1966-03-30

Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of privilege following information I received from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and future Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) and also following a question bearing no. 1,024 on the order paper and in the light of information given in sworn statements by some taxpayers living in two parishes among others which took advantage of the Winter Works Act to complete works paid for with money which the federal government had allocated for that purpose.
From 1961 to 1966 inclusive-the cost of works this year will reach approximately $194,000-complaints have been made to the effect that the municipalities were using funds supplied by the federal government -those which appear in the reply to the question whose number I have already given -to other purposes, so that it constituted a misappropriation of funds and even embezzlement.
Here is how it is done: cheques are given to people who have never worked; they are forced to endorse them and the municipal council takes them back. The individual has not worked but is registered in the books of the municipality as having worked at the rate prevailing in the region under the winter works program.
The same thing happened last year with regard to the construction of the new post office. It happened also with regard to the building materials. Some figures in the books are false according to affidavits to that effect.
In view of the answer given to my question where the last two paragraphs read as follows:
What are the names of the persons so employed during each of these winter seasons?
What amount has each individual received for the work performed each season during which he was employed?
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In view of the fact that, as a private member it is impossible to obtain that information-these are figures which appear in the books of the municipalities-I ask the government to audit the books of those municipalities or to send auditors to check all those facts.
Mr. Speaker, I would like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. For the information of the Chair, has the hon. member mentioned or stated the question of privilege he is planning to raise?


Raymond Langlois: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is to the effect that government funds are now used for purposes other than those for which they were allocated, through fraud and misrepresentations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must say right now that the hon. member gave me notice of the question of privilege he has just raised. Unfortunately, he failed to allow for the full hour required by the rules. However, I am ready to overlook that irregularity, since it is only a matter of a few minutes. However, I think I should consider the question of privilege on its merits. The hon. member is raising a point which, I think, is neither affecting the privileges of the House of Commons nor the privileges of the hon. member as such.
I would refer him to page 303 of Bourinot's fourth edition which I will quote in English as follows:

In the Canadian house, questions of privilege take a wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the house collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character.

As the hon. member knows, according to the practice of the house and under standing orders, the Speaker shall, after hearing the question of privilege of an hon. member, determine whether there really is a prima facie question of privilege.
I would refer the hon. member for Megantic to section 104, subsection (5) of

March 30, 1966
DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS ON EGGS Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as lows:
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
I am not sure whether this question is being raised at the earliest opportunity and, under the circumstances, this is difficult to ascertain.
In this particular case I do not see any breach of the hon. member's privileges or any breach of the house's privileges. That is why, under the circumstances, I cannot accept the question of the hon. member.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling and reserve the right to put the question later on in a way that will be acceptable.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the result of a number of requests from veteran members of the house it has been decided to refer the Hong Kong report to the standing committee on veterans affairs. If I may obtain unanimous consent of the house I am prepared to move the necessary motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That the subject matter of the report of a study of disabilities and problems of Hong Kong veterans, 1964-65, laid before this house on February 11, 1966, be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that the Agricultural Stabilization Board has been authorized to support the price of eggs by a deficiency payment program for the current twelve month period ending September 30, 1966. The support level is at the national average price of 34 cents per dozen for the first 4,000 dozen and 31 cents per dozen for the next 6,000 dozen grade A extra large, large and medium eggs with a minimum

eligibility for support set at 500 dozen, grade A extra large, large, or medium eggs.
The above support levels represent 96.2 per cent and 87.7 per cent, respectively, of the national base price or ten year average. Last year the single support level of 34 cents per dozen, limited to 4,000 dozen, was 94.1 per cent of the base price.
Producers must be registered with the board and must have marketed their eggs through registered grading stations or have sold their eggs to retail outlets as producer-graders to be eligible for deficiency payments.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, the statement the minister has just made focuses attention upon a serious failure in government agricultural policy, one which has been the subject of criticism by farmers across this nation. Here we have a statement at the very end of March setting out the government's intentions for the current year which ends in September. As is so often the case, farm producers wish that these announcements of the government's intentions could be made prior to their year commencing so they could make their own plans and decide whether or not to produce the commodity in question. When such announcements are delayed until their plans have been made, there is little farmers can do to change.
I noticed the statement contained no reference to making this subsidy available on a quarterly basis, as was done in the case of the dairy subsidy, though this is something for which farmers have been agitating for some time. It is true that the price of 34 cents per dozen is the same as was paid last year, and the addition of the 31 cents per dozen stabilization price for the extra 6,000 dozen will be welcome news to the producers.
The one prime fact in this announcement which will be unwelcome news to thousands of farmers across Canada is this requirement setting minimum eligibility for support at 500 dozen before a farmer may receive any subsidy at all. Anyone connected with the poultry industry today knows that it is the small farmers across this nation who are in dire circumstances as far as egg production is concerned. Hundreds of family producers are going out of business, and the policy the minister has announced today does nothing to help these small producers who find themselves in dire economic circumstances.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: I wish to subscribe to the concluding remarks made by the previous speaker, and I wish to do this
March 30, 1966

Questions
with all the emphasis I can command. I am sure the minister and the officials of his department are fully aware that it is particularly on the small scale producer that the cost price squeeze is impinging most heavily. It is therefore to be hoped that as soon as possible the board and the government will see fit to reduce the minimum for eligibility for this deficiency payment. I also hope the government and the board are keeping under active consideration the feasibility of including for support grade B, or the lower grades of egg production.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Hopkins: In light of current traffic in the Rideau canal, has the government conducted any study of dockage or mooring facilities at (a) Westport (b) Portland, and (c) Smiths Falls?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: (a) Yes, an investigation has been made and the extension of the public wharf at Westport is now under consideration (b) A contract for wharf reconstruction at Portland, Ont., was awarded by the Department of Public Works on March 14, 1966 (c) An investigation is to be undertaken shortly by the Department of Public Works into the request for the construction of a launching ramp at Smiths Falls.


