1981-04-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to introduce the following motion. Whereas the Government of Canada has a well-known policy of accepting refugees; whereas Tibetans, having been forced out of their own country, are now under tremendous pressure and harassment to leave Bhut-tan; whereas Tibetans have proven themselves to be fine, industrious citizens of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration consider extending refugee status to a limited number of Tibetans from Bhuttan.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NECESSITY FOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PRODUCING PROVINCES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of most urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the Cold Lake and Alsands projects are in real danger of being cancelled because of the lack of an energy agreement with the producing provinces, and whereas the cancellation of these projects will have a disastrous effect on the already ailing Canadian economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House directs the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to have an energy agreement in place not later than June 1, 1981.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this
motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Indian leaders are gravely concerned about the potential dangers of the proposed Eldorado nuclear reactor at Blind River and have requested an appearance before the Atomic Energy Control Board to voice their concerns. Because their numerous letters, telexes and telephone calls to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) have gone unanswered, and because their request to appear has now been denied, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development immediately shoulder his responsibility for the protection of Indian rights, begin responding to telexes, letters and telephone calls, and arrange for their concerns to be heard before the Atomic Energy Control Board.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recently the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) told the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence that he would seek firm answers from United States Secretary of Defence Weinberger concerning the state of the beleaguered F-18 program when the latter visited Ottawa. Today a United States official is quoted as saying that it is unlikely Mr. Weinberger will specify any changes in plans for the United States purchases because any such decision is still pending.
In light of these conflicting statements, and the report that, as a result of congressional budget cuts, the United States

April 15, 1981
F-18 research and development funds will dry up by mid-June, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the minister stop parroting the assurances of McDonnell Douglas and other vested interests, and act expeditiously to protect Canadian interests by ordering his own thorough and complete review of the disastrous F-18 program.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) supposedly champions the rule of law, traditions of Parliament, and the concept of provincial unanimity, and given the historic decision of the Quebec Supreme Court, four to one in favour of the federal constitutional package, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters):
That the Leader of the Opposition clarify with his caucus the inconsistency of the Tory property rights package which may well be ultra vires and does not have the support of the premiers, particularly in the west and in the maritimes, and as well that the Leader of the Opposition inform the House of the alleged agreement between the premiers on an amending formula of which he states he is aware today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is a political question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] * *


NECESSITY FOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PRODUCING PROVINCES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Energy minister Marc Lalonde said yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Leonard J. Gustafson: -that he does not expect to reach an energy
agreement by July 1. Given the fact that the Cold Lake and
Alsands projects could be shelved by June 1, coupled with the counterproductive effect of the government's energy policies on the economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the government take immediate steps to come to an energy agreement in view of this very serious economic effect on Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recent press reports indicate that as a result of malfunctions in the Buffalo sewage plant, millions of gallons of improperly treated waste are being dumped daily into the Niagara River. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House urge the Minister of the Environment to verify these reports, and upon determining their truth, to inform the United States government immediately of Canada's deep concern about pollution in this international waterway.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, private borrowers in the United States are borrowing money on short term at about 14.75 per cent. The Government of Canada today is paying at least 2 per cent more than private borrowers can borrow money for in the American market. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the Minister of Finance on motions do explain to the House of commons whether the reason for the difference in rates is the deliberate high interest rate policy of the government or whether the government has run down Canada's credit rating with lenders so that Canada is required to pay a 2 per cent premium to borrow money.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this
motion?
April 15, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] * *


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 with respect to some very discriminatory questions asked by some unemployment insurance officials. Considering that a Canada Employment official recently informed a Hamilton woman that she could be ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because she was breast-feeding her child, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration issue a directive to all Canada Employment Centres to end this appalling and discriminatory practice which is a consideration in determining unemployment insurance eligibility on the basis of how a woman feeds and cares for her children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Yesterday's Toronto Star carried a very disturbing story about a speech given by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist) to the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, in which he went on record as supporting separatism in Quebec and in which he appeared to condone a threat against the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I believe all hon. members will agree that such inflammatory statements should be abhorred. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson):
That the hon. member for Scarborough East should apologize to all the members of this House and to the Prime Minister.
Failing this, I move:
That this House direct the Leader of the Opposition to follow the lead of his predecessor, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, and expel those members of his party who support separatism, who deny the bilingual character of our country as set out in the Official Languages Act, and who advocate disobedience of the law.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this
motion?


MAURICE STRONG
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Maurice Strong has followed the natural Liberal progression from President of the Canadian International Development Agency to chairman of Petro-Canada, to commission agent for his friends in the Liberal government to the tune of a $1 million fee. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House encourage Maurice Strong to take the route that other Liberals sometimes take and run for office, unless of course another take-over intervenes.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young), I move:
That this House calls on the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs to give notice next week of the anticipated legislation to shorten or eliminate the six-and-a-half-year phasing-in period respecting pensions for veterans' widows contained in last summer's Bill C-40, it being clear that this House will give quick passage to this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in light of the burden placed on British pensioners by

April 15, 1981
Oral Questions
the acceptance of this government of the protocol amending the Anglo-Canadian double taxation agreement, which came into effect at the beginning of this year, and which seems to have been directly aimed at the minute pensions available to a large number of elderly Canadian residents, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Finance make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity explaining how the signing of this protocol came about and, in particular, indicating what steps the government proposes to take to relieve the Financial burdens imposed on those unfortunate pensioners, many of whom are not even eligible for full Canadian pension benefits.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister, whom I first want to congratulate on receiving what he would regard as good news from the superior court of Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Court of appeal.


Charles Joseph Clark: -court of appeal? Court of appeal. I feel that the legal questions should be decided by the courts, and I am pleased that Parliament is agreeing to let that happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question concerns the other part of the process. It concerns the meeting here tomorrow of premiers of eight provinces to conclude their proposal for patriation of our Constitution, with an amending formula. The Prime Minister knows that in the telex to him from Premier Lyon there was a request for a meeting with the Prime Minister after the premiers had met for joint consideration of the new plan. If the Prime Minister receives such a proposal from those eight provinces, will he arrange to convene a first ministers' conference to consider that proposal?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would be somewhat hesitant to speak on behalf of the provinces in this matter. The last time he raised it in the House, it was to enjoin me to meet with the eight premiers meeting here in Ottawa. When, after some hesitation-considerable hesitation, I would say-I accepted to meet with them, then it appeared that they did not want to meet me. So I think
the Leader of the Opposition had better let the premiers handle this, and stay out of this business, himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister will want to consult the record to know just how wrong his rendition of history is, although he does confirm that he would prefer to have Parliament stay out of questions which are Parliament's business. My question to him stands. There is to be a meeting here tomorrow which the eight premiers involved believe will yield a new plan for bringing our Constitution home with an amending formula. They have formally requested the Prime Minister of Canada for an opportunity to discuss that plan with him. They have requested that in the telex in which they said:
Subsequently we hope to meet you-
That means the Prime Minister.
-for joint consideration of the new plan.
That is in the telex from Premier Lyon.
If there is a new plan brought forward, as the premiers expect there will be, will the Prime Minister of Canada agree to meet with them to discuss that plan, and will the Prime Minister consider convening a first ministers' conference to discuss that plan by which Canadians could patriate our Constitution and amend it here in an agreed way, and any other questions which he might want to put on the agenda? Will he convene a first ministers' conference if there is a proposal from those eight premiers tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is making the same mistake which he made two weeks ago when he enjoined me to meet with the premiers to discuss something with them, to hear them out and to have a federal-provincial meeting of some sort. I repeat, it was after he had said that and pressed me-presumably, on behalf of the premiers-to meet and to discuss with them, it appeared that they did not want to meet and discuss with me. That is still the situation now.
The Leader of the Opposition says that Premier Lyon has sent me a telegram wherein he says he wants to discuss their plan with me. I have the telegram here, and the only part of it which refers to myself is in the final words. I read them:
It is our intention to communicate the conclusions of the meeting to you on the afternoon of the same day.
That does not sound as though they want to have a discussion with me.


An hon. Member:: Read it all.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It sounds to me as though they are having a meeting in Ottawa, that they will try to discuss and hopefully agree amongst themselves, presumably to put the final touches on something which has not yet been quite agreed to. That is why I repeat, what I said last week in this House, that the veracity of the statement to the effect that they had reached an agreement was somewhat in doubt. It has been put in doubt since then by several of the participants who have said that
April 15, 1981

they still have some decisions to make. Premier Levesque said that, and Premier Blakeney said that, so the Leader of the Opposition in this House really is carrying a brief for some who have not asked him to carry it for them.
I will be in Ottawa tomorrow. I am not sure how the intention of communicating the conclusions of the meeting to me will be fulfilled. I do not know if Premier Lyon wants to see me. I do not know if he will send me a letter-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is beefing you, my friend?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member does not have the floor.


Mr. Forrestall:: Who the hell cares?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I can understand the frustration of members of the House when the Prime Minister twice refuses to answer a very simple question having to do with his duty to the people of this country, as the first minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: On April 3 Premier Lyon, the chairman of the provincial premiers' conference, sent a telex from which I have already quoted in the House, to the Prime Minister, in which he outlined the plan of the premiers to meet first and then, and again I quote, "Subsequently we hope to meet you for joint consideration of the new plan".
I am not particularly interested in debating with the Prime Minister what happened last week. What I am interested in knowing is whether the Prime Minister will accept his responsibilities as Prime Minister of this country, to resolve in a Canadian way, and in co-operation with the Canadian partners, the provinces, a question of important constitutional significance.
If there is the agreement the premiers expect tomorrow, will the Prime Minister use that agreement as the basis for exercising his duty and convening a first ministers' conference that will allow him and the ten first ministers of the country-the ten provincial premiers-allow the 11 first ministers to sit down and discuss a Canadian patriation package, with a Canadian amending formula? Will he do his duty in that way if he receives that kind of plan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, could I ask the indulgence of the House to recall the events which led up to this question.
I was enjoined by the Leader of the Opposition to meet with the premiers. I said I would do it. Then a few of them, several I believe, said that they did not want to meet me. They said this publicly. This is not a figment of my imagination. They said they were not sure that I was invited. Some said that I could bang at the door but they would not let me in.
Oral Questions
Since then I have received a telegram-that is not referring to the April 3 one because it was after the April 3 one that I said that I would meet with them. Then it appeared that they did not all want to meet with me. They had not made up their minds yet about what they would do.
Ad hon. Member: No wonder.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, no wonder, all right. But they had not made up their minds.
Since then I have received a telegram telling me that it is their intention to communicate the conclusions of their meeting to me. I repeat, I had been prepared to meet with them. Now I am prepared to receive their communication in whatever way it comes. I will be here in Ottawa; I will be available, if one or several want to meet with me to communicate the conclusions. That was made clear ten days ago, that I was prepared to meet with them. I will see what they have agreed to do among themselves. Once again whether they will meet-


Mr. Lalonde:: If they agree.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If they agree-whether they will want to meet or to send me a letter or what, but I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition will also be informed of the position that they take, if any.
The Leader of the Opposition knows the rules to which this House has agreed, that after today we will have Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday to consider what we want to do with this proposal presumably of eight premiers.
I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that in these five days we convene a federal-provincial conference. If the premiers indicate their desire to do so, and if a quick canvassing of my colleagues from the other two provinces indicate that they want to do so, certainly I will convene a conference in these five days if there is some measure of agreement. But the way we have written the House order is that on Tuesday evening we must make any final change we want to make to this resolution that is before the House.
The deadline is on the premiers, it is on myself, and it is also on the Leader of the Opposition. I take it that his party will see it as its duty to reflect on the meeting of the premiers. Hopefully the Leader of the Opposition will be communicated with also by the premiers in some way or other. Then his party, my party, and the New Democratic Party will make up their minds as to whether we can include something in the resolution by way of amendment on Tuesday. That is the way the House has accepted to play the rules.
I do not want to encourage the Leader of the Opposition to believe that in these five days we could easily have a conference of 11 first ministers. Two of them have already stated quite clearly that they did not want to meet if it was a matter of just looking at an amending formula without a charter. I must say that is the position of our party too. But still we will

April 15, 1981
Oral Questions
meet with them. Hopefully they will have made some progress. We will see what they say, even on the charter. Then the Leader of the Opposition and the other parties in this House will take their responsibilities for Tuesday night.


TIMING OF FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have made some progress. The Prime Minister is now agreeing to a first ministers' conference if that is requested by the eight premiers and if they bring forward a plan. But he has placed a limitation on it. The Prime Minister has agreed to a first ministers' conference within the next five days. I think most of us recognize that that is probably going to be impractical-desirable if possible, but probably impractical.
Is the Prime Minister limiting his suggestion, his willingness to convene a first ministers' conference, to the next five days or the next week? Or is he prepared to tell this House of Commons that whatever happens in the parliamentary agenda, whatever happens with the Supreme Court agenda, he will do his duty as the Prime Minister of the whole country and convene a first ministers' conference to discuss a patriation package agreed to by eight provinces if those eight provinces request such a meeting? Will he do that without time limitations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course I will, Madam Speaker. The resolution before the House specifies an obligation on us to do that. It is specified that over the next two years we must have first ministers' conferences to try to get agreement on an amending formula. The Leader of the Opposition says no.


Charles Joseph Clark: No. I am shaking my head at your behaviour.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It does, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition wants to have an undertaking from me that I will have a federal provincial conference. I am answering that I will be obliged to do so once we adopt this resolution.


Charles Joseph Clark: If we do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I guess the Leader of the Opposition wants to know when it will be held. It will be held in the next five days if we all agree it is useful. If it is not, the Leader of the Opposition accepted the proposition before the House that we want the Supreme Court to see the resolution in its final form. That is the essence of the bargain we made here, that there would be no further amendments after Thursday night, that the Supreme Court would be rendering its decision on the basis of the resolution as it will have been amended next week.
If the Leader of the Opposition is asking me if I will meet the premiers, the answer is yes, Madam Speaker. But I think that the Leader of the Opposition and the premiers themselves should realize that such a meeting will not be able to affect the resolution before the House by the very nature of the bargain that the Leader of the Opposition wrung out of us. That is the
nature of it, that we will not be able to accept any amendments after Thursday of next week.
If the Leader of the Opposition is asking me can we have a meeting in May, in June or in July, the answer is yes. But the results of that meeting cannot be in the resolution before the Supreme Court. Since the Leader of the Opposition, contrary I understand to the Premier of Alberta, has indicated that legality was the essence of it, I take it that after the Supreme Court has judged, in our words that will settle the matter. If the Supreme Court judges favourably, then there will be no difficulty in sending the resolution to London. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will agree to that, at least, because the leader of the Conservative Party in Alberta has not agreed to that apparently. He still wants to carry on the political fight.
Let me put it to this House: are we all agreed that once the Supreme Court has ruled favourably, that ends the matter?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition laughs, as he always does. But it is an important question. Otherwise the referral to the Supreme Court makes no sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who knows that any resolution passed by this House can be changed by this House by unanimous consent. The Prime Minister is not very keen on meeting with premiers. My question to him is this. Premier Davis requested a first ministers' meeting to discuss real issues affecting this country, inflation and the economy. The Prime Minister has now said that while he shares the concern of Premier Davis, and he agrees that inflation is an unacceptable burden on the people of Canada, he refuses to meet with the premiers on that subject until the seven industrial nations meet here in Canada in July. He says also that he refuses to meet because the government has laid down an economic program in the budget specifically directed at dealing with inflation. The Prime Minister wants to solve the global problems before he deals with his own problems here.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair. The Leader of the Opposition took quite a lot of time of the House in his first round-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: What about the answers?
April 15, 1981

Mladam Speaker: The first round took quite a lot of time. There is an obligation on the Chair to go to other parties in the House. I would ask the hon. member for St. John's West, in consideration of that, to be brief in his two questions.


Erik Nielsen: Make sure the answers are brief too.


John Carnell Crosbie: My question to the Prime Minister is this. What is the economic program of the government that is specifically directed at dealing with inflation? Will he let the House and the country in on it? He refuses to meet with the premiers. What is this program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did not refuse to meet with the premiers on the economy or on anything else. Premier Davis did not ask me to meet at any particular date before or after the economic summit of July. The Minister of Finance has had meetings with his counterparts, and he will have others. I very much expect and want to have a meeting of first ministers on the economy. The question is when it would be most usefully held. In my judgment it would be most usefully held after the economic summit, when we will have a clear vision of the economic positions taken by our six industrial partners.
Once again, I will meet them when they want, but I doubt that the hon. member for St. John's West is any more qualified than his leader was in pretending to speak for the premiers in reference to meetings.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, in Massachusetts the Cabots speak only to the Lodges and the Lodges speak only to God. Is that the position of this Prime Minister, that he speaks only to God? He does not speak to the premiers.
Premier Davis has requested a meeting on inflation and the economy, and the Prime Minister has refused that meeting. The Bank of Canada rate has just gone up to 17.16 per cent. Inflation is running 2 per cent worse than the budget forecast. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House what this program of his government is to fight inflation? It certainly has not been effective to date. Will he advise the House whether he is going to deal with this before he deals with all the world's problems? Will he deal with the problems of little old Canada and meet with our ten premiers to discuss these economic problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to Premier Davis I wrote these words:
Following the Ottawa Summit, I shall be seeking the counsel of my colleagues and provincial Premiers on how we might best proceed to ensure a concerted attack on world and Canadian economic problems, including inflation.


