1981-05-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, Mr. Justice Dubin has recommended the establishment of an independent aviation safety board reporting to Parliament through other than the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). A review Committee is to consider this recommendation. Virtually every member of the aviation community welcomes and endorses the Dubin recommendation with the singular exception, I suppose, of the air administrators. The evidence presented to the commission virtually commands such independence. With such widespread support the naming of the air administrator to the implementation team can only undermine the trust and confidence that can, if properly handled, result in the new safety board. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House indicates its serious doubts about the conflict of interest which the appointment of the air administrator brings to the deliberations of the committee, and calls on the Minister of Transport to review his decision and replace this nominee with an acceptable representative of the operational level categories in the industry; and further calls on the minister to make a statement on motions setting forth those parts of the report with which he disagrees and has decided require further and delaying study.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion which I believe will receive consent as the official
spokesmen of all parties have been made aware of this motion and appear to agree with it.
In view of the fact that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry must report today on the main estimates, thereby ending its reference from this House, and whereas many serious problems pertaining to the west coast fishery necessitate further intensive consideration by the committee before this House rises, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be granted a special reference by this House to meet and to travel to the west coast during the month of June so that committee members may be able to meet with the minister's advisory board and fishermen's groups, to observe hearings of the Pearse Commission of Inquiry, to visit a number of salmonid enhancement projects and environmentally sensitive areas, and generally to become more acquainted with the operations of the Pacific coast fishery, all of which will help the committee to appreciate better the serious problems being experienced by west coast fishermen.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

U0)


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the CBC English language network is unable to provide its usual political commentary because of its current labour dispute and that the labour grievances are in real danger of being eventually resolved, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That this House direct the CBC to continue its new improved political commentary indefinitely, even after its labour problems have been resolved.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 29, 1981
5.0.	43


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the urgency of my motion will be recognized by the majority of hon. members in the House. Our society is undergoing rapid change, influenced and led by scientific and technological innovation. We must harness this potential. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), and "thirded", I am sure, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen):
That this House unanimously request the government to establish a standing committee on science and technology.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada indicated yesterday that hundreds of builders are being forced into bankruptcy by a serious slump in the construction industry, arising from record high mortgage rates. Many builders have gone out of business in the past two years and, lately, hundreds have just disappeared.
In light of the fact that HUDAC has forecast that by the end of this year housing starts in Canada will be 8 per cent below their January forecast of 179,500 units to 165,000 units, and that it estimates 220,000 housing starts per year are needed to satisfy demand, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recognize the rapidly growing disaster in the housing industry and place strong pressure on his government colleagues either to lower interest rates immediately or to establish mortgage interest as a deductible expense for income tax purposes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the deliberate high interest rate policy of the Liberal government and its drastic effects upon Canadians in all walks of life, and in view of the government's failure to honour its responsibility to the agriculture sector, the small business sector, and home owners, during the present economic crisis, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to introduce immediately special programs to cushion the impact of high interest rates, and specifically to extend the small business development bond to December 31, 1982, to include also unincorporated farmers and businessmen, and immediately to implement a mortgage interest and property tax deductibility program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the announced hog stabilization payment program has not been made available to producers who have established stabilization programs in collaboration with their provincial governments; whereas no meaningful discussion took place between the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his provincial counterparts; whereas no notice of intent was given to many of the affected provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House reprimand the Minister of Agriculture for his lack of effective communicative skills, and instruct him to reopen meaningful negotiations with his provincial counterparts to provide an equitable and meaningful stabilization program.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Et cetera.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 29, 1981


FUNDS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On last February 3 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), for political reasons, turned down Bill C-245 which would have set up a trust fund for research and development into cereal grain and oilseeds suitable for cultivation in western Canada, utilizing some $9 million of producers' money held by the government in a non-interest bearing account known as the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund. The reason given by the minister was that he planned on tabling a similar bill himself, but there has been no sign of that bill.
In view of the fact that since February 3, at present interest rates, over one quarter million dollars in interest has been lost to research and development in western Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That cabinet make a decision to pay interest on the said fund retroactive to February 3 until such time as the trust has been set up.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can he explain to the House why his government appears to be using a double standard with respect to combines investigation reports, in that with respect to the report touching on the oil industry his government seemed to welcome making the report public, even a press conference was held and much coverage was given to the matter, whereas with respect to the report touching on the uranium cartel which, as we know, involved the government itself, the government has chosen to keep the matter secret?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, my recollection of the matter is that it was the investigator himself who made the report on the petroleum industry public. In this case the same man decided to refer the matter to the Department of Justice. Perhaps there is an explanation for his change of conduct, but I am afraid I do not
Oral Questions
know about it. The responsible minister will be here on Tuesday of next week.


PROHIBITION ON REMOVING REGULATIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister who seems carefully to avoid committing himself to the Canadian public about what they had been told in 1977, and only two months ago were told by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that the report of the director of combines and investigation with respect to the uranium industry would be made available to them. I hope the Prime Minister will not try to dodge my question. Will he indicate why he persists in maintaining the uranium cartel gag regulations, why he feels it is right to curtail the rights of Canadians in that way? Is it, in fact, that he hesitates to lift the gag regulation because he is nervous that certain of his Liberal friends might be embarrassed by the information which would come out, or is it the iron lady of Westminster, Mrs. Thatcher, who has so frightened the Prime Minister that he is nervous about lifting the gag regulations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows why the regulations were adopted, that is, to prevent American law from compelling Canadian companies or individuals to do certain things. We on this side of the House believe that we are not subject to American law. That might be the view of the hon. member but-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It obviously is the view of some members opposite, otherwise they would not object to this regulation which tells Canadian citizens and Canadian companies that they do not have to answer subpoenas, they do not have to answer the injunction of American law. It is as simple as that.
The hon. member asks if we will repeal these regulations. I indicated in the House the other day that they would not be repealed as long as they were needed to protect Canadians from the application of American law. There are still some cases before the courts now, some Canadian citizens and some Canadian corporations are still sought after by American law. We will protect them as long as is necessary. I could-


Mr. Wilson:: Come on, that is a joke.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member opposite does not think this is serious business. I would ask him to talk to some of his numerous friends in the uranium industry, for instance Mr. Steve Roman, and ask him if he thinks these laws were necessary to protect Canadians or not.

May 29, 1981
Oral Questions


REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Prime Minister that I, for one, and the official opposition in general, feel that this is a serious matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Prime Minister, would you indicate if-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -if a state document brought out on March 21, 1978, by the justice department in the United States is correct in stating that the Canadian government had interceded and asked that certain felony charges not be laid against Gulf Oil Corporation, an American company, and eight other companies with respect to the uranium cartel, many of which are already included in the report which is now in the hands of the Attorney General of Canada? If, in fact, you did intercede, how come you interceded-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -in American affairs when it then suited your purpose? In turn, how can we, Madam Speaker, have any assurance that if you sought to intercede in the American-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -position, that we will have an independent adjudication with respect to the laying of possible charges in Canada-


Madam Speaker:: Order!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -against the self-same corporations?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I was just calling the hon. member to order. I think he is an old enough member in this House to know that he must address the Chair. I am a bit lenient with younger members, new members, rather, when they say "you", rather than "the hon. member". That is why I was calling the hon. member back to order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Well, Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Order. You've got to be recognized.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I believe the Prime Minister heard the thrust of my question. Perhaps he can answer why his government did, in fact, intercede in the American proceedings to stop felony charges being laid at that time against the very companies which may be included in the report that Mr. Bertrand has submitted to the Attorney General of Canada for possible charges to be laid in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot comment on that particular fact. I have no recollection of it. But I do recall that our government did intervene in the United States. We talked, and in particular I believe it was then the minister of justice of Canada who appealed to the Attorney General of the United States-I believe it was Mr. Clark at the time-suggesting that these matters should be dealt with by international comity rather than by taking Canadians to the courts under American laws in the United States.
If there is an American company involved in the question of the hon. member, I do not know the facts about that. I would imagine that it had to do with a subsidiary of Gulf operating in Canada under Canadian law. Certainly it was not our intention to protect Americans from the laws of their own government. However, the hon. member knows that there are some subsidiaries of American companies operating in Canada. We intend that they operate under Canadian law, not under American law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING COMPENSATION FOR URANIUM FIRMS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he or any other cabinet minister or member of the government has received any demand, or any request, from any of the uranium firms which have settled their anti-trust suits in the United States, for compensation, on the basis that they were coerced into joining the cartel, and suffered extensive millions of dollars in damages by way of settlement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I know of no such demand. I repeat that the-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Better check your file.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -international trading agreement was set up by agreement between Canada and half a dozen other countries of Europe and other parts of the world. It was done in order to protect the Canadian companies, Canadian producers and Canadian workers, against restrictive actions taken by the United States government to protect its own markets. It was a defensive action. It is perfectly justifiable, and we will hold that to the very end.
I do not believe the hon. members opposite have actually gone on the record as saying that at that time we should have let the Canadian companies go under because the Americans were protecting their markets contrary to the rules of GATT and of many other rules. I wish they would make their position quite clear on that. Do they think we were unjustified in protecting the Canadian uranium producers, as France, Britain, South Africa and half a dozen other countries were protecting their producers, against United States action? Is the hon. member suggesting that Canada alone should not have protected its producers?
May 29, 1981


Chris Speyer: I say to the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, through you, that he is defending the indefensible and justifying the unjustifiable.


RETENTION OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister confirm that the Deputy Attorney General wrote to the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources advising them to retain separate counsel for potential prosecution as a result of the uranium inquiry?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I believe that the international aspects of the uranium problem differ from what may have happened on the domestic market. I cannot give a specific answer to the hon. member for the moment. I shall inquire and give him the information requested when I have it.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Before the minister breaks his arm patting himself on the back for yesterday's announcement that the Bank of Canada rate is going down .38 percentage points, could he tell us what he is doing to ensure that reductions will also be afforded to consumers, to home owners who are facing mortgages of 18 per cent and 19 per cent, and that farmers, small businessmen and fishermen will also be the beneficiaries of this reduction in the Bank of Canada rate?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member obviously knows that these rates are established in accordance with the law which was recently revised, namely, they are not established by the government or the Bank of Canada; they respond to market forces. In the normal course there are usually-not always, but often-readjustments following changes in the bank rates. The hon. member will have noticed that yesterday the prime rate dropped in the United States. It is quite possible that similar action will be taken here, but that remains to be seen.


PROFITS OF CHARTERED BANKS
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the minister's commitment to laissez-faire is unbelievable in
Oral Questions
the circumstances. The fact is that the banks are prepared to use the Bank of Canada rate to justify their increases, but when it comes to decreasing their rates and passing that on to consumers, they do not do it. Now that we have had the announcement of several six-month figures which show the same trends as were available in the first quarter for our chartered banks, when is the minister going to act to prevent the kind of profiteering that we have seen and the kind of windfall benefit that simply goes to the largest financial institutions that have played on the backs of consumers when the rates have gone up, but have done nothing for consumers when the rates have gone down?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has referred to data that is becoming available with respect to the earnings of banks for the second quarter. I have not completed my analysis of all this data, but I would suggest to him that his conclusion that the trends are precisely the same as the first quarter is not accurate. There are a number of ways in which the trend that is observable in the second quarter is quite different from the first quarter. Nevertheless, the hon. member has raised a very important point. It is my intention, as I have stated to him on previous occasions, to take this matter very seriously and, based upon some further experience, to determine whether any action is necessary. I think it would be premature at the moment to indicate action on this matter.


INCREASE IN ASSETS OF CHARTERED BANKS
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, if the minister wants to have a longer time-frame, I will give him a longer time-frame. Between 1970 and 1980 the assets of the five largest chartered banks went up six times, their profits went up three times to $1.2 billion, and their taxes stayed exactly the same at $200 million. The minister has these figures, he has the facts, and he has the time-frame that he needs. What we need now is action to provide some fairness for Canadian consumers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member puts a lot of alleged facts before the House. I want to draw to his attention that current profit rates in the banks, based upon the return of assets, are in line with those of the last five years. One has to keep all of the facts in mind before reaching a conclusion and that is what I propose to do. But I want to reiterate again my concern that the banks will not be, or be perceived to be, making an undue gain as a result of this present difficult matter.

May 29, 1981
Oral Questions


AIR SAFETY
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. When Mr. Justice Dubin was appointed to conduct an inquiry into air safety by the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville, it was seen by all as the most forward step in aviation history since the Aeronautics Act was written. Now that the report has been tabled and the weight of public opinion, both in the industry and the general public, has given it unanimous support, what is there about the report that makes the Minister of Transport want to hide behind a committee which is to review the report, especially a committee with a majority of obviously biased members, instead of accepting the report and its recommendations?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I do not agree at all with the hon. member's commentary. The general reaction has been very favourable to the members whom I have appointed to the advisory committee. Mr. Baldwin has tremendous experience as a transportation administrator. Mr. Deschenes is a top-notch lawyer with expertise both in marine and air matters. Mr. Reid is a former pilot who is also very knowledgeable. Mr. Michaud has much experience in running an airline and Mr. Wilkins is generally accepted as the chairman of that group. The only unfavourable reaction I have had from the press is with regard to the appointment of Mr. McLeish, the air administrator.
In this regard, I appeal to my hon. friend's sense of balance and wisdom. The effect of not having the air administrator represented on that committee would have resulted in receiving advice from two sides, namely, from the department and the advisory committee. As I wanted to act quickly in this matter, presumably I would have had to look for a third source of advice or make decisions on my own knowledge, and I am sure the hon. member would not agree with me doing that. I will, however, make those decisions but I want to have reconciled and knowledgeable advice from all sides, not from one single entity and that is why Mr. McLeish is on the advisory committee.


COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEE
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport really did not answer my question. I asked him why he does not accept the report and its recommendations right now.
I think the report of Mr. Justice Dubin was one of the best reports we have seen. Certainly there is a tremendous amount of public objection to Mr. McLeish being on the committee, but if the minister is not going to accept the report as it is written right now, why does he insist on having Mr. McLeish on the committee instead of naming someone to this committee from such air organizations as CALPA, COPA, ATAC and all of the rest?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I tried to avoid appointing representatives of different agencies, unions or companies to that committee, and that is why I chose people who were retired or had severed their relationships with the entities with which they had been associated.
On the hon. member's main question as to why 1 do not accept the whole of that report and call it quits, 1 do not think that makes sense. That would be giving to a report-however good it is, and everyone agrees that it makes a major contribution-a sort of biblical value. 1 do not think Mr. Justice Dubin would agree with that. As a matter of fact I suspect that today he would like to rewrite some of the pages.
It is normal and standard practice, when a government calls for a report of this kind, to analyse it, to get the best expertise and to be discriminate in the way it treats the report. I am aware of some reports treated that way. What we are doing now is getting the best advice possible.
Previous bills on the same subject, in particular Bill C-40, were introduced. We will now compare previous bills with the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Dubin and try to select the best.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has to do with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Will the minister confirm that the government is conducting a survey of 800 homes chosen from 75,000 to 100,000 buildings which have had UFFI installed? Will he confirm that no testing equipment is being used, that it is just a telephone questionnaire? It is a "phone foam in your home" kind of a survey. Who determined the privileged 800, and is the minister himself included in the 800 since he has UFFI in his home? Will there be compensation for any of those 800 home owners should a problem be found?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member. I do not own a house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lewis:: You have never had a mortgage.


An hon. Member:: If you can't afford a home, how can other people afford one?


Marc Lalonde: There is a survey being carried out by my department. It is a random survey composed of homes insulated with UFFI and homes not insulated with UFFI. These homes will be compared one against the other as to the effects UFFI has. This is only part of a broader program being
May 29, 1981

examined by the government at the present time under the leadership of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and his department. There are various steps being examined at the present time. These will be announced in due course. This particular one is only a preliminary step that has been taken on an urgent basis.


COMPENSATION FOR HOMEOWNERS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The minister will know that meetings have been held across this country and that groups have been formed in Vancouver, Scarborough, Thorold, Ontario, Toronto, Montreal and St. John's, Newfoundland, among others. These groups are urging the government to compensate home owners for testing and, if necessary, removal of urea formaldehyde insulation. Even the testing procedure, and I am not talking about a telephone survey, is expensive. If the department's telephone survey turns up clear cases of danger to the health of the occupants, will the Government of Canada compensate them? I repeat, who is going to look after the other Canadians who want to and may need to get this stuff out of their homes?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the government is looking at the various alternatives which I have just outlined in my previous answer, under the leadership of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Whatever steps are appropriate will be announced in due course.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, but since he is not in the House, I shall ask it of his parliamentary secretary. It is a question for people with a sweet tooth. Maple syrup producers in Quebec, and particularly in the Beauce area, have a considerable surplus of this high quality product. Is the minister considering some kind of assistance to finance or develop new marketing opportunities, both domestically and internationally?


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the production system using tubing developed by Quebec and Canadian maple syrup producers has increased both the production and the quality of this wonderful product, and maybe even more so in the beautiful region of the Beauce. Under the Advanced Payments Act, the producers can of course obtain advanced payments, which last year amounted to $8 million. This year, the Interna-
Oral Questions
tional Maple Syrup Institute received $5,000 for promotion purposes, and the deputy minister for marketing of the Department of Agriculture has met with the Federation of Maple Syrup Producers and the Cooperative du sirop d'erable de la Beauce to find means to promote sales or find new markets abroad.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. On February 24 the minister assured Parliament that the CN Express office in Prince Edward Island would be kept open and that the employment level would be maintained at 19. On February 24 he said these jobs "represent full-time jobs, and I will see that it is honoured". Does the minister know that three of those 19 employees have now been told that their jobs are guaranteed for only another 90 days, four have effectively been laid off, and the number is now about 11 or 12 rather than 19 as he promised? Does the minister consider this dire situation a breach of the commitment he gave to Parliament and to the employees on February 24?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I did make that promise. Had the hon. member given me notice of the question he was going to raise, I would have looked into it. I will now do so on the facts, so-called, that he has brought to my attention.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister, but I did write him a full week ago, and had the letter hand delivered, outlining the situation I described a moment ago. Will the minister assure the House that, with the investigation he has promised to launch, the protection of the jobs of the employees in the CN Express office in Prince Edward Island will not be at the expense of other jobs within the CN System in Prince Edward Island?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not know what extension the hon. member has given to the promise I made. I again promise that I will stick to the promise I made previously.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. It relates to the census that is to be held June 3. I draw the minister's attention to question 37 which, in the view of many

May 29, 1981
Oral Questions
Canadians, is discriminatory, highly insensitive, and infringes on the privacy of Canadians, women in particular. Question 37 requires women who have ever been married to state, under the threat of three months' imprisonment or a $500 fine, the number of children born to them. It contradicts the confidentiality given to Canadian women when they give children up for adoption. In light of this contradiction and violation, will the minister immediately announce that question 37 need not be answered on June 3?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to offer that direction. I will review the question very thoroughly, as has been done in the past. That question was arrived at after very thorough and complete consultation between all interested parties. It is an essential question which will provide us with information relating to our population make-up and the rate of births within the country, which it is essential for us to ascertain with regard to the nature of our society at this time.