R.C.M.P. MUSICAL RIDE
Mr. Enns: 1.	How is the R.C.M.P. musical ride financed when appearing in Canada?
2.	Do the same conditions apply if the musical ride is invited outside of the country?
3.	Do local fairs and exhibitions pay for any portion of the cost of the performance?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.	Expenses for an appearance by the musical ride are assumed by the sponsor(s) commencing from the time it leaves its training centre. Included are the cost of meals, accommodation, transportation and dry cleaning, if necessary, for the members, and feed, stabling, transportation and veterinary care for the horses. The sponsor(s) continue to pay these costs until the musical ride returns to its training base.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes. Local fairs and exhibitions pay all of the expenses outlined in No. 1. They are also responsible for providing musical accompaniment to the ride performance.


REPRESENTATIONS BY TRUCKING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Since November 8, 1965, has the Minister of Transport received any delegation or written submission from the Canadian Trucking Association Inc?
2.	Since that date or during the preceding months, has the minister learned that the above mentioned association is opposed to subsidies being paid by the government to the railways to compensate salary increases?
3.	Is it the intention of the minister to discuss with the provinces the question of standardizing legislation governing interprovincial transport?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. Yes: the Canadian Trucking Association has made representations questioning the payment of certain subsidies to the railways.
3. Policy in this matter will be determined in due course.


TOURIST FACILITIES, KANANASKIS FOREST RESERVE
Mr. Ballard: 1.	Has the Minister of Forestry considered the construction of additional camp ground sites for the use of tourists and visitors, and the improvement of existing camping facilities in the Kananas-kis forest reserve and, if not, will the minister give this consideration?
2.	Has the minister considered the granting of permission for the leasing of sites for additional summer cottages on the shoreline of the Kananaskis Lakes and, if not, will the minister give this consideration?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1 and 2. The federal Department of Forestry operates a forest experiment station within the larger area known as the Kananaskis forest reserve; however, apart from the experiment station, the reserve is not under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Forestry. Since the experiment station is operated for research purposes, consideration has not been given to its use for other purposes such as camp sites or cottages for tourist use.

March 30, 1966
Questions


REDEVELOPMENT OF LEBRETON FLATS, OTTAWA
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): Referring to part I of the sixty-fifth report of the National Capital Commission at page 13, what proposals and recommendations have been made for the redevelopment of the LeBreton flats area in the city of Ottawa?


George James McIlraith: Proposals and recommendations that have been made with respect to the redevelopment of the LeBreton Flats area are that:
In order to improve the foreground to Parliament Hill, the area which can be generally described as consisting of those lands bounded by Wellington Street, Bronson Avenue extended northerly, Nepean Bay, the Ottawa river and Bronson channel, is to be used to provide sites for the construction of government buildings which need to be located in the central part of Ottawa. It is planned that the first government building to be located in the area will be the new headquarters for the Department of National Defence.
In addition to providing sites for government buildings, part of the area will be used to provide the connection of the Ottawa river parkway to Wellington street. Part of the area will be required to provide rights of way for new internal streets and traffic arteries necessary to provide suitable access for the large number of employees that will eventually work in the LeBreton Flats area. These will also serve the central part of the national capital and the internal streets will provide better access to the proposed historic park on Victoria island.
Other uses, such as a small commercial area, office buildings and some apartment or similar residential uses are being studied.
It is proposed that the development of LeBreton Flats be carried out so that the buildings and other works are constructed in a landscaped setting while at the same time making economical use of the land.


CONSTRUCTION OF R.C.M.P. HEADQUARTERS, BRANDON, MANITOBA
Mr. Dinsdale: Does the government intend to proceed with the construction of an R.C.M.P. headquarters in Brandon, Manitoba, this year?


Lawrence T. Pennell: No.
The Department of Public Works will however, negotiate on behalf of the R.C.M. Police

to have a new R.C.M.P. subdivision headquarters constructed at Brandon, Manitoba, by private enterprise for long term lease to the crown. It is anticipated construction will proceed in 1966-67.


INTER-AMERICAN BANK
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
1.	What sums has the government made available under the agreement to participate in the work of the Inter-American bank?
2! To what countries have the loans been made?
3.	What Canadian goods have been purchased by these countries?
4.	What Canadian firms have benefited under section 4 of the agreement?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: 1. Under the agreement between the government of Canada and the Inter-American Development Bank (concluded on December 4, 1964) $20 million in development loan funds have been allocated for use through the bank for economic, technical and educational assistance.
2.	The Inter-American Development Bank has sought and received the approval of the Canadian government for loans to El Salvador and Ecuador. Other loans are expected to be announced shortly.
3.	The bank's project preparation has not yet reached the stage where contracts can be let for Canadian goods and services.
4.	See answer to question 3 above.


CONSTRUCTION OF R.C.M.P. QUARTERS, GRAND RAPIDS, MAN.
Mr. Slefanson: Has the government plans to construct R.C.M.P. detachment quarters at Grand Rapids, Manitoba and, if so, have tenders been called and what is the completion date for this?


Lawrence T. Pennell: No.
The R.C.M. Police is however negotiating with private enterprise to have new detachment quarters constructed at Grand Rapids in 196667 for long-term lease to the force.


DUFFERIN-SIMCOE-EFFECT OF TELEVISION TRANSMISSION ON CHANNEL 5
Mr. Madill: 1.	Will a television station transmitting on channel 5 from lot 9, concession 12, Medonte township (approximately ten miles northwest of Orillia) affect the reception of television transmissions from
March 30, 1966

channel 6 Toronto (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto outlet) in that area of Ontario comprising the present electoral district of Dufferin-Simcoe?
2.	Would the answer to the above be different if channel 6 were transmitting in colour television?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes, in parts thereof.
2. No.


SIMCOE EAST-EFFECT OF TELEVISION TRANSMISSION ON CHANNEL 5
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Will a television station transmitting on channel 5 from lot 9, concession 12, Medonte township (approximately ten miles northwest of Orillia) affect the reception of television transmissions from channel 6 Toronto (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto outlet) in that area of Ontario comprising the present electoral district of Simcoe East?
2.	Would the answer to the above be different if channel 6 were transmitting in colour television?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes. The electoral district of Simcoe East is outside what is considered to be the normal service area of channel 6 Toronto.
2. No.