John Carnell Crosbie: The world is your oyster.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You're an oyster, my friend.


John Carnell Crosbie: You're the Prime Minister.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister never finished his answer. He hasn't got an answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you raise a question of privilege?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister is an oyster's ass.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Oshawa has the floor.


REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIERS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is on the same subject. A request came from Premier Davis for a meeting at the earliest possible moment. I would ask the Prime Minister this. Since the prime rate has now gone up to 17.16 per cent, setting off a new round of cost of living increases for farmers, small businessmen and home owners, who are already suffering, would it not make sense for the Prime Minister to consult with all the premiers to try to get a concerted national policy which could have a positive impact at home and could also be influential in influencing his judgment when he goes to the first summit, so he could go there with a national consensus in terms of what should be done to deal with the Canadian economy?


Erik Nielsen: He does not want a national consensus.


Mr. Kempling:: He has his own consensus.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the contrary, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the New Democratic Party is reading my mind.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As usual.


Erik Nielsen: He can't read Greek.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As usual, the Tory party is coming down on both sides of this question. First they said I did not want to answer. When I said I was going to give an answer and that I had one here, they said, "Oh, but we have dealt with it together." They cannot have it both ways. Here was my answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that the Tory party is somewhat miffed at their loss in the byelections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would be brief in his answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And I understand that the Appeal Court of Quebec has not made them any happier.

April 15, 1981
Oral Questions
If they would bear with me, I would like to answer the Leader of the New Democratic Party by saying I have done precisely what he suggests should be done, consult with the premiers before the summit. That is where I write in my letter:
I would be pleased to examine any specific suggestions which you might want to make as to how we might intensify our efforts in combating inflation, either on our own or through federal-provincial measures.
That is in the context of the letter where I say that before the summit we will have a lot of work to do and we will be looking at ways in which we can combat inflation, both in Canada and as a world-wide phenomenon.


John Edward Broadbent: I hope that after the Prime Minister receives the responses from the premiers we will not have to wait for a year before the government acts in terms of some of those proposals to bring down the cost of living for Canadians.


EFFECT OF HIGH MORTGAGE RATES ON HOME OWNERS- POSSIBILITY OF PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: On a specific item the government could act on now, without waiting for any advice from the premiers, I would like to go to the Minister of Finance. Mortgage rates are already at record levels. With the interest rate up again today, they are bound to jump. Hundreds of people are losing their homes, people who have to renew mortgages. Considering that the banks are earning record level profits, will the government, and specifically the Minister of Finance, at least call in the heads of the chartered banks, point out their profit margins to them, and force them to work out a program for mortgages that the average Canadian family can afford?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking that I call in the heads of the chartered banks. I do not think that would be a very constructive proposal at the present time. What I have been doing is-


John Carnell Crosbie: Sleeping.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -analysing the situation with respect to home owners facing renewals in the current year.


John Carnell Crosbie: The old analyser.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is my belief, based upon this analysis in the light of increased incomes that are occurring along with increases in mortgages, that the vast majority of home owners will be able to renew their mortgages in this current year without increasing the proportion of their income that is customarily assigned to accommodation.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister of Finance should do a little more analysing. He would find that what he just said is profoundly misleading. He should tell that to the literally hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast, if not thousands, who have lost their homes because they cannot afford to renew their mortgages.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he will provide a little assistance to another group of Canadians, namely, farmers, who are having trouble with the high interest rate policy of the government. Will the government raise the budget of the Farm Credit Corporation by $150 million and hold its lending rate to 12.5 per cent as requested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, so that corporation can meet the real needs of Canadian farmers and at least prevent a few of them from going out of business?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we are looking at what the hon. member suggests. We are considering ways and means of operating the Farm Credit Corporation, gearing some of its funds to the young starting farmers with either lower interest rates or no interest rates at all for the first few years. There has been no decision made in that regard. This is in relation to long-term money. The money young farmers need at this time is short-term money, the capital needed to finance hog operations, cattle operations, and the purchasing of fertilizer, etc., for this year's operations. Whatever we can do in that area we will do. There is very little we can do, but some of the provinces have special programs they have initiated on their own. Ontario, for instance, has not seemed to have become very much involved in this sort of program, but some of the other provinces have, with subsidized interest rates.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. CASPAR WEINBERGER, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENCE
Madam Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of the House the presence in our galleries of Mr. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defence of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY JANKHEER EMILE VAN LENNEP, OECD SECRETARY GENERAL
Madam Speaker:: May I also draw to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Jankheer Emile van Lennep, Secretary General of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, who is accompanied by Dr. Sylvia Ostry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 15, 1981


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The minister will know that on March 27 the assets of a company known as Forges HPC Limited of Cap-de-la-Madeleine were seized to satisfy $7 million in debts, and this was just a few days after the company had been awarded a $2.7 DREE grant. Did the minister know of the financial position of the company, and, if so, why did he authorize the awarding of that grant?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, it is always easier to criticize a decision taken by managers of that program, in retrospect. Actually over 4,000 grants were made in that province by those officials and less than 5 per cent of the projects have failed.
In this case, as in all other cases, before sending the cheques we made the usual checks; we phoned the banks and the creditors and all of them said the project was moving according to-


An hon. Member:: Plan.


Pierre De Bané: -plan, yes. We were comforted by the fact that the government of Quebec, Consolidated Bathurst, and a major European interest were the three shareholders in that company. We are going to do our best on our part to reopen that plant. If the shareholders, including the government of Quebec, do not want to reopen it, we will do our darndest to get our money back.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to this very diligent minister who usually knows his department. An award in the amount of $2.7 million would have to be approved by the minister; it would require his signature. Did the minister satisfy himself, because he could have by merely calling the local credit bureau in Cap-de-la-Madeleine, that this company was not in financial difficulty and, if not, why not? That is a simple question, Madam Speaker.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, this is a very important question, but I would like to make a clarification. The minister personally approves all cases involving public grants over $1 million. The minister does that, of course, at the inception. One of the main rules is that when you apply to the government you must not have made any contractual commitment or obligations. That was done a long time ago when the application was made. Months later when we have to issue the cheque we have no other discussion. We ascertain that all the conditions which were set in the beginning have been respected. In this case what we did before issuing any cheque was to ascertain that all the conditions were met. We phoned all the creditors and shareholders to be sure that everything was okay.
Oral Questions PETRO-CANADA


ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-FEE PAID TO SWISS BANK
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it relates to an announcement or statement today by Petro-Canada to the effect that a fee of $1 million was paid to a firm named Sogener of which the principal officers are a Mr. Hentsch and Mr. Strong; that is Maurice Strong who is well known to members of this House.
On the basis of a letter from the minister to the Leader of the Opposition dated March 4, 1981, it was pointed out that Mr. Hentsch and Mr. Strong, the principal officers, had about a half a dozen phone calls, two or three meetings, two or three letters, and apparently some very deep thoughts. What I would like to know in regard to this transaction is whether this was a contingency fee arrangement, exactly what work was involved for this very substantial fee on the part of Mr. Strong, and whether the minister is prepared to allow the House of Commons through an appropriate committee of the House to consider the details of the work done for this substantial fee.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my letter of March 4 to the Leader of the Opposition, which was tabled in this House at the same time, Petro-Canada some time last year retained a long-established Swiss bank by the name of Sogener to be its agent in the negotiation of the possible acquisition of Petrofina. As I indicated, Mr. Hentsch is the chairman of this bank and Mr. Maurice Strong is the vicepresident. I am advised also that Mr. Strong has had an interest in that bank for some years. It is very much a minority interest. I am advised it is somewhat below 5 per cent. I am also advised that the fee for this particular transaction is below the usual commercial fee for such transactions.
As far as negotiations were concerned, Sogener was involved in the transaction which was, in the end, successful earlier this year. I am advised by Petro-Canada that all the arrangements were made according to the practices followed by corporations in this particular regard. Officials of Petro-Canada have appeared at various times before committees, and I am sure that at the next opportunity the opposition will be welcome to ask questions of members of Petro-Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I now fully understand the Liberal campaign motto, "Lalonde is strong."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I wonder if the minister could perhaps now explain whether any other agencies were considered, and whether in fact the money has been paid to a Swiss bank account or has already been expended by Petro-Canada. I think a lot of people, in respect of this kind of transaction, would be very interested in participating, particularly if this is the minister's idea of Canadianization of Swiss banking firms. I want to know whether there are any more takeovers contemplated in respect of which intermediaries are to be used, and

April 15, 1981
Oral Questions
would the minister consider putting out the intermediary role to tender?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to inquire of the management of Petro-Canada as to the various points raised by the hon. member, and report to him.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last week his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, stated that he would not be able to meet the recommendation of the special House of Commons committee on the handicapped which would require larger firms to have affirmative action programs in order to do business with the federal government. I would like to ask the minister if, in rejecting affirmative action programs, his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, was speaking for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and also was he speaking for the government?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, at this particular point in time a decision has not been made one way or another by the government. I think the minister was expressing the fact that at the present moment he would not apply that particular restriction because a decision has not been made, but it is a question, as the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam well knows, that is being discussed. The hon. member knows we have implemented a major affirmative action program in the public service. We are implementing affirmative action programs in a number of training agreements we are now signing with private industry. The success of those programs will be gauged and evaluated in determining what the next step of the government will be.


FIRMS CONTRACTING TO SUPPLY GOODS AND SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I am speaking of contract compliance in the private sector. Last September 27 the minister stated at a Manitoba women and trades conference, and I quote "I will be bringing a paper on contract compliance to cabinet this fall". That was last fall. There are over 600 companies doing business with the federal government. Only 18 in the private sector have contract compliance. The minister promised it last fall. When is the minister going to bring his program for contract compliance to cabinet, or is he letting the Minister of Supply and Services have the whole field in this matter?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in the speech from which the hon. member quoted I indicated that we would be examining the issue of contract compliance, but there was no indication of what the specific recommendations might be. That remains for the government to decide, and that decision will be made after the consultations which are now taking place with unions, private business and a variety of volunteer agencies throughout the country to determine how we can achieve our objective of ensuring that there is more access to the workplace for disabled people, native people, and women. That is a commitment of the government, and we intend to fulfil it, but we must bring in the measures most appropriate to that, and we will do that after fair consultation.


Pauline Jewett: Where is the paper?


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General confirm or deny the rumour in the newspapers recently to the effect that the Kingston Penitentiary is to close?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, there has been a number of rumours over the years about the closing of Kingston Penitentiary. Taking account of the age of that institution alone, a good case could be made for closing it, but its closing would create a number of problems with respect to settlement, of employment, custody of inmates, and alternative uses of the location. I was surprised that the commissioner of the correctional service of Canada was quoted in the press as having announced that that would be closed, because the problems to which I have referred have not yet been solved to my satisfaction, and nq decision will be made until those other problems have been dealt with.


INFORMATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his office instructed the Canadian United Information Office to print some 15,000 copies, with a second possible order of 10,000 copies, of a cleaned-up version of the Prime Minister's constitutional speech and that those copies are currently being distributed by Liberal Members of Parliament and the Liberal Party of Canada? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the cost for the printing and distribution of these speeches will be borne by the Liberal Party of Canada and not by the taxpayers of Canada?
April 15, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot give the answer to that, but I certainly will inquire. I must say that I am not in complete agreement with the conclusions stated by the hon. member. I believe when I make speeches, whether they be good, bad or indifferent, they are distributed freely to the people of Canada, first to the people of the press gallery and than to anyone else who wants a copy. I do not think the hon. member would object to that.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, what is particularly at stake here is the abuse of the CUIO and the inability of the Prime Minister to differentiate between the funds of the taxpayers of Canada and the funds of the Liberal Party of Canada.


ALLEGED USE OF TAX DOLLARS TO MEET COST
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister how he justifies this expenditure of tax dollars, in view of the fact that the creation of the CUIO was justified on the ground that it be used to promote only the views of the whole of the Government of Canada and not just the views of one man on a resolution which is currently before Parliament for debate. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will put a stop to this practice of using the CUIO as a $23 million propaganda machine for the Liberal Party?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as I said in answer to the first question, I think it is somewhat hypothetical. I do not know the answer to how it was done and who is paying for it, but I repeat that when, as Prime Minister, I make speeches, these speeches are communicated to many people. They are communicated first to the press, then I believe to members of this House, and then to anyone who asks for them. I suppose when the Leader of the Opposition was the Prime Minister it was the same thing.


An hon. Member:: Nobody wanted to hear him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: They were not communicated by theXUIO.


Mr. Chretien:: Nobody wanted to have his speeches; that was the difference. There was no demand.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand the hon. member's concern about the Liberal Party but, once again, when a speech is made by me, whether it be to a group in Toronto or at a press conference, I know we make a transcript of it, and this transcript is available and used.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is it bound?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not charged to the Liberal Party any more than I am sure the transcripts of speeches of the Leader of the Opposition were charged to his party. It is as simple as that.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Canadian Unity Information Office?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is worried about the fact that the copy is bound. I suppose that is a matter of costs, and it is also a matter of presentation. It may be cheaper to present it in that form than to have thousands-


Charles Joseph Clark: Certainly cheaper to the Liberal Party.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me finish-or hundreds of thousands of copies of Hansard printed with all the other speeches which it contains, including perhaps the hon. member's speech in which nobody is interested.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Over a year ago the Solicitor General announced with great fanfare, following a meeting with Simon Wiesental, that an interdepartmental committee was being set up to examine the options available to the government to deal with Nazi war criminals living in Canada. The minister said at that time that the study should take approximately three months. Will the minister make public the report of this committee, which apparently has been submitted to cabinet and rejected by cabinet, and will the minister tell the House what action the government intends to take to bring forward for trial those persons who are now residing in Canada and who are accused of having committed war crimes during the holocaust?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, this matter comes under my responsibility. We have included in the charter of rights some reference to this, but first we have to deal with the charter of rights in this House before deciding whether to proceed with some legislation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the government knows very well that that is just a cop-out for its inaction and the betrayal of the promises it made in the last election. The fact is that the charter of rights has nothing to do with this matter.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, having made the promises, the Solicitor General is apparently silent. After his meeting on this question with Simon Wiesental, the Solicitor General said, and I quote, "I am satisfied there are witnesses, and war crimes could be proven".
If the Solicitor General is prepared to answer, my question
is,	what action will the government take and when will it take
it,	to live up to the promises it made in the last election
9302

April 15, 1981
Oral Questions
campaign and to end 35 years of inaction on this very important question?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I answered that question earlier. We first studied the problem in the constitutional committee and there was a reference to that subject. As to whether legal action can be taken at this time against people who reside in Canada, we are now studying the issue and we will take action if necessary because there must be a law under which we can act. The cabinet has yet to make a decision about this, but we will look into it as soon as possible.


PRACTICES OF OIL COMPANIES IN RAISING RENTS FOR SERVICE STATIONS
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. The National Automotive Trades Association of Canada determined that major oil companies are engaged in a massive increase in rents for service stations. As an example, one oil company charged $22,000 for a two-bay station. The new lease went from $22,000 to $85,000 for the first year and, in the third year, the rent was to be $123,000. Another example: rent will rise from $29,000 in 1979 to $287,000 in 1982.
Will the minister investigate these facts and use his strongest persuasion to ask the oil companies to limit increases in rent to 20 per cent or less per year, in order that service station dealers in Canada can survive and the motoring public be protected from huge increases in the price of gasoline due to those increased rents?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. 1 think it is important that there be indeed a certain control over the leasing costs charged to the retailers by the multinationals. However, I would like it very much if the members of the Progressive Conservative Party were to make up their minds some day. Do they want more or less intervention from the government?


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, is the minister aware that unless action is taken and oil companies comply voluntarily, the country may face a massive action by the National Automotive Trades Association to demonstrate the seriousness of the problem?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, we are aware of the problem and that is why I would urge the hon. member to do his utmost to convince his colleagues that they ought to support the petroleum industry Canadianization policy.


EASTER ADJOURNMENT
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, after the usual consultations with my colleagues opposite, we have reached an agreement that the House shall not sit on Thursday, April 16, 1981 and on Monday, April 20, 1981.


Madam Speaker:: According to the agreement, the House will adjourn this evening at six o'clock. Is the House agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I was not in the House earlier when a motion under Standing Order 43 was raised concerning a Toronto Star editorial. I am not sure who raised it; I received a copy from a page, but there is no reference to the mover. I see the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) is mentioned. I wish to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege concerning this motion because it impugns my statements which were reported in the Toronto Star. It is exactly 180 degrees from the actual positions I gave.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure the hon. member has a question of privilege. The motion under Standing Order 43 was dealt with the House today. If it is dealt with, it is dealt with. However, the hon. member might look at Hansard, and if he has a question of privilege, he need not give verbal notice; he can give written notice with a statement of what constitutes his question of privilege.