CONSULTATIONS WITH MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR STATUS OF WOMEN
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the minister responsible for the status of women. In light of the answer given by the Minister of Supply and Services, that his departmental officials had been consulted before the questions were approved, will the minister tell the House if the consultations with himself and his departmental officials responsible for the status of women led to concurrence on this question which violates the rights of women?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I will talk to my officials to see what kind of discussions did take place.


LAW OF THE SEA
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure the minister appreciates that Canada has been a world leader in the negotiations on the Law of the Sea for the past 13 years. This common multilateral approach of some 160 nations is in the interests not only of world peace and security but in a meaningful way is a move toward a new global economic order. Is it the position of the minister and the government that Canada will be a signatory this year to the multilateral treaty on the Law of the Sea?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the fundamental point inherent in the hon. member's question is whether there will be a treaty this year to which we could affix our signature. I have been holding extensive consultations on this subject with other
countries, most recently with the foreign minister of Norway, a very like-minded country in this respect. We have all been doing our best to urge upon the United States the advisability of proceeding in the normal manner with the completion of the treaty and the signatures. I certainly am not in a position to tell the hon. member, unfortunately, that there will be a treaty at this point to which we could be a signatory.


COMPOSITION OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I certainly hope, and I am sure all members of this House hope, that if a multilateral treaty is proceeded with this year, Canada will be a signatory. My supplementary is with regard to the April 29 resolution which came from the United States Senate for binding arbitration on Canada's Georges Bank, or Gulf of Maine boundary, to the International Court of Justice. I am sure the minister appreciates, certainly the maritime members appreciate, that we are talking about billions of dollars worth of resources, in scallops alone $85 million a year. In light of the announcement to be made shortly by the Government of Canada regarding the reference to the ICJ and on the makeup of the tribunal to review the Georges Bank treaty, will the minister see to it, in the interests not only of the resources but of all Canadians, that a Canadian judge will be considered, and all appropriate resources will be made available to see that Canada's position, should we go to the ICJ, is upheld?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, the appropriate government action with respect to that treaty is now under consideration. The hon. member has also raised the issue of national judges under the arbitral tribunal which might be set up under that treaty. That is one possibility, that both sides would have national judges as members of the deciding tribunal. However, it would perhaps be more in accord with international precedent and would have many reasons to commend it if there were no national judges on the tribunal and decisions were made by a panel of judges, all fully independent.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. It is with regard to the census forms mailed out last week to my constituents, which will probably arrive sometime in the next month or two. When they arrive there will be considerable concern about the compulsory aspects of the census. Last year in the House of Commons a direction was intended, and Bill C-56, passed January 22, provided for the minister to be able to authorize the obtaining of statistical information on a voluntary basis. Will the minister consider having the long form, which calls for less significant information, answered on
May 29, 1981

a voluntary basis, thereby covering the concerns of the earlier question?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that the forms are not mailed to his constituents. They have been delivered to each household in his constituency since Monday. With regard to the other question, the long form is not of lighter import or less importance than the short form. In fact the long form and every question within it are of essential importance for us to obtain the sort of information that is required for the census to be what it is, namely, the cornerstone of our statistical system. For that information to be complete and accurate, it has to be compulsory. I am sure that upon reflection the hon. member will recognize that, if a census is to be accurate, every individual must fill out the form. It must relate to every individual within the country. Therefore there has to be an obligation to complete it.


QUERY RESPECTING PENALTIES FOR REFUSAL TO ANSWER
Robert Lloyd Wenman: The minister indicated it must be compulsory because of its extreme importance. On the one hand the government talks about removing penalties, or decriminalization, respecting marijuana, because a jail sentence is too strict, yet jail, or fines for law-abiding citizens who refuse to answer questions in this way are considered to be legal.
Would the minister agree that answering questions which are repetitive, questions which relate to information already gathered by income tax authorities, questions which relate to the number of bathrooms in homes and those types of personal questions, should not be compulsory and that there should not be a jail sentence? Does the minister agree that there should not be a jail sentence for refusing to say how many bathrooms there are in your house?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman should recognize that the provision we introduced in the general amending bill to render certain surveys non-compulsory, applies only to surveys involving very small samplings. When we are dealing with a survey such as a census which applies to every individual, and when the census forms will be delivered to 8,200,000 homes, we must obtain a return from every one of those homes if that census is to be complete and accurate.
The hon. gentleman should be made aware that in terms of compulsion the number of cases in which there were prosecutions as a result of the 1971 census was something in the order of 20. There were even fewer fines imposed, so it is not a major operation in terms of enforcing the compulsory nature of the legislation. However, we must invite every individual within the country to make sure he is counted.
I am very pleased these questions were asked today because this provides us with an opportunity to make the Canadian
Oral Questions
public aware of the fact that the census is on June 3 and that it is indeed an essential exercise which is conducted not just by Canada but by every modern country.
Another point-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


AIR SAFETY
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It is supplementary to the questions posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I must say that I find the minister's actions to be inexcusable and certainly indefensible. For a minister to set up a six-man committee to question the validity of a comprehensive, reasonable, timely and independent air safety inquiry which has been supported by all segments of the aviation industry, to me is a dereliction and a clear evasion of ministerial responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 would like to ask a related question respecting air safety. The question is very important and urgent at this time. It has been reported by the United States Federal Aviation Administration that certain major defects have been found in the fuel system and in the wing assembly of all DC-9 aircraft which were produced prior to 1981. This may in fact necessitate the grounding of all DC-9 aircraft manufactured prior to 1981.
Could the minister advise the House whether his air worthiness officials are monitoring the situation, whether he has discussed this matter with Air Canada, and what action is being taken to ensure that we are not flying in Canada with unsafe DC-9s?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, on the second point, I will consult with my department, assess the situation with respect to failures in DC-9s, and report to my hon. friend as rapidly as I can.
On the first subject of how one should react to the Dubin report, I am flabbergasted and stunned by the reaction of my hon. friend. Does he mean to say that each time the department asks for a report from a justice, regardless of how creditable, good or hard-working he is, the government has to accept everything in the report? That theory does not make any sense at all. It surely has never been practised in the country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON DUBIN REPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the minister is simply trying to slough off a very, very important

May 29, 1981
Oral Questions
and credible report. He asks for examples. I remind him that when the report on bilingual air traffic control was submitted to the Conservative government, that government took a decision, accepted the recommendations, and worked toward the implementation of that report in consultation with the aviation industry. Surely the minister cannot hide behind that. Is he suggesting for one minute that it is the practice of his government to establish another inquiry to study the recommendations of a public inquiry which has conducted countless hours of study and examination, with the support of all segments of the aviation industry? The minister has not even included the aviation industry in the implementation of that report.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat what 1 have said. Indeed, the government of the time accepted the Chouinard report. The subject matter had been extensively discussed. The previous government had done much of the preliminary work. I can understand that there will be reports on occasions which will come to conclusions which everyone will accept at one particular time, but that is certainly not the standard practice.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has for nine sessions, I understand, had a bill on the Order Paper on the same subject as the Dubin report respecting investigation of accidents. The least we can do is compare the hon. member's bill with the Dubin report to see if there are not features which could be borrowed one from the other.
This indiscriminate approach to a report, regardless of how good it is-and 1 have said how good it is-surprises me very much. I do not think the hon. member will find many precedents in the past for such a slavish attitude with respect to a report, however good it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it relates to a rather furtive in-house study of atomic energy initiated by the government which, of course, was paid for, as usual, by the public. I understand it is now complete. When will it be made public?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there are all kinds of studies and papers being worked on in my department on many subjects. I indicated a long while ago that we were reviewing the nuclear question. This review is still in progress. If and when a statement is required, a statement will be made, together with the publication of whatever papers are appropriate. Indeed, I intend to release a number of papers, but they are not ready for release or publication as yet. Many are still being reviewed
internally. Once that internal review is completed and the papers are ready for publication, I will be very happy to make them available.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, the minister well knows that this report, which is the result of what was proposed by the official opposition to be a public study-it was called for and supported by my party as a public study-is of consuming interest to the general public, and this business of partially completing it and sending it directly to Atomic Energy of Canada is not acceptable. Will the minister assure the House that this report will be public and that it will not be hidden like a great number of other documents have been hidden by this government, especially those relating to the uranium industry?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this subject is of consuming interest to me too, and I am very interested in making as much information public as possible. As I said, once the studies are ready for publication, I will be very happy to make them available.


REFERENCE TO PARLIAMENTARY COM M1TTEE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

Madam Speaker, I have a very serious supplementary question respecting this inquiry which has been going on for many, many months. In fact it has gone on for over a year. When I questioned the minister earlier, he indicated that the studies and the subject matter would be referred to a parliamentary committee or a task force, for consideration of the total question of nuclear policy in Canada and externally, or some segments of it. Is the minister still of the opinion that that matter should be referred to a special parliamentary committee so that parliamentarians may have some input?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I must refer my colleague to the previous answer I gave on that subject. I told him that it seemed to be an issue of great interest to the general public and to parliamentarians as well, and that the use of a specific parliamentary mechanism, either the formula of a task force or a parliamentary committee did indeed deserve very serious consideration. Once again, I refer him to my previous statement.
Therefore, when the documents are made public the government will announce the formula it deems most advantageous to launch that study. What will be the exact formula? The cabinet has not yet reached a decision on that question.
May 29, 1981


RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Since weeks and months go by without anything being done by the government to change in any way, shape or form, the Crowsnest Pass freight rates with respect to grain, and since by far the majority of farm organizations in western Canada have now agreed that a change is necessary to facilitate grain transportation in the next few years, I would ask the minister why the government at the present time is almost totally inactive in this area when there is now about as much agreement in western Canada as I think the government is ever going to have on the need for change in these rates?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the events are well known. 1 almost crusaded for a number of months for acceptance of the concept of modernization of the Crow. The different grain organizations came to see us in Ottawa, met with the Prime Minister, and his judgment, which I share, was that the degree of commitment in western Canada to this change was not yet sufficient. The Prime Minister turned to the grain organizations and others and told them, "Develop the consensus, strengthen it and make it more definitive." This is what he called for, and again I think it was a very justified position. A number of groups have taken the invitation very seriously and have been at work trying to maximize the consensus which, in my view also, exists in western Canada on this subject, and they are now coming back with a more developed position on the subject.
With respect to the government, a number of things are being done. The branch line rehabilitation system is being improved, and we have a five-year plan being developed now. So improvements are being made but the main subject is still open for discussion.


POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT STUDY
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, 1 take the minister's answer as an excuse in terms of sloughing off the problem on the farming community, and I would remind him that with regard to the important piece of legislation that was debated in this House not too long ago, namely, the Constitution, all groups, all the people in western Canada, were not unanimous on that, but the government still went ahead.
I ask the minister does the government have a timetable for introducing legislation or setting up a commission to study once and for all this matter of great importance to western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have my own view on how development should take place, but I am not in a position to say what the government's timetable is on this matter. Again, however, I am glad to see
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon
my hon. friend stating his position and presumably that of his party in terms of wanting to see a modernization of the Crowsnest Pass rates. I think he has made an interesting contribution this morning to the development of ideas in Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First Report of Standing Committee on Communications and Culture-Mr. Gourd.

[Stage Direction]
Third Report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, just a short point of order. You may recall that on Wednesday when I raised a question of privilege, you suggested I should take it up with the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. That committee met yesterday afternoon and I took it up, but due to lack of a quorum I was unable to have a motion voted on. The attendance at that meeting did not leave any indication there would be a quorum today. There were five Conservatives, three Liberals and one NDP present.
Now, as that committee will finish its reference, the estimates, at the end of May, the next meeting that I can foresee with any degree of certainty will probably be next fall. I wonder whether there is any other way you may suggest in which I can have this matter settled.


Madam Speaker:: Well, it seems to me the only place where it can be settled is in the committee. I would hope that whatever is necessary to have a quorum in that committee will be done by those responsible. 1 suggest that he broach the question with the chairman of that committee.

May 29, 1981
Order Paper Questions


CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT
Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-66, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.


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

[ English]

Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-67, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act (No. 2).


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,566, 2,179, 2,181, 2,188,2,189 and 2,192.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was any member of the RCMP in Mexico, particularly Acapulco, at any time between January 1 and March 5, 1979, and, if so (a) what was his/her name and rank (b) what was the purpose of his/her visit?
2.	Did any member of the RCMP stay at Villa Los Arcos in Acapulco at any time between the dates mentioned in part I and, if so, for what reason and who accompanied him/her?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: i and 2. Three members of the force were officially in Mexico during the period referred to. Cpl. Richard Beaudoin, "C" division, Montreal, was in Mexico in relation to a drug investigation but official duties did not take him to Acapulco. Inspector Gerhardt, then of Toronto commercial crime section, was in Mexico in relation to an investigation and was accompanied on a trip to Vera Cruz by the RCMP liaison officer in Mexico City, S/Sgt. A. Gillies, returning to Mexico City the same day.


Mr. Herbert: Are there any fiscal transfer payments other than the established programs financing formula and the fiscal equalization programs and, if so, what are they and what is the per capita amount by province?


Pierre Bussières: In addition to established programs financing and fiscal equalization, fiscal transfer payments to provincial governments in 1981-82 include statutory subsidies, the public utilities income tax transfer, reciprocal taxation payments, transfers under the 1971 undistributed income on hand program, and the Youth Allowance recovery.
Statutory subsidies are the oldest fiscal transfers and are paid as part of the terms of Confederation. They take several forms, including a grant in support of provincial legislatures, a per capita grant, a debt allowance and certain special grants.
Under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act (PUITTA) the federal government pays to provinces 95 per cent of the tax collected from corporations involved in the distribution or generation for distribution of electrical energy, gas and steam to the public.
Through the reciprocal taxation agreements provinces which have agreed to do so pay federal consumption taxes on their purchases of goods and services, and the federal government makes payments in lieu of provincial consumption taxes and fees on its purchases of goods and services in these provinces. Six provinces-Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario-are currently participating in these arrangements.
Under the Income Tax Act corporations could distribute, tax free, to shareholders profits accumulated prior to 1972, once the special federal tax was paid. This payment represents the provincial share of the tax collected, and the 1981-82 transfer effectively winds up the program.
The Youth Allowances program has expired; however, the federal government continues to transfer three personal income tax points to Quebec and their value is recovered by means of a reduction in amounts otherwise payable to the province.
The per capita value of these transfers, by province, is given in the list below.
Estimated Per Capita Value of Fiscal Transfer Programs by Province, 1981-82
			(S)		
Nfld. P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B. Que.	Ont.	Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.Statutory Subsidies	17 5	3	3 1	1	2 2 2 1PUITTA	8 6	*	3	2 * 17 IReciprocal Taxation	16 23	22	12 6	7	1971 UIOH	*	[DOT]	1
* *
Youth Allowances Recovery			(-28)		
Amount too small to be expressed.
May 29, 1981


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount was transferred to the provinces under the established programs financing formula payments program, by year, for total payment and by province on a per capita basis?
2.	What is the estimated per capita contribution for the year 1981-82?


Pierre Bussières: 1. The federal contribution to the provinces for hospital insurance, medicare, post-secondary education and extended health care is partly in the form of a cash transfer and partly in the form of a tax transfer. The value of the EPF transfer since 1977 is shown below.
Under the shared-cost agreements in place before EPF came into effect in 1977, the federal contribution to these programs varied widely on a per capita basis among provinces depending upon how much provincial governments themselves spent in these program areas. After an interim period during which provincial entitlements were levelled up or down to the national average, the EPF arrangements now essentially constitute an equal per capita transfer to all provinces.
Order Paper Questions
The core of the cash transfer is "basic cash", which is equal to half the federal contribution under the three "established" programs in 1975-76, escalated by the trend rate of growth of GNP. To the extent their equalized tax transfer is less than "basic cash", provinces receive transitional cash payments. Because of the strength of their respective tax bases, however, the tax transfer to Yukon and Alberta for 1980-81 is sufficiently large to eliminate their need for these transitional cash payments. In fact the tax transfer in Yukon and in Alberta exceeds the value of basic cash, but this excess is not recovered. As a result the value of the EPF transfer to those governments in 1980-81 slightly exceeds the national average.
Total Cash and Tax Transfer under EPF, 1977-78 to 1980-81 ($ Million)
Cash Transfer
1977-	78	3,8181978-	79*	4,4541979-	80*	5,2371980-	81**	5,773
Total Cash and Tax Transfer Tax Transfer
3,297	7,115
3,678	8,132
3,971	9,208
4,440	10,214
* Estimated Sept. 1980
**Estimated Jan. 1981
Figures may not add due to rounding.
Cash Transfers Per Capita under EPF, 1977-78 to 1980-81
($)
Nfld	PEI.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T.	Yuk.	Total1977-78	171.89	161.78	182.29	173.07	143.76	175.94	189.27	179.22	158.78	153.76	186.71	155.42	164.181978-79*	207.30	201.73	213.06	207.97	158.89	204.32	216.91	211.19	182.95	185.96	211.03	180.70	189.721979-80*	249.95	249.95	249.95	249.95	181.92	236.21	249.95	249.95	212.68	227.19	240.48	206.68	221.261980-81**	273.16	273.16	273.16	273.16	199.46	258.13	273.16	273.16	227.51	246.84	262.02	226.92	241.42
Tax Transfers Per Capita under EPF, 1977-78 to 1980-81
($)
Nfld.	PEL	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T.	Yuk.	Total1977-78	116.82	116.82	116.82	116.82	173.38	129.90	116.82	116.82	150.37	137.32	121.59	169.89	141.771978-79*	129.46	129.46	129.46	129.46	193.07	142.01	129.46	129.65	167.39	152.24	136.59	187.87	156.661979-80*	138.95	138.95	138.95	138.95	206.98	152.69	138.95	138.95	177.30	161.71	148.42	199.41	167.751980-81**	153.84	153.84	153.84	153.84	227.53	168.87	153.84	153.84	200.46	180.16	164.97	218.73	185.68Total Tax and Cash	Transfers Per Capita	under EPF, 1977-78 to 1980-	81	Nfld.	PEL	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T.	Yuk.	Total1977-78	288.71	278.60	299.11	289.89	317.14	305.84	306.09	296.04	309.15	291.08	308.30	325.31	305.941978-79*	336.76	331.19	342.52	337.43	351.96	346.33	346.37	340.84	350.34	338.20	347.62	368.57	346.381979-80*	388.90	388.90	388.90	388.90	388.90	388.90	388.90	388.90	388.90	388.90	388.90	406.09	389.011980-81**	427.00	427.00	427.00	427.00	427.00	427.00	427.00	427.00	427.98	427.00	427.00	445.66	427.10
* Estimated Sept. 1980
Estimated Jan. 1981
2. The estimated total transfer per capita for the year 1981-82 is $470.39 in each of the ten provinces and in the Northwest Territories. In Yukon the estimated per capita transfer is $500.21, and the average per capita transfer of cash and tax across Canada is $470.42.


