May 12, 1970

LIB

Donald Stovel Macdonald (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member. One purpose in announcing the business of the House a week ahead is so that members of the House generally can make arrangements of this kind. I had hoped that the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs might have noted the fact that these bills were being called for today and would have arranged their business accordingly. If I may address myself to the members of that committee perhaps they might decide not to sit this afternoon as planned so that we can proceed with the debate on the two items which have been called for today.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by my colleague, I think the point of the House Leader is very well taken but I would point out that the witness for today comes from Dalhousie University in Halifax-

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCleave:

This involves a witness from out of town. Hon. members may groan, but I am not being chauvinistic when I say I believe it would be better if the committee did not ask this professor to wait around. Since he did come here in all good faith for this afternoon's meeting, perhaps he could be heard this evening.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Donald Stovel Macdonald (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):

Mr. Speaker, as an alternative perhaps the committee would consider meeting during private members hour today at five o'clock for the purpose of hearing his testimony and then it might arrange to continue this evening, if necessary.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCleave:

Again this involves the work of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I believe the bill that will be before the House is one that has been considered in that committee.

May 12, 1970 COMMONS

[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL


The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-186, to establish a Commission for the Reform of the laws of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


LIB

George James McIlraith (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (for fhe Minister of Justice) moved

that Bill C-186, to establish a commission for the reform of the laws of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be concurred in.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


LIB

George James McIlraith (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraith (for the Minister of Justice) moved

that the bill be read the third time and do pass.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):

Mr. Speaker, on the third reading of this bill to set up a law reform commission, I might say to the House that, with the exception of a few amendments, the members of the committee were in accord that this is a good commission to set up. However, I wish to deal with one or two points. I hope that this commission would not be established and used by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or the government for the purpose of procrastinating in respect of reforms that are obvious. I should like to draw an analogy.

What happened yesterday in the gallery with reference to the law of abortion arose because an incorrect impression was left when the omnibus bill came up in the House. If you were to go back to the record of my speeches you would find that I had pointed out then that the abortion law of Canada was not being changed. Under the original code a therapeutic abortion was permitted under certain circumstances where there was a danger to the life of a mother, and this was left to the discretion of the professional medical practitioner. The courts interpreted that as meaning not only when the life of the mother was endangered but also when her health was in danger. So, in that regard, the law has not been changed at all. Those people who pressed for abortion reform were led to believe by various people, and even by the ministers who took part in the debate, that

DEBATES 6855

Law Reform Commission Bill there would be a great reform in the abortion law. Females across this country who wished to exercise what they thought was their new legal right found to their surprise that the law had not been reformed. In fact, in my opinion, the amended law curtails the right to therapeutic abortion. I believe that is the reason for the degree of excitement and emotional disturbance which took place yesterday in the galleries of the House of Commons.

The analogy I want to draw is this. We passed a bill called the omnibus Criminal Code reform bill, about which much was written by the press of the country and much was said through the various communications media. The bill was described as a great reform measure and a step forward in many directions. I said then, and I repeat now, that so far as most matters covered by that bill were concerned there was no reform whatsoever. People were fooled and deceived. I imagine that the people who wrote articles about the bill and the newspapers which printed them, really believed there was going to be reform.

Unless one were a lawyer and analysed the amendments as they were written in the Criminal Code reform bill, one would not have appreciated, at the time of the debate, the fact that there was actually no reform so far as abortion was concerned. What I am saying is I do hope that when this new commission is set up it will not be used to procrastinate so far as reform is concerned or that an alternative will not be used to bluff the public that they are getting the reform when in fact this is not the case at all.

To what sections of the Criminal Code can reforms be proposed? Under the Criminal Code of Canada any person seven years or older, provided he understands the nature and quality of the act, can be charged and convicted, and any child over the age of 14, without the previously stated qualification, can be charged. There was a private member's bill before the House under my name which dealt with that subject but which was deliberately talked out. The Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) has just taken his place, so let me point this out to him. The rumour I heard-and he can deny it-is that he told his backbenchers not to let the reform go through, not because it was a bad reform but because it came from the wrong side of the House.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraith:

The rumour is false.