INFORMATION
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the matter raised concerning the Canadian Unity Information Office, I just wanted to inform the House, under the guise of privilege, with Your Honour's permission, that I have been told by the parliamentary secretary, the hon.
April 15, 1981

member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly), that the printed material has been paid for by the Liberal Party of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EASTER ADJOURNMENT
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I referred earlier to an agreement between the House leaders. In order to make the record straight, would you kindly put the motion to the House so that it may have the required unanimous consent and therefore when the House adjourns tonight at six o'clock, it may stand adjourned until next Tuesday at two o'clock p.m.?


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, there has been those discussions, and we are agreeable to that being made a House order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: My feeling was that I had asked whether the House agreed to this proposition. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[ Translation]

Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Section 75(3) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table in both official
Order Paper Questions
languages the consolidated financial statements of Petro-Canada for the year ending December 31, 1980.


PETITION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition which was signed by citizens from my riding in the west end of the city of Winnipeg. The petition is in the proper language. It makes reference to two important concepts: grievance and remedy.
The grievance which these citizens have in common is that the government has callously cut back postal services in the area and intends to remove the services of a full postal station from the area and to substitute a sub post office. The remedy must be presented by the House, that is, to stop the closure of that full postal station.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 62, 978 to 980 inclusive, 990 to 992 inclusive, 1,007, 1,203, 1,596, 2,132, 2,211, 2,242 and 2,302.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, what contacts did Professor Hugh George Hambleton, of Laval University, have with Miss Lijana Galeva and (a) what was the purpose of these contacts (b) is Miss Galeva now in Yugoslavia?
2.	What are all the other details known about any connections with these two individuals?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Government of Canada believes that it would not be in the public interest to either confirm or deny or provide additional information on the RCMP investigation into the activities of Professor Hambleton.


Mr. Cossitt: What is a full description of "Operation Red Pepper" conducted by the RCMP including (a) its purpose (b) the date of inception (c) its duration (d) the name of the most senior officer in charge along with his/her job designation?

April 15, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: (a) "Operation Red Pepper" was a counter-espionage operation.
(b), (c), and (d) It is not in the public interest to provide additional information on this operation.


Mr. Cossitt: To the knowledge of the government, did a KGB agent defect to the United States as a result of "Operation Red Pepper" and, if so (a) what is his/her name (b) what are all the details?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: See question No. 978 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: To the knowledge of the government, what are the complete details of all connections the United States Central Intelligence Agency had with "Operation Red Pepper"?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: See question No. 978 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government possess any knowledge whatsoever concerning Mr. Rudolph Herrmann and, if so (a) what connection, if any, did he have with Professor Hambleton of Laval University (b) was he a KGB colonel or officer of any kind in any division of the Russian intelligence service (c) was he at any time employed by the CBC as a cameraman or by any department or Crown corporation and, if so, on what dates and what was the nature of his work, etc?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, did Mr. Herrmann defect to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation or to the Central Intelligence Agency or was he caught by them engaged in espionage activities?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Government of Canada believes that it would not be in the public's interest to either confirm or deny or provide additional information on this investigation.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, did Professor Hambleton of Laval University, work for the KGB in (a) Canada (b) France (c) Israel (d) Saudi Arabia (e) Spain (0 certain sections of Latin America (g) any other country?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, did Professor Hambleton make the statement, that if he was charged and put on trial "a lot of big names in Ottawa are going to go down with me"?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Government of Canada believes that it would not be in the public's interest to either confirm or deny or provide additional information on this investigation.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Professor Hambleton of Laval University admit to having contact with a known agent of a foreign power and, if so, was he charged under the Official Secrets Act and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Was he receiving coded wireless instructions from Moscow, depositing messages in "dead letter" drops, etc?
3.	What is a complete history of all employment directly or by contract with the government or any Crown corporation by Professor Hambleton, and did he perform certain duties in connection with the Canadian International Development Agency and, if so, what are the details of such duties?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Government of Canada believes that it would not be in the public's interest to either confirm or deny or provide information on this investigation.


[Stage Direction]
Question 1,007-Mr. Friesen:
1.	With reference to customs and tariffs classifications, under what legislative or regulatory authority is form B32 applied?
2.	Was there a pilot project in Hamilton, Ontario, to test the feasibility of applying form B32 at an international level and, if so, on what date did it (a) commence (b) end?
3.	As a result of the project, how many times were forms issued in the Hamilton area and how many (a) appeals were made by the firms involved (b) times did they win the appeal (c) times were withdrawal of privileges to import and/or export issued against the firms as a result of their failure to comply with the form?
4.	Did the form come into effect for general use at a national level and, if so, on what date?
5.	How many times was the form issued to individual firms since the project was initiated in the (a) first three months (b) next three months (c) next three months and so on?
6.	How many times were withdrawal of privileges to import and/or export issued against firms to which a form had been issued?
7.	(a) Since the form came into effect, how many times have appeals been made by firms as a result of the form being issued to them in the (i) first three months (ii) next three months (iii) next three months and so on (b) in each of the periods, how many appeals were won by the firms?
8.	How many times was the form applied to a firm retroactively for a period of between (a) 0 to 3 (b) 3 to 6 (c) 9 to 12 (d) 12 to 15 (e) 15 to 18 (f) 21 to 25 months?
Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
The introduction of the form B32 which replaced the form T32 did not require the passage of regulations because the change was of an administrative nature.
2.	Yes.
(a)	January 16, 1978.
(b)	A decision was made in January, 1979, to implement the forms and procedures nationally; consequently, Hamilton region has been using the forms since January, 1978.
3.	January 16, 1978 to March 31, 1980-8,433 B32's were issued.
(a)	Statistics not available. Requests for re-determination and re-appraisal are not recorded as to arising from B32 or otherwise.
(b)	Statistics not available. See 3(a) above.
(c)	34 (again for period January 16, 1978 to March 31, 1980).
4.	Yes.
Ontario regions-June 1, 1979.
Quebec and maritime regions-July 1, 1979.
April 15, 1981

Western regions-August 1, 1979.
5.	(a) July to September, 1979	16,445(b)	October to December, 1979	15,857(c)	January to March, 1980	16,6616.	Statistics not available. Withdrawal of privileges not recorded as arising from non-payment of B-32 or other.7.	(a) and (b) Statistics not available. See 3(a) above.8.	Statistics not available. Generally the form B32 is issued within the 0-3 month period.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware of a document dated March 3, 1980, issued in Washington and easily available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in which Mr. Rudolph Herrmann, formerly a KGB agent and latterly a double agent for the United States, is mentioned in part as follows, "Herrmann has also provided significant leads on previously identified Soviet agents including Mr. Hugh George Hambleton, a professor at Laval University, Laval, Quebec, Canada" and which later states that Professor Hambleton was identified by Mr. Herrmann as a "long time Soviet agent"?
2.	Has the government taken action in view of this document and Professor Hambleton's reported admission of being a Soviet spy for 30 years to both The Ottawa Journal and the RCMP and, if not, for what reason?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Yes. The document referred to was provided by the F.B.I. to media personnel during a press briefing held in Washington, D.C. on March 3, 1980.
2. This information was assessed by the RCMP and a full brief was presented to the Department of Justice. The evidence available did not indicate, in the opinion of justice, the existence of an offence under the Official Secrets Act.


Mr. Cossitt: Is any security branch of the government, particularly the RCMP aware of a briefing dated March 3, 1980, issued by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning the activities of former Soviet KGB agent Colonel Rudolph Albert Herrmann and, that the briefing stated in part, that Mr. Herrmann furnished the U.S. with "leads on previously unidentified Soviet agents including Hugh George Hambleton, a professor at Laval University in Quebec, Canada" and, further in part, that "Hambleton, whom Herrmann identified as a long time and trusted Soviet agent, has recently been interviewed by Canadian authorities" and, if so, was such information assessed by the RCMP and was Professor Hambleton, a Canadian citizen who was allegedly a Soviet agent, charged under Canadian laws and, if not, for what reason?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The RCMP is aware of the publicly available press release by the Federal Bureau of Investigation dated March 3, 1980.
This information was assessed by the RCMP and a full brief was presented to the Department of Justice. The evidence available did not indicate, in the opinion of justice, the existence of an offence under the Official Secrets Act.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: 1.	Did the Secretary of State place advertisements in the New Brunswick press since December 1, 1980, and, if so (a) in what newspapers (b) at what cost?
2.	Are advertisements planned between February 16 and March 31, 1981, and, if so, in which newspapers?
3.	Are advertisements planned for the period beyond April 1, 1981?
4.	Were such advertisements placed in all New Brunswick papers and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: 1. Since December 15, 1980, the Secretary of State has placed advertisements in New Brunswick's French-language newspapers as a pilot project with three objectives: to promote the Official Language Minority Groups Program; to increase the clientele of the Official Language Minority Groups Program; to stimulate development in an official language minority community.
(a) and (b) For the period from December 15, 1980, to
March 31, 1981, cost:	these advertisements will
L'Evangeline	$51,120
Le Voilier	$ 2,520
La Boueille	$ 2,520
Le Point	$ 2,520
Le Madawaska	$ 2,520
L'Aviron	$ 2,520
2.	Yes, in the same newspapers.
3.	Yes, if the assessment of this pilot project is positive, a similar project, on a national scale, will be developed.
4.	These advertisements were placed only in New Brunswick's French-language newspapers because of the experimental nature of the project and the objectives sought.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During the past five years, what was the total number of CN Express offices that have been closed and (a) what is the number for each year (b) what are the locations of all such offices?
2.	What was the total number of offices closed per province in each of the five years as well as in all the years combined?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.44.
(a) 1980-20 1979- 7 1978- 8 1977- 3 1976- 6

April 15, 1981
(b)
Order Paper Questions			
Province	Name	AmosNova Scotia	Truro	ChandlerAntigonish	GaspeShelburne	JolietteOntario	Collingwood	La TuqueHearst	ShawiniganGuelph	St. HyacintheStratford	St. JeanGravenhurst	SorelKingston	ValleyfieldBrantford	VictoriavilleLonglac	Saskatchewan	MelvilleAtikokan	CanoraCornwall	TisdaleFort Frances	MelfortQuebec	New Carlisle	North BattlefordMontmagny	YorktonArvida	Moose JawMont Joli	Manitoba	Lynn LakeRichmond	DauphinSenneterre	Flin FlonChicoutimi	New Brunswick	NewcastleWaterloo	
2. Terminal closures by province and year
Year	B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	Que.	P.E.I. N.B. N.S.	Total1976	4	I	1	61977	2	1	31978	4	1	1	2	81979	6	1	71980	3	2	4	10	1	20Total	7	3	11	19	1 3	44


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place a $141,082 contract with Carl Zeiss Canada Ltd. for a stereocord system and accessories and, if so, for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: A contract was awarded by the Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence to Carl Zeiss Canada Ltd. for a stereocord system and accessories. The Stereocord system is used to interpret aerial photographs.


Mr. Blenkarn: Is the government considering changing the Department of Insurance Act to provide a guarantee fund to protect those who buy casualty insurance from the defaults of the casualty insurers?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
Department of Insurance is studying a number of aspects of the legislation governing insurance companies with a view to preparing recommendations for appropriate amendments or perhaps a general revision. In the course of that study, the department will be giving attention to the guarantee funds that exist in some other jurisdictions. The government has not fixed any policy in connection with these matters.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 15, 1981


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers Be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Phillip Kaplan: that Bill C-61, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is the first bill I have had the opportunity to present as Solicitor General. Indeed I am very proud to be able to bring forward Bill C-61, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
At the outset I must say that this bill did not originate with me. Indeed, the legislation it is replacing is 73 years old; it has been virtually unchanged over that period, but not unexamined. Within the last 14 years and, more intensively, within the last nine years, there have been steady examinations of it and consultations about it between the levels of government. Because of the large number of solicitors general of Canada in the last five or six years, possibly none of them has been in a position to review the provisions and bring forward a bill which they would have been prepared to explain, defend and discuss with the provinces in the final sense.
Having now had the opportunity to be Solicitor General for a year and one month, I have been able to put myself in a position to bring this bill forward as my own recommendation to cabinet and to the House and I look forward to a full examination of it. I hope it may even be possible today to refer it to the justice committee so that it can be examined in depth and that the many experts across the country who are interested in this bill, and who have been consulted about it, will be able to come before the committee, make their views known and give their advice with respect to the bill. Although the bill merits considerable discussion, and I know it is of considerable interest to many, I hope it may be possible to refer it to the justice committee today.
I expect the bill will enjoy substantial support. I think the views presented to the committee will greatly illuminate discussion by Members of Parliament. That is why I think a
Young Offenders Act
relatively short period of time should be devoted to second reading and then the bill could be referred to committee.
As I indicated, this new legislation will repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which is now seriously out of date and out of time with contemporary practices and attitudes regarding juvenile justice. It is inadequate to meet the current problems of young persons in conflict with the law. The proposed legislation, which is aimed at providing an updated and comprehensive process to deal with juvenile crime which encourages both respect for the law and protects the well-being of both the young offender and society, is long overdue.
The new legislation, which is to be known as the Young Offenders Act, is the result of extensive study and consultation by the federal government with the provinces, academics, professionals and practitioners in the juvenile justice field, as well as major associations and groups, private agencies and the general public. I acknowledge that all of this consultation has had a major impact on formulating the underlying principles and the over-all substance of this legislation.
Despite the fact that this basic approach was developed out of a sense of benevolence and welfare, many are now of the opinion that treatment and rehabilitation can no longer stand on their own to serve or protect the better interests of children in a system which deals with offenders under the authority of the criminal law. It is further argued that, as society insists more and more on responsibility on the part of the young offender, his right to fair treatment in accordance with the principles of natural justice can no longer be left, as they have been under the present law, to the discretion of those persons in authority.
I believe that we should no longer condone by prolonging the existence of the Juvenile Delinquents Act injustices and shortcomings such as the following: discrimination against young persons by unnecessarily criminalizing them for various acts and behaviour which are not illegal for adults and which in most instances more properly belong to the domain of child welfare and youth protection legislation. I refer, for example, to the offence of being a juvenile delinquent, which is an offence under the existing law. It is very vague in its nature and it is sometimes used in parts of our country to deal with, for example, a young person who will not tell his parents where he goes at night and why he has money in his pocket. It is the type of offence which is too vague and not in keeping with modern ideas of young people having equal rights as adults have.
The second difficulty is the subjection under the existing law to indeterminate court sentences which may not be related to the seriousness of the offence committed and which may be more severe than the sentence an adult would receive for committing the same offence.
Another shortcoming is the subjection of young persons to an arbitrary review process whereby they may be brought back before the court at any time until they reach the age of 21, when new sanctions can be applied against them without new offences having been committed, including a belated transfer

