April 19, 1971

VACANCIES

IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the House that I have received communications notifying me that three vacancies have occurred in the representation, namely:

Bernard Pilon, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Chambly, by decease.

J.-A. Mongrain, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Trois-Rivieres, by decease.

James E. Brown, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Brant, by acceptance of an office.

Accordingly I have addressed my warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of new writs of election for the said electoral districts.

Topic:   VACANCIES
Permalink

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PENITENTIARIES

LIB

Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):

Mr. Speaker, on the night of April 14, inmates of Kingston penitentiary seized six prison guards as hostages, smashed windows, furniture, the cell locking devices and occupied the cell blocks and the central control area.

As a precautionary measure the warden of Kingston penitentiary requested assistance from the Canadian Armed Forces and troops were subsequently deployed to guard the perimeter of the penitentiary.

On the morning of April 15, the warden, his deputy and the regional director of the penitentiary service met with a committee of three inmates chosen as spokesmen to present grievances. Inmates requested that representatives of the press, radio and television media be permitted to attend and this was authorized.

The grievances expressed by the inmates dealt in general terms with the whole area of police, judicial and correctional systems. Only in three minor areas were complaints made against the Canadian penitentiary service itself.

The inmates' committee requested that a group of distinguished citizens be asked to hear the views of the inmates. It became clear that the hostages would not be released until the inmates had had an opportunity to meet with such a group.

A committee of five citizens was subsequently formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Arthur Martin, Q.C., consisting of Mr. Ron Haggart, Dr. Desmond Morton, Mr. William Donkin and Mr. Aubrey Golden, Q.C. This committee was given a mandate to hear the views of the inmates and to report to the Solicitor General.

This committee of citizens met with the inmates' committee throughout the night of April 16 and I received a report early on April 17.

Of the number of requests reported to me by the citizens' committee, the most significant was that the hostages would be released if it were guaranteed that no criminal or disciplinary charges were laid as a result of the disturbance and the seizure of the cell blocks. The inmates' committee was informed that the government would be unlikely to discuss any matter as long as hostages were held by the inmates.

During the early afternoon of April 16, one of the hostages was released apparently unharmed and in good health. After a series of discussions between the inmates' committee and the citizens' committee which went on sporadically during the 17th of April, no agreement could be obtained from the total inmate population as to what they wanted to request of the government.

The cell blocks and central control area had been occupied by about 500 of the 641 inmates at Kingston. No disturbances occurred at the psychiatric wing, at the hospital or in the dissociation area which had remained under the warden's control. However, very early in the morning of Sunday April 18, there were outward visible signs that internal control among the 500 inmates was deteriorating rapidly. There was apparently some sporadic fighting among these inmates.

As a result, I decided to go to Kingston penitentiary. After consultation with the penitentiary authorities on the spot, I authorized that a plan be put into effect permitting those inmates in the cell blocks who wished to do so to come out with hostages. Shortly after daylight, some 200 inmates were allowed into the courtyard and at about 7 o'clock movements of inmates to other institutions began. These movements continued throughout the day and the hostages were released gradually.

I know that hon. members and all Canadians were greatly relieved when the last hostage was released apparently unharmed and in good health at about 5.00 p.m. on April 18, 1971.

Unfortunately one inmate was killed and a number of others were injured by other inmates while they were in control of the cell blocks. We have notified their families.

I would like to make it clear that there was no use of force at any time by penitentiary guards or the Canadian Armed Forces.

The whole question of improvement of penitentiary services and methods of rehabilitation presents both

April 19, 1971

Penitentiaries

short term and long term problems which involve not only the government, the Penitentiary Service and the inmates, but also the Canadian public. In addition to the on-going programmes of the department which the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs now has an opportunity to examine, I decided two weeks before the recent events in Kingston to appoint a working group composed of outside and departmental sources to look into the Canadian Penitentiary Service rehabilitation approach for maximum security institutions and to recommend the type of new programmes and facilities that should be developed. These appointments will be announced shortly and I will ask that a report be made to me in six months.

So far as Kingston penitentiary is concerned, a decision had been made many months ago to phase it out by September 1971. This plan was already under way with the transfer from Kingston of a number of inmates to the new institution at Millhaven before the recent disturbance.