PARRY SOUND-MUSKOKA-EFFECT OF TELEVISION TRANSMISSION ON CHANNEL 5
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Will a television station transmitting on channel 5 from lot 9, concession 12, Medonte township (approximately ten miles northwest of Orillia) affect the reception of television transmissions from channel 6 Toronto (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto outlet) in that area of Ontario comprising the present electoral district of Parry Sound-Muskoka?
2.	Would the answer to the above be different if channel 6 were transmitting in colour television?
Detachment	No. of Law Enforcement
Location	Officers
Cutknife	2
Hafford	2
Lloydminster	13
Maidstone	2
North Battleford	8
Radisson	2
Unity	2
Wilkie	3
Glaslyn	2
Goodsoil	2
Green Lake	1
Questions


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes. The electoral district of Parry Sound-Muskoka is outside what is considered to be the normal service area of channel 6 Toronto.
2. No.


SIMCOE NORTH-EFFECT OF TELEVISION TRANSMISSION ON CHANNEL 5
Mr. Smith: 1.	Will a television station transmitting on channel 5 from lot 9, concession 12, Medonte township (approximately ten miles northwest of Orillia) affect the reception of television transmissions from channel 6 Toronto (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto outlet) in that area of Ontario comprising the present electoral district of Simcoe North?
2.	Would the answer to the above be different if channel 6 were transmitting in colour television?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes. The electoral district of Simcoe North is outside what is considered to be the normal service area of channel 6 Toronto.
2. No.


R.C.M.P. DETACHMENTS, SASKATCHEWAN
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 946
Mr. McLelland:: 1.	How many R.C.M.P. detachments are there in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	Where is each detachment located?
3.	How many law enforcement officers are assigned to each detachment?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.
109.
2 and 3.	No. of Law
Detachment	Enforcement
Location	Officers
Milestone	2
North Portal	1
Radville	3
Torquay	1
Weyburn	13
Biggar	5
Elbow	2
Eston	3
Kerrobert	2
Kindersley	8
Kyle	2
3608 Questions	COMMONS No. of Law	DEBATES	March 30. 1966 No. of LawDetachment	Enforcement	Detachment	EnforcementLocation	Officers	Location	OfficersLoon Lake	2	Outlook	6Meadow Lake	7	Rosetown	8Onion Lake	2	Colonsay	2Pierceland	1	Craik	4Spiritwood	2	Hanley	2St. Walbur	2	Humboldt	10Turtleford	I	Imperial	2Big River	3	Lanigan	2Blaine Lake	2	Naicam	2Buffalo Narrows	1	Saskatoon	16Cumberland House	2	Vonda	1lie a la Crosse	4	Watrous	4Island Falls	1	Assiniboia	8La Ronge	3	Cabri	1Prince Albert	14	Climax	1Shellbrook	4	Consul	1Stony Rapids	2	Gravelbourg	5Uranium City	5	Gull Lake	2Carrot River	3	Leader	3Hudson Bay	5	Mankota	1Melfort	8	Maple Creek	8Nipawin	3	Morse	4Porcupine Plain	2	Mossbank	1Rosthern	3	Ponteix	2Smeaton	2	Shaunavon	4Tisdale	10	Swift Current	6Wakaw	3	Val Marie	1Waskesiu	1	Willow Bunch	2Avonlea	2	Balcarres	3Broadview	8	Esterhazy	2Fort Qu'Appelle	4	Foam Lake	4Indian Head	6	Ituna	2Kipling	1	Langenburg	2Lumsden	1	Melville	11Montmartre	1	Punnichy	4Moose Jaw	12	Yorkton	19Moosomin	4	Canora	6Regina	19	Kamsack	9Strasbourg	2	Kelvin gton	2Bengough	2	Pelly	2Carlyle	5	Rose Valley	2Carnduff	2	Sturgis	2Estevan Fillmore	7 1	Wadena	5

March 30. 1966


ARDA PROJECTS APPROVED, MANITOBA
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	To date how many projects have been approved in the province of Manitoba under the ARDA agreement, and what is the estimated total cost of these and how is the cost shared?
2.	To date, how much money has the federal government actually paid out towards these projects?


Maurice Sauvé: 1.	To November 30, 1965, 75 projects have been approved for the province of Manitoba under the federal provincial rural development agreement. The total estimated cost figure of these projects is not available. However, the federal contribution totals $3,832,660 and in the majority of cases, cost shared is on a 50/50 basis.
2.	To November 30, 1965, the total expenditures by the federal government amount to $1,803,927.


CAUSEWAY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN ISLAND AND MAINLAND
Mr. Rynard: Will the government give consideration to a review and reassessment of proceeding with a causeway joining Christian Island in Georgian Bay to the mainland?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes. The Department of Public Works has been asked to make a technical study to determine the cost of constructing a causeway or bridge to service this community.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, BARSS CORNERS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Crouse: Were tenders called for a new post office in Barss Corners, Lunenburg county, Nova Scotia, in 1965 and, if so, (a) how many bids were received (b) what are the names of all persons or firms who tendered on this contract (c) what was the amount of each bid (d) what is the name of the successful tenderer (e) when will construction be started?


George James McIlraith: Yes, (a) One. (b) E. K. Potter Ltd., Plympton, N.S. (c) $37,689. (d) and (e) project cancelled due to high cost.


WHARF AND BREAKWATER MAINTENANCE, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What is the dollar value of wharf and breakwater construction and repairs to be carried out in the fiscal year 1966-67 in the province of Nova Scotia?


George James McIlraith: Approximately $3,500,000.
Questions


WAGE BRIEF, H.M.C. &quot;DOCKYARD&quot;
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Was a brief presented to the Department of National Defence or to any government department last fall by the Trades and Labour Council of H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, outlining a five-year schedule of pay increases designed to bring about orderly achievement of wage parity with dockyard employees on the west coast?
2.	If so, was the brief and its contents considered by the government?
3.	Was a reply made to this brief and, if so (a) by whom (b) what was the content of the reply?
4.	Is further action under study by any department of government with respect to this brief and, if so, when will a decision in this regard be made?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. A letter dated November 5, 1965 was received from the trades and labour council of H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, containing this request.
2.	The request was referred to the Treasury Board.
3.	The Treasury Board considered this matter and, in a letter dated December 14, 1965, confirmed the continued use of the seven shipyard formula for pay determination purposes in Halifax Dockyard. This information was forwarded to the council by the director general of civilian personnel on December 17, 1965.
4.	No.