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
to adult court. This, in effect, is double jeopardy which applies under the existing law.
The final point I want to refer to is the subjection of young persons to informal court procedures and decision-making which do not guarantee them the right to legal counsel or a full opportunity to challenge their accusers and participate in decisions which affect them.
While I could go on, I prefer to limit the listing to the most obvious inequities and deficiencies. In so doing I want to assure hon. members that it is not my intention to impart the impression that such represents a description of the daily practice of juvenile courts in the country, but rather I would point out that some of these inherent weaknesses in the existing law have a tremendous potential for abuse and arbitrary action. Credit should be paid to juvenile judges and provincial administrators who, in most instances, have extended to young persons rights which are well beyond those provided by the letter of the law and which will be taken account of on a fundamentally secure, judicial basis under the proposed legislation.
The proposed legislation blends three principles. The first is that young people should be held more responsible for their behaviour, but not wholly accountable since they are not yet fully mature and are dependent on others. The second point is that society has a right to protection from illegal behaviour, even though committed by a minor. The third point is that young persons have the same rights to due process of law, natural justice and fair and equal treatment as adults, and that these rights must be guaranteed by special safeguards. Thus, the bill is intended to strike a reasonable and acceptable balance between the needs of young offenders and the interests of society.
I would like to highlight some of the provisions contained in the proposed legislation which seek to implement these principles. A significant feature of the proposed young offenders legislation is the abolition of the omnibus offence of delinquency itself. Under the new legislation, a young person would only be charged with a specific offence against the Criminal Code of Canada or other federal statutes and regulations. Misbehaviour, which presently constitutes the so-called "status offences", would no longer be an offence under the act. This proposal more realistically reflects the jurisdictional responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments under the Constitution. As well, it reflects the practice developed in many jurisdictions of decriminalizing behaviour which is seen as not being sufficiently serious to rationalize its continued inclusion under criminal law.
The age of criminal responsibility would be raised from seven years of age to 12. I firmly believe that the age of seven is much too young an age at which to attribute criminal responsibility. Children so young should more realistically be the subject of non-criminal proceedings such as child neglect and protection proceedings. I think I ought to note that there is, I believe, unanimous agreement among provincial attorneys general about this particular provision.
Under the existing law the provinces enjoy the flexibility of having the maximum age of jurisdiction set at any level, varying from under 16 to 18 years of age. Accordingly, the maximum age now varies across Canada. While promoting a maximum age of under 18 years, the new legislation will continue to allow the federal government to vary the maximum age at under 16 or 17 years at the request of a province. The most common criticism levelled against the new legislation is the lack of a fixed, uniform age for the entire country. Although it is clearly the preferred position of the federal government that uniformity should prevail, and many provinces agree with this concept, it has become abundantly clear as a result of the consultation process that there is no agreement and that it is impossible to achieve agreement on a uniform maximum age to apply across the country.
Provinces cannot agree on what that maximum age should be for dealing with young persons in a specialized juvenile justice system, both for philosophical and practical reasons. Differences exist as to when an individual is or should be considered sufficiently mature to be held responsible and dealt with as an adult. Practically speaking, due to the specialized programs, resources and services which are in place to deal with young offenders, considerable program shifts and adjustments would be required if the maximum age, which is under 18, were to be made uniform. Accordingly, it is proposed that the flexible upper limit be retained. Nevertheless, as a standard I hope the provinces-those who do not presently do so- will consider moving toward the age of under 18, as has been suggested by the federal government.
One particular feature of the proposed legislation is the acknowledgement that alternative measures to the court process can be used at appropriate times and in appropriate cases. It has been recognized for some time that many persons are brought to court unnecessarily when other effective ways may exist to deal with them and their behaviour problems. Such alternatives which have become popularized in the form of screening and diversion are not intended as a substitute for the judicial process, but rather to provide additional options for dealing with young persons who commit offences.
Informal and discretionary pre-judicial processes have become part and parcel of juvenile justice policy and administration in Canada. Police discretion, for instance, has for years been a fundamental cornerstone in the administration of justice. Probation and social service personnel make and accept referrals and undertake to initiate alternative agreements and programs with offenders, all in the interest of settling disputes and avoiding the utilization of formal court proceedings. Such approaches not only avoid unnecessary referral to the courts, but can offer the young person the opportunity to accept responsibility for his behaviour and become voluntarily involved in the resolution of his wrongdoing, frequently with the victim being involved.
However, we have been equally conscious of the controversy which exists between individuals and groups who espouse the
April 15, 1981

informal versus the formal disposition of juvenile cases. There remain many concerns about the inherent dangers of exercising unfettered discretion in the application of diversion programs and to make sure that informality not trench upon the basic legal rights of young persons and their equitable treatment.
One of the criticisms of the new law has been to the effect that the federal government should have made diversion mandatory and more explicit. But the proponents of such arguments fail to recognize the importance to the young person of having the right to plead not guilty and the role of the provinces in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The use of alternative measures, in my opinion, is better left to the discretion of provinces which can develop programs to suit their particular circumstances.
For these and other reasons, including the belief that there is yet much to learn through experience about the diversion concept itself, new legislation does not prescribe any formal model or mechanism of diversion. While the legislation will sanction such practices in law, it will leave it to the provinces to decide what type of diversion programs will be implemented. Of particular importance, however, is the fact that the legislation does contain a number of conditions and safeguards which must be applied so as to protect young persons against potential abuses and arbitrary action. For example, that the young person must freely consent to participate and retains the option, at any time, of having the matter dealt with by a court; that the young person has the right to consult legal counsel before agreeing to any diversion program; and that alternative measures are not to be used in any case unless there exists sufficient evidence to proceed with the prosecution of an offence.
Another of the deficiencies of the existing law is in regard to its disposition or sentencing provisions. The proposed legislation will directly address the outdated and inadequate features of present sentencing policies by furnishing the youth court with a range of dispositions which delineate not only the over-all shift in the philosophy of the proposed act, but, more specifically, address currently accepted sentencing principles. Accordingly, the new legislation proposes a precisely defined range of sentencing options which will take into account the special circumstances and needs of young persons, while allowing sufficient scope and flexibility to provide for the rights and needs of victims of crime and address the need to protect society in appropriate cases.
Increased emphasis will be placed on formalizing in law community-based dispositions, such as community service, compensation and restitution orders, as methods of promoting, on the part of the offender, a greater sense of responsibility and understanding for his illegal behaviour, while at the same time attempting to promote reconciliation between offender and victim. These dispositions would be in addition to those of a supervisory nature, such as probation orders, where special conditions and requirements could be attached to meet the assessed needs and concerns both of the individual and also the community. Other dispositions would include an absolute dis-
Young Offenders Act
charge or the application of a fine which, under the proposed legislation, could reach a maximum limit of $1,000 as compared to the limit in the existing law of $25. In effect, the option of a fine, which is a very efficient form of punishment where appropriate, has really been unavailable because of the low ceiling imposed by the existing law which causes it to be a type of penalty that is not very meaningful.
Under the new legislation, the use of custody will be seen as a final resort which, when contemplated, is to be exercised with the utmost restraint. When it is being considered, it should reflect the seriousness of factors attendant to a specific offence or offences. Custodial dispositions will therefore only be given after very careful consideration, since they represent a radical restriction of a young person's freedom.
The youth court judge who is considering custody for an offender must request a predisposition report. Reasons must be given by the court for all dispositions. Custodial dispositions will be for definite periods of time but may not exceed two years in duration for a given offence, nor can they exceed the maximum period for which an adult could be sentenced for the same offence.
With regard to custody, it is important to note that the definition thereof is very broad, allowing a province to designate a variety of custodial facilities ranging from detention or containment centres to wilderness camps, community training residences or group homes. The essential feature in regard to all custodial facilities is that the young person's access to the community is restricted.
While the new legislation recognizes that the youth court is the authority which should decide whether young persons will be committed to custody, it also recognizes that there must be some built-in flexibility to allow the director of the provincial services plan to implement effective programs. Therefore, once the youth court has made a custody order, it leaves to the provincial director the administrative decision on the place and level of custody appropriate for the young offender.
The provincial director also has the flexibility to move offenders between institutions and programs and can authorize temporary releases to the community. In addition, the director can initiate an early release of a young person who is in custody to allow him or her to serve the balance of the disposition on probation in the community. Such a release is however, subject to review by the youth court at the request of the parties concerned.
It is the intent of the new act that the progress and welfare of young persons who receive custodial or other types of disposition should be subject to continuing attention and monitoring during the term of the disposition. To meet this objective, and to ensure that the public interest is safeguarded, an innovative and extensive review process is provided for, which will give all parties the opportunity not only to initiate the review of any dispositions but to attend and be heard. There will be a mandatory review in the case of any custodial disposition exceeding one year.

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
Contrary to the Juvenile Delinquent's Act, which is silent on the matter, the new legislation contains provisions regulating the creation, maintenance, confidentiality and use of juvenile court records. Under the present legislation, it is possible for an individual to carry the label "delinquent" well beyond his youth and, indeed, possibly for life. Although young offenders are intended to take responsibility for their illegal behaviour, the consequences for them are not intended to be as severe as those applied to adults in the ordinary courts. Therefore, when a young offender has completed his or her sentence and committed no further offence for a qualifying period, the record will be destroyed. The young person will thus be given a fresh start when he or she has shown it is deserved. The effect of this provision is that there would in law be no conviction against the young person; he or she would not face all the disabilities that flow from having a criminal record. That provision, I feel, should provide a young person with a major incentive to mend his or her ways.
The final aspect of the new legislation which I wish to deal with and which is of major significance is that of the rights of young persons. In determining the responsibility of young persons under new legislation, it is to be recognized that young persons have particular rights and freedoms, including the right to be heard in the course of, and to participate in, the processes that lead to decisions that affect them, as well the opportunity to be informed of their right as guaranteed under the law.
The foregoing principle is representative of our belief that the full exercise of due process under the law should be extended to young persons. We can no longer operate under a system of procedural irregularity when a young person's freedom and liberty are at stake, nor should a young person be exposed to the sanctions of the criminal law without at the same time receiving the benefits of the built-in protections it has to offer. A young person must be given the opportunity to defend himself and be judged in accordance with the principles of natural justice. No longer can we dispense with such fundamental rights because they are seen to conflict with treatment and rehabilitation ideologies, nor allow the exercise of unfettered discretion in dealing with young persons. I believe that the goals of reformation and rehabilitation for children are compatible with the protection of procedural guarantees.
Under the proposed legislation, the young person would have the right to retain and instruct counsel at all stages of proceedings in which he is involved. Special safeguards would be established in order to assure proper and equitable practices in the taking of statements. Parents would be notified of any arrest, detention and court appearance respecting their child and granted the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Rules of evidence and procedure would provide the opportunity to challenge the Crown's case and present a defence. Furthermore, young persons would be granted the same rights of appeal as are available to adults.
It must seem strange to those who are unfamiliar with the existing legislation which affects young persons to hear that these rights and procedures do not presently exist. I look forward very much to moving those particular aspects of the legislation forward. The proposed legislation, which has undergone many changes and modifications in response to the views and recommendations expressed through a lengthy consultation process, will bring us a significant step closer to the achievement of a desired equilibrium between the prime objective of the criminal law to protect the public from criminal behaviour and the desirability of ministering to the needs of young persons who come into conflict with the law.
Last summer I had the honour and privilege of leading the Canadian delegation attending the sixth United Nations congress on crime and treatment of offenders in Caracas, at which the subject of juvenile justice was an official agenda topic. I was greatly encouraged by the fact that the only resolution adopted on this subject was to the effect that standard minimum rules for the administration of juvenile justice should be developed so as to protect the fundamental rights of young persons. The specific principles agreed upon largely reflected those included in the proposed Young Offenders Act.
I must say I am equally gratified to see the solid support and encouragement extended to the government and myself by the press and others who have commented on the new legislation. I am hopeful, as I indicated at the outset, that the bill can be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for further examination at an early date, and I will do my utmost to prevent any unwarranted delays in the passage of this legislation, the realization of which is so crucial to the youth of the country.
I want to add a word about a study, which I authorized and is now under way, of the juvenile justice system. What I have in mind and what is being developed by the research division of my ministry is a study on the functioning of, the juvenile court to examine the activities undertaken by juvenile justice personnel in response to young persons being introduced to the juvenile justice system, observing the processing of juveniles in court, conducting surveys of court personnel and of parents and juveniles observed in the court. This is a study which will involve seven private research organizations in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Kelowna, B.C., Granby, Cowansville and Saint-Hyacinthe. There will also be a research initiative directed toward the rural circuit outside of Edmonton.
What I have in mind and what this study, which will cover a period of years, will develop is an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, in the hope that changes can be made to the administration and that there can be an assessment of the effectiveness of the legislation I am now presenting in its early years of operation. This would show whether there are ways that the system could be made more effective and efficient in order to achieve its goals and also to satisfy taxpayers that it is operating as effectively and efficiently as possible.
April 15, 1981

May I conclude by urging the House to refer this legislation to the justice committee, so that the views of experts can be added to those of Members of Parliament, the legislation can be given full consideration and brought into effect as expeditiously as possible.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pick up on the last sentence spoken by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) with respect to this very important legislation. I know this has been a long session. We have had a long constitutional debate and a lot of us are tired, so I do not want to overreact; but if the Solicitor General is sincerely interested in getting this legislation through and in dealing with it in an expeditious and efficient manner, he might start off with the normal courtesy of bringing the legislation on when the official critic of our party is in the House. The Solicitor General was in touch with me yesterday. He knew that the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) was required to be out of the city today on official business.
This matter has been sitting on the Solicitor General's desk for well over a year. It is no secret, and he admits it, that the legislation was essentially drafted for him by his predecessor, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland. It is unfortunate that he has taken the unusual step of bringing it forward when he knows that our critic is not here, expecting us to deal with it in a propre manner. While I have an overview of the subject, I do not have the detailed and expert knowledge of the legislation that could be provided by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland. I am sorry that the spirit of cooperation which should prevail in this House was not shown here.
It was not bad enough for the minister to bring this legislation in at an inappropriate time, in the absence of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), both of whom have given a lot of consideration to this topic, but he has the effrontery to bring it forward at a time when the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is sitting in another location on Parliament Hill and dealing with a very important matter.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had a fairly lengthy discussion with the official Conservative critic, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), about this matter. I indicated to him that I would not reflect on or mention his absence, but my friend has done so. I think one ought to remind the House that Parliament is sitting now and the top priority of the Members of Parliament should be to attend to the requirements of this chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate that the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland is away on official business. This was known to the minister.
Young Offenders Act
Many of us have been faithful in our attendance in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. We have been dealing with a very important piece of legislation with respect to freedom of information. A very important witness is there today, a former colleague of ours, Mr. Ged Baldwin. The problem which causes many of us some embarrassment is not being able to be in two places at one time. The minister can ask for co-operation from our side. However, once he starts co-operating on his side, he can rest assured that we on this side will do everything possible to give this bill proper, efficient and adequate consideration. We will not be unduly delaying this matter. Rather we want to get this bill into committee.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why did your House leader agree?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister asks why the House leader agreed. The minister phoned and asked me specifically while I was in a committee meeting yesterday about the timing of bringing this legislation forward. I do not want to dwell on this aspect too long. I just want to let the minister know how unhappy I am with the way in which he has conducted himself. I agreed to make some calls to see whether it would be appropriate to go ahead and accommodate the minister in his request, but before I got back to my office I was advised that the deal was already finalized. We were advised and informed unilaterally by the government House leader, without any suggestion that there was anything wrong with it, that this legislation would be brought forward today. I have said enough about it now; I do not want to waste any more time. I simply say that I am very unhappy with the way in which this matter has been dealt with. I just want to vent my spleen, if I may, on the minister at this point so I can deal with the merits of the legislation in a proper way.
I want to deal with the bill and some of the developments which have taken place in regard to it. As the minister has pointed out, the legislation which this bill is replacing, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, was adopted in 1908. It was passed as a result of a concerted campaign by several child care workers and magistrates who were inspired by the youth court movement in the United States and the social reform ideas in vogue at that time.
In 1929, the act was consolidated with amendments which revised it somewhat. That was as a result of a federal-provincial conference on the revision of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Despite minor amendments made by Parliament in 1932, 1935, 1936, 1947, 1949, 1951, 1972 and 1979, the act is to all intents and purposes the same legislation as that which existed in 1929.
I want to draw to the attention of the House some of the main features of the legislation. The philosophy of the present Juvenile Delinquents Act is a parents patriae social welfare type of approach wherein juveniles are seen as not being responsible for their actions. Juvenile courts are given complete jurisdiction over a child who has committed a delinquency, which might consist of a violation of the Criminal Code, a federal-provincial statute, a bylaw or an ordinance of a munic-

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
ipality, performance of immoral acts of some description or definition.
Under the present legislation, no formal diversion procedure exists whereby a young person is sent to a social agency rather than being processed by the court. Under the present legislation, if a young person has committed a delinquency, a judge can impose sanctions alone or in combination with such things as a fine of up to $25, placement on probation or placement in a foster home. There is provision for committal to the care of the Children's Aid Society or committal to a training school as well as the possibility of imposition of other conditions, such as restitution or the performance of a community service.
It may be important for us to understand what has led up to this particular legislation. There has been a considerable amount of consultation and study. A number of publications and reports have been prepared and issued on the problem of juvenile delinquents. In 1961, the then minister of justice established a five-man departmental committee on juvenile delinquents. In 1966, the standing committee in this House reported on juvenile delinquency and the report was tabled in the House. In 1968, a federal-provincial conference of justice ministers was held. They discussed the justice committee report and the reform of the juvenile justice system. In 1970, legislation was introduced through Bill C-192 in that year; it was called the young offenders act. It received first reading but was allowed to die because of some severe criticism levelled at the legislation during the course of that year.
In 1973, a federal-provincial conference of corrections ministers was held. They established a federal-provincial review group on the juvenile justice system. Also in that year, the solicitor general at the time set up an interdepartmental committee on young persons in conflict with the law. In 1975, that committee submitted its report. Between 1975 and 1977, the solicitor general's department initiated a consultative process on the 1975 committee report. In 1977, the solicitor general tabled a document called "Highlights of the Proposed New Legislation for Young Offenders". In June 1977, a federal-provincial conference of attorneys general and ministers of corrections discussed the highlights of the proposals. In 1979, the parliamentary secretary to the then solicitor general tabled the document entitled "Legislative Proposals to Replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act".
The present state of affairs in Canada is simply this. The juvenile justice problem is a significant one. In 1978, there were close to 91,000 delinquencies processed under the existing act. It is widely recognized that the law as it presently stands is outmoded and ineffective. It is badly in need of modernization. The preceding administration of the Progressive Conservative government had undertaken to make significant changes in the law, as evidenced in the document tabled in the fall of 1979 to which I have just referred.
To the extent this bill, C-61, is a manifestation of a realization that the law is in need of change, it is welcomed literally by everyone in the justice field. Many studies and reports that have been done in recent years indicate clearly there is need for change.
I want to look briefly at some of the provisions of the bill and consider the consequences and changes that are affected by this legislation. First, in terms of the policy approach of the bill, the minister made reference to the basic premise and philosophy of the bill in his opening remarks today. He referred to the three principles of the legislation. First, that young people should be held more responsible, although not wholly or fully accountable, with respect to their activities; second, that society does have a right to protection; third, that the young offender does have a right to due process and fair treatment.
The philosophy of the existing legislation respecting juvenile delinquents is found in Section 3(2). It provides that a child shall be dealt with "not as an offender, but as one in a condition of delinquency and therefore requiring help and guidance and proper supervision." If members refer to the paper tabled in this House in October 1975, they will see that the provision in the bill is similar to those set forth on pages 2 and 3 of the legislative proposals tabled by the then solicitor general.
Second, with regard to offences covered by jurisdiction, this bill covers only specific offences against the Criminal Code and other federal statutes and regulations. The offence of delinquency under the present law is abolished; the minister made reference to that. I will return to that aspect of the bill because there are some areas in which intensive negotiations and discussions with provincial counterparts will be absolutely essential to ensure that the legislation is fully effective. Without the assistrance and co-operation of the provincial authorities, the legislation will not be effective. In fact, it will suffer some very serious defects.
The position with respect to restricting the application of this legislation to the federal area of jurisdiction is in keeping with the recommendation made by the Law Reform Commission. It suggested excluding less serious conduct from the ambit of criminal law. I again refer hon. members to the 1979 report, page 4.
The third aspect is the way in which this bill deals with jurisdiction by age. The minister pointed out that the age of criminal responsibility has been raised from seven to 12 years of age. The maximum age will be 18 years. However, at the request of a province, the government may set the age of under 16 or 17 as the maximum in a particular province. The present legislation sets the maximum age at under 16, but allows for the establishment of different maximum ages upon provincial request.
This provision is quite interesting to me. I will refer to that later as well. It is an arbitrary age. There are some difficulties in terms of legislation affecting people on the basis of age. There are different people involved, different levels of maturity and development and different circumstances. I am sure everyone here will agree with the increase in the age to which this legislation would apply. As the minister stated, there have been consultations with the provinces. Two provinces suggest-
April 15, 1981