May 12, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

I do hope that this commission will not use this method to procrastinate in bringing about the necessary reform. What are some of the other reforms? I just returned from a conference on law reform which several professors from various law schools across the country attended. The conference was held at Cedar Glen on Thursday and Friday of last week. Some top men in the field were present, such as Hogarth of Osgood Hall. I am sure that the former dean of Saskatchewan university wiU give a sympathetic hearing to some of the suggestions I will make. He pointed out that although there is not one law for the rich and one for the poor, that is the case in its application.

Let us consider bail, for example. Members from all sides of the House have been asking for some reform in the law as it applies to bail. Only two weeks ago, in Banff, Alberta, three young men were picked up on a drug charge. Two of them, who were from affluent families, were granted bail on Sunday morning. The third, who was from a poor family, remained in jail. So, there is discrimination. The three young men were charged with the same offence. What do our young men think of a society in which two people who come from affluent families can be left free while their trial is pending, a trial which may not take place until next fall after the case goes through a preliminary hearing, while the third remains in jail? Fortunately, the two young men went out amongst high school and university students and personally raised enough money to bail out the young man who did not have a rich family behind him. In many cases this does not happen. The point I am making is that I hope this law commission will not just be a piece of window dressing. I hope that when we ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the Solicitor General or anyone else connected with the administration of law a question in the House with regard to reform of the law, they will not say that it is before the law reform commission. I hope this Commission will not be just another excuse for an all-powerful government, with an all-powerful bureaucracy behind it, to hide and procrastinate on the reforms that are needed.

The next matter with which I wish to deal concerns the question of drugs. I heard a newscast the other day which I found very interesting. Members from all sides of the House have been asking for the LeDain Commission report on the drug problem which is one of the most serious social questions

Canada is facing today in relation to the young people in high schools, universities and elsewhere. I listened to the newscast in which it was suggested that there has been some interference by members of this government, by cabinet ministers, with the work of the LeDain Commission. They want to delay its recommendations because this is such a serious social problem they are frightened of the recommendations of the commission. They are afraid to face up to their responsibilities and to the recommendations made by the commission, so they want either changes, delay or procrastination.

These are my fears when we have before the House recommendations for the establishment of a law reform commission. These are beautiful words, but I expect little action and much procrastination. It seems to me that when a commission is set up to study such a serious matter the government should not interfere until the independent commission has held its hearings, analysed its evidence, and made its recommendations. The government is not obliged at any time to implement any recommendations, whether these are the recommendations of the Carter Commission, recommendations in a white paper or recommendations of the LeDain Commission. Once these recommendations come before the House in the shape of a white paper or a bill, we know that the government intends to act on those recommendations.

I should now like to deal with the appeal Procedure. I am still convinced that in the application of that Procedure the rich and the poor are treated differently because affluent people can afford the cost of an appeal, whether it is an appeal from summary conviction, which is a trial de novo in county or district court, or an appeal to the courts of appeal of various provinces. One of the great problems is in getting the evidence. As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, being a member of the bar yourself, in order for an appeal case to be successful in any appellate court, it is necessary for the evidence of the lower courts to be typed and printed. There again the cost per page is $1 and in some cases more than that, so that very few people can afford to appeal. Therefore, there are sometimes miscarriages of justice because of that cost.

On the basis of what I have said, surely we do not need a law reform commission to decide on certain amendments to the code. I agree with the minister that it would be a good thing, instead of patching up the Crimi-

May 12, 1970 COMMONS

nal Code, to have it analysed completely by a law commission which would then make recommendations. However, the Criminal Code is a large and complicated statute, so that job is not going to be done in six months or in a year. Let us have our own House committee examine the Criminal Code and make recommendations with respect to reform whereby bail will be made available to everyone wanting it. Surely, we have reached a stage in judicial history when bail, the right to have freedom, should not be based on dollars and cents, the keystone of a materialistic world.