Mr. Herbert: 1. What percentage is returned to the provinces from the collection of income tax from corporations involved in the distribution or generation for distribution of electrical energy, gas and steam to the public?

May 29, 1981
Order Paper Questions
2. How does the government dispose of moneys, from prior years' adjustments, that are not distributable by province?


Pierre Bussières: 1.	The Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act authorizes the payment to provinces of 95 per cent of the federal income tax paid by investor-owned utilities on income attributable to the sale and distribution of electrical energy, gas and steam.
2.	All entitlements arising out of adjustments in respect of prior years' federal income taxes are distributed to provinces once final data are received from the Department of National Revenue.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was carried in the estimates for prior year adjustments under the equalization program and what amount is included to date in the current year's estimates?


Pierre Bussières: The amounts which have been carried in the Main Estimates for prior year adjustments to the fiscal equalization program in the past five years are as follows: 1976-77: $50,000,000; 1977-78: $50,000,000; 1978-79: $80,000,000; 1979-80: $50,000,000 and 1980-81: $150,000,000. The amount included in the estimates for 1981-82 is $200,000,000.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount, by province, was contributed last year and is estimated to be paid this year for fiscal transfer payments which are part of the terms of Confederation?
2.	Do provinces receive grants to support their legislatures and, if so, which provinces?


Pierre Bussières: 1. The amounts paid or to be paid to provinces by the federal government in 1980-81 and 1981-82 as part of the terms of Confederation are as follows:
Statutory Subsidies, by Province, 1980-81 and 1981-82, in Dollars
Province	1980-81	1981-82Newfoundland	9,708,000	9,758,000Prince Edward Island	659,000	670,000Nova Scotia	2,174,000	2,259,000New Brunswick	1,774,000	1,836,000Quebec	4,484,000	4,677,000Ontario	5,504,000	6,063,000Manitoba	2,176,000	2,174,000Saskatchewan	2,137,000	2,159,000Alberta	3,359,000	3,498,000British Columbia	2,117,000	2,494,000Total	34,092,000	35,588,000
2. All ten provinces receive statutory grants to support their legislatures. Those payments are included in the figures shown in (1).
[ English]


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-61, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Deliquents Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lawrence (p. 9497).
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I am grateful for two reasons to be able to address myself to this legislation. Although it has been a subject of bills before in the House, one might say that I have been waiting around for over 23 years to speak on legislation that has not been much altered since 1908 when it was first passed. The second reason is that it gives me one of those typical opportunities to address myself to a measure in a totally non-partisan way.
The government introduced this legislation last February. It repeals the Juvenile Delinquents Act which is some 73 years old. There has been very little change since it was first passed in 1908.
I want to do three things with the time available to me. I want to compare the legislation before us with the archaic and outmoded Juvenile Delinquents Act. Also I want to compare the legislation before us with that which was introduced during the short time the Progressive Conservative Party held office; that is, the legislation introduced by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), the then solicitor general, in October 1979.
Generally the legislation is not only welcomed by our party, but we support it very strongly in principle. There are some areas in the legislation now before us which require somewhat closer scrutiny than they have had. Perhaps the most obvious deficiency of the bill is its very title. A shortcoming of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which is the existing legislation governing the manner in which we deal with young people in the judicial process, is that it stigmatized young people at the outset. The new legislation does not meet this hurdle. Its short title, the Young Offenders Act, does not help us. It merely perpetuates a problem which could quite easily be overcome. This was pointed out by the hon. member for Halifax West
May 29, 1981

(Mr. Crosby) when he spoke during second reading stage in April of this year.
One of the purposes of this bill is to give a fresh start to or to take a fresh direction in the manner in which we deal with young people in conflict with the law. For instance, in connection with my remarks as to the title, we have no adult offenders act. There is no implication that an adult charged under the provisions of the Criminal Code is predestined to be found guilty. It is called the Criminal Code; under the fundamental principles of our system of justice, everyone is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. This disappears by implication in the title of this bill. I do not think we should have a bill which prestigmatizes young people by implication in the title of the legislation itself. Perhaps a better title for the legislation, which might be considered in committee, is the "youth justice act" or some similar title which contains no implication or stigmatization of young people.
One of the major criticisms of the bill concerns the age limitation. The minimum age of criminal responsibility under the Criminal Code is seven years. Under clause 2(1) of the bill, the minimum age is raised to 12 years. In the 1975 report which was entitled "Young Persons in Conflict with the Law", the minimum age suggested was 14, but subsequently it was lowered to 12 by the proposals of the solicitor general in 1977. The age of 12 was also favoured by our government during its short term in office.
Although there are unavoidable difficulties in establishing a minimum age, a higher minimum age could well be argued so as to emphasize the contribution which welfare and educational techniques could make in dealing with children, as well as the importance of avoiding the stigma attached to a judicial hearing. The effect of raising the minimum age is that young people between the ages of seven and 12 will now be subject to provincial and territorial laws. This raises the question of provincial and territorial responsibilities to these young people.
Thus far the government has not said whether there will be any increased funding for the expansion of child welfare services which will inevitably occur. It is not clear how the provinces and the territories will respond to the jurisdictional void which will occur, but it is relatively certain that there will be a wide variation in approaches, which according to my prediction will also lead to inequities in the dispensation of the effects of this legislation.
Hopefully, when the minister closes the debate he will address the subject of the financial aspect of implementing the proposed new minimum age limit. Consideration must also be given to the manner in which provincial and territorial offenders will be processed. The bill before us is absolutely silent as to this aspect of the matter.
A serious inequity arises in relation to the maximum age set; or perhaps it is more appropriate to say "not set" by Bill C-61. The provision is for a maximum age of 18 years. However, this may be lowered by the provinces and the territories to 16 or 17. This could lead to something which the government, in other pieces of legislation, has been attempting to avoid like the plague-a checkerboard effect throughout the country
Young Offenders Act
which does nothing for the uniform dispensation of law in the country, particularly criminal law.
Section 15 of the proposed charter of rights protects against discrimination on the basis of age. The legislation should be attempting to bring uniformity to this area of law. Young people throughout Canada, no matter where they reside, should have available to them the provisions of this bill, although the age of majority varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The possibility of discrimination in relation to the application of the law raises the issue with which the charter of rights is supposed to deal. It does not appear that the government, which is presumably committed to its new constitutional proposal, has clearly thought out the effect of these provisions; in my submission they are in direct conflict.
The government appears to have failed to relate its constitutional proposal, particularly the inclusion of a charter of rights, to the business which it is now presenting to the House for approval. Under the present proposal, a 17-year-old youth in one province or territory could fall within the sphere or the ambit of the provisions of this legislation, whereas in another province or territory the same youth may fall within the provisions of the Criminal Code and be treated as an adult with all the possible harsh consequences which could ensue from that circumstance.
Surely this is not acceptable; surely it should be remedied before the bill becomes law. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should very closely and carefully examine this inconsistency. It is not simply an apparent inconsistency; it is one in fact.
Also the bill before us provides for alternate measures to the court process laid out in clause 4. It is a welcome provision, as not all youths who break federal laws will have to appear in youth courts. It has long been recognized that the courts are often full of youths, young people who should not be there, just as our penitentiary system is full of young people, many of whom should not be there.
These provisions give formal recognition to the voluntary- and I emphasize that word-performance of community service or restitution to the victim in lieu of a court appearance. Nothing in the provisions of the bill preclude or bar proceedings against the youth in a court where innocence or guilt may be established. The main criticism which I have of this section is that there is no formal process established in the administration of these diversion techniques, even though I recognize that diversion throughout the country, and particularly more so in some parts of the country than others, is in the experimental process.
Surely in this legislation the techniques, the process itself, should be spelled out. Although safeguards exist to ensure that the youth is dealt with equitably, if diversion is used the process by which this occurs is not governed by even the vaguest of guidelines. It falls totally within the powers of the provinces and territories. Perhaps that is the intention. But, once again, we could find ourselves faced with inequities

May 29, 1981
Young Offenders Act
between provinces and territories in different methods applied to bring about the process with young people being treated differently, depending upon where they reside or, perhaps, where the offence is committed.
Although the diversion provisions are worthy of general support, the process by which diversion is achieved is definitely in need of further examination by the committee. How will the changes be paid for? Who will be responsible for funding? Again, the absence of a commitment to provide financial support for the costly screening process is of great concern. The effect of section 4 can only be as good as its implementation and, to be sure, the provinces and territories will, I expect, be resisting picking up the tab, as it were. As the Canadian Corrections Association has already pointed out, merely changing the legislation without improving the range and quality of resources is an exercise in futility. But that is what is being attempted here, and I would hope that the standing committee, when seized of the legislation, will clean up what appears to be a very serious omission.
The next area of the legislation which I would like to touch briefly upon is that which concerns itself with detention and bail. The legislation would require youths to be detained separately from adults. If no place for detention for young people exists in the area, however, the youth could be placed in a building housing adult offenders. In my opinion this is simply not acceptable. Young people dealt with under this legislation should be assiduously kept apart from adult offenders. Once again the government has failed to offer funds for the additional youth detention buildings which ought to be provided for and which ought to be a requirement under the legislation.
The bill provides that a youth can avoid incarceration or detention in an institution if he or she is placed in the care of a responsible person who is "willing and able to take care of and exercise control over a young person who has been arrested". This may be found in subsection (4) of clause 7 of the bill before us. The young person must also be willing to go with the person in whose care he or she is discharged. This is a proposal which was supported by our government and which is worthy of continued support. It provided, as it does now, a positive alternative to incarceration where parents or a responsible adult may step in and assume responsibility for the young person.
One important change in the new, as opposed to the old, legislation is the new requirement that notice to the parents of the accused must be given if a young person is arrested and detained. Under the old legislation the state acquired the position of parens patriae and parents or guardians were often uninformed as to their child's circumstances. In the new legislation there is provision for direct participation of the parents in all aspects of the process under this bill.
The requirement of notice applies not only to an occasion where a child has been detained, but also to cases where an appearance notice or summons has been issued, as well as when a youth is released giving his promise to appear, or is released on a recognizance. Such notice requirements are
welcome in the face of total absence of such protections in the existing legislation. It ensures that the rights and responsibilities of parents are maintained up to the maximum age of jurisdiction. Entitlement for bail will also change to the same as for adult offenders and will be governed by the provisions of the Criminal Code.
The next aspect of the bill with which I would like to deal is the right of the young person to assistance and representation. The Juvenile Delinquents Act is silent on the matter of a young person's right to counsel. The bill before us states expressly in clause 11 that a young person is entitled to be assisted by a lawyer during all proceedings. In the notice sent to a parent immediately upon arrest or issuance of an appearance notice, summons or recognizance, a statement of the right to retain counsel must be included. The judge is required to inform the youth of his or her right to be represented by counsel when the accused appears before a court. If counsel has not already been retained, an opportunity will be given to retain one.
In my submission the new legislation does not go far enough. Although the right to counsel is expressly given in the bill- and I would draw this point to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), if he would follow me for a moment or two-in my view there is a very serious omission. It allows for an adult to assist a young person but it does not guarantee the young person the right to counsel. The role of a lawyer is vital in judicial proceedings. He or she must ensure that the youth receives a full and fair hearing in the matter of adjudicating the facts upon which the charge is based, and that the disposition of the case is, in fact, in the best interests of the child.
As a counsellor to the youth, the lawyer can discover the limitations and services offered by the court and should check and challenge the modes of disposition presented to the court. In short, the lawyer's function is to act as a check on the authorities, to question and challenge disposition proposals and therapy, even to the extent of determining the validity of the very base on which proposals are made. The fears of those who believe the lawyer's presence will lead to a formal, legal loophole-ridden and technical atmosphere are groundless, in my submission. With trained lawyers on both sides the operation of the entire procedure would run more smoothly. Formalism could help to rid the system of possible abuses. A youth is entitled to protection from well-intended but misguided coercion.
An interesting provision in this bill, and one which is worthy of support, relates to the issue which I have just been discussing. Although the role of a parent is very important, it is recognized that the parental influence is not always in the best interests of a young person. Many parents cannot afford a lawyer, nor can they take the time off to appear at the court hearing. Time and time again I have seen it happen in juvenile court, where the youth is there without parent and without representation. If the parent does not appear on the youth's behalf, he is often overwhelmed and overawed by the courtroom atmosphere. The easiest course of action for the parent is quiet acquiescence in the advice of police officers, well-inten-
May 29, 1981

tioned advice I am sure, or probation officers. In my observation, the best interests of the child have not always been served.
Clause 11, subclause (7), states that where the interests of the youth and parent are in conflict, or where the best interests of the youth are not being served, the court:
-shall ensure that the young person is represented by counsel independent of his parents.
That provision is there but it does not plug the loophole that I brought to the minister's attention a moment ago. A case should not have to be made for legal representation of children charged with offences. Provision for legal aid would help to alleviate the inequities in the present system which tends to discriminate unfairly against native children and against the poor.
The next issue in this bill deals with transfer to the adult court. The bill allows for a transfer only if the youth committed the offence when he was 14 years of age or older. There are explicit criteria provided to guide a judge's decision which is lacking in the old legislation. For instance, the judge must consider a number of factors, such as the predisposition report, which is mandatory, the age and the background of the offender, and the seriousness of the alleged offence. The judge must also consider the parents' representations before making a transfer order. The transfer order itself is subject to appeal. This is another area which requires much closer scrutiny at the committee stage; in particular, the criteria that judges must consider in making a transfer order. The rights and interests of the young offender as well as the rights of society must be properly protected. The committee will have to tackle this problem, I suppose, by calling appropriate witnesses and reexamining this whole area of the bill far more carefully.
Now 1 would like to refer to the matter of disposition, and that is, sentencing powers. There is a much wider variety of options available to the courts as compared with the old act. The provisions are identical to the 1979 proposals which our government brought in. There is one exception to that, and that is that a combination of the options can now be used so long as they do not exceed two years in total. Options available include an absolute discharge, a fine of up to $1,000, a restitution or compensation order, a community service order, compensation by personal service, probation of up to two years, custody of up to two years, or any other reasonable and ancillary condition that the court deems advisable and in the best interests of the young person and society. These changes are consistent with the philosophy underlying the bill before us as stated by the Solicitor General and I will not repeat those statements. They are to be found in his remarks on the proposed legislation in this place on April 15 last.
This philosophy is reflected throughout the legislation. For example, an important feature of the bill is the abolition of what the old legislation describes as a delinquency. Under the new legislation, a young person would only be held responsible for offences under the Criminal Code and other federal stat-
Young Offenders Act
utes and regulations. The so-called status offences will be no more. This reflects the constitutional division of responsibility between the federal and the provincial and territorial levels, as well as approving the practice in many jurisdictions of decriminalizing behaviour which is no longer seen as serious enough to rationalize its inclusion under criminal law.
The provisions for disposition also reflect this basic philosophy. They recognize the rights of the young person to be equal to those of an adult. Maximum sentences, for the first time, are established. In making the disposition, the judge must consider the type of offence committed, the predisposition report, and any other relevant information. In the Juvenile Delinquents Act, reference to "the child's own good and the best interest of the community", is absent, which allows the court to move away from its parens patriae role and focus its intention on its role as a court. Although the parental role still exists, its importance is diminished and it cannot be used for excessive intervention. Another protection against abuse is the requirement in clause 20, subclause (5), that the judge provide written reasons for the disposition.
The two-year maximum of disposition orders is a change from the 1975 report, as well as the 1977 proposals of the Solicitor General which recommended a maximum of three years. This is a very positive change and reflects, in my view, the past experience of those involved in this area, that two years is sufficient to meet the needs of young people.
A criticism of the disposition order deals with the concept of community service and restitution as being preferable to orders based on punishment. Although it is a step in the right direction and certainly worthy of support, there should be some provision to ensure compliance. For example, the rules governing custody are quite explicit. The same thought and foresight ought to be applied to restitution orders. The legislation is breaking into virgin territory with these new concepts. Though it is recognized that, as such, not all difficulties are foreseeable, it does not take a great amount of foresight, for instance, to realize that there will be occasions, when a young person will not comply with his or her restitution order, or when a diversion program will not work. So, what happens then? Bill C-61 appears to be silent on this most important point, in my submission, and this aspect of the bill will certainly require discussion at the committee stage.
In my submission, as a finality to this point, the existing provisions in the bill are vague and the checks and balances so necessary are simply not present. The bill provides for mandatory disposition orders. Under the old act there was no mandatory review process, and power was given to the judge, in any case, to have a youth brought back to court before he reached the age of 21 without any specific reason. The judge had the power, which was virtually unchecked, to impose any disposition in substitution for the original one.
The important new provision for mandatory review will ensure, in my view, that the welfare and progress of a youth will be subject to continuing review from the beginning to the end of the disposition. Where custody is ordered, there is a yearly mandatory review which can occur more frequently on