ed that the minimum age be raised to 14. The remaining provinces, the majority of those consulted, were satisfied with age 12. Statistics show that a significant number of 12 and 13 year olds are in conflict with the law. We should look at this revision if there is some area of complaint with respect to the way in which these particular provisions are going to apply in relation to uniformity of law across Canada.
In our debate recently on the Constitution, the government introduced the concept of opting out. Yet this is a very undesirable trait in legislation, according to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other spokesmen for the government, including the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). We have to ask ourselves whether this kind of provision will provide for the so-called checkerboard effect across Canada. For example, a young person may commit a criminal offence on the Mac-donald-Cartier bridge which crosses the Ottawa river between Ontario and Quebec. At which end of the bridge the offence is committed will have some bearing. At one end of the bridge, if charged, he can take advantage of the Young Offenders Act, whereas if it occurs at the other end in the other province, it is quite a different proposition. One province may have determined the appropriate maximum age is 16, whereas in the other jurisdiction it may be under 18. I do not know where that would lead. Young offenders may decide to move to a jurisdiction where they can take advantage of a more modern law.
In terms of principles of criminal law and the uniformity concept, we should look at bringing some uniformity to this provision. It has been suggested by such people as the distinguished member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) that during the course of committee meetings we provide an option to those under the age of 18 years to make application in an adult court to have the young offenders provisions apply. In other words, young people across Canada could have available to them the provisions of this act even though the age of majority varies from province to province.
Suggestions will be made in committee in the hope we can come to some conclusion. I take it from the remarks of the Solicitor General there will be full and thorough examination in committee. There will be an opportunity to consult broadly with the people involved, young offenders and other young people, counsellors and others involved in pilot projects across Canada. The committee should have the advantage of that kind of testimony and full opportunity to ensure that the legislation will be the most effective that we can pass in this House. That is certainly the intent of members of my party, and I trust of all members of the House.
I want to deal with another aspect of the bill with regard to the diversion provisions. The bill makes special provision for diversions. Not all young persons who break federal laws have to appear in the youth court. Under this legislation, in lieu of having a case tried before the court, they have the option of providing a community service or agreeing to make restitution to the victim. This is all voluntary. It is an interesting and novel provision which I believe will receive general support.
Young Offenders Act
There is nothing in the bill to preclude the accused from having the right to have the matter tried in the young offenders court where guilt or innocence can be established. Under the present legislation, there is no provision for a formal diversion procedure. There are provisions which have a similar effect in that a judge may have a hearing and then provide that the matter be adjourned sine die, to a date in the future not specified, without having guilt established if the accused agrees to some type of rehabilitative program. While there has been the development of this kind of practice in the courts, this new legislation will give formal recognition to the ability of the court to allow the accused young offender to perform a community service or make restitution without the necessity of fighting the case. It seems to me it has been recognized for some time that the criminal law need not be invoked in all circumstances. Many young people are needlessly appearing in juvenile courts.
I want to turn now to the nature of proceedings under this particular legislation. The bill is said to establish strong guidelines for proceedings. Offenders rights are made explicit; there is a right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings and a judge is required under this legislation to advise young people of their rights. This is different from the present act which is silent on rights. It provides that under summary conviction procedures the provisions of the Criminal Code apply. It also provides that all trials shall be as informal as possible. We will want to look at these provisions to make sure the rights and interests of not only the alleged young offender but also of society as a whole are adequately protected. We are entering new ground, uncharted waters, in this area.
The fifth aspect I should like to deal with has regard to the provisions in respect of detention and bail. The bill gives the same entitlement to bail as exists for adult offenders at the present time. The legislation does contain provisions by which notice must be given to a young person's parents, and provisions under which a young offender will by and large, in every case possible, be detained separately from adult offenders. The bill does provide that a young offender can be placed in the hands of a responsible adult to avoid the strict custody contemplated by incarceration in an institution.
The sixth aspect deals with transfer to adult court. This bill would allow such transfer when an offence is committed by a young offender after his fourteenth birthday. There are explicit criteria provided to guide a judge's decision. A judge must consider the so-called predisposition report and the parents' representations before making a transfer order, and transfer orders in themselves are subject to appeal. Again this is another area we will want to look at very closely, particularly the criteria judges must consider when making an order, to make sure the rights of young offenders and society are adequately and properly protected.
The seventh aspect is in respect of disposition. The minister has referred to disposition, known otherwise as sentencing powers. There is a wide range of options, anywhere from

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
absolute discharge to incarceration for up to two years, with a wide range of additional conditions which a judge may feel appropriate under the circumstances.
Other aspects of the bill which are dealt with are fingerprinting and photographs. The bill does provide for photographs and fingerprints to be taken, but these are to be destroyed if there is an acquittal or if the proceedings are discontinued. There are also special provisions in respect of storage of these kinds of records, with control of access to the information in respect of young offenders. The present act is silent with regard to the authority to take photographs and fingerprints. This issue has been the subject of conflicting judicial determination in the recent past, so these provisions will be helpful in clarifying a situation which is now unclear, at least on the basis of judicial interpretation.
The bill does provide for public hearings. As members of the House know, juvenile delinquency matters have by and large been carried on in camera, away from public scrutiny. At the present time there is a prohibition against publication in the press particularly of names mentioned in the deliberations before a juvenile court. Under this bill the courtroom will be open, but restrictions remain on press reports regarding trials in juvenile courts.
The philosophy under the present act was that trials of children should take place without publicity and separately and apart from the trials of other accused persons. Everyone will agree that in camera hearings should be, and generally are, viewed with some suspicion and are more susceptible to potential abuse. As long as protection is afforded the young offender, with a prohibition against the publication of names and identifying information in relation to the young offender, it may be a step forward in opening the whole process of allowing more access to these courts, placing the court, its officers and even the judiciary under public scrutiny.
I will conclude my comments by dealing with some of the principles of the bill. With regard to youth court records under this legislation, when a sentence is completed and no further offence is committed within a qualifying period the records will be destroyed. The qualifying period is two years for a summary conviction and five years for an indictable conviction.
In the present situation there is no provision for the destruction of records, and there are no regulations for the creation and maintenance of confidentiality of, or accessibility to, juvenile records. Indeed, a young person after conviction could be labelled a delinquent for life under the law as it now exists. That situation will be changed by these provisions. As I say, there can be no argument against the proposition that young persons should be responsible for their actions, but one would hope that these illegal acts carried out by people in their youth should not carry severely undue consequences. One thing hoped to be accomplished by this legislation is that young people will be given an opportunity to make a fresh start in life through rehabilitation and redemption.
I think it fair to imply in general terms that our party agrees
with the concept contained in this legislation. It is in fact
modelled very much on the legislation brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, when he was solicitor general. I recall that the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland said when this legislation was tabled he would grade it in terms of the three Rs. He said the bill does in fact give greater responsibility, does in fact provide for greater rights in respect of young offenders and does provide for greater flexibility in rehabilitation.
As I said at the outset, I do not know why the Solicitor General had to wait for the one day in the whole year when the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland was out of the House to bring forward this legislation. That hon. member may have been away another day because of illness, but I believe this is only the second day he has been absent. He is a faithful attendant. The fact of the matter is that the matter has been before him for some considerable time. He has indicated there are some provisions which must be looked at in terms of our committee work. It is very important for us to see that we obtain the best possible legislation, and I have addressed myself to some of its aspects. Obviously this bill cannot be the whole or total solution to the problem. It can only treat the symptoms of the disease. Young people in our country in their formative years need to be given some alternative to being on the streets and facing very severe criminal consequences.
There are some statistics which are quite distressing in terms of the development of criminal records and in terms of criminal activities in our country. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of adult criminals in Canada had their first brush with the law as juveniles. In such places as Winnipeg, Manitoba authorities have been in contact with more than 10,000 juveniles with respect to a variety of delinquencies ranging from highway traffic infractions to murder. The investigation to which I am referring revealed that boys as young as 15 years of age were charged with attempted murder and rape last year. In 1980, ten-year-old males were turned over to juvenile authorities to face charges of indecent assault and wounding. Boys of eight were charged with robbery.
As we sit in our comfortable pews across the country, we sometimes do not realize that these kinds of offences are occurring. I once came home to my own house and found that a magnificent robbery had taken place there. There was hardly a trace of the robbers. There was a broken window under a porch. It was a very professional job. I saw a couple of leaves on the floor. The perpetrators had gone upstairs without disturbing a thing and had taken a collection of silver coins. I was just amazed at that time to find that the robbers were two eight-year-olds. They were caught because a confectioner in the district became suspicious when he saw those silver coins. He called the police, who apprehended the boys. I happened to be talking to the juvenile court judge the next day. I told him how surprised I was to see these young children involved in this theft. It was hard for me to believe. He said, "This is the third time they have been before me". They each were eight years old.
April 15, 1981

This shows that some new approach has to be taken with respect to allowing such children opportunities for another new chance. This legislation by itself will not solve all these problems, but let us hope it is some assistance in terms of creating a slightly different attitude toward juvenile offenders.
Of course, certain young offenders are not covered by this legislation. They will be dealt with by social welfare officials, which gives rise to a conundrum. We are raising the age to 12 years, and everyone agrees that that is good, but whether social welfare agencies in each of the provinces will be able to deal adequately with this kind of situation is another problem.
I think we should look at these things in committee and try to determine what is best for our young people and for society.
On February 14, 1981 the Winnipeg Free Press reported on an interview given by Sister Geraldine MacNamara, the director of the Rossbrook House, which will be known to hon. members from Winnipeg. Sister Geraldine spoke about young people getting into conflicts with the law at early ages. In the article Sister Geraldine said:
"If you have children getting into conflict with the law at a very early age it seems there are several other factors at work besides simple moral depravity-"
The article went on to say:
These young people are dealt with by professionals briefly or taken care of for a year or two in an institution and are then "immediately thrown right back into the same situation they came from," she said.
They must be given alternatives to a life on the street.
"As long as neighborhoods are allowed to deteriorate and people are left in a virtually hopeless situation, social problems like young offenders will continue," she said.
I suppose people such as the good sister who deal with these problems have an understanding of some of the problems we face in society with respect to dealing with young offenders and the very serious difficulties we have in trying to create an atmosphere in which these young people can have the opportunity in life so many of us have enjoyed in our great country, with its terrific potential and the opportunities which are available. If opportunities are available for so many, they should be available for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In this context I want also to make reference to the vital importance of working in conjunction with the provinces. Because if this legislation is passed in its present form, children under the age of 12 will no longer be covered under any provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act or the proposed young offenders act. Violations of provincial and municipal law will no longer be covered under the legislation, so the provinces need time and should be given time to develop appropriate complementary legislation.
An interview with Ross Paisley, the deputy attorney general of the province of Alberta, was reported in The Calgary Herald on February 18, 1981. In that interview Mr. Paisley said, and I quote:
"We've been working on this-
That is, complementary legislation to the proposed young offenders act.
Young Offenders Act
-for some time and now just hope that we have enough lead time to get it into place"-
The article went on to say:
The proposed act does not cover offences under provincial and municipal laws. The province, Paisley said, must therefore develop complementary legislation to deal with provincial and municipal offences.
He also made reference to the fact that his department will have to examine the child welfare act in that province to see if it needs beefing up in its provisions for children under the age of 12 years. This indicates that each of the provincial jurisdictions will now be directly affected by this legislation since it will put a new onus and a new responsibility on the provinces to deal with the void which now exists because of the changes brought about by this legislation.
In view of the fact that the federal government is taking this initiative, it is absolutely essential that there be full co-operation with provincial authorities to make sure there is, if at all possible, the most uniform treatment of our young people in Canada. It is one thing for the federal government to take steps which would reduce its responsibility under this act; it is another thing to do it only after such time as it is satisfied that there is adequate provision made for young people under the age of 12.
My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), has pointed out to me that there has been some work done with respect to a diversion program in his city of St. John's. He indicates to me that it is an extremely impressive pilot project. He points out that the program secretariat was established in May of 1979. In September of 1979, the program received its first cases. Since that time more than 350 juveniles have paticipated in this pre-charge program which has brought both offender and victim together to work out a suitable settlement. Twenty-three volunteer mediators underwent training for their work, and these 23 volunteer mediators have been involved in mediation sessions, which have attempted to focus the responsibility on the offender. I think this is one of the purposes of this legislation.
My colleague has also brought to my attention some research work which has been done by a Dr. Frechette, who has been conducting research on juvenile offenders within the juvenile court system of Montreal. Dr. Frechette's early findings leave no doubt that the expansion of diversion programs, self-help programs and so forth is urgently needed across this country. Thus far, Dr. Frechette has studied 400 juvenile offenders. Of those 400 cases, 50 per cent have already made adult court appearances. Of those 200 individuals, between 70 and 80 have been sentenced to terms in penitentiaries. The question is and remains, how many of those 200 individuals might have been spared appearances in court in their adult years if programs such as diversion had been in operation?
We in this party are prepared to deal in a responsible manner with this legislation. I trust the legislation will be dealt with fairly and expeditiously. I hope it will be before the committee as soon as the committee has completed its work on

April 15, 1981
Voung Offenders Act
the freedom of information legislation, which I hope will be completed before too long.
We compliment the Solicitor General for following the initiative which was taken by the previous solicitor general, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland. In his very brief period of time, he was an outstanding solicitor general. We hope the current Solicitor General will follow the traditions established by my colleague.
We accept the principle of this legislation, we want to work on it in committee, and I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to address this important piece of legislation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on what is undoubtedly one of the most important bills which has come before this session of the House of Commons. As the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) indicated, we are dealing with legislation which has essentially been unamended and unchanged in substance since 1908 when it was originally introduced. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) points out that that was the year of his birth; of course, it was a very good year indeed.
In examining the provisions of this bill, it is important to look back at some of the principles which have guided legislators and parliamentarians in the past and which society has applied generally in dealing with the problem of young offenders or young people in society who have violated the law. There have been many attitudes taken to young offenders. Some
2,000	years ago, Socrates wrote:
Our youths now love luxury, they have had manners, they have disrespect for authority, disrespect for older people. Children generally are tyrants. They no longer rise when adults enter the room ... They gobble food and tyrannize their teachers.
That was not the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaking about the hon. member for Burnaby; that was what Socrates wrote some 2,000 years ago.
The response to various forms of inappropriate conduct on the part of young people has also varied over the course of history. We have seen very, very harsh measures taken against young people, measures which would be unthinkable today. For example, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the use of hanging was commonplace in cases of serious offences by children, some as young as seven or eight years old. One example is an English case at Abingdon Assizes before Whitlock. One John Dean, an infant eight years old, was indicted, arraigned and found guilty of burning two barns in the town of Windsor. It appearing upon examination that he had malice, revenge, craft and cunning, he had judgment to be hanged and was hanged accordingly. That is how they dealt in those days with persons who burned barns. We might contrast that with the response of the present day.
As I said, the legislation was initially enacted in 1908. It was principled upon progressive reforms. The tone and purpose of that legislation was not to treat young persons as criminals, but to quote from the legislation itself, as "a misdirected and
misguided child"; one needing "aid, encouragement, help and assistance".
There is no question that the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908 is seriously outdated today and must be substantially changed. But we must be very careful, in amending and overhauling this important piece of legislation, to keep in mind the important principle which was enunciated in the 1908 legislation, that we must not replace this bill with a Criminal Code for children. We must bear in mind the fact that young people who come in contact with the law must be dealt with in a special manner and that adequate resources must be brought to bear to deal with them.
It has been suggested by the drafters of the legislation that there is a shift in emphasis away from the important principle of 1908. In fact, one policy analyst of the Department of the Solicitor General, Mr. Tom Sterritt, has been very actively involved in drafting the bill. He stated that the new bill changes the focus of the law and that it may not be the needs or the welfare of the child that are paramount any more; it may be the protection of society. Indeed, the protection of society is and must be of great importance, but one must question whether by substituting a Criminal Code for children we in any way enhance the protection of society. I suggest the evidence is very much to the contrary.
Many studies have been done in the past of this important area, starting back in 1965 when a committee of the Department of Justice examined the area. In 1970, a bill was proposed in the House which met with great resistance and was substantially withdrawn by the government. In 1975, the interdepartmental committee tabled a report entitled "Young Persons in Conflict with the Law", which made a number of important and progressive recommendations. I will come back to that report in a few minutes. In 1977, there was a further attempt by the then solicitor general to bring in a document known as "Highlights of the Proposed Young Offenders Legislation", which withdrew from some of the important principles suggested in the 1975 report. Finally, as was mentioned earlier, in 1979 the Conservative government tabled a document indicating the general nature of the legislation they would be proposing in this important area.
There is no question that there are serious deficiencies in this area of the law, in the area of how we as a society deal with young people who have violated the law. Those deficiencies in the legislative structure have led to great frustration on the part of all people affected by them, starting, of course, with the police, who must enforce what is recognized by many to be a totally inadequate law. In many cases the police know that the resources which are being availed to young offenders are completely inadequate. Unfortunately-and I say this in the case of some police officers-their response is one of violence. They believe the young person will not be adequately dealt with within the context of the criminal justice system, and, therefore, in some cases we see instances of brutality against young people who have come in conflict with the law.
Fortunately this is not a common occurrence, but the recent
report of a respected group in the province of Ontario, Justice
April 15, 1981

