the figures for last year, the province of Quebec had 6,000 fewer unemployed then than it has today, at this point in time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That may be true, but the hon. member should compare the present situation with what it was two years ago when Quebec had a federalist government.


Roch La Salle: No, they have been in power for two years!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding his own difficulties in forecasting, particularly with reference to the unemployment situation which, any way you look at it today, is bad in real numbers with more than one million unemployed.
At the House committee this morning, when dealing with the operations of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey made specific reference to the fact that in dealing with job creation we must expand the economy, especially our exports. I should like to ask the minister whether the government now has any new measures, in the form of either fiscal or monetary policies, such as decreasing Canadian interest rates, in order to expand the Canadian economy and produce more jobs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, monetary policy has been established by the governor of the Bank and I have agreed with that. It is very important to maintain the flow of capital, and in order to maintain stability of our currency it is important that we have these interest rates. There is no discussion at this time between myself and the governor of the possibility of reducing interest rates in the immediate future.


John Edward Broadbent: What the minister is saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the unemployment situation is going to get worse, not better. In this context I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In order to decrease our serious unemployment level and to alleviate our balance of payments problem, the governor of the Bank of Canada agreed this morning with something we have been saying for months, namely, that we have to expand our trade. Bearing in mind that one of the major impediments to increasing our exports is the branch plant nature of so much of Canadian manufacturing, and in view of the fact that the minister said on Friday "our efforts to promote long-term sales are getting cut off by foreign-owned company policies", I would like to ask what specific steps the government is taking to stop branch plant companies from using Canadian-generated profits to drum up business for their parent companies either in the United States or in other foreign lands?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I intend to follow through on what I said on Friday. We are looking at this whole aspect. We have three or four isolated cases where we are, in a way, assisting the export of a commodity to a foreign country. In reply, that foreign company has indicated that it wants more of that product, but the multinational company's operation in Canada has had to tell us that it must direct those future sales to its parent company. As I said, we are taking steps to correct this
February 6, 1979

and I hope to have a further statement on that whole aspect later on.
.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the government's guidelines that it has had on the books for over four years now and which it has not enforced at all, I would like to ask the minister two things: First, will he name the companies involved which he referred to last Friday; and secondly, of equal importance considering that last year branch plants of foreign-owned firms in Canada shipped out more than $4 billion in royalties, management fees and interest payments, will the minister assure the House that the government intends to get specific commitments from such companies that they will, for example, perform a certain percentage of their research and development in Canada and export a certain percentage of their products from Canada where they are making the profits, instead of from the parent company whether it is in the United States or elsewhere?


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the hon. member or this House to believe that I think branch plants are a bad thing. That is not the case at all. In fact, there is not a community in Canada that would not allow the development of a branch plant in its area. I receive requests all the time from community leaders asking if some way or another I can direct a manufacturing plant into their community to assist growth and employment in their area.
What I did say was that there are some multinational corporations which must abide by the rules laid down by their parent company and which do not appear to be very conducive to Canada's export trade in the years ahead, and that we are taking steps to correct that aspect.
With regard to research and development, we would like to encourage its growth as much as possible in Canada, but we must have the end product of research and development, which is that it creates jobs. We must look at research and development in terms of creating jobs, and then the product of that research and development creating many more jobs.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER REPORT ON DEVALUATION OF CANADIAN DOLLAR HAS BEEN PRESENTED
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On November 8, 1978 I asked him whether chartered banks had anything to do with the decline of the dollar. At that time the minister informed the House that the superintendent of banks was conducting some kind of inquiry to find out. Is the minister now in a position to tell us whether there has been any development in this matter? Has the inspector made a report and were our contentions right or wrong?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity he just gave me to
Oral Questions
tell the House that the general inspector of banks has reported to me and that he found no irregularity which might have led him to conclude that Canadian chartered banks had speculated on the Canadian dollar.


Eudore Allard: I thank the minister for his answer. Considering that chartered banks had windfall or at least very substantial profits during the year ended in 1978, and given that one among others made a profit of 58.6 per cent, would the minister be in a position to seek a more in-depth investigation on that profit margin, which if not exorbitant looks at least very attractive?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any abuse on that side. There is some competition among the banks. There was perhaps a considerable increase in profits in a given institution but you should always check from what level there was such an increase. If the hon. member has a particular case to submit, I would certainly inquire to see whether there was any abuse, but I have no reason to think so at the present time.


Eudore Allard: In fact, there might have been some abuse, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure us that he will inquire on that subject?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Toronto I made a speech in which I asked Canadian businesses which are in a better profit position at the present time not to use those profits to issue excessive dividends or to grant salary increases but to use them to reduce the cost of their products, and it would be advisable to use those profits to reduce the cost of loans if necessary, if some banks did make windfall profits.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and concerns the Boeing pay-offs.
The court of the District of Columbia in the United States, on July 25, 1978, ordered Boeing to file a deposition disclosing "any statistics of two consulting contracts with the same consultant providing for payments of compensation under each contract for the same services, designed to facilitate the payment of money into accounts maintained by the consultant outside his home country."
In reply to this, the Boeing company in a deposition to the SEC stated, inter alia, "The company executed two consulting agreements in connection with aircraft sales in Canada." In view of this, can the Solicitor General explain his remark of yesterday when he said, "I have no indication that any improper payments were made," or does he consider that getting paid
2920

February 6, 1979
Ora/ Questions
a second time for one job and salting the money away in a foreign bank is a proper payment?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I stand by the statement I made yesterday. If the hon. gentleman has any allegation or proof of any allegation that could be investigated further by the RCMP, I invite him to bring it forward.
The investigation has been conducted properly by the RCMP. They have reviewed every lead made available to them. They have reviewed the transcript of the proceedings before the SEC, and they proceeded, in my view, quite extensively in attempting to unearth any wrongdoing. My information is that they have not unearthed any wrongdoing that has been the subject or can be the subject of prosecution.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to clear up a couple of points.
Is it the fact that the Solicitor General knows the individual who received the double payments, but is unable to frame a charge, or does the Solicitor General agree that an illegal act has been performed but he is unable to identify the crook?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking questions that border on the sensational. I simply ask that if he has some basis upon which he can support the allegations he is making, he should advance it.
The RCMP is interested in conducting an investigation to the fullest extent of its capabilities. It has done that, and the result is that there is no charge that can be laid at this time.
I reiterate the invitation to the hon. gentleman: if he has anything to support the allegations he has advanced, or suggestions he is making in this House, he should make them available to the RCMP, or to me, so that-


An hon. Member:: He just did.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hardly consider it an allegation when the company itself says it has made these payments. Boeing admitted that its payments to countries ranged from $1 million, to a government adviser in Egypt on a sale of $137 million worth of aircraft, to $7.3 million to an in-law of the royal family in Iran on sales of $223 million. Could the Solicitor General tell the House the rough amount of the double payment made to someone in Canada?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is particularizing some allegations with reference to countries that are not Canada. If he has allegations relating to Canada and wishes to put them forward, let him put them forward.


PAYMENTS TO PARTIES INVOLVED IN BOEING CONTRACT
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. The Boeing deposition made it clear that payments were made in connection with sales in Canada. The Solicitor General will know that in that period five Canadian companies were

involved in sales. By my information, they were the Department of National Defence, of this government, Air Canada, Eastern Provincial Airways, Nordair and Transair.
Can the Solicitor General tell this House which of these arrangements was the admitted payment made by Boeing?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking a question relating to an investigation that has been completed. The fact is that the allegations that were advanced by Boeing before the SEC were investigated by the RCMP. They ascertained there was no fact upon which they could lay any charge or commence any prosecution.


Charles Joseph Clark: A further supplementary question. It may be that is what the police investigation, on a criminal matter, told the Solicitor General. What we in this House are trying to determine is more information about a fact which clearly led Boeing to make allegations on the public record which are very serious and which may touch directly or indirectly upon a government department.
Will the Solicitor General answer two questions: First, does he know the name or names of the person or persons alleged to have received those payments mentioned in the deposition from Boeing; and second, can he tell us in connection with which transaction the payment alleged to have been made by Boeing was made?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The individual who testified before the SEC was a gentleman who was identified as a consultant of Boeing and who was working as a Boeing consultant in Canada dealing with the sale of Boeing aircraft to Canada. Payments were made to that consultant in the ordinary course of dealing with that company.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To whom did that consultant make subsequent payments?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is alleging that subsequent payments were made, and he has not any indication that such payments were, in effect, made. If he has allegations of that nature, let him advance those allegations; let him support those allegations and perhaps consult with the hon. member for Victoria so that their stories are not at cross-purposes.


NEB ADVICE ON PROJECTED SUPPLIES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the offer by the Leader of the Opposition to provide Canadian energy resources to Israel and Japan, on his recent around-the-world trip, and the fact that Canadian oil exports to the United States have been sharply curtailed since 1975 and that no new natural gas exports from Canada have been approved since 1970, may I ask the minister if the
February 6, 1979

National Energy Board advised the Leader of the Opposition that there were new Canadian oil and gas supplies available for export to these countries, or was he just having a flight of fancy?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I saw allegations of that kind. 1 have not seen them yet repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition. Where he got the information from, 1 do not know.


Charles Joseph Clark: Your seat-mate.


Alastair William Gillespie: Certainly, the National Energy Board has not indicated that there is any surplus of oil in Canada. Indeed, we are trying, through the national oil company, to assure the energy security of Canadians for the future. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is more interested in destroying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Yesterday, the minister tabled a report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission entitled "The Ophthalmic Products Industry in Canada" which contained a number of recommendations and conclusions which go toward protecting consumer interests in the Canadian optical industry.
In view of the fact that a great many Canadians will be concerned with the matter if they wear eye-glasses or other optical aids, I wonder if the minister could outline to the House the course of procedure he is willing to adopt with respect to consideration of the report, particularly as it relates to the recommendations on pages 232 to 250?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are presently examining the suggestions in the report and preparing action on them. I cannot say right now which of the alternatives for Canadians would be most appropriate, but that will be made public within a few days.


David Edward Crombie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given that this is not the first time that this matter has been raised, and also given the fact that the report is one week late being tabled by the minister as required by law, could he explain the hold-up and why we have had to wait for so long since this is not the first time?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the story in the Globe and Mail was incorrect. I received the report in my office on January 3, not on December 29 as alleged which would have meant tabling it in the House on February 3. As February 3 fell on a weekend I tabled it February 5 which was the first working
Oral Questions
day, so it was on time. This morning I had a discussion with the director of investigation for the combines act about that report. He is examining it to see which of the different alternatives would be the most effective to put into operation. He said he would let me know in a few days.


GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). With reference to the minister's announcement of February 2, 1979, offering funding to four cities in Canada for hockey arenas, and since section 4 of the fitness and amateur sport act authorizes the minister to provide grants only in the field of fitness and amateur sport, how does she justify her allocation of more than $18 million over the next four years largely in support of professional sport, when only five months ago she announced a cut of approximately $5.5 million in programs for amateur sport, fitness and recreation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I can see hon. members opposite are opposed to NHL franchise extensions in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: I am quite sure that representatives of all of those cities mentioned will be very interested to note the intervention today of the hon. member for Oxford. Obviously the hon. gentleman knows that any high performance sport draws upon a mass participant base.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: If it is the position of the party opposite, the Conservative Party of Canada, that mass participants in hockey in this country should belong to American hockey teams, then I think they should make their point very clear. This government is in favour of seeing more Canadian hockey teams in Canada which will in turn supply work and jobs and a great deal of support for sports at a high performance level in our country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What a phoney.


Bruce Halliday: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister be referred to as the "minister of sportness and amateur fits!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
80047-43'/2

February 6, 1979
Oral Questions


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated in this same news release that the federal government has, and I quote "- the primary role ... in the development of sport in Canada-", Was this pronouncement based on consultation and agreement with the provinces?


Iona Campagnolo: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Indeed it was at our last federal-provincial conference that the provinces agreed the primary mandate for fitness and amateur sport was national and the primary mandate for recreation was provincial. I do hope that the hon. member also read the rest of the news release which makes it extremely clear that any usage of these facilities must be provided for amateur hockey players as well as professional hockey players.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Since the delay in making a public announcement of the changes in the Canadian Home Insulation Program is putting insulation manufacturers out of production and installers out of business, can the minister explain the delay, and can he assure the House that the $65 million still unspent that was earmarked for this program will be rapidly put to work for the benefit of both home owners and those in the home insulation industry who were lured into the business by government promises of this money?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is no delay. The program is in progress and a number of Canadians are taking advantage of it. I hope that the publicity in this regard will explain to Canadians they can insulate their homes, save energy and in the same vein receive some financial support from the federal government to do so.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Is there some flaw in this program which has caused the government to wait so long to announce changes which we understand have already been approved, or is the government waiting to announce these changes when it is convenient for the government politically, instead of when it is useful to the people of the country who are supposed to benefit from it?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, in our discussions with the provinces some of them have suggested changes which represent substantial financial expenditures. The federal government has indicated that if the provinces want to improve the program in making available some extra funds, they could do so, but they should not make proposals to improve the program

at the expense of the federal government. We have a program the federal government has put forward and is paying for. We are satisfied that this program meets some of the requirements. However, if some provinces want to improve it, they should do so at their own expense.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister looking into consumer and corporate affairs. As he knows, the price of beef has gone up to the point where farmers are now getting a fair return. Last Friday, in Toronto, beef went up by about nine cents a pound. Supermarkets within hours were putting up the price of beef to consumers by about 18 cents a pound.
I ask the minister if he has had a chance to look into this and investigate why it took only a few hours to raise the price to consumers, when it takes about two weeks to work its way through the system, and why it also takes about two or three weeks for the stores to reduce the price when the farmers receive a reduced price for the same beef?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member has been looking into this as well. We have started looking into it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: -but I wish to point out to the hon. member that it is much easier to pose those questions than it is to find solutions. This will take a bit of time, but we are very concerned about these matters.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this situation has been happening for years, and every time there is a price increase the minister says he will look into it to see why the mark-up is so high, I ask the minister when is he going to announce to the House his new food policy initiative that he referred to just a few days ago, particularly since wages went up by only six per cent last year and the price of food by about 19 per cent. When will the minister make that announcement, and will the policy include the power to roll back excessively high profiteering and subsidize some of the basic foods.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the new policy is ready, it will be announced. It is not ready yet.
February 6, 1979


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Following a meeting I had with the minister last week because I wanted to know whether it was true that his department had signed an agreement with the province of Quebec regarding improvement of Flighway 117 between Val d'Or and Louvicourt, and since he was unable to give me an answer at that time, could the minister tell me today whether it is indeed true-since that announcement was made neither by himself nor by his department, but by the Liberal candidate for the future constituency of Abitibi-that such an agreement was signed?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that I did check the exactness of that announcement which was originally made from our offices in Val d'Or as well as Montreal and Quebec city. The press release had been issued and sent to local publicity agencies, to local radio and television stations in his region and to the mayor of Val d'Or who, by pure coincidence, happens to be the present Liberal candidate. .
*
* *


METRIFICATION
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The metric commission has announced that after 1981 Canadian food stores will use the words "ounces" or "pounds" in addition to metric measurements, but in their newspaper and broadcasting advertisements this will be a criminal offence and subject to a fine of up to $1,000. Will the minister review this silly and arbitrary decision of the metric commission and reverse it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I will take a look at it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that is not the Jack Horner I used to hear in caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As the minister knows, oil companies are now changing their gasoline pumps to metric measurement, and a one cent per litre increase amounts to about five cents per gallon increase. I should like to know what the minister is doing to monitor this changeover to make sure there is not a
Oral Questions
rip-off. Would he ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to encourage companies to use the comparability standard and show the old price per gallon as well as the metric price, so that the consumer can make comparisons when he buys gas?


William Warren Allmand: We are presently conducting an information program to help consumers adjust to the new metrication system as it applies to the gas pumps. Under our mandate, we do inspect gas pumps and inspect the prices to see whether they correspond to the amount of gas sold. We already have inspectors in the field doing this. I will bring the hon. member's representation to their attention and see that they follow up the points he made.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Having regard to the demands made by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women as contained in a letter to the minister, wherein the council calls for an immediate change in Bill C-14 which adversely affects women in the labour force, and bearing in mind, also, that this advisory council is a government-appointed group, how is it that the government failed to call upon this group before introducing Bill C-14? Why was it left to the standing committee to call this group as witnesses?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there has never been anything to prevent this particular group advancing its ideas in the same way as anyone else who has suggestions to make with respect to Bill C-14 or amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We did, in fact, receive many representations. I can say, to the credit of the committee to which the hon. member referred, that it saw fit not to adopt a couple of amendments put forward by the opposition which would really have proved discriminatory against women in the work force.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I wish the minister had answered the question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could ask him to comment on a remark made by an employee of the CAC, who said, "I think it is fair to say we have not done enough study of the place of women in the labour market." Does the minister agree with his official?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Well, Mr. Speaker, we can always find opportunities to do more study. We are, in fact, doing this. The labour market policy division of the department has established five target areas in which we want to show solid answers. We want to set the numbers of women wishing to participate in the work force particularly in skills which are

February 6, 1979
Oral Questions
not traditionally associated with women. We have indicated that when placing people in these courses, quotas must be set.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Where did he go?


An hon. Member:: Ele is looking into the mirror.


William James Kempling: I will direct it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In a front-page story, the Financial Post quotes the Retail Council of Canada as stating that metric conversion of weigh scales in Canada will cost $100 million, and that this cost will have to be passed on to the consumer.
In as much as the metric commission has adopted a policy of letting the cost lie where it falls, I would ask the minister whether he discussed with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the fact that this cost of $100 million will lie on the backs of the consumers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think it is rather ironic that the hon. member should be asking such a question, because some time ago when I was in caucus with him he was a very strong proponent of metrication. When I suggested at that time that the changeover affecting the scales would be costly to the Canadian consumer, he assured me that this would not be the case. Today, the tables are reversed. I can tell him that I have looked into this whole question of the scales and the cost of metrication, and I can assure him that the cost is not alarming as at one time I thought it would be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: So I am now in a position to assure the hon. member that he was right in the first instance.


William James Kempling: As I say, it all comes back to haunt you, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not haunting me.


William James Kempling: I have a further question. Would the minister tell us what happened to the idea put forward by the metric commission that this conversion of the scales in Canada would be of such magnitude as to encourage someone in the private sector here to start an industry for the production of metric scales? Can the hon. gentleman advise us whether the metric commission has now changed its mind about this? Is that the reason the Minister of Finance reduced the tariff on imported metric scales-in fact, he reduced the excise tariff by 50 per cent. Why was this course followed, rather than encouraging the manufacture of these scales within Canada?
[Mr. Cullen.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not doubt for one minute that the conversion to metric both here and in the United States will greatly enhance the business prospects of many makers of tools in Canada; it will create a new market for them. The same would apply to the scales. It seems to me there is nothing to stop a Canadian manufacturer getting into the manufacture of metric scales. There will be a demand for them. Given the edge which Canadian manufacturers enjoy in this area, I still think we are able to compete very well.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that steel for Canadian users is currently in short supply, what steps is the government taking to ensure that Canadian steel users get priority so that greatly-needed jobs in the manufacturing sector are not lost?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): I am fully aware of the shortage of steel in Canada which is due, to a large extent, to our increased exports of steel and our ability to compete with the United States steel industry. However, we are trying to assure supplies to Canadian manufacturers who need steel and we are making a strong effort to assist them in getting supplies from Canadian steel mills.


POTENTIAL OF TRADE WITH CHINA
Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Following his trade mission to China, can the minister outline Canada's prospects for trade with that country and the steps he is taking to inform Canadian businessmen of its potential? How does he intend to assist Canadian businessmen to take advantage of it?


Mr. Speaker:: I shall have to ask the minister to confine himself to a very brief answer.
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): It is such a wide subject, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult to confine myself. Let me say this: the Chinese are coming to Canada to buy wheat this month. They are coming here again in March to look at our telecommunications systems. They are also coming here in April to look at other materials which we can sell them. We are going to China this month in connection with an oil deal. A group of engineers is going there to look into the possibility of assisting them in the iron ore industry. In March, a group of businessmen connected
February 6, 1979

with the non-ferrous metal industry is going to China to find out whether we can sell them non-ferrous equipment-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct questions to the Minister of National Revenue. I believe he received notice about them about three hours ago. They have to do with the policy of his department as it applies to Customs inspection.
Last Tuesday night, of 49 passengers who disembarked at Regina from a charter flight, 41 were cleared and the others had to go to Calgary, stay overnight and come back the next day because they could not get cleared through Customs. I want to ask the minister what the policy of the department is at airports such as Regina with regard to clearing charter flight passengers after Revenue Canada has received advance notice of the arrival of those passengers.


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: I might say I have also had a chance to talk to the hon. member for Assiniboia about this problem. There is some justice on both sides in this matter. The air carriers going into Regina fully understand that the facilities there have been limited to accommodating 40 passengers. PWA knew about this and did not advise the Regina Customs clearance people that there would be more than that. When they arrived, the Customs officer interpreted the rules with excessive strictness.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I can say, without hesitation, that an apology has been given by the department. Obviously, the officer acted with undue strict adherence to the rules, but I might also say that PWA has apologized for not notifying the airport that it would be arriving with more than the limited number to which I referred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that in the security area at the airport at Regina, 130 passengers can be held and they can be moved ten at a time into the Customs room.
Will the minister refund to those passengers any extra expenses they had to pay for hotel rooms and meals because of something which the minister blames on somebody in Regina but the fault for which actually is in Ottawa?
Will the minister provide refunds to those persons and, after this, when there are more people than the number indicated by airlines or travel agencies, will the matter be taken up with
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski those airlines or travel agencies and not taken out on the passengers?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, as I said-I hope I implied this- in a future circumstance of this kind when there is a misunderstanding I hope the officers responsible will act with a degree of common sense which perhaps was not shown in this case. Nonetheless, I reiterate that the airline knew full well the limit there was to the servicing facilities involved. We are looking at the Regina airport because I think there is clearly a case for an expansion of the number-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell that to Otto.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: My colleague is fully aware of this, but at the moment the policy is being reviewed as to the total number which can be accommodated. However, I cannot undertake at this time to offer any compensation.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that yesterday I drew to your attention the choice of language which was used by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and I thought he might rise today to respond to the invitation extended both by yourself and by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). Yesterday I did not have the benefit of reading the exchange which took place. 1 did, however, raise my point of order at that time on the basis of my best recollection. I drew attention to the fact that the minister had accused me of distorting the facts and of being irresponsible in interpreting a statement which he had made in the House on December 5, 1977. In examining yesterday's Hansard I find that the minister not only suggested distortion but also accused me of insisting on distortions. At page 2869 of Hansard the minister is recorded as having said the following:
Once again, the hon. member insists on distorting the situation terribly-
Later the minister said that 1 was "restating what is false", and he asked me to "stop stating these falsehoods". Yesterday Your Honour suggested that the matter should be held in abeyance, and Your Honour anticipated that perhaps the minister might respond today. He has not risen in his place, so I wish to raise the issue again on the basis of having examined yesterday's Hansard.
I see two issues in this matter. I see a responsibility on the part of the minister to put the facts of the matter into an accurate perspective. I attempted to do that yesterday. I put on the record the statement to which I had referred in my question, that statement being found at page 1534 of Hansard for December 5, 1977, which is the following:
I have instructed that additional inspectors be hired and a significant number of them made available to the north.

February 6, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski
Yesterday in response to the question I posed, the minister suggested or implied that his commitment to hire additional inspectors was in relation only to the northern part of Ontario. Fie suggested, therefore, that I was distorting facts and stating a falsehood.
However, on the basis of the information we have there has clearly been a reduction in the number of inspectors since that time, and the statement the minister made as recorded at page 1534 indicates distinctly and categorically that he had ordered the hiring of inspectors, some of whom would be assigned to the northern Ontario region but not specifically limited to the northern Ontario region. There is, therefore, a clear contradiction, and I think the minister should recognize that.
I think it is quite clear that the minister was imputing motives when he used these words:
Once again, the hon. member insists on distorting the situation terribly-
First, the minister has no proof of that. Second, in my view his remarks were clearly unparliamentary.
Citation 320(2) of the fifth edition of Beauchesne, which has just recently been issued, states at page 105:
Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions:
Then at page 106 we find under the heading "distort" the words "deliberate distortion" and "deliberately distorted". The word "false' is dealt with at page 107, and the words "false statement" are included. In my opinion the words "the hon. member insists on distorting the situation terribly" have the effect of implying the same meaning as "deliberate distortion". To ratify that assumption I refer Your Honour to the Concise Oxford Dictionary and the definition of the word "deliberate" which, in short form, is "intentional". The meaning of the word "insist", according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary , is "to maintain positively". In my view both expressions involve an intention. If "deliberate distortion" is unparliamentary, I believe it is unparliamentary because it imputes to an hon. member an intention to distort. To maintain positively is to intend to distort, and therefore in my view that language is just as offensive or just as unparliamentary as the word "deliberate".
I believe that in his somewhat usual intemperate outburst the minister was perhaps overcome by emotion and a little sensitive to the situation. However, as one who is very distinguished in the field of law as a law professor and as one who should certainly be setting an example by obeying the laws of the land and the rules of parliamentary tradition, I think the minister should do the honourable thing and withdraw his offensive words. Because there clearly was a deliberate attempt on his part to impute motives, and I was not doing that.
My question was phrased with the utmost sincerity. The matter of aviation safety in Canada is very important. It is rather unfair of the minister to suggest that it was an attack to deliberately destroy or malign statistics and interpretations which might or might not have been placed upon his statement. So I certainly suggest you consider it, sir, and if you find

that the words are unparliamentary-I believe they are-then I think the minister should do the honourable thing and withdraw his remarks.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has now switched from a discussion of a point of order along the lines he raised yesterday to raising some issue in relation to parliamentary and unparliamentary language. I do not know whether or not he gave notice of it to Your Honour, but he certainly did not to me. I have not reflected on the language and cannot deal with that matter at all, so I will simply content myself with dealing with the point of order which the hon. member raised yesterday.
Surely any fair minded member would realize that I was reacting strongly to a suggestion by the hon. member that I had been in breach of a commitment. I did react strongly because I knew that that could not be true. I did not have the words and the passages before me to which the hon. member had referred because he did not give notice of the fact that he was going to refer to them; but the hon. member had those passages before him, and in particular, as he noted yesterday, he relied on words of mine quoted in Hansard at page 1534 where I am reported to have stated:
I have instructed that additional inspectors be hired and a significant number of them made available to the north.
If the hon. member has asked me whether I had done as I had committed myself to do, namely, instruct that additional inspectors be hired and a significant number of them be made available to the north, he would have received a firm, positive answer that I did so. He did not ask that question, perhaps because he knew that the answer was indeed positive. But clearly he has no evidence whatsoever-


An hon. Member:: You are imputing motives.


