1966-05-18

CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Auguste Choquelte (Lolbiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-184, to amend the Criminal Code (right to counsel).
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, one of the sponsors of the Bill of Rights, Hon. Noel Dorion, expressed recently a few reservations with regard to the effectiveness of that bill in practice. The purpose of this bill is to remedy a situation. Too many police officers violate the Bill of Rights every day; too many police officers treat prisoners like dirt.
Consequently, the object of this bill is to make it a criminal offence for a police officer or any law officer to refuse a prisoner the right to call his lawyer.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since 1960, what sum did the government award each year to assist African and Asiatic French speaking countries and how much was spent each year?
2.	With reference to help to such countries, did the province of Quebec make any special requests and if so, what were they?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Under procedures worked out with recipient governments Canada allocates annually to each eligible country or region a portion of the aid funds voted by parliament. As soon as arrangements are worked out for the effective utilization of these allocations, funds are committed to specific projects which have been requested
by developing countries. Expenditures occur only when all arrangements have been completed for the execution of the project; the funds are voted on a non-lapsing basis in order to overcome any problems occasioned by the time lag between commitment and disbursement. The annual allocations, commitments and expenditures to French-speaking countries are as follows:
	(Million	$)	
Fiscal	Alloca-	Commit-	Expendi-Year	tions	ments	tures1961-62	.619	.392	.3921962-63	1.900	1.851	1.8511963-64	.926	.922	.9221964-65	4.678	3.921	1.9211965-66	8.988	6.364	4.062
In addition $2,194 million has recently been committed to the Nam Ngum Hydro-Electric project as part of the Mekong River Development The French speaking States of Asia will be the principal beneficiaries.
2.	No.


VIOLATION OF 12 MILE FISHING LIMIT
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 770, what, if any, action was taken in respect of each of those violations where fishing was being carried out?
2.	What action, if any, was taken in respect of other ships listed as being in violation of the 12-mile limit?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. The vessels fishing, on warning, hauled their gear and proceeded seaward.
2.	Vessels not fishing were instructed to proceed outside of the Canadian fishing zone and complied or left of their own volition upon sighting patrol units.


LORD'S DAY ACT AMENDMENT
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Does the government intend, in consultation with provincial authorities, to review and suitably revise the Lord's Day Act with a view to having it reflect present day conditions and to remove obvious anomalies?
2.	If so, how soon may this revision be expected?

May 18, 1966
Questions


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: 1 and 2. Not at present.


HIT AND RUN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS
Mr. Forest: 1.	Since 1960, how many hit and run car accidents have occurred each year in (a) Canada (b) the province of Quebec (c) Montreal?
2.	How many people have been (a) killed (b) wounded in the places mentioned in part 1 above during that period?
3.	What has been the average number of sentences in relation to the total number of such accidents reported during that period?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: 1 am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Justice as follows:
1.	and 2. Data relating to hit and run accidents are not reported statistically. However, under the uniform crime reporting program, which was implemented in January 1962, police report the number of offences of failing to stop at the scene of an accident for which data are available for 1962-64. Information is not available for 1960, 1961 and 1965.
Failing to stop at scene of accident offences reported by the police, 1962-64.
1962	1963	1964	No.	No.	No.	Canada	19,822	23,602	28,685	Province of	Quebec 6,889	7,898	10,091	Montreal	4,058	4,500	6,308	Number of persons killed or injured	in traffic accidents as	reported by	the police under the uniform crime	reporting program,	1962-1964	Killed	Injured	1962	1963	1964 1962	1963	1964No.	No.	No. No.	No.	No.Canada	4,020	4,261	4,690 106,746	121,989	135,264Province of Quebec	1,265	1,352	1,487 31,627	37,550	40,105Montreal	132	143	158 11,787	14,473	15,0413.	The prosecution of such offences is a provincial matter and no records are kept in the Department of Justice.


INDIAN STUDENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Indian children at present attend elementary schools, and how many attend secondary schools?
2.	How many of the children attending elementary and secondary schools are attending schools which are (a) purely Indian (b) integrated?
3.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending elementary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population attending elementary schools?
4.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population attending secondary schools?
5.	How many Indian students at present are attending universities or other advanced educational institutions?
[Mr. McQuaid.l


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Elementary schools, 49,407; Secondary schools, 5,509; Grade unknown, 6,479; Total, 61,395.
The 6,479 students for whom grades are unknown represent the children who are living off reserve and attending provincial schools and for whom details are not available.
2.	(a) In schools operated by Indian affairs branch, 32,040. (b) In integrated schools, 29,355.
3.	Percentage of Indian students attending elementary schools, 90 per cent. Percentage of school population in Canada attending elementary schools, 74 per cent.
4.	Percentage of Indian students attending secondary schools, 10 per cent. Percentage of school population in Canada attending secondary schools, 26 per cent.
5.	173.
May 18. 1966

Questions


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION OUTLETS
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	In what Canadian cities does the government operate commercial outlets for Canadian government publications?
2.	When was each opened?
3.	What has been the operating revenue from each?
4.	Does the government intend to open other outlets and, if so (a) in what Canadian centres (b) when?
3. Bookshop	1960-61	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	*1965-66$	$	$	$	$	$Ottawa	45,877	75,684	87,319	113,671	133,339	118,174Toronto	n/a	84,922	112,798	115,113	147,853	138,616Montreal	n/a	n/a	128,450	144,227	191,629	154,334Vancouver	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	2,216	69,463Winnipeg	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	9,082	32,7135.	Have any of the outlets made a profit since they have been opened and (a) if so, which ones (b) if not, what has been the operating deficit of each outlet?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver.
2. Ottawa 1959, Toronto 1960, Montreal 1961, Winnipeg and Vancouver 1965.
* Figures up to the end of February 1966 only.
4. Yes. (a) Halifax;		(b) autumn	1966.
5. (a)			
Bookshop	1963-64	1964-65	*1965-66Ottawa	$31,675	$27,175	$26,230Toronto	37,490	46,791	44,950Montreal	48,265	57,740	42,100Vancouver	n/a	-	5,126Winnipeg	n/a	-	-(b)	Bookshop	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66Ottawa	-	-	-Toronto	-	-	-Montreal	-	-	-Vancouver	n/a	$19,787	-Winnipeg	n/a	17,633	$4,079
* Figures up to the end of February 1966 only.
Note: Profit or loss figures for years prior to 1963-64 not available.


BUTTER SERVED WITH AIR CANADA MEALS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Does Air Canada use imported butter on the Halifax to Bermuda and West Indies route when serving in-flight meals?
2.	If so (a) what brands are served and from what countries are they obtained (b) what is the reason for not using Canadian butter on these flights?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. The butter served on Air Canada's Halifax-Bermuda
and West Indies route is Canadian butter. However, the caterer supplying the meals for northbound flights from the Caribbean to Halifax uses butter from Australia.


ARMED FORCES STATISTICS
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many persons are enlisted in the three armed forces of Canada (a) army (b) navy (c) air force?
2.	What is the maintenance cost of these persons (a) for one day (b) for one year?
3.	How many Canadian servicemen are on military service outside Canada?
4.	Where are they stationed?
5.	How many servicemen are there in each place?
6.	What amounts is the government of Canada required to pay per year for the maintenance of these forces in all the places outside Canada?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2.
Strength as of Maintenance Costs
31 March 1966	Per Day	Per Annum(a)	43,914	$706,000	$257,690,000(b)	18,439	296,000	108,200,000(c)	45,114	725,000	264,730,0003,	4 and 5. 15,497 as follows: Australia, 4; Belgium, 46; Bermuda, 33; Britain, 371; Cyprus, 940; Czechoslovakia, 2; Egypt, 859; France, 2,383; Germany, 9,671; Ghana, 19; India, 1; India Pakistan, 82; Indo China, 69; Israel, 3; Italy, 91; Japan, 2; Korea, 2; Netherlands, 2; Nigeria, 2; Palestine, 21; Poland,
May 18. 1966
Questions
4; Russia, 8; Sweden, 4; Tanzania, 53; Turkey, 6; U.S.A., 817; Yugoslavia, 2.
6.	$106,190,000.
The above estimated cost figures include military pay and applicable allowances plus the cost of rations, clothing, travel, medical and dental care, as well as the government contribution to the Canadian Forces Pension Fund.


JEEPS AND TRUCKS, CANADIAN ARMY
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many (a) jeeps (b) trucks in good service order are owned by the Canadian army?
2.	How many of these jeeps and trucks are (a) on Canadian territory (b) in foreign countries (c) in each of these foreign countries?
3.	During the last three years, how many of these vehicles (a) in service in Canada (b) in service outside Canada, were considered unserviceable and rejected by the military authorities?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. As of 31 March, 1966, the Canadian Army had (a) 2,728 jeeps; (b) 15,815 other types of trucks.
2.	(a) 2,139 jeeps, 14,150 other types of trucks; (b) 589 jeeps, 1,665 other types of trucks; (c) Germany 477, Cyprus 112 jeeps; Germany 1,615, Cyprus 46 and Britain 4 other types of trucks.
3.	None of the above have been declared unserviceable or rejected but during the past three years the following unserviceable vehicles have been turned over to CADC for
disposal.	1963	1964	1965(a)	546	1,314	862(b)	39	67	113[English]


HIRING OF TEACHERS OF FRENCH
Mr. Martin (Timmins): Is the government hiring teachers of the French language and if so, (a) what qualifications are required (b) when could they start (c) where must an application form be filed (d) who hires the teachers (e) are these teachers on contract (yearly or otherwise) (f) what is the salary schedule (g) are there other fringe benefits?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. (a) Minimum-bachelor's degree in arts or education, and two years of experience in the teaching of a second language. Perfect

fluency in French is essential; (b) Teachers recruited now are expected to start in August 1966; (c) With the Civil Service Commission in Ottawa; (d) The Civil Service Commission; (e) No. They are employed as civil servants but their work schedules during the academic years are designed to reflect as closely as possible the arrangements usually found in similar educational institutions outside the public service; (f) Language officer 1, $5,821 to $9,700; $5,996 to $9,991 (eff. July 1, 1966); Language officer 2, $7,956 to $11,600; $8,195 to $11,948 (eff. July 1, 1966); (g) Language officers are entitled to all fringe benefits accorded civil servants such as a pension plan, optional group medical insurance, vacation, sick, retiring, special leave, etc., as well as financial assistance and the opportunity, during the summer months to improve their professional skills by attendance at universities or other institutions.


