1981-05-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Due to the fact that Canadian labour relations legislation does not permit the CNR union to negotiate pension rights for former employees, pensioners have had to put up with such measly increases as $77 over 19 years. This amounts to a grand total of $4 a year, or 33 cents a month, resulting in a $265 per month pension rate. A 33-cent increase does not go far against the odds of new record inflation rates of 12.6 per cent, 15.2 per cent increases in food costs, and 54 cents per gallon increases in gas prices. This is just one more Liberal-created national disgrace. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House demands that the Minister of Labour immediately introduce amendments to Canadian labour relations legislation which would enable rail unions to negotiate on behalf of retired rail employees.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, the government has abdicated all responsibility for controlling the rampant inflation which Canadians are experiencing today. The price of food eaten at home has increased 15.8 per cent. The price of fresh vegetables is up 73.5 per cent. The price of fuel oil is up 39.6 per cent. As always, those hardest hit are single parents, people on fixed incomes, women between the ages of 55 and 64, the working poor; in other words, those already struggling to make ends meet.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House calls upon the Minister of Finance at least to acknowledge the punitive effect of these devastating inflation rates on Canadian women and introduce a new budget which will respond to this great tragedy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NEUTRALITY
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas some private Canadian citizens appear to have been involved in the planning, organization and financing of a recent plot to stage a coup against the legitimate government of Dominica, and whereas Canada lacks any legislative instrument comparable to the United States neutrality act designed to outlaw such plots and actions, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki):
That this House urges the government to bring forward legislation to prevent mercenary armies and other private citizens from using Canada as a safe haven from which they can launch armed activities against legitimate foreign governments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission has given only two weeks' notice of important public meetings in northern Manitoba which will determine the future of rail service in that area, in light of the fact that both VIA Rail and CN have downgraded both the quality and quantity of rail service in the last few years, and in view of the fact that in this region there

May 15, 1981
are areas which are rail locked, that is, accessible only by rail or air, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky):
That the Minister of Transport instruct the Canadian Transport Commission to postpone the CTC hearings scheduled for The Pas and Churchill and that the CTC be required to force CN and VIA to guarantee adequate and attractive service not only at the current level but beyond, to the extent of providing convenient, comfortable, fast and frequent service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In May, 1976, the then minister of finance doubled the allowable deduction for child care expenses from $500 to $1,000, acknowledging that the amount was too low in light of continuing inflation. Since then the cost of living has increased 56 per cent, leaving a 1976 dollar with a value of 64 cents. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to introduce a new budget before Parliament rises for the summer recess which would allow for total deduction of child care expenses from the income of a working mother or single parent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The consumer price rise in April produced the highest year over year rate of inflation in Canada since World War II price controls were phased out in 1947-48. This has caused a rapidly accelerating rise in the entire cost structure of the fishing industry because of inflation, increasing fuel and energy costs, and high interest rates, placing this industry in jeopardy. Since there is today conflict between fishing interests for access to the resource, conflict between fishermen and buyers over price, conflict between government, processors and fishermen, and conflict between federal and provincial governments over control of the resource and the industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That the government take steps immediately to establish a clear, long-term government-policy for the research, management and development of Canada's fisheries since the lack of a coherent policy imposes severe difficulties for managers and investors in the private sector.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Eight of the 11 Liberal government increases in the cost of energy since February 18, 1980, were tax increases. The latest consumer price index shows Canadians are paying record high prices for energy as a result of tax increases. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That this House instruct the government to implement an energy tax credit for low and middle-income Canadians.


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the malfunctioning of the pipeline constructed by Amax Ltd. to dump toxic mine tailings into the ocean at Alice Arm, B.C. and that two recent accidents have allowed toxic waste to be spilled into the sensitive intertidal zone, contrary to both federal and provincial legislation, and also that the interim report from the scientific review panel confirms that the government and Amax technical studies are inadequate to ensure environmental and health safety; and further, in light of concerns raised by the U.S. department of state regarding pollution of American waters from this operation, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That this House go on record as unanimously supporting the call for a full public inquiry to investigate the health and safety questions raised by the federal government's own scientific review panel.
May 15, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to every Canadian consumer. In view of the fact that the last time the inflation rate was this high, in September, 1948, when half the population of Canada had not been born, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government follow the lead of the former and present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs when he said in 1974, "It is extremely important that we deal efficiently with the rate of inflation".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), I move:
That the Minister of Transport be urged to make it known to the Canadian National Railways and to the Canadian Pacific Railway that it is their responsibility to take immediate action to increase the pensions of their retired employees and to establish automatic indexation, at least annually, so that all railway pensioners and their survivors will be able to maintain a standard of living commensurate with the service they have rendered to this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance who will know that today the consumer price index has gone through the roof. The highest cost of living in modern time means that a shopping basket which cost S100 in 1971 now costs consumers $231.10.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Does the Minister of Finance still subscribe to the statement made by his colleague, the former and present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, when he spoke in favour of wage and price controls in October, 1975? At that time he said:
I believe this anti-inflation policy to be a wise policy which meets the present needs of the Canadian economy.
Has his colleague expressed similar concerns to the Minister of Finance, in light of today's figures? Since the "wise" anti-inflation policy of 1975 was so obviously unsuccessful, what does the Minister of Finance believe the current needs of the Canadian economy require?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I point out to the hon. member, who is as concerned about inflation as we all are, that he ought to focus his attention on the rate of growth in the CPI for the month of April, which indicates a significant slowdown for that month. The year to year figure which is 12.6 per cent tells us about what happened over the year, but the figure for April indicates that the rate of growth has slowed down from 1.3 per cent last month to 0.7 per cent. That in itself is encouraging, but obviously it is not possible to draw a final conclusion from this particular figure. If that trend continues for the rest of the year, certainly it would register an appreciable drop in the over-all inflation rate.


Mr. Clark:: Incredible.


REDUCTION IN REAL WAGES
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, dealing with this Minister of Finance when he is quoting statistics is like shoveling smoke. The Minister of Finance said that Canadians will have to accept lower real wages. Since real wages have been falling since 1977-in February they were a full 1.4 per cent below a year ago-and since we have this rampaging inflation, how much longer will the Minister of Finance put the average Canadian worker through the wringer before our purchasing power is restored and progress against inflation is achieved?

May 15, 1981
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has spoken about real wage increases. I would like to draw to his attention a much more important statistic, namely, real disposable income for the average Canadian. If he looks at that figure, I believe he can draw a contrary conclusion. But I ask the hon. member to consider the situation where we must accept increased energy prices. We are in a situation of declining over-all productivity in the country. Perhaps he could tell me how it is possible in those circumstances to advance the real incomes of all Canadians if, as a society, we are producing less per worker?


Mr. Nielsen:: You are the Minister of Finance.


FORECAST FOR SUMMER MONTHS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, it is a fearsome thought what the CPI will look like when the increased energy prices begin to filter down through the Canadian economy.
My final supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Given that each and every month for more than a year now-13, 14, 15 months-prices have been rising at an average of 1 per cent per month, can the Minister of Finance offer consumers any assurance that rates of inflation in succeeding months will not be higher than the seven tenths of a percentage point of the past month? Otherwise, how can he justify to Canadian people that we may have to wait until some time in the fall, in October or November, when he may bring in a budget to give some economic leadership?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to energy price increases. I think it is worth pointing out that the energy price increases included in the National Energy Program, and the energy price increases necessitated by the production cutbacks of Alberta, have been concentrated, for the most part, in the early part of 1981. If it were possible to reach an agreement with the province of Alberta without any further energy price increases, then we would not have reflected in the cost of living for the remainder of 1981 any further energy increases, which have already been absorbed. I draw to his attention the consistent advocacy of his party of additional energy price increases which must be reflected in the cost of living. In any event, I add that if these energy price increases are not absorbed directly, then we will certainly have further pressure on the cost of living index.


MEASURES TO HELP PEOPLE ON LOW AND FIXED INCOMES
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that we have record-breaking high interest rates and a recordbreaking cost of living index, I suggest to the minister that he set up a human misery index so he will know the effects his policies are having on people on lower and fixed incomes.
The minister knows that the price of food has risen by a whopping 15.8 per cent. If the minister would only come out of his Place Bell Canada penthouse and go to the supermarkets he would find out that some people are having to resort to buying dog food. I would like to ask the minister what plans he has, if any, to ease this intolerable situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the language of the hon. member is quite lurid and could only come from a rather agitated mentality. Yesterday her leader was advocating that we should have followed the energy tax credit as a solution to the problem of low income groups. I remind the hon. member that the action which her leader advocated yesterday, and which is still apparently the policy of her party, was not followed by us.
We decided to do something quite different when we formed the government, and that was to increase the guaranteed income supplement by substantial amounts, providing considerably more assistance to the senior citizens of this country than anything proposed by her party. Not only did we substantially increase the guaranteed income supplement but we also indexed it fully against the cost of living. So the hon. member is not making much of a contribution by not realizing that for the lower income groups, particularly senior citizens, there have been substantial increases which are fully indexed and which will continue to be fully indexed against increases in the cost of living.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the minister is right on when he says that I am agitated. 1 am agitated on behalf of the people of this country who are suffering from the policies which the minister has put in place. I only wish that he were agitated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADVICE TO SENIOR CITIZENS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: This afternoon I will be attending a gathering of senior citizens in Kingston and I want to know what the minister suggests I tell that gathering besides the sort of statements he has been making, which simply do not make any sense to senior citizens. Am I to tell them this afternoon that at this point they cannot go out and buy any more fresh fruit or vegetables, which have gone up in price 73 per cent, almost double the cost of what they were a year ago? Is that what I am to tell them, or am I to tell them, perhaps, that they should really tough it out until the minister's high interest rate policy begins to bring the cost of inflation down at some distant point in the future? Quite frankly-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has
May 15, 1981

asked me what she ought to tell the senior citizens. I will give her a suggestion. She ought to remind the senior citizens that her party proposed, in their budget, an energy tax credit which, had it been implemented, would provide an additional $40 for senior citizens in 1981-


Mr. Lalonde:: Per year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -per year, and an additional $80 in 1982.


Marc Lalonde: Per year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what would have happened to the senior citizens under her proposals. Under the proposals which we have adopted, each senior citizen will receive a minimum of $420 a year.


Mr. Andre:: Tell them they have never had it so good, eh?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not $40, and not $80, but a minimum of $420, which, when indexed, will amount to $462.84 in 1981 and, according to projections in the budget, will amount to $506 in 1982.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let them eat Hansard!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Give that message to the senior citizens, and compare what she was ready to do with what we have done.


ACTION TO ASSIST MAJORITY AFFECTED BY INFLATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance has just left the impression that the government is doing a lot for Canadians. I point out to him-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Let us see if they clap after this. The one group that the government has done something about is the poor portion of senior citizens who get the supplement, and the indexing does not come into effect-for that small part of the senior citizens community that gets the index-until five months after the increase has taken place.
However, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since we now have a record increase in the cost of living, since food prices are going up 14 per cent, and since mortgages are now at 18 per cent to 20 per cent, what is the government, and specifically, the Prime Minister, proposing to do for the grand majority of Canadians who are affected by all of this. Does he still stand by his proposal made some months ago that Canadians should switch their priorities, and, if so, to what, since everything is going up?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Since the Leader of the New Democratic Party is talking about the majority of Canadians, the great number of Canadians, I will give him a figure that will show him that on average the great majority of Canadians are much better off now than they were
Oral Questions
ten years ago. It is all very well to talk about increased prices, which are regrettable. We would like to keep inflation down. It is because of increased prices-


An hon. Member:: Wrestle it to the ground, Pierre.


Charles Joseph Clark: Maurice Strong sure will!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that we have indexed old age pensions and many other welfare payments. But at the same time as prices have gone up, real disposable income of Canadians between 1970, when inflation began to become a worrisome phenomenon-


Harvie Andre: The land is strong!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and 1980, has gone up more than 50 per cent. That is the real disposable income of every Canadian.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thanks to you!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So, when the hon. member laments that prices have gone up, we join in that lamentation, but we say that Canadians are 50 per cent better off, on average, in 1980 than they were in 1970.


INCREASE IN PROFITS OF CHARTERED BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: That is truly remarkable. They are a lot better off now than they were in 1900, as well; but I say to the Prime Minister that the record will also show that the average Canadian worker, for each of the past three years, has experienced a real decline in take-home pay by $35 a week. That is the important record in recent happenings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question, since there are certain specifics the government could act on if it wanted to help. There is a charming ad which appeared in Canadian papers yesterday which was put in by that poor group of Canadians who own the banks, saying what a wonderful job they are doing. Farmers are going broke in record numbers and Canadians are having to abandon their homes in record numbers because of interest rates which are being passed on to the farmers, or indirectly, as higher mortgage costs to home owners.


Harvie Andre: Herb Gray is going to resign, just like he promised.


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Prime Minister: just for once, will the government do something for the victims of inflation instead of the villains, and take action against the banks by forcing them to reduce their mortgages on the one hand and to curtail their record-level profits on the other?

May 15, 1981
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the facts are not as stated by the hon. member. When he says foreclosures are increasing in number, that is not true.


John Edward Broadbent: I did not say foreclosures.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he is talking about people abandoning their homes-


John Edward Broadbent: Not foreclosures.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -there are many reasons to abandon a home.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We know that housing starts have increased some 38 per cent this February over last February. There are new homes being built. People may be moving into new houses. We know that the number of foreclosures has dropped.


Mr. Wilson:: That is ridiculous.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, if the hon. member opposite has some better statistic, he could bring it up. The facts are not as stated by the hon. member. The real disposable income, I repeat, of the average Canadian is going up. He can pick one sector of the economy-workers over the last three years, he can take bankers over the last two quarters, he can take farmers some time in the middle seventies, but 1 am telling him, and these facts are indisputable, that the average real wealth of Canadians has gone up 50 per cent-


Mr. Siddon:: Table the facts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -between 1970 and 1980. That is an average of plus 4 per cent per year.


Charles Joseph Clark: You think Maurice Strong is an average Canadian?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can understand the shouting from the parties opposite, but if they want to know the facts they just have to look at the Bureau of Statistics. They will get-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You have to look at people.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


SPECULATION IN HOUSE PROPERTY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, this is just incredible nonsense. Of course standards of living have improved over the last decade. They have improved in virtually every country of the world. We are not talking about the past decade, we are talking about the last few years and current trends. I repeat that the average worker in Canada has lost some $35 per week in each of the past three years, and in 1981
that will probably go up to $40 or $45 per year. It is current reality that Canadians are interested in, not the past of this government.
Since the Prime Minister did talk about housing, I should like him to deal with that area. Because of the tax law there is now the possibility that speculators in every city, every metropolitan region in Canada, are buying up houses, which are frequently those being sold by CMHC because people have not been able to renew mortgages, not foreclosure; they simply have not got the income they need to continue. I should like to ask the Prime Minister specifically if he will at least stop that speculating by changing the tax law which encourages it, and which speculation forces up the price of housing for all Canadians. That is something concrete that the government could do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to consider any and every suggestion when the time comes to bring in new tax laws in the budget.


COST OF LIVING INCREASE IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND AND NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Figures released today reveal that, except for Vancouver which has special and distinct problems because of its housing market, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have suffered the highest annual increase in the cost of living in all of Canada. There has been a whopping increase of 14 per cent in Charlottetown alone, which is the worst such figure since records have been kept.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that these are the poorest provinces in the country, that they suffer the highest unemployment rate, and that therefore they are the ones least able to cope with the soaring increases in the cost of living in Canada? If so, does he intend to introduce any emergency or remedial measures to help these provinces cope with this terrible crisis?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, I do realize, and the government realizes, that Prince Edward Island, for example, is amongst the poorest provinces in the country. It is for that reason, through policies developed by this government and former governments under the leadership of the Prime Minister, that at the present time the transfers to Prince Edward Island per capita are the highest in all of Canada and the highest in the Atlantic provinces. We have been able to do that through equalization, through other transfers, and through the Prince Edward Island Development Plan.
When the hon. member asks whether I am aware what the economic circumstances in Prince Edward Island are and have been, the answer is yes; we have supported Prince Edward Island and, as a result, its standard of living has increased quite considerably.
May 15, 1981


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance brags about his record as far as Prince Edward Island is concerned. The Atlantic provinces have the highest unemployment rate in the country, are being crippled by soaring interest rates, and now must face the second highest inflation rate in the country as a result of the very policies he brags about. Is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, for example, assessing the devastation that the government's economic policies are inflicting on these provinces-on the Atlantic region in particular-with a view to expanding existing DREE policies and programs and other policies to help the region cope with its crisis?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member ought to take into account the real facts when he is addressing the problems of the economy. He mentioned unemployment. The fact of the matter is that recent statistics released show that all regions of Canada, including the Atlantic region, showed decreases in unemployment in the month of April.
As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Government of Canada have been considering the next phase of the development plan for the province of Prince Edward Island. It seems to me that, if he wanted to be fair, he would look at the very substantial investment that has been made by the Government of Canada, giving evidence of our interest in the welfare of the people of Prince Edward Island. I do not think that, on a comparative basis, any province in this country has been treated better or, indeed, as well as the province of Prince Edward Island.


INCOME TAX
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns the latest CPI figures. Since working mothers, and single parents especially, are suffering from the effects of the latest CPI increases, particularly in Vancouver where they face the highest housing costs in the country and in history, with house prices doubling in the past year and rental vacancy rates at zero, will the minister consider introducing a new budget before the summer recess which will include removal of the limitation on the child care expense deduction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I know that the question of the child care expense deduction has been under consideration, if we are thinking of the same subject matter, and maybe we are not. It is not my intention to bring in a new budget before the summer recess. Hon. members are enjoying spreading gloom today, but I think they should at least focus their attention on the fact that for the month of April there
Oral Questions
has been a significant slowing down in the rate of increase in the cost of living index. Just look at the statistics that have come out today. I think that is a matter of encouragement.


Charles Joseph Clark: The highest in history.