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)

I think that many times bail is set not to guarantee that persons will appear in court at the proper time but so that they may be incarcerated for a period of time during which the authorities make efforts to get more evidence against them, or so that they may suffer punishment even before their case is heard.

I also believe we have reached a time in judicial history when certain offences under the Criminal Code should not require bail provisions. I am speaking of instances where people are charged with impaired driving offences. In fact, I have been told by a judge from the city of Hamilton that in that city no bail is set for such offences. A person arrested on an impaired driving charge usually has a family living in the city where he is charged, and for that reason alone he will appear for trial. Let us do away with bail entirely for this kind of offence.

We all know very well that bail is not a guarantee that a person will appear for trial. After all, Banks' bail was set at $25,000, but he never put up the money. It was probably some syndicated criminal group that put up the money. Banks disappeared into the United States, and even though the United States now says the case can be re-opened and we can get him back here, apparently the government does not want him back in Canada. In this modern age bail does not guarantee that a person will appear at trial. If he has enough money he can afford to let the bail money go to the Crown. If he does not have money for bail he must spend the time in jail.

These reforms will have to come soon or we will have more of what took place yesterday in this House, and of what is taking place throughout the nation, all of which is only keeping pace with the demand for social and

DEBATES 6857

Law Reform Commission Bill other reforms. If we implement these reforms we will then get the confidence of the young people who are now growing up in a very unhappy world, or in what to them seems to be an unhappy society. Then, they would appreciate that there is not a generation gap, that we who are here now can assist them to get the kind of reforms they are demanding.

Let us have no more of that bluffing which says that we are reforming the Criminal Code, particularly with respect to matters which affect the consciences of men and women like abortion and homosexuality, when in fact we are not changing the law one iota. That is what caused the trouble yesterday. It is that type of thing which often causes the trouble and gives rise to protests by the public. I have said what I wished to say on third reading. I only hope that this law reform commission will not be used as an excuse to procrastinate on other reforms which I and other hon. members have urged on other occasions.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink
NDP

John Gilbert

New Democratic Party

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party are very happy that Bill C-186 has reached third reading stage. We supported it on second reading and also in committee.

In Canada we are not law pacers; we are law followers. When we talk about the law reform commission we should remember that the State of New York set up its law reform commission in 1934. New Zealand established its law reform commission in 1937; California established its in 1953; Ontario established its commission in 1964, and England established its law reform commission in 1965. That is a clear indication that we are following the pattern set by other countries rather than setting the pace.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission had great success in studying certain aspects of the law. It has done a great job with regard to the Mechanics Lien Act, personal property security and expropriation, and it would be fair to say that with regard to expropriation it set the pattern for the federal act.

We look with encouragement at the law reform commission that is being established. At committee stage the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said that certain matters would be referred to it. He said that probably the first matters would be the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act. These two matters do go together but, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that even though the commission may be studying them in depth it will not overlook the report

May 12, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, commonly called the Ouimet Commission Report. If we were to use the balance of this session to implement the recommendations contained in the Ouimet Commission Report we would be faced with a heavy workload in our endeavours to up-date the criminal law and reform institutions in Canada.

In committee, the minister also said that he hopes before this session ends to introduce a bill dealing with bail procedures, and procedures on arrest. He also indicated that he might introduce amendments with regard to vagrancy. I hope that he will implement one of the recommendations of the Ouimet Commission concerning corporal punishment. These are all matters that should be dealt with by the end of this session, and by the beginning of next session the minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) could combine to introduce legislation implementing the balance of the Ouimet Commission recommendations. It is one thing to refer the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act to a committee, and ask it to study the different areas of the Criminal Code in depth, but it is another matter to have the committee study the philosophy relating to criminal law. I hope that the Law Reform Commission will study the philosophy relating to criminal law.

The time has come when we must closely examine the adversary system as it relates to criminal law. We have made an improvement in the treatment of juvenile delinquents. Here, the basis of approach is one of rehabilitation or reformation, and it has worked quite successfully. I hope we can carry over this approach into criminal law, and lessen the emphasis on the adversary system.