May 29, 1981
Young Offenders Act
application of the young person, the provincial or territorial director, the parents or the Crown. The review can be conducted by the court or a provincially or territorially appointed review board. But if the review relates to the basic nature of a custodial sentence, then only the youth court would have jurisdiction. Upon completion of a review, a judge may reduce the disposition to any lesser one provided for under the act, including discharge. If it is found that a youth deliberately failed to comply with the original disposition, then the court itself can raise the disposition.
The important changes to note here are, first, the availability of review and the youth's knowledge and presence at that review; and second, that open-ended dispositions are no longer permitted.
Criticisms of these sections of the bill relate primarily not to the way the review boards will be functioning so much as to their composition. The boards will fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories and there are no guidelines set out for the provinces and territories to follow in making appointments to them. This gives me grave cause for concern, as it should every member. As there are no requirements for qualifications for membership of the review board it is conceivable, indeed, it is quite to be expected, that it would be comprised of political appointees or persons unqualified for the sensitive job that is required, especially a board that is dealing exclusively with young people. In my submission the board must be competent and without bias in order to function properly and effectively. The board's composition should consist of individuals who have some sympathy with the problems of young people and some degree of expertise in their approach to how the problems will be dealt with and solved. This is usually the last criteria found in political appointments.
It is all very well in a body such as the National Parole Board to let political persuasion be a criteria in the selection process, but it is totally out of place in the appointment of individuals who comprise a review board dealing with young people. It would be my strong submission, therefore, that when the matter is considered by committee, some guidelines as to the qualifications of those who will be sitting on these review boards should be considered and, it is hoped, will be spelled out by amendments in the bill.
Another aspect of the bill deals with the appeal process. This is one of the most welcome changes to be found in the new bill. Under the existing legislation, clause 37 provides for an appeal which is allowed "from any decision" but only with "special leave from a Supreme Court judge". Before leave can be granted, the judge must consider that to do so is "essential to the public interest or for the due administration of justice."
Because of the wording of the statute, appeals have been kept to a minimum, which was the apparent intention of the language then used. The present procedure does not provide additional protection for young offenders, but rather it restricts the right of appeal.
This bill gives youths the same right of appeal as adults under the Criminal Code. The ambiguities and balancing problems inherent in the wording of the Juvenile Delinquents Act are dispensed with. The appeal procedure in the Code is clear and well established so it is with a great deal of approval that we greet this provision in the legislation. It will certainly alleviate the potential abuses of and infringements upon the basic rights of young people that have in the past consistently occurred.
Other aspects of this bill which are dealt with are fingerprinting and photographing of young persons. The bill permits fingerprinting and photographing, but if the young person is acquitted or proceedings are discontinued, the prints and photographs must be destroyed. The practice to be followed is that set out in the Identification of Criminals Act. There are also special provisions in respect of storage of these kinds of records. Generally speaking, the new provisions will be helpful in clarifying a situation which is unclear at present.
With regard to court records under this bill, once a sentence is completed and a qualifying period without crime is completed then the records are destroyed. The qualifying period is two years for a summary offence, five years for an indictable offence.
Under the existing Juvenile Delinquents Act there are no provisions regarding the destruction of records, nor are there controls for the creation and maintenance of confidentiality and accessibility of juvenile court records. The new provisions, in my submission, are to be supported because they allow a young person to enter adulthood with a clean slate. Under the present legislation a youth would be labelled a delinquent for the rest of his life.
Having addressed the matter point by point, I want to say, in terminating these remarks, that the provisions of the bill with respect to trial proceedings being held in camera are a welcome change. Under the present act, the trial proceedings were held in camera. The philosophy underlying this was that trials involving children should be without publicity and should be held apart from trials of adults. We can certainly agree with the latter point. In camera hearings are and should be viewed with suspicion always, as they are always subject to potential abuse. The press cannot act, for example, as a check on arbitrary court action.
The new bill allows hearings to be open to the public but restrictions will remain. The judge may exclude people in the interest of public morals, administration of justice or where the information being presented to the court would be seriously prejudicial or injurious to any youth present-either the accused, the victim, or a witness. The provisions with respect to the publication of information are also to be welcomed.
Having gone through the measure seriatim, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the record of today's proceedings would commend itself to those members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and that they will study the suggestions I have made with great interest and attention. I hope all the points that I have covered will come back to the House in the form of an improved piece of legislation.
May 29, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have some advantages speaking on this bill and I have some disadvantages. My advantage is that I am not a lawyer but I am a parent. I have raised five children through this difficult period. My disadvantage in the House, as I speak on the Young Offenders Act, is also that I am not a lawyer.
This is an important and complex piece of legislation. It is, as my hon. colleague and neighbour from Durham-Northumb-erland (Mr. Lawrence) pointed out earlier this month, the first major social justice bill to come before this House in over three decades. I think it is a sad thing to have waited so long for the reforms necessary in dealing with young offenders in this country. It is sad that the government has waited so long before giving this major issue the priority it deserves. Swept to power 13 years ago by promising Canadians a "just society", it is only now that the government takes serious steps.
What are the reforms that the government is proposing? I am pleased to see-except for one or two points which I will deal with later-that the government is stealing the proposals put forward by the solicitor general of the 1979 Progressive Conservative government. It is pleasing to see the Liberal government recognizing that good ideas on social justice come from the Conservative party. Perhaps it could also accept some of our good ideas on economics.
What has taken place in Canada with respect to juvenile delinquency under our Liberal administration? From 1974 to 1978 violent juvenile delinquency increased by 60 per cent. I am not going to blame this on any particular government. We have seen in the last decade increased violent crime in all age groups in North America. But I would like to make the point to hon. members that problems of this nature are problems for society as a whole and, to a great extent, reflect the problems of our society.
The tragedy of violent juvenile crime is not going to be stopped simply by passing an updated piece of legislation which should have been passed ten years ago. Our problems are much more fundamental than the important, but nevertheless, non-crucial, issues of administration and mechanisms of our young justice system.
What governments must begin to address is the increasing casualness and decreasing morality of our society. I know that it is not fashionable to speak of morality, but morality is necessary. If the word "morality" is too offensive for some of my colleague in the left-wing of this House, or too religious for others, I shall not apologize but instead substitute the word "ethics".
The concept of responsibility must be reintroduced into our society, not just with respect to the actions of young offenders but with respect to all Canadians. We must climb out of the ethical cesspool that we have been in and have built for ourselves which permits the individual all too frequently to blame the consequences of his actions and circumstances on
Young Offenders Act
other people, particularly on government, which they expect will do all for everyone.
Accountability must be introduced to our society. We must stamp out the fraudulent notion that someone or something, whether it be big government or big brother, is always going to solve our problems for us. Mistakes are always going to be made by individuals in our society, and mistakes should be judged with compassion. But there is a turning point, a point where too much compassion becomes cruelty. It is an unintended cruelty to be sure, but it is no less harsh. There is a point where too much sympathy, when handing out consequences for an individual's actions, can begin to encourage the individual to continue making mistakes, a point where the individual is not appropriately aware of the seriousness of his mistakes, a point where the individual begins to expect, and begins to take for granted that someone else, not him, is responsible.
This point, I feel, is passed in the Young Offenders Act before us. I would urge members, especially members of my own party, should the government force this bill to committee, to review carefully the provision in the bill which would remove the concept of the liability of parents for criminal acts committed by their young people. This concept, present in Section 22 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, has been removed and replaced with the view that only the young people themselves are financially responsible for their acts.
On this point, having raised five children above this age myself, I feel there must be consequences for their actions which must be dealt with in the home. The matter cannot be dealt with only in the courts. I plead with members of my own party to put this provision, presently in Section 22, into this bill.
The phrase "young people" is sometimes misleading. Let me emphasize that we are talking about children, those who have just left babyhood. The point I am making, is that we are talking about children who have not received the proper discipline. We are talking about children who have not received proper upbringing or who have not had the moral values instilled into them, as I mentioned earlier. I believe it is the moral fibre of this country which is at fault and causing these children to do these things. Parents or guardians must have the incentive to stop their children from doing wrong. Parents or guardians must have the incentive to develop some responsibility in their children. I am speaking of "their" children; they are not our children but the children of the parents. The failure to include an equivalent of Section 22 in this bill may well add to the decay of the morality of our society.
I believe it is insulting for this House to presume to speak of giving parents incentives, but let's face it, there are some bad parents in this country. At times I could include myself in that group. The courts should set an example of morality but the courts should not be the only ones to do this. Parents must also set such standards. I firmly believe that possible parental liability for the criminal actions of children will help to encourage the setting of these standards.

May 29, 1981
Young Offenders Act
1 mentioned that I am at a disadvantage because I am not a lawyer. Other than my philosophical worry, there are two technical aspects of this bill about which I am worried. The first was well presented on May 12 by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, who is a lawyer and someone I trust in these matters. I know that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) was not in the House at that time nor is he in the House now, which is a shame, because the hon. member made some good points on this matter. One in particular has to do with the lack of uniformity across Canada of a maximum age defining a young person. For that reason,' I trust that this amendment will be adopted.
I think it very important that the administration of justice for young people not be tackled in a piecemeal approach, varying from one province to another. A 16-year-old in one province is the same as a 16-year-old in another province and should not be treated as more mature, more responsible, than an 18-year-old whether in the same province or in another province.


Mr. Evans:: Does that line of reasoning not apply to the charter of rights?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Contrary to the Liberal position.
My other technical concern is with clause 11, subclause (1), on the right to "retain and instruct" counsel, and with subclause (4) of the same clause respecting legal aid. I would ask other members in this House, those more familiar with the law, to look at these provisions closely should the government force the bill to committee. I am worried that the act does not take sufficient precautions in making certain that another huge and costly extension is not added to our present legal aid bureaucracy.
I would like to reiterate my point that I am worried for the young people of this country because in some cases both parents have had to go to work, partly as a result of inflation. I am concerned they are not getting direction. I am concerned, too, that there is no morality in their society. When I was a young person I was taken to church on Sunday. I was brought up with some morality and when I committed an offence, no matter how minor it was, my father dealt with me in the way he thought appropriate. It hurt. I did not like it but I respected it. I do not necessarily follow that philosophy today because our own morality has fallen apart.
I plead with this House and with the members serving on this committee to look at this bill very carefully to make certain that they deal with all factors, not just the legal factors. Because our young people are the citizens of this country who will eventually be governing Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles:: One o'clock.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, it is close enough to one o'clock that, if you wish to see it that way, I would appreciate coming back at two o'clock.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Michael Collenette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret to make this intervention at this time, but I wonder if we could get the unanimous consent of the House to revert briefly to tabling of committee reports, since the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) was specifically instructed by the committee on northern pipelines to table their report. Unfortunately, due to clerical problems he was unable to do so earlier.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like an eminently sensible suggestion, although belated. We concur.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


Mr.   de Corneille@: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the agreement of the House to permit me to make this presentation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines-Mr. de Corneille.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-61, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Deliquents Act, be read the second time
May 29, 1981
[Stage Direction]
and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lawrence (p. 9497).
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of an historic moment for me. Although I have had many occasions to speak in this House, this is the first time I have done so without there being one cabinet minister present-not that it will make any great difference.


Mr. Cullen:: There are a lot of former ones though.


Arnold John Malone: It will be a rather interesting Friday afternoon with no minister of the Crown in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are a few hopefuls.


Arnold John Malone: This young offenders legislation needs to be updated as there has been very little change made to it since it was introduced in 1908. It is important that we look at our young people and reflect upon the way we impose the law on that sector of society and make the necessary changes to both the writing and administration of it.
Although this legislation is basically good, there are some inequities which, with the agreement of the various parties in committee, could be done away with to make it a better piece of legislation. I want to reflect on the subject of young people and why it is timely that we bring about some changes to this legislation.
Those who watch the charts and graphs on the rate of crime in Canada in particular and in North America in general have noted a continual increase. An hon. member opposite shakes his head, indicating that this is not the case. I do not know what data he has looked at which indicate there is less crime today per capita than in former years. There are very few people who would believe that crime has decreased in North America.
I believe the legislation is important because I think the tendency toward crime will increase. That tendency will increase because of the advent of the silicon chip in this electronic age. The use of technology will take meaningful employment away from larger percentages of our society. That will cause frustration among our population and the crime rate will increase. Thirty, forty or fifty years ago and beyond there was meaningful employment for people who had low skill levels or intelligence levels. Such people would have difficulty finding employment today. One or two generations ago a person with an IQ of 80 or 90 could always clean out livery stables. Snow had to be shovelled. Such work is now done by machinery. Mechanization, electroncis and superelectronics will, in the not too distant future, make it very difficult for a large part of our population to find employment. That phenomenon raises an interesting question respecting law and order and how to handle young people.
If I might digress from that point, I want to address myself for a few minutes to the North American phenomenon of
Young Offenders Act
adolescence. I believe adolescence has been created largely in Canada, the United States and the industrial nations of northern Europe and that in most countries of the world there is no adolescence. Psychologists have delved into the matter of the stress brought about by the change from childhood to adulthood. They have studied the stress among young people undergoing what is called adolescent change. They travelled to some of the lesser developed nations to find out why the change from childhood to adulthood causes stress, but in those lesser developed countries that change takes place almost overnight. In some of those countries two weeks after pubic rites people are no longer children. They go on hunting trips with their fathers, live under the rules and assume the responsibilities of adulthood. The interesting thing this team of psychologists found is that in lesser developed countries there is virtually no stress involved. Adolescents in North America are in limbo. They are not given appropriate responsibilities.
In our recent debates on the Constitution and when people appeared before the committee studying the Constitution the words often used in the committee and in this House were "my rights". We discussed the rights of women, the rights of children, the rights of Indians or native peoples and the rights of the handicapped. The legislation before us deals with the rights of youth, but I submit that this legislation is void of an adequate discussion of responsibility.
In dealing with the phenomenon of adolescence in industrial nations I remind hon. members that this country was settled by people who involved themselves in some phenomenal activities. The achievements of those people would hardly be believable today. Before he was 21 Lord Strathcona was making moves to set himself up in some very significant business enterprises. Ezra Eddy set up the E. B. Eddy Company. At the age of 15 he was very much an independent businessman. Sir John A. Macdonald articled in law at the age of 16.
Part of the reason for our youth crime rate is that we have talked much about rights, but we have not created a climate which would allow adolescents to pattern their behaviour in such a way as to excercise their full responsibilities. If we look around the world and also consider our own earlier history, we can demonstrate that the assuming of adult responsibility is something which the majority of our so-called adolescents can do. If they were rewarded appropriately for responsible behaviour, we could have a much more mature society.
On a congratulatory note, the first comment I want to make about this bill is that it is appropriate that it should encourage adolescents to assume more of the responsibilities of adulthood. My criticism is that I do not believe the bill goes far enough. For example, I believe that the concept of retribution might well be followed with respect to youth. A youth involved in a misdemeanour or a crime should repay the debt he owes to society and to the person or persons against whom he has committed his crime.
Too often today we let youths and adults get off with mere fines or prison terms. In many respects that is an easy way of removing the sense of obligation which should follow a criminal act. I see no reason why offenders, both youth and adult,

May 29, 1981
Young Offenders Act
should not repay their debt and perhaps repay more than the dollar value of that debt. Offenders could do such things as cleaning up a mile of highway or several miles of highway. There should be some public service performed in order to demonstrate the need to accept responsibility beyond just the paying of a fine, which at present can be paid by a parent or even by a child, if he happens to have money. Offenders should not be required simply to pay money and then be excused. People should be required to behave in a certain manner. They should be required to pay for their misbehaviour.
There should be some differentiation between crimes committed by adolescents as a result of an association with other adolescents and crimes committed as a result of the influence of adults. There should be a differentiation when an adult uses a child to commit crime, for pornography, for prostitution or for any other crime, whether it be organized or otherwise. In such cases there should be much harsher penalties for the adults involved. It may be presumed that the youth involved is of an immature mental age and that, while the youth will have to bear his responsibility, the full wrath of the law of the land should fall upon the adult.
There are areas of this bill in which I think some improvement can be made. First of all, it is my opinion that the title, the Young Offenders Act, is better than referring to juvenile delinquents because I think there is a negative connotation to those words. And with respect to the option many of these youths will have for an in camera hearing, it is my position that, while it will in some cases save the individuals some embarrassment, I do not believe that the due process of law is necessarily protected in that situation in a country that believes in freedom of the press and information. To allow a segment of our society called "youth" to have the protection of in camera proceedings has as much, if not more, opportunity for abuse as it does for service. I am nervous and concerned about this clause because, while it might be more acceptable for certain testimony, to have an entire case heard in camera is, I believe, a dangerous precedent in Canada where we simply do not believe in closed courts. The courts should be open, and if we are to expect a higher degree of responsibility from young people and we are going to treat them in a more responsible adult way, then I think an in camera proceeding is not the appropriate way to achieve that.
Another aspect on which I would like to comment is that of the juvenile review board. Here we have a proposal to establish a review board across Canada but with no guidelines as to who should sit on that board. That opens the floodgates for political appointments, appointments of people who may or may not be in a position to serve with the kind of expertise that we need on a board of that kind.
In addition to that, I believe it would be appropriate and beneficial to the young people concerned if we had assurances that a number of young people sat on that board along with the appropriate proportion of adults. This has been tried in other countries, including the United States, and been found to
have some considerable effect on their peers. In many cases a youth appearing before his peers has more respect for the law thereafter than he would if direction were coming from an authoritarian adult figure.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, it would be my view that we ought not to let this legislation pass without specifically stipulating what the guidelines should be for the review board, and that at least some members of that board should be senior youth carefully selected for their ability to consider the crime involved and whether or not parole should be granted.
Another aspect of this bill which ought to be improved at the committee stage is with respect to the definition by age of a young person. The age of majority in many provinces of Canada is 18, but it is not universal. In some provinces it can be as low as 16, and in others 17 or 19.
This is a good piece of legislation, timely and probably long overdue, but I think it would be of considerable benefit to Canada if the age limit were universal across the country. Whether you live in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario or Quebec, or one of the territories, is irrelevant. It is my view that the Young Offenders Act, so far as age is concerned, should be standardized across Canada, even if it means further negotiations with the provinces between now and the final reading to reach an agreement on that.
Another aspect I should like to speak to is that the Young Offenders Act provides that young offenders would serve their sentences in the same institutions as presently house adult offenders. While this may seem contradictory to my earlier comments concerning young people accepting the full responsibilities of adulthood, I am not of the opinion that you can put a young person in an institution which houses adults whose behaviour has been judged by society as negative.
I think it important that the federal government provide the financing for the setting up, where necessary, of institutions for youthful offenders, thereby keeping them away from the hardened criminals who occupy these adult institutions. I cannot think of a better way to teach young people about crime than to lock them away with hardened adult criminals. If this legislation is not changed in this respect, then I think it is certainly a retrograde step in our treatment of the young offender.
Another aspect of this bill is the wording which indicates that the younger person may have counsel, a right which is different from an adult's right to counsel. If we are to treat young people in a more responsible manner, which is the objective of this bill, I believe they should have the guarantee of counsel in the same way as any adult who allegedly committed a crime would be guaranteed that right. The simple provision that he may have counsel is unsatisfactory and is not strong enough in its wording. In its review, the committee should take a look at that matter to ensure that youths are guaranteed the full right to counsel in the same manner as adults, although they are younger than 18 years of age.
May 29, 1981