AIR CANADA PURCHASES OF FLIGHT SIMULATORS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	How many flight simulators has Air Canada purchased in each of the past five years?
2.	Of these, how many were purchased (a) in Canada (b) from foreign countries?
3.	What was the total cost in foreign exchange for all purchases relating to part 2 (b) above?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advise as follows: 1. Only one flight simulator was purchased by Air Canada during the past five years, to be delivered in May 1966.
2.	The successful bidder, who submitted the lowest tender, was Redifon Canada, although the simulator is being manufactured in England by Redifon Ltd.
3.	The total cost, including federal and provincial taxes, is approximately $1,085,000, all of which is payable in Canadian currency.


HALIFAX AIRPORT
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the airport operated by the Department of Transport in Halifax county an international terminal?
2.	What standards of service are considered by the government as being acceptable to international air carriers at our international airports?
3.	Does Halifax fully meet such standards at all times?
4.	If not, in respect to what services does it fail and why?
May 18, 1966


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2.	Standards of service to meet the general operational requirements of the international carriers using the airport.
3.	Yes.
4.	N/A.


INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS, HALIFAX AIRPORT
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	During the past four to six weeks have at least three international flights decided against using Halifax airport because of inadequate services which would result in undue delays and, if so (a) has the government been advised of this (b) what action, if any, was taken to correct this situation (c) what action, if any, is planned?
2.	What is the total charge for fuel, food, servicing and landing fees for (a) a routine stopover (b) an overnight stopover at Halifax airport by such an international flight?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. No known international flights have decided against using Halifax airport within the past four to six weeks because of inadequate services which would result in undue delays.
2. The Canadian landing fee for a transoceanic DC-8 flight at any airport is $400. Overnight parking for the same aircraft would be $21. Charges for food, fuel, aircraft servicing and overnight accommodation would be a matter between the air lines concerned and the companies or agencies providing such service rather than the department.


STEPS TO FIGHT POVERTY
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Are any measures at present being taken by the government to fight poverty in Canada and, if so, what are those measures?
2.	Does the government intend to take any further measures in the next eight months to fight poverty in Canada and, if so, what are those measures?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The federal government is now implementing some far-reaching measures to fight poverty in Canada through several government agencies. Those programs aimed at alleviating misery or at increasing opportunities in the economic field, include a number of measures dealing with health and welfare as well as the training
Questions
of manpower, incentives to industry, low-priced housing and the development of rural areas.
2. The government will continue to take steps to alleviate poverty by its own means and in co-operation with the provincial governments. The bill providing for the establishment of the Company of Young Canadians has already been introduced in the House of Commons and the Canada Assistance Plan will follow shortly. The adoption of other measures will be announced as the decisions are taken.
[Englishl


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES ON CAMPING GROUNDS
Mr. Caron: How much money has the federal government spent in each of the ten provinces with regard to camping grounds and trailer parks?


Arthur Laing: 1. The federal government has expended the amounts indicated below under: (a) national parks, (b) trans-Canada highway camp ground and picnic areas program, (c) winter works camp grounds-picnic areas program: Newfoundland, $886,271; Prince Edward Island, $1,236,086; Nova Scotia, $1,951,045; New Brunswick, $1,477,614; Quebec, $38,828; Ontario, $4,064,512; Manitoba, $1,950,099; Saskatchewan, $1,490,057; Alberta, $3,934,122; British Columbia, $4,022,226.


QUEBEC-REFUSAL OF FEDERAL GRANTS FOR CAMPING GROUNDS
Mr. Caron: Has the province of Quebec refused grants from the federal government for camping grounds and trailer parks?


Arthur Laing: There are no national parks in the province of Quebec but funds have been applied for and granted to Quebec for camp grounds and trailer parks under the winter works camp grounds-picnic areas program.


TITLE OF PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Allard: In its communications with the government of Newfoundland, does the federal government refer to the province of Newfoundland or to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Questions

May 18, 1966


John Ross Matheson: When it refers to the government of Newfoundland, the federal government is usually guided by the provisions of the Agreement signed by Canada and Newfoundland on December 11, 1948.
[English1


WATER POLLUTION, BAY OF CHALEUR
Mr. Douglas: 1.	With reference to the investigations being conducted by the Department of Fisheries, the fisheries research board, and the New Brunswick water authority mentioned in the answer to question 721, when did these studies start?
2.	When are these reports expected to be completed and will they be made public?
3.	Is the government of Quebec or any of its agencies involved in scientific studies with the federal Department of Fisheries or the fisheries research board regarding potential pollution of the salt water of Bay Chaleur and, if so, what agency or agencies are involved in such studies?
4.	Has it been established whether or not trace amounts of zinc and copper ions in salt water will have the same fatal effect on salmon and other fish as zinc and copper ions have in fresh water?
5.	When will the various elements of the Belle-dune smelter complex go on stream?
6.	How many gallons of water per day will the Belledune smelter complex use when in full production and what will be the discharge rate of polluted water into Bay Chaleur in gallons per day?
7.	Has the Department of Fisheries set a pollution level for water being emptied into Bay Chaleur and, if so, what is the level that has been established?
8.	Was any consideration given to the discharge of effluents from the Belledune smelter complex into the open water off Shippegan and Miscou Islands?
9.	Has any consideration been given by the Department of Fisheries to the establishment of a salt water pollution committee in the Bay Chaleur area?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Studies were started following a meeting in December, 1963, between the company and the New Brunswick water authority.
2.	The completion date cannot yet be determined. The reports will be technical and confidential, and it is not proposed that they be published.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	The department has been informed that the smelter may commence production this summer. Plans for other components are not known.
6.	Provision is made for up to 14.4 million gallons per day of fresh water to serve the ultimate development, including townsite. The smelter will use some fresh water and some salt water for cooling; water contaminated by metals will be recirculated; waste water from gas scrubbers will be neutralized before discharge.
7.	No.
8.	No.
9.	No.


NIGHT TRAIN SERVICE, MONTREAL-QUEBEC
Mr. Mongrain: Has the Department of Transport been asked to restore the night train between Montreal and Quebec in view of Expo '67 and, if so (a) by whom (b) what response has been given or will be given?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No.


FEDERAL BUILDING SITE, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have negotiations been completed as to the site of the new federal building which is to be constructed at Amherst, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) what site has been selected (b) from whom was the property purchased (c) what was the amount paid in each instance?
2.	If negotiations have not been completed yet, when is it expected that they will be completed and are alternate sites being considered?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No. (a), (b) and (c), not applicable.
2. Negotiations for the site now under consideration may be completed in about three months.


EMBARGO ON COPPER EXPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,477
Mr. Mongrain:: 1.	Has the government received lately any representations about the scrap copper shortage and suggestions that the embargo on this scrap should be extended to the United States?
2.	If so, is the government considering thus extending the embargo.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes.
2. After consideration of all the relevant factors and after examination of the situation with the Industry Advisory Committee, it is

May 18, 1966

considered that in present circumstances Canada's interests would be best served by keeping the border free of control.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Bower: 1.	How many conferences between dominion and provincial representative authorities have been convened and held, year by year, since 1939?
2.	What was the nature and purpose of each of said conferences?
Return tabled.


GROUP TRIPS TO EXPO '67
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	Is the government planning to organize group trips to Expo '67 from across Canada?
2.	If so, how many groups will be making these trips and what transportation facilities will be used?
3.	Is the government encouraging private organizations such as service clubs to make group trips to Expo '67?
Return tabled.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, starred question No. 998, standing in my name, has been on the order paper since March 7. It is a simple request for information, and I wonder when I can expect an answer to it from the Secretary of State.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question No. 980 also has been on the order paper since March 7. Considerable interest has developed around this question, and I am wondering what is the difficulty in obtaining an answer.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, in looking at these questions I can see no reason that either of them should not be answered. I will give an undertaking that they will be answered one week from today, or else.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, at the same time, I would like to ask the Secretary of State to take into consideration question No. 1,158 which has been on the order paper for two months and to which an answer could be readily given.
Motions for Papers
The Secretary of State might also agree to the same thing with regard to that question as to the previous one. It is question No. 1,158.
[English1


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, question No. 1,158 requests a considerable amount of information and it would seem that it might take some length of time to answer it.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, on this same point of delay in answering questions, I should like the Secretary of State to look at question No. 1,402 which has been on the order paper for a considerable period. In view of what the Russian wheat sales mean to the economy of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and in view of the fact that the question merely requires a yes or no answer, I am sure the government should be able to give an answer without delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, while we are on this subject, I do not wish to rush anything but I asked for production of papers last session-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for papers Nos. 120 and 127 are acceptable to the government subject to the reservations concerning confidential requests and the authorization of the province of Ontario.
Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notices of motions Nos. 21, 120, 124, and 128?
I ask that other notices of motions be allowed to stand.



MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE-LAW SOCIETY STATEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Cowan:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the statement prepared by the Benchers of the Upper Canada Law Society respecting Mr. Justice Leo Landreville of the Ontario Supreme Court.
[Stage Direction]
May 18. 1966
Motions for Papers
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think within the past two weeks the subject matter of this motion has been decided on by the house. I would respectfully submit that the motion is not now receivable by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



FATHER MOSS SCHOOL, SIOUX NARROWS, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 120-Mr. Reid:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the correspondence between the federal government and the government of the province of Ontario, and between individuals and organizations in the district of Kenora, and elsewhere, concerning the Father Moss school at Sioux Narrows, Ontario.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 120 be agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
CONSTRUCTION OF "LA GRANDE HERMINE" Motion No. 124-Mr. Keays:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any communications exchanged between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or the minister or any official thereof, and the centennial commission or the authorities of Expo '67 or any other person with reference to the construction of "La Grande Hermine".
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion asks for the production of certain papers exchanged between my department and the centennial commission or the authorities of Expo '67. I am informed that in accordance with parliamentary usage these are privileged and confidential papers and therefore should not be tabled. There is, however, some correspondence which we could table, and if the hon. gentleman would accept my assurance that as far as we can go the correspondence will be tabled, we will accept it on that basis.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I accept the suggestion of the minister, and I trust that all the information which I seek will be made available.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations specified by the hon. member, is it agreed that this motion is acceptable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

1972 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES Motion No. 127-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any communications between the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Canadian Audubon Society, the National and Provincial Parks Association, or any other group or individuals, concerning the staging of the 1972 winter Olympics in Banff national park.
Motion agreed to.
SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Motion No. 128-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any communication exchanged between the maritime trustees, or other organizations and other persons, and the Minister of Labour or any official of the Department of Labour, with respect to the seafarers' international union.
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisler of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, reference is made in this notice of motion to communications exchanged between the maritime trustees or other organizations and other persons and the Minister of Labour or officials of the Department of Labour. I have had occasion to look into this matter at some length in connection with this notice of motion and two others which have appeared on the order paper this session, and I have come to the conclusion that communications between the maritime trustees and the Minister of Labour or the department are confidential because they relate largely to work done by the trustees in their positions of trust. They also involve communications in which legal opinions were requested.
Any arguments that could be advanced in favour of or against the production of these communications were advanced in connection with motion No. 9, which was disposed of by a vote last week. I presume that technically the hon. member may be entitled to communications between other organizations.
[Editor's note: At this point a loud explosion was heard in the chamber.]
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that technically some of the communications between other organizations, the Minister of Labour and the department may be producible, but I assure the hon. gentleman that they would be of no great interest, because I doubt if these are the documents that I am sure he has in mind. In view of those facts and the previous two hour and 40 minute debate which took place on this subject matter on another analogous motion, perhaps the hon. member would consider withdrawing the motion.
May 18, 1866


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unique reply of the minister as compared to what he has said on other occasions, perhaps this motion could stand until I consider his suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion should stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will inform the house as to the purpose of the intended visit of the deputy prime minister of South Viet Nam to Ottawa and-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a question of privilege to indicate that a page boy has just come in with a request that all the doctors in the house now go outside, as their services are needed immediately.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: They have gone.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister say whether this visit has anything to do with negotiations regarding the situation in Viet Nam, or will he indicate the reason for this visit?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has suggested that I might deal with this question. Mr. Bui Diem had intended to come here as a member of the South Vietnamese delegation to the world veterans conference held in Canada recently. Something happened with regard to his arrangements and he could not come to the conference. He has indicated that he would like to come next week, and I have told him I would be very glad to see him.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there any particular subject to be discussed or is this just a visit on the part of this gentleman, without any political connotations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope that when he does come we will have an opportunity to exchange views, but what precisely he has in mind I am not aware.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE


MEDICARE-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the statement he made yesterday with respect to the commencing date of July 1, 1967, for a medicare program. I believe this statement reflects great credit on the minister and his colleagues, and I am sure it will be a source of great encouragement to all people in Canada who have been anxious to see a medicare program undertaken.
Can the minister give the house any clear idea as to when the legislation for this program will be introduced? Will it be this session, and if so will it be this summer or this fall? Has the minister any clear idea of the approximate date when it will be submitted to the house?	.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping and planning to have the legislation brought before the house certainly before any summer recess.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the minister's statement yesterday regarding medical training and medical research, which would be provided for under the health resources fund, I would ask the minister whether provision for this fund will be included in the medicare legislation, or will separate legislation be introduced for this purpose?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is expected and planned to have a separate piece of legislation covering the health resources fund, and I hope it will be possible for the house to deal with the three major social security measures at about the same time, namely the Canada Assistance Plan, medicare and the health resources fund.


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It has been a little difficult to hear in the chamber and my question may have been covered. If so, I apologize; but in case it has not, may I ask the minister, with respect to his statement of yesterday, what further discussions are arranged or intended with the provinces with a view to obtaining their consent or expression of opinion with regard to the implementation of the medicare program by July 1, 1967.

May 18, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no further formal discussions are planned at the present time. At the last conference of ministers held in January, four provinces gave a clear indication, as I recollect, of their intention to be ready on July 1, 1967. Since then several provinces, through statements made in provincial legislatures, have indicated their intention to proceed by that date. As I recollect, only two or three provinces at present have not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister, but there are so many conversations in the house that it is very difficult for the Chair, and I am sure for hon. members, to follow either the questions or the replies which are being made. I ask the co-operation of hon. members to concentrate on the question period.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think much of the conversation-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may complete my reply.


John George Diefenbaker: -would be cleared up if the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the minister had not completed his reply.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I just complete my reply to the hon. gentleman by saying that there remain several provinces which have not given any indication, to my knowledge, either in the legislature or elsewhere, as to their intentions. But I hope the advance notice given yesterday will enable all provinces to be in a better position to plan their future course of action.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Has the government of Quebec or its representative stated at that meeting in January on the health insurance scheme the position of the province, at the time, and has the Quebec government since then communicated a different attitude on this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At the general meeting the representative of the province of Quebec, the minister of health, expressed a favourable view on this matter. I understand that any

final communication to the federal government was pending a study to be made at the session of the Quebec legislature.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: The minister mentioned the beginning of the summer recess. Does he mean that he expects this house and the other house will have considered and dealt with the government proposals, including any possible public hearings, by that time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with respect to these social security measures I hope the house will be able to deal with them before the summer recess.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I was
going to ask, Mr. Speaker, if the proposed legislation will provide that Alberta or any other province which does not desire to enter this scheme will be able to opt out of it without any financial loss.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There will be no provision in the legislation for that contingency, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the questions which are being asked now are of an argumentative nature and are not in order at this time.


DEATH OF MAN IN BOMB EXPLOSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the conversation in the chamber is the current report that someone has just passed away within the precincts of the House of Commons. I suggest to the Prime Minister, and I do so in the desire the house should not be carrying on under these circumstances, that it might be worth considering that this house should adjourn.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: It appears that there was a bomb explosion in the washroom at this end of the third floor and that a man has been killed, under circumstances which are not yet quite clear. There has been a good deal of damage done to the washroom and a certain amount of confusion is natural. Perhaps my right hon. friend's suggestion should be adopted and the house could adjourn until four o'clock, when the situation will be cleared up and we can resume.
May 18, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house suspend its sittings until four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 3.05 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 4 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The house will now resume the business interrupted at 3.05 p.m.


Frank Howard: It may be
early to ask for a report, but I wonder if the Solicitor General could report upon or comment about the events which happened just prior to the adjournment?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: have no statement to make at this time, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the R.C.M.P. and the Ottawa city police are co-operating in this.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the hon. Secretary of State. I wish to direct it now to the Minister of Public Works because he is at hand. Can the minister explain why the lowest bid with respect to the centre for the performing arts was some $23 million more than the original cost agreed to by the government when the project was originally conceived?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me, from the way the question is asked, that the hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion. The question cannot be accepted in that form.


Robert Norman Thompson: As a supplementary question, and rephrasing the question I previously asked, may I ask the minister why the bid opened today was nearly $32 million, as compared with the original $9 million?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That kind of question cannot be accepted. It may be that the minister wishes to make a statement for the benefit of the. house; but certainly, a question such as this cannot be accepted.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister if this is a fact?
DEBATES	5269
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a fact. The premise on which the hon. member has put the questions he has been attempting to ask is not right. The figure of the low bid is correct. The bids are being checked through now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works.
Is it true that only a few designated contractors could submit tenders and that public tenders were not called in connection with the construction of the building?


George James McIlraith: There was a call from a selected list of contractors, 31 of which were indicated as capable under what is known in the construction industry as prequalification, which list was worked out by the Canadian Construction Association in conjunction with the federal authorities. All these contractors who were thought to be of a size, with the necessary organization to do that scale of job, were invited to qualify. From my recollection, and I am answering this question without notice having been given there were some 31 contractors originally asked if they were interested and capable of qualifying. When it came down to the time when the bids were finally called there were some five or six bids put in.
I can get precise information on that whole subject. If hon. members wish to formulate their questions and give me notice, I would be very glad to give any information I could on the subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the bids, were they sealed, and were they publicly opened?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question

May 18, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I realize that my question may have been answered before the sitting was suspended but in the confusion it was difficult to hear what was being said.
My question is with respect to the medicare and health resources fund legislation. Did the minister say that it was the government's intention simply to get that legislation before the house before a summer break, or is it the government's hope that we shall get it passed before we break for a summer recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We hope to get it passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say by what date he plans to have these items of legislation on the order paper?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had previous experience with the hon. gentleman with respect to deadlines. I do not intend to fall into that same trap today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do hope to proceed as quickly as possible with the matter, and certainly within some weeks.