John Edward Broadbent: The highest in history.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members are quite properly talking about the year to year figure which tells about what happened over the past year. I am asking them to focus on what is happening currently in the economy. Last month, April, showed a significant slowdown in the rate of growth of the CPI.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That happens every April.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It would be my wish that that encouraging trend would continue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Your wish? What are you doing about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not sure that it will. The Leader of the Opposition asks what we are doing about it. We have been resisting the extravagant prices for energy that he is proposing-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might concentrate on answering the question that was asked from the floor, and not across the floor.


LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, I am sure we are talking about the same thing, the child care deduction. There is only one in the income tax rules, and the limit is $1,000. The minister should be aware that one of his predecessors, in May, 1976, doubled the deductible amount of $500 to $1,000 because of the ravages of inflation. Since 1976 the deduction of $1,000 has shrunk in value to $640. What advice does the Minister of Finance have for working mothers and single parents who are suffering from the government's inflation policies and who are denied an adequate deduction from earned income for this legitimate and necessary expense?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked me to modify this particular tax credit. He knows, if I accepted his advice, that it would constitute a revenue loss to the government.


Mr. Crombie:: A gain for the mothers though.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I agree it would benefit a particular group.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Take it from Maurice Strong and the Finder's fee.
9636

May 15, 1981
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Speaking for the official opposition in the major speech he gave two days ago, the member for St. John's West urged me to reduce the deficit and to reduce expenditures. I ask hon. members opposite how is it possible for me to introduce new measures, and this is not the first one-


Thomas Edward Siddon: What about metric conversion?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What about the $60 million worth of advertising?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -no matter how desirable it is-involving revenue losses and new expenditures, and yet carry out the advice of the hon. member for St. John's West


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Why? Is Petrofina more important?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -who is urging me every day to cut down expenditures and reduce the deficit as a way of reducing inflation?


An hon. Member:: Take it from the mothers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What is obvious from the official opposition is that they have no coherent economic policy, and they are shooting not only from the hip but from divers lips every day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE MEDIA
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It concerns the way in which the Toronto radio station, CFTR, dealt with information it had on a group of mercenaries planning to overthrow the government of Dominica. The radio station claims to have learned about the plot last October, conducted taped interviews with the conspirators, but did not inform any authorities, because, as the station's news director, Robert Halliday, said:
If we'd gone to the police, we'd have had to work alongside them and then we wouldn't have had the story.
Since there seems to be a trend toward manipulated, sensational reporting these days, will the minister direct the CRTC to determine whether such so-called "investigative reporting" is consistent with the commission's regulations? In addition, will the minister ask the Canadian Broadcasters Association to carry out its own inquiry on whether the conduct of CFTR radio station meets the association's professional standards?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question yesterday.
I have asked my officials to examine the facts of the matter which have been brought to my attention by the hon. member
for Davenport. At present I have only initial advice which I am asking my officials to pursue because the matter does not really come within the purview of the Broadcasting Act. I will, of course, be pleased to draw the whole matter to the attention of the Chairman of the CRTC and also to the President of the Association of Broadcasters.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of energy who is being replaced in his seat by the government House leader, something which is long overdue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: Others have mentioned that the consumer price increase for this April is probably the highest 12-month increase on record. Also within those figures we see a whopping 27 per cent rise in energy prices and a 22 per cent rise in the cost of household fuels. The costs of all consumer items are skyrocketing at unprecedented rates and consumers are suffering. I think that is a fact agreed to by all parties on all sides of the House.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has just received a brilliant report from a parliamentary task force dealing with energy alternatives and conservations. I know it is a detailed and complex report. However, when will the minister be in a position to comment publicly and give support to or rejection of, if he feels so disposed, this report? We, in the NDP, support its recommendations. We are enthusiastic about it. Can the minister also assure the House when he is replying to my question, whether or not he intends to push and get behind this report after he has studied it? Can he assure us too that he will not let it gather dust like so many other parliamentary task force reports have done?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I deplore the increases which have taken place in the price of energy over the past year, as does the hon. member. But those increases have taken place, and this government at the same time has had to resist pressures from opposition parties and from the NDP government in Saskatchewan all of whom would like to see those prices go up even faster.
In terms of energy prices, the position of this government is that we should resist excessive and radical price increases, like the ones being pressed upon us by the Conservatives in particular-


Charles Joseph Clark: Except for Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi Arabia.
May 15, 1981


Marc Lalonde: -and the provincial governments of the producing provinces, including the province of Saskatchewan.
As for the question itself raised by the hon. member, I have not had time to read the voluminous report to which the hon. member has referred. I am glad to know that members of the New Democratic Party have already had the time to read the report. I must say that I am not that fast a reader.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You are not that fast a learner either.


Marc Lalonde: However, I will read this report. I have asked my officials to do a complete examination of it and 1 have indicated that in a few weeks I hope to be able to comment on it.
I might indicate to the hon. member that we have already set up Canertech, the Crown corporation, to push renewable energy. The government is already supporting research in the area of hydrogen which was recommended by the committee.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, the minister mentions oil price rises. I suggest to him that is all the more reason we get on with the job of energy alternatives and conservation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUNDING FOR CANERTECH
Mark Willson Rose: We also support the call for a minister of state, and energy alternatives, conservation and renewables as the cheapest, safest, quickest and most employment intensive way of solving our energy crisis, of meeting the demand curve and meeting self-sufficiency. Can the minister tell us when he will increase the piddling $20 million he has assigned to Canertech to stimulate alternatives? Also, when does the minister intend to spend the $1.2 billion cushion, which he shows at the bottom of page 90 in the National Energy Program?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the NDP has at long last discovered conservation in the area of energy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Five years after the government introduced a very dynamic program in the area of conservation, and I mention particularly the home insulation program, the NDP is now supporting it.
I want to tell my hon. friend that we created Canertech with an initial budget of $20 million. We have said that if additional funds are required, this being an area of high priority, they would be forthcoming. However, there is no point in providing funds until those in existence at the present time have been used.
We are fully behind Canertech, and I am glad to know that we will have the support of the NDP in this regard too.
Oral Questions FINANCE


ENERGY TAX INCREASES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The government has increased the cost of energy to the consumer 11 times since February 18, 1980. Eight of those increases have been tax increases which have served only to increase the revenues of the federal government. That is the real reason for the inflation rise in the cost of energy.
How many more energy tax increases does the Minister of Finance anticipate, let us say by the end of the year, in order to help Canadians fight inflation?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Scrooge.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not proposing to introduce any new tax increases in energy. That would be indicated in a budget, and I have no intention with respect to anything new that has not already been outlined in the budget.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would suggest putting those words on the record is the only thing the Minister of Finance has done to protect Canadians against inflation, at least until the end of the year.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO MEET HOUSING RENTAL INCREASES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I have another question for the Minister of Finance. Mortgage interest rates are at a record high as a result of the Liberal party's high interest rate policy. As multiple unit landlords renew their mortgages at today's Liberal interest rates they are going to be forced to increase their rents or go bankrupt. This is going to impact severely on tenants who are mainly low and middle-income Canadians. How does the minister plan to counter or cushion the impact of these rental increases on Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, on the first question, so we are absolutely clear and so the hon. member will not be misled by anything I have said, if there are further production cutbacks, obviously the Government of Canada will have to take that into account, but that has already been made known to the hon. member. I wanted to make sure he would not conclude from the answer that I had abandoned that particular approach. Here again 1 am asked to bring in a new expenditure program. 1 do not know how one shelters without an allowance, and it is not my intention now, as much as I would like to be able to do it, to bring in new programs.

May 15, 1981
Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY


POSITION OF SINGLE WOMEN AGED 55 TO 64 YEARS
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The minister will know that Statistics Canada reported in 1979 that 41.5 per cent of single, divorced and widowed women aged 55 to 64 who did not live with relatives had incomes well below the poverty line. With today's running inflation and the escalating CPI, these figures are now much higher. These women, of course, do not qualify for the assistance available to senior citizens at age 65, and with unemployment at 7 per cent they have little hope of finding employment. My question to the minister is, will she introduce now as a short-term emergency measure special assistance to women aged 55 to 64?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, we are well aware of the problem of special groups of people under 65, and especially of people between 55 and 64 who must unfortunately survive only with provincial welfare benefits. Unfortunately, under the present distribution of federal-provincial responsibilities, the federal government ensures that married couples over 65 have incomes above the poverty line and we hope that we can soon do the same for single people. The provinces must take their own responsibilities. As I have said, with the present jurisdiction set-up, we cannot take direct action for the social welfare of people under 65.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, the women who are in that age group 55 to 64 will find themselves taking little comfort from the response that it is somebody else's responsibility. To see that these needs are met, and until such agreement can be made and the situation jointly dealt with through consultations with the provinces, will she urge her colleague, the minister responsible for employment, to introduce on an interim basis an employment incentive program specifically targeted for women aged 55 to 64 so they might have some opportunity to get short-term employment? How long are we going to go on saying to these women, "You have to live below the poverty line"?
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I do not think that the hon. member is doing anyone a service by speaking in this way. It seems to me that it is more important to give people information on which they can act and point out that, at the present time, the provinces-and they are well aware of this problem which we have often discussed at joint meetings-can decide to increase their welfare and assistance benefits, in which case we would reimburse automatically 50 per cent of this increase. I think that we should tell people to whom they should apply instead of playing games and pretending that we have certain
responsibilities when we do not. On the other hand, as to granting assistance to industry to hire women who have trouble finding employment because they are older and are unfortunately the victims of an unwritten prejudice, I would like to repeat-and I am happy to have the opportunity to do so-that in late January, my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, established a program which should help to hire immediately and over a period of two years 4,300 Canadians including women in this age group who have difficulty in finding employment through normal channels. Under this employment incentive program, the employer receives 80 per cent at first, then 50 per cent and finally 25 per cent of the salary paid to such people. I invite women to make use of this program by going to our Manpower Centres.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On April 23 of this year the minister banned urea formaldehyde foam insulation, and did so on the recommendation of a report from an expert advisory committee which she appointed in December. On page 11 of that report the committee recommended that the federal government assist home owners who are suffering adverse health effects from formaldehyde exposure. I would ask the minister when she intends to implement that recommendation, and what has she to say to those people who have been so exposed?


Monique Bégin: What I can tell my colleagues in the House of Commons today, Madam Speaker, is that I have already the agreement of five provinces, if I recall properly, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario-I seem to be missing a few-which have offered to help us to provide assistance. I have instructed my officials to look immediately into existing means of providing technical assistance.


REQUEST FOR DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION IN TORONTO
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the minister may know that the other night in Toronto there was a meeting of a group of home owners, some 400 in number, who organized a new association called "Home owners with Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation", or "HUFFI". In statements after that meeting the group indicated it was concerned about the possible health effects and "the lack of assistance, guidance, information" from the minister, which is now becoming an acute problem. It is also known, as I am sure the minister
May 15, 1981

knows, that the board of health in the city of Toronto has indicated it has no information that is useful to it from the ministry which tells at what level it can predict there are difficulties in respect of exposure.
When will the minister provide the municipalities and the provinces with that information in respect to levels, and when will she implement the recommendation to give assistance to the home owners?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am quite surprised that the Toronto board would not have received that information. We do not deal, because of the Constitution, directly with municipalities in instances like that, of course. My line of communication is with the provincial ministers who received immediately, on the morning of publication, a copy of the report and of the exact situation regarding UFFI. It is not fair to say, in a simplistic statement like that, that there is no information.
We have directed public attention to two booklets, widely distributed, of which copies are available, I am sure, even in the hon. member's riding office. One is from the National Research Council and one is from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. They contain specific questions and answers on what to do when a house has been insulated with UFFI. This is good material. If the situation persists with the Toronto board in which they need the information, I will contact Mr. Dennis Timbrell and ask him to pass on the information.


STUDY OF STILLBIRTH STATISTICS AND CAUSES IN PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could the minister confirm that a study of birth defects and stillbirths in Prince Edward County near the Bay of Quinte showed there was a dramatic increase, some 200 per cent to 300 per cent, in stillbirths in the early 1970s over the previous ten to 15 years? Would she also advise the House what ongoing monitoring systems exist to enable the investigation into possible links between health problems and contamination of drinking water and the food chain, particularly in the Great Lakes?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I replied to the same question several times a little over three weeks ago. Unfortunately, I do not have the details of the matter with me today. I am surprised that the hon. member would come back to it. This question has also been asked in the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I said at the time that the study on
Oral Questions
the Bay of Quinte had been made by a university student, and as such had certain limitations.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The reason for asking the question is that the student was a Ph.D. working in Environment Canada and just taking a special course.
This is not the first time this problem of birth defects has been referred to the ministry. As early as 1976 this particular ministry promised to undertake a study, with the Ontario government health department, of the high incidence of birth defects, particularly in the Wallaceburg area. The incidence of birth anomalies in that area was 40 per cent higher than the average for the province of Ontario.
What we are interested in is finding out what this study and similar studies are showing, and would the minister tell us what studies are revealing in terms of the connection between environmental pollution and human birth defects and spontaneous abortions in Ontario and in other parts of this country?
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, with regard to the specific question about what this study by a Ph.D. student is showing, I shall send a letter to the hon. member. I believe that this is the best way to give the scientific details required in view of the seriousness of his question.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. I am sure all of us welcome recent statements that more funding is to be made available to aid in research. Given that Imperial Oil and other companies have indicated an intention to expand their research capabilities in Canada- and Imperial Oil particularly has indicated an expansion probably taking place in Sarnia and in Calgary-and given the fact that these projects are only going to go ahead on the basis of present legislation, particularly capital cost allowances, can the minister confirm that any changes to be made in the research and development policy will not in any way diminish the benefits which are presently available to corporations which are already embarking on building and expanding research facilities?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. As he knows, we have put forward what we think are effective and ambitious plans for government expenditure designed to help

May 15, 1981
Oral Questions
Canada's economy reach an over-all figure of 1.5 per cent of gross national product directed to research and development. However, it will not be by government efforts alone that we will be able to achieve our objectives, and we are calling for and hoping to see a very greatly increased expenditure on the part of the private sector. Indeed, we are looking for real growth in research and development expenditures by some 17 per cent per year on the average until 1985.
One of the problems we have identified very clearly in our research is that, on the whole, the record of foreign-owned firms and subsidiaries in Canada has not matched the performance of Canadian companies in undertaking research and development efforts, and I therefore would welcome, along with the hon. member, the indications which he has just given us of increased activities on the part of this company. I would have to say that it certainly would not normally be our intention to hinder such development retroactively but, rather, to applaud them.


EXCISE TAX
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his speech on May 6 last to the Conference Board of Canada the minister indicated that he supported Governor Bouey in his indication to Canadians that we can expect even higher rates of inflation. Can the minister tell this House how the indexing of tax to the consumer price index as it applies to commodities such as wines, beers and spirits is not in itself inflationary, and will the minister tell this House how he intends to fight inflation when he states that the real purpose of indexing taxation to the consumer price index is to prevent government revenues from eroding?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member realizes that we will be dealing with this question at the report stage of the bill in due course, but just let me say as a preliminary that the purpose of this particular indexing is to achieve what a normal tax on value as a proportionate value would achieve. It does not in itself add to inflation. It is the equivalent of a tax based on an increased value of a commodity, and there are many of those taxes in our system.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, if the intended purpose of indexing is to prevent government revenues from erosion, then will the minister tell us that he proposes to extend that indexing to other commodities and, if he does not intend to extend it to other commodities, how can he justify the continued discrimination against these products by indexing only excise tax as against wines, beers and spirits?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the reason is that there is a different tax system, an ad valorem tax, on other commodities.


POINTS OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from an interjection yesterday in debate by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). On page 9587 of Hansard the following exchange appears:


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister of energy, who might want to put his seat on the line, says that is a lie. He is saying it is a lie that the Government of Canada paid $942,000 to the good Liberal friend, Maurice Strong.


Marc Lalonde: To Maurice Strong, that is a lie.
It may well be that the minister is going to tell the House of Commons that the $942,000 payment by the Government of Canada went to Mr. Strong in a corporate capacity, went to a company or went through one of some other covers. The House is not particularly interested in having a review of the one thousand and one variations of Liberal patronage. What we are interested in is a minister of the Crown in this House of Commons respecting the rules of this place.
He knows that the language he used yesterday is unparliamentary and unacceptable, and I would like, on a point of order, to ask him to withdraw language which he knows and which the House knows is unacceptable.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already stated in this House and in a letter to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that Mr. Maurice Strong held only a very small minority position in the bank called Sogener and, as such, he could not be the beneficiary of the amount mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition.
Indeed, I did interject yesterday, but I withdraw the expression used if it is considered unparliamentary. I will only say that what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said is not true.


Madam Speaker:: Indeed that settles the matter, and I thank the minister for his co-operation.