Historically our approach to law and order has been a punitive one, followed more recently by the protection of society and, even more recently, the talk of rehabilitation. In terms of the old law and order system, the punitive approach was to draw and quarter. Punishing people for the sole purpose of punishment should have no place in any system of law and order.
With respect to the protection of society and rehabilitation, I believe when a criminal has affronted society that the first objective ought to be the protection of society. But 1 would change my belief in that regard and say that the first objective with young offenders ought to be rehabilitation. Also I believe rehabilitation ought to be a part of adult programs, but in that case the protection of society ought to be the dominant objective. Rehabilitation ought to be the dominant objective when dealing with young people. We must be able to get them started, reward them for their capabilities and recognize that people, whether they be young or old, male or female, or however they are classified or stratified by society, can end up in criminal situations for reasons which do not necessarily demonstrate a calculated mental process in terms of their decision to commit a crime.
If that sounds like a lot of mush, let me repeat it by indicating that there are associated factors in our daily living patterns which have been linked to criminal activities. For example, the diets and eating patterns of North Americans is one of them. I know my following comments will not be part of the bill or an amendment to the legislation, but I encourage members of Parliament to use their influence in an attempt to rid school cafeterias of junk foods. I know we will not legislate it, but at the present time there is an overwhelming amount of information in that regard.
I hear some chuckles from the other side. Perhaps they have not read this well-researched information. Some examples are the overuse of sugar, pop and junk foods, the tensions and stresses inherent in people, the lack of appropriate vitamins and minerals in diets. I know it is difficult to excuse people's behaviour because they did not eat correctly, but it is our obligation in our role of giving leadership to talk whenever possible about the importance of these factors and their effect upon the behaviour of individuals, be they youths or adults.
As I indicated earlier, another factor is the area of jobs. With the advance of electronics, silicon chips and expensive computerization, it is incumbent upon us to remember that it is not good enough for people to be provided with goods, services and an adequate standard of living in terms of food, clothing and housing. Every human being thirsts to become a meaningful participant in society. He wants to "feel like a somebody", that he can do something; he wants a feeling of some personal worth and that he matters or counts. The removal of jobs from large sectors of society will increase the crime rate. If one does not feel meaningful and have some sense of self-respect, one will seek attention by practising disrespect. People by their nature must be noticed. If vast numbers of jobs are to be removed by electronics, they must be
Young Offenders Act
replaced with opportunities for people to feel that they are achievers in some other dimension.
I think I have covered all my points. I am sure further discussions will take place at committee stage. We require a tightening up of the language and words in the bill before us. There must be a reflection of the philosophy we want with respect to law and order. I do not believe there is a great disagreement among party members as to the principal objectives of this bill. Hopefully some minor alterations can be made in committee, so that in 1981 we will have a piece of legislation which is more contemporary than that with which we are living at present. Essentially it is the original 1908 legislation. Very few amendments have taken place in the interim, but obviously there has been an enormous change in our social behaviour in that same interim. I hope this legislation will receive the benefit of some good amendments before it comes before the House for third reading.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by sharing with the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) what a delight it is to follow him in the House. Many times I have had the occasion to hear him speak in the chamber. He has not only made good sense, but his speeches make good reading.
During the course of my remarks dealing with the proposed Young Offenders Act, I plan to refer to a number of letters I have received from students throughout my constituency. Most of us on occasion have opportunities to speak with school groups and the students of our constituencies. Prior to this legislation being introduced, I had an opportunity to speak to a number of classes. I asked them for the benefit of their input. I have approximately a dozen letters. I will not read them all, but I would like to point out some of their highlights.
It is important to instil, in not only our students but in the entire population, the fact that views and concerns of individuals who are not members of Parliament are brought forward in the chamber. It is important to practise participatory democracy.
This bill is very similar to the one which we introduced in the short period of time when our party formed the government. Our party supports the legislation which is before us. We have moved an amendment to it which, if passed, would provide some consistency to the maximum age, which is something I will deal with later. I find it most appropriate that I am able to refer to specific correspondence I have received, since far too often as far as our student population is concerned, our young adult population, the publicity they receive is negative. Most of our young people are individuals of whom we can be truly proud.
I am able to illustrate this by reading into the record a number of letters I have received. I would like to do this so that the individuals who have sent me these letters will be aware that their thoughts are being considered in this chamber. The first letter I wish to refer to is from Jeff Plantje. He

May 29, 1981
Young Offenders Act
indicates his concern and support for the legislation, which will upgrade the young offenders legislation which has been 70 years in the process.
Another letter I received was from Susan Berzins, who indicates her feeling that this legislation will be of benefit to young offenders since they will be entitled to more rights, such as the right to legal representation and the right to appeal.
Another letter 1 wish to refer to is from Leah Brunelle, who says in her letter:
As for the maximum age, I tend to disagree with the act strongly. If an individual can receive their operator's licence, have a job, or live on their own, they then can therefore accept the responsibilities of an adult.
In other words, Miss Brunelle supports the recommendation of the maximum age being 16 years. This is a matter which we advocated in our legislation and it is something about which we would like to see some consistency across Canada. It is now flexible and the provinces indicate whether the maximum age should be 16, 17 or 18. In the event that the provinces cannot reach a consensus, we would have set the age at 16 if we had formed the government.
Another letter I received was from Fiona Gunn-Graham. She illustrates the good and bad points as far the legislation is concerned. I would like to share with the House a number of the points she considered good. She endorses the objective which ensures that young offenders benefit from all the rights and protections enjoyed by adults. She endorses the principle that society must be protected from illegal behaviour. She says that it must be recognized that young persons, because of their lack of maturity, require guidance and assistance, she also recognizes that young persons have rights and freedoms equal to adults and that they have the right to be heard in the courts and the right to participate in the process which leads to decisions affecting them.
I would now like to turn to a letter from Herman Andres. He says that this act will be a welcome replacement for the inadequate Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Another letter I received was from Wes Marko who supports, in general, the legislation before us.
Karen Kartz wrote to me to point out that it would be beneficial to have juveniles detained in separate quarters from adults. She disagrees with youths being photographed and fingerprinted. Under the legislation before us, in the event that an individual is acquitted, the photographs and fingerprints will be immediately destroyed. After a period of two years for summary conviction offences, if the offender commits no further crime, and after a period of five years in the case of indictable offences, the records will be destroyed.
Another letter I would mention is from Colleen Ropser, who indicates her feelings that members of Parliament and of the legislatures should be aware that young people do require a certain amount of discipline. But, more than discipline, she feels they require guidance.
I have two more letters to which I wish to refer. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House with these
letters, but I think it important that these individuals feel that they have a meaningful role to play in our democratic process.
The next letter is from Lyn Wolgien. She says that she thinks the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908 should be revised in order to meet the requirements of today's changing world. It is gratifying to know that we have a piece of legislation before us which more or less receives the unanimous support of this House. We hope that some corrections will be made to it when we come to the clause by clause study of it.
The final letter I have here is from Andrew Singh. I will not refer to any of the specifics contained in it, but I would like to underscore the contribution he made in the discussions we had at the Salisbury Composite High School. I must say that I was encouraged to see young people such as those who wrote to me interested in our legislative process. I was pleased to see they took time out of their busy schedules to correspond with me and express their concerns with respect to this legislation.
As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, this legislation was not before the House at the time I spoke with these students. I forwarded to them copies of the bill. All of us in this chamber can applaud the young people of our society throughout Canada for the responsible manner in which they approach many of the frustrating decisions which they must make in this day and age.
As a father or three sons aged 14, 12 and eight, I realize some of the difficulties which our young people face. While this piece of legislation seems to deal with a narrow subject, in reality it deals with a much broader topic. Young people of today must deal with values, family life and the moral fibre of society.
As my colleague the hon. member for Crowfoot stated earlier, some of the statistics which are before us are very worrisome. When we look at the figures we find that there has been an increase of some 60 per cent in violent juvenile delinquency from 1974 to 1978. Most shocking of all is the increase in violence by young people against themselves. In the past decade the suicide rate for young people aged 15 to 19 years of age has increased some 59 per cent. These are just a few of the reasons for the need to take a good, hard look at the best way for society to respond to young people and their needs.
If we are to be serious about the problems faced by young people who come into conflict with the law, we must collectively look at such issues as child abuse, our divorce rate, the reasons for teenage suicide, the relationship between crime and the criminal in the early years of development and the over-all mental health picture of our young people. This will enable all of society to grow in the knowledge of the character and personality development in a child's early years.
In my closing remarks I would like to speak to the amendment which is before us. I support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) and seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). They suggest that the maximum age in the Young Offenders Act should be consistent through-
May 29, 1981

out all of Canada. As I shared with hon. members earlier, we had this consistency in the legislation we introduced in the short period of time we were in government.
We hope the government opposite will see fit to accept our recommendations so that that consistency will be in place throughout all of Canada. I understand that some of the reasons were that they could not reach agreement among the provinces on what that maximum age should be. However, that did not seem to deter hon. members opposite at all when we discussed the constitutional issue. There was no agreement amongst the provinces at that time, yet they more or less just bulldozed their way through with the constitutional proposal to their own liking. 1 hope they will use our thoughts on the issue and approach the provinces once again on the condition that, in the event they can reach a consensus among themselves, they are willing to set the age at 16, 17 or 18, but in the event that cannot be done, it would be set at age 16.
It might be worth while, too, to compare this legislation which is before us with what is presently on the books, and with what we had advocated in our 1979 proposals. As far as the philosophy of this bill is concerned, both pieces of legislation are very similar. Youths are going to be held more accountable for their actions, which 1 support. We have discussed the changes in the minimum age, which is going to be increased to 12 years from seven years; and, as I shared with hon. members earlier, we feel that the maximum age should be 16 and consistent throughout all of Canada.
This legislation also grants young adults the right to counsel, which we support, and provides that counsel be present at all stages of the proceedings. The Juvenile Delinquents Act is silent in this area and really states nothing specifically as to the right to counsel for our juvenile population.
As far as detention and bail are concerned, there is a provision in this legislation that the parents of youths who are charged must be notified. As I shared with hon. members earlier, there is no provision under the present Juvenile Delinquents Act to notify a youth's parents in the event that he is charged.
The privacy of the proceedings will not be as strict as previously. There will not be media coverage, but the hearings will be open to the public, and the judge will have the prerogative to determine what is in the interests of public morals. However, no information will be revealed to the public concerning the identification of the youth.
I support, too, the aspect of fingerprinting and photographing. I responded to an earlier inquiry by letter from a young constituent from the Salisbury Composite High School. This legislation provides that the fingerprint records and photographs would be destroyed in the event that the youth is acquitted. At the end of a two-year period, if the conviction is a summary offence the records would be destroyed. Five years following an indictable offence, the records would also be destroyed in the event that no further criminal activity has taken place.
Young Offenders Act
There are many other aspects with which one can deal in this legislation. I have pretty well shared my thoughts on this area, but let me just stress what I feel to be the key aspect of all our dealings with any type of criminal activity. The hon. member for Crowfoot underscored this by indicating that he felt we have to take a more rehabilitative approach. I support and endorse any action that we can take in dealing with any segments of our criminal society and in encouraging whatever rehabilitative measures we can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, three of our members have already spoken in this debate, so that it is hardly necessary for a fourth member to participate. However, anyone who might read only today's Hansard with respect to this debate could imagine that it was only the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party who were interested. So let me take a few moments to put on the record once again our position, as it has already been stated by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


An hon. Member:: All Conservatives!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh no! Our basic position is that it is time that the Juvenile Delinquents Act be revised and, for the most part, we welcome the improvements which are contained in the bill which is before us. However, there are a few deficiencies. One of them, of course, is the provision in the bill for the age of juveniles to be different in the different provinces. To us, it is really incredible that in this day and age that idea should be continued and, in particular, that it should be continued by a government which has had so much to say against checkerboarding Canada in any way. Therefore, when the vote is called on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), we shall support that amendment in the hope that it will be a signal to the government that the whole question of the age set out in this bill should be reviewed.
We also feel that the provisions of the new legislation do not really measure up to the high-sounding words which are in the first part of the bill. The bill presents itself as one that comes to grips with modern ideas about how to deal with young people, how to deal with criminal offences and so on; and yet, when we get into the details of the bill, it is not that far ahead of 1908.
I was also interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) this morning when he suggested that a different title might be considered. This is not a world-shaking matter, but I believe he has a point that calling it the "Young Offenders Act" would stigmatize any person dealt with under the legislation as an offender. As a matter of fact, it is almost a stronger word than the word "delinquent", and I would think that consideration might be given to some other name. I believe the hon. member for Yukon suggested that "Youth Justice Act", maybe a phrase like "Youth Code" to correspond to the Criminal Code, or maybe "Youth Courts Act" might be a possible title for the
10084

May 29, 1981
Young Offenders Act
bill since the bill does refer to young people being dealt with in youth courts.
As I say, these are points which can be considered by the committee which will be dealing with this bill. Whatever our stand may be, as will be expressed when we vote on the amendment, I can say that in our view, after what will now be four days of debating second reading, really, the bill could well go to committee. I have already said that we shall vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland because we think that the issue of checkerboarding this country is a very important one, and that it should be corrected. In fact, if there is no indication from the government side that it is prepared to correct that fault, we will find it difficult to support the second reading of the bill.
One of the reasons 1 thought I might get to my feet for a few minutes on this Friday afternoon is, I admit, a personal one. Quite a few hon. members have referred to this act as having been passed in 1908. Of course, to most hon. members, that is a year which is a long time ago.


An hon. Member:: Stanley remembers it!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: You were here!


Arnold John Malone: Was it long in committee?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not here. At least, I was not present in this chamber. Of course, this chamber was not here; it was another building in those days. However, this did prompt me to go into the library and look up the Hansard of 1908, and I found one or two things which, to me, were quite interesting.
I have known for a number of years and I have recounted several times, that on the day I was born, June 18, 1908, this House debated and passed the first piece of legislation providing anything in the way of pensions for the general public. It was the Government Annuities Act, so I suppose there is some connection between the fact that on the day I was born that bill was passed.
What did this House do the next day, June 19, Mr. Speaker when, no doubt, this House had learned that I had arrived in this world? It gave first reading to the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I am sure I must have complained and howled about it but I suppose if I see some meaning in the Government Annuities Act being passed on the day I was born, I have to admit that there could be some meaning in the Juvenile Delinquents Act being given first reading the very next day!
Then my interest led me to turn to the pages of Hansard and consult the index to see what I could learn about the debate on the bill. It took place on July 8, 1908. That was the entire debate as far as this House was concerned. There was no debate on second reading, and no debate on third reading. All of the debate took place in committee of the whole. Of course, members complained then, as they do now, about its being rushed through. But even those who complained about its being rushed through did not try to stop it.
The entire debate on the Juvenile Delinquents Act in 1908 covers four or five pages of Hansard. The printing in 1908 was a little smaller than it is now, but at best that is less than an hour's time given to this Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908. Mind you, it had been debated in the Senate first and came to this House as a Senate bill. One or two kindred souls of mine were on the floor that day and complained about its being dealt with in the Senate first and asked why this House should be expected to pass the bill in a hurry just because the Senate had sent it to this House saying that this is the important House. That was a good thing to be said back in 1908, as it still is.
The debate was also interesting in that some of the things being said today were said then. The defence of the bill on the government side, which was Liberal, as it has been for most of this century-it is time for a change-was to the effect that it was time to remove our little "boys and girls", as one member referred to them, from legislation such as the Criminal Code. It was an attempt to find a way to provide for more rehabilitation and to give our little boys and girls, or young children, a chance.
The Tories from the other side did not like its being rushed through. It certainly was rushed through because it was done in an hour. We have spent four days on second reading! Things change but they do not change that much, do they?
The argument of the opponents on the Tory side of the House, was that it was unfair to boys and girls to make them the subject of special legislation; after all, if they were old enough to commit crime, they should be covered the same as ordinary criminals but that for the most part, children were the responsibility of their parents.
I am not quoting from the debate of the last three of four days, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to things that were said in this House 73 years ago this July 8. I throw that in for a bit of Friday afternoon interest.
I certainly express the view that I am sure all of us agree with, that regardless of what happens to human beings who are around for 73 years, certainly a piece of legislation that has been around that long needs to be reviewed and recast. I hope that as a result of this debate on second reading and the detailed consideration that will take place in committee, we will come up with a piece of legislation in 1981 that will be an advance on what was passed the summer I was born.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When I knew I was going to have to say a few words on the Young Offenders Act, I, too, checked with the Library of Parliament on the evolution of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
My hon. friend spoke about 1908. I noticed that the first legislation adopted in relation to young offenders in Canada was the Act for More Speedy Trial and Punishment of Juve-
May 29, 1981

nile Offenders, enacted in 1867. I thought our hon. friend might have been there around that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak for yourself.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am sorry; I forget it was in 1908 that the hon. member was born.
This enactment as well as legislation adopted in 1869 and 1886, was incorporated into the first Criminal Code passed by Parliament in 1892. These provisions ensured that the trial of young person under the age of 16 years took place apart from that of adults charged with criminal offences. Once convicted, a young person was to be detained in prison separate from adult criminals.
A comprehensive statute dealing with young offenders was not enacted until 1908 when the Juvenile Delinquents Act was adopted by Parliament. It was passed as the 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 which were in vogue at that time. The act was adopted at the end of a parliamentary session after a relatively short debate.
In 1929-the year after I was born-Parliament consolidated the act by re-enacting the 1908 version with the amendments effected to it in 1912, 1914, 1921 and 1924. This consolidation occurred as the result of a federal-provincial conference on the revision of the juvenile delinquents act, held in 1928 in Ottawa under the sponsorship of the then minister of justice, Ernest Lapointe, the Canadian Council on Child Welfare and the Canadian Conference of Child Protection Officers.
Despite minor technical amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act by Parliament in 1932, 1935, 1936, 1947, 1949, 1951, 1972, and 1979, it is for all intents and purposes the same statute as that adopted in 1929.
That is a little bit of history. I think my constituents would like to know exactly what has been happening and why we are debating this Young Offenders Act today.
Over the past several years a number of publications and reports have been issued by the federal government addressing the problem of juvenile delinquency in Canada, particularly the inadequacy of the present law for dealing with this problem.
Despite the proliferation of documents citing both the desirability and need to update current juvenile law and recommending various proposals to bring about this long called for reform, such a goal has yet to be achieved.
The Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) considers the revision of Canadian juvenile law as a matter deserving urgent consideration. It is therefore his intention to introduce new legislation during the current session of Parliament to modernize federal juvenile law, to remedy existing deficiencies, and to reflect prevailing attitudes and practices.
The new legislation, to be known as the Young Offenders Act, is the result of extensive study and consultation by the
Young Offenders Act
federal government. I must say it includes many provisions drafted by the previous administration under the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). We, too, had a lot of input. The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), who was then solicitor general, put this package together. Major associations and groups, private agencies and the general public were also consulted. This consultation process has had a major impact in formulating the underlying principles and the over-all substance of the proposed legislation. It is probably realistic to conclude that this consultation process has now yielded its maximum benefits. While it has become abundantly clear that unanimity on ail aspects of the new legislation was not realized, consensus has been achieved on the need for legislative reform and on the major thrust and provisions of the proposed new legislation. Furthermore, the reforms in the proposed new legislation are long overdue and necessary for Canadian society as a whole and for our young people in particular. It is neither desirable nor justifiable to continue to administer juvenile justice in Canada under the outdated legislative prescriptions of the current Juvenile Delinquents Act, a statute enacted in 1908. Delays which continue to deprive our youth and the public of law in keeping with the times and incorporating those universally accepted elements of reform must cease.
I forgot to mention that I am delighted today to follow such eloquent speakers as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) and the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), both of whom I admire very much. Their eloquent speeches today have added much to the input of this particular bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: Are you running for leader?