RAILWAY CAR EMERGENCY TOOLS
Mr. Thompson: Has consideration been given to replacing the emergency tools in railroad cars with ones more suited to the problems which might arise in the event of an accident in the new all-metal cars?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
The board's regulations require emergency tools consisting of a sledge, axe and saw, to be kept easy of access in case of need. The saw in use, following introduction of steel passenger cars, is a universal steel and wood cutting saw capable of cutting light steel sections. It would hardly be possible to carry hand tools that would be capable of cutting through major structural parts of a passenger car, but the tools carried could be used to break out windows and doors or an interior partition blocking exit and cut light steel obstruction. If there were no tools to break out windows, etc., the lack of them in an emergency would undoubtedly be criticized. The board has received no recommendations from the railways or any source that the

March 30, 1966
Questions
equipment for emergency tools should be dispensed with or varied.


R.C.M.P. RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTION, WINNIPEGOSIS, MANITOBA
Mr. Forbes: 1.	Does the government intend to proceed with the construction of an R.C.M.P. residence and cell in Winnipegosis this year?
2.	Has the government purchased any property for this purpose and, if so (a) how much was paid for the property (b) from whom was the purchase made?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.
No. The R.C.M. Police is, however, negotiating with private enterprise to have new detachment quarters constructed at Winnipegosis in 1966-67 for long term lease to the force.
2. No.


IMPORTS OF U.S. COAL
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What was the total tonnage of United States coal Imported into Canada, annually, for each year from 1957 to 1965 inclusive?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The total tonnage of coal imported into Canada from the United States, annually, for each year from 1957 to 1965 is as follows:
Year	Quantity '000 Tons
1957	19,419
1958	14,468
1959	14,164
1960	13,515
1961	12,263
1962	12,591
1963	13,347
1964	14,991
Jan.-Oct. (latest figures available)	
1965	13,212


DREDGING, MACDONALD'S POND, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What are the plans of the government for further necessary dredging at MacDonald's Pond, Indian Brook, Victoria county, N.S.?
2.	How soon will this work be carried out?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. No decision has yet been reached on this matter.


TIMMINS-CLEARING OF MATTAGAMI RIVER
Mr. Martin (Timmins): 1.	Has any decision been made relative to the clearing of the Mattagami river in Timmins?
2.	Have tenders been called for such clearing or will they be called in the near future?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. No. However, the need for cleaning the river will be investigated this coming summer when lower water levels will enable such investigation.


MAINTENANCE TENDERS, C.M.H.C. HOUSES, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for electrical, plumbing and heating maintenance work on 69 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation single rental houses at New Glasgow, N.S., Stellarton, N.S., and Trenton, N.S.?
2.	To whom will the contract or contracts be awarded?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1.
Skilled Unskilled
Type of Contract Labour Labour
& Contractor (per hour) (per hour) Materials
Mark-Up on Materials
Electrical Maintenance Work
Lightning Electric	Manufacturer's list
Company	$3.00	$2.00	price	Plus	20 %Andrew Marks	3.00	2.00	Wholesale	Plus	33J%C. E. MacCarthy Ltd.	4.00	2.00	Wholesale	Plus	15 %Plumbing & Heating Maintenance Work Hayman's Plumbing & Heating	3.28	1.55	Retail	Less	12 %

March 30. 1966

2. The award of the contract is to be made to the low bidder. In the case of the electrical work it will be awarded to either Lightning Electric Company or Andrew Marks after clarification of material price structure is obtained. In the case of the plumbing and heating contract it will be awarded to the only bidder, Hayman's Plumbing and Heating.


'DOCTORS AND MEDICAL STUDENTS
Mr. Grafffey: Has any department or agency of the federal government Information indicating (a) the number of practicing medical doctors and surgeons in Canada in 1955	(b) the number of practicing medical
doctors and surgeons in Canada in 1965 (c) the number of medical students admitted to and the number of doctors who graduated from Canadian medical schools in 1955 (d) the number of medical students admitted to and the number of doctors who graduated from Canadian medical schools in 1965?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The estimated number of "active civilian physicians" in Canada in 1955 was 17,221 according to the Report of the Royal Commission on Health Services. In 1961, the number was 21,290 according to the Census of Canada. Information is not available for the year 1965.
In connection with parts (c) and (d) the number of medical students enrolled in Canadian medical schools in the school year 195455 was 968, and the number of doctors graduating in the 1954-55 school year was 950. In the 1964-65 school year, the number of students admitted to medical schools in Canada was 1,135 and the number of doctors graduating was 1,034.
lEnglish1


FERRY SERVICE, P.E.I.-CAPE BRETON ISLAND
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Has the government studied the question of the establishment of an automobile ferry service between Prince Edward Island and western Cape Breton island?
2.	If not, is the government giving consideration to such a study and when will it be carried out?
3.	If a study has been conducted, what are the results thereof?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1, 2 and 3. No
detailed study of this project has been made,
Orders jor Returns
but preliminary review of the costs of vessel and terminals and costs and conditions of operation compared with probable benefits indicated that such a service would not be feasible.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard: Do any treaties exist between Indian people in the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada or Her Majesty in right of Canada, and if so, what is with respect to each such treaty (a) its name (b) its date of commencement (c) the signatories thereto (d) the name or names of each Indian tribe or band covered thereby?
Return tabled.


WELLAND CANAL IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Loney: 1.	How many contracts have been awarded by the St. Lawrence seaway Authority in connection with the Welland canal improvement and twinning project to date?
2.	On what dates were each of said contracts awarded, to whom, in what amounts, and for what purpose in each case?
3.	Which of said contracts, if any, were awarded to firms which were not the lowest tenderers?
4.	In each of said contracts so awarded, what firm or individual made the lowest tender, and how much was such tender below the amount of the successful tenderer?
Return tabled.