Inmates of our correctional institutions remain members of our society though temporarily segregated. Programmes which meet the needs of this group in society must be based on the acceptance of the principle that chances of rehabilitation are enhanced if inmates are given an opportunity to socialize, work and participate in activities under conditions as close as possible to what is found in normal society.

The government intends to pursue an increasingly progressive penitentiary program, but this can only be done in an orderly manner. The speed at which changes can be made depends jointly on the co-operation of inmates with the department and on public understanding and support.

With regard to the events at Kingston penitentiary, I have directed that a board of inquiry be established to review the events, to assess responsibility and to report to me.

On behalf of the government and on my own behalf, I would like to express sincere thanks to Mr. Arthur Martin, Mr. Ron Haggart and to the members of the committee for the very important role they played in helprng to bring about a solution at Kingston. I should underline the valued co-operation of the Canadian Armed Forces and the police forces at the municipal, provincial and federal level. In concluding, I should like to express my personal thanks to several hon. members for offering to assist in any way they could.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   KINGSTON-STATEMENT BY SOLICITOR GENERAL ON RIOT
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to open my remarks by thanking the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) for his courtesy in providing me with a copy of his statement. I, like him, also, believe that thanks should be given to the citizens' committee, to the officers and staff of Kingston penitentiary, and to the members of the armed forces for keeping their cool in a somewhat critical situation. I wish I could be as effusive in my thanks to the hon. gentleman regarding other parts of his statement. In particular, I wish I could thank him for advising Your Honour, members of the House and the country why this riot took place at all; in

the main, his statement is silent on that point and we are still left with what is a multi-million dollar mystery.

The hon. gentleman does say that there were three minor areas of complaint about the operations of the penitentiary service. We are not told what those three minor areas are; therefore we cannot assess whether, indeed, the adjective "minor" should be used at all.

Most of us have had the advantage of watching Mr. Jack Webster, a very senior Canadian newsman, interview on television last night a person who had been an inmate of that penitentiary. Certain factors were revealed which seemed to shed some light on the events in the penitentiary during the last few days. More specifically, there was the fear or the dread that most of the inmates there had about going to the new maximum security prison at Millhaven. I will return to that point in a few minutes' time or, rather, in a few moments' time; I do not want to wear out Your Honour's patience so quickly after the Easter recess that you lose the benefit thereof.

The point that this inmate made related to electronic snooping on inmates, even when they were engaged in private toilet activities. This was the talk of the inmates at Kingston and might have given rise to what happened. If this was their fear, surely there must have been some means of communication between the inmates and those looking after them so that it could have been dispelled. I suggest that these fears could have been dispelled by taking a few of the inmates to Millhaven and showing them what they would be up against, or films could have been taken and shown to the inmates in order to dispel their fears. Either these fears were justified or there was such an abysmal lack of communication that the whole country now has to suffer a multi-million dollar destruction of one of its institutions. One thanks the citizens' committee for its work, but one would have appreciated learning from the minister what reports, if any, it has so far made to him.

The Ottawa Citizen in its Saturday edition, in one of the reports it carried on this continuing story, quoted guards as saying that they were expecting a riot at Kingston. One would like to know what measures were taken to head off that riot. I suggest a similar situation to Kingston prevails at Dorchester, at British Columbia penitentiary and at Prince Albert-in short, at any institution built years and years ago that is being used to try to serve the needs of today. I think the simple answer to the problem is to be found in that fact. As a member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee which visited some penitentiaries but not all, I know that the members were impressed by the modern institutions. Hon. members will have noted that these modern penitentiaries have remained free of the disturbances that have racked others such as St. Vincent de Paul which, thankfully, has now been closed.

I suggest to the Solicitor General that the inquiry should deal with the points of criticism in respect of Millhaven. The government is apparently going ahead with its plans for Millhaven come hell or high water or

April 19, 1971

even more riots, although it has been criticized over and over again and referred to as an "electronic 1984". I suggest that the board of inquiry should deal with the lack of occupational training and with the Parole Act. Both these topics have given rise to complaints by the inmates. The board of inquiry should also suggest steps to avert another riot. Let me return to the point I made a few minutes ago. Surely some permanent method must be devised to provide for discussions between a committee of inmates and a committee of prison guards in order that intolerable situations that exist can be rectified immediately before they reach explosive proportions.