MR. HAWKES-RECOGNITION OF MEMBERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek some procedural advice from Your Honour. Your Honour realizes that for 27 question periods in a row I have attempted to be recognized. I was not recognized again today, probably for reasons respecting long answers as well as long questions. However, my parliamentary responsibilities require me along with several other members to be away from this House in the week ahead of us. In your ruling on recognition in question period of May 27, 1980, you indicated that those who were away from question period or were not able to attend consecutively would lose their place in line. I wonder if I fulfil my obligation-
May 15, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure I said no such thing. I did say that attendance in the House of Commons has some bearing on the number of times that an hon. member may be recognized. I think that is simply logical. If you are not here often, you cannot be recognized often.
The hon. member is raising a point of order. He raised the same matter as a question of privilege yesterday. Obviously he cannot transform a question of privilege on which 1 had ruled into a point of order. I think the hon. member knows what he can do if he wants to be recognized. His case is not unique. A lot of members are seeking the floor and a lot of members do not always get the floor. I try to be fair. I repeat, that is my only rule.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,871, 1,872,
I,	898, 2,051, 2,052, 2,125, 2,126, 2,309, 2,310 and 2,319.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mary Lou McCloskey, a former employee of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, visit the premises of the corporation on the afternoon of December
II,	1980, and, if so (a) did she file with the chief of finance an account in the amount of $60.00 owing to her for work done for the corporation on Friday, August 1, 1980 (b) was she asked by Mr. Michel Bourcier to leave the premises in front of other members of the staff and did he escort her to the exit (c) did Miss McCloskey request to see Mr. Richard Asselin, the chief of finance and, if so, was this request relayed to Mr. Asselin by Marie Lafleche of data control?
2.	Did Mr. Bourcier order Miss McCloskey to leave the building before she could see Mr. Asselin?
3.	What are all the reasons for the actions of Mr. Bourcier?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: 1. Yes, on December 11, 1980, at approximately 2.30 p.m.
(a)	No, however, a registered letter was received at the office of the vice-president, finance and administration on December 15, 1980, filing such an account.
(b)	(i) Yes; Miss McCloskey did not respect the policy of
the corporation with regard to visitors: Visitors should remain at the reception area until escorted to
Order Paper Questions
people with whom they are to meet. See also part 3 below; see question 1,872 answered this day.
(ii) No, to the reception area.
(c)	(i) Yes, however, Mr. Richard Asselin, C.A., is the vice-president, finance and administration.
(ii) Yes, however, Marie Lafleche is not of data control but supervisor of the data processing section of the corporation.
2.	No, Miss McCloskey was asked to leave the premises. See part l(b)(i) above.
3.	Miss McCloskey has not been an employee of the corporation since June, 1980, and on December 11, 1980, had not scheduled a meeting with any employee of the corporation. Since her resignation from the corporation, she had been visiting the office on an occasional basis without appointment, disrupting the work flow of the employees.


Mr. Cossitt: Is Mr. Stanley Janas, chief of administration of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if not (a) who is and what is his/her complete Public Service history (b) did this person advise Mary Lou McCloskey, a former employee of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation on the afternoon of Thursday, December 11, 1980, that she should leave the premises as she was "a disturbance" and, if so, on what grounds was such a statement made?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: Yes, Mr. Stanley Janas is chief of administration and Personnel of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, in a probationary capacity.
(a)	Mr. Janas has never been employed in the federal Public Service.
(b)	No, she was asked to refrain from disturbing the staff during working hours and, that if there was anyone in particular that she should wish to see, she should present herself to the receptionist and have the receptionist call the individual to see if they were available. See also question 1,871, parts l(b)(i) and 3 answered this day.


Mr. MacKay: With respect to the recent visit to Ottawa by native people, including the arrival of the Constitution Express, how many approximate hours of overtime were incurred by the RCMP?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: During the recent visit to Ottawa by native people, including the arrival of the Constitution Express, approximately 5,592 hours of overtime were incurred. Of this total, approximately 5,551.5 hours occurred in Ottawa.

May 15, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Madame Claudette Nadeau, president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, recently contact Mr. MacSween of the National Arts Centre at any time in regard to the employment by the centre of Miss Mary Lou McCloskey, formerly with the corporation, and did Madame Nadeau recommend that Miss McCloskey not be hired and that if she had already been hired that she be fired?
2.	What are all the other details of the conversation between Madame Nadeau and Mr. MacSween?
3.	Will a full investigation be conducted into Madame Nadeau's conduct?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: 1. If such contact was made, the information exchanged would be of a personal nature concerning Miss Mary Lou McCloskey.
2.	Same as 1 above.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did a Marie Lafleche of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation recently advise former employee Mary Lou McCloskey that the corporation would like her assistance temporarily on certain work?
2.	Did Miss McCloskey request confirmation from Marie Lafleche that she would be paid and was such payment approved by Mr. Richard Asselin, chief of finance, and did Ms. Lafleche tell Miss McCloskey to render her account?
3.	After rendering her account, was Miss McCloskey informed that she would not be paid despite assurances given and, if so, what is a detailed explanation of the treatment accorded Miss McCloskey?
(c)	$176,000-1979 calendar year
(d)	$ 158,000-1980 calendar year
2.	1979	1980(a)	$ 11,000	(a)	$ 10,000(b)	$ 35,000	(b)	$ 37,000(c)	$ 7,000	(c)	$ 18,000(d)	(i)	$ 3,500	(d) (i)	$ 5,000(ii)	$ 8,000	(ii)	$ 22,000(e)	$ 31,900	(e)	$ 27,837
(e) Minimum deposit premium for national insurance policy.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 (c) 1979-80 (d) 1980-81, how many rescues were (i) attempted (ii) effected by the Coast Guard auxiliary in the western region?
2.	How many involved, wholly or in part (a) auxiliary personnel (b) provincial emergency service (c) other services?
3.	What was the average cost per rescue in which (a) the Coast Guard was involved on its own (b) the Coast Guard was involved in co-operation with auxiliary and/or provincial emergency service, including cost of overhead such as capital costs and salaries (c) only auxiliary personnel were involved?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Records for the auxiliary are maintained by calendar year concurrent with their contract. Search and rescue statistics do not specify the number of rescues attempted or effected by the auxiliary; the total number attended is recorded, (a) and (b) 1977 and 1978 not applicable since the contract was signed in December, 1978.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	After rendering an account, Miss McCloskey was informed that the corporation did not consider any money was owned to her as no services were requested.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	What funds were allocated in the estimates for the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 (c) 1979-80 (d) 1980-81, to the organization and operation of the Coast Guard auxiliary in the western region?
2.	How were the allocations distributed in relation to (a) equipment (boats, radios, etc.) (b) administration (c) re-imbursement to members of the auxiliary (d) travel expenses to attend meetings for (i) permanent administration (ii) members of the auxiliary (e) insurance coverage for boats of auxiliary personnel and, in each case, how were they spent?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. (a) and (b) None. See reply to question No. 2,126, Parts 1(a) and (b), answered this day.
(c)	1979 calendar	year: 261	attended.(d)	1980 calendar	year: 428	attended.1979	1980(a)	261	(a)	428(b)	325	(b)	397(c)	3,686	(c)	3,217(a)	$ 1,022.22	(a) $	1,273.59(b)	Not available	(b) Not available	(c)	$ 389.35	(c) $	247.94
(c) Excluding auxiliary travel costs and claims.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Are complete program evaluation procedures in place and operative in each department and, if not, which departments still have to complete them?
2.	Does the work entail the preparation of a manual applicable to the department and, if so, which departments have such a manual?
3.	Is the Auditor General responsible for ensuring that adequate program evaluation procedures are in place?
4.	Is the Comptroller General responsible for a critique of the program evaluation made by the department?
May 15, 1981

5.	Do persons outside the Public Service have access to departmental program evaluation reports, and, if so, what are their names?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The office of the Comptroller General is working with over 30 of the largest departments in terms of spending. In 22 of these, program evaluation procedures are essentially complete and operative. These are: Agriculture, Customs and Excise, Canadian International Development Agency, Fisheries and Oceans, National Defence, Environment, Services, Supply, Veterans Affairs, Employment and Immigration, Energy Mines and Resources, External Affairs, Indian and Northern Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Labour, Transport, National Health and Welfare, National Museums, Public Archives, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Secretary of State, and Taxation. Other departments are in various stages of development of the function. Departmental evaluation plans were called for this spring and until these are reviewed it is not possible to confirm which other departments have complete operative functions.
2.	Preparation of a departmental manual on program evaluation is not essential to the establishment of the function. However, some departments have decided that it would be useful and are drafting departmental manuals, though none is yet final.
3.	The Auditor General is not responsible for ensuring that adequate evaluation procedures are in place. This is the responsibility of the Treasury Board through the office of the Comptroller General. However, the Auditor General may audit the adequacy of procedures.
4.	The office of the Comptroller General does assess selected program evaluations but would not necessarily provide a critique.
5.	In some cases, non-Public Service consultants would be involved in the preparation of draft reports and therefore would have access to these. Access by other persons would be in accordance with the provisions of Bill C-43, introduced in the House of Commons on July 17, 1980, and now being studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Under the Improvement in Management Practices and Controls (IMPAC) Program, were programs abandoned on the basis of recommendations from the office of the Comptroller General and, if so, which programs?
2.	Were significant modifications made to programs resulting from similar recommendations and, if so, what was the financial impact on the department concerned?


Donald James Johnston: 1. Under the Improvement in Management Practices and Controls (IMPAC) Program, no programs were abandoned on the basis of recommendations from the office of the Comptroller General.
2.	As a result of these recommendations, no significant modifications were made to the programs as defined in the
Young Offenders Act
Blue Book. However, many changes have been made to departmental management processes forming part of the programs.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did PetroCan recently take steps to terminate its existing credit card exchange agreements with other oil companies and, if so (a) what is the name and job designation of the highest-ranking official who made the decision and what were the reasons (b) was any cabinet minister involved and, if so, what was his/her name and in what way (c) what are the names of all the oil companies with which agreements have been or will be terminated and, in each case, for what reason?
2.	Is it government policy that PetroCan should not, in any way, deal on a business basis with private enterprise and, if so, for what reason?


Marc Lalonde: Petro-Canada reports as follows: 1. Yes.
(a)	Mr. V. G. Sundstrom, group vice-president, manufacturing and marketing at Petro-Canada made the decision. The reasons are outlined in part (c).
(b)	No.
(c)	Sunoco, in Canada, British Petroleum, in Canada, Phillips Petroleums Ltd., in U.S.A.
The universal acceptance and increasing use of bank credit cards combined with the extra handling costs of credit card exchanges relative to low usage in western Canada caused Petro-Canada to make the decision to terminate the agreements.
2.	No. Petro-Canada is involved in partnership with private enterprise in the overwhelming majority of business dealings.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 12, 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. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I was beginning to make some remarks the other evening when

May 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
the bill was called. I would like to extend those remarks to pick up the thread of what I was saying earlier. In that speech I had been referring to the importance of the amendment and my concern that a whole day had gone by without having a response from the government as to the position the government might be taking on the amendment.
For the purpose of framing it, I want to say that the amendment filed by the hon. member for Durham-Northumb-erland (Mr. Lawrence), seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), is one in which the House is asked to decline to give second reading to the bill at this time because the bill "rejects the fundamental principle of equal treatment of all persons before the law by specifying that the act will apply to different age groups in different provinces".
It occurred to me at that time, and I so mentioned to the House, that the application of the law would vary for offenders depending on where the offence occurred. Government members expressed Firmly during the constitutional debate the belief that federal laws and rights ought to apply equally to all Canadians. I am sure my friends remember those vehement statements made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and others during the constitutional debate; and we ought to consider that if that is to be the ethos of the government, it ought to apply with respect to juveniles and young offenders. This is the opportunity to do that.
The answer from the minister was in the form of an interjection during the debate indicating that that had been the case for a long period of time; that under the Juvenile Delinquents Act there had been different laws applying differently across the country. I know that. That is precisely the problem. Now is the opportunity for the government to move in a way which could bring some uniformity to the law. That is the purpose of the amendment.
This is what we call a reasoned amendment. It is most unusual. You, Mr. Speaker, were in the chair at the time and I commend you on your judgment with respect to that. It is important at this stage to be able to zero in on principles that would apply so that debate becomes more relevant. This is one of those amendments which makes a debate relevant. It is a concern. As I mentioned, and as was mentioned by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, the law as it stands, with the exception of that particular matter, has the general support of this and other parties in the House.
When the minister introduced the bill on April 15, 1981, he made an excellent summation of what this bill is designed to do. The minister is in the chamber. I think it would be worth while to quote what he said. I quote:
The proposed legislation blends three principles. The first is that young people should be held more responsible for their behaviour, but not wholly accountable since they are not yet fully mature and are dependent on others.
That is an excellent, socially mature and socially conscious mixture of principles in arriving at the first principle of the bill, that there is a feeling that young people should be treated as individuals, not necessarily as extensions of their parents,
and that the parents should have no vicarious liability for the acts of their children.
I pause to say it is interesting that the Solicitor General, who is introducing this legislation with this principle in it, brought forward as a private member a bill which provided that parents should have vicarious liability. Having been in his portfolio for some time and having looked at the problem a second time, obviously a sober second look with ministerial responsibility made him decide that the principle he espoused in the House at one time ought not to be espoused here.
I agree with the proposition set forth in the bill that to treat young people otherwise, to treat them as extensions of the parents, is to deny them and society the atmosphere of rationality in terms of enforcement of the law. No one in this House of Commons would deny that social conditions, family conditions and other things affect the attitude, and therefore the actions, of young people and others in the community. It moulds their lives. They are subject to the environment. To take the position that the law ought to be cognizant only of those things would be to deny the matter of rationality, the rational decisions made by human beings when contemplating any act, legal or illegal.
In the first principle enunciated by the minister, he has blended those two questions quite well. I again quote the minister:
The second point is that society has a right to protection from illegal behaviour, even though committed by a minor.
It is important for us to remember that although the bill does away with the Juvenile Delinquents Act and lays on a new ethic, there is still the principle of the responsibility of young people in this particular piece of legislation. Taking into account the question of maturity, young people have a responsibility to recognize that they live within a society which runs by certain rules and broad principles which they must observe as they would expect others to observe when dealing with them.
Also the minister said:
The third point is that young persons have the same rights to the due process of law, natural justice and fair and equal treatment as adults, and that these rights must be guaranteed by special safeguards.
The minister concluded:
Thus, the bill is intended to strike a reasonable and acceptable balance between the needs of young offenders and the interests of society.
That third point is very important. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed in 1908. There have been a host of attempts to change that old statute. When one reads the section dealing with the offences, one will find that the most insidious and profound offences can be committed. If one is convicted of being a juvenile delinquent, various things flow from it. One principle of law which is denied in the Juvenile Delinquents Act is the right for people to be certain of that for which they are charged. If one reads the old statute, one will understand exactly how vague and wrong it is.
May 15, 1981

The principle which the minister discussed dealt with the question of due process in an admirable manner. The bill will cover only young persons charged with Criminal Code and other federal statutes and regulations offences. It will not cover breaches of provincial or municipal laws. It covers the law within the federal scheme, particularly the Criminal Code, which I think impacts most heavily on young people. There is provision for a formal type of court proceeding in a different kind of court. As set out in the bill, there is a right to legal representation at all stages of proceedings, and there is the responsibility of the youth court judge to make the right known to the unrepresented youth.
The courts have moved a great deal in the past few years. They have been more conscious of individual rights of the accused person who has not yet been found guilty. He is not guilty, just accused. Most offenders are deemed to be innocent until proven otherwise; there has been a consciousness of that right. This ensures that in the all-important proceeding brought against a person defined as a young person by this statute, the person will be represented and he has a right to be represented.
This bill was dealt with by the minister's predecessor, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, when he was solicitor general. Now it has been dealt with by the minister who has the honour of having this bill approved. It is modern, progressive and reasonable with respect to its approach to dispositions. There is a provision for sentencing when offences are found and for absolute discharges. There are very substantial fines if appropriate. Also there is the provision for restitution which has the potential of conveying to the young offender that there has been an offence and someone has been deprived of property. There can be some compensation for the deprivation an innocent person suffered as a result of a wrongdoer through the imposition of this restitution provision. It provides for compensation orders for loss or damage to property, loss of income or special damages which arose because of personal injury to the victim of the offence. It puts an obligation on the judge, when he is considering making such an order, to take into account the ability of the young offender to pay or to earn. There is a good, healthy balance in there. It indicates that when one breaks the rules of society and is so found to have broken those rules, there is some alternative to jail, to a juvenile home or to some other place where juveniles are sent. In the appropriate circumstances, the judge has the right to ensure the young person is dealt with in such a manner that he will have brought home to him the importance of his action and the impact of it upon his victim. Also he will have brought home to him the obligation he owes as a result and, it follows, the obligation which he owes as a citizen in a society which operates by the rule of law.
The provision for the community service order requires the young person to perform a specified amount of work. This is a very progressive and important movement in the law. It can also help the person who by his conduct indicated some lack of responsibility to society and the community, that is, in a situation where it would be adjudged that he could absorb the
Young Offenders Act
lesson and the importance of remembering the contribution he should make to the community by being a good citizen. He would not be before the court if he had been a good citizen. The judicial system relating to young people is expanding and opening up to a great degree. There is sufficient scope for a judge to consider additional conditions. All in all, it is an admirable piece of legislation.
I know the minister would not claim complete credit for it. He is the beneficiary of work which was done on it by his predecessor, as his predecessor was the beneficiary of work done earlier by former solicitors general.
In committee it will be the objective of our party to look at this piece of legislation from the points of view of the principle, the clauses and the provisions in it to see if it is possible to improve it. I hope the government will listen to the comments of members of Parliament, because they will be made with those points of view in mind. This is a piece of legislation which is long overdue.
I am honoured to have had the opportunity to speak for a few moments in this debate. I hope someone will follow me who will tell the House whether our amendment is acceptable and, if not, why not. Perhaps he or she could enlighten the House as to whether or not something can be done at committee stage during consideration of the bill which would make the amendment acceptable to the government, if it is not, so that there could be some uniformity in the application of the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would permit a brief question.