Otto Emil Lang: -of any breach of commitment on my part. I say that when using those words, he twisted them to mean that I was in breach of a commitment which he alleges I made in relation to the number of inspectors. He was being unfair. Whether or not being unfair is unparliamentary, I do not know, but I think the record stands. I think it is a little unfortunate that instead of trying to find the facts on presumably what he thought was a serious issue and asking questions about facts, he insists on raising the issue whether or not there was a commitment. My words on which he relied were:
I have instructed that additional inspectors be hired and a significant number of them be made available to the north.
I gave those instructions, and indeed a good number of inspectors were hired and an additional number has been made available to the north. Those are additional facts which he might have obtained had he asked the appropriate question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has raised a point which relates to answers given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) yesterday, and taken initially as a point of order based on the fact that the minister
February 6, 1979

had left an impression by his answers which was inaccurate in terms of his position. That was the point of order which was originally raised. Both members have now returned to this matter and it remains essentially a strong disagreement between them. Each is entitled to his position. I would not want to try to classify that disagreement between him and the minister, who now insists that his position yesterday was right, as does the hon. member. That is a disagreement, no matter how strong, to which both members are entitled, and that is what this debating chamber is for. Therefore, I would not want to enter into that as a point of order.
However, today the hon. member has raised, as part of his discussion from yesterday, the reference by the minister to two terms in his answers yesterday, one having to do with a deliberate distortion, the other having to do with returning or insisting on returning to a falsehood which the minister says he is not prepared to argue, and naturally 1 accept that he is not prepared to argue that point today.
My initial impression, from looking quickly at the precedent that was cited by the hon. member today, is that, without having carefully examined the context in which they were used, these words tend to be unparliamentary; but they may not be so in the context. In any case, I think the minister should have a chance to direct his attention to that language to determine for himself whether or not it is unparliamentary. I will do the same, and perhaps within the next day or two, at an agreeable time, if he wishes to argue further, he may do so; if not, I will ask him to withdraw his remarks.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the matter deserves your further attention or indeed that of other members of the House.


An hon. Member:: You cannot dictate to Mr. Speaker.


Otto Emil Lang: I know that you will either find that the words are parliamentary, and that will be the end of it, or you will find that they are unparliamentary, and in that case you will indicate that it would be appropriate for me to withdraw them, and of course I would then withdraw them. So I would perhaps settle the issue now by saying that if there is anything in those words that is found to be unparliamentary, I will obviously withdraw them; but I think my answer today meets my point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can say to the House that on the face of it, without examining the matter further, those expressions at least would come close enough now that, out of an abundance of caution and in order to safeguard decorum in the House, it would be the right thing for me to do to make a preliminary finding that they would appear to be unparliamentary, to ask the minister formally to withdraw them, and the matter would then be closed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to do that. As I said, I do not think it deserves either your time or mine.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-
Concurrence in Committee Report


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think the minister has made it clear that he abides by that finding and he has withdrawn the language.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: And he has been gracious about it, too!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James Aloysius McGrath: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, December 21, 1978, be concurred in.


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would argue on a point of order that this report of the standing committee is out of order, and that therefore the motion to concur in it cannot be debated. First, I would refer you to Beauchesne, citation 323(1), which reads as follows:
A committee report may be ruled out of order though it has been received by the House, and the motion to concur therein cannot be entertained.
Now the thrust of this particular quotation is quite clear- that the simple fact that a committee report has been accepted in this place does not mean of itself that the report is in fact in order, i will argue that the motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is out of order.
First of all, I should like to quote Beauchesne's citation 304, subsections (1), (2) and (4), to prove my point. Citation 304(1) reads as follows:
A committee can only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the House.
Quite evidently Bill C-204 does not include any reference whatsoever to the matter referred to the committee in the motion, that is, the penitentiary system dealing with children and adults. The bill does not even touch that particular matter, and therefore the committee has given consideration in preparing this motion to a subject that has not been referred to it, and it is not entitled to do so.
Citation 304(2) reads:
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference. In the case of a select committee upon a bill, the bill committed to it is itself the order of reference to the committee, who must report it with or without amendment to the House.
2928

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report
Under this subsection of Beauchesne, quite clearly the report before us is neither an amendment nor a report of the bill referred to the committee. It is quite evident the report is neither an amendment to Bill C-204 nor a report respecting Bill C-204. For those reasons, it goes beyond the terms of reference of the particular committee.
I should like to refer to citation 304(4) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as follows:
Sometimes a committee may have to obtain leave from the House to make a special report when its order of reference is limited in scope.
This is a very operative section of Beauchesne because it makes very clear that under circumstances such as we face today in the House, if a committee wishes to expand its terms of reference or go beyond the terms it already has in making a report or in any other activity, then it must seek leave of the House to do so. Therefore, it is quite clear unanimous consent would be required before the motion of concurrence can be put to the House. I suggest this motion cannot be put without such concurrence.
Further, the committee has gone beyond its terms of reference by using the words of the motion itself, which seems to be quite evident when it considered the advisability of amplifying and enlarging its said reference. This seems to be a very open and tacit admission that in fact an attempt is being made by the motion to go beyond and enlarge the committee's terms of reference, which attempt is prohibited under the rules of the House. In passing the second report, the committee is admitting openly that it is attempting to go beyond the terms of reference given it by the House.
In my judgment, this motion is one without clear direction and meaning. I find it very strange that the second report requests the House to consider the advisability of amplifying and enlarging its said reference. That seems to be very strange wording. If in fact the motion were put, and if concurrence with the report were accepted by the House, it would not really do anything. It would not do anything because the motion would not enlarge the terms of reference of the committee. The motion is not directed toward the committee; it is directed toward the House's considering the advisability of such a matter. I do not know the mechanism the House would have before it to consider the advisability. Even on that practical ground, I would say that the motion of concurrence would have no meaning in terms of achieving an expansion of the terms of reference of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
This motion for concurrence cannot be put at this time under the rules of the House, under the precedents I have cited, and therefore the motion cannot be debated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know if it is necessary to go into a lengthy discussion on this point of order, but we can set aside one part of the argument immediately. I understand the point that a committee seized of a bill in the ordinary motion of reference of a bill to a committee is under somewhat strict terms of reference respecting that. It cannot
(Mr. Caftk.j
attempt to launch into other investigations, or probably it cannot even come back to the House. I am not trying to make law, but the precedent cited respecting that is very clear.
In the ordinary course of second reading, when a bill is referred to a committee for clause by clause study, the committee has certain limitations under which it must act and must report the bill back with or without amendment. To begin with, I understand that this is not a situation in which a bill has been referred to a committee, but the subject matter of the bill has been referred. That is an important distinction to start with, because obviously the committee is not under that stricture. That being the case, it is a committee to which a subject has been referred.
When a subject is referred to a committee, and when the committee looking at the subject indicates that it feels constrained by the first term of reference, which is the reference of the subject matter, and that it wants to acknowledge to the House that its terms of reference are restricted, that it is seeking additional powers, and that it ought not to attempt to exercise those powers without the permission of the House, then the committee reports to the House asking the House to give or consider giving those extended powers.
I would have to be persuaded that a committee cannot do so. That would be very difficult to do. A committee seized of a subject matter, which seeks to extend its term of reference and wants additional authority, must come back to the House. Having done so, it reports to the House and indicates; "This is what we have examined, and we find our hands are slightly tied and we need additional power".
For example, I am sure there have been numerous occasions in the past when an order of reference has been given to a committee to examine and inquire into a certain subject matter in Ottawa, and the committee finds that it wants to travel. Properly it comes back to the House and indicates that it would like authority to travel and to hold meetings in various areas of the country; can it do so? Obviously it must be beyond the original terms of reference or the committee would not be coming back to the House for further permission. It cannot do it without coming back to the House, and if it cannot come back to the House to ask, then I do not know what the committee can do or what course it can follow.
This report of the committee does not tie the hands of the House, but I do not think that is the concern of the Chair. In the end the report recommends or asks the House to consider the advisability of extending the committee's terms of reference. Therefore, concurrence in the report would put the House in the position of having to consider the advisability of extending the terms of reference. It does not constitute a motion for an extended term of reference. I accept that point, as I think the House does. But that is not a procedural matter; that is the content of the report. The report is that the committee seeks an extended term of reference.
If the committee were seeking an extended term of reference which might be argued was not in any way relevant to the subject matter, we might be on different ground; but we are not. Obviously if the committee wanted to inquire into some-
February 6, 1979

thing which was entirely without relevance, it might be argued on a matter of relevance that there might be some difficulty.
Basically I must find in the circumstances that this is not a situation in which a bill has been referred to a committee, but rather one in which a subject matter has been referred. It is a situation in which the committee acknowledges it needs or wants an additional term of reference. Also the committee acknowledges that in order to get it, it must first come to the House. That is what the committee is doing by way of this report. I do not see how a committee can be expected to act otherwise. I do not think I could make any ruling which would prevent a committee from doing so, provided that it is relevant.
Finally, I accept the point that concurrence in this report does nothing more than leave the House in the position of considering the advisability of extending the terms of reference. In my opinion, it would not constitute a direction that that order of reference must be taken as having been extended without some additional motion. That would be the disposition I would make.
I do not think we ought to spend a lot of time attempting to enter arguments into that position. 1 accept the last point that the content of the report is not a directive to the House. Since this is a situation in which a subject matter was referred to a committee, and since the committee acknowledges by this report that it must come to the House for expanded terms of reference, procedurally it is a proper course to follow and the motion should be put.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I am on solid ground. I am not attempting to challenge anything Your Honour may rule. I did not make a very heavy point of this in my remarks, but I would argue that the attempt to expand the reference in fact is not relevant to the bill before the particular committee.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: There is no bill before the committee.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Substantially the subject matter deals with the question of a Canadian bill of rights for children. An attempt to deal with the penal system respecting both children and adults in fact is not relevant to the subject matter of Bill C-204.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to await the debate on the motion itself to find out what is intended by that. Certainly the penal system as it relates to children must, by the very terms of the motion, be relevant. Whether in order to inquire into the penal system as it relates to children it is necessary to inquire into it as it relates to adults at the same time, I do not know. In any event, I will reserve in respect of the last point argued by the minister and listen to the debate as it unfolds to determine whether there is any relevancy in respect of the penal system regarding adults. I think, with respect, we should hear the arguments in order to determine whether that last point is valid.
Concurrence in Committee Report
Therefore, I will put the motion of the hon. member. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has moved that the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, December 21, 1978, be concurred in.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of my motion which is now properly and procedurally before the House, notwithstanding the intervention of the deputy government House leader, the distinguished and learned Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik). I cannot resist the temptation to say that any time the government has a weak case it puts up the deputy government House leader to make its statement. I am surprised he has not caught on by now, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps he will after today.
What we have before the House, Mr. Speaker, is a motion for concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This is necessary for the purpose of conforming with parliamentary procedure. If you scratch away the parliamentary niceties and brush off all the parliamentary foss and look underneath, what you will find is a mini-revolt by one of the standing committees of this House.
What the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, under the distinguished and learned chairmanship of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), is saying, in the words of Howard Beale, is: "We are mad as hell, we are not going to take it any more, we are fed up with being ignored by the government."
Why is the committee acting this way? Why is that standing committee, made up of such distinguished jurists as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), and the hon. member for Toron-to-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), not to mention the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), acting in this way? We even have a "sea lawyer" on that committee from Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, who perhaps deserves some mention in his own right. Why are those members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs interrupting their proceedings under the terms of reference regarding the subject matter of Bill C-204 to report back to the House? As I suggest, ostensibly it is to broaden the terms of reference to include the matter of the incarceration of children and the penal system as it relates to both children and adults.
Why did we feel that was necessary? We felt it necessary because we are involved in a most interesting and meaningful study. The committee is involved, during the first months of the International Year of the Child, in studying the whole question of children's rights and how we as a developed and enlightened nation treat our children.
The question came up during the course of the proceedings on the subject matter of Bill C-204, which I had the honour to sponsor, as to what became of the last order of reference before the committee. What happened to the committee's very learned and comprehensive report on the penitentiary system
80047-44i/j

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report
in Canada? More particularly, what happened to the recommendations contained in the report of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on the penitentiary system in Canada?
I was not a member of that subcommittee but my colleagues were, and they worked long and hard in the bipartisan way that has become characteristic of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs under its distinguished chairman. They worked long and hard in the pursuit of this order of reference that they received from the Elouse on October 21, 1976.
That committee travelled across the country and visited all of the major institutions in the Atlantic provinces, in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. It even looked at some of the penal institutions in the United States. It brought in its report with recommendations. This is probably one of the most outstanding reports of any standing commitee of this House, and it is an example of what committees of this House can do given the scope and the means to do so by the House.
We who are charged by this House with pursuing the order of reference now before the standing committee and the subject matter of Bill C-204 have the right, indeed the obligation, to ask the government why it did not act upon the recommendations of the subcommittee regarding the penitentiary system in Canada. That is a study that took over a year and cost the taxpayers over $100,000 in travelling expenses.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It wasn't much.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister says it was not much. I can understand that comment from a minister who is a member of a government which would take away $83 million badly needed by the medical research community in this country, while on the other hand giving $18 million for arenas. I can understand that kind of comment, particularly from-


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The comment I made relating to the $100,000 is that it was not very much in view of the very profitable recommendations we received from the subcommittee.


Mr. Nielsen:: Implement them.


James Aloysius McGrath: I apologize to the minister for misunderstanding him. Perhaps in that same spirit he will be able to get up and tell us why, if this was of such value, he has not acted upon the recommendations contained therein. We will be anxiously awaiting-


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I fully intend to do so.


James Aloysius McGrath: We will be anxiously waiting to hear from the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) in this regard. The standing committees of this House have become a bit of a joke under this government. The standing committees of this House have become a standing joke. Nobody bothers to go to committee meetings any more. The press does not bother to pay any attention, and government backbenchers, whose first duty it is

to maintain the government's majority and a quorum in the committees, do not bother to go. On not one single occasion during the six or seven meetings we held in connection with the subject matter of Bill C-204 did we have a quorum. There were perhaps one or two government members present. The same was true of members of the opposition. I am not making any distinction there. The parliamentary secretaries were usually there because they are paid to be there, and 1 make no comment on that as the learned Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young) does a very good job in committees, and I commend him for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The fact is that the members of this House are fed up with playing this government's game of sweeping things underneath the carpet by referring them to committees and then ignoring the reports of those committees.
I intend to document this case because we do not want to diminish or take away in any manner the importance of the order of reference now before the committee, the subject matter of Bill C-204, an act respecting a bill of rights for children, but before we proceed to draft our recommendations in this connection we would like to know what the government intends to do with our order of reference. We have heard distinguished witnesses from across the country, we will be hearing from the Human Rights Commission and, if we are lucky, we may even hear from one of the ministers of the government. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) may decide to honour us with his presence although that has not been the case up to now. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who has a special responsibility in this regard, may even honour us with her presence and tell us what the government proposes to do in the International Year of the Child and address some of the grave injustices which have crept into our system with respect to how we treat our children in this so-called enlightened society.
The fact of the matter is, sir, that we have a right and an obligation before we proceed any further to say, "Hold on, just a minute; before we play this government's game let's go back to the House and ask the government why they have not acted upon our last order of reference, our last recommendations contained in the standing report of the subcommittee into the penitentiary system of Canada.
I have been an active member of committees of this House since 1 was resurrected in 1968. 1 objected to the new rules of the House, which at the time were imposed by closure, because by taking out of the House the right to membership in committees we were destroying the very collegiality that was the core of the committee system whereby the committees built up this collegiality and expertise by the tenure of the membership. We have gone a long way in the destruction of that system.
One of the notable exceptions, however, is the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and that is due to
February 6, 1979

some of the distinguished lawyers in the House of Commons. Another exception is the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. These, however, are the only two committees that I can find which do any meaningful work, which have any degree of collegiality and which have built up any degree of expertise within their membership.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And veterans affairs.


James Aloysius McGrath: And veterans affairs, of course. I can go back, Mr. Speaker, to reports of committees in which I have been personally involved. I can go back to the last order of reference of the subject matter of private members' bills, one of which I had last year. The subject matter of one of the private members' bill dealt with pornography and obscenity under the Criminal Code. We heard witnesses. Indeed, one of the first witnesses we heard at that time in connection with the subject matter of these private members' bills was the former minister of justice. We travelled to Toronto and we saw evidence first-hand. We realized the gravity of the situation, and we made recommendations to the House.
To date those recommendations have not been acted upon. Why? Surely, we have a right to know why the government has not brought in the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code in pursuance of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as a result of the subject matter of the private member's bill dealing with the whole question of pornography and obscenity.
I can go to another reference to the committee with respect to child abuse which goes back to 1978. The recommendations of that order of reference were again as a result of a private member's initiative. I can document all of the recommendations of that committee which dealt with child abuse. It is a very serious matter and one that we have been seized with in our deliberations of the subject matter of Bill C-204.
Why has the government not acted upon those recommendations? The House thought that it was important enough to refer the matter to the justice committee, and the justice committee thought that is was important enough to hear witnesses and was seized with the urgency of the matter. They thought that it was important enough to bring in meaningful recommendations to the House which the House concurred in and which the government promptly proceeded to ignore. Why? We have the right to ask why the government continues to ignore the recommendations of the standing committees of this House.
I have another set of recommendations, which, if I may modestly say, are a result of my own initiative. They are with respect to a private member's bill which I brought before this House. The House, after a number of debates at second reading stage, agreed to have the subject matter of the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. That is the bill-I am glad to see that the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) is in her seat- relating to amendments to the Broadcasting Act dealing with advertising directed at children. The House and the govern-
Concurrence in Committee Report
ment thought that it was important enough to refer it to the committee. The committee thought that it was important enough to examine witnesses from all over the country. Indeed, from many different parts of the world experts were brought in and we heard evidence from them. We saw evidence with our own eyes.
As a result of bringing together all this evidence, we as a committee came to the conclusion that advertising directed at children on television was immoral and had no place in an enlightened society such as Canada's. We recommended that it be banned, and our recommendations were concurred in by the House on July 12, 1973 by a unanimous motion. We recommend that the CRTC pass regulations which provide that advertising not be directed exclusively at children. We made other recommendations which I will not take the time to describe, but they are there for all to see.
What has the government done by way of acting on these recommendations which were not only unanimously passed by a committee after exhaustive studies and many witnesses, but unanimously concurred in by the House? Why does the Minister of Communications not stand up in her place in the House, in this the International Year of the Child, and tell us why the government has not implemented the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs passed by the House in July, 1973 requesting that advertising directed at children be eliminated? That was six years ago.
It is interesting and worth noting that only last year the federal communications commission and the federal trade commission in the United States came to the very conclusion that we as a parliamentary committee came to in 1973, that this kind of advertising should be banned. Yet we still have the shame and the scandal of our children being used by the broadcasting industry, the cereal manufacturers, the toy manufacturers and other advertisers as surrogates. The minister bows her head. Perhaps she may address herself to this question. Who knows, she may even hear from them, if she in fact knows about the report and if she knows about what is happening in the United States with respect to the FCC and the FTC regarding their attitude on advertising directed at children, which came about as a result of the study they commissioned. Perhaps the minister will tell us before this debate is over why the government in this the International Year of the Child has not acted upon the recommendation of a standing committee of this House which were unanimously adopted by this House which would end this form of exploitation of children.


Mrs. Sauve:: We do not interfere in content.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications is saying something and I am not hearing her interjection.


Mr. Alexander:: I think she wants to get involved in the debate a little later.


James Aloysius McGrath: Just to cover the whole spectrum since this government took office in 1968, I will go back to the report of

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. In 1969 the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications had referred to it a study of the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces. It would be well for hon. members to look at these recommendations, which are too numerous for me to place on the record. These recommendations, unanimously adopted by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, unanimously concurred in by the House and ignored by the government of the day-the same government that sits over there today-deal with all the major questions of transportation within the Atlantic provinces.
Had these recommendations been acted upon in 1969, I submit to you, sir, that the economy of the Atlantic region would be much healthier than it is today, because transportation lies at the very root of some of the problems plaguing the Atlantic provinces.
The whole question of opening up the Atlantic region, opening up Labrador by a highway system to connect the north shore of the St. Lawrence to Goose Bay, is one of the recommendations that has not been acted upon to this day. Why not, Mr. Speaker? Surely the members of standing committees of this House have a right to know, before we proceed with any further studies and before we proceed with any further recommendations, why the government ignores these recommendations.
That is why this second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is before the House at this time. That is why the committee unanimously, in a bipartisan way, interrupted its proceedings in pursuit of its order of reference on the subject matter of Bill C-204, to get this report before the House so that we could hold the Solicitor General accountable for his failure to act on recommendations with respect to penitentiaries; so that we could hold the Minister of Communications accountable for not acting on recommendations of the broadcasting committee with respect to advertising directed at children.
The members of this House are mad, Mr. Speaker. The hon. lady opposite, for whom I have great respect, cautions me to keep it non-partisan. I am dealing with the government. Our joint grievance is against the government. That, I suppose, by its very nature will make it partisan because I am opposed to the government. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), who was one of the outstanding members of that committee and was most diligent in participating in the penitentiary study, and who has been a good deputy chairman of the committee, is one of the members who will be contributing to the debate today. I am sure she will have her own grievance as to why the subject of the committee report has been ignored.
Surely the whole broad range of this debate has to do with the relevance of parliament itself. I think it can and must be said that, as a result of the rules changes imposed by closure in 1968, parliamentary committees were supposed to assume a

new importance. In their legislative capacity they have functioned well in terms of dealing with government legislation. They are very restricted in that particular case, as was enunciated by Your Honour in the ruling on the point of order. But with respect to what should be their equally important function of dealing with the estimates, they have been a dismal failure. We have not influenced or changed one single estimate of this government because the rules do not permit us to do so. Under the rules of the House all estimates are deemed to have been passed and reported back to the House by committees as of midnight on May 31.
What a farce that is, Mr. Speaker. Is it any wonder that government members and opposition members alike are fed up and do not want to be a part of this meaningless charade? That is all it is, Mr. Speaker, a meaningless charade.
I believe that parliamentary committees under our system should have an ongoing investigatory function. Their terms of reference should be laid on the floor of the House at the commencement of each session so that annual reports would be automatically referred to them. There should be an expenditures committee to work in concert with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in order to examine expenditures on an ongoing basis.
That raises the whole question of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. Where is it? Why has it not been called? Why has the government not brought in a reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization? Only the government can bring in such a reference; only the government can manage the business of the House. The committee has not met this session and did not have a chance to report in the last session, notwithstanding the fact that it put together a very meaningful set of recommendations which would change the whole procedure of this House and bring it more in keeping with the live televising of debates which is affecting this place so profoundly.
What we are debating here today is this government's attitude to-one could almost say contempt for-parliament. Certainly, I have tried to demonstrate its contempt for parliamentary committees; it can only be described as contemptuous. How else can we explain the fact that the reference before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs dealing with a bill of rights for children in this the International Year of the Child has not heard from the Minister of National Health and Welfare who has responsibility in this area, or from the Minister of Justice who has responsibility for the laws of this country? That speaks to their whole attitude toward the committees of this House.


Mr. Young:: Neither of them was called.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General says that neither of them has been called. In the case of the pornography bills that came before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last year, the first minister to appear was the Minister of Justice and he was not called; he asked to appear. It is not the practice of parliamentary committees to call ministers. If the minister has a bill before a
February 6, 1979

committee or a subject matter that is in his area, it is his responsibility to be there.


Roger Carl Young: Neither of those ministers was called.