Finally, I think that the committee of inquiry should deal with that small group in penitentiaries which constitutes, even in the eyes of the most hardened criminals, the dregs of society. This little group needs protection from the other inmates of penitentiaries. I refer to sex deviates, Crown witnesses, stool pigeons, informers and the like. During our visits to certain penitentiaries in Canada we noted friction building up whenever that group of people was in close contact with the general prison population. It may surprise hon. members to know that the most hardened wife beater is still entitled to look down his nose at someone. The person he looks down his nose at is the sexual deviate. To this extent the element of segregation is involved in penitentiaries. I gather this was a factor in the Kingston riot although the Solicitor General has not dealt with it. That factor must be considered by the board of inquiry.

The members of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee had an opportunity to visit some of the penitentiaries and to observe some of these problems. We will be very anxious and eager to learn the results of this inquiry and what steps the minister will take to head off future incidents of this type.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   KINGSTON-STATEMENT BY SOLICITOR GENERAL ON RIOT
Permalink
NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we owe a debt of gratitude to the members of the citizens' committee who spent many hours during the daytime and at night in an attempt to resolve the problem at Kingston penitentiary. It may well be that we will have similar committees in the future. Periodically over the years we have experienced riots at different prisons throughout our penitentiary system. Some of these riots have been worse than others. The riot some years ago at Kingston during which there was a fire and a great deal of burning occurred, as at St. Vincent de Paul, involved a great deal more damage in one sense than the riot which concluded over the past weekend.

We all regret very much the death of one of the inmates. Presumably an attempt will be made to discover how it occurred and criminal charges will be laid if the person who caused this death can be identified.

I am wondering about the government's attitude on the matter of destruction of public property. I understand the damage has been estimated at $1 million, but who knows what it is in terms of dollar value. We should realize, however, that under the Criminal Code there is provision for a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment for destruction of government property. As a result of riots in the past certain individuals have been charged in the

Penitentiaries

criminal courts and, following conviction, have had the maximum sentence of 14 years meted out for participating in a revolt against the system. I suggest very sincerely that the minister and the government should look very warily at the approach that has been adopted in the past, that of laying criminal charges in an attempt to counterbalance the situation for the future, because it probably will not work.

The government response to such situations in the past has been to punish the individuals involved either within the system or by laying charges in court. It has been one of punishment of the whole inmate population by in effect putting the lid on the joint, by removing all privileges, recreational facilities and the like for long periods of time, by segregating individuals and keeping them locked up in cells for 23J hours out of 24 hours every day and permitting them only half an hour for exercise. I believe that the government's response in the past through this type of retaliatory oppression, removal of privileges and punishment for all regardless of their participation or non-participation in such things really will not serve us very well in the future if that is to be the sole action taken as a result of the riot at Kingston.

A number of questions have not been answered and I think two are of extreme importance. It would have behooved the minister well to indicate from his point of view what he knows concerning the answers to these two questions or what he may have surmised as to the situation. One question is, what are the recommendations, if any, that have come from the citizens' committee which spent hours in that institution talking to the inmates' committee. The members of the citizens' committee were liaising back and forth and undoubtedly have a far greater insight into the feelings which led up to this revolt than could possibly be derived through any board of inquiry or working group such as the minister seeks to establish. I believe it would serve the public interest well to know what the recommendations of that citizen's committee were or whether there will be any forthcoming in the future.

I also think it would have been well for the minister to give some assessment of his views concerning the real reasons behind the riot. I am sure it was not just a riot by people who objected to the prospect of being transferred to another institution, Millhaven, on the basis of rumours concerning what existed there and what sort of oppressive and electronic devices might be there to invade their privacy. I believe it goes much deeper than just being another riot in a penitentiary. I believe it represents partly a revolt against the judicial system and concern that we give lip service to the idea of rehabilitation in the penitentiary system but do not in fact do anything about it. It is a revolt against the fact of life that some penitentiaries are there just as places for people to be locked up in.