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cantin) would enjoy hearing parts of a speech which the Minister of Justice delivered in Windsor, when the minister attacked the adversary system, particularly certain myths that prevail with regard to it. With respect to three of those myths he said:

We must disabuse ourselves of the myth that the criminal law process can be understood within the contours of the adversary system.

We must disabuse ourselves of the myth that there is indeed an adversary system of criminal justice at all.

We must disabuse ourselves of the myth that the criminal law sanction falls with equal impact on all segments of society.

He set forth the differences between vagrancy and public drunkenness to demonstrate the third myth.

I recall that when I introduced a bill designed to abolish corporal punishment, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke in support of it. I am sure that with this forward-looking parliamentary secretary, and with our forward-looking Minister of Justice, not only will the recommendations in the Ouimet Commission Report be implemented but they will also see to it that the law reform commission studies the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act as well as the philosophy behind them. When the commission reports, they will see that its recommendations are implemented with speed.

[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, when he reads today's Hansard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who is away on other official business, will surely appreciate the hon. members' contribution to this debate.

It takes some time to incorporate into legislation any philosophy and commonly held ideas. This act tends, among other things, to set up the machinery which will make it possible to incorporate more quickly into law what we preach, although not overnight. This bill provides for the creation of a federal commission for the reform of laws. It is the present Minister of Justice who was the first to talk about it in October 1968, while speaking to members of the Law Society of Upper Canada convened in a special meeting at Osgoode Hall. In fact he said:

I hope that we shall soon be able to create a national commission for the reform of laws in order to explore continuously rather than occasionally the possibilities ... of amending laws.

Stating that the advance of technology and urban development was essentially reflected in the transformation of economic, social and family obligations, Mr. Turner pointed out that it would be high time to undertake, in the legal field, an orderly review and updating of the statutes. The more and more frequent intervention of the government into daily life is evidenced in the increasing number of laws passed from one year to another. Besides, the phenomenon had been already foreseen twenty years ago by the late Professor R. McGregor Dawson. This is what he said, and I quote:

Each year, the government asserts even more its authority, expands more and more the field of its activity.

May 12, 1970

To that, the present Minister of Justice answered:

It often happens that owing to special and continuous pressure to which the administrative process is submitted, many statutes or other legal regulations which control the relationship between the subjects themselves or between the subjects and the government escape this orderly review without which they will not remain consistent with either equity or changing customs.

To meet the complexity of the relationships that characterize modern societies, permanent boards of law reform have been established in certain jurisdictions. That is the context in which this legislation must be considered.

The objects of the Commission are to study and keep under review on a continuing and systematic basis the statutes and other laws of Canada with a view to making recommendations for their improvement. I am thinking here of the views expressed by the previous speaker about the updating and the review of such laws.

Without restricting the general scope of the aforementioned objects, the Commission's prime duty will be to remove anachronisms and anomalies in the laws; to reflect in and by the laws the distinctive concepts and institutions of common law, civil law, and to reconcile, in the expression and application of the law, the differences and discrepancies arising out of the differences in those concepts and institutions.

It will also have to ensure the repeal of obsolete legislation and the development of new legal concepts in keeping with the changing needs of modern Canadian society and of individual members of that society.

One hopes that the Commission will make it possible to achieve the following goals:

Firstly, to give the government an objective machinery to review federal laws;

Secondly, to create an institution to which the public may direct the serious grievances it sometimes has with respect to some federal laws;

Thirdly, to give the cabinet the means to assess proposals which are submitted to it in order to amend existing laws or to pass new ones.

Fourthly, to set up a body that will carry out a critical study of the federal laws, in the light of both common Law and civil law.

This bill provides for the establishment of a Commission of six members. The chairman, vice-chairman and two other full-time members will be appointed for a term not exceeding seven years and the two part-time mem-

Law Reform Commission Bill bers for a term not exceeding three years. It should be noted that the legislation will not require that the members of this Commission be lawyers or judges. Its provisions are broad enough to allow for the appointment of members from other professions.