Mr. Starr:: You will probably filibuster it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that was before an hour had seven days.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? I would like him to pay a little attention to it. Besides, I asked the Minister of Labour the same question yesterday.
In view of the numerous applications which we are getting from students looking for summer work, has the minister issued any directives to the officials of the employment offices to work actively in order to find jobs for students during the holidays?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, no special directives have been issued this year. The employment offices look after finding jobs for students because they are asked to.

Now, as far as the government here is concerned, the Civil Service Commission looks after that, and that is all the information I can give the hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister?
In view of the fact that foreign labour will come over to help pick the fruit crop in southwestern Ontario and that we are getting applications from students to do that kind of work, would the minister be in a position to tell us if his department will take steps to help our students work at picking the fruit crop.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member states that students are ready to help pick the fruit and vegetable crop, I would like him to assure me that he is making more than a general statement.


David Réal Caouette: Then, if I send the minister the letters I am getting, I am sure he will take care of them.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafffey (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask him whether officials from the state of New York are meeting with officials of the National Research Council in order to arrange for cooperation with Canada in the building and production of a prototype safety car.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question be placed upon the order paper.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport a question dealing with a letter I have just received from the vice president of the C.N.R. about the signalling courses.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us if it is true that there is no French translation of the manual used by the C.N.R. to give the signalling courses?
May 18. 1966	COMMONS
Will the minister take the necessary action so that bilingualism will be respected within that crown corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question should be put on the order paper.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I ask that this question be discussed at ten o'clock.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It stems from a report published recently in the newspaper La Terre de Chez Nous.
Could the minister tell us to whom the 6 million pounds of butter stored in the Montreal shed which was burned down recently were being sent?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest, if I may, that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: Ten o'clock.


NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 9, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Tucker in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to give effect to term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada and to pay to the province, out of the consolidated revenue fund, in the fiscal year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1967 and in each and every fiscal year thereafter, an annual amount, by way of additional financial assistance as contemplated by term 29, of eight million dollars.
Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Chairman, by the terms of the resolution we are presently considering we are asked to give our approval to the introduction of a measure giving effect to term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada and, in accordance with those terms, to pay to that province the sum of $8 million each year by way of additional assistance out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
I favour the resolution and I shall vote for it. It will be the statutory implementation of
DEBATES	5271
Newfoundland Terms of Union a portion of the understanding by which Newfoundland became the tenth province of Canada. Coming as I do from one of the Atlantic provinces and in view of the fact that the province of Newfoundland is one of the others, I have no hesitation in saying that I have a special personal interest in any statute designed to benefit any province in that group.
Having a special interest, I can say to the house that I remember well the feeling of satisfaction which we in New Brunswick had when the Terms of Union with Newfoundland were arrived at in the year 1949, even though we constituted the opposition party in the New Brunswick legislature. It was our feeling at that time-and subsequent events have proved we were right-that the entry of Newfoundland into Canada was going to be of special benefit to the provinces on the Atlantic seaboard, which up to that time had been known as the maritime provinces and which, with the entry of Newfoundland into the confederation, became known more properly as the Atlantic provinces.
After 1952, when we were favoured with a greater degree of responsibility in New Brunswick than previously, we frequently became associated on an official, personal and, I believe, friendly basis with Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland and members of his cabinet. Our relationship was on a most cordial basis and we found ourselves willing and anxious to work together with Premier Smallwood as well as with the other premiers of the Atlantic provinces.
I learned from Premier Smallwood at first hand the importance he attached to term 29 and it is of more than passing interest that the commission which was appointed as a result of term 29 was headed by the chief justice of New Brunswick, Hon. J. B. McNair. I am not sure when the commission was appointed, but I do not believe they had reported or, at least, that any action had been taken on their report, prior to the change in government here in Ottawa which took place in 1957. The Minister of Transport has quoted the recommendation of the royal commission in his speech recorded in Hansard on page 4917, and it reads as follows:
Accordingly we recommend additional financial assistance as follows:
(d)	for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1960, $8 million less the transitional grant of $350,000,
(e)	thereafter $8 million per annum
Since the Minister of Transport has quoted term 29, I do not propose to weary the house by quoting it again, but I think it should be
May 18, 1966

Newfoundland Terms of Union mentioned that this royal commission was set up for the purpose of determining what had been the result of Newfoundland's becoming a province of Canada, to review the financial position of the province of Newfoundland and to recommend the form and scale of additional financial assistance which would enable it to continue public services at the levels and standards reached subsequent to the date of union, without resorting to taxation more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I believe the grants under this award have been paid to Newfoundland since the date mentioned, April 1, 1960.
I could recite the many times the government of New Brunswick came to Ottawa between the years 1952 and 1957 with a request for special financial assistance in the form of special adjustment grants. I see no reason for doing so at the moment. It was a source of great satisfaction to all of us, and this certainly includes the premier of Newfoundland, when the government of Canada led by my right hon. leader, after it assumed office in 1957, decided to make available to the Atlantic provinces the sum of $25 million per year beginning in the year 1958, I believe, and passed the necessary statute authorizing payment of same.
I am sure it is of some interest to the house to know how such an amount was divided among the four Atlantic provinces. We were told at that time that our financial advisers in each province should get together and agree on an acceptable distribution. They met in Halifax and spent several days discussing the matter. I naturally received frequent reports of their deliberations and the points raised by representatives of all the provinces. Out of those discussions came a recommendation to their respective governments that the $25 million per year special adjustment grants be made to the Atlantic provinces on the basis of $7,500,000 each to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and $2,500,000 to the province of Prince Edward Island.
This is the basis on which the amounts were finally awarded and this arrangement continued for a period of four years. In the year 1962, the special adjustments grants were increased by the government of that day by $10 million, and the increased amount has, of course, been continued by the present government. It is of interest to know that the total amount since that date has been $35

million per year divided on the basis of $10,500,000 each to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and $3,500,000 to Prince Edward Island. It was always my opinion, and I have expressed it publicly, that the action of the province of Nova Scotia in agreeing to this percentage division was extremely generous in view of their larger population. I still think this is true, and I repeat those words today.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The premier of Newfoundland was very conscious and appreciative of the special adjustment grants passed by the Conservative government in 1957. He said so to me on many occasions. I also was very pleased with them. I still am, and I expect to continue to be. So, we find the request of the government of Newfoundland that legislation be passed by which the terms of union shall be met. It is transmitted to this house in the name of the Prime Minister, and obviously it is the wish of the government to comply with it.
It has been said in this debate previously that we are quite prepared to pass the resolution, and then the bill will be before us in all its detail. Our party is prepared to agree to what in this particular matter the province of Newfoundland considers to be in its own best interest. It is on this basis that these remarks are made.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the resolution we have before us provides for the payment of an annual grant of $8 million as financial assistance to the province of Newfoundland. We have no objection to helping provinces who need assistance. But while a decision is being made on the amount to be awarded to Newfoundland, the federal government should remedy an abnormal situation which exists in that province: It is that, with the assistance of the Privy Council in London, Newfoundland has succeeded in stealing part of the territory of Quebec, namely Labrador.
Mr. Chairman, if we are to shower gifts upon Newfoundland, the Canadian government should begin by seeing to it that something belonging to Quebec is returned to Quebec. I see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is smiling, but I believe if he were to look into the manner in which this decision has been rendered and interpreted, he would realize that it is highly irregular and involves serious inequities.
Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec has previously laid claim to such part of the
May 18, 1986	COMMONS
territory as belongs to it and which does not belong to Newfoundland. The federal government should take the measures required to correct the situation and return what belongs to Quebec.
It is not my intention to say more. Before voting $8 million to Newfoundland, I ask the government to return Labrador to Quebec. We do not oppose aid to Newfoundland.


The Deputy Chairman:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I should have done so earlier. The hon. member is not speaking on the subject matter of the resolution and I would ask him to confine his remarks to the subject of the resolution.


Gilles Grégoire: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I am giving the reasons why I am objecting to this. When we are called on to cast a vote, we are entitled to give our reasons why we vote as we do. If we object to a gift of $8 million being made to Newfoundland, it is not for objection's sake, it is because we object to taking from the taxes of the people of Quebec an $8 million gift to turn over to a province that has stolen a part of our territory. On this point, I am perfectly in order. I shall record my total opposition to such an $8 million gift as long as the province of Newfoundland shall withhold this territory.
[English1


Maurice Rinfret: Is the hon. member for St. John's East rising on a point of order?


Mr. O'Keefe:: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is that it is scarcely parliamentary for an hon. member to suggest the word stolen in connection with the award made by the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in Canada and in the British Empire.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: The reason put forward is that the province of Quebec has been deprived of part of its territory, with the complicity of the Privy Council in London.


Maurice Rinfret: I ask the member for Lapointe to confine his remarks to the contents of the resolution before us. I ask him to do his utmost to relate his remarks to the resolution and not to another problem which may exist at the present time but which does not concern the resolution before the committee.
DEBATES	5273
Newfoundland Terms of Union


Gilles Grégoire: I will simply specify the reason why I object to it. Let the province of Newfoundland come back on the right track and restore to others what it took from them and we will not object to the request for $8 million.
As long as Newfoundland keeps a territory which does not belong to it, I will object to charity being made to those who stole part of the territory, of the wealth belonging to the province of Quebec. That may not suit everyone. Then let us read again the award made and the way it was interpreted, and at that time, the province of Quebec-
[English1


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that bringing Labrador back to Canada was one of the many gifts Newfoundland brought to Canada, not Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it was not
given back to the province of Quebec even though the latter was entitled thereto and we object-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: I am pleased to note that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) agrees with me. As will be reported in Hansard, he said "hear, hear". I would like him to express his opinion on this matter.


Mr. Pepin:: He put forth the same argument three times. We had understood.