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, I have a very good leader. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just said, I am just running in my own little riding and I am happy to look after my constituents, who are not juvenile offenders. They are very youthful, but they are not juvenile offenders.


Arnold John Malone: And none of them are Liberals.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I speak on this bill as a parent. I have five wonderful children, two boys and three girls-


Arnold John Malone: And they are all Conservative.


Steve Eugene Paproski: -all of whom are Conservative, that is right. I know they will be watching me on television, so I want to say good afternoon to them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope the hon. member realizes that he should address his remarks to the Chair.

May 29, 1981
Young Offenders Act


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I knew I was addressing the Chair and I would now like to address all the constituents in Ottawa West on your behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: What about Ottawa-Carleton?


Steve Eugene Paproski: In affording society protection from illegal behaviour, it is to be recognized that young persons require supervision, discipline and control, but also because of their state of dependence and level of development and maturity, young persons have special needs and require guidance and assistance. Where it is not inconsistent with the protection of society, consideration should be given to using alternative social and legal measures for dealing with young persons who have committed offences which come within the jurisdiction of this act.
In determining the responsibility of young persons under this act, it should be recognized that young persons have rights and freedoms, including those stated in the Canadian Bill of Rights; particularly the right to be heard and to participate in the processes that lead to decisions which affect them, as well as special guarantees of these rights.
In the application of this act, the rights and freedoms of young persons include the right to the least interference with freedom, having regard to the protection of society, the needs of young persons, and the interests of their families. Young persons have the right, in every instance where their rights or freedoms may be affected by this act, to be informed of what those rights and freedoms are.
It is recognized that parents have responsibility for the care and supervision of their children. Therefore, young persons should be removed from parental supervision, either partly or entirely, only when all other measures that provide for continuing parental supervision are inappropriate.
Let us look at some of the major substantive provisions of the proposed legislation. I am not a lawyer, but those of my colleagues who are in the legal profession who have assessed this bill very carefully, have told me what has happened. I am told that the provision dealing with offences is in keeping with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission of Canada to exclude less serious conduct from the application of the criminal law, conduct that could better be dealt with through our social or legal means. Thus it would remain for the provinces to amend existing child welfare and youth protection legislation if necessary to deal with less serious status behaviour and to establish the process by which provincial and municipal offences would be dealt with in the future.
In addition, it would remove one of the more discriminatory and highly criticized features of the Juvenile Delinquents Act whereby certain types of behaviour by young persons are criminalized, although the same behaviour for an adult would not constitute an offence.
I shall now deal with the provision on the age of applicability, in other words the minimum age. Under the proposed new legislation, the age of criminal responsibility would be raised from 7 to 12 years. It was universally agreed that under the current Juvenile Delinquents Act the age of 7 was too young for criminal proceedings. Fourteen years of age was suggested by two provinces; the remaining provinces and the majority of other persons consulted favoured 12 years. Furthermore, statistics indicate that a significant number of youths aged 12 and 13 are in conflict with the law.
Let us look at the maximum age. While the federal government recognizes the desirability of standardizing a maximum age across the country, the consultations, while also favouring a uniform age, have failed to achieve agreement as to what that age should be. The Solicitor General recommends that the new legislation provide for a uniform maximum age under 16 years. This would appear to be in accord with the preferred view of the majority of provinces as well as that of most groups and persons consulted. Nevertheless, this should be left to the jurisdiction of the provinces.
The Solicitor General is prepared to consider the establishment of a uniform maximum age at a level under either 17 or 18 years in the event that agreement among the provinces can be achieved. It should be noted that under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the maximum age is set at under 16 years with provision for the establishment of a level of 17 or 18 years in any given province. Currently the age level in the various provinces and territories is as follows: Under 18 years in Quebec and Manitoba; under 17 years in British Columbia and under 16 years in all remaining provinces and territories. In Newfoundland, where the Juvenile Delinquents Act does not apply, the age under provincial legislation is 17 years.
I consider the involvement of parents to be very important. The new act will recognize the primary responsibility of parents for the care and supervision of their children and the necessity for their involvement in the judicial process. Parents would be notified of proceedings, encouraged and, when necessary, ordered to attend. As well, parents would be allowed to make representations regarding the disposition and application for a transfer to adult court or a review of any disposition.
I now come to legal representation. In contrast to the Juvenile Delinquents Act which is silent on the rights of young persons, the new legislation would expressly articulate the rights afforded them. The right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of proceedings, including instances when diversion measures are considered, would be recognized and protected by special provisions. For example, parents would be notified of any arrest or detention proceedings against the young person; all summons or warrants directed to a young person would contain a notification of a right to cancel, and youth court judges would be required to advise a young person appearing before the youth court of his rights.
Of course, in cases of conflict of interest, the young person would have counsel independent of his parents.
May 29, 1981

I wish to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for his legal consultation. We had some close collaboration so that I could put forward these remarks in the debate this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Did he write your speech?


Steve Eugene Paproski: He did not write my speech but, with his great legal mind, he did permit me some consultation without charging me a fee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The advice was worth what he paid for it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is what some of the lawyers in this House should do. Instead of charging fees, they should give their services free. After all, they are members of Parliament.
The provision on predisposition reports and assessments is only a paragraph or so long. The legislation will permit greater use of assessments and predisposition reports. In appropriate cases where one or more of the following conditions are present, namely physical or mental illness or disorder, learning disability or mental retardation, medical examinations and psychological or psychiatric assessments will be undertaken when ordered by the youth court.
Predisposition reports will be mandatory when an application for transfer to adult court is being considered and prior to the imposition of any custodial sentence.
With regard to screening and diversion, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) gave a dissertation on that subject this afternoon. I will not go into that part of the bill in the short time available to me. Maybe my learned colleague will speak on that.
I would now like to deal with detention of young persons prior to a court disposition. The young offenders act would set out a precise procedure to be applied when detention of a young person is being considered. In this regard, it proposes that the rules and criteria regarding bail as set out in the Criminal Code should apply, with some modifications to meet the special circumstances of young persons. Legislation would also require that parents be notified, and it would provide that, as a general rule, young persons who are held in detention be kept separate and apart from adult offenders. The youth court would have jurisdiction to hear all bail applications concerning any offence involving a young person and would have the power to release the young person in the care of a responsible adult in lieu of detaining him in custody, where it appears that adequate control can be exercised and the attendance of the young person can be guaranteed. With regard to this phase of the legislation, 1 had close consultation with my colleague, the House leader from this side, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I wish to thank him for that part of my dissertation this afternoon.
Let us next consider the transfer to adult courts. There will be exceptional cases where the proposed legislation for dealing with young persons must be overridden because the gravity of the case demands an exception to the philosophy and practices of the youth court. In such cases, new legislation would
Young Offenders Act
provide explicit guidelines and procedures for the transfer of cases to adult court. As such, the proposed transfer provisions would apply only to young persons age 14 and above, as is the case under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and in addition, would set out detailed factors for consideration by the youth court judge in arriving at a decision whether or not to transfer the case to the adult court. Consideration of a predisposition report would be mandatory prior to making a transfer order.
Let us look at dispositions. The proposed legislation would make available to the youth court a wide and flexible range of sentencing dispositions geared to meet the needs of young persons, to protect society and to take into consideration in appropriate cases the rights of the victims of crime. The dispositions available are an absolute discharge, a fine to a maximum of $1,000, a restitution or compensation order for actual loss or damage to property, loss of income or special damages arising as a result of personal injury; order for compensation in kind or by way of personal service, community service order, probation to a maximum of two years, committal to intermittent or continuous custody not to exceed two years, provision for ancillary conditions, that is an order of forfeiture of illegally possessed goods, prohibition of firearms, etc.
It is worthy of special note that all dispositions would be of a determinate nature and that the youth court would retain exclusive jurisdiction over the case of a young person. It would not be possible to transfer jurisdiction of the case to provincial law and authorities, as is now the practice in some cases under section 21 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. In such cases, a young person does not remain subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court but is further dealt with solely pursuant to provincial law. As criminal legislation, the proposed act acknowledges that this practice should be discontinued, as the judiciary is seen as that body which should decide the extent to which custodial and other measures depriving a young person of his liberty and freedom should be utilized to ensure the safety of communities and its citizens. Once a judicial sentence is pronounced, it is inconsistent that such decisions be unilaterally altered by provincial social service or correctional authorities: Furthermore, a young person should have ongoing access to the court for purposes of review.
On the other hand, in order to afford provinces sufficient flexibility to plan and implement effective programming for young persons serving custodial sentences, the provincial director would, following committal to custody by the court, have the authority to determine the level and place of custody in which the young person should be held. Custody would be broadly defined to mean containment or restraint in a variety of places or facilities ranging from group homes, community training residences, wilderness camps and child care or correctional institutions. The meaning of custody is intended to be flexible so as to allow movement within programs and facilities, as well as temporary releases to the community, without judicial approval. In addition, the new legislation would provide a procedure for the release of a young person from

May 29, 1981
Young Offenders Act
custody on supervised probation in the community for the balance of his sentence.
Here is a perfect opportunity to provide recreational assistance to some of these juvenile offenders. The government now receives $30 million annually in lottery funds, and probably with the connection with the CPI they will have $35 million next year. Half of that is to go into recreational athletic endeavours and the other half to the arts. All of this was part and parcel of the Conservative government under the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. These moneys were to fund young amateur athletes, and were not destined solely for the Western Canada Games. It was proposed to serve all of Canada. The moneys are there. I do not know whether they are going into general revenues or whether something is being done with them. The athletes are now saying to me there is no problem, they have all the money they want, but the minister gives no direction. He does not know where to put the funds. It would be a shame if in Ottawa West, Mr. Speaker, they could not build a little covered community centre.
As hon. members probably know, during the winter facilities for recreational skating are not available. These covered community centres could be constructed as permanent structures so that parents would not have to take their children skating at five o'clock in the morning or at eleven o'clock at night, as they do when there are only two or three little skating rinks. In Nepean-Carleton and I am sure in London East-


Mr. Turner:: Keep them skating.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I intend to stay on the subject, but this has to do with keeping children off the streets. The minister keeps saying that if we had kept Loto Canada, we would have had $85 million. No one, not even the Privy Council office, the Prime Minister's office or the Department of Justice, all of which are familiar with lotteries, can say to me that $85 million could be made. We are receiving $30 million annually from the provinces, whether it be from bingos, lotteries, tic-tac-toe, 6-36 or whatever. It really does not matter what they have.
We do not have to put out a penny. It is the only really good revenue we get. It is $30 million net. Half of it is supposed to go into arts and half to sport, and athletes are not seeing this money. We in western Canada now have $160,000 cut off annually. That amount was to be put into the fund for the Western Canada Games. It was budgeted until 1995 for that small little item. I just cannot believe it. We do the same thing for eastern Canada. We do the same thing for Quebec and Ontario. Why should we cut off one part of Canada at this time when we should be living as one great big family?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Somebody speaks for young people in this country, Steve Paproski.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now to get back to the bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now to get back to the bill-


Mr. Blais:: Give us a song and dance.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I can give you a song and dance. It is Friday afternoon, and I am glad Your Honour gave me leeway, but I get tired of hearing that if Loto Canada remained, we would have received $85 million. That is a bunch of-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Careful.


Steve Eugene Paproski: -balderdash. No one in the Privy Council Office knows what it is even to buy a Wintario ticket or a Super Loto ticket. Hon. members should remember that May 31 is coming. They should buy one of those tickets. They might become millionaires. It hurts me when I know that we made a good deal for the government, but this government is putting the money into general revenues and not supporting the youth of this country. That is what really hurts. The hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) is a former policeman. He knows it is a good deal.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Does the hon. member want to say a few words? Let him go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I know the hon. member is discussing the Young Offenders Act, and I look forward to his contribution.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is provision in this bill for appeals, the privacy of youth court proceedings, fingerprinting and photographing. I think my colleagues might want to deal with those matters, but one thing which is of real importance to me, to many parents and many social workers, is the appointment of judges. It has been suggested that Canada adopt the European system of appointing juvenile court judges. In Europe judges are trained as career judges. They are not appointed from the bar, as is the case in Canada. Previous practice of law, is, of course, an indispensable asset to a juvenile court judge. However, in addition to this experience, all juvenile court judges should have an extensive knowledge of social sciences. Not only should they have extensive knowledge of social sciences but they should also be former parents. They should have had children. They should know what the responsibilities are.
Special training programs should be developed. In addition, periodic consultation sessions involving judges, provincial authorities, lawyers, police and behavioural scientists would allow for valuable information flow and provide access to new trends and developments in law and social sciences.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is a very learned man and a director of one of the fine universities here. He should pass this suggestion on to some of his colleagues. People other than just people in law should become judges. Particularly for juvenile court judges there has to be a human dimension.
May 29, 1981

Not everything is just found in the book. Not everything is writs and torts. Something has to come from the heart. One has to see and assess. Members of Parliament live with their constituents. They listen to confessions weekend upon weekend. They know what all the problems are about. Perhaps former members of Parliament should have first right of refusal. Members of Parliament see these cases. Perhaps the Minister of Transport will want to make that pronouncement in the next cabinet meeting, and perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will take note.
It seems strange that the report of the Solicitor General's committee on proposals for new legislation is silent in this regard. Surely the duties and responsibilities of the youth court are as vital and as far-reaching as those of any court in Canada.
In conclusion-and in retrospect-the Juvenile Delinquents Act in action has established a reasonable track record, as its length of tenure will testify. Most of the potential abuses and incursions upon the basic rights of young people when they have occurred-and when they have been appealed-have been quickly corrected in the higher courts.
The bulk of the recommendations which are going to the committee are addressed to technical and procedural matters, and I hope when this bill goes to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, a close look will be given to the bill and many of the new recommendations will be included.
Even if limitless resources were available, perhaps the present system would remain inadequate because it is unable to treat the whole problem. The whole problem concerns problems of education, recreation, religion, health and parental supervision. These problems cannot be solved by due process. We need fully organized community resources which can view and understand the needs of a child as part of a larger whole, the family and its community. The family situation of the juvenile alone is worthy of another half hour. If the family does not stay together, all these problems are bound to occur, but I do not think I will go into that this afternoon.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Third reading.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Perhaps at third reading I will be able to say a few more words about that.
At the present time we have dozens of different governments involved as well as countless numbers of private individuals and agencies. There is a lack of communication and, in many instances, fragmentation and mistrust.
It is obvious that in order to implement the proposed legislation there will have to be a reorganization of existing programs and services and the development of a variety of new services. In this day and age that situation changes from month to month. There is a new morality, and we must look at the matter in that light.
I will conclude by saying that I appreciate this opportunity to speak on this matter. I hope to speak a little more about the family unit perhaps at third reading.
Young Offenders Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) several times during his speech looked over to indicate he would be more than prepared to make room for more time for me to speak. I would like to say to the House and to him, that, as a relatively new member, I enjoy listening to him more than I enjoy listening to myself. His wisdom and sense of these things is of great counsel to those of us who are relatively new.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: 1 must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am a little worried about the precedent which you allowed him to set, because 1 am forced to follow the hon. member by simply looking at the camera and saying: "H i, mom". If we are going to start this precedent of members speaking directly to their families through the cameras, we may have some difficulties in future. I would have to follow that by saying: "Yes, I am going to be home on Sunday for dinner."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the Chair did attempt to correct the situation, as the Chair must do again now.


John William Bosley: Well, Mr. Speaker, you have to know my mother. I am hoping you end it there forever. 1 think that would be the simplest way to put it.
I should also say, through you, Mr. Speaker, in response to a phone call I received today from a couple of constituents who said they would be watching and who said they are opposed to this bill, that I and my party are not opposed to this legislation because, notwithstanding its title, their suspicion that the title of the bill suggests a raise in pensions for Liberal backbenchers, is unfounded. It is in fact a bill dealing with an entirely different matter, and I think that should be made clear to the audience, Mr. Speaker.


David Michael Collenette: Is this an audition, John?