SHIPS &quot;FORT LAUZON&quot; AND &quot;FORT RAMEZAY&quot;
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1965, has Agence Maritime Inc. of Quebec City, operated the two ships Fort Lauzon and Fort Ramezay?
2.	What is the gross tonnage of each of these ships?


MASTERS OF SHIPS &quot;FORT LAUZON&quot; AND &quot;FORT RAMEZAY&quot;
Mr. Howard: 1.	From January 1, 1965, to date, was the master of each of the two ships Fort Lauzon and Fort Ramezay duly certificated pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act and at all times in possession of such a certificate and, if so, what is (a) the name of each master (b) the grade of certificate which he holds (c) the date upon which it was issued?
2.	From January 1, 1965, to date, was each of the mates of each of these ships duly certificated pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act and at all times in possession of such a certificate and, if so, what is (a) the name of each mate (b) his rank (c) the grade of certificate which each holds (d) the date upon which each such certificate was issued?

March 30, 1966
Orders for Returns
3.	From January 1, 1965, to date, was each of the engineers of each of these ships duly certificated pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act and at all times in possession of such a certificate and, if so, what is (a) the name of each engineer (b) his grade or class (c) the entitlement granted each such engineer by the said certificate (d) the date upon which each such certificate was issued?


OFFICERS OF SHIPS &quot;FORT LAUZON&quot; AND &quot;FORT RAMEZAY&quot;
Mr. Howard: From January 1, 1966, to date, was the master, each of the mates and each of the engineers of the two ships Fort Lauzon and Fort Ramezay at any time not in possession of a certificate of competency pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act and, if so, with respect to each such person by name, what was (a) the period or periods which each was not so in possession of such a certificate (b) the period or periods during which each such person was employed aboard each such ship, and (c) the authority which permitted such persons to sail or operate the ship, and if such authority existed (i) by whom was it granted (ii) upon what dates was it granted?


CHARLES E. LANGLOIS-JACQUES SIMARD- SHIPPING ACT CERTIFICATES
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1966, was either Charles Emile Langlois or Jacques Simard granted any certificate of competency of any kind pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act and, if so, with respect to each such person, what was (a) the nature of the certificate of competency (b) the date upon which each was granted (c) the authority for so granting the certificates?


SHIPS &quot;FORT LAUZON&quot; AND &quot;FORT RAMEZAY&quot;-EXEMPTIONS
Mr. Howard: On how many occasions, upon what dates and for what periods of time, since January 1, 1964 has each of the ships Fort Lauzon and Fort Ramezay been granted an exemption pursuant to section 137 of the Canada Shipping Act, and for what reasons in each case?


Mr. Irvine:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would like to mention that I have been anxiously awaiting the calling of question No. 48, which has been on the order paper since January 18. It is a question that should be very easily answered, and I think I should have an answer as the alleged 60 days of decision are long past.


Mr. Ormiston:: Mr. Speaker, on a similar point of order I have had questions Nos. 103, 109 and 112 on the order paper since January 18, and I would point out, sir, that other questions of mine which required much more 
detailed answers than these have been answered in the meantime. 1 think it is time some consideration was given to these questions.


Mr. Crouse:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, on January 19 I placed question No. 143 on the order paper. While I realize it calls for a lot of information, I do believe it should be answered, because the question was asked in the hope that we could get some idea of the expenditures in the various provinces. I would ask the government to endeavour to give me an answer to this question as soon as possible.


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Speaker, although I can understand some questions on the order paper require time and extensive research, I do believe questions Nos. 484 and 510, standing in my name, do not require too much research, and I wonder if I can have answers to them?


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, last week three of my questions were made orders for returns. At that time I asked the parliamentary secretary to indicate when I might get the information I requested. As yet I have had no explanation in this regard.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Minister of Justice when he was going to answer question No. 577, and he said "Today or tomorrow." He still has not answered it.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order goes back to ancient times, to question No. 167 which was placed on the order paper on January 21.


Mr. Starr:: Get to work and answer the questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to hon. members how happy I am that most of them are satisfied with the service they have received, and to those who have expressed their dissatisfaction I can only say we will do our best to comply as quickly as possible.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of
March 30, 1966	COMMONS
papers Nos. 97 and 103 are acceptable to the government.
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



ONTARIO LAWYERS SENTENCED TO PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Herridge:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between any organization or persons in the province of Ontario and the federal Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with respect to all members of the legal profession, resident in the province of Ontario, who have been convicted of fraudulent practices and sentenced to penitentiary from January 1, 1963 to January 1, 1966.
Motion agreed to.
TROIS-RIVlilRES, QUE.-VIEILLES FORGES RECONSTRUCTION
Motion No. 103-Mr. Mongrain:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Board of Trade of Trois-Riviferes, or its Vieilles Forges blast furnaces reconstruction committee, the Quebec Minister of Cultural Affairs, and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or any other department, with regard to the reconstruction project of Vieilles Forges (Mauricie) within the boundaries of the city of Trois-Rivieres.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that sitting in the Speakers' gallery is a distinguished international public servant, Mr. B. R. Sen, the director general of FAO. I am sure we all welcome him to this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



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 direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of reports of a press interview given by Secretary General
DEBATES	3613
Inquiries of the Ministry Arnold Smith of the commonwealth committee to the effect that Rhodesia's action in breaking away from Britain is comparable to Japanese action in Manchuria in 1931 and Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia, and furthermore that a continuation of the Rhodesian situation would probably cause an even more hostile attitude by China toward the west than exists today. Has the attention of the government been drawn to these extraordinary statements, and does the government of Canada agree therewith?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take a look at the full text of the statement attributed to the secretary general of the commonwealth. I am sure I will find that the full context warrants reading.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could not be more in agreement, that it warrants reading; but an answer from the government regarding this statement is also warranted.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, so there will be no misunderstanding, when I said it would warrant reading I had in mind that anything Mr. Smith might say would deserve very serious study, because we all regard him as one who has distinguished himself in the performance of his responsibilities as a foreign service diplomat and, by virtue of the office he now holds in the commonwealth, we would want to attach to what he says the consideration which his utterances deserve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement contained in the Speech from the Throne to the effect that "arrangements will be made for a decision on the issue of capital punishment at an early date," can the Prime Minister assure the house that necessary arrangements will be made so that a decision can be reached by the house on the motion which has been introduced for the abolition of capital punishment?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, steps will be taken during
March 30. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry the day, which I hope will be satisfactory to the house, in order that an early decision can be made on this matter and yet provide an opportunity for all those who wish to speak to do so.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam regarding the debate on capital punishment, and I ask it without provocation. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether he thinks this debate will continue before Easter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure about that, Mr. Speaker, but I am quite sure that hon. members will be glad to give up some of the days they might otherwise have had during the Easter holiday to debate this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