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My question relates to the remarks he made the other day, which he touched upon again today, concerning a universal upper age limit for the cutting in of the Young Offenders Act. I think the most enlightened age is under 18. I would have wished that the provinces would agree to that age, but the financial implications for provinces which now have a lower age are tremendous. It is by and large a burden which the provinces would have to bear almost completely on their own.
What I want to ask the hon. member is whether he would be prepared to impose on the provinces from this chamber a change in policy in a matter which the provinces have deeply felt views which have such enormous financial implications for them?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am not, nor have I ever been, privy to the discussions which have obviously taken place between the minister, his predecessors and the provinces over a period of years. I knew that those discussions had been continuing, and since there is now an amendment on the floor of the House by one party which proposes to amend

May 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
the bill, which I gather is in a way that the minister would like, I put it to the minister a few moments ago that we might use a period of time during the course of the committee proceedings to approach those provinces which do not conform with the upper limit to see if there could not be some change of direction, given the fact that after these many years we have arrived at a new statute, which is a new departure and a new situation. It is in that sense that I raise this matter.
I do not think I could answer the minister's question as to imposition until I knew all the facts. I do not have those facts, but the minister does. Perhaps at the committee stage he might bring them forward so that we could deal with them. I do think that the principle is one which ought to be pursued and not forgotten by the minister. It is a principle which I do not think ought to be impaled simply on a matter of cost.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as a former solicitor general I welcome the presentation of this bill, this new Young Offenders Act, which will reform and replace the old Juvenile Delinquents Act. This bill has many good provisions and I will deal with some of them later. On the other hand, it has certain weaknesses which have already been referred to, but I would like to highlight a few of them in the hope that they will be dealt with in committee and corrected at that stage.
As hon. members know, this reform has been in the works since 1965 with the publication of the justice committee report on juvenile delinquency. That was the year I was first elected to this Parliament. In other words, this matter has been around for almost 16 years. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed in 1908 and it has received only very minor amendment in all that time, and no amendment at all since 1929. In effect, the Juvenile Delinquents Act that we have today is basically the same act which was passed in 1908. As everyone knows, there have been many social, political and economic changes in that time which have tremendously changed our society.
Following the justice committee report of 1965 the first young offenders act was presented, Bill C-192, which was introduced by a Liberal government in 1970. That bill died on the order paper before the 1972 election, after much debate and controversy. Following that, in the same year I was appointed solicitor general. Since I was extremely interested in the subject, I took steps to move ahead once more with this matter.
After a rather lengthy review with the provinces and interested individuals in the private sector, we published a new draft bill in July of 1975. Unfortunately, that proposal ran into strong opposition, especially from the provinces, and it failed to be enacted. I should point out that criminal law matters are the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament but that the delivery of social services falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces, as hon. members know. Consequently, this is an area of joint jurisdiction.
The criminal law which we pass for young people or which we apply to young people under the Juvenile Delinquents Act or the Young Offenders Act must be administered by the
provinces through their social service agencies or through other institutions coming under provincial jurisdiction. As was just mentioned, the costs of delivering these services are rather high. In the circumstances it is desirable that there be close co-operation between the provinces and the federal government on the enactment of any new legislation dealing with juvenile delinquents or young offenders. In any case, my attempt failed.
Other attempts were made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) when he was solicitor general in 1977 and by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) in 1979. These attempts were also without success. Consequently, we welcome this bill and urge its passage.
Many private reports and studies have likewise urged such reform. I have before me an excellent book by Elliott Leyton of Newfoundland which is entitled "The Myth of Delinquency". There is also the report by Sharon Moyer with respect to diversion in the juvenile justice system. There are many others. These reforms are badly needed.
Approximately 50 per cent of chronic young offenders go on to the adult courts. In other words, they go on to adult crime. In some cases reforms at the provincial level-and I have in mind my own province of Quebec-are being held up or declared invalid due to the lack of enabling legislation at the federal level. As hon. members know, and as I have pointed out, enabling legislation is necessary at the federal level if the provinces are to go ahead with their legislation, their reforms, which depend on our basic jurisdiction in criminal law.
The basic reforms in this bill, which I welcome, are, first, the increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility from seven to 12 years of age. It is complete nonsense to consider that a person seven years of age can be responsible for criminal action. It is true that people of the ages of seven, eight, nine and ten carry out behaviour which is anti-social, but it is certainly repugnant to me and many others in this country that they should be treated under the provisions of the criminal law. While we had proposed in 1975 that the age of criminal responsibility be 14, 1 think that a change to 12 years of age is a good compromise since it has the consensus of the provinces.
The second good provision of this bill is that all young people, from now on, will have the right to due process in the same way as adults. They will have all the safeguards that adults have when they are before the courts; that is, the right to legal representation, their rights being specified, the right to be informed of what sections of the law they have contravened, and the right to appeal. Many of these provisions are not present in the Juvenile Delinquents Act as it exists today.
Another important reform in the bill is the total elimination of provincial and municipal offences and the elimination of the offence of juvenile delinquency, which served as a general catch-all offence. Under this bill only Criminal Code offences and other federal criminal type statutes will be subject to the Young Offenders Act.
May 15, 1981

Another important reform in the bill which is welcome is that it provides for many alternative sentence measures, a wide range of dispositions which judges can apply to those who are found guilty under the act, including diversion from the system where that is considered to be the best way of rehabilitating the young person. This also includes restitution to the victims of crime. Community service is also included where appropriate.
Another excellent part of the bill deals with the provisions which would automatically destroy the criminal records of the young person who was found guilty under the Young Offenders Act if, after two or five years, depending on the offence, he committed no further offences. There would be no need to apply to the National Parole Board for the setting aside or destruction of those records.
The major weakness in the bill has been referred to before, but I want to emphasize it. It is the variation in ages which will apply across the country. I think we can see the nonsense of this right in the capital area of Ottawa-Hull. In Quebec, under the present law one is considered to be a juvenile up to the age of 18 years; but in Ontario one is considered to be a juvenile only up to the age of 16 years. Consequently, if two young people commit the very same type of offence, one committing it in Ottawa and the other committing it in Hull, the one in Ottawa would be tried in the adult courts and would perhaps be sent to Millhaven Penitentiary, while the one in Hull would be tried before a juvenile court and would perhaps get a probation order, be sent to a juvenile farm, or something of that nature. I think it is completely illogical-and as I say, it is blatantly obvious in this Ottawa-Hull region-that such variations in our dispensation of justice should take place in this country.
This bill proposes that the maximum age be 18 years, and that is the government's preference, but it is subject to be changed down to the age of 16 years if any province so requests. In many cases the reason the provinces give for not changing it to a maximum age of 18 years is the financial one. There were questions on that just prior to my remarks.
I negotiated with the provinces and dealt with that matter. I think the argument based on cost and expense is a red herring, because if one were to increase a maximum age for juvenile crime under the Young Offenders Act to 18 years, a lot of the expenditures for adult corrections in that province could be transferred to the juvenile system where it would have a much greater effect. Every expert that I know of who has worked in the juvenile and criminal justice system will say that if one is to turn around a potential criminal, the time to do it is when he is still young, not wait until he is 24, 25 or 30 years of age. Efforts should be concentrated on that person when he is first apprehended, when he first starts getting into trouble with the law. So far as I am concerned, to transfer money from the adult correction system into the juvenile system, with a maximum age of 18 years, is a much more reasonable provision. I personally have a private bill before this House, Bill C-253,
Young Offenders Act
which would bring about that very thing; but I tabled that bill before the minister presented this bill.
It is my hope that we can send this bill to the justice committee, of which I am a member, to explore ways of correcting this weakness in the bill. I know the minister wants to correct it as well. However, I reject the amendment of the official opposition, which would delay the whole process, the whole bill, and delay many needed reforms for a lengthy period of time. I think the better way of dealing with this is to send this bill to committee as quickly as possible and for the committee to deal with it there, attempt to discuss the matter with the provinces and, if necessary, hear witnesses from the provinces and so on. We should attempt to find a solution there rather than delay the bill.
I have seen so many delays with this particular bill. The provisions are all piled here on my desk: "Youth in the Law", Highlights of Proposed New Legislation for Young Offenders", "Legislative Proposals to Replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act", now the Young Offenders Act, and there are other bills that I do not have with me today. However, this review has gone on and on, as has been pointed out, for 16 years. Now is the time to resolve it and to pass the legislation.
There is another weakness that I see in the present bill, and that is the age of transfer to the adult court. In my provisions of 1975, it was suggested that a case could be transferred to the adult court when the offender was age 16 and it involved a serious offence. This bill provides that this should be done at age 14. I personally feel that 14 is still too young an age for one to be tried in the adult court. I know that there is no dogma on this matter, but my preference would be for 16 rather than 14 years of age.
My only complaint against the wide range of dispositions which, on the whole, are excellent is the maximum fine. I think this bill provides for a maximum fine of up to $1,000. I feel that for young people, especially if they are under 16 or even under 18 years, that is too much. Most of them are not working. If the fine is to be meaningful and if they are to pay it themselves, I would prefer a maximum fine of $200, or at the most $500.
I will have more to say on this bill in committee and perhaps at third reading, especially with respect to the situation relating to young persons, their special needs, and why we need special legislation and institutions for young offenders; but I will refrain from speaking on that for the moment. I would urge, however, that the House pass this bill on second reading today, if possible, and that it be dealt with in committee as quickly as possible so we can improve the legislation and pass it this year, after, as I say, a long journey of 16 years.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, rise to speak on this bill which I consider to be a very important one. I get a chance to speak in this House often on oil prices and economic matters, but very seldom do I get a chance to speak on social matters. That is why I am particularly pleased to speak to this bill today. Often in the House that is the general trend, but that does not mean that the

May 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
economic matters and those energy matters are the be all and end all of discussions in Canada. Social matters are just as important, especially when they concern young people, because, as we agree on all sides of the House, when dealing with young people and with children we are dealing with the future of our country.
I have a special interest in this bill dealing with young people and crime, having had my house in Ottawa broken into twice in the last two months, and I think juveniles were involved. I can share the concern that many people have in the country with the amount of juvenile crime, petty thefts, breaking and entering and so on. Any member who comes from an urban riding will hear from his constituents about the rather large numbers of offences of breaking, entering and theft which tend to involve juveniles. That is unfortunate.
I also have a longer term interest which goes back somewhat, as the first job 1 had as a lawyer was as the juvenile prosecutor for the city of Vancouver. I spent some time and learned my law in the family courts of Vancouver. 1 fondly remember those years. When the hon. member who last spoke, the former solicitor general, refers to all those reports, all the suggestions we have had for reform and change of the juvenile law, I know that frustration goes right down to all the social workers across this country, all the probation officers, childcare workers, clerks, judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and all groups involved in juvenile justice in Canada. Indeed, if one could ask them, I suppose the kids would reflect this as well.
This legislation that we have on the books right now goes back a long way, to 1908. That, in itself, shows the difficulty of getting change. It is hard to get change in anything, it seems, in this country. However, it seems to be particularly hard to get change in juvenile and children's legislation. All the people I have previously mentioned and governments are at fault here. We must get our act together and get change. The present Juvenile Delinquents Act goes back to 1908. That was a significant year. I think it was the year the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was born.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Another event that year which was of importance to was the fact that the present Juvenile Delinquents Act came into law. I say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), who I see in the House, that the law was very progressive for 1908. Why? Before that time was the Victorian age when people, including juveniles, were hanged for petty thefts and crime. The law in 1908, as the Solicitor General knows, the present Juvenile Delinquents Act, dealt with juveniles as misguided children, to use the words of the act, "in need of aid, encouragement and assistance". So that was a very progressive act. I wish I could say the same of this act, and I will tell the minister in a minute why I do not think this is a progressive act for our time. I will offer the minister a suggestion for a really new juvenile system. I think we can set a couple of goals in a progressive juvenile system; we can protect society and the welfare of the child. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive.
There are some progressive measures in this bill, I acknowledge that. There is the end of the status offences and the opening of the juvenile court to the public, thus demystifying that court. There is the change in the age of criminal responsibility. There are some procedural safeguards for juveniles, such as the right to bail, access to counsel-although if counsel is not free, access does not mean very much. There are provisions for transfer of juveniles from juvenile court to adult court if the offence is serious, although those provisions are not adequate, and I agree with the previous speaker that they should be considered in further detail in committee. Having had the experience of going through hundreds and hundreds of transfer applications under the present law, I think that matter should be reconsidered.
The bill has one glaring flaw and the previous speaker put his finger on it. It does not acknowledge equality under the law. We really cannot have different age standards for, say, Hull and Ottawa, that a child be considered an adult and receive the full force of criminal law in Ottawa, but be considered a juvenile and receive the force of juvenile law, which is more in tune with the protection of the juvenile and reform, in Quebec.
I suggest that the hon. member who spoke previously is not only right but wrong as well. This bill should not go to committee; the government should bring amendments in now. As the bill now is written it does not make sense; it clearly violates the principle of equality as set out in the new charter of rights. It is ironic that the government, which argued against checkerboard civil liberties across the country, and the Conservative party, which seemed to favour it, are now on opposite sides. The government is bringing in a bill that will result in checkerboards, with a juvenile being under age 18 in Quebec, under 16 in Ontario and under 17 in British Columbia.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is the way it is now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, that is the way it is now. I suggest the Solicitor General has the power to change it. I invite him to bite the bullet. He knows this is right. He has heard what a former solicitor general had to say so he should do it. Make it a uniform juvenile age across the country.
Before I sit down, I want to congratulate the Solicitor General for funding a program in my riding which is really progressive called the community accountability program. It is carried out in Cedar Cottage, Kensington, which is an area of Vancouver bounded by Nanaimo, Broadway, Fraser and 41st Avenue. I see the Solicitor General nodding his head so perhaps he has acquainted himself with the program. Every politician and bureaucrat associated with juvenile matters visits the program, yet we had trouble getting the money to keep it going this year. I must say, however, that the Solicitor General has been good about continuing funding for the program, and with a little pressure the provincial attorney general also found some money for it.
May 15, 1981

Under the program, community accountability panels comprised of local citizens deal with juvenile offenders referred to them as a result of minor or summary conviction offences. The panel decides on the punishment, whether it will be restitution, payment of money to a victim, community work, or an apology. The panel, comprised of people from the neighbourhood, finds out what is happening with the family, with the child's education, and why the child is behaving in a certain way. It claims an 85 per cent rate of success and is starting to reach down into the community. This program is progressive and democratic, and it works.
The Bill before us today by contrast is not very progressive. Basically, it provides a criminal code for juveniles. There is some mention of diversion but it is really a criminal code for juveniles, as our NDP justice critic, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), said in his excellent speech.
Just before I was elected in 1979, I visited the small town of Sterling in Scotland. As a result of the Kilbrandon report of 1968 which dealt with children in trouble, there is in Scottish law a full system of community accountability panels such as the one we have in Vancouver. Ours in Vancouver is just an experiment and does not have the full force of law behind it. But in Scotland, any juvenile committing an offence or being accused of being a delinquent who pleads guilty-as 90 per cent of juveniles do-comes before a panel. If they do not plead guilty, they go to juvenile court, but if they acknowledge their guilt, they go before a panel.
I saw a panel at work in Scotland. A young boy called Allan had been sentenced to leave his family because there was a permissive grandmother in the family who got him into trouble. He was sent to another home and school out of town. When 1 was there he was back before the panel asking that his sentence be reviewed. The panel said, "Look, son, we'll give you another six months. You can come back and live with your Grannie in six months if it works out." They got a report from the probation officer and so on.
There was another case of a young girl who had been moved in order to get better schooling. There was a report that she was doing a good job. The uncle and aunt and one of the parents were present. The panel agreed to take her off probation and put her permanently in the home. The family agreed. This was a really progressive juvenile system that was working.
There are some good things in this bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is not progressive in the second half of the twentieth century to go back to a criminal code for children. I would like to see the government examine the experiment in Vancouver and think about establishing it for the whole country. What a new juvenile system we would have then! It is not just pie in the sky, so-called socialist idealism because the system is working in Scotland now. What works in Scotland must work! Being a Scot I can say that. It is an example of bringing juvenile justice back into the community where it belongs.
I want to conclude by quoting from the 1975 report of the National Council of Welfare entitled "Poor Kids" as follows:
To be born poor is to face a greater likelihood of ill health-in infancy, in childhood and throughout your adult life. To be born poor is to face a lesser
Young Offenders Act
likelihood that you will finish high school; lesser still that you will attend university. To be born poor is to face a greater likelihood that you will be judged a delinquent in adolescence and, if so, a greater likelihood that you will be sent to a "correctional institution". To be born poor is to have the deck stacked against you at birth, to find life an uphill struggle ever after. To be born poor is unfair to kids.
It was my experience in juvenile court that we dealt with poor kids, kids from single parent families, kids who never got a proper education or a proper chance.
The way to deal with juvenile crime is to deal with poverty first. The second way is to bring it right into the community and have neighbours deal with these problems; that happens in Scotland and in China.
I would ask the Solicitor General to amend the bill and make the situation all the same across the country, and when he brings in his next bill, to consider a really progressive system based on the Vancouver experiment.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be debating another piece of legislation for a change. Bill C-61 is a very important bill, the Young Offenders Act, which is to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act. 1 want to congratulate our spokesman on this subject, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), who spoke in the debate on May 12, 1981. He has already discovered a number of major weaknesses in this piece of legislation. First, when young people run afoul of the criminal law they are not treated equally across the country. In this respect the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland introduced an amendment in an attempt to correct this, which reads:
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-61, an act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, because the bill rejects the fundamental principle of equal treatment of all persons before the law by specifying that the act will apply to different age groups in different provinces."
It is ridiculous to have a federal law applied differently in each province. I am pleased that the Speaker has ruled the motion in order. We hope this amendment can be added to the bill. It will certainly be a major improvement to it.
I also want to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) for the contribution he made to the debate. As reported at page 9503 of Hansard, he said:
While I am in large part in support of the bill, I cannot accept the position of the Solicitor General that we must rush through the debate at second reading.