James Aloysius McGrath: The parliamentary secretary says that neither minister was called, yet the parliamentary secretary knows full well that when we embarked upon our proceedings both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lachance) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General indicated that they could not say at that time whether the minister would appear. If I am misreporting what the parliamentary secretary said, I will withdraw it without qualification; but that is my recollection.
Sir, we are mad as hell. We are just fed up with being used by this government as a carpet under which to sweep things they do not want to deal with. I think before we proceed any further with the terms of reference now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, we have a right to know why the government continues to ignore the recommendations of the parliamentary committees of this House. Until we get this answer I submit to you that the standing committees of this House will not be able to function, because they will not be able to get enough members to constitute a quorum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say first of all that I am very glad to take part in this debate and to speak after the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I want to say immediately to the hon. gentleman that I fully intend to support the motion under review, and that contrary to what he suggested in his remarks, we have already implemented most of the recommendations of the parliamentary subcommittee he mentioned.
The reasons I support this motion are twofold: First, because this motion before us says a great deal about the importance and urgency attached to the subcommittee report by members of the standing committee, and I share that sense of importance and urgency; second, because 1 am most concerned with the inaccurate impression left by some of the media, and regretfully by some members of this House, that nothing is being done to implement reforms in the penitentiary system, and that the report of the subcommittee is being ignored by the government.
Let me elaborate briefly on both points. Hon. members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the report of the subcommittee resulted from a motion made in this House by my predecessor more than two years ago. The subcommittee report was tabled in the House in June, 1977 and each of its 65 recommendations was responded to in an initial way in August of that year. There have been a number of documents tabled before the
Concurrence in Committee Report Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs relating to the implementation of the recommendations. The latest is the one I circulated at the beginning of this week dated January, 1979 and which I believe each member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has received.
In his initial response my predecessor made known his acceptance in whole or in part of 53 recommendations. He made it very clear that the officers and staff of the Canadian penitentiary service and all others concerned in the ministry of the Solicitor General will spare no effort in the implementation of the recommendations.
In November and December, 1977, the standing committee examined supplementary estimates and on that occasion held several meetings to consider a detailed recommendation-byrecommendation progress report on the implementation. That report was tabled by my predecessor. Just eight days after assuming office, less than one year ago, I attended before the committee. At that time I stated:
I strongly endorse the statement of support made by my predecessor with respect to the general thrust and philosophy of the report, and I share his sense of urgent commitment to far reaching reform in corrections.
Since last February I have tabled two further recommendation-by-recommendation progress reports: last March at the time of the main estimates, and last November at the time of the supplementary estimates. Further reports are being prepared in readiness for the standing committee's consideration of further supplementary estimates and main estimates for the fiscal year 1979-80. Therefore, I will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on the supplementary estimates, which will be tabled shortly, and also on the main estimates. At that time undoubtedly the committee will be examining the progress made in the implementation of the subcommittee's report.
But let us not look at the words contained in those reports; instead let us look at the actions. In spite of the difficulty of introducing major change into a complex system involving over 10,000 employees, more than 9,400 inmates and over 7,000 persons released under supervision, a large number of important changes have already been implemented in the Canadian corrections system since publication of the report. Some of these actions culminated in months or years of preparatory work already under way and given impetus by the report; others responded to specific recommendations contained in the report.
In this regard I will explain more fully. Independent chairmen have been appointed in all maximum security institutions to hear serious and flagrant disciplinary cases. A pilot grievance procedure introduced at the Prince Albert penitentiary in Saskatchewan has proven successful and will be implemented throughout the system this year. Incidentally, that is an undertaking 1 have given to the committee. An inspector general was appointed last spring. He has now conducted more than ten studies at the behest of the commissioner of the penitentiary. Inmate committees, citizen advisory committees and segregation review boards have been established at almost all institutions.

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report
A major reorganization of national and regional headquarters has taken place, placing the institution under the direct command of a regional director general who in turn is directly responsible to the commissioner. Major new impetus has been given to the industries program to make it more productive, more efficient and more meaningful. Vocational training programs have been re-examined to tie in with the industries program and to get valid accreditation from relevant provincial jurisdiction. Just last week 1 attended in Vancouver in order to announce the closing of the Kingston prison for women, which again is in accordance with the recommendations of the subcommittee.
The probation period for new employees was extended from six months to 24 months. A new code of conduct for employees has been developed. That code has been fully discussed with members within the institutions. Five days per year of refresher training for employees has been instituted. This was done notwithstanding the fact that they have had a shortage of man-years of a result of government cutbacks and expenditures. We have had to find individual posts for training positions to accommodate that recommendation, and that was no mean effort on the part of the Canadian correctional staff.
Emergency response teams have been set up in all regions and most institutions. The "no deals" policy on hostage taking has been implemented. A wholly revised construction program was developed saving the taxpayer more than $200 million in capital costs and $60 million per year in operating costs.
New procedural safeguards for parole hearings were instituted in regulations under the Parole Act. Appointments were made of community representatives to parole panels in cases involving dangerous inmates. Treaties were signed for the exchange of offenders with the United States and Mexico in accordance with the Transfer of Offenders Act. Expansion of alternatives to incarceration available in the Criminal Code are contained in Bill C-21 now before the Elouse.

And I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the process to implement the recommendations of Bill C-21 could be speeded up so that we would really profit by the clauses concerning community service orders contained in the bill.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, to outline other specific actions which have been instituted and implemented already in response to the report of the subcommittee, but I hope that I have made my point. A great deal has already been accomplished. I could also go on to outline other actions that are near to being implemented, but perhaps that kind of enumeration should await the meetings to be held by the standing committee as a result of passage of this motion, if it is so passed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the minister?


Jean-Jacques Blais: First I would like to complete my remarks before entertaining questions from the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: It will not be necessary then.
[ Translation]


Jean-Jacques Blais: I find this a highly interesting question because the hon. member for St. John's East said that he had a responsibility, as member of the opposition, to oppose, and that regarding this report he had to take a stance. At least that is how I understood it, that he had to take a stance as an adversary, as a legitimate member of the opposition, and I recognize that. But as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Holt) indicated, there is a tendency among committee members not to take a partisan view but rather to try to improve the penitentiary system in collaboration with all members of parliament.
I certainly think that this should continue, but when I list all the advantages and all the basic changes we have introduced in the penitentiary system, I really question the intentions of opposition members who sit on that committee, because I am entirely committed, along with my officials, to implement changes according to the subcommittee's recommendations. I am fully committed to that and that has been one of my major concerns this past year. But when I see the lack of understanding shown by some opposition members in my own good faith and that of officials of the Canadian correctional service, I wonder if opposition members are really interested in ridding themselves of their partisanship and undertake the reforms suggested in their report.
Now for the second reason 1 support the motion. Because I had dedicated a great deal of effort over the past 12 months to implementation of the theme of the subcommittee report, and because I have seen at first hand the amount of effort put into its implementation by members of the Canadian correctional service it is with some degree of disappointment and frustration that I listen to suggestions that the government is doing nothing to further the goals set out by the parliamentary subcommittee. To my mind the frustration has been mutual because, undoubtedly, there has been frustration on the part of the committee. I have already recounted the support lent to the main theme and principles of the subcommittee report both by myself and by my predecessor. The main theme of the report, that of establishing and maintaining both a pervading attitude and a reality of professional discipline in corrections, is woven throughout the report's 200 pages, just as it unites the large number of specific initiatives taken by the government in response to the report. As I mentioned a few moments ago, we have already introduced several measures aimed at the creation of a highly disciplined, professional, career-oriented corrections service of the kind envisaged by the subcommittee.
I would be less than frank, however, if I failed to mention that in taking our responsibilities under the Penitentiary Act,

February 6, 1979

and in consequence of the system of responsible government under which we operate, it became clear to my predecessor and myself that some of the specific means suggested by the subcommittee were not the most appropriate or the most effective toward reaching the ends upon which we were all agreed. Because of this, I believe the altogether mistaken impression has been formed in some quarters that reform is not proceeding.
Perhaps I could give two examples. On December 10, 1978 I announced that the five-year construction program upon which the corrections service had embarked was undergoing major revision. In line with that revision a drastic cutback was made in the number of new institutions being planned, saving the taxpayer more than $225 million in capital costs and more than $60 million a year in operating costs. As part of the revision a decision was made to increase the maximum size of new institutions to 350 to 450 inmates, instead of the 250 inmates contemplated in the earlier program.
As I have pointed out, this decision as to capacity contrasted with earlier government policy and with the specific recommendation of the subcommittee, which supported the position taken earlier by the government. However, the earlier decision had not been supported by solid evidence that the smaller institutions were more effective in attaining correctional goals. In fact, the CCS undertook studies which revealed that no such evidence existed.
It is my view that a number of factors affect the success, or lack of success, of correctional institutions but that size is not the most important of these factors. Maybe it is not a very important factor at all, especially when we are talking not of a choice between small institutions and the huge 2,000 plus institutions which many American states operate, but rather of a choice between institutions of 250 inmates and institutions which have the capability of being expanded, should the demand warrant it, to a maximum of 450 inmates. I have made it clear that program quality would not be allowed to suffer, and I have also stressed the point that the living unit concept, another of the CCS policies supported by the subcommittee, would be used in all the new institutions. That is something on which I have insisted. In all the new buildings, even those designated as maximum security, the living unit concept is to be introduced.
I am sorry to say that some have interpreted this decision as a rejection of the fundamental philosophy contained in the subcommittee report. Most assuredly it is not. And this will not be the effect. It is because I am eager to clear up this confusion and correct this interpretation that I support the motion before us. I shall be willing to address this question fully when I appear again before the committee.
There have been suggestions that I have been interested in cutting back offender programs. To the contrary, hon. members will see from the close questioning of myself and my officials that I have been adamant in proceeding with the development of offender programs.
Let me give a second example. The subcommittee made several recommendations dealing with the organization and
Concurrence in Committee Report
management of the correctional service, and of these recommendations 24 and 26 formed the core. The main import of this second recommendation was to remove the corrections service from the public service so as to give it the kind of independence, identity and flexibility which the subcommittee saw as being essential to its reform.
Both my predecessor and myself felt some initial misgivings about that package of recommendations, not because we did not approve the goal being sought-we did share that goal and we said so very clearly-but because we were not convinced that the means suggested by the subcommittee were the best for achieving it. My predecessor established a senior interdepartmental working group to examine that package of recommendations. I have received its report and, after studying the issue myself, I have concluded that a different set of measures would better enable us to establish the kind of highly disciplined, more independent professional career service which is the ultimate objective.
On this question, I frankly admit a fundamental difference in opinion with the subcommittee. The subcommittee recommended that the CCS be removed from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act and set up on the model of the RCMP. However, it was silent on the question of the acquired union rights of CCS employees.
I would argue that the subcommittee did not adequately think through the implications of this crucial distinction between the CCS and the RCMP. We must bear in mind that only one third of the CCS staff are guards. The CCS has been unionized for more than a decade; the RCMP, never. If the recommendation of the subcommittee were implemented literally, the CCS would automatically come under the jurisdiction of part IV of the Canada Labour Code which gives the employer rather less control in certain areas than do the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act.
In the alternative, CCS employees would have to be stripped of many rights acquired and exercised for more than a decade. This drastic step was never advocated by the subcommittee, and with reason, because advocating such a step would mean that it would be impossible to manage the Canadian correctional service. There would be a very negative reaction within the service which would detrimentally affect morale within that service and the whole operation of the Canadian correctional service.
In light of this I suggested to the standing committee as long ago as last March that a number of very significant steps can be taken within the current framework of employer-employee relations to bring about the result both the committee and I are eager to achieve.
The steps are as follows: Establish in legislation a new and distinct corrections "family" category for all employees providing for the care, custody and training of offenders; establish the CCS as a separate employer under the law, thus giving the

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report
CCS direct responsibility and accountability for collective bargaining and staff relations; including the new code of professional conduct in regulations under the Penitentiary Act; fully delegate staffing authority for the new employee category to the CCS from the Public Service Commission, thus enabling the CCS to recruit more directly and more in accordance with its own needs and priorities.
Implementation of this package of changes will further the development of the disciplined professional career service the subcommittee was aiming for. It is a very complex and large task to introduce such major changes into a large scale, highly decentralized and very complex organization with, to say the least, a difficult operating mandate to pursue, but this work is proceeding apace, as I will be glad to demonstrate to the standing committee.
The point of all this is that the quite erroneous interpretation has been placed on these developments that the subcommittee report is being rejected or, perhaps worse, ignored by the government because these differences over specific means have appeared. This impression is one I very much regret, and it is also one I wholly reject.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a misunderstanding here because the reservations I expressed at the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on two of the basic recommendations have been given a false interpretation. These reservations have been interpreted as a complete rejection of the entire report. That is not at all the case. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, even as far as recommendations numbers 24 and 26 are concerned, I fully support the principle underlying them and, if I may say so, I am fully geared to implementing them. Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to realize all the efforts that not only I but all my officers are making to implement those recommendations.

Furthermore, I think it is a most dangerous impression, as the subcommittee itself pointed out, because a great deal of the success or failure of reform depends heavily on attitudes.
I have tried today to stress the fact that penitentiary reform is the most important of the responsibilities I have as minister responsible for the CCS. I have also gone to some length to give my view of the basis for what I see as a major and regrettable misinterpretation of some of the actions of the government and of the government's intentions in this regard.

I shall not go any further today, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to create controversy. I would like to persuade my colleagues on both sides of the House that I intend to implement the recommendations of the committee, that despite the allegations made by the hon. member for St. John's East. I do recognize that the rules of the House make it possible to undertake a thorough study of the recommendations to further implement these recommendations. We are prepared to appear before the committee at its request in order to justify our

course of action, our implementing these recommendations. I simply urge hon. members on this side as well as on the other side to recognize that we operate within a huge, very complex system and that such fundamental changes as those put forward by the subcommittee are indeed very difficult to achieve. I further urge hon. members to recognize that these changes require a great deal of attention, of patience, of tolerance, of understanding from all the involved and interested parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) wish at this time to ask the question he wanted to put?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the question I had in mind will not be relevant now because the minister passed over the stage in his speech where it would have been, but I want to clarify something else of great importance. The minister said two or three times during his remarks that the government would be voting for the motion. Having regard to the remarks of the Chair before debate on the motion began, does that mean that the government will be voting for the motion in its present state and in its present wording?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely a procedural purist but, as I understand it, we are dealing with the motion which is before the House, and that is the motion I intend to support.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should say initially that I am very pleased that the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) has indicated that he intends to support the motion. I think we should get into some discussion, subsequent to the vote, on the specifics of the reference with respect to the penitentiary system which has taken up the entirety of the remarks of the Solicitor General. Perhaps we should think about a limited one-month reference. I would like the Solicitor General to consider a travelling option for the members of the subcommittee. It is absolutely vital that the subcommittee have an opportunity to examine, on the ground in the penitentiary system, the impact of all the changes the Solicitor General says he has made and which we have adopted. The Solicitor General could rise in his place now, if he will permit me to complete my remarks subsequently, to demonstrate his sincerity and to say that he is now willing to allow the subcommittee travelling privileges and the opportunity to visit maximum security institutions once more to determine whether any change whatsoever has taken place, and what the extent of that change is.


Mr. Hogan:: Get up and tell us, J.-J.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will not deal with the question of relevance. Since the Solicitor General did not mention the word "child" in any of his remarks, I presume that is no longer a question, and I hope that I will have the permission of the Chair to deal with the same specific subjects dealt with by the Solicitor General.
February 6, 1979

On the matter of how much of this report has been adopted and how much has not, I think it is important to remember that there are 65 recommendations of varying value. Some of those recommendations are very minor; they are easy to accomplish. Some of them recommend very serious changes, and the committee knew that that would be more difficult and would take a longer period of time. However, 1 submit that on any fair evaluation of the reaction to this unanimous report only tinkering recommendations have been adopted, and I think this committee will find, when it goes back inside the penitentiary system, that there has not been any change at all. In fact, I would go further and say that we in this country are in danger of being in the kind of situation we were in when the subcommittee commenced its investigation in 1977. I worry about the reports which are emanating from the maximum security systems. I worry about the potential for another crisis in the system.
One of the difficulties in trying to determine what the government's reaction to the report has been is, as I say, the value of the various recommendations. This was a bipartisan committee. It was a non-partisan committee, with more than two parties represented. I am sure that was a slip of the tongue on the part of my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). It is vital that we look at the initial unanimous reaction of the committee to the study, and that was that a crisis exists within the Canadian penitentiary system. It was on the word "crisis" that the government demurred; the government said they cannot agree there is a crisis in the system.
From that point on the reaction of the committee members was one of disappointment, because we had looked at it on the ground and we felt that perhaps the government should have accepted the reaction of the committee members who had spent such a long time on the study. We had visited 17 institutions and interviewed 2,000 witnesses; it was a very extensive study.
It is interesting also to remember that none of the members of that committee got everything they wanted in that report. Compromises were made by all members of the committee, but we felt that in the interests of the country we should bury our differences which we have in the House from time to time, and we found the things on which we could agree for the good of the system and the good of the country. That is why we have been concerned about the fact that the Solicitor General does not have the same kind of reaction, the same kind of concern, that we have in looking at it on the ground.
The Solicitor General indicated in his remarks that he had just been out west where he had announced the phasing out of the women's prison, but I do not recall whether he had had a visit with the guards of, for example, the British Columbia penitentiary while he was there putting out his press release and having interviews on radio and television. I am not sure whether he did a tour of the B.C. pen, but if he did not he should have because one must be inside those institutions to
Concurrence in Committee Report know what is going on. There is no value in relying on rumour and all the things that emanate from there; you have to be on the ground.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order with reference to the remarks of the hon. gentleman. May I say that I have been to the B.C. pen and I also took the opportunity when I was in Vancouver to announce that I fully intend to close the B.C. pen in order to alleviate the concerns of the hon. gentleman.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My apologies to the minister, Mr. Speaker. 1 was not aware he had actually toured the B.C. pen and I give him credit for having done so. However, I think he should also have met with the correctional officers in that institution because they have some serious grievances they want to take up with the Solicitor General.
In any event, let us examine which recommendations have been adopted and which have not. Let us take a look at the record. On August 5, 1977, the then solicitor general said: "I have accepted 53 of the recommendations in whole or in part." In February of 1978, the present Solicitor General said: "Thirty-seven of the recommendations have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented." Now we are down to 37. Again, in October of 1978 the Solicitor General said: "As of the end of October, 1978, 22 recommendations have been completely implemented."
Let us examine what really happened. Of those 22 recommendations implemented by the end of October, 1978, two were implemented as pilot projects, one was rejected but called implemented and at least three implementations are questionable: The staff and inmates identification tags, the no deal rule on hostage taking, the completion of post-analysis and dual responsibility for programs and security matters for all staff. This leaves a total of 14 recommendations implemented of the 65 over a period of a year and eight months since the subcommittee reported to the House.
I am sure the Solicitor General and I can get into a rather lengthy debate about the quality of implementation and about what implementation really means. I accept that as probably the kind of argument anyone can have, but the reality is that a careful analysis of the report still leaves only 14 recommendations implemented and the major recommendations have not really been touched.
Let me give some examples. When we recommended early retirement for those who work within the institutions, we asked: Why should the RCMP have a special advantage in terms of their pension when someone who works inside those institutions, who faces hostility every day and who has one of the toughest jobs in the country has to serve until he is 60 years old? We found a great many people within the institutions who deserve to have a chance at a second career or at early retirement. That was absolutely key to doing something about the morale within the institutions. We were seriously concerned about the horribly low morale in the penitentiary system. Where has the recommendations with regard to early retirement gone? That is a fundamental question. If you are

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report changing some of the conditions of the people who work within the institutions, you cannot pick and choose; you cannot take the pieces you like and reject those which, for some reason or other, you do not like. I submit that that has been the attitude of the government.
Let me give another example. The Solicitor General in the course of his remarks mentioned that the department has gone to a regional director system. Allegedly, that was some kind of an acceptance of our report. In fact, it flies in the face of our report; it goes in exactly the opposite direction. We recommended that regions be de-emphasized. We recommended that the director of a penitentiary be master of his own institution. He is on the line, he takes the risks, he must make those important decisions. Instead of regions being phased out, the opposite has happened. There has been an increase of about 20 per cent since our report came out. Not only has there not been acceptance of our recommendations, but decisions have been taken going in the opposite direction. That was why members of our committee have been seriously frustrated by the reaction of the government.
Now I want to deal with a couple of the other recommendations. One of them may be typical of a great deal of what is happening in the Solicitor General's department. It sounds like a minor thing. We recommended that inmates and guards should wear tags to identify themselves in the event of some problem arising, such as a scuffle, an assault, etc. What was the response? We were told that this has been accepted 100 per cent and an order went out that everyone wear name tags. First of all, the guards did not want to wear them, then the prisoners did not want to wear them, so they decided they would make the guards wear them but not the prisoners. In fact, I have recently received a letter from the Solicitor General stating the following:
Because of these problems, and after extended discussions, it was decided that staff will wear the plastic name tags as part of their uniform, and that inmates will not be required actually to wear name tags but, instead, must have their identification card in their possession at all times and produce it on demand.
Again it is a simple question of morale: Why should one side be required to wear the tags and not the other side? That is how you destroy morale within an institution. That is one of those famous recommendations which we were told has been adopted. A typical kind of reaction was, "We love your report; we are adopting your recommendation". In fact that was not the case. The people have been misled and the country is being misled because of the inadequate response to the report.
I mentioned earlier the concerns about the present condition of the institutions. I will read a letter that came into my hands, and I will not identify the people in it because, as we all know, of the sensitivity within the institution. This letter refers to the present condition of the Millhaven institution. As an ex-committee member I quote from the letter as follows:
I know and feel the mood of the joint. It's ready to blow and harder than ever before. I don't believe anything can stop it. I am just letting you know in advance. It could make interesting news. Merry Christmas.

That is typical not of one institution but of four or five maximum security institutions in Canada. Not one serious incident occurred while the committee investigated the institutions of Canada. They were cool, they knew someone cared and was paying attention. They knew that some action was happening regarding these problems. We as members of parliament, the Solicitor General and his department, must go back and convince everyone inside those institutions that we care and will change the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It cannot be done with three-quarters of an hour of rhetoric in the House. It cannot be done by indicating that it has been adopted, everything is fine, and by throwing around the soft soap. One cannot do that because the penitentiaries are too dangerous. One cannot "con a con". One cannot con people inside those institutions because they live in those conditions and know which changes have taken place. It is important to have another reference. I am not suggesting a long one. It could be a short one. But it is important because again we will be provided with an opportunity to look inside and see whether conditions have changed, whether we can do anything to effect some change in the atmosphere. I do not mean to be overdramatic, but perhaps we can save someone's life. One must remember that many lives have been lost within the Canadian penitentiary service.
I should like to refer to the prison expansion program to which the Solicitor General referred. The government recently cut back the program, but we still are looking at $302.7 million. I do not agree with the philosophy that we should go to larger institutions, because that will not be the absolute key. It is what goes on within the walls which is the important key. I do not believe we should spend another dollar constructing any more prisons in the country until we do something about changing the conditions inside the existing ones.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I agree we need more prisons and that the dungeon prisons need to be phased out at some time, but we cannot phase them out until we have done the hard things contained in the report.
What happened to the prison industry concept? It was one of the more imaginative ideas developed by all committee members. Admittedly there has been some minor progress in terms of the study of this concept. I have not heard how much consultation has taken place with the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and various Canadian industries to ensure that prisoners are productive, that there is a large and massive sale of goods produced by convicts on the market so that prisoners could pay their own way, support their dependants and compensate their victims. It would provide them with opportunities to receive some training and achieve a sense of well-being until they are released. One should make no mistake. There are very few people who will
February 6, 1979

not be back among the public. I have not heard much about such consultation.
In conclusion, I should like to make some comments in support of what was said by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) concerning the frustrations of the committee system. From time to time I have sat on both the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am disappointed that we in the House have not been able to use our committee system more effectively. Because of the fine work of the committee chairman, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), I thought we were making a very interesting beginning. I thought we would be able to say that members of parliament do not sit and think about votes every minute of the day. I thought they could actually sit down and say that we have a national problem. We have identified it, we have seen it. I thought members would agree that we would solve the problem rather than making any more. When a government receives this type of report, it is vitally important that it be taken seriously and adopted. I cannot say that all 65 recommendations should be adopted, but surely the major and key recommendations should be.
When that has been accomplished, we will have gone a long way toward improving the committee system, the House and the manner in which members of parliament can make some positive contribution to the people of the country in general and their own constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is the reaction of the Solicitor General and his department to this report which in fact is hurting very badly the committee system of the House.
Of course, I am pleased this motion will be concurred in by the government. I would like the Solicitor General to take an opportunity, as quickly as possible, to specify what the government has agreed to in terms of the new reference. Since the government has adopted the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East, the committee should have no less a mandate than was given to the other subcommittee studying the penitentiary system. I agree there must be a limited time frame, but at least we will have an opportunity to examine the institutions again and see whether there has been any meaningful change.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on the motion introduced by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
First of all, I congratulate the Solicitor General for his good words. He tried to encourage members of the opposition, saying in particular he wanted to see us be non-partisan. I think we have always worked in a non-partisan way in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and I am glad to see he recognizes that we want to be non-partisan.