John William Bosley: It is certainly a bill of some importance to all members in the House, and perhaps most specifically, as the parliamentary secretary opposite would know, to those of us who represent urban ridings because there is, for anyone who follows what is happening in a centre such as metropolitan Toronto, a serious concern about the rise of crime among adolescents and particularly the rise in violent crime among young people. One of my colleagues earlier in the debate made an intervention at some length on this question, and there are a number of quite scary statistics which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona's (Mr. Kilgour) listed in his remarks which are well worth reading and actually were drawn from one of the speeches made in the Senate. It is therefore extremely timely that a bill that originated in 1908 should now be before the House for review.
I would like to say just a few words about the amendment before the House, but before I do so perhaps I could indicate

May 29, 1981
Young Offenders Act
my strong view that the need for this bill is overdue. Many of its provisions, which finally recognize children and young adults as persons, are extremely welcome in this day and age. I speak specifically of the provisions with regard to bail and the right to counsel, most specifically those that would formalize and regularize to some degree the ability of a court to apply the tactics that lawyers-not being one I use the phrase advisedly-describe as diversions. Frankly, we have had some experience in our juvenile courts in this country, some in Toronto specifically, with attempts to show young people that the right response to a wrongful act-and it is at least to some degree their responsibility to understand that they have committed a wrongful act-is to avoid as far as possible putting those people in official institutions. The reason is that there is very clear evidence that if we can avoid putting people in institutions, we have a much greater chance of avoiding a longterm problem. 1 am thinking specifically of some remarks made earlier in the debate by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) when he referred to some very important evidence in an essay entitled "Middle Class Delinquency" by a Mr. Leblanc and also evidence from a Mr. Letkemen laying out very clearly the effect of a policy that leads to a substantial number of young people finding their way into reformatories as a method of trying to solve the problem. The evidence is clear that if we continue this policy we will create in the future an ever larger group of criminals.
It is for that reason specifically that I welcome the formalization of the provisions of diversion that would allow the courts to find alternative methods of giving young people an understanding that they have done something wrong and must pay for it, without having to put them into jails or reformatories. I think that is vital.
1 should, however, like to put one other matter on the record which was referred to earlier. It is with regard to a provision in the act concerning bail and evidence rights, a provision about which 1 am somewhat worried and which I hope will be raised in committee. It is referred to elsewhere in Hansard but 1 want to make sure it is known that I feel this way about clause 56(3) which states:
The requirements set out in paragraphs (2)(b), (c) and (d) do not apply in respect of oral statements where they are volunteered by the young people to a peace officer or other persons in authority before that person has had a reasonable opportunity to comply with those requirements.
I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that this provision leads potentially to some very difficult circumstances, and 1 hope it is checked thoroughly in committee because I find it hard to believe that we would expect somebody who is 12, 13 or 14 to have any sense of his rights under the law prior to speaking to his lawyer. I hope that that clause will be either removed or modified in such a way that that potential loophole for the misuse of evidence is closed.
Perhaps the most important matter before us today, as I indicated when I started my remarks, is the amendment put by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) dealing with what he described, and we as a party believe to be, as the major problem in the bill. We have stressed this over and over again, and I know other hon.
members are aware of how we feel about this, but I think it is absolutely vital that it be made clear that it is very difficult for us to accept the idea that the age at which one is no longer a young person before the law shall be different from province to province.
There is no great magic as to why we are opposed ot it. The reason is very simple and it was stated most clearly by members in this House who described the different circumstances of someone who stood on one side of the bridge from Ottawa to Hull and committed an offence, and someone of the same age on the other side who committed an offence. One might be an offender under the law while the other might not be if the provinces adopted different laws or had opted out differently. Clearly that is wrong. Surprisingly it is not wrong in the eyes of a government which has maintained throughout the constitutional debate that it is precisely those opting out provisions on rights that are, at least in their view, the reason for moving so quickly and unilaterally on a charter of rights.
If you believed, Mr. Speaker, that the need to enshrine rights across this country is so important that we should adopt the unilateral process which this government has adopted, a process which is divisive in a country used to operating as a partnership, you would think the government should take the position that it wants to bring in this bill with provincial consent provisions relating to a fixed common age. My personal view, for the reasons I expressed earlier, about keeping people out of the formal institutions, is that the age should be 18 not 16. I am cognizant of the fact that the problem has been to get provincial consent and it may be that, for other reasons, there will be consent to the age of 16. I only wish that the government had obtained that consent before drafting the bill because what we will be forced to deal with, if this bill is not changed, is a different application of the law with respect to the same crime, if that is not too harsh a word for what we are talking about, and that seems to me to be a shame.
Let me therefore conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to speak very long today and will not do so because there are others who wish to speak as well, but certainly in a centre like metropolitan Toronto this change in our legislation will be extremely welcome. I will support anything that makes our young people bear the responsibility for their actions and at the same time keeps them out of the formal institutions which produce more criminal behaviour, because it can only be in our long-term interest to try to make our young people understand they must not break the law, but at the same time to make sure we do not turn them into criminals.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have heard some presentations from the outstanding contingent in my party from Alberta. This should be a matter of some interest to hon. members on the government side who think that western Canada is a place where they would like to make gains, but unfortunately their policies in many respects do not help them in that regard.

I was the lead-off speaker for my party on this particular legislation, but in conclusion I want to speak on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Durham-Northumb-erland (Mr. Lawrence). It is important to consider what has transpired during the course of this debate. I want to register my dismay and dissatisfaction with the manner in which the government has handled this piece of legislation.
As I pointed out when I led off the debate for my party, the basis of this legislation has been before the government for a considerable number of months. In fact the predecessor to the present Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) tabled before the House of Commons a paper in which, in essence, he set forth the principle upon which the legislation is based. The entire matter languished on the desk of the Solicitor General for some 18 months before he brought forward the legislation for debate. The fact of the matter is that he chose a time when the critic for the Solicitor General in our party was not in the House. At that time he made a great issue about the responsibility of the hon. member to attend in the House of Commons to deal with the legislation.
This irritated me greatly at the time because there had been preliminary discussions in which I told the Solicitor General about the absence of my colleague. He proceeded, notwithstanding my discussion with him. I have followed what has taken place since that time. The Solicitor General has been here for only a fraction of the time that this matter has been discussed on the floor of the House.
We had an awful time getting a response from the government side to the amendment. After much pressure from our side, his parliamentary secretary was moved to make a short address in which she stated the position of the government with respect to the amendment. Since that time there has been no participation on the government side.
This is an important piece of legislation. I am anxious to get it into committee as quickly as possible so that we can conduct a detailed investigation. But what does Parliament mean? Parliament provides an opportunity for discussion on both sides of the issue. The government should be prepared from time to time to answer questions raised with respect to legislation and to give its views on the floor of the House of Commons. But hon. members opposite sat quiet, silent, unresponsive and insensitive to the issues relating to young people in the country.
My objection is to the way in which the bill has been carried. There was an attempt to rush it through when the critic of the official opposition was not here. With due credit to hon. members of the New Democratic Party, they made very articulate and thoughtful speeches with respect to the implications in this legislation and the kinds of improvements they would like to see. Government members sat mute and silent when members on this side dealt with an issue which affects such a great segment of our population.
I wanted to put that on record because important issues are raised by the amendment. I am disappointed with the position taken by the government. It is not prepared to look at the merits of the amendment of the hon. member for Durham-
Young Offenders Act
Northumberland. The hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) pointed out in a very short period of time that this government should give priority at least to bringing some consistency across the country, as opposed to the bulldozer approach it has taken on the basic constitutional issue.
I am glad to see the government House leader in the House this afternoon. The government would be well advised to make inroads with respect to consistency rather than using its bulldozer approach to every issue of federal-provincial concern in the country by saying, "Henceforth we will have uniformity across the country. Regardless of whether you are from Gaspe or Saskatoon West, you will march to the same drummer. There will be no concern with respect to regional differences and aspirations." That is the attitude of the government. It is a blockbuster, blockhead approach to politics in Canada.
My colleagues have said that we think the federal government should assert itself on this issue. There is an important distinction in the attitude of the two parties. In fact, a significant minority in the NDP has taken the same position with respect to the whole constitutional issue.
I want to ensure that this bill goes to committee. We now know what are the circumstances. The committee is occupied with the freedom of information legislation about the improvement of which hon. members of my party, under the leadership of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), are making constructive suggestions. The committee will be concerned with that piece of legislation for a week or two. I want to put the government on notice that it is our considered opinion that immediately after this stage of our deliberations we should have an opportunity to hear representations in committee from people affected by this legislation. We cannot summon the representatives of the provinces before the committee; it would be improper to do so. We should give notice- and perhaps by this speech I will be giving notice-to provincial authorities that we welcome their input with respect to the improvement of the operation of the bill. We should listen to these people, if they are prepared to come and give evidence before the committee. We should take an intensive look at the bill. We in this party are very anxious to make progress. The matter has languished on the desks of Liberal solicitors general for over ten years.
For the short time we were in government, at least we took the initiative. The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland took legislative action and put the proposal before Parliament at the earliest possible date.
With those very few words, I remind the House about our dissatisfaction with the manner in which the government handled this particular piece of legislation-its silence, indifference and insensitivity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.

May 29, 1981
Nutrition


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that an earlier agreement was made in the House that the vote will be deferred until Tuesday, at a time to be determined by House leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as
listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of supporting in principle the implementation of a national nutrition program to be funded jointly by the federal and provincial governments, which program would
1.	improve the health of young Canadians;
2.	help educate children and parents as to the value of proper nutrition; and
3.	help eliminate any surplus of nutritive foods produced by Canadian farmers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I have proposed today is one which I can take no personal pride in conceiving. It is an idea which has been proposed by some of the most knowledgeable and responsible people in this country. In March of 1973 the National Council of Welfare published a document entitled "one child, one chance". In their report they proposed the following:
That a nation-wide system of school meals be established for all our children, as a preventive health service, on a federal-provincial cost-sharing basis. Where funds do not permit the establishment of universal programs from the outset, first priority within such a system should be given to the initiation of school breakfast programs in disadvantaged areas and in areas where children must
travel long distances to reach school. Where such programs can be initiated only in stages, we wish to see nutritious meals provided first to the youngest children.
The report by the National Council of Welfare was followed up by a report prepared by the federal-provincial nutrition committee of the Department of National Health and Welfare entitled "Guidelines for School Food Programs in Canada". This report was published in June of 1976. In outlining the rationale for improved school programs they said in part:
The need for school food programs has always been of concern to parents, educators and health workers and has recently become an important issue in all parts of the country. This has been pinpointed in the recommended priorities of the Nutrition Canada reports-
The report went on to say:
The consequences of poor nutrition have a significant effect on the ability of students to benefit from their school education.
School nutrition programs are not unheard of in Canada. In the city of Winnipeg there have been such programs since 1975. The program began in Winnipeg after a good deal of controversy with a $290,000 budget. Some 650 school children were provided with lunches at school. At that time the program was attacked, but today, because of demonstrated need, the program has a budget of $407,000, 50 per cent of which is provided by the provincial government. About 1,700 children are receiving breakfast in 25 schools at a cost of $127,000, while 6,000 receive nutrition education. Despite this, it has become common knowledge, as reported in the daily Winnipeg newspapers, that so great are the needs that many children are appearing at agencies such as the Salvation Army, and other core area institutions, to obtain food on weekends and holidays. The city and the province are so concerned about what will happen this summer when the schools are not functioning that they have established a special committee to look into the problem.
The schools of Montreal have had a nutrition program for a number of years. I have in my hand a document dated "Spring, 1976" entitled "Nutrition/Education". The first paragraph of the document reads:
The School Council of the Island of Montreal has officially adopted a subsidized food policy: its aim is to make students familiar with the basic principles of good nutrition.
The document goes on:
Why a food policy?
It is a well known fact that a person's state of health influences his behaviour and energy, and that good eating habits can promote better health.
In outlining what they do, the Council said:
-school cafeteria menus must conform to the document... Nutrition in Schools, published by the Quebec Department of Social Affairs;
I find the following remark very interesting:
-school cafeteria menus will no longer include:
-deep-fried foods such as french fries, do-nuts... , sugary foods that cause
tooth decay such as candy, soft drinks, chewing gum, potato chips-
Not only is the Council providing feeding programs but it is trying to educate the students as to what kinds of foods they should eat. They encourage the students to stay away from junk foods which are so often eaten in today's hurried society.
May 29, 1981

Since 1976 in the city of Toronto, the Toronto Board of Education has had policies assisting school and community organizations in the implementation of lunch and school-aged day care, which are referred to in their policy as "comprehensive care programs". Currently, 59 schools offer lunch programs and 22 schools offer school-aged day care. In a survey of 106 elementary schools conducted on December I, 1975, by the curriculum program division of the Toronto Board of Education it was reported that 76 elementary schools were taking advantage of lunchroom supervision assistance. The board, in its report, outlined the kind of nutrition programs they have. They have a variety of programs, Type A to Type E, as follows: type A provides a bag lunch; type B consists of soup, milk, apple, plus a bag lunch; type C consists of soup, milk, apple, plus a bag lunch; type D consists of a hot meal catered or cooked at the school; and, type E is also a hot meal either catered or cooked at the school.
The reason that the cities of Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal have such programs, and I am sure I could add a number of other cities to the list, is that they know how much these kinds of programs are required. I have already indicated that in my own city of Winnipeg, despite the fact that we have had school nutrition programs in 20 or more of the core area schools, it is now becoming apparent that there are still elementary school children who are not receiving the kind of nutrition they need. Indeed, in a full-page article which appeared just a couple of weeks ago in the Winnipeg Free Press, the principal of one school reported:
George Heshka, chairman of the Winnipeg school board's nutrition extension committee, took an inner-city student to lunch one Monday many months ago and still recalls what he learned.
He saw the hamburger fast disappearing and asked the youngster what he had eaten the day before.
"Mr. Heshka, I didn't eat anything," came the reply.
"Why not?" Heshka asked.
"Because yesterday was a holiday and you don't eat on holidays."
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but the facts are clear that in my city-and I am sure the facts are not different in many other cities-agencies such as the Salvation Army and the Rossbrook centre, and many others, are finding youngsters who are simply not receiving at home the kind of food they need, which is affecting their attendance at school.
It is affecting the kind of attention they can give to their classes. It is having a disastrous effect on their physical and mental health and on their ability to absorb the kind of education which they ought to be able to receive.
There is one other reason as to why I believe such a program would be useful, not only to the children who attend our schools from one end of Canada to the other, but also to Canadian farmers, and would improve their lot in a substantial way. We have or have had substantial surpluses of most of the major food products produced on Canadian farms. Let me just list some of the food items which, in recent years, have been in surplus amounts. There have been surpluses of butter and skim milk powder. I am told that last year 130 million pounds of
Nutrition
skim milk powder were sold to countries outside of Canada at a substantial loss in order to remove the surplus. We had substantial surpluses of evaporated milk which we again sold to foreign countries at a loss. We are now running a surplus of 750 million dozen eggs a week. We are losing about 40 cents a dozen when we sell them on the world market. We have or have had surpluses of apples, potatoes, onions, carrots, pears and peaches. I am sure that the list which I just read is not a complete list of the surpluses we have or have had of farm products in recent years. Many of these products have been purchased, processed and stored by the Agricultural Products Board, which is a division of Agriculture Canada, and have been sold at a loss.
So, what I am suggesting is that if this kind of program were funded jointly by the federal-provincial governments, not only would it help to improve the nutritional standards and the health of our young people in this country who are attending our schools, but it would also help, in a marked, substantial way, to stabilize the purchase and the use of the surplus food products which are being produced in this country by Canadian farmers. I could compare this in a small way with the success which the United States has had in disposing of a substantial part of its surplus agricultural products through its food stamp plan. Through this program, millions of American citizens in the lower income groups have been able to supplement and improve their diet through the purchase of surplus food produced in the United States at special reduced prices.
So without any further words on my part, I want to urge hon. members of the House to support this resolution which 1 think would benefit, as I have said, the young people in this country. At the same time, in a very practical way, it would benefit the farmers in this country who have been able to produce food in such substantial quantities that we have surpluses of many of our food products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to discuss with my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) the subject of his motion, which, in my opinion, is essential to the future of Canadians, namely improving the health of young Canadians. I believe that no government member could object to such a motion. I would like to tell my colleagues about my experience within various organizations concerned with nutrition.
First, Mr. Speaker, as legislative secretary to the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, I worked in close co-operation with departmental officials to develop a provincial nutrition program, and I should mention that I believe provincial authorities are primarily responsible for implementing a program in this area. At the time, we had identified target populations, because, when we deal with matters such as preventive programs or health improvement, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with major issues and programs which aim at