The Commission, with its modest staff, will be empowered not only to carry out an exhaustive survey of the present federal laws but also to engage on a temporary basis for specific projects the services of persons having specialized knowledge in some legal field. Although the Commission will deal only with matters that come under the jurisdiction of Parliament, it will nevertheless be possible for it to co-operate with provincial, and even foreign, boards with which it could pool its knowledge or its resources, for the benefit of law reform.

The Commission will be free to conduct its own research programs. However, so as to ascertain that it will look only into matters of public interest, it will have to submit reports to Parliament and to the public through the Minister of Justice.

Finally, I may say that this legislation was unanimously approved by the members of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who made an in-depth study of this bill.

No doubt that this legislation is evidence that the government is anxious to undertake a reform, that will be both serious and continuous, of the federal laws.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):

Mr. Speaker, when the next bill is called in a few minutes' time, I shall have something more to say about the work of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. I think it should be noted now, however, in dealing with this particular Bill C-186, that four amendments were presented by the representatives of the various parties in the committee, all of them being reasoned and reasonable amendments which were accepted by the committee.

When political scientists of the future refer to this particular era to find out how well we have done with a rather new approach to Parliament, they will put on the plus side of the ledger our contribution to law reform and, in particular, the operations of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee whose chairman is our able colleague the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie).

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

May 12, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCleave:

I do not hesitate to pass a bouquet to the chairman, and to my associates on the committee, for hard and effective work.

The one thing that I can see that might tarnish some of the gleam of the law reform commission is that it may be given a rather gourmet dinner at the start, that is the suggested changes to the Criminal Code, when perhaps it would be better to give this learned body a series of small snacks. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) mentioned, for example, the abolition of corporal punishment. I, too, have noted that there are a couple of small but important reforms of the Divorce Act, which took effect almost a year and a half ago on July 1, which cry out for attention.

In this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, we not only have to think of the effect of this very important step that we are taking but also of whether the public appreciates what we, as a Parliament, are doing. The classical definition of a Member of Parliament would be a person who was empowered to make wise laws for his country. Yet, too many of us get bogged down in the other aspects of our duties so that the emphasis in this place is not always on the reformation or presentation of new and wise law.

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

I hope, putting it rather vulgarly, that we shall not see the public relations type of changes in the law recommended by the law reform commission. I hope they do not simply make their recommendations to the Minister of Justice and then disappear from the public view. I hope they will diversify their energies and look not only at the criminal code but at other statutes needing changes. I hope they will look at acts affecting small numbers of people who, if they obtain no relief, may well feel that Parliament is indifferent to their fate.

May I cite an example and refer to something with which I have been involved during my number of years here. I refer to the Divorce Act. Residence restrictions qualifying a person to appear in a divorce court have wrought hardships, without doubt, on several classes of people. I am thinking of Canadians serving this country abroad, either in the government service or the armed forces, as well as Canadians who do not stay in any one place for any length of time but float from one part of the country to another. If one were to examine the legal decisions that have

dealt with the jurisdiction of the courts in this field, I think one would recognize that there is a need for action by Parliament. I cite that example and allude to the example offered by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), to show that there are certain matters that any sensible program of law reform must correct rather quickly.

I raised the point I am trying to make now when the minister was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on April 21. At page 19 of the Minutes of Proceeding and Evidence No. 22 I asked:

So the government might be a little more generous, when we attempt law reform, in referring a subject matter here, letting us take a whack at it and then, if we so desire, sending it over, with perhaps a little bit of weight behind our request, to the Commission. Is this possible?

The minister replied:

I suppose it is possible. Mr. McCleave, but 1 would not like to see the Law Reform Commission caught up in everyday policy considerations and having its work unduly interrupted. It will have submitted its program to the minister and the minister will submit it by tabling to Parliament.

That probably expresses, as neatly as possible, the points of difference between the minister and myself and the point I have been trying to make this afternoon. Parliament and the Law Reform Commission must take good care to dust in the corners and sweep out the little bits of injustice we find. We must do this as effectively as we can so that groups of people, no matter how small, will feel that Parliament is paying attention to them.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.
Permalink

May 12, 1970