An hon. Member:: That is intelligent.
Concurrence in Committee Report


Léonel Beaudoin: Intelligence comes with non-partisanship.
What I note in the speech made by the Solicitor General is that he says he is prepared to force the officials of his department-he did not quite put it that way but I think that is what he meant-to force the officials of his department to set the main recommendations of the subcommittee on justice and legal affairs in motion. Again I congratulate him but what strikes me is that the only thing new right now is that they want to build other institutions. It seems to me the committee had recommended improving first what is working now in existing institutions-of course, things are going bad in some institutions.
I want to point out two things. First I think that for things to work well in institutions the number of inmates in each should not be increased from 250 to 400 as was recently decided because the committee determined that in an institution where you have 400 inmates it is very difficult to distinguish between those who want to help and better themselves and those who do not.
It is also difficult to separate the character differences of certain inmates. I therefore believe that the minister should consider suggesting to the Prison Guard Association that those who work within our institutions, and especially those who have direct contact with the inmates, not be entitled to belong to a union. In my opinion, as soon as there is a strong union within an institution, the union leaders, which include the president, the secretary and the executive, have a tendency to hide the little things that some of their colleagues can do to upset an inmate whom they do not like very much or whose looks they do not like, and so on. This was proven when we visited penal institutions. To insult an inmate, a guard may doodle on his letters or appear to be opening it or throwing it away, and so on. In my opinion, it is very frustrating for an inmate when a guard whom he must see every day does things like that.
I also believe that we should not spend one more dollar in our penal institutions without solving existing problems. We should also consider providing more reasonable wages for the inmate who wants to help himself. We should also, as recommended in the report, think about visiting rights and about making the prison system more humane by allowing visits for the wife of the inmate, his children, and so on, but in areas where the inmate and his wife and children could be left alone without being watched through a window, when the inmate has shown for example that he wants to amend his ways and become a full-part citizen after paying back society by serving his sentence.
I believe also that we should separate the inmates according to their age in present institutions. At this time, young people of 17, 18 or 19 are not comfortable when they are thrown in with 30, 40 or 50-year-old tough guys or hardened criminals. This is not their place, it is not their way of life. There are some who do not really mind and there is nothing we can do

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report for them, but as for the young people who are put in prison because of an unfortunate mistake or a drug charge-and I am not trying to excuse them, Mr. Speaker-I would like these inmates to have a chance to improve themselves and not be placed in permanent contact with hardened criminals or people who always lived outside the law or are always in trouble. As a matter of fact, they are always the ones to write to us.
We get dozens of letters, often from those who do not want to mend their ways. Those who do tell us either that they have been molested by a guard, or that the letter they sent out were opened, because they are being blackmailed; I feel we must absolutely improve that situation.
As for the committee, the minister is right in saying that it should look into the matter of the incarceration of children, the whole penal system for juvenile delinquents. In that regard, the study should also include what is shown on the state television network, in its various forms, whether it be films or stories which often are amoral, if not immoral as far as our children are concerned.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to recommend first that the possibility be looked into of changing the status of our prison guards. If it were to correspond to that of the members of the RCMP or private police agents, the well-being of our prisoners would be improved. To my mind, that would be a great step forward.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before asking the House to call it five o'clock let me suggest to you that perhaps after the dinner hour we could confine our speeches to 20 minutes, thus enabling twice the normal number of members who might wish to speak on the matter to participate. I know there are three on this side who wish to speak, and I know for certain there are three members on the other side who wish to speak, all of whom were members of the subcommittee. If we limit ourselves to 20 minutes each we may get seven speakers on before the adjournment hour this evening. Perhaps the Chair could put that suggestion to the House and obtain a reaction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree to the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that speakers shall be limited to 20 minutes each during the remainder of this debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Pinard:: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal

with questions on the order paper before proceeding to the private members' hour?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 24, 143, 348, 389, 464, 469, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 564, 574, 698, 749, 797, 799 and 800.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Minister of Transport receive an application for funding from the City of Brockville under file number 5151-289 (A/OAOB) for a grant of $175,000 to improve the runways at the Brockville Municipal Airport and, if so (a) is the Minister aware of the dire necessity that the work be undertaken from the standpoint of safety and increased airport traffic (b) on what date will the Minister reach a decision on the application?


Otto Emil Lang: I am aware of the city of Brockville's application for financial assistance to improve their airport. Unfortunately, due to the recent government decision to implement cost reduction, the Airports Capital Assistance Program has been terminated and Transport Canada cannot provide the assistance requested.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Jock Ferguson leave the Toronto CBC television news department and, if so (a) on what date (b) was he dismissed and for what reasons (c) what were his qualifications that lead originally to him being employed by the CBC and what reasons, if any, changed the CBC's attitude toward such qualifications?
2.	Did he at any time act as an investigative reporter and, as a result, break some major news stories of the last few years and, if so, was his work considered satisfactory and if not, for what reason?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes.
(a)	September 27, 1978.
(b)	, (c), 2. He was dismissed. The circumstances of his leaving the CBC, together with those of his engagement, career, assignments and performance as an individual CBC employee are among those details of internal management and administration which parliament has not, as a matter of custom, required the CBC to provide. The
February 6, 1979

background to this custom was explained in the reply to question No. 2530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Epp: Does Canada have more than one official national flag and, if so (a) which ones (b) under what circumstances or on which occasions can the different flags be flown?


John (Moody) Roberts: Canada has only one national flag-the flag described in the Royal Proclamation of January 28, 1965, which took effect on February 15 of that year.


Mr. Herbert: During the past six years, what amount was (a) loaned (b) given or forgiven to Canadian railroads?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada advises as follows:
(a) 1972-73	$ 6,979,060.62
1973-74	205,321,196.25
1974-75	143,171,872.50
1975-76	214,690,345.00
1976-77	76,375,629.25
1977-78	57,115,374.79
	$703,653,478.41
(b) 1972-73	$ 17,822,471.00
1973-74	62,013,306.45
1974-75	193,776,049.00
1975-76	16,367,907.00
1976-77	
1977-78	58,646,120.00
	$348,625,853.45
Note: The above figures exclude any payment for services rendered or goods provided.
The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: no amounts of money have been loaned or forgiven to Canadian railroads.
Amounts "given" to Canadian railroads are broken down into, (a) subsidy payments pursuant to the Railway Act, (b) payments made in accordance with the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, and (c) funds which have been paid from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund.
(a)	The commission as a regulatory body has paid subsidies to the railways for the years 1972-73 to 1977-78 as follows:
1972-73	$ 121,614,646.43
1973-74	172,137,997.67
1974-75	242,755,058.48
1975-76	326,168,637.68
1976-77	280,909,197.88
Order Paper Questions
1977-78	302,018,494.92
Total	$1,445,604,033.06
These payments were made under section 256, 258, 261 and 272 of the Railway Act and include the following railways- Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railway, Algoma Central Railway, Northern Alberta Railways Company, Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.
(b)
Payments to Railway Companies $ (million)
1972-73	Column 1 13.0	Column 21973-74	14.0	-1974-75	15.1	.91975-76	16.0	1.81976-77	17.1	2.11977-78	16.1	1.9
Column 1: Maritime Freight Rates Act.
Column 2: Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act.
(c)	During the past six calendar years funds have been paid from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund to Canadian Railways, as follows:
1978 (January 1-October 31)	$ 3,577,369.45
1977	4,816,724.23
1976	4,123,159.60
1975	3,174,025.07
1974	2,814,861.84
1973	4,427,022.55
1972	3,606,286.24


Mr. Herbert: What statistical information is provided by the Department of National Revenue (a) automatically (b) on request to other departments or agencies of government?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: (a) Statistical information provided automatically by Customs and Excise: all travellers and immigrants entering Canada, annual report of the Department of National Revenue-Customs and Excise and taxation, comparative statement of excise duty collected, comparative statement of transactions in excisable products, shipment of domestic spirits, statement of tax and non-tax revenue, statistical information for Public Accounts-volume 1, II, III, statistical report of container movements, the value and commodity of all goods entering Canada or exported from Canada, wine revenue statistics.
(b)	Statistical information provided on request: duty revenue collected by province, gas tax revenue collected by region, revenue collected from excise taxes, beer, spirits

February 6, 1979
Order Paper Questions
and the amount of proof gallons in the warehouse at the end of the year.
Taxation
(a)	Standardized tabulations based on a sampling on the incomes, deductions and taxes of taxfilers distributed by such factors as age, sex, income level and geographical location. Eighteen of the most commonly used of these tabulations are publicized in the annual "Taxation Statistics", a publication widely distributed throughout the government and for sale in bookstores. In addition, other standardized tabulations are produced from other computer files on the whole tax-paying population to show all returns by marital status and personal exemptions claimed, for Canada and each province; distribution of CPP contributors; taxfilers by income class by locality and census division or county.
(b)	Special rearranged tabulations of the data described above and, to Statistics Canada, any piece of information that has been provided to National Revenue for administration of the Income Tax Act, as authorized under the Statistics Act.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Since 1974, how many court actions or statements of claim or any other type of litigation were filed in American or Canadian courts against (a) Air Canada (b) the federal Crown with reference to the Department of Transport or any of its employees or the Minister of Transport and (i) what was the date in each case (ii) for each litigation, what was the allegation served and what amount of money was involved?
2.	Since 1974, what was the total amount of money involved in all statements of claim filed in American or Canadian courts against (a) Air Canada (b) the federal Crown with reference to the Department of Transport or its employees or the Minister of Transport?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada and Transport Canada advise as follows: 1 and 2. The information requested is not readily available and to provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the records and accounts of each administration, which cost in manpower and time would be excessive and prohibitive.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Since his appointment as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, has the Minister made any effort to confer with the New Brunswick Government's Director of the Cultural Development Branch on matters pertaining to multiculturalism and, if so (a) on what occasions (b) did the Minister discuss the possibility of cooperation between federal and provincial governments relative to promoting (i) policies and programmes of multiculturalism through the education system (ii) third-language training in the public school system?
2.	Has the Minister discovered any duplication of effort between provincial and federal multiculturalism programmes and, if so, in what areas?


Norman Augustine Cafik: 1. No.
2.	No.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Since his appointment as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, has the Minister made any effort to confer with the Newfoundland Government's Director of Cultural Affairs on matters pertaining to multiculturalism and, if so (a) on what occasions (b) did the Minister discuss the possibility of cooperation between federal and provincial governments relative to promoting (i) policies and programmes of multiculturalism through the education system (ii) third-language training in the public school system?
2.	Has the Minister discovered any duplication of effort between provincial and federal multiculturalism programmes and, if so, in what areas?


Norman Augustine Cafik: 1 and 2. See reply to question No. 529 answered this day.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Since his appointment as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, has the Minister made any effort to confer with the Ontario Government's Director of the Multicultural Development Branch on matters pertaining to multiculturalism and, if so (a) on what occasions (b) did the Minister discuss the possibility of cooperation between federal and provincial governments relative to promoting (i) policies and programmes of multiculturalism through the education system (ii) third-language training in the public school system?
2.	Has the Minister discovered any duplication of effort between provincial and federal multiculturalism programmes and, if so, in what areas?


Norman Augustine Cafik: 1 and 2. See reply to question No. 529 answered this day.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Since his appointment as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, has the Minister made any effort to confer with the Manitoba Government's Multicultural Coordinator on matters pertaining to multiculturalism and, if so (a) on what occasions (b) did the Minister discuss the possibility of cooperation between federal and provincial governments relative to promoting (i) policies and programmes of multiculturalism through the education system (ii) third-language training in the public school system?
2.	Has the Minister discovered any duplication of effort between provincial and federal multiculturalism programmes and, if so, in what areas?


Norman Augustine Cafik: 1 and 2. See reply to question No. 529 answered this day.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Since his appointment as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, has the Minister made any effort to confer with the Saskatchewan Government's Multicultural Coordinator on matters pertaining to multiculturalism and, if so (a) on what occasions (b) did the Minister discuss the possibility of cooperation between federal and provincial governments relative to promoting (i) policies and programmes of multiculturalism through the education system (ii) third-language training in the public school system?
2.	Has the Minister discovered any duplication of effort between provincial and federal multiculturalism programmes and, if so, in what areas?


Norman Augustine Cafik: 1 and 2. See reply to question No. 529 answered this day.


Mr. Mitges: 1. Since his appointment as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, has the Minister made any effort to confer with the Alberta Government's Director of the Cultural Heritage Branch on matters pertaining to multiculturalism and, if so (a) on what occasions (b) did the Minister discuss the possibility of cooperation between federal and provincial governments relative to promoting (i)
February 6, 1979

policies and programmes of multiculturalism through the education system (ii) third-language training in the public school system?
2. Has the Minister discovered any duplication of effort between provincial and federal multiculturalism programmes and, if so, in what areas?


Norman Augustine Cafik: 1 and 2. See reply to question No. 529 answered this day.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Did Mr. Roy Illing, administrator of Marine Administration of the Department of Transport, sometime in 1976 commission Mr. Jean Bourguignon, a Montreal-based transportation consultant to make a study of and recommendations for improving the information systems available to shippers and users of shipping and, if so (a) what was the total cost of the study (b) what was the expected date of completion and what was the actual date of completion of the study?
2.	Was the executive summary of the study translated and, if so (a) at what cost (b) how many times and, in each case, at what cost (c) by whom and at what charge per word (d) did Mr. Bourguignon offer to translate it himself and for no charge and, if so, for what reason was his offer not accepted?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes.
(a)	$44,772.91.
(b)	July 16, 1976 extended to March 31, 1977; April 1977.
2.	Yes.
(a)	$653.60.
(b)	Once.
(c)	Redaction Olympia-eight cents a word.
(d)	Mr. Bourguignon offered to translate the executive summary. The executive summary was already in translation when his offer was received.


Mr. Murta: 1.	With reference to the proposed government takeover of Nordair, what is a detailed accounting of the $28.4 million purchase price?
2.	What evaluation procedures were undertaken to arrive at the cost of approximately $12 to $13 per share?
3.	Is the one million dollars that has been referred to as out-of-pocket expenses included in the $28.4 million purchase price?
4.	What is a detailed accounting of these out-of-pocket expenses?
5.	Where does the government intend to get the funds for the takeover?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The figure of
$28.4 million is composed of the following elements:
($Millions)
Price to be paid by Air Canada for the purchase of the outstanding shares of Nordair, plus or minus Nordair's after tax earnings or losses for the period commencing June 1, 1978.	$27.4
Air Canada's estimated out-of-pocket expenses.	1.0

2. The valuation methods used by Air Canada to determine a fair and reasonable price per share for all outstanding common stock of Nordair Ltd. at an anticipated takeover date of June 30, 1978 were as follows:
Order Paper Questions
(a)	The basic valuation method used was the replacement cost method. Under this method, Nordair was considered as a going-concern with its property and equipment being valued at replacement cost. Furthermore, all intangibles were eliminated and long-term obligations for leased aircraft were recognized. The estimated after tax profit for the first six months of 1978 was added.
(b)	Another test was made with a capitalization of earnings method under which the average of actual 1977 earnings results plus budgeted 1978 earnings results was multiplied by a reasonable earnings capitalization factor.
(c)	A final test was made with a discounted cash flow method under which future years estimated cash flows and residual values of assets were discounted at various reasonable rates of return.
(d)	The value of Nordair shares determined under the foregoing methods was tested with a liquidation valuation. All property and equipment were deemed disposed of at replacement cost with due consideration given to income taxes payable on recapture of capital cost allowance.
(e)	The basic valuation method used, supported by the other tests described, indicated a value per share within a narrow range of reasonableness.
(f)	External valuation consultants were asked to review in detail Air Canada's valuations. In their opinion, a reasonable basis, appropriate to the purpose and circumstances, and the principles and methods employed were in accordance with generally accepted valuation techniques.
3.	The $28.4 million includes an amount of $1 million for out-of-pocket expenses (see 1 above).
4.	These represent Air Canada's estimated costs associated with the acquisition of the outstanding shares of Nordair and include provision for:
(a)	Fees for evaluators (valuation of assets and shares of Nordair).
(b)	Fees and expenses in preparation for and attendance at hearings before the Canadian Transport Commission.
(c)	Legal fees.
(d)	Dealer fees.
(e)	Depository fees (deposit of shares in trust).
(f)	Printing costs (printing of offer).
5.	It is intended that the purchase transaction be financed without a requirement for new cash by reducing long-term loans owing to the government by Air Canada.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Will the $2,000,000 reduction in the Technology Development Programme result in the closure of the Halifax Fisheries Lab and, if so, how many employees will be laid-off or dismissed?
2.	Have any private interests expressed to the government their intention to assume the research work presently carried out by the Halifax Fisheries Lab and, if so, which ones?

February 6, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. The Halifax Fisheries Laboratory will not be closed, but selected program reductions will result in the lay-off of 22 employees.
2. No.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Are all pilots required to have an operator's certificate to use air-to-ground radios aboard aircraft?
2.	What are the language requirements in order to qualify for Department of Communications certificates needed to operate aircraft radios?
3.	What are the transport department policies on language requirements to operate aircraft radios? Are there different policies for different geographical or political areas in Canada and if so, name them.
4.	Is it necessary for a pilot to comply with both the Department of Communications and Department of Transport requirements? Does this compliance restrict the areas in which a pilot may fly and if so, name them.


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Department of Communications and Transport Canada as follows: 1. Yes.
2. There is no provision in the regulations to restrict the issuance of such certificates on the basis of language. Candidates are therefore examined in the official language of their choice. The successful candidates are cautioned in writing that language restrictions for safety purposes apply at certain airports in accordance with the Department of Transport Air
Navigation Order Series 1, No. 1, dealing with voice communication.
3.	ANO Series I, No. 1, says in part: "... to authorize formally the use of the French language in air-ground communications in the province of Quebec in a manner that is consistent with the progressive introduction of bilingualism into such communications as it is demonstrated that it can be done without prejudice to safety."
4.	Yes, a pilot must comply with both the Department of Communications and Transport Canada requirements.
At the present time, a unilingual Francophone pilot is restricted to the province of Quebec in accordance with visual flight rules only and ANO Series I, No. 1, authorizes the use of specific aeradio stations and aerodromes in Quebec.


Mr. Stevens: For (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) the first nine months of 1978, by quarter, what was the total number of revenue passengers (i) enplaned (ii) deplaned at the Toronto International Airport, Terminal 1 and Terminal 2?


Otto Emil Lang: The table below presents enplaning and deplaning revenue passenger date for Toronto International Airport, terminal 1 and terminal 2, for the years 1975-77 and preliminary data for the first quarter of 1978. Passenger data for subsequent periods are not yet available.
Total Number of Revenue Passengers at Toronto International Airport (Terminal 1 and 2)
1975-1977 and Year-to-Date 1978
Mainline Unit Toll	Other Unit Toll
Year	Terminal	Enplaned	Deplaned	Total	Enplaned	Deplaned1975	1 2	1,445,224 3,210,721	1,484,319 3,252,329	2,929,543 6,463,050	7,459 43,935	7,457 40,987Total	4,655,945	4,736,648	9,392,593	51,394	48,4441976	1 2	1,578,268 3,221,367	1,616,761 3,253,559	3,195,029 6,474,926	8,942 100,938	9,327 82,824Total	4,799,635	4,870,320	9,669,955	109,880	92,1511977	1 2	1,721,241 3,302,235	1,763,089 3,313,397	3,484,330 6,615,632	6,521 133,177	6,698 119,437Total	5,023,476	5,076,486	10,099,962	139,698	126,135First Quarter 1978	1 2	404,800 824,400	417,400 831,800	822,200 1,656,200	1,440 33,851	1,518 29,836Total	1,229,200	1,249,200	2,478,400	35,291	31,354International Chapter	TotalTotal	Enplaned	Deplaned	Total	Enplaned	Deplaned	Total14,916 84,922	552,483 7,211	553,397 7,071	1,105,880 14,282	2,005,166 3,261,867	2,045,173 3,300,387	4,050,339 6,562,25499,838	559,694	560,468	1,120,162	5,267,033	5,345,560	10,612,59318,269 183,762	551,024 5,961	549,864 5,271	1,100,888 11,232	2,138,234 3,328,266	2,175,952 3,341,654	4,314,186 6,669,920202,031	556,985	555,135	1,112,120	5,466,500	5,517,606	10,984,10613,219 252,614	568,565 24,072	562,553 23,142	1,131,118 47,214	2,296,327 3,459,484	2,332,340 3,455,976	4,628,667 6,915,460265,833	592,637	585,695	1,178,332	5,755,811	5,788,316	11,544,1272,958 63,687	169,388 15,494	164,820 14,805	334,208 30,299	575,628 873,745	583,738 876,441	1,159,366 1,750,18666,645	184,882	179,625	364,507	1,449,373	1,460,179	2,909,552
NOTE: Figures provided for international charter services do not include passengers travelling on air carriers operating out of the general aviation area at Toronto.


Mr. Stevens: For (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) the first nine months of 1978, by quarter, what was the total number of takeoffs and landings by scheduled aircraft at (i) Toronto International Airport, Terminals 1 and 2 (ii) Montreal International Airport (Dorval) (iii) Montreal International Airport (Mirabel)?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Table 1, below, contains statistics for the years 1975, 1976, 1977 and the first nine months of 1978 on scheduled itinerant air carrier aircraft movements for the requested airports.

Airport	Year	Itinerant Air Carrier Unit Toll	
		Movements	
Toronto	1975	Terminal 1	49,047
		Terminal 2	87,792
		Total	136,839
	1976	Terminal 1	49,795
		Terminal 2	88,466
		Total	138,261
	1977	Terminal 1	48,262
		Terminal 2	87,424
		Total	135,686
February 6, 1979

Airport	Year	Itinerant Air Carrier Unit Toll		
		Movements		
1978	First	Terminal 1	11,579quarter	Terminal 2	21,940Total	33,519Second	Terminal 1	13,035quarter	Terminal 2	20,838Total	33,873Third	Terminal 1	14,441quarter	Terminal 2	17,886Total	32,327Year-	Terminal 1	39,055to-Date	Terminal 2	60,664Total	99,719Montreal-	Dorval	1975	107,0971976	86,2471977	80,4441978	First quarter	18,903Second quarter	20,287Third quarter	20,044Year-to-Date	59,234Montreal-	Mirabel	1975	2,056'1976	23,9231977	22,1421978	First quarter	5,675Second quarter	5,998Third quarter	6,010Year-to-Date	17,683
Note: Date provided for the first three quarters of 1978 are preliminary 1 Mirabel began operating on November 29, 1975.


Mr. Stevens: For (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) the first nine months of 1978, by quarter, what was the total number of takeoffs and landings by private aircraft at (i) Toronto International Airport (ii) Montreal International Airport (Dorval) (iii) Montreal International Airport (Mirabel)?


Otto Emil Lang: The table below contains statistics for the years 1975, 1976, 1977 and the first three quarters of 1978 on private itinerant aircraft movements at Toronto International Airport, Montreal International Airport (Dorval) and Mirabel.
Total Number of Private Itinerant
	Movements		
Year	Toronto	Dorval	Mirabel*1975	52,979	32,432	2351976	55,605	33,501	3,1481977	53,485	35,268	2,972First quarter 1978	10,955	7,742	354Second quarter 1978	16,184	11,741	567Third quarter 1978	16,787	12,730	583Total Year-to-Date	43,926	32,213	1,504
Note: Private aircraft movements concern aircraft which are used solely for private purposes and not for hire or compensation. Owners include individuals, groups or business firms.
* Collection of aircraft movement data at Mirabel began in December, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of (a) March 31, 1976 (b) March 31, 1977 (c) September 30, 1978, how much had the government loaned to, guaranteed or invested in Crown corporations, including departmental corporations, agency corporations, proprietary corporations or any other type of public enterprise entity and, what were the 10 largest corporations or entities in which or to which the government had invested, loaned money or guaranteed obligations?
2.	(a) What was the (i) net profit or loss for the 10 largest Crown corporations (ii) aggregate profit or loss for all Crown corporations for each of their fiscal years (b) what is the aggregate percentage of return for the 10 largest Crown corporations on the government's investment therein for each of their fiscal years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The information sought by the member is "set forth in documents equally accessible" to him. Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 171(ff) of the Rules of Beauchesne, the Department of Finance answers as follows:
The information is available for fiscal year 1977-78:
(1)	from volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada for the year ended March 31, 1978, as detailed in the schedules in section 8, "Assets and Liability Accounts", (schedules and explanatory notes to the schedules to the statement of assets and liabilities). Borrowings by Crown corporations under guarantee or as agents of the government are set out on page 8.90 of that section.
(2)	(a) from volume III of the Public Accounts which contains the financial statements of Crown corporations
(b) from volume I of the Public Accounts at table 4.10, on pages 4.8 to 4.16, which sets out the amount invested at March 31, 1978 and the total amount realized in 1977-78.
(From this information the hon. member may readily make his own selection as to which corporations he considers the ten largest whether in sales volume, assets employed, shareholder's equity or government investment, and the return on the government's investment.)
For previous years, see the equivalent tables and volumes of the 1975-76 and 1976-77 Public Accounts.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 527 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately. I take it that we have consent in that regard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
2946_______________________________________COMMONS DEBATES____________________________________February 6, 1979
Canada Labour Code


Mr. Halliday: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978 up to October 1, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (i) present or future policies, programmes or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (ii) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Ministry of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
Return tabled.