Any attempt at effective rehabilitation work within the prison system as we know it today will run counter to the idea and concept of security and custody and the obligation on the part of the penitentiary service to carry out the instructions of the courts, namely, to keep a person in jail for a stated period of time. We can talk

April 19, 1971

Penitentiaries

about rehabilitation programs within our penitentiary system but by and large that is not the place in which they will work. Generally speaking, inmates participate in chaplain's groups, therapy groups or rehabilitation groups and talk with their counsellors in great detail, but their prime objective is to get out of jail and therefore they will use those mechanisms, those systems and those structures that are set up supposedly for rehabilitation for the prime purpose of getting out on the street.

Rehabilitation means parole and the proper and full use of the parole and probation systems. We could probably release tomorrow on parole one-third to half the inmate population of our federal penitentiaries and not a single additional criminal offence would take place while those inmates were on parole. It would be in that period of time while they are on parole that rehabilitation would work to the full. In 1956 we had eight federal penitentiaries; today we have approximately 35 to 40. I do not know the exact number. If we had spent even half of the millions and millions of dollars on parole and probation that we have poured into building bigger and more glamorous institutions, surely we would have done something more worth while and realized more of the benefits of rehabilitation than we have until now. We have to try to establish a relationship with outside voluntary private groups such as the St. Leonard Society, the X-Kalay Foundation in Vancouver and others of a similar nature which have worked wonders in the rehabilitative field in helping to get people back on the straight and narrow and off that merry-go-round which repeatedly puts them back into the penitentiary system.

I noted that a couple of weeks ago the minister appointed a working group. I gather that he has not yet named the personnel of that group. I wonder whether it will really be a worth-while functioning group because many studies and examinations have been made in the past of rehabilitation both in maximum security institutions and in other parts of the system. However, if the minister is going to proceed and really thinks it will be a worth-while working group that will come up with something valuable, I suggest he should appoint to that group some ex-convicts, people who have gone through the mill, who know what rehabilitation is all about and who have worked at it, people who, for instance, participate in organizations, such as the St. Leonard's Society and the X-Kalay Foundation, people such as Mr. Earl Allard who is associated with the X-Kalay Foundation and who could tell the minister and the government more about rehabilitation and the necessity for it than all the professional working groups one could find both in the Public Service and outside it.

We need to be concerned about the damage that was done, the loss of life and the injuries to individuals, all of which are important, but above all we need to take instances of this nature and look upon them as revolts against the judicial and penological systems and structures and learn by them to develop something beneficial and helpful in the future for the individual. Our concern must be with the salvation and rehabilitation of the

individual, and that will not be achieved by constructing bigger, more elaborate and more modern buildings and the like. We have had riots in the past and undoubtedly we will have them again, but I think our best guarantee of keeping riots to a minimum is to treat inmates as human beings and to work for their salvation and not for the continuance of an antiquated penological system which brings about frustration and riots.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   KINGSTON-STATEMENT BY SOLICITOR GENERAL ON RIOT
Permalink
SC

André-Gilles Fortin

Social Credit

Mr. Andre Forlin (Lolbiniere):

Mr. Speaker, we wish first to thank the officials of the Kingston penitentiary and each member of the citizens committee for their efficiency in seeking an immediate solution to last week's disorders and for remaining calm despite the seriousness of the situation.

Mr. Speaker, this was certainly not an easy situation and the deeper causes of the problem which created this unrest in the Kingston penitentiary baffle us, at least from the minister's statement. Be it as it may, the government certainly acted in good faith and we are willing to commend it.

But there is one point that I should like to raise immediately, namely the fact that one inmate was killed and several others injured, and that hostages were held by inmates, the Canadian Armed Forces were called in and damages amounting to thousands of dollars were caused to the premises.

Mr. Speaker, this is violence and as far as we are concerned, violence cannot be accepted under any circumstances. It is hard to justify an act of violence so long as there is a chance of a dialogue between the differing parties. I wonder whether the federal authorities responsible for penitentiaries across Canada could have avoided this riot through frequent and regular contact with penitentiary officials, and representatives from the inmates and the general public.