WINTER WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and also in his capacity as future minister of manpower? I think the minister is well aware of the question I wish to ask him with regard to the question of privilege I raised earlier.
Does the minister intend to launch an investigation or send inspectors to audit the records of the said municipalities, so as to determine the seriousness of the accusations made against them?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the auditing of municipal records is done by the provincial government. If the member for Megantic is aware of a case which seems to point to irregularities, I would be grateful if he would bring it to my attention in writing, and I shall have an inquiry conducted.
[English1


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture based on the 
statement he made to the house earlier today. I should like to ask him whether the government is considering making these deficiency payments for eggs on a semi-annual rather than an annual basis.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take that suggestion under consideration, but I do believe there are technical impediments to making these payments more often than annually.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Would the minister tell us what was the minimum quantity eligible for price support last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The significance of the question is not particularly clear.

It seems to me that this is not a question. The hon. member asked a question requiring statistical data and figures. I do not feel it is appropriate to ask such a question, at least in those terms and in that fashion.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my question was not clear. Here is the question. The minister has announced that, this year, the minimum number of dozens of eggs eligible for price support will be 500 dozens. I am asking the minister what was the minimum number of dozens eligible last year?


John James Greene: What is so urgent about that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: He has not got the answer written out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has heard the ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the minister also consider the suggestion that these payments be made on a regional basis, in view of the fact that in the three prairie provinces the producers receive no deficiency payments unless they are made on a regional basis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a suggestion which I assume will be taken into consideration by the Minister of Agriculture. It seems to me that
March 30. 1966	COMMONS
hon. members are now trying to enter into a debate, or an exchange of views about the announcement made by the minister during motions. The hon. member's question can not be accepted.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Industry. Is he in a position to say whether the ministers' conference which was held yesterday, I believe, with the president of the Chrysler Corporation of Canada and other senior officials of that company, resulted in any improvement of the position of the Canadian auto parts manufacturers?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the position of the Canadian auto parts manufacturers is improving daily, but this subject was not discussed at our conference.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister successful in infusing a better sense of public responsibility toward Canada into the attitude of the Chrysler Corporation during this meeting?


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Canada-U.S. car treaty was implemented to improve Canada's balance of trade, and in view of the answer given to a question asked by the hon. member for Wellington-Huron in which it is stated that the imports of United States cars into Canada from January 1, 1965 to November 31, 1965, exceeded our exports to the extent of $27.2 million, can the minister indicate what steps he intends to take to improve this situation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there is a resolution on the order paper calling for a debate on this whole question, which I hope we will be able to begin in an orderly way in the not too distant future. At that time I will be glad to give detailed answers to the hon. members' questions.
DEBATES	3615
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister tell the house whether the C.B.C. building in Montreal is among the constructions which are being postponed as a result of the austerity program declared last night by the Minister of Finance?
fEnglish1


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this question should be asked at this time, and I suggest that the hon. member place it on the order paper or discuss it on the adjournment motion.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the government give consideration to the provision of supplementary centennial grants to the provinces to compensate for the increased building costs now being encountered in completing centennial projects; and I refer to projects such as the auditorium at Saskatoon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.


Edward Nasserden: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government allowed or provided for supplementary expenditures in connection with the increased costs arising out of Expo '67, our centennial exhibition, at Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the supplementary question should be considered in the same light as the original question, and both might be placed on the order paper.


HATE LITERATURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr..
Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. On Monday, March 21 I
3616	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry asked him a question which I drew to his attention again on Wednesday, March 23, one week ago, with regard to the report of the Maxwell Cohen committee relating to possible amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to hate literature. Last Wednesday the right hon. gentleman said he would answer the next day or the day after. Could he give us the answer now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to my hon. friend. I should have told him the day after that the report is now ready and printed in English. It will be printed in French tomorrow, I think, March 31, and we hope to be able to table it at the beginning of next week.


CORRECTION OF STATEMENT BY GOVERNMENT HOUSE LEADER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the government house leader, who unfortunately is absent. However, I think I should record this question because it is of some urgency. Yesterday the house leader gave us a reference to January 12, 1881 when he said that Sir John A. Macdonald used the procedure the house leader was attempting to use yesterday. I have just now checked Hansard of that date, and there is no such motion made by Sir John A. Macdonald.


PROTECTIVE STAFF-REPORTED UNSATISFACTORY ACCOMMODATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, knowing the compassionate nature of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I am going to appeal to her to remedy a deplorable situation. My question is based on the fact that some 70 members of our protective staff are required to eat, rest, dress and undress in two locker rooms, which are cockroach infested and contain a little over 1500 feet of space. These rooms are without windows and the ventilation has to come from the basement. This intolerable situation has been worsened recently by an order from their chief that the door must remain closed for certain aesthetic reasons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will be pleased to look into the matter.