for Children, documented a number of serious concerns in this area. I point this out as evidence of the fact that the police forces of the country are as frustrated as other elements in the justice community with the inadequacies of the Juvenile Delinquents Act as it presently stands.
There are suggestions of excessive force being used during arrests. There are suggestions of harassment of young people who have come in conflict with the law following their return to their communities. Surely these kinds of things must not be condoned. Hopefully they will be dealt with, not only through changes in legislation, but through changes in resources.
We must also recognize the concern of members of the judiciary. Juvenile court judges have commented frequently on the inadequacies of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and in many cases have expressed their exasperation and despair at the lack of an adequate judicial framework and a lack of resources. I will deal with the question of resources later in the course of my remarks.
We must recognize the element in the judicial equation which is often forgotten, and that is the victim of the offence. Too often we forget about the fact that there is a victim. The victim is shunted to one side, is not informed of what is taking place as a result of the offence, and of course suffers and feels quite justifiably that he is not an important element in the disposition of the offence.
We must bear in mind that there should be adequate victim support mechanisms. I am pleased to note that the Department of the Solicitor General has a couple of pilot studies presently under way which are attempting to focus greater attention on the role of the victim, with follow-up mechanisms to ensure that the victim is not a forgotten member of the justice community in cases such as this.
It goes without saying that in too many instances young people themselves who have violated the law hold those very laws in contempt. In many cases they recognize that they are dealing with the judicial treadmill and that the treadmill is one which is completely unsatisfactory to deal with the very serious concerns which society must face in the area of violations of the law, both in terms of violations of property law and in terms of the increased incidence of violence against persons, such as, for example, assaults. So, this is an important area. It must be dealt with. We must recognize that all elements of the justice community, whether it be the judiciary, probation officers-whom I have not mentioned yet but who are dealing with excessive case loads in many cases-the young people themselves and the police, all say that the time has come to fundamentally overhaul the way in which we deal with young offenders.
What about this legislation? There certainly are a number of welcome provisions in it, provisions which are long overdue. For example, the end to status offences and the hodge-podge of offences which in this day and age must surely no longer be contained in a civilized Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Young Offenders Act
Another such provision is the omnibus charge of juvenile delinquency, which includes sexual immorality or any similar form of vice, whatever that means. We have seen that this is a particularly invidious provision because it often discriminates on the basis of sex. Young female delinquents are much more liable to be charged under this particular provision than are young male delinquents. Statistics for the most recent years show that while 11 per cent of all young people who were charged with delinquency were females, 42 per cent of those young persons who were charged with this particular offence of sexual immorality were females. In many ways it is a crime of female delinquency. We welcome the fact that this will be abolished in the new legislation.
We welcome the provision for public trials. We support the suggestion that while trials should be public, the names of the young people accused should not be disclosed. We welcome the end to indeterminate sentencing which, once again, constitutes discrimination against young people. At the present time no adult is subject to this form of indeterminate sentencing and surely, as a matter of equality before the law, this kind of sentencing should not exist. We,are pleased to note that the new legislation would accept the recommendations of a number of committees and put an end to indeterminate sentencing.
We note that there are guidelines on the transfer of young offenders to adult court. At the present time the Juvenile Delinquents Act contains no guidelines. We recognize that the explicit mention of guidelines is long overdue in suggesting to the judiciary that when they exercise their discretion it must be exercised with extreme care. We may be soliciting the views of a number of witnesses as to whether or not the age of 14 is an adequate one and should be maintained for transfer or whether that age should be raised, as the Committee of Young Persons in Conflict with the Law suggested. They suggested that it should be raised to 16 years of age.
We welcome the increase in the age of criminal responsibility from seven years of age to 12. There are arguments which have been made, and we certainly will be examining them with care, to the effect that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be increased beyond 12 years of age and that it should go as high as 13, or 14, as is the case in the Province of Quebec. Those arguments are compelling arguments, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they were accepted by the very distinguished committee which produced the report, namely, the committee of young persons in conflict with the law. I would suggest that there must be very strong reasons for rejecting that particular recommendation.
Finally, we are pleased to note the long overdue implementation of procedural safeguards, the right to access to legal counsel, the right to bail, and a number of other important procedural safeguards which so far have been denied young people who have come before the juvenile courts, although we might say that a number of judges have voluntarily extended those provisions in their courts. I would note that it was a Juvenile Court judge from the province of Alberta, the very distinguished Judge Litsky, who described the procedures in

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
juvenile court as being star chamber procedures or black magic courtrooms. As I said, we welcome an end to those particular provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. We welcome the recognition that young people are entitled to the same procedural safeguards as adults, since in many cases they are subject to very serious penalties if they are found guilty.
Having pointed out our support for these provisions in the proposed bill, and frankly, a number of other provisions in the bill, we do have serious concerns which we believe must be addressed. If there is one concern which is greater than all the rest, and which surely represents a flagrant violation of the principle of equality before the law, and which represents, in my view, a violation of the government's own charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, it is the government's failure to bite the bullet and impose a standard age, a standard maximum age right across this land to define what constitutes a young offender. The government has copped out on this important question and its excuses are simply not adequate.


Mr. McDermid:: They have opted out.


Svend Johannes Robinson: As the hon. member suggests, they have opted out. Of course, what this does is to create a checkerboard of rights right across this land. We have heard that from the Conservative Party because, of course, they have proposed an amending formula which would permit this very checkerboard of rights right across Canada. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has recently suggested that maybe that is not what they will be doing, and the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) shakes his head quizzically. We are not exactly sure where he stands on this important question of a checkerboard of rights or a floor of rights right across the land. It can surely not be suggested that to define a young person in the city of Ottawa as a criminal and put him into the adult justice system and into an adult penitentiary for exactly the same conduct which a young person in Hull, across the Ottawa River, would be defined a juvenile delinquent, a young offender, and would be given the additional resources and would have been kept out of that adult penal system, is the right way to go about things. So, many of us here recognize that the penal system is almost an admission of failure, because if a young person of 16 or 17 years of age enters into such a system, there is no doubt whatsoever that their chances of getting out are very slim indeed. There have been many groups who have recommended-indeed, insisted-that there must be a simple recognition of equality before the law, a standard upper maximum age. The committee of young persons in conflict with the law in its report considered various options and recommended that the youth court have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with young persons between the ages of 14 and 18 years of age who have committed an offence. That committee has accepted as an absolutely essential requirement that there must be a standard maximum age right across the country.
I have said that the government's actions violate its own charter of rights. Section 15 of that charter says there can be no discrimination on the basis of age. How else can this
particular provision of the Young Offenders Act be construed than as discriminating on the basis of age or as denying equal benefit before the law? I predict that if the government is foolish enough to go ahead with this provision, it will be challenged very quickly in the courts of our land where it will be thrown out as a violation of the government's own charter of rights. Thus, Mr. Speaker, that provision must be changed.
We welcome the suggestion that young people should be diverted from the formal criminal justice process wherever possible. But there are very grave dangers in the absence of any kind of adequate guidelines for dealing with diversion in this proposed bill. There are just simply not sufficient safeguards.
The concern here, of course, is one which has been echoed by a number of persons. Once again the excellent report of the committee of young persons in conflict with the law recommended a form of mandatory screening, a suggestion which is presently in effect in the province of Quebec. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) suggested that he was not prepared to accept that, because there must be an opportunity for a young person to plead not guilty. Of course, that could be a part of this legislation, and naturally should be a part of this legislation. We recognize that there is a very real danger in opfcning up the possibility of diversion. If adequate safeguards are not applied, the police and the prosecutors will, in some cases, use forms of coercion. When they do not have what they consider to be a safe enough case or a tight enough case legally, they might attempt to divert a young offender who, had he gone to court, would have been acquitted of a particular offence. So we must examine very carefully the diversion provisions. I suggest we must consider very favourably the possibility of a form of mandatory screening. We will want to hear from a number of witnesses on this particular suggestion.
The bill suggests that young people should be separated from adults when they are being detained. I am sure everyone in this House would agree with that principle. However, it permits a cop-out again, because what the bill says is that young people must be detained separately from adults, but when there is no place of detention for young persons available within a reasonable distance, they can be detained with adults. Not only does that violate the provisions of the international covenant on civil and political rights, but surely it must violate all standards of criminal justice which this House is prepared to accept.
To suggest that a young person, 14 or 15 years of age, could be detained pending trial with adults, with people who in many cases have been convicted of a number of offences, surely cannot be condoned. It is happening today. I can give a couple of examples. In the province of Quebec, a 15-year-old boy was kept in an adult jail. Why was he kept in an adult jail? Because there was no facility in Quebec to deal with anglophone juveniles. Nine out of 15 anglophone juveniles last year in the province of Quebec were sent to adult prisons. There is, as the social affairs minister in Quebec admitted himself, a
April 15, 1981

chronic need for a centre dealing exclusively with anglophones. Of course, this bill would perpetrate that kind of inequity.
We see that in the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, there are young people who are being detained in cells in the same jail as adults. Of course, they are kept in separate cells, but, once again, this is not a separate facility. These children are being kept in a jail with adults. That must not be tolerated and the bill must be changed in that respect.
We have concerns about the provisions with respect to the subsequent use of records from youth court proceedings. There can be an argument made that a judge who is considering sentencing or disposition should have access to the full history of the person before him or her. However, to suggest that this record can be used more generally is, I would submit, a suggestion which could give rise to abuse. We will want to hear again from witnesses on that.
These are some of our concerns about the bill, but I suggest one of the most important concerns which must be addressed in this area of young offenders in the law is the whole question of prevention. This is an area which, with respect, neither of the two previous speakers have addressed. One need only look at the recent report which was tabled by the standing Senate committee on health, welfare and science, an outstanding repcft, entitled "Child at Risk". It points out that we, as a society, have failed our children, that those children who are being processed through the criminal justice system in many cases have no business being there, had we taken adequate preventive steps. It identifies a number of measures which could be taken, and points out that in many cases the failure to take these steps results not only in a young person coming in conflict with the law at the juvenile stage, but results as well in further criminal activity and in a budget of over $.5 billion for our correctional system in this country.
What are some of the factors that this committee identified? Surprising as it may be to some, perhaps, it said that we must go right back to the prenatal stage. We must look at malnutrition of the pregnant mother. We must look at the whole question of intrauterine abuse, the fetal alcohol syndrome, for example, the effect of smoking, the effect of the use of some drugs on the fetus itself. We must look at the effects of prenatal emotional stress. We must look, as well, of course, even after the child is born, at diet and at possible metabolic disorders. I suggest there should be some form of mandatory screening of all young people to ensure that they do not have dietary deficiencies or metabolic disorders. So, it pinpoints the prenatal stage as being one important area.
It turns then to the paranatal stage and suggests that conditions at birth can influence the subsequent behaviour of the child. For example, it even points to the special care which must be taken with premature children. It then turns to the time-frame of early parenthood and points out that there are significant stresses on single parents, partly because of the inadequate resources which are available to these families in our society at present.
It talks about the effects of emotional deprivation. Study after study has shown that almost without exception, violent
Young Offenders Act
offenders have been shuffled between foster homes, have come from broken homes and have simply not had adequate resources when they were young. To quote from one study, they were unwanted at birth, they had frequent placements in infancy, and then graduated almost always from minor offences to major crimes.
The whole area of child abuse is another one which has been identified as an important element in dealing with the question of young offenders: the use of violence against children and the possibility that, in turn, children will see violence as an acceptable alternative. The distinction between a spanking and a beating, and the condonation of that distinction in our criminal code under Section 43, is one which I, for one, cannot support.
There are a number of other recommendations which are made by this excellent study and which I hope will be acted upon by the government. It talks about the influence of violence in the home and about the importance of parents and other role models in the home setting an example on the use of violence. Perhaps one of the most important areas that it pinpoints is the question of violence on television, the fact that in many cases television sets are used as babysitters, that in the course of an average child's lifetime, he or she will see on television some 13,000 or 14,000 people dying; the perpetration of values on television program after television program which suggest that the accumulation of wealth and greed is desirable; the despair and the frustration at the gap between expectation and reality. Violence unquestionably breeds violence. It points out the importance of adequate, well-funded daycare facilities to ensure that when a parent must work, the children are adequately looked after. We certainly support that recommendation.
Finally, it talks about the unquestionable link between poverty, about the fact that there are over one million children in this country who live in conditions of poverty, and the link between poverty and later juvenile delinquency. Let me quote the following from a report which is as valid today as it was when it was written in 1975, a report called "Poor Kids", by the National Council of Welfare:
To be born poor is to face a greater likelihood of ill health-in infancy, in childhood and throughout your adult life. To be born poor is to face a lesser likelihood that you will finish high school; lesser still that you will attend university. To be born poor is to face a greater likelihood that you will be judged a delinquent in adolescence and, if so, a greater likelihood that you will be sent to a 'correctional institution'. To be born poor is to have the deck stacked against you at birth, to find life an uphill struggle ever after. To be born poor is unfair to kids.
Surely, to be born poor, must be unacceptable to all members of this House.
What are some of the other concerns that must face us when dealing with this area of young people in conflict of the law? What is perhaps one of the most important concerns is the totally inadequate allocation of resources by governments, federal and provincial, to this important area. I need only point to an example in my own province. Recently a report was issued showing that juvenile offenders were being kept in overcrowded centres in British Columbia and that perhaps as