In his statement the minister repeatedly said that the government intends to undertake a thorough reform in this field provided that they can get the co-operation of the public, of the inmates and of the authorities concerned.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt the government can depend on the support and co-operation of the people, of all those concerned or skilled in this field. There is no doubt, the most interested of all, the inmates, those who can be recuperated or rehabilitated, are ready to co-operate in order to improve the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the government has made all the necessary efforts to promote continuous consideration-not only at a critical time,-of problems that could be foreseen. Violence should never be allowed, and the troubles that occurred in Kingston are most regrettable and sadden all Canadians, particularly in the case of the dead and injured inmates and in respect of the damages that have thus been done.

Mr. Speaker, if on one hand, violence cannot be approved, on the other, we can ask ourselves to what extent the methods put forward by the government will be effective, especially the establishment of a work group

April 19, 1971

which will file a report and a board of inquiry on the troubles which we have just known. We ask ourselves if those studies coming after hundreds of others on the Canadian penal system will really be effective.

There has been violence in Kingston and there has also been violence elsewhere in Canada. Quebec experienced a crisis which was no laughing matter, and in any event we must ask ourselves a basic question.

The disorders at Kingston penitentiary are putting hon. members and the Canadian people right at the heart of the problem, namely what are our objectives.

Our first goal is to reduce crime in Canada. Year after year the crime rate is on the increase. The government has abolished capital punishment on the ground that it would reduce crime. In my opinion, the initiative has been a total failure, and I wonder whether the disorders at Kingston penitentiary do not once again revive the advisability of re-establishing capital punishment, not for the inmates who organized the riot, as we should thank them rather for having provided the opportunity to discuss again the advisability of restoring capital punishment.

Mr. Speaker, in a country we can succeed in bringing about respect for authority only if we deserve it. In creating an economic, political and social climate where each individual can achieve fulfilment in freedom and security, crime can be reduced. If an effort is made to bring back the prisoners to a normal life through an efficient rehabilitation system adapted to each individual, we can hope to insure order.

Under our present penitentiary system, dangerous criminals and milder types, are thrown together, which does not improve the situation of either one.

Mr. Speaker, the government is indefinitely postponing a complete overhaul of the Canadian penitentiary system, alleging lack of funds. There as elsewhere, the reason for our failure to take action, for our apathy, is again, it must be recognized, lack of funds. When-and it is with that question that I want to close my remarks-when will we finally make up our minds to finance not only peace, but also respect for the individual, in order that each Canadian citizen may be given every opportunity for fulfilment in freedom and security. Every individual, whether free or incarcerated, is a human being, and nothing should be left undone for his welfare. To this end, we must resort to financial means other than those the government now uses since no price is too high for healthy and normal fulfilment of human beings.

Mr. Speaker, that is why, in spite of the minister's promises, which only appease us for the time being, we hope that from now on he will agree to carry out a thorough overhaul of our penitentiary system and will not hesitate to make money available for human beings and to finance their security and freedom, giving each one an opportunity to return to normal life or, if has so deserved, to be punished accordingly.

Revised Statutes of Canada

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   KINGSTON-STATEMENT BY SOLICITOR GENERAL ON RIOT
Permalink

REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA

TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER

LIB

John Napier Turner (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, it is with much pleasure, and a sense of achievement on the part of the department and of the commissioners, that I am able to announce that the Statute Roll for the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, has been deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Turner (Oitawa-Carleton):

This revision will be the fifth revision of the federal public general statutes, and the fourth in this century. Earlier revisions were those of 1886 begun in Sir John A. Macdonald's administration, 1906, 1927 and 1952.

With the consent of the House I wish to table the seven volumes of the 1970 revision and the first supplementary volume that contain a consolidation of current federal statutes that were passed by Parliament prior to October 7, 1970. A second supplementary volume is in the course of preparation and will contain the amendments made in the present session to the statutes in the revision. An appendix volume containing constitutional legislation and documents will complete the ten volume set.

I might say that when the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, are proclaimed in force the proclamation will have the effect of repealing those public general statutes on the statute books that are included in the revision and replacing them by the statutes in the revision. The Revised Statutes do not operate as new laws but are to be construed and have effect as a consolidation and as declaratory of the law as contained in the statutes and parts so repealed for which the Revised Statutes are substituted.