DEBATES	March 30, 1966



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in a position to answer this question, but since it covers two departments I direct it to him. Have any arrangements been made with the United States of America whereby agents of the federal bureau of investigation of the United States may enter Canadian homes for the purpose of questioning alleged draft dodgers without the presence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the consent of that body?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I know of no such arrangements. I will be glad to check into the matter and confirm that answer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: May I direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to page 3257 of Hansard for last Monday, where he is reported as saying he would be tabling an answer to question No. 577 on that day or yesterday.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: would have been ready to answer the question during the debate. Unfortunately the debate was interrupted. Last Monday I was ready to have the question answered, and as a matter of fact I referred it to the Secretary of State. It should have been answered today.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government intends to initiate any programs that will offset the effects of the budget on the economy of the Atlantic area?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, but since he is not here I will direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the
March 30, 196G

Minister of Finance, in his budget statement last night, suggested there will be a readjustment of the timetable for the construction of the Northumberland causeway, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works said in the house about three or four weeks ago there would be no delay in the construction of the causeway, what new date is now envisaged for the completion of this project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This government which initiated the causeway will certainly bring it to completion. The statement the minister made in his budget is designed to maximize employment during the winter season.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carleton):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of extending the expiry date of legislation with respect to incentive grants and tax holidays for industries established in designated areas?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to look into that question.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Since the Secretary of State is in such an agreeable mood today, I wonder if I could ask her when it is the intention of the government to remove the freeze on television applications.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In the fullness of time, Mr. Speaker.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he can inform the house whether construction at the Vancouver international airport will continue or will be cut back in accordance with the plans announced last night.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: It is expected to proceed in an orderly way with the construction of the terminal at Vancouver.
Inquiries of the Ministry COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS



CANADIAN DELEGATION TO CONFERENCE ON TRAINING OF TECHNICIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: On March 17 I addressed a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about the appointment of representatives from his department's technical and vocational training branch to the Canadian delegation to the forthcoming commonwealth conference on the education and training of technicians. His reply was that a decision had not yet been made. I believe the composition of this delegation and the inclusion of representatives from the technical and vocational training branch is still an urgent matter. I should like to ask the minister if he is yet able to advise the house of his decision on this matter.


Jean Marchand: There will be one representative of the department at the commonwealth conference on training.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
A few minutes ago I directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to the construction of a C.B.C. building in Montreal. My question was ruled out of order while a similar question put by my colleague from Vancouver regarding the Vancouver harbour was ruled in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the point raised by the hon. member is certainly valid and I shall allow him to put his question now.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if the construction project of a C.B.C building, in Montreal, is among the 10 per cent which have been postponed as a result of the austerity program declared last night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).
[English1


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the government's intention to proceed with this building in an orderly way.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the earlier questions about the C.B.C. building in Montreal and Vancouver international airport, I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport could say whether they are going to proceed at half speed, three quarter speed or full speed with these two projects. What does "orderly" mean?



BANK ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: In
the absence of the Minister of Finance may I direct this question to the Prime Minister, since I am sure it relates to a decision of council. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance indicated he would be putting the motion on the order paper with regard to the revision of the Bank Act after he had delivered his budget speech, is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate when we may see that motion as well as the revised terms of the Bank Act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope that resolution will be on the order paper before long. I cannot give any assurance when we will reach the discussion of the resolution or the bill based upon it. This will depend on the progress we make with other matters.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that some six months ago the Board of Transport Commissioners deferred for a period of six months their ruling on granting permission to the railways to increase freight rates on lumber shipments from northwestern Ontario to eastern Canada, and in view of the fact such a decision is imminent and will be important to the economy of northwestern Ontario, can the minister tell us where this matter stands now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had inquiries made quite recently about the matter, and I think a decision can be expected very shortly. However, I shall

March 30, 1966
try to advise the hon. gentleman in more
detail later.



COPPER-APPLICATIONS FOR EXPORT OF NEWFOUNDLAND CONCENTRATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I regret not having given him notice of the question, but I am sure he has all the information at his finger tips. Due to the world shortage of copper, and restrictions on exports, can the minister advise whether any requests have been received for export permits for Newfoundland produced copper concentrates?


Robert Henry Winters: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
PURCHASE BY U.S. OF F-5 FIGHTER PLANE On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the report true that the United States government has reversed its stand and will buy the Northrop F-5 fighter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there have been press reports to indicate that this may happen, but this is a decision which would be for the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has some reservations about the question that has been asked. The hon. member asked whether the report was true. It cannot be a question of urgency, certainly, in the way it was asked.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could she tell the house, with regard to the budget presented last night, whether the construction of our cultural centres in order to celebrate the Centennial of Confederation, will be postponed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker.

March 30. 1966

lEnglisK]



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the concern being felt and expressed by old age pensioners following last night's budget, can the Prime Minister be any more precise as to when government legislation respecting pensions will be on the order paper?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the resolution with regard to the Canada Assistance Plan will be on the order paper early next week.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouth -Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I would ask the minister whether he has received any protests from western Nova Scotia re jet planes, reputedly from bases in Maine, breaking the sound barrier over Digby and Yarmouth counties where mink raising is an important industry, and where the ranch developing the world famous jet black mink is situated? If so, has he or have any of his colleagues in the cabinet been able to make arrangements so that during the early days of April, when the mink kittens are being born, the sonic booms will be avoided? The mink, a very nervous animal at any time, is particularly so at the birthing period and disturbances such as sonic booms can cause the mothers to eat their young.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made his representations, which I trust will be taken into account by the minister responsible.



JUDGES ACT


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for two additional judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario. three additional judges of the Superior Court of Quebec, one additional judge of the Supreme
Judges Act
Court of New Brunswick, one additional judge of the County Court of Ontario, and one additional judge of the District Court of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is preliminary to authorizing the provision of salaries for eight additional judges in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Alberta pursuant to requests received from the authorities of the provinces concerned.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether the appropriate legislation has been passed by each of the provinces concerned?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the judicature legislation has been passed by all of the provinces except Quebec and I understand that Quebec will pass the legislation during the course of this week.