May 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
We certainly cannot be rushing the bill through because we have found in it quite a number of weaknesses. We want to highlight these weaknesses first before sending the bill to committee.
The basic purposes of the act are, first, that young offenders are given more responsibility for their actions. Second, they have been given stronger rights under the law. Third, there is greater flexibility and, therefore, a greater chance of rehabilitation under the law.
There are still some very vague points in the bill. Clause 3 makes allowance for young offenders to settle out of court instead of having a day in court, but no guidelines have been set for this process; as an example, there is nothing which states for which crimes this can be done, who deciphers punishment and how it will be enforced. In addition, Clause 20(1) gives a judge ten distinct courses of action in sentencing. Clause 11 is a grandfather clause which allows the judge to do just about anything he wants.
Within the measure there is a uniform minimum age stipulated which has been agreed to by eight out of the ten provinces and all speakers to date. However, there is no uniform maximum age set for young offenders. This creates a checkerboard effect across the country as some provinces will have one maximum age and others another. That is why I hope the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, will be accepted by the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party. The bill creates inequality throughout the proposed measure.
The maximum fine for young offenders is $1,000, but for people under 18 this is quite a high figure. We would not want to promote more crime to pay for past crime. We are experiencing serious youth crime in the country today, and part of the reason, or perhaps the main reason, is the high unemployment rate for those from age 15 to 24. There is serious concern across the country about juvenile crime. 1 have received some letters very critical of the government, our jail system, our bail system and the weak punishments we have in respect of many of these serious crimes. I should like to read a portion of a letter from a concerned citizen of British Columbia. He points out:
-a boy is castrated in a public washroom in Clearbrook, B.C. by two juveniles. The juveniles are apprehended and released after questioning. Another boy is castrated by the same two juveniles. What is your answer to this boy and his parents-
He directed that question to me and all other members of Parliament. He wants to know what we are doing by letting people like this out immediately after the commission of a crime as serious as that.
Here is another example this Canadian citizen has written about:
-a sixty year old lady is robbed at knifepoint and later raped by a seventeen year old youth. This man was never even charged for his action.
He points out in his letter:
Our members of parliament are safe and secure and don't give a damn about you. You embarrass the public image of the criminal and we don't want to know about your problems.
That is one example of how some citizens feel about our easy bail laws, letting these people off with light sentences, giving them a little slap on the wrist and what have you.
1 have with me a recent article from The Toronto Sun under the heading "Nurses cried at seeing raped girl". It states in part:
Police plan to petition the Wayne County Juvenile Court to have two 16-year-olds tried as adults in the rape-beating of an 11-year-old girl.
Nurses at Children's Hospital cried when they saw the girl, who suffered a skull fracture, stab wound to the chest and repeated slashes with broken glass.
"It was horrible .. . Those guys really wanted to kill her."
The girl, who lived on welfare with her mother and four brothers and sisters, was raped, beaten, kicked, stabbed in the chest and cut with broken glass for two hours Saturday night-
What is happening in the country today when we have youth committing horrendous crimes like this? It is important that we make improvements in our educational system. We must make students aware of how the law will deal with them when they commit serious crimes such as this. I do not know how many schools take their students on visits to jails, but this might help to some degree. It might not hurt to bring the paddle and the strap back to help them understand. Maybe then we will not have 11-year old girls being raped and elderly women attacked.
In addition, I am receiving many letters these days, as I am sure are all members of Parliament, in respect of the government's proposed legislation which would decriminalize possession of marijuana. I think public opinion is changing on this issue right now. I suggest today that if any surveys were taken the majority would oppose decriminalization of the possession of marijuana. Their concern results from so many young people getting on drugs today and committing serious crimes.
I have received a number of letters and documentations from the educational system across Canada, universities and schools. They are very concerned about any steps to decriminalize possession of marijuana. They feel all that will do is increase youth crime. I want to read some paragraphs from some of these letters from our educational directors across the country. This one states in part:
We are expressing the concern of 12 organizations closely related to the education of youth. We believe that if changes are made to this legislation which do not clearly impress upon society that the use of this drug is not condoned, there will be a significant increase in drug use, particularly by young people.
This letter goes into detail about the use of cannabis by students and young people. It states:
The use of cannabis by the students and young people of our country is a matter of urgent concern.
Representing, as we do, 12 provincial organizations directly involved with education and supervision of adolescents, we are perhaps more aware than most other groups of the harm already inflicted on our society by cannabis and other street drugs.
We are discussing the new Young Offenders Act and the difficulties we are having with youth in our courts today and in
May 15, 1981

society, and our educators who are living with these problems at first hand in the schools, the people who can advise us better than anybody, suggest that if we go ahead with the decriminalization of marijuana we could be opening up a real hornet's nest in Canada. If the government is planning to introduce such legislation in the near future, we will certainly have to call these educators as witnesses to advise us on how this measure will affect Canada's youth across the country.
In addition, I have received a resolution of the Nova Scotia Federation on Alcohol and Other Drug Problems which opposes the decriminalization of cannabis. I would just like to read one or two quotations from this document. They point out under the heading "Increased hazard to the young":
-marijuana is particularly dangerous to young people, as their bodies are not fully developed. A great many young people use marijuana, and it is only now that the dangers are becoming apparent. The full consequences may not be seen until our next generation, as was the case with Thalidomide. There are numerous other dangerous effects, such as chromosome damage, reduced defence against brain and liver damage.
This organization then presented a resolution to us as parliamentarians as follows:
Therefore, be it resolved that the Nova Scotia Federation on Alcohol and other Drug Problems requests the Department of Justice of the Government of Canada, and other appropriate bodies concerned, to take whatever necessary steps are appropriate to ensure that the current legal status regarding the use of cannabis remains unchanged, and that the Government of Canada and other concerned bodies seek the introduction of measures which will decrease the use of cannabis in Canadian Society.
We are dealing with a young offenders bill and at the same time the government is talking about decriminalizing marijuana. These documents received from the educational system point out that this will create nothing but problems for us. It seems that once a young person develops a drug habit it becomes an extremely costly habit, and so many of them have to return to crime, robbery, rape and what have you.
Since we have a very serious problem on our hands, we will not be able to rush this bill through, as suggested by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). That suggestion indicates to me that the minister does not understand the magnitude or the seriousness of the problem. This bill is a 90-page document, and we will have to go through it with great care because of the serious problems we have today with respect to juvenile delinquents, young offenders, drugs and crime. We shall have to go into a great deal of detail in the committee in dealing with this bill. We shall have to call in the police, the medical profession and so forth, which could contribute greatly to the improvement of Bill C-61.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say to the House what a great honour it is for me to comment on a significant piece of legislation, an act respecting young offenders and which will repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as the member for the riding of Mont-real-Mercier, I have had the opportunity to make frequent
Young Offenders Act
visits to the institutions where juvenile delinquents are housed, institutions such as Boscoville, Mont Saint-Antoine and the Cite d'accueil de la Riviere-des-Prairies.
Mr. Speaker, those institutions in my riding have enabled me to be in regular contact with youths in trouble with the law and with the professional staff responsible for helping them rehabilitate and become worthy citizens. I want to salute those professionals and I hope that the new bill will make it possible for all offenders, particularly the young, to turn over a new leaf and, finally, to enjoy a better life in a country such as Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to some of the remarks made by members opposite, particularly by the former solicitor general, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), who said that the House had been waiting long for this bill. If I may, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to make a slight correction and point out to hon. members that Bill C-61 received first reading last February 16 and was given second reading consideration on April 15, May 12 and again today. Therefore, less than a year after the election, the Liberal government introduced this important social measure and 1 am proud to take part in the debate on this bill. The hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff) as well said that the bill had been long in coming. Again if I may, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the previous government had not introduced a bill as such in the House, all it did was to draft a policy statement. Having drawn inspiration from all existing documents, from reports prepared by government officials and from discussions held with the provinces, we suggest that perhaps this bill reflects the closer agreement between the provinces and the federal government since the provinces are partners in the administration of this legislation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of reminding my colleagues that there would be no future for this statute without the participation of the provinces, for its administration falls under their jurisdiction.

I would like also to provide a clarification for the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), who was asking the government about the difference between responsibility and accountability, two words we see in clause 3 of the bill. Perhaps I can offer a small explanation by saying that responsibility relates to capacity to form the intent to commit a criminal offence. According to the proposed Young Offenders Act, a young person would be responsible for his or her illegal behaviour, but she or he would not be held accountable in the same degree as an adult. That is why there will be different courts and different procedures for young offenders than for adults, and that is why we can say that responsibility and accountability are two different things under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have made several comments on alternative measures. I would like to explain in detail the avenues open to a youth in trouble, to a young offender. On the first offence, if it is a minor one the police officer can

May 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
simply reprimand the young person and point out that his behaviour is reprehensible, and the procedure can stop there. On the other hand, at a later stage, perhaps for more serious offences, section 4 points out that alternative measures may be used. These measures are voluntary and the young offender can call on a lawyer at this stage to determine whether or not he can agree to the alternative measures. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that at no time is there a question of pleading guilty to make use of these voluntary measures, and that moreover, the act specifies that even the statements made at that time cannot be held against the young person.
A later stage, Mr. Speaker, which is somewhat more serious, will allow law enforcement authorities, that is the provinces, to refer the young person to a youth court. At such a time, as my hon. colleagues have pointed out, the young person must have the assistance of a lawyer, and in fact, this right is clearly recognized in the legislation.
On the other hand, many means are available to the court to determine, if the young person is found guilty, what measures should apply to him, and I believe that several of my colleagues have noted how these measures or provisions will allow the young person to mend his ways.
However, Mr. Speaker, in extremely serious cases, or at the last stage, for a really hardened young offender, for a young person who may have committed several offences, our bill provides for the possibility of referral to an adult court.
Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), and especially of my colleague for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) who spoke about remission or the state of mind that a young person must have concerning his offence and the possibility of restitution of the stolen or damaged goods, I would like to point out that we have included in sections 20(c) and 20(f) provisions through which the young person will have to compensate any person who may have suffered damage, loss or injury, or to pay a fine, as provided in paragraph (c).
However, what is important to point out to my colleague is that this legislation provides for restitution, but not necessarily with the parents' money, and thus may force the young offender to face his responsibilities. One of the major principles of this legislation is to force the young offender himself to make some type of restitution according to his means by services to the community.
My colleague mentioned earlier the possibility of paying back that money. 1 believe that it is not the intention of the legislator to force a young person to pay back the amounts in question which he may not have or to force him to commit another offence to do so.
Some hon. members, such as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), talked about vicarious liability. This is an option that was examined very carefully. However,
we have concluded that it would be difficult to adopt this option within our law. Civil law is the responsibility of the provinces. The application of this concept would involve great difficulty in terms of jurisdictional responsibility between the provinces and the federal government.
If I may give an example, a young person may be involved in a crime, such as a fire. The young person or the parents could be held liable for $100,000 damages, for instance. I do not think it is the intent of the legislators to be so extreme. I think the bill covers most cases in terms of restitution, or at least ensures that the young offender fulfils his responsibilities.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) stated that clause 56(3) made the bill too lax with regard to evidence. I wish to clarify this point. It may be a misunderstanding that will be clarified at the committee stage. It is not the intent to collect evidence in a fashion which will place the young offender in a worse position than an adult. I refer to the situation where a young person may say to an arresting officer at the scene of a crime that he is guilty. It is not the intent to ignore such facts, but to recognize that later the young person should have the full protection of the law.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) was concerned about the destruction of records. He said that if these were computerized, it would be difficult for the young offender to ensure that the records are destroyed. The bill does not provide that the information be sealed after five years but completely destroyed. The bill provides that when a young person becomes an adult he may make a special request for destruction of his records. He or she is probably the best person to know where the records are held and to ask that they be destroyed. It is very clear in the bill that it will be an offence for anyone to use the information. That is a safeguard to ensure that no records are used against the young person. This section, which was not in the previous act, can be improved and will be discussed at the committee stage.
The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) said that the rights and freedoms granted to the young person in the bill do not balance the responsibilities of that person. I remind the hon. member that the first principle of the bill is to see that the young person has the responsibility for his or her offence and will be held accountable before the court. This bill does not in any way remove the responsibility from the young person. Under this bill there will be more responsibility than under the previous legislation.
With regard to the family, clause 3(g) provides that the parents will be requested to appear before the court. However, the family is recognized as having the first responsibility in caring for the young person and should be there when the young person has some difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comments as several colleagues have spoken of the problems related to the financial provisions of legislation. We do indeed recognize the fact that the addition of new rights, such as the right to counsel, will add to the provinces' expenses.
May 15, 1981

We are in fact negotiating with them at the present time and there will be a federal-provincial conference in June, which will be a follow-up to the round of negotiations which were held with each individual province. We do believe that, as a result of these discussions, financial arrangements for the new services will be worked out and also that an agreement will be reached between the provinces and the federal government. Therefore, I do not think there is any need to be overly concerned about additional expenses as discussions are well under way. I also think that so far none of the provinces has appeared overly concerned about the federal contribution to the new service.

I now wish to address some of the main objections of the opposition. Their position was set forward in the amendment of May 12. Most members who addressed that issue talked about the principle. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assini-boine (Mr. McKenzie) talked about equality before the law. Let me state a few facts. First, the situation is that there is no uniformity in the application of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. This was outlined by some members.
The bill states that a young offender is a person of at least 12 years of age and not having reached the age of 18 years. There is provision for the provinces to lower the age. We agree with members opposite that the ideal situation would be a uniform age. However, as stated previously by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), there are cost factors involved. Certain services should be available, and at this time it might be a burden the provinces could not take on in order to implement the new act. The fact is that the age would be 18 in terms of uniformity. Upon request by a province to the federal government, it could be lowered. If no provinces were requesting a change, the age would be 18 across the country.
I would like to talk about the principle in terms of age by referring to a neighbouring country which has a federal system. The jurisdiction over juvenile delinquents lies with the state government in the United States, while our jurisdictional position is a mixed one, with the provinces having the right to administer the bill and the federal government having the right to apply this bill based on the Criminal Code. Recently in the United States there were 33 states using 17 years of age, 12 states using 16 years of age and some using 15 years of age. On April 9, 1981, the state of Illinois described the word "minor" as meaning a person under the age of 18 years. So one of the latest pieces of legislation in the United States refers to 18 years of age.
Also I should like to refer to the state of the international law. New Zealand uses ages 14 to 17; Australia, from 10 to 16; Japan, from 14 to 20; in Belgium it is under 18; England is from 10 to 18.
Clearly it is not a matter of principle. If it was a matter of principle, how could a country such as the United States with its first amendment, which is equivalent to our charter of rights, permit the young offenders bill to apply to 16-year-olds
Young Offenders Act
in some states and to 18-year-olds in other states? The point is very clear; it is a matter of administration by the provinces. Some provinces have indicated very clearly that they would prefer 16 or 17 years of age. Others are indicating that 18 years of age is a prerequisite to the adoption of this bill.
By stating its position on 18 years of age, the federal government is actually following current international law and showing some guidelines which could perhaps be followed in the future. There might be a period in which the provinces would adjust themselves to the 18 years of age principle. There will probably have to be some negotiations in terms of implementing an older age in some provinces. As we know very well, the treatment of juveniles and older persons before the adult court is quite different. It is a sociological fact that some provinces want a younger age and others want an older age. The amendment cannot be accepted based upon the question of principle; it is an administrative question.
By enacting this bill, we are taking a step in the right direction. We are tabling a bill for which the people in the milieu have been waiting some time, and I am proud to have participated in its debate.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill. In its form, it is much similar to the one tabled on October 26, 1979 by the then solicitor general, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence). If I may, I want to indicate my concurrence with the theme of the bill and its direction, that of ensuring young people are held more socially accountable, and are seen as individuals and not just as extensions of their parents.
In light of my experience in community relations and counselling, I welcome the thrust of a number of the proposals of the bill, such as the increase from seven years to 12 years for criminal responsibility. It more accurately reflects the maturing process of young people in educational theory. Also I welcome the right of due process of the law in the same way that adults have today and the elimination of a criminal record if after one offence a young person, as is often the case, finds himself rehabilitated and there are no further violations. Also there is the option of alternative sentences. In a day of rising expenses and when a great deal is spoken about the perpetuation of crime by criminal institutions, this is a very humanizing and responsibility-building mechanism.
In supporting the thrust of the bill, I also wish to indicate my reservation, as indicated in the amendment of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, that this matter of a uniform age for young offenders across the country must somehow be dealt with. In the processes of government, when things are left to be dealt with administratively, all too often we find that these things are perpetuated in the form in which they were passed.
As I look after the representations in the similar area relating to family law and the representations across the country in terms of support payments in divorce situations, I have found that women's groups have repeatedly indicated