Yvon Pinard: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)- Health and Welfare-Government contribution to health care program; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans Affairs-Prorata pensions for widows of disabled veterans; the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-Administration of Justice-Penalties for vandalism.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it seems there is unanimous consent to proceed with second reading of Bill C-410 rather than proceeding with Bill C-213.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that all orders preceding order No. 210 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we agree that the hon. member be allowed to substitute the bill he wishes to propose in place of the other one that is in his name. In other words, we are willing that Bill C-410 be debated, but that is as far as we go.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Frank Oberle: that Bill C-410, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all thank hon. members in the House, specifically the House leader for the NDP, for accommodating me in allowing the substitution of Bill C-410 for Bill C-213 as listed on the order paper. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did speak in response to the subject matter of this bill the last time I brought it to the attention of the House, sometime in 1977. He said at that time he would not even extend me the courtesy of thanking me for bringing the matter before the House so it might be debated. I realize it is quite a concession he is making today, therefore, and I thank him heartily for it.
It is not the first time that I have brought this matter before the House, but I have little reason to believe that hon. members will grant the necessary consent today to allow this bill to proceed further, and this will probably not be the last time I will discuss this bill in the House. I am reminded of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who repeatedly rises in this House to talk about matters very dear to his heart. I can certainly make the commitment that I shall debate this matter until such time as more of my colleagues in the House and more people in the areas concerned with industrial relations in our country adopt a more enlightened view so that parliament can act.
My bill in general deals with the rights of individual workers. I refer, of course, to all workers in the country, numbering approximately ten million; but I am more concerned with the members of our labour force who are organized, which is roughly one third of the work force and amounts to 3.2 million men and women. Strangely enough, as one examines this what I call elite group in our work force, one finds that they either work for the government in Crown corporations, where they are compelled to belong to a union, or they work for large corporations. I am referring to the particular corporations which have managed to insulate themselves from the harsh realities of the free market system and which simply pass on the costs of whatever they produce to the consumer. Some of them are offshore consumers and some of them are within our own country. The government's situation, of course, is that if
February 6, 1979

the cost of labour increases it is simply passed on to the taxpayer. There is no great concern among such employers as to how high the demand for additional wages or additional fringe benefits goes.
I have often asked myself, what is so bad about unions that they must compel members to belong? I know that many members of unions have asked themselves the same question: "Why do I have to be compelled to belong to my union?". I draw my experience from studies which I have made of other labour models throughout the world. I find in looking at our own labour relations model that there are some very serious discrepancies and anomalies.
Having spoken several times on this matter and having brought it forth on other occasions in the House, I have had an opportunity to answer some of the criticisms of the bill that have been voiced. The last time my bill was discussed in the House was in 1977, and at that time hon. members were glad to accept it, with the exception of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said that he wished to have it disposed of as quickly as possible to get it out of here. I respect the hon. member's views in that regard, but the other hon. members who spoke said it was important that this matter be brought before the House for debate because it is a crucial issue and because in this regard we face a crisis in our country.
There are pressures on many hon. members from their constituents and the unions in this regard, and it is a good thing that this bill is being debated again so that hon. members may air their concerns and the concerns of their constituents and we may take a very serious look at the direction of industrial relations in our country. I am assuming, of course, that some of my misguided friends in my own constituency, who have chosen to misinterpret and misunderstand this bill, as have some members of the NDP, will not, once again, fight me on my position in the next election.
Bill C-410 which I introduced in this House for the first time in 1974 has been deliberately misnamed and misinterpreted by some people. The legislation adopted in the United States, which is similar to what I am proposing, is called the right to work legislation. I would prefer to call my bill freedom of association legislation. I think this title is rather appropriate because of the many things which are being said today about constitutional reform and the need to entrench in the constitution our commitment to certain fundamental democratic principles.
Much is said about the freedom and rights of the individual. The cardinal principle of democracy is freedom of association, individual rights and collective rights. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the present time is encouraging hon. members to give serious consideration to entrenching certain of these rights I have mentioned in the constitution. To what extent, however, does the freedom of the individual have to yield to the collective rights of groups?
The Task Force on Canadian Unity has made certain references in their assessment of these freedoms. The freedoms which they propose to entrench in the constitution are broken down into several categories and are indicated on page 107 of
Canada Labour Code
the report. First of all, they say that the right of the individual is paramount. This, of course, is the basis of the political parties represented in this House. The second category embraces the rights of people as individuals within particular groups. The third category covers the collective rights which can be exercised by a group, such as the right of unions to bargain. I have often wondered how far the collective rights of these groups should be allowed to proceed, particularly if they violate the rights or interests of individual Canadians.
The report goes on to discuss the collective rights of groups with a slant toward the right of the Francophone majority in the province of Quebec and the Francophone minorities in other parts of the country to speak their language. I appreciate that collective right and I respect it, but I cannot help but wonder if it could in some instances be taken to the point where a minority language group says, "Look, you are not giving us our way, we don't like you any more, we are going to leave the country". This situation could also apply to unions where they decide, because they are not getting their way at the bargaining table, not only to withdraw their essential service but to opt out of the country, regardless of what that means to the individual rights of Canadians. They say, "We are opting out. We are paralysing the country regardless of what it means to the individual rights of other Canadians. We have that additional power". I wonder just what authority, what forum, will make the final decision on how far these collective rights can be taken.
It is also advantageous to repeat such a debate as this in this House because it gives me an opportunity to answer some of the criticisms levelled against the bill the last time it was debated. I said I based my assessment of the situation on certain models. I have studied particularly the West German model. The criticism has been made that because of the behaviourial attitudes of different cultural backgrounds and different attitudes toward work, one cannot transpose that kind of model on the situation in Canada. If it cannot be transposed on the situation in Canada, can it be transposed on the situation in Great Britain? As you know, Mr. Speaker, many of the principles and traditions we have in Canada are inherited from Great Britain. They were inherited along with the British parliamentary system. Surely it can be said that the average worker in Great Britain has as deep a heritage as has the German worker.
The fact is, however, that the German constitution is somewhat different. It is not an accident that the West German models are somewhat different. Their constitution is only 25 or 27 years old, the most modern constitution in the free world. There are, of course, constitutional guidelines that restrict that particular freedom I have talked about if it offends or injures the freedom of the individual.
The basic principle that is being respected-and this is the crux of the problem in our country-is the freedom of association which my bill intends to restore. Freedom of association, which is one of the great cardinal principles of democracy, is

February 6, 1979
Canada Labour Code
interpreted differently in West Germany than it is in this country and in Great Britain. The worker is free to associate. As a matter of fact, in West Germany he has to have the opportunity to join a union, which workers in this country do not have and which I say they should have. In Germany, they cannot be compelled to join. The freedom of association is interpreted both ways: they are free to associate but cannot be compelled to associate.
If we are addressing ourselves to fundamental changes in our constitution, that is one of the changes that has to be entrenched-restoration of this cardinal principle of democracy, freedom of choice.
One of the arguments that has traditionally been made and was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the last time the bill was debated is to the effect that "Because I am not a Liberal and I do not agree with everything this government does, I should not have to pay taxes." That precisely underlines the argument I have advanced. The union power in this country puts itself on an equal footing with the power of this institution and the power of government. It says, "If I do not agree with what the government is doing, I do not have to pay taxes." At the same time it says: "I have a right to bargain. The right of the worker in an industry is that if he does not like what the union does he should not have to pay dues".
That is what I am saying. If they want to preserve a right that is equal to the institution of parliament, the institution of government, I say that is wrong. It points out precisely the problems we have in this country where the union exercises greater power than we exercise in parliament.
We have an instance at the moment where a union connected with the post office decided to disobey the law of the land. Members of that union will be reprimanded and may well lose their jobs in the public service because they chose to respect the law of the land and ignore a direction from their leadership to stay out when an order was made in this House for them to return to work. This is very dangerous, Mr. Speaker. It borders on anarchy and surely that is something we cannot tolerate in a free and great society such as ours.
The traditional argument is also that unions need protection to safeguard them against exploitation from corporate giants and unscrupulous employers. That is an age-old argument. There is no doubt that there is a need for unions. There was a need for unions when Mr. Justice Rand intervened in the Ford strike and gave unions the right to a closed union shop in the first place.
Times have changed, Mr. Speaker. Technology is light years ahead of the contemporary union structure in our country. We have a very good grip of, and very good control over, the behaviour of unscrupulous businessmen and corporations in this country so that that great fear no longer exists.
What we forgot as we modernized our industrial plant and integrated into it the technology that became available was that we are no longer competitive. We should have modernized as did the countries with whom we compete in world markets.

As they modernized their industrial relations process, so should we.
We are no longer competitive in world markets because of some of the difficulties the unions have created. I am not referring to wages, Mr. Speaker. I agree that some sectors of the economy are underpaid today. Some are overpaid, and traditionally they are always the ones that are unionized and we know that employers simply pass the cost on to the consumer or the taxpayer.
I am saying that because of irresponsible action we have not been able to get our products to market. We have had transportation systems shut down. The post office service has been interrupted. We seem to sit here and accept that it now takes up to ten days for a letter to come from Vancouver, British Columbia to Ottawa, when a few years ago it used to take three or four days.
It is time all that changed, Mr. Speaker. We must modernize our system of dealing with employers and workers and adopt an approach which other countries have found to be beneficial. If we do not, we will go the same route as Great Britain where there is a serious crisis. As we hear in daily news reports, it is impossible even for the Labour government to talk with the unions in a manner which is in the legitimate interest of the country as a whole.
We should not allow ourselves to be forced down this road, Mr. Speaker. Now is time for change. It is time for this bill to be taken to committee, for it to be debated in public, for the public to have their say, for union members to have their say. It is time for that two thirds of our work force to have access to a union and for the small businessmen to enter the debate that is carried on in parliament, in the board rooms of the nation and in the tripartite forum we are trying to establish. All these people have a right to be heard, and that is why I commend this bill to the House.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I just happened to hear the hon. member say this is not a "right to work bill", that it is a "freedom of association bill". I think a rose by any other name would smell exactly the same way. If I were to give this bill a title it would be called "The Sting".
The hon. member talked a lot about freedom-freedom to associate, etc. I wonder where the Tory party labour critic is, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). Indeed, where is the whole Tory party? Where have all the Tories gone? It is important for the workers in this country to hear the Conservative party position being put forward by the small entrepreneur from British Columbia, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). It is important to hear him put forward this so-called enlightened view of industrial relations in Canada in 1979.
It is nothing but a pile of hogwash! It is "right to work" legislation. Let us call it by its real name, "right to work." Let us also understand that "right to work" has nothing at all to do with creating employment. It has to do with union busting.
February 6, 1979

That is what the small entrepreneur, the so-called small businessman, this sawmill operator from British Columbia, is really talking about-busting the trade union movement. Fie wants to deny the workers the right to collective bargaining and the right to the union shop. That is what he is talking about, and that is not new, Mr. Speaker. He is not proposing anything new.
This goes back to 1935 when the Automobile Manufacturers Association got together to fight the Wagner act which gave the workers in the automotive industry the right to collective bargaining and the right to a union shop. He wants to go "forward into the past;" that is what the hon. member wants to do. He does not want to go forward with any new, decisive, dynamic industrial relations proposals; he wants to take us back with his Progressive Conservative party views to 1935.
It seems that the malaise of this right to work, which has now infected 20 southern states in the United States, has moved in to of all places the province of British Columbia. It was in 1975 that their founding meeting was held in Trail, B.C. It was made up of independent contractors and a businessmen's association. Incidentally, Phil Gagliardi, "flying Phil," was a key speaker along with Ralph Purdy. Ralph Purdy was the organizer of the right to work movement in the United States. Mr. Purdy happens to be a great John Bircher. He was there telling Canadian entrepreneurs how to handle the working class in this country.
What does this legislation mean?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Was Oberle there?


John R. Rodriguez: I suspect the hon. member was there. As a matter of fact, it might be a conflict of interest for him to grind his axe in this House of Commons on his pet project. But what does this legislation mean? When one strips it of all the verbosity which the hon. member has put forward here this afternoon and, equates his crusade for union busting with the crusade of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the poor and pensioned people of this country, it is like comparing Satan with something saintly.


An hon. Member:: The holy ghost.


John R. Rodriguez: But what does it mean? What does it say? It says the corporations will have greater opportunity to put more profit in their pockets. Having torn down the workers' collectives and unions, each employer would then be free to work out an individual pay or wage scale with each worker. Can you imagine that in the work place, Mr. Speaker? Can you imagine each worker working out separately with his employer what he is going to get? Can you see that being healthy for the working environment? Can you see the old British mentality of divide and conquer in all its full glory in effect in the work place? The hon. member calls that modern industrial relations. We had that in the teaching profession in Ontario as far as I can remember. In effect, teachers agreed to move away from that situation because it depressed living and working standards.
Canada Labour Code
What does this legislation mean apart from allowing the corporations, and small entrepreneurs, to put bigger profits in their pockets? It means safety and health rules can be avoided. As each worker becomes concerned about his own job security, he would not complain about environmental security. He would not be concerned about the health hazards in the working place. The situation will be every man for himself. Whoever kisses the boss' toes the most are the ones whose jobs will be protected. That is what the hon. member calls modern industrial relations. That is what the Progressive Conservative party is offering to the working class of Canada as an alternative. The hon. member should be ashamed of himself.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: We experienced that in the Sudbury basin, Mr. Speaker. We all remember what it was like before the unions came into the Sudbury basin in 1943. We remember when there was no union. We had a right to work then and all the workers would be lined up. The foreman would come out and he would say, "Today, you have a job". Then to the next person he said, "You have a job", and so on. He would then say, "The rest of you can go home". To keep their jobs men would allow the bosses to sleep with their wives. The men had to bring chickens as well. There was a chicken in every foreman's pot, but none in the worker's pot.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is Oberle's policy. It is PC policy.


John R. Rodriguez: That is the Progressive Conservatives for you. Is that their charter for industrial relations? I think it is shameful, Mr. Speaker, totally shameful.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No wonder the people of Canada are laughing.


John R. Rodriguez: It is the unified, collective strength in the working place that has improved health and safety conditions. Anyone who knows anything about collective bargaining knows of the strides and improvements which have been made because workers have collectively bargained to improve the environment in the working place.
What else does this legislation do? This bill would give a totally free hand to the employer in the matter of hiring and firing. The potential for abuse is evident. Once the freedom is there it is abused. We see it in the banks today. I know banks that have hired flashy young men, posted them to a branch, and their job is to find out which young women in their branch are organizing a union. A man comes in as an assistant accountant. He takes out the young women and wines and dines them in an effort to find out who is organizing the union. The minute this information is secured these people are fired. The record of the Labour Relations Board in its various judgments against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce gives examples. But like the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, they all believe in the right to work and will do anything to prevent the organization of collectives in the work place.

February 6, 1979
Canada Labour Code
What else would this bill do? It would depress the standard of living of the working class in this country. Anyone who knows the history of the trade union movement in Canada knows that it has done more as a single force to improve the standard of living and the quality of life for the workers of this country. I say again that anyone who knows anything about the trade union movement knows that that has been so. Employers have not been willing to improve these things. Lives have been lost in the process of trying to improve the work place and the workers' standard of living. For example, in northern Ontario people in the bush have lost their lives when organizing the woodworkers unions. We know it from the strikes and the sacrifices that have been made by workers as they fight, not to get from generous employers what they feel they should get, but to get what is their right to live on a decent wage in order to provide for their families some dignity. What else does this bill do? It undermines the democratic process. A union is a very democratic organization.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John R. Rodriguez: They vote. If the majority of workers vote to recognize a certain union as representing them, the majority wins, and you cannot have the minority going off and doing its own thing. Oh, they would love to have all the benefits of the union. The hon. member's bill would allow this. They would get the increases in pay won through collective bargaining, they would get the benefits of environmental protection won through collective bargaining, they would get the increased rates. But the hon. member does not want them to pay any union dues for these. The second clause would allow them to get all the benefits without paying a nickel. Mr. Speaker, that is contrary to the free enterprise system, the system which the hon. member advocates. He is flying in the face of the very system he idolizes.
Of course, we must not forget that these Conservative entrepreneurs want all the tax concessions. They want everything for nothing. They want socialism for the rich, and free enterprise for the poor. But it seems to us that if you get benefits because of the collective bargaining process, the minority, which does not belong to the union, should make the same contribution.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And make the same sacrifices.


John R. Rodriguez: And accept the sacrifices, of course-loss of pay during strikes, and so on. They cannot just take all the goodies and not pay one brass nickel. Can the hon. member not get that basic concept into his head-that we live in a democratic society? I did not vote for those jokers who sit over there in the government, but that does not give me the right to say I will go away on my own, and do my own thing, or form a shadow cabinet as Khomeini has just done. He's nuts. He has got to be nuts.
What else does this bill do? It flies in the face of the Rand formula which has been accepted in this country. I might point out that in accordance with this formula a worker is not bound
to belong to a union as long as he pays the equivalent of the union dues to the union on the principle that he is getting the benefits which the majority have worked out in collective bargaining. This allows people who have certain religious orientation, or particular concepts of behaviour, to follow the dictates of their conscience.
So called "right to work" legislation is in effect in 20 states of the U.S., all of them in the south.


Mr. Symes:: George Wallace, Spiro Agnew, Barry
Goldwater.


John R. Rodriguez: I cannot resist pointing out that the State of Arkansas is one of the states which has enacted this right to work legislation, better known in some circles as the Taft-Hartley Act. I just want to read a quotation at this point, because these days when the Pope flies to Latin America and we hear the church speaking out for human causes I think it is only appropriate to read what the Bishop of Arkansas had to say on the matter. The Most Reverend Andrew MacDonald, Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock, Arkansas, had this to say about the "right to work". In his view the very title "right to work" or "freedom of association" is deceptive. This is what he said:
Such laws do not provide jobs or fair wages, they merely prevent workers from building strong or stable unions. On that score we judge the right to work law to be morally reprehensible at its very core.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River-I read all these write-ups by people like Fotheringham who are supposed to know all about these things, and they all say the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River is touted to be a cabinet minister.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My God!


John R. Rodriguez: Possibly the minister of labour. Here is this very vocal backbencher in the regressive Conservative party, powerful in his caucus. He has a lot of allies-the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie). They are among the louder voices in the regressive Conservative party and they are the ones who are going to formulate labour policy in the Conservative party should that party form a government. I shudder to think of the consequence. If this is the kind of thinking that motivates them, we shall be facing continuous labour disruption in the country.
I say they are just as anti-labour as the Liberal government has shown itself to be. We remember how they condemned the Conservatives for advocating wage and price controls, and then introduced them. But they are not prepared to take on the powerful giants among the multinational corporations; they are not prepared to say to them, "Roll back your price increases." Oh, no! Instead they say to the pulp and paper companies, "We are going to give you $250 million more, even though your profits have been spectacular." Now the Liberal government is saying there is a possibility of bringing back wage controls. Look at Bill C-22 which is shortly to come before the House. I say that the thoughts expressed by the hon.

February 6, 1979

member for Prince George-Peace River find many a virgin listener over there on the Liberal side. The proposition he is advancing finds sensitive listeners on the other side of the House, as can be deduced from the unemployment insurance bill which really cuts at the very base of the workers' fund.
If I were allowed to go beyond 20 minutes I would speak until this bill was killed because I think it is dangerous. It shows the Conservative party's hand; it shows how they would handle labour relations. I looked to see if the "Red Tories" were here today. I looked for the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). I looked to see if the labour spokesman, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), was here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate on Bill C-410. Incidentally, until the moment when the hon. member started talking about and deferring from the main issue, I must admit it was a good speech.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River that following the presentation of his bill it might be worth while to do an historical account and recall certain things about the Department of Labour. When the former minister of labour (Mr. Munro) introduced his 14-point program on employer-employee labour relations we ended up adopting a bill called Bill C-8. All that was intended, of course, to promote good understanding in labour-management relationships.
When the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River says there were strikes, it is quite obvious that there were strikes and there will be others. What is really important is strictly to have a strong, responsible and respected labour movement both on the labour side and on the management side. And then you can be sure of one thing, labour-management relations will certainly take a big step for employers as well as employees and the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River does not know anything about labour groups. Having myself militated actively in the labour movement up until the early seventies, I had the opportunity to see people doing labour organization work and being forced to promote the labour movement secretly. Imagine that in the late seventies. So, if the hon. member knew about labour relations and really wanted better production and better agreement between the two parties, quite obviously he would have a much more open mind. Another really important point, Mr. Speaker, is that when in a bargaining unit you have people
Canada Labour Code
who are dissatisfied, under the Labour Code, you can disaffiliate between the thirtieth and the sixtieth day ending the collective agreement. Then, whatever the bargaining units, you can do it. I cannot understand the position of the hon. member on something like the Rand formula where when you have the majority to get certified, participation should be equal for everyone. In fact, everyone enjoys the same privileges and the same benefits.
When you try to defend the employer, there is an extremely important point to remember, and that is that when a collective agreement is signed for one, two or three years, you are ensured almost automatically of having peace with the union, which means that you can plan your productivity for the next three years in the knowledge that both sides will be protected. Once again, this is to the advantage of the employer as well as the employee. But as I understand it, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River does not seem to take these points into consideration. It is not for nothing that he has left the House and stays in the lobby. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the points that I wanted to make-


An hon. Member:: He is afraid to face the truth!


Raymond Dupont: But I would like to say, like my colleague, that we must really face the truth. In this regard, we must not forget that we are in 1979 and that this is extremely important for the whole Canadian economy. These are the few points that I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.
In closing, I would like to say a few words about the Wood labour relations team. This group is not a new one. It was established in 1960. It made a very comprehensive and specialized study of this issue and its members agreed with what is now provided by the Canadian Labour Code. I therefore fail to understand how, 13 years later, a Progressive Conservative member, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt said, can have the audacity to suggest such changes.


An hon. Member:: A reactionary Tory!


Raymond Dupont: I can see that. He is a reactionary Tory.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having allowed me to speak on this issue and I hope that a bill of this type will never be allowed to pass.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, for the record it should be stated that this is a private members' hour. That point obviously and patently was overlooked by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). As is customary with the hon. member for Nickel Belt, he tends to run to excess. He tends to exaggerate. He tends to wax eloquent histrionically. He fails completely to mention that a year ago in this House a Liberal member-I may be incorrect in saying it was the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine), but if my memory serves me correctly it was the hon. member for Wellington-introduced a similar private members' bill. It
2952

February 6, 1979
Canada Labour Code
should be said for the record that members on both sides of the House of all parties spoke against that bill. Let that clearly be understood, just as I am also speaking against this bill.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Where does the Tory party stand?


Robert Hylton Brisco: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) intervenes and asks where the Tory party stands. It is patently obvious to me that the hon. member does not know the purpose of the private members' hour. The purpose of the private members' hour is the expression of the private concerns of individual members. As long as we have a parliamentary system I think the provision of private members' hours should prevail. If the hon. member does not like it, why does he not bring in a bill to do away with private members' hours? Otherwise, let each individual member express his concern, just as I am expressing mine now.