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
many as 40 per cent or 50 per cent of the kids presently being held in detention centres have no business being there. The only reason they are there is because society has not provided the funds for any other resource. These youth detention centres, one of which is located in my constituency, are grossly overcrowded. There are no facilities whatsoever to deal with the psychiatrically disturbed young offender.
Where are our priorities as a nation when we can put millions and millions of dollars into building new penitentiaries in Renous and Dona Conna but fail to allocate adequate resources to ensure that young people who come in conflict with the law, are dealt with.
There are other concerns, Mr. Speaker. I have mentioned the example of the youth detention centres and the failure to allocate adequate resources to them. Many examples can be given of what we set as the priorities of this nation. I know that my time is limited and I will not abuse that, but I should like to give a couple more examples, if I may.
There are no secure psychiatric facilities whatsoever for juveniles in the province of British Columbia. Emotionally-ill children are mixed in with juvenile delinquents. The supervisor of one of the youth detention centres has said that all they can do is to assign staff to watch over disturbed youths. He said it was a really tough time for the staff because they feel so helpless and that "We just followed her around" referring to a particular patient.
In an article in the Vancouver Sun of March 6, 1980, a Dr. Gossage is quoted as follows:
I am unaware ... of any facility in this province which can help him. And I have to say I think that't just terrible.
... He is but one of many children who are going down the tube because of the failure of society to address this problem.
This is a scenario which is repeated in province after province. In Ottawa, the hospital has stopped admitting young people who are psychiatrically disturbed saying that unquestionably, unless the provincial government of Ontario allocates adequate resources, there will be suicides and serious repercussions as a result.
I could cite examples on and on, Mr. Speaker. What is clear is that our society has not placed adequate priority on the allocation of resources to young people who have come in conflict with the law. We have seen a dramatic increase in the suicide rate among young people. In the province of British Columbia, for example, 50 adolescents committed suicide in 1979. The failure to provide adequate treatment for emotionally disturbed young people is an indictment both of provincial and federal governments and is not dealt with by this bill. There must be adequate minimum standards right across this land.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I welcome a number of the innovations in this bill and recognize that some important steps forward are being taken, I have serious concerns over and above the concern with the bill itself. I suggest that we as a society must realign our priorities and recognize that our young people, our children, must be a priority. We must implement the recommendations of the committee on the
International Year of the Child and of the special Senate committee which wrote the report "Child at Risk". We must surely consult with these and other groups and with the provincial governments which must implement this legislation. I suggest we invite representatives of all provincial governments to appear before the justice committee as an example of the co-operation which should take place in this field.
If we can allocate millions and millions of dollars to the Space shuttle "Columbia" and take great pride in our accomplishments in that area, surely to goodness the time has come to allocate adequate resources to young people in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-61 which enacts the young offenders act. At this stage of the bill it is appropriate to consider the general principles that underlie it and also some of the specific provisions which ought to be given special consideration.
Before I do that, I wish to make some remarks of a more personal nature. The young offenders act which is to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act, represents years of evolution with respect to the treatment of young offenders in Canada. In many cases, debate in this House is based upon documented experience, but I have had a long career dealing with juvenile offenders and with the administration of the laws that apply to them. I think it is worth recording that when I commenced my law practice 25 years ago in Halifax, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which was then the statute in force, did not even apply in the county of Halifax. That particular statute applied at the option of the province in cities and towns and could be excluded in certain places within a province. In 1956 in Halifax county, juveniles did not have the benefit of the Juvenile Delinquents Act but were treated as adult offenders. I give this example to illustrate that while progress is slow, it is made.
One of the reasons there has been such a long period of evolution in the development of law relating to juvenile delinquents is the fact that the Juvenile Delinquents Act was first enacted in 1908 as Chapter 40 of the Statutes of Canada. When one considers the times, it was a relatively thoughtful statutory provision. One of the ideas behind that statutory provision was that it would creat one offence which would apply to all illegal conduct by young persons. That offence was called a "delinquency". The persons who formulated that law at that time had in mind that young persons ought not to be charged in a specific way for the wrongs they might commit or for the violations of laws that might occur.
The idea was to realize that young persons were simply offenders who had breached the law without giving full regard to the exact law that had been breached. It was in this way that the concept of a delinquency was created, and that concept endures to this day. It is a concept that we should not lightly dismiss, that of an offence of delinquency, in favour of a specification of an offence which a young person might commit. That is one thing that we should review very carefully
April 15, 1981

when we consider this bill in the House and in committee. It is a concept that has stood the test of time. There are many who feel that it ought to be changed, but it is still worth careful consideration before that particular change is made.
I was somewhat disturbed by the remarks of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) when he entered the debate, with the respect to the absence from the House of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence). I think it can be said that the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, as a former solicitor general, has a great interest in this bill. It is unfortunate that he is not able to participate in the debate on second reading because I think he would have a great deal to contribute. I am sure it was with that in mind that the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) mentioned the haste with which the bill was brought before the House for consideration, not with the intent of casting any recrimination on anyone, but rather to say that this was an unfortunate occurrence.
I sincerely hope that the Solicitor General has not interfered with the non-partisan spirit that ought to pervade in a debate dealing with young persons in Canada, by interjecting that unfortunate remark. I can say to him that in this very House yesterday when Bill C-58 was called, his colleague, the Presi-dent'of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) was not here to speak to it. He might confer with his colleague and ask him where he was and why he was not present in this House when the bill he sought to have approved on second reading was being considered. When we cast dispersions on other members with respect to their presence or absence from this House, we enter on dangerous ground.
There is one other matter for which I am entitled to take the Solicitor General to task, and that is his suggestion that Bill C-61 ought to pass this House with a minimum of debate and then be considered in committee, presumably the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I say that because I think all members in this House ought to be very interested in any provision which affects the young people of Canada in such a serious way as this young offenders act does. If any debate was justified in its prolongation in this House so that members could consider and express their thought on such an important measure, surely it is this piece of legislation. Any suggestion that it should be swept through this House with a minimum of debate and discussion is not acceptable to me. In many ways, I think it destroys the credibility of those who seek passage of this bill and approval in this House. The bill is indeed of a non-partisan kind. It was formulated through committees, public discussion and discussion within departments. It was brought forward through previous solicitors general and considered by a great many people. I would certainly like to think that the motivation of those people who dealt with the legislative provisions, now included in Bill C-61, was to improve the situation, create a better law applicable to juveniles and young persons across Canada.
Young Offenders Act
I want to comment briefly on the matter not specifically dealt with by previous speakers and which reflects, to some extent, on the remarks made by the previous speaker. In Canada, we have a very difficult situation, as everyone in this House knows. In their wisdom, the framers of the British North America Act decided to vest in the federal authority, the Parliament of Canada and, the Government of Canada, the right .to enact criminal law legislation. At the same time, the Fathers of Confederation vested in the provinces of Canada the administration of that criminal law. So we have these two elements in the administration of justice in Canada: the federal authority enacting a law, and the provincial authority administering the law.
I say that because a great many remarks relate to the treatment of young persons within provinces whether they are young offenders or whether they are in difficulty of a kind which might involve them with other legal process. Those persons, to a great extent, are the responsibility of the provincial authorities. While we would all seek to have them dealt with in an appropriate and gentle way in order to dissuade them from any unlawful activity in the future, it cannot be a part of this particular bill.
As I understand it, this bill is made by the Parliament of Canada pursuant to its authority to enact criminal law legislation. That is what the bill must deal with. Social justice is a subject which ought to be, and I am sure is, important to all members of this House, but it is a matter which cannot be dealt with effectively as part of the implementation of the authority to enact criminal law.
That leads me, first, to consider briefly the history of Bill C-61, because other members have dealt with it. I want to record thanks for the work of the committee which provided a report in 1975 called the report of the committee on Young Persons in Conflict with the Law. I think it is worth while to refer in specific terms to some of the thoughts which were expressed by the formulators of that report. I should say perhaps that the report was made to the solicitor general of the day, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand). The committee was under the direction of the deputy solicitor general of Canada of that time, Mr. Roger Tasse. Contained in the report is a statement which bears recording in this House. Under the heading of "The Challenge of our Times", we read:
Within a modern democratic society, it is neither possible nor desirable to expect that the life styles and behaviour of individuals will conform to a single standard. A society that places a high premium on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and prizes material success and rewards individual aspirations, must recognize that the pursuit of such ideals also fosters a diversity in forms of behaviour.
I think that thought was well expressed. Canadians ought to realize they cannot expect from our young persons a standard of conduct or a similarity of behaviour. Our system has to realize and recognize there are those who will not conform to the standard and, for a period of time, hopefully a limited period of time, may find themselves in conflict with the law.
The law we want to formulate in this House is a law which will recognize that difficulty and will deal with it as a social

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
difficulty, not in the frame of mind that we must punish those who, in their youth, find themselves in a difficult situation- although punishment may be a method by which persons are brought to a proper course of action and standard-but to provide a system which redirects the course of those who run afoul of the law.
With that in mind, I want to repeat what I said earlier with respect to the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908. It charted a course, which I think has been a very effective one and one which I have watched grow over the years. There are a great many things which can be done to improve the law. We ought to keep that in mind. However, we must recognize that the course which was charted in 1908 is one that we would be wise to follow.
I want to review the provision of Bill C-61 in more detail. First, I want to comment on something which has arisen already in this debate, that is the interrelation of the new young offenders act, enacted by Bill C-61, with the constitutional provisions proposal now before the Parliament of Canada. In very simple terms what I am concerned with is that that constitutional proposal contains a charter of rights. As the heading of the proposal indicates, it guarantees rights and freedoms. One of the freedoms and rights it guarantees is non-discrimination before the law.
I will not detail the provisions of the constitutional proposal other than to say that discrimination is outlawed. I do want to question whether the Government of Canada now seeking to have this proposal approved by this House of Commons and adopted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and made part of the law of Canada has properly considered those provisions of the charter of rights in relation to laws such as the young offenders act.
I am not questioning the motives of the framers of the provisions of the young offenders act. I am just suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, that this is yet another situation in which the Government of Canada has given evidence that it does not really appreciate, realize or recognize what the effect will be of the charter of rights provisions, or what the effect will be on the people of Canada. In this very bill, as pointed out by previous speakers, the government suggests that there is a provincial option with respect to the application of the act to persons of varying age. Under the provisions of the act, it can be applied to young persons under the age of 18, under the age of 17, or of the age of 16, in accordance with the option selected by a particular province.
Obviously this creates a checkerboard across Canada, as has been mentioned. It creates the possibility of discrimination in relation to the application of a law. It raises the very question with which the charter of rights presumably deals. We question how well thought out this proposal is in relation to the new constitutional provisions.
I want to mention that because there are many other areas I could mention with respect to the application of the charter of rights. Strangely enough, I was present in this House last night when Bill C-58, which amends the Canada Elections Act, was
before the House. That act contains provisions relating to voting rights. At the same time, the constitutional proposal in the charter of rights says that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election. There is another illustration in which the government of Canada has not related the provisions of its constitutional proposal, that is, the specific provisions of the charter of rights, to the provisions which we are considering in this House.
When this comes to the committee, somebody will have to look at this very carefully and decide whether the provisions of Bill C-61 which relate to the age at which the legislative provisions apply to young persons in a province can be enacted in light of those constitutional provisions.
My suggestion in that connection is that what we must have and must look for is flexibility in the law, not a discriminatory provision. The law might be so worded that it can be taken advantage of by certain young persons under 18, that it can be applied at their option, or something of that nature.
I can see where there is a difference of opinion as to whether persons of 17 or 18 years of age ought to be dealt with under the law as young offenders or as adults. However, I do not think that the law should apply differently across Canada. That is something which has caused difficulty in the past. If we are going to remedy the mischiefs of the past, this is the time to do it.
With regard to the provisions of Bill C-61, in relation to the definition of young persons, I suggest that some method be established to provide for flexibility. However, we ought not to start on a course that will result in a different application across Canada. In the case of the government of the day, it is not consistent with the course of action they have adopted with respect to the charter of rights in the constitutional proposal.
I have heard other speakers in this House deal with some of the specifics of the bill. I do not want to repeat what has already been said, but there are a number of matters I would like to deal with very briefly. The first is: the provision under the bill for what is called "alternate measures". This provision simply means that a young offender suspected of violating the law, when brought before the authorities, need not be brought to a youth court, that is to say, a judge of the youth court; he or she can be dealt with in a different way. The bill spells out in what way that person can be dealt with. I want to warn people that this is potentially a very dangerous provision. It is totally dependent on the good faith and good offices of those who administer our criminal law. From my own experience, I think it right and proper for me to suggest that one can have confidence in our law officers across Canada, but there is always the exception that proves the rule. There are those among our law officers whom it may be dangerous to entrust with such power or authority.
Under the previous law, it was possible for a juvenile court judge, when he had a youth before him, to suggest a course of action other than proceeding before that juvenile court. I am not entirely sure that that kind of provision is not more
April 15, 1981

sensible, one that is more likely to avoid any difficulties or mischiefs. I point this out because I know it is of real concern to a number of people who examined the young offenders legislation in its various stages, including the format in which it now appears before this House, namely Bill C-61.
The real pith and substance of this bill is the youth court. The success of the new provisions will rise or fall with the capability of the youth courts across Canada and the persons who act as judges and officers of those youth courts. What we are dealing with in this bill, as in all legislative measures, are people. We can enact any law we want, but if the people do not administer that law fairly and faithfully, the provisions that we enact in this Parliament will go for naught.
I want to examine very briefly the administration of the Juvenile Deliquents Act across Canada in the case of most provinces by the family court or equivalent. In my province of Nova Scotia, as I have indicated, the practice has developed to the point where all juvenile offenders are brought before the family court of Nova Scotia. The family court there, as in many provinces, not only has a legally trained judge, but, in most cases, there are social workers available, as well as psychiatric and other medical help. Indeed, there are other officers who can perform the functions which are required to assess offenders and to chart a course to set them on the road to change. We must recognize very clearly that under this bill the youth court, its function, and the function of its officers will determine the value of this bill when it is enacted and applied across Canada.
Let me point out again that the youth courts are the responsibility of the provinces. When the Solicitor General comes before the House of Commons, presents a bill and sets up a court which is called the youth court, which is merely the family court which has existed and functioned in most provinces for several decades, let us not be fooled that this is an improvement in the law which the Government of Canada is now sponsoring. What the Government of Canada has to provide to create any real effect in an area of this kind is the funds, resources and capabilities which allow for improvements in our provincially constituted and appointed courts such as the family court.
Let us not be fooled into thinking there is any magic in this bill. Let me digress to say that much of my legal career was spent in legislative drafting as legislative counsel for the province of Nova Scotia. I was reminded daily that the laws which we were framing, proposing and enacting would accomplish nothing unless the laws were properly applied. More important, the farther we get away from the basic law, the basic concept of fairness-and, I suggest, the ten commandments are as good a representation of the basic law as you will find-the more difficulties we can create.
I do not want anybody to think that by enacting a new young offenders act with more elaborate provisions and procedures we are resolving the problem. The problem has to be resolved by people, by good faith and by careful consideration of the problems which come before our youth courts and the problems in which the youth courts find themselves involved.
Young Offenders Act
In this connection, mention was made of preventive action. There again we are not referring to the criminal law or criminal justice system but to the whole social justice system. In the many years that I appeared before juvenile and family courts, I have never seen a child who did riot have another problem which was not connected with the criminal justice system. In practically every case, although there were notable exceptions, the child brought before the court had experienced difficulties in his or her family life or educational life causing a departure from standard behaviour. It is only through a competent and effective social justice system that we can remedy these kinds of defects.
Let us not forget the parents. Most offenders who come before family and juvenile courts across this land, with notable exceptions, have difficulty in their family life and in their relationships with their parents. The more serious cases in the provinces can be corrected, or at least dealt with by children protection laws. These laws, as far as I am aware, exist in every province of Canada.
I want to be clear again that we do not discharge our responsibilities by merely enacting and passing in this House of Commons a young offenders act. We have to work to improve our social justice system. We have to work to improve the facilities available through our educational system and through our help to families in need so that the situations which result in proceedings before juvenile and family courts are corrected before they reach that stage.
In that sense, I suppose there is a preventive action involved in our deliberations, but it is very clearly one we cannot successfully deal with in this House of Commons by considering a bill of this kind. As I have said, it is wise for us to keep that in mind.
There has been a long history to the Juvenile Delinquents Act in Canada. I want to call to the attention of members, particularly the Solicitor General, what I believe to be the words of his department, at least to the extent that the publication I will now refer to was preceded by a letter from the Solicitor General.
In that document it is indicated that the word "delinquency" has acquired a pejorative connotation. You will recall that I began my address with an explanation of that word. It is now associated with the word "criminal". In this proposed young offenders act we are moving away from the pejorative term "delinquent".
Let me remind all members of this House that this is exactly what this House of Commons thought it was doing in 1908. Members then thought they were moving away from the treatment then given young offenders. They thought they were moving away and creating a new course of action to be applied to young offenders, and they called that new course of action "delinquency". Some 70 years later we are saying that term has acquired a bad connotation and we are simply moving to other terms, "young offenders" and "youth court". I can tell you, just as sure death and taxes, there will be another House

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
of Commons assembled in 25 years, 50 years or maybe 100 years' time, which will be saying we have to change this young offenders act because it has acquired a terrible connotation. It is now regarded as criminal. It is a terrible thing and nobody wants to be known as a young offender. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will not be here at that time, and neither will I, but I know it will happen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak for yourself.


Howard Edward Crosby: I did say in 50 years' time. Let us not fool ourselves and let us not try to fool the public about what we are doing and trying to accomplish here. What we are trying to do is simply to improve the system. We are trying to give the juvenile offender and the system that applies to him a new start. That is all we can do. We can introduce new terms, we can make a few changes, but we have to come to grips with the real and effective provisions of this bill.
To demonstrate why we may not be doing that, let me point out that one of the most offensive provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act is that provision under which a juvenile can be transferred to an adult court for prosecution. That is one of the most offensive provisions and this proposed act has hardly changed it. Steven Truscott would still go to trial in an adult court. A 14 or 15-year old who commits murder will still probably be exposed to the regular criminal process. That is how we are coping with some of the problems that arise. That is our great evolution in relation to the Juvenile Delinquents Act. In so many cases we are just changing the label; we are just varying the procedures.
As I said, and I repeat-and let me close on this note-what we have to consider are the people who administer justice as it applies to young persons across Canada. We have to consider the personnel in our youth courts; the judges, the social workers and everybody else. Those are the people who are going to make for a better system of dealing with juvenile offenders. Those are the people who are important, not the law.
We can contribute by giving the administrators of the juvenile justice system, if I can call it that, an instrument through which to apply their abilities, allowing them to help offenders and chart new courses for them. That is all we can do. We can work toward that task. As I have said, this does not involve political parties. It is a non-partisan task because we are working for the people of Canada, and I hope the Solicitor General will keep that in mind.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Question.