May 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
that they cannot accept the matter of each province making its own rules. We are looking at the reality of mobility in Canada, not only of spouses who may avoid support, but of young people moving across the country often in search of work. When they are unemployed, all too often they fall afoul of the law. The amendment correctly addresses the situation of the mobility of our young people at the moment.
Therefore, it is an important principle that there should not be different rights in different parts of the country, but that there should be uniform rights for all young Canadians across the country.
I would like to add some supportive and interpretative comments on one specific clause of the bill, Clause 22. It is closely connected with a number of initiatives that have taken place in my constituency. It is the provision for the option of a community service disposition in lieu of incarceration. This option has been used for over two years in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, beginning as an experiment under the guidelines of Sections 662 and 666 of the Criminal Code respecting probation orders, to the point where there are now some 280 community service orders being carried out in my region. Ranging in terms of 100 to 150 hours, the community service orders provide an invaluable learning experience for young people as an alternative to a jail sentence. These have proved especially effective for first-time offenders, since the emphasis of these community service orders is on the development of responsibility for one's action as opposed to gainless punishment.
Community service orders have been used frequently in the case of young people since with rising unemployment there have been more and more young offenders coming before the courts. Many cases involve breakdown in family life where parental guidance is lacking. This option is an extremely important part of this bill because it changes the emphasis from an isolated individual against the community, someone who is in a sense shaking his or her fist at the community, to someone who is in support of society and working on its behalf. This is accomplished through a positive contribution to the community, providing a service which would not otherwise be available in the community, which results in an exercise of socialization or reconciliation.
This option has been received into the cultural mosaic of Waterloo county, where there has been a tradition of community service. Therefore, this concept can be understood. Under community service orders services have been rendered to municipal governments, school boards and social agencies. In many cases they provide for the development of new skills. In a sense they provide training in trades. They prepare individuals to be able to offer something to the employment market while not competing with existing jobs at the same time. That is to say, community service orders are for volunteer work, an area of endeavour on which people in my riding place a great deal of importance.
One of the agencies which has benefited from this option is the victim-offender reconciliation service which has been pioneered by the Mennonite community in my area. This program encourages an individual to accept responsibility for his or her action, not with patronizing treatment for young people but by stressing reconciliation over punishment through the direct confrontation of the victim and offender. This service brings these people together to discuss their feelings and what must be done in order to close the gulf which has been created.
The John Howard Society in the Waterloo region is the agency which monitors the terms of a community service order. The society stresses that the terms of a CSO must be very clearly set out so that the offender understands that it is not a reprieve but rather an opportunity for that young person to regain a responsible and respected status in the community. These projects range from parkland clean-ups to giving assistance in senior citizens' homes. Again, the importance is that the service can only be provided by voluntary agencies, if at all. The effect of these orders is to get the community involved in corrections. They educate the community as to who, and not what, an offender is so that the community sees that it has a stake in its parts. Indeed, in a sense it is a socializing exercise. There is another agency called Youth in Conflict with the Law which was formed to try and bridge this gap. It has been seeking to socialize the whole tragic experience.
We are all familiar with a war situation where the aim is to depersonalize the enemy so that he or she can be seen as "it". This is done so that somehow the obliteration of the person, the dismissal of them, can somehow become more conscion-able. The idea of a community service program is rather to personalize the offender, to somehow show that he can make a contribution to society. In December I received a letter which reads as follows:
We the undersigned are a group of political science students at Wilfrid Laurier University presently studying Canadian government. As part of our course assignment, we are required to prepare and try to get introduced a piece of Private Members' legislation.
The legislation which we are interested in is an amendment to the Criminal Code creating community service orders as a separate option for a judge to use in sentencing an offender. The enclosed information will explain our idea more clearly.
It is our hope that you will be sufficiently interested in our idea to introduce this legislation into the House for us. We will prepare the bill in principle and do all of the necessary research for you. In addition, we will try to create a favourable lobby for the bill by contacting groups such as the John Howard Society. These groups will be supplied with our research information in hopes that they will help us in publicizing this proposed bill.
If you have any interest in pursuing this matter with us, or would like more information, we ask you to please contact us at the addresses listed below as soon as possible.
Sincerely yours,
Geoffrey Hayes Deborah Harmaty Katharine Harley Erin Gilligan Glenn Fern
These students, under the direction of Professor John McNenemy of the political science department, have begun to
May 15, 1981

address the issue as young people themselves. They are addressing the issue with respect to the welfare of society. I am pleased to have been in touch with them and to have heard their ideas. I hope the government will incorporate into this bill the amendments the students are seeking. If it is not possible for that to be done in this bill, I hope that I will have the opportunity to introduce a bill based on the theme which they have presented in order to fully accomplish the aim they have so wisely and rightly identified in their studies as one which would lend itself to the well-being of our community, not only the community of Kitchener-Waterloo, but the Canadian community as a whole.
In conclusion, I wish to indicate there is an important flaw in the age of majority clause to which my colleagues in the official opposition have repeatedly drawn attention in order to make this as effective a piece of legislation as possible. Therefore, although I want to register my concern and support for the amendment, I also want to register my wholehearted support for the concept of reform embodied in Bill C-61.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on this bill takes me back many years to when 1 was practising law. Although I did not specialize in the field we are discussing today there was always great discussion among practising lawyers about many of the difficulties in dealing with young offenders. At that time the circumstances were much different from what they are today. The mere fact that it has taken this long to present this bill makes us realize just how much difficulty there has been in agreeing on some changes. It is not a subject which has necessarily been dillydallied with; there are honest differences of opinion.
I can say that I do not share all the views of my colleagues on this question with regard to uniformity of age. 1 would have preferred to see the age limit set at 16. One should consider crime statistics today and the activities of young persons aged 16 and 17. Read your newspapers. What are they guilty of? They are guilty of some of the most violent crimes. They are not crimes which are, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), induced by poverty. Not a bit of it! There are any number of reasons why these young 16 and 17-year-olds are engaging in this level of crime. One reason, I suppose, is the dropping of the age of majority to 18 years. It was always said, when 21 was the age required to get into the beer parlour, that one saw 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds trying to get in. Then when the age was dropped to 18, the 16-year-olds were trying to get in, something that they could not do before.
Young offenders have no particular preponderance at any level of society. There are just as many young punks-and that is all they are, vicious-minded young punks-coming out of the best homes as out of the worst homes. The reasons that they have become like that are a reflection on today's society.
Rather than say that young offenders are the result of poverty, I would say that they are primarily the result of the lack of parental supervision and guidance. This is found par-
Young Offenders Act
ticularly in the higher income groups where attention or participation in raising teenagers is limited to giving them $20 to $50 on a weekend whilst the parents go off on their own to do their own thing. How many homes do hon. members know of where the way of dealing with their youngsters-as the father and mother are too often pursuing their own pleasures-is to turn over the keys to the family car, give $50 and say, "Have a good time this weekend, son. Just go around our high schools and find out how many kids, unfortunately, have that poor level of parental upbringing. That is where you get the start; but it goes on. Kids, from muppets to adolescents, have been watching television, with violence at all levels, even in the cartoons. In the pictures at which they look there is nothing but more and more violence. They become inured to it. They think it is great. After all, it is a reflection of society. They think, as they grow and see this continue, that this is society.
Naturally, at all times there are those who, because of poverty, go out to get a few dollars. However, I would say that they are, by far, the infinitesimal minority today. This leaves the further group, and I think it is the biggest one. These people, in order to satisfy their appetites for alcohol and drugs, go out on hold-ups, thefts, break-ins and purse snatching. Oh, of course, as my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) says, there is also the thrill of taking someone's car, just borrowing wheels, to see who has the fastest and raciest car, to see how much rubber can be burned and to see if someone else can be made to look like a chicken on the street. I suppose, in the end, in the words of the social worker, it really comes from peer pressure to be more outstanding than the others.
Those are the motivations, the reasons we have young offenders. It seems to me that to say that all persons under the age of 18 and over the age of 12 shall be lumped together as young offenders is totally wrong. I say that I would favour those attorneys general of the provinces who would opt to have those under age 16 put in the group of young offenders. With respect to the others, one only has to go in the courts to see whether the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are any different from the 18-year-olds or the 19-year-olds. I regret to say that in the great majority of cases, this is not the case.
Having said that, I do not think that the present penal system in this country is the one which will deal with this particular problem. We can go through legislation that we pass in Parliament, bill after bill, and say, "Jail for the offender". My goodness! There are offences with regard to agricultural chemicals where the penalty is jail. There are all sorts of offences for which jail is the answer. It is not the answer in these cases, and I appeal to my colleagues here. If we are going to spend money wisely in the administration of justice, then we should spend it on the prevention of crime where it arises, that is in the early years. That is where we should spend our money.

May 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is where we should spend our money with social workers and parole employees. We should not put first offenders into jail. They should be put on probation after a period of good behaviour during which they report to a parole worker.
Several hon. members suggested community work, the parliamentary secretary among them, and our colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean); alternatives where these young people can be put to work. There are so many things. I do not mean to suggest raking leaves, cleaning streets, or demeaning work of that nature. There are all sorts of good community work which they can be given to do.
1 fully subscribe, too, to the principle of restitution wherever it is possible. I do not believe a fine should be paid to the state. What will the penalty do? What about the dear old lady whose purse has been snatched and most of her cash taken? A young punk is picked up, and there is no doubt about his guilt. Then he is fined rather than sent ot jail. The state benefits as a result of the compensation it receives for apprehending him. A law-abiding citizen has a right to be protected by the state- she has that right, that is all she has; she gets nothing out of it. It is an empty letter. The same applies to the elderly couple or any person who finds their home broken into and things stolen. They may be covered by insurance or they may not.
1 am glad that judges in young offenders courts will now have the opportunity to use alternative methods of dealing with such situations. But we are really going to have to provide them with a framework that is well thought out and well administered so that young people can be put on their good behaviour-on a leash. How tight or loose that leash shall be, will depend on the skill of the parole worker.
There has sometimes been a problem with the place where young offenders are held prior to their court appearance. All too often it has been the overnight tank of the local police station. In large cities, many are found in the nightly run in the bullpen or in the remand centre where hardened criminals and young first offenders are put in all together. Sometimes the young ones glory in this because they are close to the feet of hardened professional criminals; it is something they can boast about to their peers in later days. The money must be spent where it will do most good.
A similar instance in recent times was the recycling of scores of thousands of public servants into second language training. That was like spreading a thin film of water on a desert. Had that money been spent wisely on teaching our children a second language, we would have had some brighter prospects for the future.
It seems to me that it is wrong to spend so much money every day on incarcerating thousands upon thousands of hardened criminals. Surely a lot of those people would not have become hardened criminals if they had been handled differently at the outset of their unfortunate careers.
I was struck by some particular features of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I should like to refer to clause 3 in particular, the
declaration of principle. Some people claim that there is a lot of "do-goodism" in this and that a lot of it is a cliche. Some of it is obvious, but I think that as a general body of policy for this country to adopt toward its young offenders, it is a step in the right direction.
One thing is badly lacking, however. In subclauses (l)(d), (l)(e) and (l)(f), the reference to the rights of young persons is repeated. Mr. Speaker, all my studies in law were predicated upon the basic principle that every right had a corresponding duty. 1 have the right of ownership of property, but I have a duty not to use my property to the detriment of my neighbour.
I have an absolute right to my life, but I have a duty not to injure my neighbour. All the way through, there is no right without a corresponding duty.
There has been mention of a charter of rights to be included in the new Constitution. I was particularly struck by the absence of any mention of duties or obligations in that; it is all take and no give. In this particular instance too, every one of the rights that those young people have, carries a corresponding duty, and those duties should be included in the bill. To that extent I would say that clause 3 of the bill should be revised.
The parliamentary secretary spoke of some difficulties in recognizing the principle of vicarious liability and suggested that this was introducing the question of civil liability into criminal law. I believe that a young offender is not necessarily there; there are some nine, ten and II-year-olds who are the greatest little vandals you could meet. This brings up the question of the vicarious liability of parents.
If parents are so negligent in the care of their children and in giving them guidance that nine and ten-year-olds, and sometimes children younger than that, will break into schools and homes and vandalize them, then let the parents be responsible. We would see a lot of dressing up then. This may be a little old fashioned but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that parents would shape up a lot better. There is no excuse when parents tootle off to the beer parlour or the tavern and leave the kids running the streets until ten or eleven o'clock at night, as we often see nine or ten-year-olds doing. If those parent were responsible and were held responsible and were not allowed to come crying, as we see on television, like sob sisters about their darling little kids, those mischievous little kids who do not mean any harm, things would be different. What would happen if those parents had to face up to the music of liability for the harm those children have done? Why is it that the victim, the defenceless public, the man whose car was legitimately parked outside his friend's house who comes out and finds it vandalized is the one who has to pay? And if it is the neighbourhood ten-year-old who has done that, why shouldn't the parents of the kid who is responsible be the one who should have to pay? Why should the victim suffer? Are we afraid of the words discipline, obedience and good conduct? Those are bad words in today's lexicon. We are told that we will set off repressions in children. It seems to me that we have to look at that too within a young offenders bill.
May IS, 1981

I think this bill does make considerable progress, but I do not think it makes enough. As I have said, I think more money should be put right across the board into the provision of supervisory social workers. If you do not want to call them parole officers, you can find any other words you like, but they should be the ones who will take in hand a far greater volume of young first offenders. These young first offenders should be segregated from older criminals. In the appropriate cases where we find vicious young thugs, then they should be treated in adult court. There are no two ways about it. We have to look to the protection of society. The state has a duty toward its citizens. Citizens have a right to live their peaceful lives uninjured. It is not a hazard of my life that I must run the risk of being robbed, of being mugged, of my life being taken or having my property being vandalized. That is not the role of our citizens. It is the duty of the state to protect them. It is the duty of the remaining citizens not to inflict those damages upon their fellow citizens.
I hope this bill will receive further attention in committee. I hope that the government's mind is open to amendments. The bill has taken a long time getting here. There have been changes. I hope the government can be flexible enough to accept suggestions that will improve the bill. After all, with whom are we dealing? We are dealing with people who are valuable to us, namely, our young people.
I used to think I was a lot more valuable when I was a young person than I am now. But surely this is something we, as legislators, must think about. We must not shut our minds to the fact that because the government has produced a bill, that is the end of the story in so far as sagacity and wisdom are concerned. We should never think because a bill is produced, it is the end of the story. No one loses face by accepting amendments. Not at all. I think one only betrays intelligence by doing so.
I would like to see this bill either deal generally with young offenders under age 16, or that we leave the option open so that those provinces who are, to my mind, enlightened enough to proceed on that basis of the younger age for young offenders may do so without any difficulty.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tells me 1 have five minutes. I will do the very best I can to accommodate that time limitation.
First I want to recognize some people who work very hard in the family and youth field in the Hamilton area. I have long admired the work that they do. There are two who come to mind, and although I may miss others, I do not intend to offend them by not mentioning them. Both Judge Steinberg and Judge Van Duzer in Hamilton have devoted a lifetime to family and juvenile matters. They have been recognized over the years as having made substantial contributions. They have been innovative and understanding. In dealing with young
Young Offenders Act
offenders, in particular, that surely must be the way we should approach any misdemeanor or criminal act that is undertaken.
The subject of young offenders is a very puzzling topic. I want to say at the beginning that this legislation can be supported. I am not arguing against the legislation but I am expessing a frustration over how one deals with a topic which has so many different facets to it and a topic which has to take into account so many different circumstances. Dealing with young offenders is a very delicate matter in most cases.
Let us be fair about this. We are speaking about a small minority of young people. By far the vast majority are good, hard working, sensible, reasonable young people who grow up to be just like we are-whatever that is. However, even among the small minority who fall into the category of young offenders, there is an overwhelming majority of them, too, who break the law once and who then recognize the folly of it and go on to live useful and constructive lives.
What we are doing is trying to write a law, presumably to accommodate that majority of the minority, and at the same time write a law which will enable us to deal with the smaller minority who may turn out, as years pass, truly to become criminals of one kind or another. That almost defies logic.
I want to talk now about parents. Much of the responsibility for the way a child grows up must always remain in the lap or the hand of the parent involved. You cannot be the type of parent who rolls into the driveway dead drunk but expects his child will not drink and drive or suffer the attendant consequences thereof. You cannot constantly berate the police inside your home and on the streets and then expect your child to grow up to respect and support law enforcement and understand the difficulties encountered by the people in that line of work, a difficult line of work at the best of times. You cannot beat and physically abuse children or, for that matter, children and adults in the home, and expect that, by some mystical, magical means a child will be able to differentiate between that method of admonition-the commonly used method within their own home-and what is acceptable in society outside when they have to deal with other children. If violence is the order of the day in a child's home, then violence will be the order of the day outside for that child. When that child is met with frustration, he will respond in the same way as his parents respond. You cannot move into a new subdivision and decide you need a roll of tarpaper or some wood to build a rec room and just nip out the back door in the dead of night, pick it up and expect that your children will appreciate that somehow this is not stealing and, therefore, they ought not to do such things. You cannot plead for leniency when for years you have known that your child was bordering on anti-social behaviour, when finally the chickens come home to roost, so to speak. You cannot go in teary-eyed and ask that you not be held responsible in one way or another for the fact that you did nothing to try to change the anti-social behaviour the child was showing.

May 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
I think we all have to accept as parents and people in the community that we have a joint responsibility in the raising of children. We have to accept that the parents have a substantial responsibility, but the rest of us in the community also have a responsibility in the raising of children. We all have to show by example, by effort, by word, by deed and by involvement the kind of guidance that will allow those children to see that society can only survive if we all attempt to live within the law, and if the law is not just, you change it, you do not go around breaking it. I have always been concerned that we have not been able to instil in our own society the kind of sense that children belong to all of us, and that while we may have the child physically or adopt the child, the child is a child of all of us, and we all have to be cautions and careful.
Let me say that there are a number of factors in my judgment that influence a child's behaviour. I do not think it is nearly good enough to intrude yourself into the life of a child after the child becomes a teenager. Respect for an understanding of the law and the parameters that are allowed for behaviour within society are things which begin in the very earliest years, and from that point on a child learns what the rules are, how they are made and how they are changed, and that society is a democratic place and we change our rules in a democratic way. We do not go charging up to the Speaker screaming at him, for example, when we do not like what he does.
One of the things that is most influential in a child's behaviour is peer pressure, and, since children spend most of their time with other children during their school years, it is that arena to which we have to devote a considerable amount of time and money to make sure there are people there who are able to provide the kind of individual guidance children require. This is obvious, as I say, since they spend a great deal of time there. We must try to break down the unacceptable peer pressures and replace them with acceptable and useful peer pressures. We must hold up as examples people who have done useful and worth-while things as opposed to people who have lived on the fringe of the law.
I am not putting these in any particular order, but I think another important thing is parental guidance. I have mentioned that. There has to be an example set by all of us, both in the school and in the community, to make sure that the rewards that are given out, are given, and the recognitions that are made, are made for things that have been seen to be good things in society. We must stress the worth-while things while downplaying the others.
Let me say a word or two about jails and correctional institutions. My experience over a number of years has been that in correctional institutions in particular, since I do not have quite the experience in jails, the subculture from which the child comes to that correctional institution exists within the correctional institution. There is no doubt in my mind, borne out of any number of examples, that there is a subculture within the correctional institutions which inflicts and imposes the kinds of pressures which are the very opposite
pressures to those we would like to see for rehabilitation. It is for that reason in a way that I want-and I meant to do it at the beginning-to commend the member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) for his comments. I thought he made excellent sense. He showed by example in his own community the kind of work that can and should be done in every community all across the country. I hope copies of his remarks will be made available, and I know they are available, of course, in order that we can perhaps encourage that sort of thing to happen all across the country. I think it is in that area that we are likely to make the greatest strides and have the most success.
I do not want to downplay the fact that there is a growing violence in the community both at the adult and juvenile levels which is totally unacceptable. I want to say it is for me, and I am sure for most members of Parliament, a source of considerable worry how to deal with this growth of violence for its own sake. What do you do about it? Obviously the people involved have no particular fear. They generally organize themselves into groups and terrorize other people. I think we are going to have to devote more of our time and effort to infiltrating, if you will, those communities in an effort to try to break that up before it reaches the point where these people end up in Kingston, if it lasts, or some other institution.
I see my colleague looking over his shoulder at me. I have two minutes left. I was thinking about violence, and not only about violence committed by children but also about violence to children. Violence to children comes in many forms. Violence to children can be neglect, and violence to children can and is increasingly more apparently taking the form of incest and brutality. I think on balance society has not yet wakened up to this fact. The House of Commons might, at some more appropriate time, set aside some time to look at what I am sure may not be a new phenomenon, but certainly this phenomenon is coming more and more to the fore.
I do not want to leave the impression that I do not know or think that organizations which are offsprings of organized crime do not make themselves known to and involve themselves in the affairs of young people. The entire distribution for soft drugs is structured through the upper levels of organized crime, working its way down through a number of clearly visible organizations into the playgrounds, hallways and front yards of the schools, at least in the area I represent, and I think probably in many others. Young people are drawn in by the lure of money and the little bit of power they get. Once in they cannot get out because they do not know how to break away.
We have to support efforts to undermine that, get them out of there so we do not have a further deterioration of that growing up process which will hopefully turn out a better place and society in which to live.
In any event, to keep it brief, I say simply this. I want to stress that this can only be the beginning of the debate. This must be an ongoing debate. We will have to isolate many of the facets of juvenile misbehaviour and juvenile anti-social behaviour and of the pressures which are put on some people who are considerably younger than we, and we will have to
May 15, 1981