Frank Oberle: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Let us get back to the title of this bill. It should be called right to work legislation. I, and I am sure many members of my party, are opposed to it for a very basic reason, and that is that it would create nothing but confrontation between employer and employee. I agree that there are many things to be desired of the union movement. One of the things I find most irksome is the closed shop. Valued, experienced and skilled workmen in my riding have been denied the opportunity to work at jobs down the street from their residences because of the closed shop constraint. One of the worst offenders was the Rock and Tunnel Workers Union No. 1, which never even bothered to reply to my telephone calls or letters.
Finally, I asked Bill King, then the minister of labour of British Columbia, what was going on with that union. I asked why the union did not reply to its mail or take into consideration the employment rate in Kootenay West. The minister of labour of British Columbia replied to me that he agreed with me, that he wished he could help me, that he was sorry but that he could not interfere. There was an abuse of the union system.
On the other side of the coin, let us consider the example in the United States which is often quoted and abused. There is right to work legislation in 20 states. What are those states? They are nearly all agricultural, they are not industrial. There are five states in the United States which, since 1947, have repealed the right to work legislation. We find three things in these states in the U.S. First, they are principally agricultural; they are less industrialized, less unionized, and they pay the lowest wages. One can accurately state that these three factors were important factors in shaping the political climate since those laws were introduced.
There is no need for me to continue speaking on this subject. I could make a 20-minute speech and I could make a one-hour speech. I simply want to go on record as saying that there are many other ways in which we can accomplish an understanding between union and management, and those ways are by negotiation. I go on record as saying that there are many ills

and many irresponsible actions carried out by both the employers and the employees, by unions and by management. I saw a classic example of it in downtown Trail where some elements of the labour movement, when we had a civic workers' strike, decided that that was the right time to scatter garbage all over the main streets of Trail.
That day the announcer said, "Folks, that big labour demonstration in downtown Trail is over now, but some of the irresponsible elements have scattered garbage all over the streets," or something to that effect. That strike had been going on for months. Do you know what happened? That was the only statement on the radio, but how stupid those people looked, how irresponsible they appeared when the citizens of Trail, the children, the high school students, and the housewives and the workers, came down and cleaned the streets of Trail without being solicited to do so. They were showing to the people of B.C. and the rest of Canada that they are proud of their community and that no irresponsible idiots will label them as being people who do not care about their community. The streets were cleaner than they had been for months.
You can look at the other side of the coin too. I know there is another member who wishes to speak on this subject and I would like to give him that opportunity, so, although I would like to continue speaking on this point, I will bow to my friend across the way.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for giving me five minutes in which to speak. I respect that and thank him very much for it.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when reading Bill C-410 one is inclined to wonder in which society some people want to live, either today's or tomorrow's. When we look at the ruling made by Mr. Justice Rand, in 1947 I believe, saying that anyone who benefits from the bargaining of a collective agreement should normally, through union fees, also share the cost of such bargaining, we can be concerned by the fact that the Progressive Conservative party, if it still respects the courts, and I believe it still does, is questioning that principle 17 or 13 years later, even though a very respected judge made that ruling. Did the hon. member realize what would happen tomorrow morning if his bill was passed? It is absolutely irrealistic, you must be irresponsible to take away the rights of several hundred thousand workers who fought hard to create unions. And thousands of workers would require an improvement of the labour legislation and this is what we did recently in amending the Canadian Labour Code and extending unionization in radio stations and banks. If you read the bill you will realize that it would bring us back 20 to 30 years. It is impossible to understand that a party that pretends to govern this country some day could have such restrictive views. It is impossible to explain.
Before me a member of the same party spoke against that bill. I appreciate this and I hope that some day after July he will become the opposition critic on issues concerning the
February 6, 1979


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
Concurrence in Committee Report It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. McGrath) that the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, December 21, 1978, be concurred in.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the committee, the one we are debating now, appears in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for December 21, 1978. As reported at page 8:8, it reads as follows:
Mr. Lawrence proposed to move-That the committee report that it is dealing with the subject matter of Bill C-204 in conformity with the reference to it by the House, and that the committee request the House to amplify and enlarge its said reference, due to certain evidence presented to the committee, so that incarceration of children and the penal system in general be also included in the committee's terms of reference.
That was a committee which had under study a bill of rights for children, and that is the motion which the government today attempted to stonewall with the half-hearted and rather half-baked arguments of the deputy House leader. Let there be no mistake about it. The government did not like the motion, and it tried to get it out of the way with a procedural argument which failed. It resisted the motion. It did not want it to pass. When the Chair ruled that the motion indeed had substance and was procedurally correct, as usual the government shifted its position, as indicated in the speech of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) when he said, as the first speaker on the government side, that the government intended to support the motion. But that is typical of the attitude across the way.
I want to speak for a few moments about the committee system. As the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) put it, the motion really is a debate on the committee system itself. It is a revolt, albeit a revolt of the minority, the opposition minority, and a revolt which will be put down quite easily by the government majority on the other side of the House, as is normally the case in committees where the government enjoys a majority in all standing committees. That is not new either. This is not the first time I have spoken of the inefficiencies of the committee system in this House. It is not
80047-45'/:,

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report
going to work unless there is a permanent reference with broad terms to these committees whereby they have some freedom to examine matters that they, in their discretion, should decide require examination.
Even when legitimate matters come before the House, such as earlier in this session, I believe it was, when the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) raised a question of privilege, and it was a substantive question of privilege concerning the activities of the security service, they are not disposed of satisfactorily. The same thing happened to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) just before Christmas. In the case of the hon. member for Nickel Belt it involved a matter of his private life being invaded and communications being intercepted. In the case of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham it was a matter of that hon. member being misled by a minister of Crown.
In the case of the hon. member for Nickel Belt the Speaker found that he did, indeed, have a prima facie question of privilege. In the case of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, the Speaker again found the same thing, and it remained only for the government majority to overrule the Speaker's decision, which hon. members over there did, preventing a parliamentary committee from examining two very legitimate areas which the Speaker in his good judgment found deserving of inquiry.
Let me give you another example, and there was a debate on this matter last November in this chamber. Since 1976 there has been only one meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and that one meeting was called in order to elect a chairman. The government has refused to allow that committee to meet, despite the real need for reform of the rules of the House in so far as they are applicable to committees. There have also been a number of procedural difficulties which the Speaker has said, in ruling after ruling, should be studied by this committee, but the government refuses to constitute it.
I often think the impression is left in the minds of those who read Hansard and watch the proceedings here that members of the opposition have unlimited opportunity to examine contentious matters in committee. The truth is that committees only get what the government decides to give them and, even then, they are circumscribed with suffocating rules and stifling government committees in their examination.


An hon. Member:: You are hard done by.


Erik Nielsen: I note the presence of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines. Let me just divert for a moment and tell him about his committee. He knows very well what the terms of reference are for that committee, a committee set up at the instigation of the opposition for the purpose of overseeing the activities of the government and, of the pipeline agency regarding the building of the biggest construction project ever to be undertaken in the world, involving $10 billion, a project that is probably now worth something in the order of $14 billion to $15 billion.

On the first and second occasions on which we met I asked question after question about salaries being paid to officials of the agency, and their duties. I asked questions concerning meetings which the agency was obliged to have with its counterparts in the provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
I have now received a copy of a letter written by the commissioner of the pipeline agency, amounting to five pages, telling me why he cannot answer these questions. He cannot tell me what salaries these people in the agency are drawing, and he cannot tell me exactly how many dollars are being spent. That was precisely why this monitoring agency was set up by virtue of an amendment to our Standing Orders. Already a brand new committee of this House of Commons, in its infancy is being stonewalled in the usual fashion by an expert in the art of stonewalling, the commissioner of the pipeline agency. He used to be a member of this government and, before that, a very experienced bureaucrat of the Liberal government. That represents the usefulness of committees.
We thought we were making real progress in setting up that committee, but it is not worth the order it is written on in view of this response. We know how much the governor of the Bank of Canada is making, $75,000 a year. We know how much the chairman of the CTC is making, $50,000 a year. We know the salaries of the heads of all these agencies, but are we to know the salary of the commissioner of the pipeline agency? Not on your life are we going to know his salary, or the salaries of his top officials, because he says it is against government policy to release this information. That is an example of the open, honest, forthright government hon. members over there want to have the Canadian public believe they are, but I say that is rubbish. That committee obviously is not going to be able to do its work because it is being stonewalled.
Let me give you another example. The Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments reported, as recently as April 13, 1978, that the increase in postal rates by order in council had dubious legality. The House concurred in that report on April 19. The government chose to ignore the report completely, refusing to bring legislation into the House which would have legalized that increase in postal rates. So much for the effectiveness of committees.
I can recall a report of a few years ago by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Again this was a unanimous report, with concurrence moved by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). That hon. member still sits here. Nothing was done as a result of that unanimous report.
1 had high hopes for this report because we took a non-partisan approach to a national problem of crisis proportions. I am not one of those who have been critical of the penitentiary services, or of the ministry of the Solicitor General for what has been done. Indeed, some of the recommendations have been implemented. My grievance, and it is shared unanimously by all members of that subcommittee on the penitentiary system, is not in connection with what the department of the Solicitor General has done, but with what it has not done. We unanimously agreed, Liberals, Conservatives, members of the
February 6, 1979

NDP and the Social Credit party, that this report ought to be taken as a package to be effective. Its core recommendations have been completely ignored.
If one reads the most recent progress report, as it is called, of the 65 recommendations in the report to parliament by the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada, published in January, 1979, one will arrive at the conclusion, particularly in respect of recommendation No. 26 of which the minister seems to be so proud, that all the minister is doing is making excuses. The hub of the recommendations concerned the setting up of an independent advisory board separate from the service. The minister said a flat no to the suggestion and it was rejected. He did not say maybe or that he would examine it, he just said no. That would not have been the reply of his predecessor who had a more humane understanding and feeling for what we were doing.
With respect to our recommendation that a prison industries corporation be set up which would compete in the open market with products produced by labour and paid standard labour rates within the system, a system which is working so admirably in other countries of the world, the minister said no. He did not say maybe. Again, that recommendation met a more humane reception from his predecessor.
We unanimously believed on that committee that those two recommendations were central to the issue. We were also unanimous in the belief that one of the main ills of the system was the correctional personnel themselves, and that the quickest way to cure the ills which existed with respect to that one third segment of the civil service in the system was to create a force entirely independent of the public service which would be structured and administered along the same line as the RCMP.
The minister in his response today said that that would not work and that he could not believe that the committee would intend to deprive the members in the service of a decade of unionism. That is precisely why the recommendation was made. It was not made to deprive them of any union benefits but to get them away from the effect of unionism on the service itself, and to replace it with something else. That something else is a system which is working admirably well in the RCMP. The members of that force are not in a union. They do not belong to the PSAC, but they have a system of employee representation which is very effective. The same matters which are considered by the PSAC with respect to personnel in the penitentiary system are effectively dealt with by a system in the RCMP which is not part of the PSAC. That is precisely one of the reasons why that recommendation was made.
We also recommended that the institutions should be smaller. I know that there are other hon. members who will deal with that matter. I was greatly disappointed when I found that the minister had disregarded that recommendation, because the committee considered it a central issue. The minister said-and it can be found in his report and the speech he made
Concurrence in Committee Report today-that he could find no evidence that smaller institutions would be more effective. I do not think that he visited Penetanguishene.
Another one of our recommendations was that psychiatric units within the system be separate and put under the Department of National Health and Welfare. That was also rejected. The core recommendations we made have been rejected. I can tell the minister, and I am sure that my colleagues on the committee will agree, that without those core recommendations there is not a hope of effective reform in the system. I can tell him also, and I believe that it was a general consensus among committee members, that the reason for the unrest which had reached a peak when the committee commenced its examinations of the penitentiary system would again surface. The unrest ceased because 9,400 inmates knew that something was being done about conditions inside these institutions and that there was a sincere committee investigating these conditions.
What we got, and I say this to the minister without being partisan, is what the inmates in these institutions call word games, in response to our recommendations. That is what this progress report is, particularly when one looks at the progress that is set forth within it relative to recommendation 26. Word games are not enough. The minister and his officials have been warned that unless there is meaningful reform the same ills which plagued the system and the institutions, for example, the hostage takings, the violence and the riots, will reoccur. That warning was sounded and, indeed, such events have begun to happen again. Dorchester was the most recent scene of unrest.
I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head. It was the most recent one.


Roger Carl Young: That is not what I was shaking my head about. That was an irresponsible suggestion.


Erik Nielsen: It is not an irresponsible suggestion to suggest that unless something is done in a meaningful way about the adoption of the package of these recommendations we will be back at square one. We all believed that this is what would happen when we submitted the report. Indeed, I believe that the predecessor to the present Solicitor General believed it as well, but we on this side cannot talk to the present Solicitor General.


Walter David Baker: Nor can they on that side.


Erik Nielsen: I do not want to lower this debate to a partisan level, because I am really concerned about the adoption of these recommendations. Again, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines laughs in a cynical fashion. If he would consult with the hon. members for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee), Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and the other members with whom I sat on that committe, he would find that he is quite wrong about my approach to the work of this subcommittee. I am sincere when I say-

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member because, like other hon. members, he has agreed to limit the speeches to 20 minutes, unless he has the consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I suggested the limit and I intend to follow it.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to second the comments made by my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I would like to begin with a few words about relevance because I do not have quite the same confidence as my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt), that this matter has been finally settled. The Speaker has left it a little bit over our heads, although I suspect that it will not be raised again. I want to comment briefly because, though there was no debate at the committee meeting on this motion as to its admissibility, there was a very extended debate on previous motions. In fact we filled issue No. 8 of the standing committee proceedings dealing only with the motions on this point.
I ruled out of order one motion by the hon. member for New Westminster and one motion by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). There was another motion by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) which was withdrawn. Finally, we came to this motion. Perhaps it was by way of exhaustion, but certainly it was as a result of the narrowing in each case of what was being attempted to be done that it was generally found to be acceptable by other members of the committee.
Of course, there is what 1 would call the subterranean relevance, and I do not use this term pejoratively with respect to the hon. member for St. John's East. This point was illustrated by him when he talked about the deep feeling in the committee that there was not much point in having any reference if nothing was being done about the previous one. This is the kind of thing which very much occupies the minds and feelings of members of parliament in committees. 1 believe there are several reasons why the motion is in order if that question should come up again.
One thought which struck me at the time, and it strikes me again now, was that the motion gives priority of place and puts most stress on the question that is already before the com-mitee-the question of the rights of children. In placing first the question of the incarceration of children and then in talking about the penal system, it again puts children before adults.
More important than that, there is a continuity in concept and in needs in the whole notion of incarceration. It is very difficult to draw a line. In our viewings of the penitentiaries we found, for instance, on at least one occasion a prisoner who

had been in federal penitentiary at age 16. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) said, we had been having great difficulty with the reference on children's rights in finding out exactly where the age of a child, as encompassed by that subject matter and by the needs of the situation, could be drawn. We saw the matter in continuity and it was for this reason, among others, that we felt the motion was in order.
I think we would all acknowledge the sentiments that were expressed at that time by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham when he said, as reported at page 33 of volume No. 8 of the report of the proceedings of the committee:
The purpose, quite frankly is to enlarge the terms of reference so that we can talk about penitentiaries and the penal system in general and not just the penal system as it refers to the incarceration of children.
That was certainly the motivation of the members of the committee and it would be folly to deny it here. But it is not that which is incorporated in the words of the motion, and I think the motion as formally presented is in order.
Having made that case for relevance, I should like to do what others who have spoken in the debate have done- disregard relevance entirely and speak on the aspect of this problem which the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) devoted all of his time to, and that is the penitentiary system. I would say that the penitentiary system has been improving steadily in Canada since the report of the subcommittee in June, 1977. Although it has been improving steadily it has been at a very disappointing pace, and with very disappointing limitations.
I think we would not be having a debate if it were only a question of the pace of implementation. We all know, as politicians, that things usually take longer than we would wish, and sometimes longer than seems possible. What we are concerned about are the limitations which the Solicitor General and the penitentiary service seem to impose on the recommendations we made. Because of the time I have, I am only going to comment on two kinds of questions. One of those has to do with the size of penitentiaries and the other has to do with recommendation No. 26, and, in particular, the comments of the Solicitor General about that and his apparent understanding of it.
First of all, with respect to the question of the larger size of institutions which the government has recently announced, the Solicitor General said this afternoon that there was no solid evidence that smaller-sized institutions would do more for prisoners. I think we should be frank, Mr. Speaker, and admit there is a certain skepticism on the part of listeners that a doctrine which had been accepted up to that point by the whole penitentiary service in Canada should be questioned and discarded at a time when there were perhaps financial pressures which caused the change. If the argument were put purely in terms of the government's restraint program it would be a little easier, but when it is given this veneer of rationalization it is perhaps not quite so easy to accept, and it leaves us with a somewhat uneasy feeling.
In the press conference which he gave on this subject, and presumably also reflecting the views of the Solicitor General,
February 6, 1979

the commissioner of corrections, Mr. Yeomans, is reported by the Globe and Mail on January 1, 1979, as having said:
Not one of those studies was based on any empirical data-
He said that of the earlier studies on which we relied, especially the famous Mohr report which was the foundation of our recommendation.
He went on to say:
Every one of those was an emotional study ... There isn't any evidence anywhere to support 200-man institutions.
Later the article continued:
Mr. Yeomans says studies this year by engineers and accountants found that the cost of running the smaller prisons, which were to be built over the next five years, would be 'enormously higher' than for larger ones.
Furthermore, he says, a sociological study of two medium-security prisons-a new one at Mission, B.C., that holds fewer than 200 men, and an older one at Warkworth in Ontario that holds 450-found no substantial difference.
'In fact, the advantage if any was slightly on the side of Warkworth because you could offer a greater variety of programs in the larger institutions.'
It would be very interesting for us to have those studies. I would invite the Solicitor General to allow the committee to see these documents so that we could see for ourselves whether the lack of solid evidence he refers to as the basis for our recommendation might also extend perhaps to his decision. While I am inviting him today to table that document so that we can see it, perhaps he would also let us see Dr. Boyd's report on the application of social therapy to institutions in Canada.
This is an especially important matter in the context of the size of institutions because if social therapy were to work, prisons would have to be built in the form of 30-person units, perhaps, which are entirely self-contained for every purpose- for work, recreation, and everything else. The system could not operate in any other way. If that were to be the future course of the penitentiary system we should obviously know that as soon as possible, especially before we build any more expensive institutions. It is very important that we on the standing committee see this document as early as possible, as well as the documents on which the Solicitor General is relying for the change in policy that he has made.


Léonel Beaudoin: Good, good.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Perhaps it might be thought that there are no really hard monetary consequences attaching to the decision on size except favourable ones. I might point out that in the package of announcements the Solicitor General made about the size of institutions, he announced one which was very surprising to members of the committee, that is, that the Kingston penitentiary would be restored for business and that Millhaven, which until now had been the maximum security institution in Ontario, would be downgraded to a medium security institution. Perhaps he might consider inviting Monica Dickens, who is the great great grand-niece of Charles Dickens, who was there for the opening in 1835, to attend the reopening in 1980 or 1981 of the new Kingston penitentiary. The cost is to be $33 million, of which $27 million is to restore Kingston to its former glory as the maximum security institu-
Concurrence in Committee Report
tion, and $6 million to downgrade Millhaven from its present status to a medium security institution.
The consequences of the government's policies are not always a saving of money, and it is very hard to understand in a document which is otherwise directed toward saving government expenditures that there would be a recommendation of this kind. I shall make a suggestion in a moment about why I think that decision was made.
The other matter to which I wish to turn briefly now is recommendation No. 26. We made this recommendation for an entirely independent penitentiary service because, in looking at the penitentiaries as they are in Canada today, we realized there was no other way the government would ever get control of them. We could hardly expect to control inmates if we cannot control those who are supposedly guarding and instructing them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Solicitor General says we have not thought this recommendation through, especially its effect on the unions. I wondered, in listening to some of his comments, whether he has read through the text which accompanies our recommendations. Looking at the recommendation apart from the text, one does not get the full flavour. I want to read into the record a number of points on which some misunderstanding has been expressed.
At page 80 of the report it says:
We find a high level of agreement on the point that a union is not inconsistent with correctional work with respect to wages and fringe benefits.
At page 81 it says:
-since... the Service should resemble a police force in its discipline and professionalism, employees might well wish to have their interests represented, not by a union, but by an association like that existing in the RCM Police. This should be decided by the employees themselves by secret ballot.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has talked about the advantages of having an association of that kind, and I recognize the advantages are considerable. But, Mr. Speaker, we did not recommend against having a union, and there is considerable misunderstanding on this point. This is an open choice for the employees to make, and I want to make sure the government understands that. As a matter of fact I would find it hard to imagine that the employees would not vote to continue some form of union. That is perfectly within our contemplation. That is their decision to make, not ours, but that union should have some limitations. It should not have the right to strike. It should have a code of discipline and means of enforcing that discipline which could, for the first time, bring about effective discipline within the penitentiaries. It should also be able to have a professionalism which we think would not otherwise be possible.
The Solicitor General, in his choices with respect to the areas covered by recommendation No. 26, does not even go as far as the interdepartmental working group which his predecessor set up. They made recommendations. But with respect

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report to the adjudication of grievances, the Solicitor General says that we should retain the present method, the one which the penitentiary management told us made it impossible to fire anyone, whatever the person had done. This was the one which we found totally unsatisfactory.
The Solicitor General reasons that his policy would be easier to accomplish and it would cause less confrontation. If ease of accomplishment, especially in terms of time, was the criterion-we are already nearing the end of two years from the time of our report-I think we might begin to ask why even that limited reform has not yet taken place. As the hon. member for Yukon has pointed out, in order to achieve anything we have to achieve certain fundamental things. We would prefer to wait, if necessary, another year or two to get the right kind of reform, rather than to settle for something now that is less than satisfactory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: As far as confrontation is concerned, this problem can probably never be settled without some confrontation with some of the people in our penitentiaries at the present time. We should not seek confrontation, but we should not seek to avoid it either. We should establish the policies which we think we should have. I suggest that the reason we are downgrading Millhaven from a maximum to a medium institution now is that we have thrown in the sponge. We have said that we cannot get control of Millhaven. That is the reason we are spending $33 million to do something which, on the face of it, smacks of absurdity.
If one looks at the matter in those terms one can see that the difference between our proposal and that of the Solicitor General is not just some fanciful abstract one, it is one which is having harsh, concrete consequences at the moment.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, but I will conclude with a few words from a letter which I received recently from an inmate. I presume my letter is from a different inmate than the one who wrote to the hon. member for New Westminster. For his own protection I do not want to reveal the person's name. This was a New Year's letter thanking me for what the committee had been trying to do. In part his letter reads:
After five years in this system I have never really felt fear whether at the B.C. pen during the riots or here.
The inmate is referring to Millhaven when he says "here." He goes on to say:
But for some reason I sit back now and in looking towards the new year, I feel a deep-set fear which I can't explain. I fear that this year will bring about a lot of pain and the ones that will take the blows will be eventually us. I saw desperation at the B.C. pen. and how it played with an inmate's mind. But here I see hatred. It is so bitter and deep that you could cut it with a butter knife and not even penetrate the surface.
Perhaps that is a little better phrased than some of the comments I receive from inmates, but it is very similar to the comments I get in the 50 to 100 letters I receive each week from inmates in various institutions across the country. Our proposals were not written from the viewpoint of the inmates, but from the viewpoint of the public interest.
[Mr. MacGuigan.1
Sometimes this is a way of measuring how the system is working by observing the attitudes of consumers. I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster, that it would be desirable for us to have a look at the institutions to see how the policies which we recommend, so many of which have been put in place as the Solicitor General tells us, are actually working in the institutions.
I wish I had time to deal with all the aspects of this. However, the important point is that I think the committee is unanimously dissatisfied with the way things are going. That is certainly the message I would like to leave tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important debates that have taken place for some time with reference to justice and legal affairs. I want to begin by congratulating the speakers today, first, the member who brought the terms of reference before the justice and legal affairs committee, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I want to compliment particularly the chairman who has always done an excellent job in a non-partisan way in justice and legal affairs, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If we had more members of parliament like the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville who could show such spirit in a non-partisan way, this institution would certainly show a great improvement. It takes a lot of courage, particularly on that side of the House-who never show any division, they must not divide and everyone must speak alike- to stand up and speak the way the chairman spoke with a depth of feeling and emotion concerning the condition of our institutions.


An hon. Member:: And knowledge.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And knowledge, absolutely correct.
I also want to congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). All these people were members of the special committee who travelled across this country to examine what is going on in the institutions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not forget the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I certainly will not do that. He is always paying me compliments.


John R. Rodriguez: Lawyers are all the same.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Some say lawyers are all the same. But I find that human behaviour and difference in personality in the legal profession exist there the same as in every other profession, even with those very strong union people.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that not only should we be looking at the conditions of the institutions, our prisons and penitentiaries, but we should be examining the
February 6, 1979

laws and the environment that got many of those people into those institutions. If John Howard, the prison reformer, were alive today perhaps he would want to see some of those institutions I have seen.
Although I was not a member of the special committee, I have visited institutions. As a lawyer of some years standing, I have seen many conditions under which people live. I have seen in this House of Commons people who believe in reform and crusades, like myself in reference to the criminal code, bring in private members bills only to have them talked out. It has been done by all governments ever since I came here. The backbenchers are practically hired to talk out bills.
I think that when we are talking about children, and when we have a Criminal Code as archaic as the law set out in sections 12 and 13 of that Code, it is certainly time for amendment. Take this, for example:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.
Seven years! So if he is seven and a half years old and throws a can of tomatoes at a stepfather who has been brutalizing him-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will give an example in a few minutes of a case in which a child was found guilty of manslaughter at nine years of age, and sentenced to imprisonment in one of our penitentiaries. This happened since I came to this House, yet I cannot get the government to act. For ten long years I have asked in private members' bills to have the age of responsibility raised. Nothing has been done, yet we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who talks about civil rights in glowing terms.