Gilles Grégoire: Do you accept?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, we had understood.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the minister afraid to speak his mind? He is afraid to do so because he knows that our present demands-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I must rise on a question of privilege.
I abide by judicial decisions; I feel the only way to challenge a judicial decision is before a court of justice.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Are there any courts of justice in Canada? They are courts of injustice.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks, by saying that we object to granting $8 million out of Quebec taxes to those who stole part of our territory.
5274	COMMONS
Newfoundland Terms of Union lEnglishl


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton for the statement which he made outlining the situation as he sees it, with Newfoundland as part of the Atlantic provinces and their vital connection with Canada.
I also appreciate his own experience in these things because I do not have first hand knowledge of how these things came to pass. But there is one thing which concerns me, and that is the perpetuity aspect of this legislation.
As I interpret it, the decision we are being asked to make is to last forever, somewhat like as long as the sun shines, the rain falls and the grass grows. If the decision was recommended in the first instance by the royal commission, then why was it that when the original legislation was passed, I think in 1961, it had a limited term of five years, now necessitating further consideration of it?


Mr. Pickersgill:: If I might be permitted to answer that question, Mr. Chairman. There was a controversy about that question, in the house at that time, and those of us who now occupy the treasury benches took very strong exception to the course that was taken at that time because we maintained that the McNair award was part of the terms of union, was part of confederation itself, just as every Albertan maintains that the transfer of resources, in 1930, from federal to provincial jurisdiction was part of confederation so far as Alberta is concerned.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
That is precisely the reason we take the view that this should be permanent and why I welcome so warmly the words of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton today. I had hoped that, in this house now, everyone would agree that this award was a part of the terms of union, a part of confederation, and that we all could agree unitedly to give recognition to what every Newfoundlander and I hope most other Canadians, would feel was part of the constitution of Canada. That is the reason I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman, who said at the beginning of his remarks that he had nothing to do with these earlier transactions, for giving me the opportunity to make this explanation.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I make one further statement, Mr. Chairman, relating to the answer. I have read these recommendations of the royal commission, and although I am only
tMr. Gregoire.J
DEBATES	May 18. 1966
an observer I do not gather that their recommendations were to go on in perpetuity. The reference to natural resources I think is quite another thing, because that did not include Alberta alone but rather related to every province including Newfoundland; at least it has come to be recognized as such by all the provinces, including Newfoundland.
It seems to me, however, that the value of the dollar depreciates and $8 million may not be adequate in the future because $8 million today is not equivalent to $8 million in 1949. Furthermore, there may come a day when, with the tremendous resources which exist in Newfoundland, that province may be the most wealthy province in Canada. It seems to me that an indefinite period or perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years would be more in line with what I interpret to be the recommendation of the royal commission. To one who is not personally familiar with the matter and who was not present at the time of union or at the time when the recommendation of the royal commission resulted in the legislation which set this for a five year period, it seems strange that this thing should go on, just as the treaties signed with the Indians, for years and years and forever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a few words in appreciation of what has been said. Without entering into any controversial matter, I think I should like to say there was one word used by the hon. member for Lapointe which I do not think should be left on the record without a correction. This is not suggested as aid or as a payment because of need; this is a statutory subsidy, just like the statutory subsidies which were in the original act of confederation and those which were revised in 1906. I say this to meet the point of the hon. member for Red Deer, because I think all of us who represent Newfoundland would have wished that the royal commission report might have suggested escalation, but it did not. All those constitutional subsidies are in dollars and their value has fallen; but that is just one of the facts of the constitution. I should not like anyone to think this is charity when in fact it is justice according to the constitution.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say on this, but I intend to be as brief as I can. To begin with, I should like to say that I approve wholeheartedly of the resolution as far as it goes, as does everyone in this party. A great obligation rests equally on both parties in respect of Newfoundland's
May 18, 1966

joining confederation, because agreement was arrived at by Canada on the one hand and an independent colony on the other. This agreement is part of the terms under which they decided to join Canada. Of course there is a moral obligation which rests on the federal government to make certain there is the same equality of opportunity to Canadians everywhere in Canada.
In that context Newfoundlanders are now Canadians and are deserving not only of the letter of the terms of the agreement by which they joined confederation, but also the spirit of the agreement as well.
I believe it should be remembered that Newfoundland at the time it joined confederation in many respects was in an unfavourable position compared to the standards to which other Canadians had been accustomed for many years. Newfoundland was lacking in what we might call-to use that terrible word -infrastructure; it lacked colleges, schools, roads, harbour facilities, and many other things which had been built up in Canada ever since 1867. There was a good deal of catching up to be done. For a number of years after the original confederation there was a portfolio in the government called the secretary of state for the provinces. When Newfoundland joined confederation I regret that that portfolio was not revived for a few years. I believe we should have had a secretary of state for Newfoundland to integrate and bring up to date all of the things which had to be done with regard to Newfoundland, so that it could have all the privileges and standards which existed in the rest of Canada.
I do not wish to leave the impression that this is a one-way bargain. I think that in the rest of Canada it is not fully recognized that not only was the entry of Newfoundland into confederation a good thing for Newfoundland, but also an excellent thing for Canada. I do not think this has been appreciated sufficiently in the rest of Canada. Newfoundland provides a market for a great range of manufactured goods. These goods are exported from the older part of Canada to Newfoundland. On the other hand, nearly everything Newfoundland produces and sells, such as fish-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And newsprint.


John Angus MacLean: -newsprint, pulp and paper products, and minerals, it has to export to foreign countries. Newfoundland contributes a great deal to our balance of payments situation. The obligation of course is a moral
Newfoundland Terms of Union one, and I am delighted to see any/steps taken which will make it as permanent/ as possible. As has already been pointed out; however, any legislation we pass in j this house, theoretically at least, could bW repealed by some future parliament; we cannot bind future parliaments.
It is the principle of the moral obligation which we must recognize as hieing permanent so long as Canada exists as /a nation and so long as Newfoundland exists/ as a province of that nation. There is a danger, however, I think when we try to make the obligation permanent in a legal sense. I believe there is a danger that we may detract from the spirit of the agreement. In 1957 the royal commission recommended that for the first year $6.4 million be paid. The next amount was $6.95 million, then $7.3 million, then $7.65 million, and finally from the fiscal year 1961-62 and thereafter $8 million a year.
I do not believe we should think that the commission was able to look into the future and come up with a magic figure. I think the problem facing the royal commission was that they could make a reasonable assessment for the first few years, but after that they could not say what the appropriate amount should be.
o (4:40 p.m.)
They picked the arbitrary figure of $8 million. I think this implies that there should be a review of this matter. As has already been pointed out the value of $8 million in terms of the economic situation in 1957 was much greater than now. In view of the fact that this is a permanent type of agreement any amount fixed at any time will have a different value when compared to different economic situations which normally occur. This is true when the value of the dollar increases or decreases.
For these reasons I sincerely recommend to the Minister of Transport that he and the government give consideration to the suggestion that the spirit of the recommendation made in 1957 be followed by raising the amount from $8 million to $10 million in order that the real value intended can be given to this program at this time. I am sure if the minister will move such an amendment hon. members on this side of the house will support it.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I return to my original suggestion. I do not disagree with the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, but would it not be better to
5276	COMMONS
Newfoundland Terms of Union have a periodic review made of the amount to be paid, because even though $10 million may now be of the same value as $8 million was in 1957, it will be of more or less value in 1975? I cannot understand why this agreement was not made in a more effective way when the legislation was first passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, much as I would like to accept the seductive suggestions put forward by the hon. members for Queens and Red Deer, it would be impossible to do so because this would require a message from the crown. We should remember that we are trying to carry out the Terms of Union which, in my view, are related to statutory subsidies. As a representative of a Newfoundland riding I should be delighted if we could get some special acceleration for that province, not given to Prince Edward Island; but if I were a Prince Edward Islander I would have some doubt about its fairness.
There might have been a lot to be said, perhaps, for having acceleration provisions included in the constitution, but such provisions were not included in 1867 or in 1948. That result has been effected through tax sharing and equalization payments, rather than in the constitution. In my thinking this is a fair way of dealing with this kind of problem.
At the risk of seeming to suggest that less should be given Newfoundland than hon. gentlemen opposite have suggested, I am going to say that I believe that Newfoundlanders are asking only for justice. I believe they are asking for a strict adherence to the constitutional agreement of 1948 rather than for favours. They believe, being part of Canada, that the constitution must be adhered to and, in addition, as the hon. member for Queens put it so well, that they should be given an opportunity, like all other Canadians, to share in the advantages of living in this wonderful country. I believe that all Newfoundlanders, with few exceptions, are proud to belong to this country.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill (for ihe Prime Minister)
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-185, to give effect to term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the first time.
(Mr. Thompson.]
DEBATES	May 18, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since the bill is practically in the same terms as the resolution I am wondering whether there might be a disposition in the house to give it second reading at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, normally I would respond to the blandishments of the minister, but some of us would like to give further consideration to that clause having to do with the fact that the bill cannot be amended except under certain conditions. Because of that constitutional point, I think we should have an opportunity of seeing the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the bill contains nothing of that sort, but I think the hon. member's request is reasonable.


VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING
Jean Marchand: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting allowances to persons being trained under technical and vocational training programs, and to authorize the entering into agreements with the provinces in connection therewith; and to provide further for certain changes incidental thereto in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it is a great honour for me to bring before the house this resolution preceding a bill to increase training allowances for unemployed workers and certain other classes of workers.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that our modern industrial society is very pleased with the improvements in industrial production techniques, which result in a greatly increased productivity and in the enrichment of society as a whole.
However, we must keep in mind that in this process of improving production techniques, some people are affected; this means that workers who have been trained for an industry or techniques which are now obsolete, find themselves, sometimes at an early age, without jobs and facing an indefinite unemployment.
May 18, 1966



The resolution introduces a measure which concerns the crucial problem of the retraining and further training of our labour force. As the Economic Council of Canada has pointed out, there is a need for a major effort to improve the skills of existing members of the labour force, and one of the reasons why existing training programs have not been used to a greater extent is the inadequacy of present training allowances. The measure with which this resolution is concerned is intended, among other things, to assist provincial governments to remedy this defect.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I think it is impossible to overemphasize the importance of training in today's rapidly changing world. Many of us know from our own experience and that of an increasing number of others that our skills and knowledge can quickly become out of date. New situations and new needs almost constantly test our ability to adapt and adjust in the dynamic working world of today.
Many people have enough basic education and broad skills to be able to meet these challenges, but a distressing proportion of adults in this country do not, and so become unemployed or are threatened with the loss of their job. There is another important aspect to this urgent problem. The Economic Council of Canada has documented very fully the training gap which exists in Canada as compared to the United States, and has shown its influence on income levels in the two countries. This training gap must be narrowed if we are to achieve our own goals of economic and social development and if the qualifications of those now in the labour force are to catch up with the needs of tomorrow's employment.
We will not solve these problems unless the community as a whole takes a new attitude toward the importance of training. We all have to recognize that rapid change and growth must lead us to regard training as a normal and productive part of people's working lives. When we all recognize this, we will have gone a long way toward overcoming the inhibitions of those who have the least selfconfidence and the greatest need for training. We must therefore raise the status of training. There are many factors that influence status, but certainly pay is one of the most important. That basic fact is recognized in the measure proposed in this resolution. In
23033-334 i
Vocational and Technical Training effect it equates training with work rather than with unemployment and welfare.
The essential purpose of the proposal is to break the connection between training and unemployment. Up to now, unemployed workers who went into training courses have continued to receive unemployment insurance benefits during training. These benefits are deducted from the training allowances otherwise provided, so that the allowances are in effect merely a supplement.
Thus people up to now have had to use up their unemployment insurance protection while in training. On occasion, if they cannot obtain a job immediately after completing their course, they find themselves with no benefit at all or with their protection greatly reduced. They may find themselves worse off than if they had not taken training but had stayed inactive for a time and then got a job. I believe this is wrong. It treats training as equivalent to unemployment rather than to work. It penalizes a person for taking training, whereas we should offer him an incentive. It lowers, instead of raising, the whole status of training.
The measure proposed in this resolution breaks the dependence of training on unemployment insurance. It provides that any unemployed worker who enters a training course covered by a federal-provincial agreement will be entitled to a training allowance and will retain intact his unemployment insurance benefit and contribution rights. When he leaves such a training course, he will have exactly the same amount of unemployment insurance protection as when he entered, even if the training course is as long as two years in duration.
Hitherto the incomes of people in training have come partly from unemployment insurance, if they were entitled to such benefits, and partly from training allowances. The benefits are financed from the federal unemployment insurance fund. The allowances are paid by provincial governments but the federal government reimburses 90 per cent of the expenditure.
Obviously this financial system has to be changed when the connection between training and unemployment insurance is severed. The proposed measure will in effect substitute for unemployment insurance a basic training allowance for which the federal government will reimburse the provinces 100 per cent. The amount of this proposed basic allowance will be $35 a week. In effect, since training courses are normally 35 hours a
5278	COMMONS
Vocational and Technical Training week, it is a minimum rate of a dollar an hour for training. It replaces unemployment insurance for trainees. It will be available to people in training courses if they have previously been unemployed or if they are referred to training courses when they have previously been self-employed in primary industries such as farming, fishing or logging. In addition, the federal government will continue to reimburse the provinces for 90 per cent of training allowances in excess of the basic $35 a week.
The amount of these additional allowances is a matter for each province to decide in accordance with its own needs, wage levels and priorities. The rules governing the supplementary allowances will therefore be determined in the agreements negotiated with each province. We propose to fix a maximum supplementary allowance of $55 a week, which with the basic $35 would mean a total allowance of $90 a week.
At the federal-provincial conference at which we discussed this matter last January, there was general agreement among provincial ministers as to the desirability of increasing the level of allowances. We anticipate that the maximum total allowance of $90 a week will be paid to trainees with a number of dependants living in the relatively high-wage areas of the country. Lower scales will be provided where wage levels are lower, and there will probably also be variations according to whether the trainee lives at home or has to be away in order to attend his training course.
In negotiating the agreements with us, each province will be able to decide whether its needs are best met by a uniform scale of allowances for the province or, as may be the case in the larger provinces particularly, by regional variations in the scales. We will be willing to support any reasonable system providing variations according to family circumstances and living costs, provided the total allowance is never less than the basic $35 and that the supplement in which we share does not exceed a maximum of a further $55 a week. This flexibility means that it will be possible for the total allowances everywhere to accord to training the importance it deserves without, however, being distorted in relation to wage levels in different areas.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As was made public at the time, we discussed the outline of these proposals with provincial ministers last January, and my
[Mr. Marchand.l
DEBATES	May 18, 1966
officials have had further discussions with their officers over recent weeks. All provinces are in sympathy with this measure.
I would like to summarize, then, what this measure is intended to do. It will make possible substantially increased training allowances for unemployed workers and for self-employed people who are under-employed in the primary industries. It will provide a basic training allowance of $35 a week for everybody in this category, the cost of which the federal government will bear completely. It will provide additional allowances as deemed appropriate by the provinces, of which the federal government will pay 90 per cent to an agreed maximum amount. It will preserve the unemployment insurance rights of workers during the training period. It will thus break the identification of training with unemployment. It will recognize the status that training ought to have in our contemporary industrial world.
In short, I feel that this proposal will be a significant help in giving training the importance it ought to have, in response to the needs of modern technology and the requirements of a modern economy. Most important of all, it will give individual workers the encouragement and the practical opportunity of upgrading their basic knowledge, of replacing obsolete skills, and of strengthening existing qualifications. Higher incomes and better working careers will be the result for the individual, while greater economic and social growth will be the result for the nation.
We have many other tasks to accomplish, but this measure will carry us forward to an important degree toward our goal of developing and fully utilizing the great human resources of our country.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It is my duty to interrupt these proceedings so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now proceed with the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion and public bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The first notice of motion on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, is in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and both she and the parliamentary secretary who would respond to it
May 18, 1966

would like it to stand over. I wonder if the house would consent that this be done and that this motion be treated as though it had not been called?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of an early amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada making it an offence, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, to in Canada manufacture or distribute or be in possession of motor vehicle master key sets, or import the same into Canada, save by the manufacturer or the assembler of the said motor vehicles or by such person or persons duly authorized by the said manufacturer or assembler.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of my motion this afternoon is not exactly world shattering. I suggest, however, that the impact on the population of Canada of what I am trying to get at could be very great. We all know that every year thousands of motor vehicles are stolen from the streets, from garages, some to reappear but many to disappear forever. The loss to private individuals, corporations and the insurance companies with whom the owners of these motor vehicles have theft insurance mounts into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions every year.
What I am trying to do is to prevent at least a portion of this loss as a result of what is now being introduced into Canada, to which the general public has access, so that we can cut down on these occurrences. I am not holding any brief at all for the motorist who is foolish enough to leave his car parked on the street or in an unlocked garage with the keys in the ignition. He is inviting trouble. Nor is what I am going to suggest going to guard against the man who is going to break into a vehicle and either use a steel wire or some other form of contact with the ignition to get the car going. What I am getting at is something that has come to the attention of Chambers of Commerce, the Association of Chiefs of Police of Canada and to the All Canada Insurance Federation as a result of advertising which has appeared in eastern Canada.
Actually, these advertisements were brought to the attention of my correspondent by the Better Business Bureau of Edmonton.
Criminal Code
I am referring to advertisements which have appeared in the cheaper type of pulp magazines and publications. I have a photostat copy of an advertisement which appeared in a United States publication, but in actual fact the Canadian operation is merely that of a distributorship. In any event, this advertisement reads as follows:
Attention: Auto dealers, police agencies, locksmiths, banks and finance companies, wreckers and body shops, hardware and parts companies, collection agencies, parking garages, towing garages, etc. Need master keys?
Keys to fit all Fords, Lincolns, Mercuries, $3.
Keys to fit all Ramblers and Americans, $2.
Keys to fit all Chevies, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Cadillacs and Buicks, $3.
Keys to fit all Plymouths, Chryslers, DeSotos, Dodges, $3.
$11 total buys all four sets postpaid.
There is an address given in Florida. The advertisement in the Canadian publication is headed up as follows:
Master key sets.
A priceless addition to the tools used in the automobile business. In the next year if you lose one sale over lost or misplaced keys, they will have paid for themselves many times over.
This is the first Canadian supplier selling key sets, hence no duty to pay or customs brokerage.
Three keys to open all Ford Motor Company products, $5.
The price has gone up in Canada.
Three keys to open all Ramblers and Americans,

Three keys to open all Chrysler Motor Company products. $5.
Six keys to open all General Motors Company products, $5.
Keys will operate ignition on most cars and trucks now in existence.
Special, if you buy all four sets pay only $15.
Ontario residents please add 3 per cent sales tax. [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
These sets are available, through an outlet which I will not name, in Oshawa, Ontario. At the bottom of the advertisement are these words:	"We do not sell to individuals".
However, Mr. Speaker, the employees of All Canada Insurance Federation had no difficulty in obtaining key sets, as individuals, from this source. Other persons have also obtained key sets.
I now wish to read from an article appearing in the Vancouver Province of January 5, 1966. It says:
A one-man operation in eastern Canada which offers a legalized, if unwitting, aid to car thieves, has no parallel in Vancouver as far as police are aware.