There is, however, a technical repeal and replacement brought about by the revision, and this aspect of the revision caused the Revision Commission to omit that part of Chapter 44 of the Statutes of Canada that is entitled the Canadian Bill of Rights from the revision, and to include it in the appendix volume where constitutional acts and documents are contained. The result is that the Canadian Bill of Rights may be cited still as the Statutes of Canada, 1960, Chapter 44, as it is not repealed and replaced by inclusion in the revision. Because of the nature of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the wide circulation it has received, it seemed desirable that it should retain its original form and chapter designation.

In addition to the bound volumes I also wish to table, with the consent of the House, and for the first time in the history of the Canadian Parliament, the revision in the form of magnetic tape containing the machine-readable database used in the production of the revision.

An initial decision by the Commission was to prepare the revision by utilizing data processing and photocomposition techniques rather conventional printing meth-

April 19, 1971

Revised Statutes of Canada

ods. This decision required the development oi a software system that would support an automated, bilingual page format. The Revised Statutes, 1970 as tabled, represent a "first" for Canada. To the best of our knowledge, no other country has produced statutory material in this manner in a two-language page format, lining up marginal notes and columns of type automatically. Because of the uniqueness of the revision in this respect, Canada has been asked to provide magnetic tape of its Criminal Code for a demonstration of legal information retrieval at the next combined World Peace Through Law Conference and World Assembly of Judges to be held later this year in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

The decision to use computers has resulted in the production of a machine-readable database of about 40 million characters containing the current public general statutes of Canada. This database will support information retrieval programs and will be the base for the development, now under way, of computer assisted drafting, editing and publication of laws system, the acronym for which is CADEPOL. The machine-readable magnetic tape provides a flexible storage medium from which it will be possible to update and reproduce statutory text. Thus, subsequent revisions of the Canadian statutes can be prepared more rapidly in the future.

Heretofore, the only way to store statutory text in a flexible form was by the costly and cumbersome method of holding vast quantities of lead type, which was rarely undertaken by any jurisdiction. The long delays involved in typesetting in the conventional manner can now be avoided in the case of future consolidations of the federal statutes.

I should add that the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, represent the culmination of a challenging and imaginative program undertaken by the Statute Revision Commission, and I draw the attention of hon. members of the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the members of that commission, and to the presence in the ladies gallery of a few of the great number of people whose combined efforts, co-operation and dedication have made the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, the achievement that it is.

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Turner (Oliawa-Carleton):

The commissioners and staff of the Statute Revision Commission have received the full co-operation of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. Many of the innovative techniques used in the production of the revision were developed by the printing bureau, and on behalf of the commission I extend sincere thanks for a job well done.

The Revised Statutes tabled today will not have the force of law until proclamation by Order in Council at a later date. Distribution of this revision will begin almost immediately, and members of the public will have an opportunity to inspect the revision before it comes into force.

Finally, I wish to table a short history of the Statute Revision Commission which outlines in brief the work of the commission from its appointment in 1965, as well as a copy of the report of the commission to His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada.

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Peace River I should indicate to the minister and to the House that I have serious reservations as to the authority which the minister has to table-as he says in his own words-"for the first time in the history of the Canadian parliament" a magnetic tape of deliberations. My recollection is that some years ago when a motion for the production of such documents was made by the then hon. member for Pontiac a ruling was sought from the Chair, and the ruling was that under our existing Standing Orders there is no authority for seeking from the government the tabling and the submission of such documents.

I again say that in this case this tape should be accepted only with reservations, and if it is done now hon. members on the treasury benches should not complain in future if a motion is made by other hon. members seeking permission or seeking authority for an order of the House for the tabling of documents other than what have been interpreted in the past as being documents that can be tabled under the terms of Standing Order 41(1).

All this having been said, it is obvious that the House is master of its own rules and can accept the tabling of any document, whether it is a magnetic tape or any other kind of tape. Subject to those reservations I would seek the authority of the House to accept for tabling the documents to which the minister has alluded, including the magnetic tape. Is this agreed?

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Turner (Ollawa-Carleion):

On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, after visibly having produced the tape-

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Has it a cable licence?

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):

It is for public use only-I shall accept the reservations put to me by the Chair. We will keep the tape of the consolidation in the government printing bureau, but I hope the House will accept the tabling of the statutes.

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Is it so agreed?

Topic:   REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Subtopic:   TABLING OF 1970 REVISION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink

April 19, 1971