An hon. Member:: Would you permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I do not have time. I have only 20 minutes in which to make my speech. Let the hon. member make one-he has had lots of opportunities. I will give another example of what I mean:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of fourteen years, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and appreciate that it was wrong.
The age limit set out in those two sections should be raised. Over a long period I have continually asked that this be done. Such action in itself would remedy the situation I have described. In the sixties I raised in this House the situation of a boy called Henri, written up by Mr. Bill Trent of Weekend Magazine at that time. He got the information from Mr. MacLeod of the penitentiary service. This boy was put into one of our penitentiaries in New Brunswick, and he was so small that after they had locked him up in solitary confinement for the night he was able to creep through the bars. The guards, the enforcement officers-I can get emotional about this having been a defence lawyer all my life-took up a collection
Concurrence in Committee Report so that he could have a bicycle to ride around the prison yard during the daytime.
Take a look at what is still going on. These figures are for 1977. Five of the inmates of penitentiaries are under the age of 16, 38 are under the age of 17, 1,343 are between the ages of 18 and 21. What is wrong with the system of law in this country and with the administration of justice that we should be incarcerating more people per capita in different institutions here than any western nation? I might even be critical of the judiciary. It seems to me the belief is held that unless you hand out between five and ten years you don't think you are punishing anyone.
I will make a prediction. We abolished capital punishment and set a penalty of 25 years for first degree murder, without right to parole unless granted after 15 years by a judge. I predict that within five years, at the rate murder is increasing in this country, 800 people will have been found guilty of first degree murder, some of them for the second and third time in the penitentiaries. Are they to be placed in with children? Are they to be segregated? What have they got to lose if they take the life of a law enforcement officer? Nothing.
Look at the figure for Ontario-I could not get the figures for another province. In the training institutions which are really children's prisons and jails-there is no difference- there is one child under the age of nine, there are five under the age of ten, there are ten under the age of 11, there are 25 under the age of 12, 17 under the age of 13, 204 under the age of 14, 384 under the age of 15, and 34 under the age of 16.
Take the case of a fellow by the name of Tony, now 23, serving three years in Collins Bay Penitentiary for armed robbery. He was mistreated by his stepfather, never given anything-if he wanted something he had to steal. He was caught for truancy at the age of 13 and sentenced to a training school for three years. He was small for his age, weighing only 75 pounds. The discipline at the school was extremely rigorous; he was repeatedly beaten by the staff and by fellow inmates. His wrists were so small that when they arrested him the last time the handcuffs fell off his wrists. These are facts which I have discovered through research.
Consider the case of Peter, aged 35, serving a five-year sentence for assault causing bodily harm. When he was a child his parents broke up and he was sent to live with his 89-year-old grandmother. Children's Aid took him away and sent him to detention home for being a truant. One day, when he was 16, he broke a parking meter. He was caught and taken to Cobourg Training School in handcuffs. One of the instructors at the school beat him with his fists because he did not like his attitude. I could go on. 1 could put dozens and dozens of such cases on record.
As Pierre Berton said in an article he wrote on the subject, one by-product of all this is homosexuality, since young offenders are often dumped into prison compounds along with old and hardened men. It is almost axiomatic when young people are placed in such prisons, especially children as young as 13. I referred to this when I spoke in the sixties. Nowadays they are sent to what are called training centres. In my own

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report
city of Calgary they have incarcerated kids. It is the same wherever you go.
Surely it is time for reform. I am proud to have belonged for a number of years to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, a non-partisan committee in which we are able to come to grips with many of these problems in the spirit of good will rather than in a partisan way. Those are the circumstances in which we get a speech like the one the chairman of the committee made this evening. We hear such speeches from all quarters of the House by members who are endeavouring to get the recommendations of the subcommittee approved. These members are asking for an extension of the time of the reference so that they can go back to these institutions and talk to those who are incarcerated, some of them in solitary confinement, in what they call the hole. We want to find out what improvement has taken place in the year which has passed since the committee travelled across the nation.
1 was glad to see that today the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) bent under pressure-his henchmen had earlier tried to get this motion ruled out of order. In my view, not nearly enough encouragement has been given to the committee. I say that surely, at a time when conditions are such that riot after riot is taking place-trouble and dissension are everywhere- the government should look once again at what is taking place in these institutions.
It is my philosophy that young people, when they come into this world, are like a piece of white paper with no writing on it. What happens to them along the trail of human life is often the result of factors in their environment. We are all a part of everyone we have met. Once a person is incarcerated it is a case of "out of sight, out of mind." That is why this debate is so important. That is why the committee, which did such an excellent job, much of it during the recess, travelled across the nation to examine at first hand the problems of these institutions.
I will make two points before I sit down. Let us get on with one of the great reforms of all time. In one of his articles Doug Fisher said that I am not a reformer. I do not know where he has been. I have introduced bill after bill, as the committee knows, to try to amend the Code. The Law Reform Commission should stop philosophizing and get down to redrafting the Criminal Code of Canada, which is 100 years old.


Mrs. Holt:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I could read section after section which does not apply to the modern world. Let us streamline the law and bring it into line with the eighties, but we will not do so with this worn out, dried up old prune of a government. This government has had it. We must get some new blood.
Sometimes we have to become partisan. I agree with the lady who interrupted me a moment ago that sometimes we have to become partisan. She herself does so in order to get her own party to move. The hon. member is a reformer. Other hon.

members opposite are not reformers, they are sitters. They like their jobs, their salaries, and their executive capabilities.


Walter David Baker: There is nothing partisan about the truth.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I must agree with my House leader in that regard.
The second thing we must do is get our institutions in line with the eighties. We should set up family courts and bring in a young offenders law so that people will have a chance when they are brought before our justice system. There should not be the confrontation and the antagonistic system of criminal law we have now where defence counsel is against prosecutor, and where judges are against this person or that person. Young men and women should have a chance in this society of ours instead of ending up in institutions which are such a disgrace that even John Howard would have blushed if he had seen them.
That is my message in this debate. I hope it will penetrate the government, for whatever time it sits, and God help us if it sits much longer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, 20 months ago this committee was called on to serve its country at a time when our maximum security institutions were rocked by more riots, bloodshed, anger, pain, and cost to the taxpayer in two years than in all of the 42 preceding years. Twenty months ago in our first recommendation we wrote that "a crisis exists in the Canadian penitentiary system, that it could be met only by the immediate implementation of large-scale reforms and that it was imperative that the then solicitor general act immediately on the report as a matter of the utmost urgency." This month the status of recommendation No. 1 is that "the balance of this report is a statement of the actions to January, 1979, on the implementation of the recommendations in this report."
I say that the status is non-existent with regard to the state of crisis and tragedy which I know now exists. The implementation, for example, of what is called a special handling unit in Millhaven has become a basis for the continuing bullying, harassment and hoodlum activity of a few men who pretend to be leaders of a so-called union. I think that union exists to the disgrace of all of us who strongly believe in trade unionism.
I was a trade unionist. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and all of us on the penitentiary committee went to great pains to find a way not to ban or attack the union because of these horrible people. Because of these people there was havoc in the prisons and much damage and injury to inmates, as well as guards.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You don't mean every local.


Simma Holt: No, not every local. I am talking about Millhaven, and I am not talking about all the guards in the prison. The

union to which I refer did not represent the full staff-not all the guards or treatment people. It represented a handful of people who made sure that there was no representation at meetings.
Today we are going to rebuild Millhaven at a cost of $33 million. I say that it would be cheaper to implement our report, to fire those hoodlum leaders, and face the courts, if necessary, than it would be to rebuild a prison without Finding a solution to the tragedy of Millhaven and those who are inside. Both guards and inmates are victims of those few people. Guards are still Finding their tires slashed. They are still threatened at pubs. If they want to serve on a committee to help in rehabilitation, they face injury and suffering.
I am proud to intervene in this debate as a continuation of my duty as one of a non-partisan committee. It is remarkable that the hon. member for Yukon, the hon. member for New Westminster and all the members of the committee managed to sustain non-partisan standards right up to this time. One or two did come in latterly who created some change. I was very uneasy about trends towards partisanship instead of sincerity in this matter.
I am intervening for two basic reasons. The first is that the penitentiary committee should be given a reference so that it can return and check claims of new unrest and administrative wrongs. I, and perhaps others on the committee, suspect that things are being covered up by the word "implementation". I do not believe that the most important and crucial recommendations have been implemented-those that can save taxpayers money, eliminate useless and damaging bureaucracy, and eliminate control by a handful of hoodlum guards who will not even allow treatment programs to go ahead in some of our prisons. In fact, with regard to one of our most important recommendations, recommendation No. 26, there are 17 pages devoted to the pretence that there has been implementation with regard to the union. Those pages are a cover up with social worker terms as "discussions held", "selected, separate employees involved", "questions put", "analyses", "assessment of effectiveness", "review of reasons" and "consultation". Those words indicate there has been no action, just talk. At the end of all talk and at the end of all dreams, must be action.
As the hon. member for New Westminster noted, there was not one significant incident while our committee was working. I know that every member of the committee who gets letters and who goes to the prisons today asks inmates "please wait". We ask the guards not to get angry, and to stick it out. We ask them to, "please, please wait, don't blow it because we are still trying to work out the prison problems and implement the report."
I hope that does not give false hope. I know I write letters saying, "Keep it cool, the parliamentary committee is serious and honest." I am certain that is why there was minimum violence for a considerable time, even after one report was tabled. We did manage to keep the lid on because of our contacts.
The report of the penitentiary subcommittee is not bits and pieces. It is not the kind of report of which only small parts
Concurrence in Committee Report can be implemented with the expectation that the prison system can be improved and the lives of those inside can be restored.
The reference with regard to the bill which is before the committee now is relevant, because I can see that children's rights may very well be written in beautiful language, but that will not matter if we put children through a prison system which makes them more dangerous when they come out than when they went in.
The one thing society must worry about is protection of society. That is not done by cruel security. It is not done by locking men and women into cages for 23'/2 hours a day, by abusing them, gassing them and harassing them. This only guarantees they come out more dangerous than before. And 99 per cent of all those in prison do come out-they come out as of law, as of right. They walk beside us on the streets; they shop with us in the stores; they go to ballgames with us and sit beside us at hockey games. If they are more dangerous when they come out of the prison system, society is not served. Our report as a whole-not in bits and pieces-was designed to change the whole prison system, to assure the reformation of those committed to federal care.
Now, what are they doing? I suggest that the commissioner and his group of executives-that bureaucracy at the top-are not implementing our recommendations but rather are spending millions of dollars on task forces which travel all across Canada to find ways to avoid implementation. I see members of those task forces all the time on the planes. I hear them talking about how they have just done this job in a prison, and laugh about it. The task forces are redundant, they are repeating our work at the cost of millions of dollars to Canadians. I suggest they are not implementing our report but rather finding ways not to implement it. For example, the directors of prisons and of regions would not want the regional headquarters closed as our report recommended, because it would mean a loss of jobs at the top.
The second point I want to make which is so important- probably the most important reason for my rising to speak here tonight-is in regard to the whole system of committees of the House of Commons. Are we, members of committees, working long hours on these committees-sometimes on three committees a day, one committee meeting running into another-simply strutting and fretting on the stage as we are doing here, or are we there to serve the people of Canada? I suspect it has reached the stage where we rubber stamp budgets in our committees and the bureaucracy takes control from there.
It is similar in the CBC where we approve the budget and the executives, the officials, take the money and use it to pay Knowlton Nash $20 a minute, $90,000 a year; they use the rest to perpetuate people at the top, instead of for good programming. The same situation exists when we pass the solicitor general's budget; the money goes to the top bureaucracy. It does not go down to the treatment of the inmates, to
80047-46'/;,

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report treatment programs, to reform programs. The top people want to keep their top men working and their task forces happy.
I say that unless a real study of the whole committee system is undertaken and reforms are brought in, we might as well not work in this House. The role of our committees is crucial to the whole democratic process. I will consider a speech to change the committee system the most important I can make in the House. Let me emphasize that the motion before the House now is absolutely crucial in the discussions of the future of our work in a democratic system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: The feeling that we waste time in our committees is proven by the fact that we were an all-party penitentiary subcommmittee and that this report was accepted unanimously in the House. There was no dissension on it. It could very well have been implemented, even including the very difficult problem of dealing with the union leaders and with the removal of regional headquarters.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that about eight years ago regional headquarters for all of western Canada, for the four western provinces, consisted of eight people in a mobile home on the prison compound of the B.C. penitentiary? Today it probably comprises 181 people, I do not have the exact figure. Twenty months ago we recommended that regional headquarters be eliminated. Possibly the most they should do is to monitor the prison and see that prisoners are supplied with things likes towels and toilet tissue. That is all it is worth. What has happened since our report was tabled? Regional headquarters were enlarged. This goes to prove that we are held in total contempt. The officials tell us that they are implementing our report in this regard. Well they have not cut, but added, a regional director general. All that means is we have another level in their bureaucracy, and our committee is held in total contempt, as is this House.
The partisan comments that have been made here about the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) disturb me very much because I feel that there was a genuine attempt to understand and implement the report by the previous solicitor general, who worked closely with us during our work and this has been continued by the present solicitor general. I am convinced that the bureaucracy in every department of government has become very strong, and I must say the opposition and the media make it impossible to clean up the mess.
For example, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in one case why he did not fire a few people to show that parliament is the boss. He told me that when he fired one government employee the opposition tore him apart, the media tore him apart, and he was even brought before the courts. I say, "Fine, fire a few, go before the court, face the court, but let us not have this contemptuous approach to our system and to our whole democratic process."
I am serving notice in this House that I have a case right now that I intend to fight right here. Probably, Mr. Speaker, I am behaving quite improperly and I am not following the rules because I still am not fully acquainted with all the processes

here. It is the Faibish matter, that CRTC commissioner who behaved so contemptuously toward this member of parliament. It is not just the incident involving the threat to do something crude with a pin but the whole principle that if this public servant had been in private business he would have been fired for gross misconduct. But here he can stay, and probably be promoted! The same is happening in the prison system.
I say that if the Faibish salary is not cut to $1 in the estimates which will come before us in March,-as an example-then I will vote against the supply bill in the House. I do not see why we should automatically accept the fact that these people should get their salary and yet not behave with respect for the public and for members of parliament. This is exactly what has happened in the penitentiary service. The commissioner says he cannot keep in touch with the 50 prisons. I suggest they are not all in riot and there are only six maximum penitentiaries. If he cannot handle them, then he should either resign or be fired. That is one of the reasons why he will not implement our report.
I want to say, before I complete my statement, that if we can all work as we did in the committee, recognizing right from the start the fact that there is a crisis in our prison system, as well as recognizing the other crises in our society and working together as a unit, we will not be destroyed by the bureaucracy. We will not be divided, and our parliament conquered, split, and held in contempt across this country.
I want to say also that last week I brought out two points to the Solicitor General. One involved my concern over parole and the management of the parole system. I learned later that immediately he contacted the parole director and the parole board and has been working with them since. On Thursday I was out to dinner at the halfway house, the post release house of the John Howard Society here.
I discovered it had opened two months ago, but in that time there were only three people in it. We keep being told that there is a shortage of after care for the transition from penitentiaries into society of hard core prisoners. But here we have only three people; there is space for 14 people. I mentioned that to the Solicitor General and apparently the remedy has been started. So it is not fair to talk about politics and political neglect by the Solicitor General, because this is a big job which, I suppose, must be handled by officials. But the officials must be the servants, not the masters of the people and of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to participate in a debate such as this, particularly when one has been preceded by such fine speakers speaking with unanimity, having one common goal and, by and large, forsaking the concept of political partisanship.
I must admit I approached this debate with hesitancy, knowing this was going to take place since some time last week. I was concerned about what would result from the debate today so that, on my own initiative, I approached the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young)
February 6, 1979

to express to him the fears I had about some adverse effects which this debate might have. At the same time, I spoke to the liaison official between us in the subcommittee on the penitentiaries and the commissioner. I see that Mr. Fife is here in the gallery tonight, I presume to carry back our thoughts to the commissioner.
I approached this day with hesitation because I thought there would probably be some adverse results from this debate which would further impede the success and the implementation of our prison report. 1 say this because, when I sat through the last meeting of our committee on justice and legal affairs, I sensed that a real problem might arise as a result of the feelings of the officials of the Canadian correctional services. There was no doubt in my mind that those officials felt that things were not going right so far as their relationship with the committee was concerned. I felt that myself, and I seized the opportunity to write to the commissioner about it. Indeed his reply to me confirmed what I had observed at that meeting.
The problem is the same one identified in the report of the subcommittee. The difficulty with the prisons is not a problem of bricks and mortar, it is a problem of people. The last time I sat in the Standing committee I saw a people's problem. In fact there were two adversary positions. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) very admirably described, there was the position of the public service. Perhaps the hon. member has put her finger on the most important problem, not only in the area we are discussing tonight but in the total area of government as I have seen it in the last four or five years I have been in Ottawa. One could feel the tension and failure to communicate between the two sides in committee. On the one side there was administration representing the Canadian correctional services, and parliamentarians on the other. When there are those types of adversary positions, we will not be successful.
When I realized that this debate was to take place today, I was concerned we would exacerbate the problem. I felt that the justifiable indignation of some of the officials would be aggravated. Also I felt that prison inmates would be aggravated. Also I felt that prison inmates would lose some faith in the committee. Those inmates felt that they had something going in the committee which would correct and improve the situation. Tonight the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) read excerpts from letters which indicated how the situations in Millhaven and perhaps other institutions were about to explode again. We have heard how there was complete quiet in the prisons while the subcommittee was meeting. Although this debate may provoke the government to do something, I felt it might exacerbate the feelings of prison inmates.
Perhaps this debate has damaged the reputation of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais). I thought he would have known better than to attempt to oppose the motion coming from the standing committee. This resolution was supported unanimously by the committee. It came to the House in good faith. There
Concurrence in Committee Report was no partisanship showing in the desire of the standing committee to bring the entire subject before the committee in its proper sense. Yet, for some reason, the Solicitor General attempted to block it with a procedural move. I am pleased the minister reversed his position of being opposed to the motion. I gather he will support it now, but I am sure it embarrassed the government. We are at a time when the government is anxious to get legislation through, but now we are spending an entire day debating this issue. I am sure the time of the House could have been used considering some other issue. As this issue could have been handled very adequately within the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs if the opportunity were available.
In his presentation this afternoon the Solicitor General made comments concerning all the matters which have been implemented arising from the 65 recommendations of the report. I should like to refer to nine recommendations brought to my attention recently which have not been implemented. Where is the report on the inmates' rights? What about the problem of the in-House grievance and disciplinary hearings which are not as good as the minister led us to believe in his earlier comments today? The Solicitor General attempted to convince the House that the citizens' advisory committees are working effectively. We know that is not true, as I am sure he knows as well. The inmates' committees are not functioning well. I understand one of the inmates' committees in Kingston has been disbanded completely, because it was felt that it had no place or no role to play in the institution any longer. The training programs recommended in the report have not been implemented as they should have been.
The new prisons are another problem. There is room for discussion concerning the size of prisons, but obviously no adequate study has been conducted to justify the recent deci-son of the Solicitor General. The pay for work done by prisoners is grossly inadequate. The other day we learned that in some prisons there was privileged correspondence between inmates and parliamentarians openly available on charts of certain inmates for others to see. The recommendation in the report that the prison law library should be enhanced and improved has not been followed.
Today we heard some talk about partisanship. As many members have said, it is quite true there was absolutely no partisanship in the subcommittee set up to study penitentiaries. In fact, if there was any rift within that subcommittee, it was more often on an incidental basis between two members of the same party. Very rarely was there a rift between two parties. As a relatively new member of the House, it was encouraging to see that parliamentarians could work collectively toward a common goal in this case, namely, the improvement of our prisons. I was somewhat disappointed when things changed a little. This was alluded to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Some time last week government members of the standing committee received an updated progress report, and we were not allowed to have ours until this week.


Erik Nielsen: I got it today.

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report


Bruce Halliday: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) received his copy today. One of the recommendations in which I was particularly interested was recommendation No. 62. It dealt with some changes in the administration of prisons at the local institutional level. The government undertook a research study to assess the feasibility of such an innovation. The green book indicated that two studies were done. It was concluded that it would not be a wise idea to attempt such an experiment. When we telephoned the office of the Solicitor General in an attempt to receive a copy of those two studies, we were told that they were not for publication and that we could not have them. That was not the type of co-operation which we experienced throughout the workings of the subcommittee on penitentiaries. The only reason such an excellent report was produced in the end was the perfect co-operation which existed. As other members have indicated, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville did an excellent job as committee chairman in keeping the committee non-partisan. But under the leadership of the Solicitor General, we see it falling apart.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway put her finger on the most important issue facing not only the prisons but governments in general. We have lost track entirely of the relationship which should exist between the elected representatives of the people and the people we hire on behalf of Canadians to administer and carry out the legislation we see fit to pass. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the crux of the problem.
We have heard about the failure of the CCS which I believe was in one particular area. Perhaps we have abused some of those officials in that in many cases they have attempted to implement certain recommended proposals for which we did not give them due recognition. As officials, they have assumed the role of the elected representatives. It is absolutely absurd that they have taken on the roles of policy-making and implementation.
One can look at other public institutions in the country, such as the public school system in Ontario. Its policy is formed by an elected or appointed board. Policy recommendations are passed by the board and implemented by the professionals. It is absurd that in the present system the professionals in CCS seem to think they are better judges of the needs of the country than we are. We were sent to Ottawa for the very purpose of determining what that policy should be. We made 65 recommendations, and they have turned around and told us they do not like them and are not going to put them into force. What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: Who do they think they are?


Bruce Halliday: Who do they think they are, precisely? That is what galls me about what is going on in Ottawa at the present time, and I get quite disturbed about it at times. I am quite prepared to sit down with those officials and talk with them. If they have any questions to ask, they should ask us. They come to these committee meetings and sit on one side, and they inform us in their printed report that they do not

agree with our recommendations and are not going to implement them. Why do they not come to us and say, "We see a problem in respect of recommendations Nos. 24 and 62?" They do not do that; they simply say they cannot make them work. They do not come out and say, "Perhaps we can come to some compromise in order that we can make them work." This is the attitude that is causing cynicism around this country about the parliamentary system.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has talked about how our parliamentary committee system is failing. I suggest it is failing for the same reason. We as the elected representatives are not being given proper recognition. That is due in part to the failure of the government, specifically, and in large part to the failure of this government in allowing a body of officials to run this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: There are two recommendations about which I feel particularly concerned, namely, recommendations Nos. 24 and 62. They have reference to the management of our prisons. Strangely enough, and this substantiates my total point, those were the two recommendations of the 65 that were virtually rejected out of hand.
Recommendation No. 24 suggested a five-man board that would recommend policy to the commission. It would be responsible to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General does not understand it. If you read what is suggested in recommendations Nos. 24 and 62, Mr. Speaker, you will have to admit that he does not understand what we are suggesting. He thinks he would be deprived of a line of authority. Obviously he does not understand the system at all, yet he comes from Ontario where this has worked beautifully in our school jurisdiction. He refuses to admit that.
The minister has been conned by this body of officials because they realize that if recommendations 24 and 62 were approved they would no longer have the power to make policy. I suggest they would be better off with the implementation of these recommendations. They would be in position to recommend policy to those who are responsible. They would have to substantiate that policy to those who are responsible for approving policy, namely, the elected representatives, who would then be prepared to accept it. Is my time running out, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: No, you have five or ten minutes.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed that we have not seen the Solicitor General here today, except for a few minutes this afternoon. He disappeared well before the debate was interrupted before the dinner recess, and he has not been here at all tonight. Perhaps his parliamentary secretary will explain why that is, later this evening.
I want to say something more about this attitude that is exemplified by our paid officials, particularly those in the CCS. That is an area where we have the opportunity of obser- <ng this attitude.
February 6, 1979

I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 1, 1979. It is entitled "Deregulation" and is written by Geoffrey Stevens. It hits the nail on the head and appeared, fortuitously, not long before this debate. In dealing with this problem of deregulation he has this to say:
-where does the role of the independent regulator end and the role of the accountable politician begin?
He goes on after a paragraph to state:
And there are times when the politician should step in. In an article published in the Yale Law Journal in June, 1975, two Washington legal experts, David R. Johnson and Lloyd Cutler (the latter being, coincidentally, Washington's negotiator in the Canada-U.S. fish war), argued that he should step in more often. "The necessity of delegation should not disguise the fact that whatever legitimacy inheres in agency action stems from a delegation of politically based power-
That is what I was trying to say a few minutes ago regarding those we appoint to run prisons.
The article goes on to state:
"Only elected officials can provide the requisite overview, co-ordination, and practical political judgment to weigh competing claims, make the necessary ultimate decisions, and stand accountable at the polls."
I have a beautiful excerpt here which one might think comes from a journal of recent date. It carries the headline "Sessional Papers (No. 18.)", and it is dated 1898. The portion I have here is a report from the inspector of penitentiaries, Mr. Douglas Stewart, who signs off as "Your obedient servant". It is dated, as I say, 1898. Fie is writing in the sessional papers recommending, I presume, to the Department of Justice, under the heading "General System of Control", certain things. It seems that back in 1875, over 100 years ago, the management of penitentiaries was vested in a board of directors, the very thing this subcommittee saw fit to recommend in 1977. In 1875 that board of directors was abolished and replaced by departmental control under the minister of justice.
In 1879 a commission was appointed to study penitentiaries, headed by Messrs. Tache and Miall. Mr. Stewart, the inspector of penitentiaries, had this to say:
The trend of opinion among those most closely identified with the prisons has been adverse to direct departmental control, and the case from that point of view is forcibly set out by Messrs. Tache and Miall in their report in connection with the management of the penitentiaries, dated 23rd December, 1879.
Eet me read a couple of quotations from this report of Messrs. Tache and Miall because they point out that in 1879, one hundred years ago, the very problems we are trying to correct by recommendations Nos. 24 and 62 then existed. The first quotation is as follows:
"The study of the subject of prison management, if pursued free from the influence of preconceived ideas, must lead an unbiased mind to the conviction that such institutions should be governed and directed by an organization or body of men free from political or other extraneous influences."
I would like to have another opportunity to refer to this document at a future date, Mr. Speaker. Let me conclude by saying that there is evidence to show that the system we now have did not work 100 years ago and it is not working now. It is high time we, as elected representatives, insisted that these
Concurrence in Committee Report
managers do the job we want them to do rather than the job they think they should do.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, in the remaining few minutes I should like to speak on the motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I shall try to be as brief as I can as I know the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) would like to speak for a few minutes. If I can leave him one or two minutes perhaps we can be in our seats before ten o'clock and the question can be put.
Underlying the motion presented by the hon. member for St. John's East there is an evident feeling that prison reform is not proceeding. That is a feeling that can be disspelled by a consideration of the facts, if one will take a quiet and objective look at those facts. Many of the accomplishments of the ministry in implementing the recommendations of the subcommittee on penitentiaries were outlined by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) this afternoon. Since that time we have had a number of speakers from all sides of the House presenting their particular points of view.
I could say to all members in this House, and to anyone who is watching, listening or may eventually read the report of this debate, that the minister and myself as his parliamentary secretary, I think, are as aware as anyone in this House of the situations which exist in the prisons of this country today. The minister and myself, on his behalf from time to time, are in charge of the operation of these institutions from a policy and directional standpoint. We receive daily reports on the incidents and troubles which exist within the prisons.
That is not to purport that anybody who has entered into this debate is attempting to suggest that they are any more concerned about prisons than any other member or the minister himself, but surely the minister and myself are no less concerned about our prisons and about prison reform in this country today. It is evident from the comments which have been made that, for many members in this House, prison reform has become in essence a motherhood issue. To say that it is a motherhood issue-


Erik Nielsen: Oh!