May 18. 1866
Criminal Code
But detectives here said Tuesday they are certainly interested in the business in Oshawa, Ont., that offers a set of master keys to unlock and start all North American-made cars for $15.
The report further says:
"We had a flood of literature here on the west coast about a similar sort of operation based on Florida." said a spokesman for Vancouver city police stolen auto squad.
"Since then we have been in touch with police in Florida and have quietly investigated the matter".
My reason in bringing this resolution forward has to do with the inquiry made by the Association of Police Chiefs in Canada of the postal authorities of Canada as to whether there is any way of stopping the distribution of these key sets. The association feared that the investment of $15 needed to buy these key sets would yield handsome dividends to even a minor car theft ring.
We all know that those who wish to steal a car have to do a number of things to it before they steal it. Time is taken by a person endeavouring to get in a car, in tinkering with it. During that time he may be discovered. But if one is in possession of a master key set, and if he can go up to any Chevrolet, Pontiac or Chrysler or, in fact, any automobile made in North America, and just open the door and drive off, the chances of apprehension are exceedingly small. In addition, when the automobile later has to be disposed of there are no signs that the law has been broken; there are no signs of unlawful entry through the breaking of a small vent window, or of damage to the rubber alongside those windows.
My motion seeks to make the possession, manufacture or distribution of these key sets an offence under the Criminal Code. I have not mentioned what section shall be amended. I simply ask the government to consider the advisability of amending the code. In parenthesis, might I suggest that the sections of the code to be amended might be those dealing with the theft of motor vehicles, or those dealing with such offences as having in possession a motor vehicle without consent of the lawful owner.
What I am getting at is that it should be illegal and punishable both by fine and/or imprisonment to manufacture, distribute, or actually be in possession of a motor vehicle master key set, or to import the same into Canada, save by the manufacturer or the assembler of the said motor vehicle, or by such person or persons duly authorized by the said manufacturer or assembler to have those keys.

In any town or city of Canada police authorities ought to be in possession of a master key set to be used with respect to motor vehicles. For instance if a motorist is unfortunate enough to lose his keys, he might refer to the principal garage, or to the principal agency or police authority in the community and, after properly identifying himself to the representative of the garage, agency, or police authority, have his motor vehicle opened without the necessity of breaking the lock. After that he could either have a new key made, or have a new lock with keys furnished to him.
This sort of thing is permissible under the resolution. The persons helping the motorist would be those who are duly authorized to be in possession of key sets by the manufacturer or assembler. I do not want to make it more inconvenient for motorists to obtain lawfully duplicate keys to the locks of their cars, after they have lost the original keys. Nor do I want motorists to be put to the additional expense of having to break locks.
I am sure, having regard to the representations of the Better Business Bureaux, they would agree with the aims of the resolution. Certainly the All Canada Insurance Federation would agree with the aims of the resolution. I have correspondence from that body addressed to representatives of the insurance branch of the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, to this effect.
I have sought the opinion of the postal authorities with respect to these keys. Those authorities acknowledged that they had been approached by the Association of Police Chiefs, when the chiefs had their annual convention last year. The postal authorities informed the police chiefs that there was nothing illegal about the manufacture or distribution of key sets by individuals. Therefore the postal authorities could do nothing about controlling the distribution. On the other hand, if it were an offense under the Criminal Code to manufacture, distribute or import such key sets, or such master key sets, except where those actions were authorized by the manufacturer, assembler, or other persons authorized by such manufacturer or assembler, the postal authorities could stop the distribution.
It was pointed out that the key sets were advertised as being available on a C.O.D. basis. Therefore those sending the key sets were utilizing the mails for the transmission and distribution of such master key sets. I do not wish to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker.
May 18, 1966

While the subject matter I have spoken about for the last 15 minutes is not the most important subject matter in the ambit of government business, yet it is one of those matters with which we should concern ourselves. Suppression of these key sets will assist us in the maintenance of law and order. This resolution will not eliminate car thefts, but it will make it more difficult or, at least, it will not make it any easier, to steal cars if we can ban the indiscriminate sales of such master key sets.
I have no idea how many key sets have been sold. I have not had any indication from the police whether people they have apprehended in car thefts have been found in possession of such master key sets. That is immaterial. What we must do is stop dissemination of these sets from the very beginning. There is a legal use for such master key sets. Certainly, there is a much wider illegal use. It is against that illegal use that this resolution is aimed. I ask all hon. members in this house to support the resolution.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: The
resolution reads:
That, in the opinion oi this House, the government should consider the advisability of an early amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada making it an offense, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, to in Canada manufacture or distribute or be in possession of motor vehicle master key sets, or import the same into Canada, save by the manufacturer or the assembler of the said motor vehicles or by such person or persons duly authorized by the said manufacturer or assembler.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
On reading this resolution one could immediately come to the conclusion that the question is one capable of a simple remedy by merely amending the Criminal Code-that merely by amending the code the problem would be solved. Like all proposals of a remedial nature this sounds plausible until you come up against the difficulty of enforcing the law without undue hardship to a lot of other people.
I appreciate the intention of the hon. member who moved this motion; I am sure he is to be commended. But I wonder whether the resolution in its present form is really the answer. Nevertheless I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of parliament. It may have a salutary effect in the country when people hear about it. However, it seems to me that, as is the case when we consider the enforcement of automobile safety, this is a problem capable of no easy solution.
Criminal Code
I should like to point out that when 7 million cars are on the highways of Canada there are bound to be duplicate keys available to fit cars shipped to different parts of the country. Manufacturers do provide duplicate keys for automobiles. Moreover, there is no difficulty whatever in having such keys made by any locksmith or at any garage. To my knowledge automobile manufacturers do not produce motor vehicle master key sets. What they do manufacture are the keys that go with the car, and duplicates of the same. As a matter of fact, manufacturers make cars with locks which are exactly the same on a great number of vehicles shipped to different parts of Canada.
How likely is it that the prohibition of master keys by law would reduce the number of car thefts? The great majority of drivers today are careful. They are properly trained and capable of looking after their own vehicles. But some accidents do happen. Again, when one considers the number of vehicles on the road-7 millions on the highways of Canada-he can only expect that a great number of duplicate keys would be available to provide service for car owners.
It is true, as the hon. member pointed out, that many cars are stolen every year. But I would remind him that it is not necessary to have a key in order to steal a car. As a matter of record, the largest number of thefts of vehicles is accomplished without the aid of keys. You do not need a key in order to steal a car. All you need do is to pull out some of the ignition wires and join them together.
Duplicate keys are made available for the benefit of the automobile owner who happens to lose one. I dare say that there are many members of this house who at one time or another have lost a car key and found it necessary to go to a garage or to a locksmith to have a new one made. All that is required is a knowledge of the number stamped on each key. I honestly believe that before we embark on the introduction of an amendment to the Criminal Code to make it an offence to be in possession of a duplicate key or a master key, call it what you will, we should consider the difficulties which would be imposed on automobile owners should they happen to lose their own keys. I suggest that before we do anything rash we should give this question further consideration.
It is all very well to seek to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code covering various offences. But we should also be mindful of the way in which such amendments

May 18. 1866
Criminal Code
might conflict with the best interests of the majority of the people affected. As I say, I commend the mover of this motion, but as one who knows something about the automobile business-and I have been in this business for a great number of years-I cannot support the motion in its present form.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I am all for the protection of car owners, of course. I should like to see every thief who tries to steal a car put behind bars. I have seen a number of them and I have no brief for them at all. At the same time, let us be practical. I repeat, I admire the hon. member's regard for the welfare of automobile owners. Every time I hear someone speak on behalf of automobile owners my heart goes out to him, because for many years I made my living selling automobiles, and I still have a little interest in that business. Therefore I can say that, though I appreciate the intent of the motion, and commend the mover of it, nevertheless I would not be fair to myself, knowing something about the business, if I were to say that I support the motion in its present form.
1 hope the hon. member will have an opportunity to give this matter more serious consideration. If he does, in all probability he will come up with something which would be more in line with the reality of the situation with regard to the theft of automobiles. The best thing we can do at present is discuss the motion, and perhaps at a future date, following greater study of the case, we will be able to support it.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise this afternoon in support of the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), although I must admit that when first looking at the formidable preamble to the motion, it did not appear very interesting. Since I had some work to do in my office I was on my way out of the chamber, but I did catch some of the hon. member's remarks and they raised some very intriguing questions.
He has an excellent point when he indicates that some protection should be afforded the car owning public from this sort of advertising and the easy availability of keys of this type. I think the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), when he pointed out the difficulties that would be encountered by car owners, may have been overstating the case because we do have legislation at present whereby if you are caught in somebody's

house at one o'clock in the morning, with a jimmy in your hand, and you say you are there to look for termites, you wind up in the hoosegow. Therefore I think a great deal depends on where one is found with these instruments, and at what time he is caught.
Our laws are fairly reasonable, in the sense that it would be simple enough to determine whether these keys are in proper or improper hands. Naturally the hon. member for Fort William has a concern, because of his connection with the automobile business. I too have some concern, having latterly been in the laundromat business. The spectre of laundromat keys being easily obtained by every citizen in this country does not arouse any particular enthusiasm in my breast.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West at the conclusion of his statement, and I felt he was rather deprecating the importance of the issue he brought before us today because, just as the atom bomb indicated war was no longer safe with that type of weapon at the disposal of armies, the same thing applies when keys of this type are easily available. There does not seem to be much point in any of us bothering to lock our cars any more. The only solution may be to have a massive return to honesty.
However, I am quite serious in my support of the motion when I hear that such advertisements are permitted to be published in Canada, and that nobody takes a look at the implications of this type of advertising, the kind of thing it can lead to and the kind of encouragement it provides for those who already have sufficient inducement to break the law. For that reason it would be most valuable to pass this motion tonight, amending the Criminal Code to indicate that we do not approve of this type of material being made available to everyone although, as the motion points out, those who have a legitimate purpose for the possession of such keys would still be free to have them. I certainly commend this motion to all hon. members.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words on this resolution moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
When I saw this motion on the order paper I was amazed to find how easy it was to obtain means of trespassing on other people's property. Before reading this notice of motion, I did not know that master keys were available to anyone who wanted them.
May 18, 1966

I congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for putting this resolution before the house. I hope hon. members will accept the suggestion that this resolution be referred to a committee for consideration or actually passed in order to amend the Criminal Code to do away with this state of affairs. I do not believe it will solve all problems. There are many other ways to steal a car or rob somebody.
I own a car and I do not like to see anyone getting into it as easily as that. I also own a home, and I am pretty sure nobody here or elsewhere in Canada would want anyone to obtain keys and enter any house.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the motion moved by the member for Edmonton West should be considered and passed so as to correct a situation which unfortunately exists in Canada.


Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with other hon. members in commending the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for presenting this motion to amend the Criminal Code. As he explained, it is designed to prevent entry into locked vehicles and the theft of cars and trucks. On the surface such an amendment to the Criminal Code could be considered as a step toward making the committing of such crimes more difficult.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The question which arises in my mind, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), concerns the practical application of such an amendment and the enforcement of this addition to the Criminal Code. Also I think perhaps one point has been lost sight of and that is the original purpose for the designing, manufacturing and supplying of master key sets. Most certainly it never was set up to make it easy for car theft criminals to practise their nefarious occupation. This item was brought forward for a very practical use by those engaged in the manufacture, sale, repair, and servicing of cars and trucks.
In his amendment the hon. member has suggested that in addition to the manufacturer or assembler of motor vehicles being authorized to be in possession of master key sets, the authorization also would include-and it is a bit vague-such person or persons duly authorized by the said manufacturer or assembler. By coincidence I too have had some
Criminal Code
several years experience both at the manufacturing and retail end of the automobile business. I, perhaps, can give you some indication of the practical and quite legitimate use of master key sets by the people who are engaged in this type of business.
Most certainly it would be logical to extend permission and authorization for possession to such people as the authorized dealers throughout the country, of which there are several thousand. It would also be most logical to extend permission and authorization for possession of master key sets to all the service and repair garages throughout the country; it would be most logical to extend this type of authorization to service stations. You could add to that police officers and agencies engaged in the rental or leasing of vehicles, or those engaged in the legitimate sales occupation involved in the merchandising of used vehicles. These occupations all involve legitimate and practical application of master key sets.
Let me give you an example of what happens when one is engaged in a business which carries a stock of a wide diversity of makes, models, and years of cars and trucks. We have a tough climate in various parts of this country, where the weather gets very cold. In the business where such a stock is carried, each vehicle has to be started and operated every day to keep it in goood condition. This means that someone has to carry the keys to each individual vehicle in the process of going through a stock of 60, 70, or in some cases 100 or 150 cars in the course of a morning.
You can imagine the number of keys this person would have to carry with him were he not authorized to have master key sets. Of course this extends to all the other legitimate users such as authorized dealers, service stations, and all those engaged in the repair of automobiles and trucks. I do not think anyone would deny it would be legitimate to authorize these people to have key sets, and by the time you had added up the number of people who legally should be in possession of them, you would have literally thousands and thousands of agents and individuals throughout this country.
As the hon. member for Fort William pointed out, duplicate keys can be cut in several places in practically every town, village and city. They can be duplicated on machines which are quite inexpensive to obtain. I submit that the determined vehicle thief can find ways to steal vehicles without

May 18. 1966
Criminal Code
keys. He does not need door keys or ignition keys if he is determined to steal vehicles. Naturally any legislation which makes it more difficult to obtain master key sets also would inhibit such criminals to some degree; but nevertheless I think-and this is where the problem lies in the amendment-the law would be most difficult to enforce and it certainly would not be long before contraband duplicate master key sets could be obtained by anyone who seriously desired to obtain them.
For this reason, although the intent is most commendable, I really cannot see any benefit in this amendment in respect of preventing vehicle thefts by organized groups of professional criminals. Most certainly such people would have little or no difficulty in obtaining master key sets. Again, at first glance it would seem that it would make it much more difficult for the type of person who probably could be described as a casual, impulsive thief, and the danger of thefts by this type of person might be diminished. But how many vehicle thefts result from the use of master key sets; how many of these master key sets are or ever will be in the possession of the type of person who might be a casual thief? I submit that such determined types as those who now possess such keys still would find it possible, indeed quite easy, to obtain them.
I am all for any practical and enforceable law which will prevent crime. However, I am always a little concerned about the addition to existing laws or laws which are not practical and which perhaps are very difficult to enforce. I sincerely feel that this suggested amendment falls into that category. I believe it probably has a great deal more psychological than practical effect. Unfortunately, I feel I should bring to your attention also the tremendous inconvenience this would cause to those persons who are engaged in the manufacture, sale, repair and servicing of vehicles, who legitimately require these master key sets. In this connection I think I would have to describe it as being about ten pounds of prevention to provide half an ounce of cure.
Again I commend the hon. member for Edmonton West for the intent in his amendment, but in its present form I would find it difficult to support this motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. In his criticism of the motion he indicated that it would be rather difficult to prove that the possession of
[Mr. Andras.i
these keys was with the intent to commit a theft and that it is difficult to indicate how many cars would be stolen by the use of this type of master key set. Does the hon. member not realize that the Criminal Code contains provisions which prohibit the carrying of burglary tools. We do not know how many burglaries are going to be committed by the use of these tools, yet we still make it an offence to have burglary tools in one's possession.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Robert Knight Andras: I appreciate the comment of the hon. member for Edmonton West, but I think he has somewhat misconstrued my argument. I am saying simply that there are many legitimate agencies which should be authorized to have possession of master key sets, such as the authorized manufacturers, their dealers, the independent garages, repair garages, and so on, because their operation is so diversified that it is necessary to reduce the number of keys which they have to carry on any given occasion, which arises quite often. I extend that by saying that by the time one completed authorizing all the people who are entitled to possess such keys there would be thousands of keys issued throughout this country. I do not deny the implication that the effect of this motion would make the possession of keys by unauthorized persons an illegal act, but I simply say that it would be impractical to administer and enforce.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate, Mr. Speaker, and I have been impressed by the suggestions of the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) who preceded me in the debate. However, if this proposal were carried to an extreme I am sure it would result in the elimination of the use of the automobile. I must come to the conclusion that the intent of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), a westerner, is to render the automobile obsolete and restore horses to their proper place. I come to this conclusion since horses are synonymous with the west. This motion has obviously been devised on behalf of westerners in order to continue the role of horses.


An hon. Member:: There could be worse ambitions.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I agree that the notice of motion moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West-
May 18, 1966


Mr. Barnett:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am afraid time is too limited.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member relate his remarks as well to the restoration of the musical ride?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. The hon. member has not given his permission.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will agree and give permission, allowing the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: First the hon. member disagrees and then he agrees. I recognize the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to change my mind.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I thought I had asked the question. I wondered whether the hon. member would relate his remarks to the restoration of the R.C.M.P. musical ride.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is the reason behind the motion, because when the R.C.M.P. loses its horses the automobile will take over completely and we may not see horses in Canada again.
I agree with the spirit of the motion, but I believe the hon. member is too skilled a lawyer to intend to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code which could not be practical in application. I think basically that there is a flaw in the motion, as pointed out by the previous speaker, in that it is practically impossible to apply.
There are times when we all deplore the easy manner in which young people can steal automobiles. Every day we read statistics about this subject which point out that the greatest cause for automobile theft can be related to a habit common to most of us; that is, leaving our cars unlocked, even though we are only away for five or ten minutes. I am as guilty as anyone in this regard and have often locked my keys in my car. In order to get into the car I have imitated things I have seen on television and used a common clothes hanger, inserted through the side window, to open the door.
There is another difficulty which arises in respect of the issuing of master keys to authorized persons, and I have in mind service station operators and garage mechanics.
Criminal Code
These persons may leave their jobs and take these master keys with them. Under those circumstances, whose responsibility would it be to see that these keys were turned in? What would happen when an authorized person lost a master key and requested a new one? What would become of the key that was lost, or how would it be used by an individual who might find it lying on the street?
I think that by passing this motion we would add another cumbersome provision to the Criminal Code which would in a short time become superfluous, as many of the provisions are now. I believe the hon. member has accomplished his purpose in moving this motion by drawing attention to this flagrant type of advertisement that one reads in various periodicals.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o clock and put an end to the hon. member's agony.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I believe that by advertising for sale sets of master keys to automobiles, young people are encouraged to use their imagination and end up getting into trouble, simply because they have been taught an easy way of gaining access to automobiles to be used for joy rides.


An hon. Member:: Let us call it six o'clock.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton West does not regret that I am still speaking, although it is six o'clock, because he has accomplished what he set out to do. That is, he has pointed out the flagrant misuse of newspaper advertising by some people, through offering for sale master keys, and in this way placing an additional temptation before youngsters who may be inclined to steal cars for joy rides.


Michael Starr: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I appreciate the applause of the hon. member for Ontario, and I am sure he is a little wiser for having listened so attentively.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The hour allotted to private members' business has expired.
[English1



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the business of the house for tomorrow is as follows: on the assumption that

May 18, 1966
Business of the House
the bill relating to the implementation of term 29 of the agreement with Newfoundland will not take much time, we will proceed with it first, to be followed by a continuation of the debate on the resolution preceding the bill respecting allowances to persons being trained under technical and vocational training programs. If that is completed we will
then proceed with a consideration of the estimates of the Post Office Department and the Department of Defence Production, and then the estimates of the Department of Industry.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 19, 1966