provide support in society so that we can try to cope with this because it is not good enough to say that if we just give them all a good whipping, they will suddenly respond positively. We used to do that, but we still had crime.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, while this piece of legislation seems to deal with a narrow subject, it actually speaks to the larger question of our society, our values, our family life, some of the things which are closest to hon. members, and the way in which we transmit values to the next generation. I think that is why this debate has provoked a number of speeches. We just heard a good one from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
I will start by indicating my support for the amendment introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence). This is an important piece of legislation dealing with young offenders. The many amendments contained in this bill, among other things, actually repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act. If we have to have as a cornerstone of the new act a variation in the maximum age across Canada, that is not acceptable.
That is not to say that most of what is found in Bill C-61 is not acceptable, for it is. It is well known that our party launched a similar process of legislation. Many of the points in Bill C-61 are what we ourselves advanced, so our quarrel is confined.
However, speaking as a member of Parliament from Alberta, I must say that I find it hard to understand why the government is proceeding on a piece of legislation which will allow for a diversity of the maximum age among young offenders. It is hard to understand why we have not waited until we could secure provincial agreement. Is it a question of money? Is it a question of philosophy? I do not believe this problem is insurmountable. I cannot understand why we are proceeding with such haste to bring in a law which will permit someone to be tried under the proposed Young Offenders Act in one province at age 16 and in another at age 17.
I am not particularly concerned about which age should be the maximum. I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was correct when he said that a person of age 16 today has sufficient maturity, given the over-all rapid maturation of young people today. I would hold to the age of 16, but I could live with the age of 17. Indeed, if it were the wisdom of the House to set the age at 18, I could live with that too. What I cannot live with is a variation from province to province.
If the government felt free to impose a charter of rights on all provinces regardless of provincial feelings-which have been made clear, and they are a source of great contention and controversy in the country, as we know-what is holding the government back from saying we will have a piece of legislation which will set a uniform age for young offenders across the country? That is the beginning of my approach to this subject.
Young Offenders Act
I want to make two or three other points, if I may, in the brief time remaining this afternoon. First, I think we ought to take just a second to underline a point which needs to be underlined now after a debate centring on young offenders, as if all young people were offenders and we had to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the offences of the young. In fact, most young people today are individuals in whom all of us should have immense pride. I certainly do. We should be proud of the way young people today are coping with the level of frustration in our society and with all those factors which are wrapped up in the phrase "future shock". We should be proud of the way they are coping.
I have five children of my own, and I try to stay close to young people, as close as an aging man can. Only this week two groups of young people came to Parliament Hill. One group was made up of the young people chosen for the program "Adventures in Citizenship" sponsored by the Rotary Club. I believe you yourself, Sir, participated in meeting them. The second group was made up of students brought here by the Commonwealth association from across Canada. They may be special students, to be sure, but to my mind-and I met both groups-they represented young people in whose values we ought to take great pride. We ought to give them a little boost and not create the impression that all young people need to be put into the category of young offenders.
When we do talk about young offenders, we cannot be naive and just slide over the fact that offences by juveniles are increasing. We have to live with that. That is a sad comment on our society, but it illustrates the need for a comprehensive piece of legislation. It places on such legislation a special imperative today. Senator Florence Bird recently said the following:
What is particularly scary-
Senator Bird was speaking about violent crime statistics in Canada.
-is the 60 per cent increase in violent juvenile delinquency from 1974 to 1978. Most shocking of all is the increase of violence by the young against themselves. In the past decade the suicide rate increased 59 per cent for young people aged 15 to 19.
That is just one indication of the need to take a good hard look at the best ways for society to handle young people, who for one reason or another, find themselves in trouble with the law. I want to return in a moment to some of the reasons for this, which ought to be at the real heart of this debate. We have to look at some of the reasons why young people find themselves in trouble with the law.
Bill C-61 deserves some praise, even though we are opposing the aspect of it which does not provide for uniformity of the maximum age among young offenders. The legislation blends three important principles. The first is that young people should be held responsible for their behaviour but not wholly accountable, since they are not fully mature. Second, society has the right to protection from illegal behaviour. Third, young people have the same right to due process of law and fair and equal treatment as adults. These rights must be guaranteed by special safeguards.

May 15, 1981
Young Offenders Act
Bill C-61 is a rather long piece of legislation, but that quick overview demonstrates why on the whole the bill merits the support of hon. members on all sides of the House.
We would be remiss if we did not look more deeply at the situation of young people in trouble with the law rather than just looking at how we are going to deal with them more effectively. It is the old question of whether to apply band-aid treatment or to get at the cause of the disease. Bill C-61 is more than a band-aid. Perhaps it is not able to do so, but it does not go deeply into the causes of crime by young offenders.
I believe we have to look into this much more deeply. If we spend a little while in this debate and if the committee is able to call witnesses who can speak to the causes, we will be performing a service not only for the parliamentary process, but for all Canadians.
The reason I take this tack in my contribution to this debate was that I recently saw a report of the Carnegie Council on Children. The council said the following:
Today virtually the last question we ask of any public policy is how it will affect children. It should become the first question.
Who speaks for the family today in the legislative halls? Young families have the least time, energy or financial resources to organize and make their voices heard. Indeed, how can they be self-sufficient when they are so deeply influenced by broad social and economic forces over which they have little control; unemployment, inflation, advertising, television, increased housing costs and inferior education systems. There is a whole range of factors that come into the spotlight when we start to look at the question of a family life that spawns for good or bad children who grow up in an atmosphere where they are loved and cared for or in families which allow undue influence from the outside, factors that hurt the transmission of true family values. I will speak of one of those in a moment.
If we are really serious about the problems of children who get into trouble with the law, we have to look collectively at such factors as child abuse statistics, the mental health picture, the divorce rate, the reasons for teenage suicide, the results of the Senate's examination of the relationship between crime and the criminal's early years. All of this helps us to have a growing knowledge of the character and personality development in the early years. When I speak about the early years, I want to talk about something I have come to learn in my life. I now see it reflected in many professional journals in the field of social sciences.
The most crucial period in the life of a human being is between the ages of three and five. That is when the whole
range of factors that give the person a sense of self-esteem need special attention. This is usually when the parents themselves are feeling the strongest pressures of a competitive society. The father is often totally immersed in the economic circumstances of his family. Often he is transferred. The family moves. We have a kind of tradition that as long as the child gets enough to eat and there is no manifest abuse or something terribly wrong such as a disease and ill-treatment, no one worries about it.
The fact is that survival is not enough. Many of the young people at whom this bill is aimed become young offenders because of an earlier period in their life when all they did was survive. A stable and secure atmosphere for children ought to have a top priority. Many aspects of our disjointed society come into play here. That is why the Carnegie Council on Children said that when we make public policies, the last thing we seem to think of is their effect on children.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is very conscious of the future aspects of the policy of his government. He would probably agree with what I am saying. When we look at questions of the environment, we are trying to protect all the physical manifestations of society for future generations. He has to have his mind on the future.
I hope that that example of the environment will be seen more widely in all of our policies, particularly our economic and social policies. I fear they are not. More attention ought to be paid to daycare and the provision of services for single parent families. In most single parent families, it is often the mother who has the responsibility. However, there are a growing number of instances where it is the father. They need services as well. It is not just a question of providing services but a question of society understanding the need to highlight and accent much more the values of family life.
I said I had one particular concern about outside influences. If we did a study, we would find that the television which a lot of young offenders have seen over the years has contributed to the venom which is reflected in them by their criminal conduct. We make sure that a child drinks pure water. We have laws to that effect. Why do we not have the courage to force the television industry to stop putting garbage and poison into children's minds with the ceaseless parade of murders, violence and seduction as so-called entertainment? That is on the minds of many parents. Why do we not pay more serious attention to these kinds of factors that have unquestionably been an influence in the formation of an important minority of our young people who have become offenders. I just have a moment left, Mr. Speaker.
The deeper we go into the question of children, the bigger the problem appears. In fact, in an address on children's rights, Justice Marcel Trahan of the Social Welfare Court, Montreal, emphasized the human interplay between society, the family and the child. He said:
When we talk about reforming the law, when we condemn certain institutions, we must be prepared to rethink the entire system.
May 15, 1981

1 see you are anxious to move on to the next proceeding, Mr. Speaker. May 1 call it four o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, 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
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 33, 38 and 40 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend its policy of August 8, 1973, respecting the negotiation and settlement of all Indian, Inuit and Metis claims based on the traditional use and occupancy of land and any other aboriginal right not specifically extinguished by legitimate treaty or agreement, and in particular, to delete from the policy that condition that it will not negotiate claims superseded by law.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to amend, improve and correct the government's present policy for negotiating and settling native claims.
According to the present policy of the government adopted by a cabinet decision on August 8, 1973, the government will negotiate and settle claims according to the policy in the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which can be found elsewhere as well. It indicates that the government will negotiate settlements with the Inuit and Indian people who have not entered into treaty relationships with the Crown and that these settlements would be based on the loss of their traditional use and occupancy of land in those parts of Canada where any native rights based on traditional use and occupancy have not been extinguished by treaty or superseded by law.
As far as I and many others who have worked in this field can see, there are three failings in that policy which my motion strives to correct. First, according to the policy, the government will only negotiate and settle claims based on land and the occupancy of land. As many hon. members know, aboriginal rights go much beyond the use and occupancy of land. During the lengthy sittings of the constitutional committee, we asked various Indian, Inuit and Metis groups what they meant
Native Claims
by aboriginal rights. Although they hesitated and in many cases refused to give an exact definition because they did not want to limit themselves, they indicated that aboriginal rights included not only land and the rights to hunt, fish and collect on those lands, but all their social, economic, political and cultural rights before the Europeans came which they never gave up. In other words, aboriginal rights include all the rights of those people before the Europeans came. They had societies, economies, languages and cultures. In some cases they hunted and fished; in other cases they raised crops and traded with other aboriginal peoples on the continent. They had a complete way of life. All those things are part of their aboriginal rights, to the extent that they have not given them up.
As I point out in my motion, I want to change the present policy of the government so that negotiations and settlements go much beyond land. In part, my motion reads:
-to the effect that it will negotiate settlement of all Indian, Inuit and Metis claims based on the traditional use and occupancy of land and any other aboriginal right-
So I want to include all aboriginal rights in the negotiations and settlements which will be concluded. That is the first goal of my motion. It is based upon the first failing of the present policy.
The second failing of the present policy is that it indicates that the government will negotiate the loss of traditional use and occupancy of land where these rights were based on traditional use and occupancy which have not been extinguished by treaty. What happened and what is still happening today is that when the government negotiates a land claim settlement with Inuit or Indian groups, it insists aboriginal groups give up all their rights, any rights they may have had in the past or will have in the future of which they may not be aware at the time. They want them to extinguish all their rights, not just the rights which they are giving up in the treaty or in the settlement in exchange for other rights, which is the way it should be. They want them to extinguish any potential or possible right whatsoever. I say that is wrong. In my motion I have suggested the policy should be that they settle "claims based on the traditional use and occupancy of the land and any other aboriginal right not specifically extinguished by legitimate treaty or agreement."
In other words, a right would only be extinguished if it was specifically referred to in the treaty or in the settlement agreement and if the Indians themselves agreed to extinguish that particular right in exchange for another right. That was the second failing I attempted to correct in my motion.
The third failing is the most shameful condition. Presently the government indicates that it will only negotiate and settle claims which have not been superseded by law. The government is saying that even if, from time immemorial, certain Indian or Inuit groups had aboriginal rights in certain parts of Canada, if a federal or provincial government passed a law of its parliament or legislature which took away those rights, then they are taken away and the government will not negotiate them.
[Stage Direction]
May 15, 1981
Native Claims
This was the basis upon which the aboriginal claim of the Nova Scotia Indians was rejected by the office of native claims. They made a claim for certain lands, certain hunting and fishing rights, and certain other rights in Nova Scotia, Cape Breton and elsewhere. The government indicated that the government of Nova Scotia had passed statutes in various years and that the Government of Canada had passed other statutes in various years which divided the land into townships and took control of it. They had passed hunting and fishing laws and mineral rights laws, so they had exercised jurisdiction over the land. Despite what is right in principle and in justice, the government is saying that if a majority in a parliament or legislature passes a law that a right does not exist, it does not exist. Of course legally that might be correct, but morally it certainly is not. So in my motion I indicate that the government should remove entirely from its policy of negotiating and settling claims this business that it will not negotiate claims where they have been superseded by law, because I think it is wrong.
I drafted my particular motion last summer or fall before we became involved in the constitutional discussions and before the constitutional proposals were tabled in the House. This was well before what I believe to have been a historic day in January when, on the initiation of the government, after much lobbying by Indian and Inuit groups in this country, the government and all the parties sitting on the constitutional committee agreed to that section, part II, "Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada". Section 34(1) under that part reads:
The aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
By putting that section into the Constitution, much of my motion will no longer be necessary since later on in the constitutional proposal section 59(1) says:
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
This means that once the provision is passed by this House and by the British Parliament, which I hope will happen soon, the land claims settlement policy of the government will be, to a great extent, of no force or effect in accordance with section 59(1). It will have no force or effect because the laws which are referred to in the policy which superseded these claims are ordinary laws of the Parliament of Canada and ordinary laws of the legislatures of the provinces. Because they are ordinary laws, they give way to whatever is in these constitutional proposals. Since in these constitutional proposals we have a recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights, they will prevail over any cities and towns act any provincial fish and game act, any provincial mining act, any federal oil and gas act or any national energy board act which are all ordinary laws. So once the aboriginal group, whether it be Indian, Inuit or Metis, reaches agreement by negotiation with the government, or through the courts if the government will not settle with them, then those rights prevail over any policy of the government
with respect to claims. Consequently, it is my belief that this policy which I am attempting to amend, improve and change through my motion, will fall down completely once the Constitution is adopted in Britain.
I would like to deal with a recent case where the National Energy Board approved the construction of a pipeline from Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories up the McKenzie River to the Alberta border and through Alberta. The Board approved this pipeline over territories which are claimed to be part of the territory of the Dene. The Dene have claimed much of that land as theirs in accordance with their aboriginal rights. Without this constitutional proposal, the government might say that, because of the National Energy Board Act and its decision, that is a statute of Parliament and that it is a legal decision of the National Energy Board. They may say that it would prevail over the rights of the Dene, if they wanted to rest their case on purely legal grounds. But with the passage of this section it is my belief, as a trained lawyer, that this constitutional provision will prevail over any decision of the National Energy Board, and as section 59 (1) says "any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."
Although I prepared this motion to correct the three failings I referred to in the negotiation of our native claims policy, I still wish it were done by the government on a voluntary, unilateral basis. Even though it may not be done today, the provisions in the constitutional proposal will do it in any case. Even if the constitutional proposal is passed this year, I hope that the government will not force our native people to test these matters in the courts in order to resolve them, that it will not put them to considerable expense in terms of time and money. Who knows, matters like this can take two, three, four or five years to go through the whole court system. The government agreed to put these provisions in the Constitution. I believe it did so with good will and it was supported by all parties on the constitutional committee. Therefore, it is my belief that the government should voluntarily change right away the provisions of this policy for negotiating claims. It should not wait until the court forces changes to the policy.
This week in the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Committee I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) if he had set up a small group within his department to determine what the effects the new constitutional proposals relating to aboriginal and treaty rights would have on all the laws, regulations and policies which he administers. He said that he had set up such a small group under one of his assistant deputy ministers and that they were attempting to determine where the laws they administered were ultra vires or of no force and effect. He said he believed that it was right that they should not put ordinary citizens of native groups to great expense in the courts. He said that where it was clear that their laws and policies were ultra vires, they should be changed by immediate agreement, or as soon as the constitutional proposal is passed.
My main point in presenting this motion was to correct the failings and inadequacies in our present policy for negotiating
May 15, 1981
[Stage Direction]
claims with our native people in this country. 1 said that the present policy was wanting in that it only dealt with land and matters related to land, for example, hunting and fishing. I said that it did not deal with the wide range of aboriginal rights. Second, it insisted on complete extinguishment when that was not really necessary or fair. Third, a claim would not even be considered if it were felt that it had been superseded by some ordinary provincial or federal law. All of these failings should go. They should go on the basis of justice and moral right. But since the governemnt has agreed to the provision which it has placed in its constitution proposals, I think that in virtue of that provision they will go. I ask the government to give immediate attention to my submissions. I certainly would be pleased if the government would agree to this motion today.
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this matter because it illustrates one of the causes of concern of our native people. I have in my hand a copy of Indian News for April, 1981, put out under the Indian and Inuit Affairs program. The heading there is "Bill C-48 snuffs Aboriginal Rights". I want to deal with some of the points which are certainly of concern to the editor of this paper who is speaking for a large number of people. But before doing that, I would suggest that if the government is really sincere in its desire to give aboriginal treaty rights to our Indian people, it should withdraw the legislation which is in conflict with that particular section.
The hon. member who just spoke has given three very definite items which are in conflict, in my view, with part 2 of the proposed Constitution. One of the things which has bothered me throughout this constitutional talk is that we are raising the hopes of people without even defining what the aboriginal treaty rights are. When that is done, the whole matter could be involved in weeks, months or years of litigation. When Indian or native people have to compete against the government, the largest corporation in the country, with relation to lawyers and paying for the costs arising out of litigation, then it does not give people an equal chance even though we say they are equal. They certainly are not.
In Section 33, the proposed Constitution says, "the aboriginal treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed", but it does not say what they are. Is it the aboriginal right to own land? Is it their aboriginal right to social life? Is it their aboriginal rights to learning, hunting, fishing, or carrying out their own economics as they did before the white man came? No one knows. So no wonder our native people are concerned about this, because when it does not say what it is specifically, then we can hope all we like but it will go to the courts. There will be conflicts, it will go to the courts and then it will be ruled on by those who are sitting on the bench.
Again, in subsection 2 of this act, it says, "Aboriginal peoples of Canada includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada." It states there who is included; but it does not say
Native Claims
what the rights are. That is one of my major objections to this. If this is put in simply to appease our native people at this time, then it is a terrible thing indeed. It would be trickery of the worst kind if that is the objective. If that is not the objective, the government should show its good faith now by withdrawing at least legislation which is in conflict with those aboriginal and treaty rights.
I again agreed that these should not be confined only to land. The aboriginal people lived on this continent long before we did. We say that they were conquered. Maybe they were conquered by kind words and by arrangements rather than through actual warfare, although there may have been some warfare too. However, they were guaranteed, as long as the waters run and as long as the sun shines, rights that they had before the white man came.
Now, the government has set out in its policy at least three rights. Referring to the one on land, it is not only land which is involved with relation to aboriginal rights, as the last hon. member to speak so aptly said. The second right as spelled out is even worse. It says, "Not extinguished by treaty or agreement". "Treaty or agreement", again is not defined. We celebrated the 100th year of Treaty Seven out on the plains of the Blackfoot just a couple of years ago. The Prince of Wales was there and so were ministers from provincial and federal governments. It was a tremendous "do". The Indians came from far and wide. There was a great celebration on the very plains where the treaty was signed. However, would we have to tell them, if this Constitution becomes law, that they have their rights in the Constitution, but that the policy which was on the books before is still on the books, and that it extinguishes their rights because their forefathers signed the treaty? These are the worries of our native people.
The third one is even more serious. It states: "superseded by law". Already, since we put the provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the aboriginal treaty rights, we are taking their rights away by law. Look at Bill C-48. As the editor of this Indian News says, "Bill C-48 snuffs Aboriginal Rights". Let us just read one or two items from this particular article, and I quote:
The bill has no environmental protection worthy of the name. In fact, in environmental terms, it may well be the weakest single statute of its kind ever to come before the Parliament of Canada.
The environment is almost an Indian's whole life. The Indians live amongst the trees, they live with the animals, they learn from the animals. They have a closer kinship with nature than the white men have ever had and they want to retain it. Then the story goes on as follows:
The bill implicitly extinguishes-
Notice the word "extinguishes".
-Aboriginal Rights by utterly ignoring them. So-called Canada Lands in the Territories are in reality Aboriginal Lands. The Bill extinguishes precisely those rights which the Charter of Rights pretends to guarantee.
So, even before the Constitution becomes law, we are passing other laws and taking away the rights that we are leading native people to believe they will have if and when the proposed Constitution becomes the Constitution of Canada.