Roger Carl Young: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) groans. I wish that he would hear me out for just a second. To say that it is a motherhood issue is not to denigrate the issue at all. I use that term to emphasize the importance of this issue to all of us. It is an issue on which everybody, including the members of this House, has different points of view.


Erik Nielsen: Not the committee.


Roger Carl Young: Not the committee? I think there are different points of view. I will explain my remarks for the hon. member. I am not trying to lessen the importance of the matter when I say that, but what I mean is that it is like trying to define motherhood. Each of the 264 hon. members in this House has

February 6, 1979
Concurrence in Committee Report
a slightly different interpretation of what motherhood is, and of what the best parts of that subcommittee report are.
It is evident from the debate this afternoon that each of the members has concentrated on slightly different issues in the report. In sum and substance all those who served on the subcommittee wish to see the recommendations implemented as soon as possible.


Erik Nielsen: All of them.


Roger Carl Young: I would think that hon. members out of necessity should feel that way, otherwise they would be casting doubt upon their own work. I would expect the members of that committee, who worked for almost a year travelling across this country interviewing many different witnesses, to be very interested in seeing those recommendations carried out.
Prison reform is a matter of prime importance in this country. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) has made the comment that privileged mail was being opened. If he has actual cases with facts and names, I wish that he would report them to me because I, like the hon. member, am one of those people who correspond almost daily with inmates in the various penitentiaries. I do it on behalf of the ministry, and I receive a good number of letters in return from inmates commenting on the letters which I sent to them personally as a member of parliament, aside from the ministerial or quasiministerial duties which I perform in my work.
The hon. member for Oxford commented on studies which are being done with regard to pay for prisoners who work in the prison industries. He said that the studies which were being done were not sufficient. Those were his interests in the debate. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), my colleague, was very concerned with recommendation No. 26, that officials were doing too much travelling across the country studying the recommendations which have been made.
The recommendations in the subcommittee report, although they were expanded upon in chapter after chapter, were general recommendations which must be taken and put into practical effect. They require work in the form of intensive study as to how they can be carried out.
Going back to the hon. member for Oxford for a moment, he said in relation to the letter from which he quoted that he felt the prison system had not been the best in this country for a 100 years, and was not today. 1 do not accept everything he said, but if that were the case, how can the members of the subcommittee expect that history, that period of 100 years, through different governments from different sides of this House, to be turned around in a matter of months following the tabling of their report? I suggest that that is not humanly possible, to turn around 100 years of history overnight, as much as we might like to clear up all of the problems. To expect that it would be done in a few months is a bit of a "Pollyanna" attitude.


Erik Nielsen: None of us expected that.


Roger Carl Young: There have been comments to the effect that the ministry has not responded to the subcommittee report.


Erik Nielsen: No, there have not.


Roger Carl Young: There has been response. I have a copy of the progress report which hon. members received a couple of days ago.


Erik Nielsen: Today.


Roger Carl Young: I delivered copies to some of the hon. member's colleagues yesterday, and if he was not here in the House, then I apologize for that. I got copies to hon. members as fast as I possibly could.


Erik Nielsen: You had them a week ago.


Roger Carl Young: Here is a progress report dated January, 1979, and it is only one in a series of progress reports which have been put out by successive Solicitors General.
The subcommittee report was tabled in the House in June, 1977. In August, 1977, the then solicitor general submitted to the House a detailed response to the recommendations and followed that up by tabling detailed recommendation-byrecommendation progress reports on the implementation of the subcommittee's report. The present Solicitor General, having assumed office in February, 1978, was very quick to announce his intention to honour the commitment of the previous solicitor general. Subsequent progress reports were developed and given to all hon. members.


Erik Nielsen: At the same time?


Roger Carl Young: The present Solicitor General has appeared twice before the standing committee to update members on the progress of the implementation of the recommendations, so I do not think that it is fair to say that there has been no response.


Erik Nielsen: I didn't say that.


Roger Carl Young: I have said that hon. members who have participated in this debate each touched on a different point which was of particular interest to them. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was interested in the size of the planned new penitentiaries. His request was that he be given the studies done and data developed upon which the ministry calculated the necessary size of prisons to be built or remodelled. I am suggesting that a good deal, if not all, of that information, can be made available to hon. members when the minister and his officials come before the standing committee very shortly to deal with supplemenary estimates and the main estimates for the coming fiscal year. Those two occurrences are to take place very shortly, and all members will have a very adequate chance to ask for that data.


Erik Nielsen: That is not true.


Roger Carl Young: I have come to learn, Mr. Speaker, that the answers hon. members receive in committee are as good as the

February 6, 1979

questions asked. If hon. members would put pertinent questions and ask about the data in the studies, I will do my best, as a member sitting on that committee and in my position as the parliamentary secretary, to see that they get their answers, because that is part of my job.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) was concerned about prison industries and the atmosphere in prisons today. For the hon. member for Yukon the concern was disruption in the penitentiaries today, and the treatment of the committee's report. He mentioned a recent incident at Dorchester penitentiary. I want to suggest to him that the incidents which took place at Dorchester recently were from other causes than the ones he feels were responsible.
I recently received a letter from an inmate at Dorchester. I will not reveal his name, not because he would suffer any retribution or harm and I would be happy to show the letter to any member of the House, but he is an inmate whose name would be recognized by almost all hon. members. In the past he has been a prolific letter writer. He has corresponded with me on a number of occasions, and with the chairman of the subcommittee on a number of occasions as well. The letter to the minister and to the commissioner praised the new director of Dorchester and the measures which have been instituted there.
I think I may have answered some of the comments of the hon. member for St. John's East, Mr. Speaker, who complained that there had been no response to or comment on the report of the subcommittee.
I would like to sum up very briefly, Mr. Speaker. A wealth of information is available to hon. members in the progress report dated January, 1979. It follows in a logical sequence those studies which have been done in order to implement the subcommittee report. It is true that it takes quite a number of pages to cover the work being done on recommendation No. 26-17, in fact, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. My colleague may feel that those are just words, but in the margin there are dates running all through this year by which those studies will be completed. If hon. members doubted the work that is going on, I encourage them to ask the officials when they appear with the minister before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs very shortly.
I could outline a number of other things the ministry has done. The Solicitor General has suggested to the standing committee that a number of significant steps can be taken within the current framework to bring about the result that he and all hon. members want to achieve and that will further the development of a disciplined and professional career service. Steps have been taken to create a career management system and a corrections "family" classification category. There are steps to provide the service with special status and authority under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. There are provisions for a new professional code of conduct in the Penitentiary Act regulations. There is the delegation of full staff authority
Concurrence in Committee Report to the service on the basis of "prime user status" under the Public Service Employment Act.
I know that the commissioner has sent to members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs an outline of the steps taken by his service in 1978, entitled "The CCS Major Accomplishments in 1978", which runs to eight or nine pages.
I want to leave a few moments for my colleague to sum up, Mr. Speaker. He asked me to leave him five minutes at the end, and I am leaving him exactly that. I know that hon. members waited with baited breath and, I hope, with not too jaundiced an eye to hear the few remarks I would make this evening. I thank you for allowing me to participate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for bringing this motion forth. It is very timely and is of great importance to this House. Unfortunately, my time is so short that I will barely get started before I have to finish.
We are all concerned about the incarceration of children, the penal system, and penal reform. The children of today become the adults of tomorrow. That is all the more reason we should consider this in depth, and not only consider the ten principles of the United Nations mentioned in Bill C-204 as presented by the hon. member for St. John's East but also the penitentiary system which may affect the lives of all of our children today.
I do not want to go over a lot that has already been covered by hon. members tonight, because basically I subscribe to virtually everything they say about the report. As a member of the committee and one of those who spent seven months looking at the prison system in this country and in the United States, I appreciate the problems, and I want to see that something is done about them.
The most important recommendation in the report is recommendation No. 65, which I should like to read into the record:
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.
To my mind this is the most important single recommendation in the report. If it had been implemented we would not have to implement all the rest, because the committee would be able to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Kenneth Robinson: I tried to make a point earlier to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) but he would not allow me, to the effect that we must consider the Juvenile Delinquents Act as well as the Criminal Code when we speak of children. Many sections of the Criminal Code are important, such as section 43 which concerns discipline of children,

February 6, 1979
Adjournment Debate
and Section 159(8) which deals with obscenity. Hon. members will remember that we prepared a report on obscenity for this House. Section 166 deals with parents or guardians procuring defilement. There are assault provisions in the Criminal Code. Section 150 concerns incest, seduction, and other matters. Section 206 is with regard to children becoming human beings. Section 251 is on abortion, Section 196 deals with abandoning a child, Section 197 deals with providing the necessities, and there is a host of other provisions in the Code that will be opened up now so that we can deal with these matters.
I do not want to talk out the motion, Mr. Speaker. I know it is going to get unanimous consent and I thank the minister for agreeing to that. I am sure I speak for all members of the justice subcommittee and many other members of the House when I say that we want to see this report implemented because it is so important to the penitentiary system today.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that the House call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I drew the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to a problem of an increasing number of aged patients and the lack of proper chairs of medicine being established in the universities across Canada for this purpose. The over 60 years of age is the fastest growing group in our society and we have created a social and economical problem for the government with this new breed of patient with whom we have had only limited experience. Those who suffer from degenerative diseases are not cured by a pill or an antibiotic. They create new problems in medicine.
At the beginning of this century a doctor had few drugs but his presence created trust and confidence. His suggestions were indeed potent weapons, and his competence and spiritual faith carried many back from severe illness which might otherwise have proved fatal. He was often the sole comforter

in the home. Today the situation is different. This is almost a lost art. His work is now largely a hospital practice. He makes his rounds, sometimes with an army of paramedical personnel. This destroys the closeness that existed when the doctor, the patient and the family were the only ones concerned.
Let us take a look at the beginning of this century when life expectancy was just over 40 years. Today life expectancy is just over 75 years. In the over 75-year age group the average woman lives 5 years longer than a man. In the over 85-year age group there are two women to every man. With the advent of scientific medicine at the beginning of the century life expectancy increased.
In 1900 there were many diseases. The first medicine we discovered of any real concern which made an impact on the world's scientific field was smallpox vaccine. Along with that was the development of antiseptic surgery by Dr. Lister. At the beginning of this century there was recognition that typhoid fever was caused by an organism. This organism was found in the environment and in polluted drinking water or food that was handled by someone with the organism. It would have been impossible to have fought the First World War if we had not discovered the cause and prevention of typhoid fever.
Then we come to the scientific era of antitoxin and diphtheria. This disease was one of the great killers in 1905. I remember a family of five who lived next door to me who died from diphtheria. An antitoxin had been used in the first case discovered in the neighbourhood but it had been used in too small a dose. Quickly followed by the diphtheria and scarlet fever antitoxin was a whole host of disease preventives. Next came the discovery of insulin for the treatment of diabetes, by Drs. Banting and Best. As a result of this a number of young lives were saved. I remember a Dr. Gilchrist, a childhood diabetic, who later became a famous doctor in Toronto. I could give many more examples, including the treatment of pernicious anemia.
Following that came the sulphur drugs and antibiotics, with the advent of penicillin and the golden age of aureomycin followed by the tetracyclines etc. Then all at once we found that infections were not the biggest killer of people up to the age of 35 or 40, instead today accidents take more lives.
Then we found some people approaching the age of 50 were developing chronic diseases. These diseases included those of the heart, the lungs, the arteries, the cardiovascular system, rheumatoid arthritis, emphysema, and so on. Sometimes people were not just afflicted with one ailment but two. We found out that by comparing a person aged 60 with a person aged 20 or 30, the 60-year-old would have three times the number of illnesses. As a result of many postmortems performed on people in their nineties it has been found that not only do these people have one disease but sometimes three or four, and perhaps as many as one to three cancers in their vital organs. It was found too that the cancer had not always been the cause of death.
February 6, 1979

This field has never been explored fully because all at once it is ongoing. Ten years ago we were told this field would be opened up, but nothing has been done yet. The geriatric specialty is not taught in this country, and I want to give you a brief illustration of that. Very few physicians have special training in the complexities and the needs of the aged patient. Older people very often manifest symptoms entirely different from those commonly associated with certain ailments among those less advanced in years. Many diseases occur to me in this context, but I shall not refer to them now. A fellow who is 80 can show symptoms quite different from those which would be expected in the case of a younger man like yourself, Mr. Speaker.
The place to generate the new training which is required has to be our medical schools. And listen to this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by commending the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) for his persistence in bringing up this whole question of the need for geriatric care. He speaks with knowledge, interest and enthusiasm, and he will probably continue to do the same in the future. He is a doctor and a senior citizen, an expert on this topic, so it is good to hear from him this evening.
On December 14, 1978, the hon. member drew the attention of the House to the changing health requirements of an aging population. The shift in composition of the Canadian population is a major consideration of health planners at all levels of government and in the health professions. A number of issues related to these changes were raised at a national symposium on aging held in Ottawa in October, 1978.
Demographic forecasting is very complex, and trends may be altered considerably over the course of several decades. Nevertheless, there is considerable agreement among experts that the proportion of the population aged 65 years and over is likely to rise from the 1976 level of 8.7 per cent to about 12 per cent by the turn of the century. One need not be overwhelmed by this transition; Great Britain, France, Austria, East Germany and Sweden are among countries with 12 per cent or more of their population over 65 years of age.
Planning for the future does not only involve services for senior citizens. All segments of the population are affected by demographic transition, and comprehensive planning is needed. The provinces, of course, have direct responsibility for provision of most health and welfare services. Several provinces have initiated programs for adjusting their services to the needs of a changing population. The increased flexibility in provincial use of federal funds provided under the new financing arrangements assists them in making these modifications.
In response to suggestions from a number of provincial and voluntary agencies, a bureau on aging has recently been
Adjournment Debate
established in my department. This bureau will serve as a communications link between the federal government, provincial governments and organizations for the aged, and will become a contact point for individuals and senior citizens' organizations.
The health of senior citizens is not determined solely by the availability of "geriatric medicine". An objective of the department is the promotion of a healthful lifestyle and an increased sense of personal responsibility for one's physical condition. Prevention of damage to our health at earlier stages of life may have a profound effect on our state of health and well-being as we grow older.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-PRO RATA PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS OF DISABLED VETERANS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on February 5 I raised a question in the House with regard to pro rata pensions for widows of disabled veterans. As the legislation now stands, widows of veterans receiving less than 48 per cent disability pension are left without a pension. I also asked whether the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) would tell the House when he plans to bring in pro rata pensions for these women, thereby implementing a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The Deputy Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the provision of the Pension Act upon which the hon. member bases his question. However, I have not had a chance to talk with the Minister of Veterans Affairs about this. I will draw the question to his attention. I am sure he will give it his usual sympathetic consideration.
I then asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would promise to bring forward legislation dealing with the recommendations in whole or in part before an election is called. He answered:
-I cannot guarantee that legislation will be brought forward during the present session. In the normal course, the minister involved makes a recommendation to cabinet on these matters. Until that recommendation is made, such reports are not normally studied by cabinet.
The question here is why the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) did not raise this matter in cabinet. It seems very strange that a recommendation which was made in 1975 by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has not even been raised in cabinet by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The recommendation was as follows:
Your committee also recommends to the House that consideration be given to amending the Pension Act to provide that a widow's pension be awarded on a sliding scale as follows:
When at the time of death of the prisoner he was, or would have been in receipt of a pension assessed at 47 per cent or less, that pension be paid to the widow in double proportion to the assessed degree of the pensioner's disability as it relates to the basic pension granted to widows.
That was the basic proposal, and now, three and a half years later, we learn from the Deputy Prime Minister that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has not even raised this matter for consideration in cabinet. That is unbelievable.

February 6, 1979
Adjournment Debate
That brings us to the question of priorities. It was announced just last week that the government has found SI8 million to build hockey arenas across the country. Hockey arenas have a higher priority than finding money for the widows of veterans. That is a strange priority.
It seems to me that bribing the Canadian people with hockey arenas just before an election is just a gimmick, and it should not be a higher priority than the widows of veterans. We also found out just last week that the government has found money so that Statistics Canada can conduct a study on the amount of toilet paper and the number of sanitary pads female members of a houselhold use. Those are the strange priorities of this government. It conducts studies on what people do in their bathrooms, but it cannot raise money for the widows of veterans. We will be passing this information around the nation, and to all widows and veterans' organizations, in order to point out this government's priorities. Its priorities are toilet paper, sanitary napkins, and bribing voters with hockey arenas.
Another recommendation which has not been fulfilled dates back to 1970 and deals with the basic rate of disability pension. As a result of the work of the committee to survey the organization and work of the Canadian Pension Commission- that was the Woods commission-the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended to the House of Commons in June of 1970 that the basic rate of the 100 per cent disability pension should be the same as the average or composite wage of five categories of unskilled employees in the public service, and that subsequent increases in the pension should be based on the same formula.
Obviously, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has not discussed this in cabinet either. A junior minister just appointed to the cabinet recently makes more headway than the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who has been in the cabinet since 1972. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has not raised these matters.
There are other matters we had hoped the minister would raise, but apparently he has not. One of those matters is compensation for prisoners of war over and above the disability pension. Another recommendation the committee made is that the government ensure that disability pension increases are not accompanied by reductions in other awards or allowances. [DOT]
I would suggest that the government take a second look at its priorities. With the uncontrolled inflation which exists in this country and the problems that our senior citizens are having, this is not the time for squandering money on the useless statistics that Canada studies. It is time they looked at our veterans affairs problems. I hope we will have a straightforward answer from the parliamentary secretary tonight, some assurance that legislation will be brought in, before an election is called, to deal with widows' pensions, because if it is not brought in before an election, six or eight months could elapse before the next Conservative government could deal

with these problems. Now is the time to deal with them, not six or eight months from now.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing his question forward. I discussed the matter with the minister, and I am pleased to bring the information that the question of providing pro rata pensions for widows of veterans who had been in receipt of disability pensions at a rate less than 48 per cent is being currently studied. At present if a veteran's pension has been assessed at the rate of 48 per cent or more, his surviving dependants would be pensionable. It should be remembered that, in addition, a widow will be pensioned if her husband's death occurred during war time or was attributable to service, regardless of the degree of the assessment of disability.
All veterans' benefits undergo constant review to see what changes can be made to improve their lot and that of their dependants, and I assure the hon. member that the government considers their well-being as a priority.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-PENALTIES FOR VANDALISM
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, while my remarks tonight are being addressed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), I should like to point out that he is the third minister of justice since I first introduced this subject more than two years ago. On October 29, 1976, I asked the then minister of justice during the question period what response, if any, he had made to representations from a number of Canadian municipalities asking for federal assistance in combating the rising wave of vandalism throughout the country.
I became concerned when I learned that the Minister of Justice had not made any effort to follow up on these requests, especially those from Ontario municipalities led by the town council of Trenton, Ontario. The Trenton council, and the councils of other municipalities across the province, felt that the problem was serious enough to warrant a combined federal-provincial assault on this senseless crime. So far as I can determine, neither of the two previous justice ministers has even expressed an interest in following through on these requests. They both answered my questions in much the same way, namely, that vandalism is purely a provincial matter and that any initiatives concerning federal-provincial co-operation in this matter must come from the provincial attorneys general. I reject that argument on both counts.
The answers given by the minister lead me to believe that they have failed utterly to get the point I have been trying to make over the past two years. In the first place, the minister admitted that vandalism is covered by the Criminal Code, which is the federal body of law. But the Criminal Code is administered jointly by the Minister of Justice and the several provincial attorneys general. In the second place, the initiative for establishing a joint federal-provincial effort to combat vandalism could come from the federal Minister of Justice as well as from the provincial attorneys general.
February 6, 1979

What the two previous justice ministers failed to understand is that much of the vandalism of which I speak is directed against federal institutions, such as post offices. In some areas of the country, post offices have become favourite targets of vandals. While the federal government is responsible for apprehending and prosecuting in these cases, it does not do so in isolation from the provincial agencies and departments.
Apart from the senseless nature of vandalism and the appalling cost to the law-abiding public, there is another good reason why the federal Minister of Justice should be interested in mounting an effective campaign against vandalism in cooperation with the provinces.
The opinion widely held today among law enforcement and social agencies is that vandalism is more than just a senseless crime against private and public property. It is believed that vandalism is a step along the way to more serious crimes such as muggings, assaults, robberies, rapes and others. The nature of vandalism itself indicates a serious lack of respect for the law and for the rights and property of law-abiding citizens. When vandals operate undetected or when they get a slap on the wrist instead of a deterrent sentence when they appear before the courts, they become bolder, and the logical progression is into more serious types of crimes. Our only protection against this senseless and costly criminal behaviour is a more vigorous pursuit of vandals and stiffer penalties when they are apprehended and convicted. These are just some of the reasons why I believe it is imperative that the federal government get into the act through the office of the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice should initiate contacts with provincial attorneys general to see if there is any real interest on their part in a federal-provincial assault on vandalism. A higher success rate in apprehending vandals would do much to convince such people that they are in a very real danger of being caught and convicted, which should reduce the incidence of such crime. In any case, serious contacts between the pertinent federal and provincial authorities could have some beneficial results. Surely it is worth some effort on their part to serve notice on vandals that their days are numbered.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Vandalism does not exist as such in the Criminal Code. What is generally called vandalism is provided for under the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with mischief, section 387, and the wilful damage of property when the alleged amount of damage does not exceed S50, section 388. Mischief is one of those offences where the prosecution can proceed by way of indictment or summary conviction.
If the prosecution proceeds by way of indictment, there are three possible sentences. When the mischief causes actual danger to human health, the accused is liable to imprisonment for life. If the mischief is in relation to public property, the maximum punishment is 14 years. Finally, if the offence is in
Adjournment Debate
relation to private property, the accused is liable to imprisonment for five years.
In all cases of mischief, whether in relation to public property or private property, the prosecution can choose to proceed by way of summary conviction, and in that case, the maximum punishment is imprisonment for six months, a fine of $500 or both. Damage under $50 caused to property is an offence punishable on summary conviction, and there again the maximum punishment is imprisonment for six months, a fine of $500 or both.
It should be noted that those punishments are a maximum. The courts very rarely impose the maximum punishment. They rather use other forms of sentences available to deal with each case individually. Those other forms of sentences are conditional or unconditional paroles, fines, suspended sentences and probation.
If the court decides to impose a period of probation it can include in the terms of that probation a proviso that the accused will have to make restitution or reparation to any person aggrieved or injured by the commission of the infraction. And if the accused wilfully omits to comply with one of the terms of the probation he is liable to be charged with a summary offence and punished for such a violation. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1978 introduces in our criminal law new types of sentences, such as the community service orders provided in Bill C-21. Moreover, this bill provides for compensation and restitution. Under these new provisions, the court must assess each case to ensure that it can make an order of compensation or restitution without placing the accused under a probation order.
According to the terms of our constitution, the role of the federal parliament is restricted to establishing criminal law. Parliament has attacked squarely the issue of vandalism by including criminal misdeeds in the Criminal Code and providing sentences of five and 14 years of imprisonment and life imprisonment for this offence. The courts have all the necessary freedom of action under the present provisions to use their discretionary powers. Increasing the provided penalty would be like trying to kill a fly with a cannon and the courts would simply not impose the new sentences provided.
It is extremely difficult to imagine a particular case of vandalism against private property which would justify a sentence of more than five years in prison. The administration of justice in a province is under strict provincial jurisdiction. If vandalism is a problem in a particular area, the Criminal Code gives the substitute of the attorney general all the flexibility required to solve the problem. He can use an indictment rather than a summary conviction. Moreover, once the guilt of the accused has been proven, he can suggest a prison term to the court rather than a fine or a suspended sentence.

February 6, 1979
Adjournment Debate
Finally, the provincial attorney general can appeal the sentence to the appeals court if he finds it insufficient and fears that it does not constitute an acceptable precedent as a sentence for a misdeed. I wish to thank the hon. member for having brought up this question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, February 7, 1979