John Horton McDermid: You will have to be patient for a little while, Mr. Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is calling for the question, Mr. Speaker, but I think he is just a little premature as there are a number on this side of the House who wish to address Bill C-61, the proposed young offenders act.
I should like to preface my main remarks by congratulating the minister. This is his first bill in the House. Although he cannot claim it as his bill because it was formulated by his predecessor, I am sure it is a great experience to introduce and pilot it through the House. I congratulate him and I wish him luck.
I am the first non-lawyer to speak on this subject in the House, and I do not make any apologies for that at all, not one. My responsibility with the Progressive Conservative Party is in respect of the young wing of the party and of youth concerns. I feel it is incumbent upon me to address this House on this legislation, a bill which has some very long term ramifications for our justice system.
Let me start by saying we agree with the concept of greater rights, greater responsibilities and greater flexibility in dealing with the rehabilitation of young offenders. This is a very good concept. It is long overdue. I am not even going to touch on the subject of its history as that has been covered by my colleagues.
I should like to touch upon a few subjects, the first being age. Under Clause 2(1) of Bill C-61, a child is defined as being anyone who is or appears to be under the age of 12 years; it defines a young person as anyone who is or appears to be over the age of 12 and under the age of 18.
There is also a provision in the same clause that the governor-in-council may issue a proclamation at the request of a province to establish the maximum age of a young person as being either under the age of 17 or 16 years.
The consequence of this provision is that the youth court would have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of an offence committed by a young person between the ages of 12 and 16, or 17 or 18. A person under the age of 12 is to be subject to provincial child welfare legislation. Where the individual is over the age of 16, 17 or 18, he would be subject to ordinary criminal law and the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.
The change effected by Bill C-61 is that the minimum age of jurisdiction of the youth court is to be increased from 7 to 12 years, and the maximum age is to be increased from 16 to 18 years with the possibility of a reduction rather than an increase, as is presently the case under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
The effect of increasing the minimum age is that the youth population which will be subject to provincial laws and social welfare programs alone will increase dramatically. This will put a tremendous additional cost on the provinces. Of course, we are interested to find out if there is any increased funding in view of the shuffling off of these responsibilities to the social welfare programs of the provinces. It also would have the effect of decriminalizing any delinquent acts committed by those who are under the minimum age. The effect of raising the maximum age would be to increase the number of young people who would be subject to the juvenile justice system at the upper age limit and require that a province request explicitly that this be reduced. Despite many attempts over the years to establish a uniform maximum age across the country, the
April 15, 1981

federal and provincial governments have been unable to come to an agreement on this issue, and I think that is unfortunate.
The inequity in our justice system across the country has been well covered today. People will be treated differently because of their ages. In fact, we know that the current age level in the various provinces and territories is as follows: in Quebec and Manitoba the age is 18 years; in British Columbia the age is 17 years; in all the remaining provinces and territories the age is 16 years. In Newfoundland, where the Juvenile Delinquents Act does not apply, the age under provincial legislation is 17 years.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Sixteen and a half.


John Horton McDermid: Sixteen and a half, is it? The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is at least following my remarks, and I am pleased about that.
Despite these many attempts, we have been unable to do it, and I hope we can address that particular problem in committee. I tend to agree with my colleagues when they say that this will have serious ramifications on equality of law in the country.
One of the concerns which has been expressed to me by those people who deal with the courts is that there is no provision and no option for those under the age of 12 who do get into trouble with the law and whose cases perhaps should be referred to a youth court. There is no provision for that. We heard today about examples of young people to whom an appearance in family court in all likelihood would be to their advantage and for their well-being, but that will not happen, and I think the minister should examine some of the cases in the province of Quebec. In fact, he mentioned this in his address. In some of these cases in Quebec social workers have handled young people under 12 exclusively and have not referred them to the court. Some of the stories are somewhat disturbing. I hope that is something we will look at in the committee and discuss fully. We should discuss whether an option should be provided to a child under the age of 12 who is a chronic problem. Perhaps such cases can be referred to family courts if it is felt that that is necessary. I cannot see how that would be possible under this bill, unless provincial governments set up other courts to handle these problems or institute legislation giving them the power to refer cases to family courts.
The present Juvenile Delinquents Act does not define offences covered in the legislation as such, but defines as a juvenile delinquent a person between the ages of 7 and 16. The youth court would have jurisdiction now under Bill C-61- which has, as I said, reduced dramatically the number of offences for which a young person could be brought before the youth court-with respect to federal offences only. Under Bill C-61, any violations of provincial or municipal law or any status offences would be subject to provincial child welfare and child protection legislation.
Young Offenders Act
The differences in philosophies between the present Juvenile Delinquents Act and Bill C-61 are most apparent in the social welfare approach of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the alternate measures we find in Bill C-61. The declaration of principles in the Juvenile Delinquents Act, as I said, takes a social welfare approach by which concerns about the behaviour of young people is expressed, and the courts merely provide a means by which social intervention can take place to deal with the family and environmental causes which lead to alleged delinquent behaviour.
The declaration of principles in Bill C-61 constitutes a somewhat different approach for dealing with young people. First, the new legislation would cover specific acts committed by young people and not their behaviour as such. Second, the declaration of principles recognizes some of the contradictions inherent in applying criminal law sanctions to situations in which individual acts take place in particular socio-economic environments. It recognizes that there are not only individual rights to be protected but also that the social impact of certain acts must be minimized. It recognizes the due process rights of young people but also their responsibilities, as well as those of the family and society.
There is a number of concerns with respect to this legislation about which I want to talk for just a moment. I know they will be discussed more fully in the committee. In this legislation there is no provision for contributing to juvenile delinquency. This has caused some concern, mainly because the acts of a person who contributes to juvenile delinquency will be dealt with in a senior court, and young people will probably in many instances be the only witnesses and will have to testify in senior courts. Clause 60 of Bill C-61, a new clause, covers evidence of a child or a young person and solemn affirmations. This is an excellent clause. I recommend to the minister that it be incorporated into the Criminal Code. If an individual is charged with contributing to juvenile delinquency, perhaps young witnesses will have to appear as the only witnesses in senior courts.
My colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), touched on differences in ages. Many solutions have been offered. One suggested solution was the option of petitioning a family court to be heard in a higher court for a particular offence. In those areas where juveniles are those people under the age of 16, it could conceivably be that people 17 and 18 might have the option of petitioning higher courts to be heard in family courts. That is another option at which the minister and his officials will look.
The old act allows a family court judge to direct that a child be put into the custody of a municipality or a children's aid society and to direct that certain payments be made to cover the care and protection of that young person. That provision has disappeared now as well. I realize that that will now be under provincial jurisdiction. I expect that it will be under the jurisdiction of a director, who would be under the jurisdiction of the attorney general or the solicitor general of a province. It would be his duty to take care of that particular individual, but that is an option which we have now taken away. We are

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
narrowing the scope judges have and this, of course, could be extremely dangerous.
There are many other points I want to cover, but I will not do that today. I might, however, deal with perhaps four or five briefly. I know another colleague wants to speak before we call it six o'clock. I will cover a number of situations when we get to the committee.
There are a number of provisions in the present Juvenile Delinquents Act which do not have their equivalent in Bill C-61 and hence are repealed. There is no equivalent in Bill C-61 to Section 17 of the present act which indicates that proceedings are to be informal and are not be affected by any irregularity based upon that informality. Section 22 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act provides that where a parent or guardian has conduced to the commission of an offence by a young person by neglecting to exercise due care of that person, he may be ordered to pay a fine, damages or costs. This section is repealed and is not replaced by an equivalent in the new legislation. In other words, parents will no longer be held responsible for the acts of young people.
Section 23 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act provides that a child's religion is to be respected when he is placed in any foster home or any other residence. There is no equivalent in Bill C-61. I hope it is covered somewhere else, and I hope a child's religion is respected when he is placed in the care of a foster home or whatever. I do not see that provision in this bill. I hope the minister will deal with it in committee.
Sections 27 to 28 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act deal with the creation of a juvenile court committee. These sections are repealed and are not replaced. Section 33 of the act makes it an offence for anyone to have contributed to juvenile delinquency. Sections 34 provides a penalty for inducing a child to leave an institution to which he has been sent by the juvenile court. There are no equivalents to these sections in Bill C-61. I am sure the minister will give these answers in committee.
In summation, we have concerns with this act. We will go to committee with some suggestions. Hopefully the minister will call expert witnesses and will accept suggestions from our side of the House as to who some of those witnesses will be. Hopefully we will carry this bill through, not hastily but wisely, and will bring forward a piece of legislation which will benefit young people of Canada, will provide proper protection of the victims, as well as proper sentencing and care of young offenders so that they will be returned to society, rehabilitated into worth-while and contributing Canadian citizens.


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I am particularly indebted to the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). I know there were other matters in the legislation with which he was concerned, but in order to provide me with a few minutes, he very kindly gave up some of his time.
I understand the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) wanting to get this piece of legislation through quickly at this stage, most ministers feel that way. In fact, I am not sure it is necessarily in anyone's interest to be overly hasty. I do not foresee second reading debate going on day after day, week after week. But I think it is the type of legislation which would not necessarily attract the public attention I would like to see it attract. Sometimes when very bad legislation is drafted, by its very nature it will attract public outcry. Indeed, that happened around 1970 when we were considering this type of legislation.
One advantage of second reading going on for a reasonable length of time is that it brings to the attention of various individuals, groups, organizations and agencies, a matter with which they may not have been otherwise preoccupied, a matter in which they should demonstrate some interest.
We have lived with the present act for over 70 years. There have been no substantial changes since 1929, over 50 years ago. I received the information package from the minister last February. I circulated it in my riding among judges, people working with young offenders and lawyers practising that type of law. I have not received much response to it. Perhaps it is because it is good legislation. I think it generally is. The Solicitor General understands that most of us on this side feel that way, but I hope that as the process develops, if there are concerns out there, that we will receive responses.
I think it is very important for people, such as the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown who is not a lawyer, to participate. Those of us who are lawyers see this as a movement in the judicial process, from the old act to the new one, and are quite comfortable with it as a process. People who are not lawyers often look at the substance of the change in a much different light. Therefore, I encourage participation on all sides of the House by those who do not necessarily belong to the legal profession.
It is amazing that the present act has stood up as well as it has, considering the social, economic and cultural changes which have occurred since 1929, especially in the past three decades. I think "amazing" is the proper word. It is likely attributable to juvenile court judges and provincial authorities and agencies responsible. During this period of time, I suppose they have taken some poetic licence with the act which had not changed as society changed.
The juvenile court was put in a very unusual position because it was not only adjudicating, it was part of the treatment process. Court officials are not necessarily trained or inclined to be part of the treatment process. Therefore, when the minister paid particular tribute to the juvenile court judges and provincial authorities in his information booklet, I very much agreed and seconded those kind of remarks. If this legislation is any indicia, with good intention and every justification, we have likely infringed upon what is commonly known as basic rights and freedoms. Perhaps it was inevitable and not a matter of public controversy because the courts are closed. I suppose, as part of the treatment process, certain licence had to be taken. It was difficult for the court to be part of the treatment process. Given the legal confines regarding rights
April 15, 1981

and freedoms, the two roles, challenges and responsibilities could not be discharged satisfactorily.
The legislation changes the role of the court significantly from a treatment agency to one of a legal function. It is not simply a legal function in adjudicating guilt or innocence. As an aside, I have always found the adjudicating function in the present system to be rather difficult because the adjudication consisted of asking: Is this young person a juvenile delinquent? There were many guidelines for this, but it was almost as difficult as an adult court asking: "Is this accused an habitual criminal?" The meaning of the words was broad.
Another legal function which will be given to the court under this new legislation is to define the responsibility of the intervention flowing from the disposition. When I say "intervention", I mean the agency or the person who picks up once the disposition has been made, whether it is custody, probation, restitution or community service. There is no awarding of wardship, as I understand it, compared to the present act. Therefore, we do not have a situation where intervening agencies could extend or increase the period of control. It is desirable, indeed essential, that the court establish the maximum degree and length of the intervention. It is also desirable, although it may not be essential, that the agent can initiate the lessening of that period but should not increase it without a reference back to the court. This is recognized in the bill before us.
Before dealing with some other parts of the legislation, I want to emphasize one concern which bothers me more than any other, that is, the relationship between the two levels of government in this area. First, the minister in referring to committee talked about expert witnesses appearing before that committee. I concur in that. But he did not say that this would include the provincial perspective. I believe it is incumbent upon the Solicitor General to not only permit provincial witnesses, but, I think, he has a responsibility to enlist provincial witnesses at the committee stage. This may not be a good analogy, but I went through a similar type of procedure in committee with respect to the Fisheries Act. That act is federal legislation and administered in certain provinces by provincial authorities. We were assured in committee that extensive consultations had taken place. Indeed, they had. But unfortunately the federal government consulted with one and not both of the two provincial elements which were concerned-environment and fisheries. Therefore, while there had been consultation and concurrence on the one arm of the provincial government, the second group was never consulted. The second group was very upset with this legislation. They came before committee at the last minute and made a very strong plea for substantial changes to the legislation. I do not want to see a repeat of this. It was unnecessary. It caused unnecessary delay to important legislation. We did not have the proper amendments because it became very much an adversary approach between the two levels of government. Therefore, at the committee stage I hope we will hear from provincial governments. We do not need to hear from ten. I
Young Offenders Act
presume there is a community of interest and a consensus there so that we can hear from one spokesman what the problems or criticisms are.
I agree with what everyone has said about a serious attempt being made to set a common maximum age. I do not think I need dwell on that subject any longer. But there is a serious shortcoming. Given this government's track record with respect to federal-provincial relations, I very much doubt that a serious attempt to set a uniform age has been undertaken.
I think we must plug some gaps in the system which are created by the legislation since it only deals with offences under the Criminal Code, offences under federal legislation and regulations. It does not deal with provincial legislation. It does not deal with municipal ordinances and bylaws. Looking at the latest statistics available from Statistics Canada from the justice statistics division, I noted that there were somewhere in excess of 6,000 cases in 1979 which dealt with legislation other than federal legislation, in other words, provincial and municipal. These 6,000 cases were cases where the young person was found to be a juvenile delinquent. I am not sure if the machinery exists in the provinces to immediately fill the gap which would be created upon Royal Assent being granted to this legislation. Therefore, I think the provinces need some time. I would like to know from the Solicitor General at the committee stage how much time will be needed to fill that particular gap. I am concerned because I am told that in certain provinces the system is already overcrowded in many of its parts.
I am also concerned with the provision for children under the age of 12. Again, looking at the figures of the justice statistics division, I find that over 2,300 persons were found delinquent who were 11 years of age or under. Of the 2,300, over 2,000 were offences under the Criminal Code. Therefore, by raising the age from seven to 12 I believe another gap will be created.
I point out to the Solicitor General that I find the same trouble as he, I am sure, with respect to statistics dealing with juvenile delinquency. They are not terribly reliable and the reporting system is bad. I sympathize with him but I cannot offer him any assistance. I am very concerned about the gaps that are created mainly for provincial governments as a result of this legislation. I am delighted that my colleague from Halifax raised this because I find the same trouble as he with this diversion or alternate measures system contained in section 4 of the act. I find it very vague. For example, in the information brochure which my colleague was looking at, the question posed is: Will every young person who breaks a federal law appear in the youth court? The answer given is "Not necessarily". The minister goes on to deal with this alternative measures provision. It says that these programs which are called diversion programs may entail community service involvement, special education programs, counselling and restitution agreements. The common characteristic is that they are all voluntary. There is nothing about that in the legislation.

April 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
I agree with my colleague that, the key instrument here is the person who is considering whether to use such measures, that is, the alternative measures. This could be a very bad flaw. I do not know if there is a way to make this less vague, but I find it terribly vague. In the hands of an unscrupulous person, agency or authority, some very serious consequences could flow from this section.
I understand that there is an escape provision. I agree with that. Certainly if the accused does not wish to go that route, he cannot be forced to. I again emphasize that the abuse of the measure under subsection (5) is no bar to future proceedings. My main quarrel with that provision is its vagueness on the one hand and, on the other hand, I do not see the checks and balances which I would like to see in terms of the exercise of authority by the person who initiates the alternative measure process.
I am again assisted by my colleague from Halifax who has had much more experience with this subject than I have. There is no indication in Section 4 that the young person has been advised by legal counsel in terms of agreeing to take the alternative measures route. I think the Solicitor General will have to deal with that at the committee stage and assure us that this is the best he can do. I know diversion is a key element of the whole program, and I support that. But I have some very serious questions about that particular section and its efficacy procedures.
There was one other matter I wanted to raise with the Solicitor General. I believe I have only a minute left in which
to do it. This is a question on which maybe the Solicitor General will drop me a note or about which he will speak to me privately. The principles here are very important because it says that the act shall be interpreted in light of them. I do not understand the difference between responsibility and accountability. It says that one of the principles is that the offender shall be responsible but not necessarily accountable. I am a lawyer and I have played with words for a good number of years and I cannot get around that particular aspect of the act. But it is a small point.
This is the final point I wish to make. I understand the need to eliminate truancy, incorrigibility and sexual immorality. I know the capricious nature that has often resulted in a person appearing before the court, but there are some very desperate parents out there who have legitimately used this provision from time to time. I do not know where parents can turn at this point.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, April 21, 1981 at two o'clock p.m.
May I add that the Speaker extends the usual invitation to hon. members and the staff to enjoy some hospitality in Room 16. I hope it is possible for all hon. members and members of the staff to attend.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Tuesday, April 21, 1981