May 29, 1981
Nutrition
changing the mentality of people, and they require a lot of time and money.
One of the target groups, Mr. Speaker, were future mothers. Under a prenatal program, these women received specific instruction concerning their own nutrition and that of their baby. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is in specific situations that a government can implement special programs designed to improve the health of Canadians. In that case, future generations of Canadians will benefit along with their mothers. 1 believe that at the time we were teaching the basic principles of good nutrition, which were certainly beneficial since statistics show a decrease in the number of infant deaths due to increasingly well-balanced diet. I shall not go into the details of these policies, Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that they are well administered provincially, but I think the Canadian government has urged the provinces to take specific action, by developing a comprehensive preventive policy.
I would like to refer to the policy statement made by the Hon. Marc Lalonde when he was minister of National Health and Welfare since, after all, he developed the elements of a policy which are still applied today throughout Canada, and I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, even throughout the world. Indeed, the former Minister of National Health and Welfare also acted as consultant for the World Health Organization and described on the international level the Canadian experience and made statements of policy on behalf of Canada in this regard. We can therefore be proud not only that we have a policy in this field, but also that we have helped to improve health standards throughout the world.
Another group, Mr. Speaker, which benefits from a preventive or special education program is that of schoolchildren throughout Canada. This group is more easily reached. It benefits from special programs, and it is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that an examination will show that each province has acted in the best interest of schoolchildren with regard to nutrition. 1 would like to refer in this regard to our experience in Quebec, since I can say that we have made significant progress in that area. And such progress is effectively related not only to the first object of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) but also to the third point of his motion which is: "To help to eliminate any surplus of nutritive foods produced by Canadian farmers." Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at last to note that after a few years, the Quebec government, in co-operation with school boards, has made it possible for young children in primary grades to get free milk at school.
We know that Quebec is an important dairy producer and I think that such policy is liable not only to promote agriculture and be an incentive to dairy producers but will obviously be used to teach basic nutrition to our schoolchildren. In that respect, as a former president of a regional school board, the regional school board of Le Gardeur, I can say that the
implementation of that policy has worked smoothly for the benefit of every segment of our community. The youngsters who had not been informed by their parents about the importance of milk as a nutrient, were told about it at school and they will probably never forget those facts.
Of course, the addition of milk at school in the child's diet is but one thing. Each year, most Quebec school boards have a nutrition week during which all the basic teaching aids and all the tools of the school board are made available to the public in order to help young students become aware of the value of good nutrition. As far as we are concerned, one of the most successful experiments was a fruit and vegetable tasting at school, prepared in co-operation with the parents, the school committees and even the school cafeteria, which agreed to forgo the profits from one meal to give the students the opportunity to taste a variety of mostly Canadian vegetables and fruits which, for many students, often was a new taste experience.
We must not delude ourselves, Mr. Speaker, it is first and foremost in the home that the principles of good nutrition are learned, and in that respect I think we are fortunate in Canada to have such quality products available. We do not have to go that far back to realize how much the quality, the quantity and the variety of foodstuff have improved. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I can recall my experience at Steinberg, where I was in charge of consumer relations. I can certainly say that the consumption of fruit and vegetables has increased markedly whereas there has been a decrease in the purchase of less nutritional foods. There has indeed been a per capita decrease in the quantity of meat consumed which has been compensated by an increase in the consumption of fruit and vegetables.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is the result of well integrated policies designed to educate the public and our young people in particular. These policies have indeed led to a change in eating habits. And I am certainly happy to see that the action of the federal government, supported by the provinces, has produced such positive results. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted at this stage that the department of National Health and Welfare has made available to Canadian families a guide entitled The Canadian Food Guide or the Nutrition Guide, which is available from the members' offices in their ridings or through the department's information offices.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea to urge all our fellow Canadians who have not yet obtained this food guide to get one. It is simple and easy to read. It provides a complete list of nutritive foods. Because I have a family, I intend, among other things, to find a place for this guide somewhere in the kitchen or stick it on the refrigerator door, so that everybody in the home may be reminded of the basic nutrients necessary for a good and healthy nutrition, and help those who might be tempted to indulge or, even worse, to overindulge, and also to make them understand that a healthy and well-balanced diet includes various types of foods which
May 29, 1981

are equally good, but which should complement one another. 1 do not want to go over each and every one of these nutrients, but simply urge all Canadian consumers to get this guide which, everything considered, shows the way to wholesome and well-balanced nutrition.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is important to show that when work in that field was carried out within the Department of National Health and Welfare there was consultation indeed. Of course, however significant the role of the Canadian government in that sector, it must be admitted that the means to reach the people are in provincial rather than federal hands. That is why I think the initiatives are excellent, but in the end they cannot be anything more than initiatives which may be encouraging and I do not believe that a massive campaign would totally change eating habits. People will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that a simple reduction in the consumption of fat or sugar is not an easy goal to reach, nor something which can be accomplished overnight. It is always easier to make young children develop such habits than to try to change them in adulthood.
On the other hand, I think that most documents published by the federal department reveal that in this field there has to be adaptation. Sedentary working habits call for an eating pattern which differs from that of a worker in the field, in northern regions, in huge petroleum projects or again in construction. Those people who work 12 hours a day cannot follow the same standards and their eating requirements are different. Therefore certain basic principles have to be respected and I think that each person must still adapt the fundamental rules of nutrition to his activities and his age.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that whatever initiative we may take in future it would be contrary to a liberal philosophy to resort to coercion in that field. Just as all people who are concerned by this question, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I think that the new trend toward eating frozen foods or fried foods-fast foods, as they are called-is indeed the latest fashion. Such foods are in great demand nowadays; perhaps they do require a little less preparation time, but still it is appropriate to sound a warning against an abusive consumption of those meals. I do not intend to belittle that type of food, but instead I would urge Canadians to show moderation in their intake of those foods because they do have a rather high fat content and such a steady diet might eventually lead to health problems.
So, Mr. Speaker, I agree that a nutrition policy is needed and must be implemented. Such a policy has already been enunciated by the Canadian government and various ways of carrying it out are being considered. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important to take note of what is already being done and that is really what the pragmatic observations I have just made were intended to underline.
Nutrition
Today there is a set of nutrition recommendations which has been accepted as a base for programs by federal and provincial authorities. I should like to state these in point form, if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker.
The first recommendation would be the consumption of a nutritionally adequate diet as outlined in the Canada food guide. This is the first recommendation that we are following. The second is a reduction in calories of fat to 35 per cent of total calories. This includes a source of polyunsaturated fatty acid in the diet. The third recommendation is the consumption of a diet which emphasizes whole grain products, fruits and vegetables, and minimizes alcohol, salt and refined sugars. The fourth recommendation is the prevention and control of obesity through reducing excess consumption of calories and increasing physical activity. Precautions should be taken so that no deficiency of vitamins and minerals occur when total calories are reduced.
These recommendations as stated were accepted in a 1978 cabinet discussion paper called "Integration of Nutrition into Food Strategy". They are being implemented across Canada as a result of a series of consultations. A major consultation was with the provincial departments of health through the work of the federal-provincial subcommittee on nutrition. Once this consultation was completed over 50 national associations were asked to discuss, endorse and support the implementation of the recommendations. These include health groups such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nursing Association, as well as the food industry, retailers and processors, and groups such as the Agricultural Institute of Canada.
The nutrition recommendations are becoming an integral part of nutrition programs across Canada. Implementing them into programs has highlighted the need to improve existing education programs. There has been confusion between the recommendations which represent our position and other goals, guidelines, and those from other organizations and countries. Many articles were prepared for journals in this country and others for Britain and the U.S.A.
In order to improve nutritional health, we have to learn more about Canadians' knowledge and understanding of nutrition. In this regard we are collecting information about what Canadians think and know about nutrition. For example, in 1979, the Department of National Health and Welfare undertook a study on nutrition. Over 1,600 Canadians across the country were interviewed. Most of them felt that a sensible diet was important to them. They defined a sensible diet as eating a variety of foods, eating at regular times and not eating foods that are too sweet or greasy. A sensible diet was important to them because they said it meant fewer health problems and generally better health. However, the people surveyed did not believe that all Canadians generally followed a sensible diet.

May 29, 1981
Nutrition
It has been said many times that it is difficult for people to change eating habits. Yet in this study, four out of ten people had made a major change in their eating habits over the past year. The change was positive. They cut back on certain foods and increased their intake of other more nutritious foods.
From these recommendations, it is apparent that federal and provincial authorities are working together for a better program and for the implementation of guidelines which will result in better health for Canadians.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the hon. member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) who indicated that the federal and provincial governments are now working together with respect to nutrition. I recall her words at the beginning of her statement when she said that no member of the government would oppose such an idea, that is the idea in the motion.
The motion is very clear. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of supporting in principle the implementation of a national nutrition program to be funded jointly by the federal and provincial governments, which program would
1.	improve the health of young Canadians;
2.	help educate children and parents as to the value of proper nutrition; and
3.	help eliminate any surplus of nutritive foods produced by Canadian farmers.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). It appears from what the hon. member from Montreal-Mercier has said, we will experience one of those rare moments in the House when the government permits a motion to pass, because she stated that no member of the government would oppose such an idea, meaning the government will not use the usual method of talking out a motion. Therefore, I do not expect to hear a speech from any member in the House today that will carry this matter beyond five o'clock.
I suspect the compassionate member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder) would not make a speech to impede the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield), if he intends to say a few words; I trust that the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) or even the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette), will not make speeches today carrying this matter beyond five o'clock because members on the government side who have spoken thus far have said they are not opposed to the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Walter David Baker: I will talk for only two more minutes because I want to see the motion go through.
There is a second thing which should be encouraging for the hon. member for Winnipeg North. A few days ago in question period, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) accused my party of adopting a position similar to that of the President of
the United States, namely that we would want to see the elimination of food programs. That is not so. But I want to say that if this motion is not passed today, it would be open for each one of us to say that members of the Liberal party are not prepared to see a similar program in Canada.
I think it is quite important that we understand our position today. The House is asking that the government consider a matter in principle. I think it is incumbent on the House when something goes to the root of a matter that can be quite important to certain areas of the community not to support it just by rhetoric but to do so by action. This can be done in private members' hour by allowing the question to be reached on Friday afternoon before five o'clock.
I caution all of my dear friends on the other side of the House not to allow the support of the government, underlined by the hon. member for Montreal-Mercier when she said that no one would oppose such an idea, to be eroded and the motion to be talked out. I am certain this matter is of interest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). We all know that the Minister of Agriculture is at odds with his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), because of his support of the little person involved in agriculture who is having difficulty with interest rates and inflation. I think there are great problems on the other side-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On this side? Are you kidding?


Walter David Baker: -with respect to the ordinary Canadian and with respect to how the government is dealing with the monetarist approach of the Minister of Finance. I feel for members on the other side. But this is one way by which members of the Liberal party can act, if they want to put their money where their mouths are and take a step which would indicate to the government and to the country that they are really concerned about people in need, people affected by government policy. They can ensure that if they speak today, they do not speak beyond five o'clock this afternoon, at which time private members' hour concludes. In order to accommodate them now, I will sit down.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Have you checked with your colleagues?


Walter David Baker: I shall congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North in advance for the success which has been heralded for his motion which, by the government's words today, will not be talked out.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today. I would like to mention to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that I am sure, being a fair-minded individual, he would not like to see us limited in our debate on this very important issue. Therefore, as long as there are members who have something to say, I am afraid we will be destined to speak.
We have heard quite a bit from the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) this afternoon and the hon. member from Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), so I will not repeat the information they have given.
May 29, 1981

I would like to talk about some attitudinal concepts which bring out the negative forces working against us in our attempt in the educational process to convince the people about what they are doing to their nutrition.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North is to be commended for bringing to our attention the need for continued emphasis on good nutrition and its importance to good health. It is a paradox that in Canada where we have access to an unlimited choice of wholesome food of unparalleled variety we continue to see malnutrition and poor nutrition. It continues to be apparent that having the facts is not always conducive to behavioural change. This is evident in many of the problem areas in our country today, but nowhere is it more evident than in the matter of our health, our eating habits in particular.
As an educator, I have long been aware of the infinite capacity of the human mind to resist the introduction of knowledge, but we must keep trying. We must never despair. If we could just match the promotional power of junk foods which pervades our every waking hour, if we could convince parents to make sure their children get a good start in life, and if we could convince adults to eat properly, not only would they help themselves but they would set a good example for the younger generation to follow. All of these would be good objectives, well within the possibility of attainment by our society.
I referred earlier to the promotion of foods which contribute to our state of poor nutrition. It is obvious that humans have never paid the same attention to nourishment for themselves as they have to nourishment of their animals. Many pets receive a better diet than do humans, each can or bag of feed showing a formulation which should ensure that the pet will be slim, healthy, active and with a shiny coat for life. The Canadian Veterinary Association, of which I have the honour to be a member, grants its seal of approval to pet foods which provide those foods and which attain the standards required. Recently, I observed a current television commercial promoting dog food. It stated, "Not a speck of cereal is present". Not long thereafter I saw another commercial promoting breakfast cereal, urging that it be fed to your children for that "get up and go energy". How can cereal be bad for your pet but good for your children?
It is tragedy that 800 million people live in a state of misery and desolation in the Third World. Many of them are removed from their misery by starving to death, not because they want to, but because they have no choice. How can we impress on our people that they have so many choices of pure, fresh, wholesome foods and that so often they make the wrong choices?
I take pride in my alma mater, the University of Guelph, which, through the faculty and staff of the college of family and consumer studies and department of nutrition, are dedicated to the science of nutrition and have made great contributions to the understanding of nutrition and the teaching of future teachers and scientists in that field.
Nutrition
It has been said, "It's too bad that youth has to be wasted on the young", but that is the way it is. There is no doubt that the greatest value in the educational program in nutrition will come from its application to this group. Many excellent school programs are now being given and the results are very positive.
I am pleased to discuss this motion regarding a national nutrition program and, in particular, a program which helps to educate children and parents as to the value of proper nutrition.
There is no doubt that the nutritional health of Canadians, particularly of children, is important to this government. We all know that during the time when a child is growing and developing from infancy to adolescence, he or she has special nutritional needs. There is a need to develop sensible eating habits which will last a lifetime. I would like to talk about some of the activities under way.
Education of children and parents about proper nutrition is a responsibility shared by many. One initiative undertaken by the federal government was a co-operative effort with the Canadian Pediatric Society to develop a position paper on breastfeeding. The paper was well received and was released in 1978 as a joint paper with the American Academy of Pediatrics. The timing was especially important because of the International Year of the Child in 1979. The Department of National Health and Welfare was represented on a national task force to promote breastfeeding established under the Canadian Pediatric Society during the International Year of the Child. The task force also included representatives from the LaLeche League, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
A program on nutrition was established at the educational level in order to increase the professionals' awareness of good nutrition. The government assumed a leadership role in producing and distributing an information kit called "Breastfeeding-An Awareness Program", to doctors, hospitals and public health nurses across the country. Over 55,000 copies of the kit have been distributed. The kit was enthusiastically endorsed by the federal-provincial advisory committee on community health services. It has also been endorsed by the Canadian Nurses Association, and acclaimed by international bodies such as the World Health Organization and UNICEF.
A publication entitled "Learning About Breastfeeding-A Selected Bibliography and Resource Guide" was prepared and circulated to professionals for their information. This kind of program represents a foundation for national nutrition programs because it helps us work toward a common goal. In this case, the common goal is to increase the number of mothers who breastfeed. This is a healthy way to give an infant a good start in life.
I could go on and talk about nutrition. However, I will end my discussion now so that other members who have a message to bring on this very important subject may have the opportunity to continue the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Walter David Baker: Question.

May 29, 1981
Nutrition


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the mover of the motion quite rightly took his 15 minutes to speak, and the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), with his oratorical skills and enthusiasm, spoke a good 10 minutes on this motion. It is quite fair to claim that those of us on this side who are interested in this subject should also take some minutes in order to give their view of this motion.
It seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has brought a very fine idea to this House. Some components of his motion are being implemented in this country already. Some probably are not, but the whole thrust of his idea is more than sound, and I certainly compliment him for having taken this initiative. It is indeed a very fine one.
As just a side consideration, may I point out that in promoting the thoughts which are included in this motion, it might be helpful if each one of us in this House were to devote one newsletter to this topic when we write to our constituents. In that way we would be covering the country from coast to coast and giving impetus to some of the ideas which are inherent in the concept of a national nutrition program and in improving the quality of nutrition in Canada.
It is very timely to put forward a motion like this because we do live in a time, as a previous speaker has said, of fast food. Fast food is inexpensive, practical, can be acquired easily and certainly saves time, as the name implies.
At the same time, however, it contains additives, chemical colours and other products, the long-run effects of which we do not know. Therefore it is good for this House to stop for a moment and ponder about the trend of relying more and more on fast foods and giving up some of the good old-fashioned habits of previous times because what the second part of the hon. member's motion really implies is that we should have more faith and reliance on good old-fashioned homemade soup, homemade pasta and homemade pie and that we should rely more on milk, fresh fruit and vegetables and less on the fried food and the like which is easily available in the marketplace.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North raises a number of questions, and one of them has to do with how we can describe at the present time the health of our young people. On reviewing the information available, we find a publication produced by the Department of National Health and Welfare called "Nutrition Canada" which I suppose is available to everyone who wishes to purchase it at appropriate bookstores. It contains a study which brings out some interesting facts.
The study did not show instances of a real lack of nutrients in our eating patterns, but we do find some indicators of the fact that there is a need for improvement in a number of basic elements. For instance, the study shows that in the case of teenage girls, there is a need for improvement in their intake of iron. On a closer examination of food intake and nutrients consumed, we Find that there is a need for an increase on the part of the general public in the intake of vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin C and calcium.
Many of the nutrition and health problems today are considered to be also the result of our lifestyle. From that study we learn that cardiovascular diseases, obesity, some forms of diabetes and dental caries are examples of problems which have links to poor eating habits. It is as plain as that. These are the kinds of health problems we want to avoid. Somehow the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North addresses itself to these matters in a straightforward and positive style.
A set of nutrition recommendations for Canadians has been accepted across Canada, and they are applicable to all Canadians over the age of two.
These recommendations were designed to provide a balance between nutrient deficiencies and excesses because we also have to watch the other side of the matter. The recommendations could be summarized in the following way: we should consume a nutritionally adequate diet as outlined in the book which was mentioned by a previous speaker entitled "Canada's Food Guide". Second, we should avoid the risk of becoming overweight through appropriate food selection and increased physical activity. Third, we should limit the total amount of fat, sugar, salt and alcohol in our diets. In the case of sugar and salt there have been some frightening adjectives used by some dieticians. I do not know whether we can accept them at face value, but certainly we are being warned about excessive use of both. I found them described in a book as being the white death. I do not know why we have come to use such exaggerated descriptions. Finally, we should increase our intake of vegetables, fruits and whole grain cereals and include sources of polyunsaturated fatty acids. Apparently there is merit in our making more use in our kitchens of unsaturated fatty acids.
To improve the health of young Canadians there is evidently a need to improve the health of all Canadians. Every young Canadian eventually becomes an adult. Because there is a constant example from one generation to the next, we must talk about the total population and the total society rather than single out an individual sector in a rather unrealistic and artificial manner. To do that we must co-ordinate the activities of the federal and provincial governments, industry, professional associations and community agencies. As we all know, a child does not live in isolation. Throughout life a child is influenced by his family, friends, peers, school, what is seen on television and by other messages which are impressed upon him in his daily life.
We cannot say there is one food pattern for all adult Canadians, just as we cannot say there is one desirable food pattern for all children. Therefore, a national nutrition program is built on the need to educate people about the kinds of choices they can make for nutritional health. That is what it really boils down to. When one goes into a grocery store, restaurant or different homes, one becomes very much aware of the number of food choices which can be made.
Bringing about a change in food habits to improve health is a long and slow task. However, it can be done, and in that sense the hon. member for Winnipeg North has done us a service in demonstrating that this House also can contribute to
May 29, 1981

bringing to the attention of the public the importance of this issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Caccia:: One excellent example is the action the baby food industry took of removing salt and sugar from their products.


Walter David Baker: Watch the clock, Charlie.


Charles L. Caccia: Another positive example is the fact that Canadians have increased their consumption of fruits and vegetables over the past year. Finally, one of the recent studies shows that four out of ten adult Canadians have made changes
Nutrition
in their food patterns over the past year. The example of this age group can have a positive effect on their children as well.
Having said that, I again congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North and encourage him to pursue-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
[ Translation]
It being five o'clock, this House now stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1). '
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 1, 1981