May 15, 1981
Native Claims


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Duplicitous.


Gordon Edward Taylor: 1 would like to read one other passage from this story:
The Bill jeopardizes any coherent evolution toward responsible government by taking away in advance the access to resource revenues-which would constitute the fiscal base for such a government and secondly, it makes a mockery of the aboriginal claims process by pre-empting all resource revenues for the federal government.
It has been said that if one wants to make an independent man a slave, one deprives him of his bread and his water, and that when he gets hungry enough, he will sell his rights for bread and water in order to survive. Some will and some will not; but a great number will. Here we have a section in Bill C-48 which says that the natural resources are going to belong to the federal government, denying for all time the chance of our aboriginal people in that part of our country to ever become an independent people with a buoyant economy. We take away their means of becoming a buoyant citizenry which could be proud and make a contribution to the country.
I think the government now has a chance to show whether it is sincere in putting this section in the bill about aboriginal rights. A few weeks before it was inserted in the bill, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in this House something to the effect that, "If you will tell me what aboriginal rights are I will agree or disagree." A few weeks after that, the clause was put in without those rights being defined in any way.
As an individual I support the bill, Mr. Speaker. If the government is sincere in its desire to be fair with the native people in regard to aboriginal rights, it should show its hand by withdrawing the policy we are discussing today.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to speak to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and to commend the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for his comments.
From our perspective, this policy on land claims is somewhat anachronistic in light of the recent constitutional steps taken by Parliament as a whole.
After eight years, the 1973 land claims policy is a document which is outmoded in the context of the recent constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights.
The 1973 policy required the extinguishment of "native interest" in certain lands in exchange for some kind of compensation. It further limited negotiations only to areas where native title had never been extinguished by treaty or superseded by law.
The policy's provisions had the effect of smoothing the way for resource developers in the north by extinguishing aboriginal title, and in the south by precluding negotiations in areas where resource developers were already established.
The kind of settlement this policy offered native people was loss of political and economic control in exchange for their assuming full responsibility for their own well-being.
In a paper on the 1973 policy statement on native settlements, Murray Angus discusses the advantages of this policy for the federal government. He says:
The type of compensation, particularly the large cash payments, served to legitimate the government's over-all handling of the native problem and also exonerated it from much of the responsibility for their future welfare.
The problems with implementation of the James Bay agreement-with all due respect to James Bay Inuit and Indians- demonstrates quite clearly how the federal government abrogates responsibility in native communities after it has reached a "compensation for extinguishment" settlement, as was the case in the James Bay agreement.
The 1973 policy also had the effect of moving questions of aboriginal title out of the courts in order to facilitate the negotiations process. Even though court cases are time-consuming and costly, native people have demonstrated over and over that they are patient. This was very evident in the Baker Lake court case. Perhaps it is fair to say that federal government and resource developers are not patient, but there has been increasing pressure to settle "claims" in order to speed up development. Bill C-48 is such an exercise.
The reformed Constitution which recognizes and affirms aboriginal rights and aboriginal title, has important implications for the settlement of comprehensive claims. Constitutional rights cannot be extinguished by any legislation or policy statement. Everyone knows that the idea of extinguishment is not only anachronistic, but will shortly be legally impossible.
Comprehensive claims are not simply a way "to remove the sense of grievance and injustice which impedes the relationship of the Indian and Inuit peoples with the governments concerned and with their fellow Canadians," as the 1973 policy statement suggests. Comprehensive claims provide a mechanism for defining aboriginal rights for the first time in Canadian history.
The present policy, based on the 1973 policy statement, prejudices the process of defining rights through comprehensive claims negotiations. For example, the present policy prohibits negotiations on land which contains oil and gas reserves. This certainly prejudges the issue of whether aboriginal title includes rights to oil and gas benefits on land subject to aboriginal title. We know the value of the buck as well as anyone in Canada. It also explains the apprehension expressed by northerners about the proposed oil and gas act.
The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the federal government are now involved in comprehensive claims negotiations. It is not known, however, whether the Inuit Tapirisat can negotiate on those lands which contain oil and gas and on those lands on which Bill C-48 will increase development. Last summer the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada addressed the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I quote Thomas Suluk, the chief negotiator for the Inuit Tapirisat as follows:
May 15, 1981

A land claims settlement between the Inuit of Nunavut and the federal government should reflect an awareness that the days of trinkets and tiny reserves are over; an awareness that a people cannot retain its self-reliance and self-esteem if the power to shape its future is appropriated by others.
Implicit in this statement is the realization that for Inuit, land claims negotiations and political development issues are inseparable. Self-reliance and self-esteem do not result from transfers of money, but rather from the management of one's own affairs within the greater society in a way which integrates the cultural pride of a people with political and economic structures responsive to the people.
The Inuit of Nunavut have proposed the creation of a new Territory in the Eastern Arctic. The Nunavut territory is supported not only by those who, like their ancestors, were born in the north, but also by those who have chosen to make Nunavut their home. This includes many people from the south.
The legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories passed a number of resolutions last November which address the question of division of the territory. These resolutions include recognition of the present geo-political structure of the Northwest Territories as an interim arrangement and commitment in principle to the divsion of the Northwest Territories into eastern and western portions, subject to the expressed will of the people, by plebiscite.
In 1974, Dr. Lloyd Barber of Regina University, in his role as Indian Claims Commissioner for Canada at that time, stated, in relation to Dene rejection of the notion of "extinguishment" of aboriginal rights, as follows:
I cannot emphasize too strongly that we are in a new ball game. .. We've been allowed to delude ourselves about the situation for a long time because of a lack of political power in native communities.
Seven years after this statement was made, the constitutional package recognized and affirmed aboriginal rights. It has been a long and tough battle, and one which, in many ways, has only just begun. Perhaps the recent constitutional amendments are a beginning.
Political power in native communities may be growing. The evolution planned by the Northwest Territories government may reflect that. Perhaps this growth will foster changes in attitude among the politicians and bureaucrats who handle native claims.
We await with interest the forthcoming comprehensive policy of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and we fully expect it to reflect the change in official government attitudes which the constitutional revision process began. I have spoken in support of the motion of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.
Some years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that he would never see the north attain provincial status. He also said there were no aboriginal rights. Perhaps his changed in attitude toward aboriginal people, with his commitment to constitutional recognition of those people will reflect changes in his attitude or political awareness of the north as well as of other parts of the country.
Native Claims


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and thank him for his interest in the cause of the native people of Canada, not only in this House, but also in the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, especially as the motion which he introduced today gives us an opportunity to review the situation of the native people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, history tells us that several attempts have been made to meet more adequately the concerns of the Canadian native people. The federal government has recognized the validity of this objective. On August 8, 1973, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced the policy of the government concerning the claims of the Indians and Inuit.
On the one hand, this policy reaffirmed the principle long recognized by this government that legal obligations towards the Indians would be met; for this purpose, the government would continue to hear such grievances as the Indians might state concerning its administration of Indian lands and other property under the provisions of the Indian Act and Regulations, as well as such claims as might be made concerning the negotiation and interpretation of treaties with the Indian people or agreements and proclamations concerning the Indians and the reservations. In this statement of policy, Mr. Speaker, the claims based on these grievances were called particular claims.
On the other hand, the government of Canada stated that it was willing to negotiate the settlement of claims with native groups in the regions of Canada where, in keeping with traditional use or occupation of the land of these regions, these groups had acquired certain rights which had never been cancelled by a treaty or an act. While this interest was never conclusively recognized or defined in Canadian law, it ensues from the traditional utilization and occupation of lands in these regions, which include the Yukon, Northern Quebec, the major part of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. The government recognized that occupation of these lands by non-Indians had not taken this right into account, that the Indians had not been offered compensation for the gradual erosion of their rights, and that generally, this had prevented the native people from taking advantage of the development which could have resulted from the settlement of these lands.
The claims which would be based on that principle are called "over-all claims". I think the summary I have just made of the policy concerning aboriginal rights in 1973 may be of some use. However, to appreciate its full import it would be advisable to read the statement made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on August 8, 1973. Several Indian bands in Canada Maintain relationships with the federal government which are symbolized in the treaties

May 15, 1981
Native Claims
they have made with the Crown in the course of history. Since the government committed itself a few years ago in the case of Indian claims and treaties, the legitimate rights of the Indians must be recognized. That still remains the basis of government policy.
The commitment of the government of Canada to abide by the treaties has been reaffirmed very recently by Her Majesty the Queen when she spoke to Alberta's Indian representatives in Calgary on July 5. Among other things, Her Majesty the Queen said, and I quote:
You may rest assured that the government of Canada acknowledges the significance of fully observing the treaties, both in the spirit and in the terms of those agreements.
That declaration and the present policy statement testify to the fact that pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, the government acknowledges and accepts its continuing responsibility for the Indians and the territories which have been reserved for them. In that respect the government considers that its position results from a historic evolution which dates back to the royal proclamation of 1763, which remains a fundamental declaration of the territorial rights of Indians in this country, regardless of the differences that may have surfaced in its legal interpretation.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, as a result of a court ruling, the jurisdiction of the federal government over the Indians has been extended so as to include the Eskimos and the Inuit. If we are again drafting new premises at this time it is because we want to point out that the ensuing policy statement is not meant to make amendments to it. The government wants to reaffirm to the native people involved and to the people of Canada generally that its policy in that respect is nothing less than an attestation of its responsibility.
This policy is concerned with the claims and the proposed settlements of already old grievances. Those claims originate from Indian bands which have not signed treaties with the Crown. According to them they are warranted under various titles: Indian title of ownership, title of aboriginal ownership, aboriginal title of ownership, native right of ownership or right of usufruct. Essentially, the native people seek to obtain compensation by filing claims based on the loss of traditional enjoyment and occupation of territories in certain parts of Canada where the property title of the Indians has never been abolished by treaty nor replaced by statute. Ever since it came to power in 1968 the government has accepted those claims and provided funds as well as other forms of assistance to the Indians and the Inuit so as to enable them to do the research necessary to establish their traditional territorial interests.
The government has now received official requests from certain native groups and knows that others will follow suit. The lands involved are in British Columbia, Northern Quebec, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. In reviewing its approach to Indian and Inuit claims, the government has
considered and taken into account the briefs presented by various associations and the opinions expressed both by those groups and the members of the Standing Committee on Indian and Northern Affairs, on which I sit as well as recent court proceedings dealing with Indian claims. The government is well aware of the fact that the claims do not involve mere land and money issues but that they are related to a way of life. Therefore, any settlement must, in a positive and durable way, help solve the cultural, social and economic problems which for far too long have maintained the Indians and Inuits as second-class citizens in our society.
Basically, the government's view is that these claims must be settled and that the best way to do so is through negotiations. These negotiations should result in agreements with the various Indian and Inuit groups involved and such agreements should be enshrined in legislation voted by this Parliament so as to have force of law. I heard the hon. member for Nunat-siaq (Mr. Ittinuar) of the Northwest Territories a moment ago express his pleasure at the fact that since aboriginal rights would be included in the Constitution the settlement of land claims would no doubt be speeded up, and I think that it is a credit to members of this House that they passed the amendment that was put forth during the constitutional debate.
Mr. Speaker, this government is now prepared to negotiate with the official spokesmen of these groups on the principle that if the traditional rights to the lands claimed can be established, native people will receive just compensation or benefit for these interests. The lands that are in litigation do not fall under federal jurisdiction. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, the government has the power to use Crown lands after consulting with the territorial governments. With respect to the claims involving lands in the provinces, provincial powers and the rights of Canadians living on those lands have to be so considered. So as to reach satisfactory agreements with the Indians and Inuit residing in the provinces, the latter, together with the federal government, must get involved in the negotiation and settlement process. It is in the interest of these provinces and their residents that these land claims be settled and it is reasonable to say that the provinces are prepared to offer compensation. The government has made its position clear to the provinces involved and has strongly urged them to participate in the proposed negotiations. There are differences between some of the native claims and other differences are bound to come up in the future. They stem mostly from the settlements that have been proposed and require a flexible approach which the government is willing to take.
About a year ago, the B.C. Indian Chiefs Union demanded compensation based on the traditional loss of enjoyment and land occupation in that province. Since then, the courts have answered the Nishga claims relating mostly to lands under provincial jurisdiction. The government is now ready to negoti-
May 15, 1981

ate those Indian claims in British Columbia and considers the provincial participation as essential to a satisfactory settlement.
As for New Quebec, most important legal cases related to Indian claims in that area are now before the provincial courts. Once again, the federal government believes that negotiation is the best method of obtaining the results hoped for by all parties concerned, and it will spare no effort to find a solution. However, as those questions are now before the courts, it would be improper for the Canadian government to say more on the matter.
The government has already agreed with the representatives of the Yukon Indians to start negotiations concerning their claims. Those dealing with the proposed settlement have already started. The government is also ready to negotiate with the associations of non-treaty Indians and Inuits from the Northwest Territories. The government has made clear for quite some time that it is willing to fully meet its obligations, show flexibility and hold consultations with the interested parties. Like the Indian groups of Canada, the Northwest Territories Eskimos have obtained funds to help them carry out studies on land claims. In all cases where it is acknowledged that traditional land interests have been disregarded, the government has been willing to look into them and it recognizes in principle the need to compensate any loss resulting from such neglect. It agrees that the best way to achieve the proposed objectives is to reach a freely negotiated settlement with all parties concerned.
Mr. Speaker, in some parts of the country, such as southern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, there are no treaties dealing with transfer of lands. In this regard, the government is of the opinion that territorial claims in those areas are different in nature from those we spoke of a while ago. The Indians submitted claims concerning their interests in those
Native Claims
lands which the government is now in the process of studying. It has also provided them with funds to pursue their necessary research. The policy of the government with regard to the claims of our native peoples fits into the context of other policies intended to alleviate the feeling of bitterness and unfairness that dampens good relations between, on the one hand, the Indians and the Eskimos, and, on the other, the governments concerned and the other Canadians. I see, Mr. Speaker, it is almost five o'clock. Once again, I wish to say how pleased 1 was to take part in this debate.
This policy has been the mechanism used throughout the study of the claims mentioned by the first speaker. Now that it has been suggested that the rights of our native people be entrenched in our Constitution, the settlement of land claims will no doubt be speeded up. There is no reason to stop negotiations already under way for that purpose and wait for final patriation-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Alexandre Cyr: -nor is there any reason to put through a waiting period those groups who have certain claims when they are ready to negotiate now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Alexandre Cyr: The entrenchment of ancestral rights in our Constitution is in itself official recognition of the status of the native people of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired.

It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) and Standing Order 2(3), this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 19, 1981 at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 19, 1981