Richard Albert Bell: All except Quebec have in fact enacted the legislation?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is correct.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, I happen to know about the situation in New Brunswick where another judge is urgently required. I have been a member of this house now for just four years and each year we seem to make amendments to the Judges Act in a rather piecemeal fashion in order to add judges to various jurisdictions. Never in my memory have we considered the fundamental problem raised by the provision of extra judges.
I have a question on the order paper which deals with the number of judges who have been involved in various boards and commissions. I am thinking now mainly of provincial boards, but such boards are also appointed in the federal domain.
I am also wondering what steps are being taken by the government to do something about the salaries of judges. I realize that the Minister of Justice and the President of the Privy Council have had what has been said to be a very worthwhile meeting-I do not know whether you would call it a meeting with a trade union on the grand scale but let me refer to it as an association of judges-as a result of which certain changes were recommended in salaries, retirement benefits, income tax and so on.
I think it is also time that we as a parliament faced the problem of judges who retire

March 30, 1966
Judges Act
and then return to practice. I know my hon. colleague from Carleton has a resolution on the order paper about this question. I do not think I am being partisan when I say that many members of the profession deplore the fact that retired judges do return to practice before, in many instances, the very courts of which they were members.
I think this is a situation which must be faced up to by the government and the department. Now that judges' retirement benefits are more in line with those of the rest of the community, I personally deplore the fact that any retired judge should go back to private practice. I think this is a very delicate problem involving ethics and one which judges should not have to face. It is also one which the legal profession should not have to consider either.
I want to change the subject for a minute and recall to the committee the case of the present Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, who was a distinguished premier of that province. He became Chief Justice of the province, and on the day he became 75 he retired and had to drop his title, becoming plain "Mr." again until such time as the government saw fit to honour him by making him Lieutenant Governor of the province.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think that retired judges should carry the title "honourable" for the end of their days. I also think that retired judges should not plead before any court in Canada. If that means that we have to raise the retirement annuities, then this country should face this fact. I think it is time that we faced the matter of judges' salaries, privileges and so on. Each time some of us have spoken about this we have been told, "Oh, well, they need a judge in New Brunswick, and one in Alberta. Perhaps next year this can be considered." I think what I raise ought to be considered now. I should like to see a fundamental revision of the Judges Act. If it were provided that judges should carry their full emoluments until death I would be in favour of that. Let us make some fundamental decision with respect to our judiciary so that they can carry their duties with the dignity they ought to be endowed with. Judges are part of the process of government.
In spite of sniping attacks made occasionally against judges I think we in Canada can be very proud of the fact that our judiciary is of a very high standard. I think we have an obligation to continue that high standard by making such that for such things as salaries

and other emoluments, titles and so on, judges do not have to attend upon the minister with submissions.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the house will give ready agreement to this resolution, and to the bill which will follow concerning the appointment of additional judges. They are undoubtedly required. As the volume of business in this country grows and as the population grows more and more cases are heard in court, and certainly we do need more judges. In addition to judges who sit in court there are those who are employed on royal commissions and judicial inquiries of various kinds which adds to the requirement for people on the bench.
I do not know if what I am about to say will be considered by the hon. member for Royal as a sniping attack on the judiciary but I intend to make reference to the judiciary of this country. I imagine that the men who will be appointed to the bench following the passage of the bill to come before the house will be appointed in the usual fashion. They will be supporters of the government in power and there is very little likelihood that anybody else but such supporters will be appointed.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Robert William Prittie: I think I hear a joker among hon. members across the way. What I have referred to constitutes a very real problem in Canada. This is not to say that we have not had excellent judges in this country as a result of this system of appointment. We have had good judges. However, recent events, and I do not mean in the last few months but in the last three or four years, have provided evidence that persons not fitted to be appointed have been appointed to the bench. This is not a problem simply because I bring it up. It has been faced by a number of the provincial bar associations and I am surprised that the hon. member for Royal has not said something about that.
The hon. member for Royal has had a good deal of legal experience. He is something of a reforming Tory, and I thought he might have turned his attention to the particular problem of judicial appointment. I say that the principle of appointments under the present system is entirely wrong. The principle that only supporters of the government will be appointed to the bench is wrong. I know I shall probably hear somebody say, "You are just jealous." Personally I am not jealous. I am not eligible for such an appointment in any
March 30, 1966



event. What I do say is that the present practice in Canada results in many intelligent persons who are supporters of other political parties than that of the government in power being precluded from these appointments.
The men who are to fill these judicial appointments should be of the very highest calibre. They are men who will deal with the lives of people, with important questions of property and with large amounts of money. We ought to do everything we possibly can to get the very best lawyers in this country when these appointments are made.
If anybody thinks that my remarks constitute severe criticism of the present system, let me point out some other criticisms which have been made in this connection. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on May 19 of last year. The article is headed: "Professor Assails System of 'Party Hacks' Naming Judges". The dateline is Calgary and the article reads as follows:
Judicial appointments in Canada are a national disgrace because crass poltical patronage prevails over merit and ability, a University of Alberta law professor said here yesterday.
In a scathing attack on Canada's system of appointing judges of the superior, district and county courts, Professor William H. Angus of Edmonton declared that persons of political persuasions other than that of the party in power, as well as independents who do not actively engage in politics, are almost automatically eliminated.
Because the federal government makes the appointment, it is compelled to rely on the advice of the party organization in the province, he said.
"As a consequence, party hacks are in a position to exert the strongest influence when an opening on the bench appears. The result is a truly disgusting performance of influence peddling, furtive lobbying and political machination of the lowest order as the carpetbaggers vie for favor."
The article continues:
Canadians, he said, generally look down on election of judges-as is done in some parts of the United States-as carrying democracy too far. But seldom do we stop to consider that Canadian judges are very often candidates who have been rejected by the electorate."
The gravest deficiency of the Canadian method of appointing judges is its harmful effect on the administration of justice. "Today in Canada it is not an exaggeration to say that the proper administration of justice is threatened by judicial mediocracy and incompetence."
Others than Professor Angus have pointed out this problem. A number of bar associations have also pointed it out, and I am sorry that I do not have their resolutions in front of me. It seems to me that recently the Bar Association of Ontario made some useful suggestions in this connection. I believe the 23033-230
Judges Act
bar association resolutions are all of a similar type. They suggest that the government consult a committee of the bar association of the particular province in which the appointment is to be made and select from nominees of the association in the making of appointments to the bench. This is not to say that persons who are supporters of the government in power should not be considered; certainly they should be. Some of the best people in this country are engaged in politics. I have to say that because I am surrounded by them.
One thing is true. We have to look beyond the rather narrow field of supporters of the political party in power for appointments to the bench. As I have said, events in this country during the last few years do raise questions about the efficacy of our method of appointing members to the bench.
I realize that the government is not going to abandon the old system simply because I have said a few words on this subject. Many people in the past have spoken about it. Starting in 1963, some four years ago, there was a great deal of talk about the new politics. The new politics have never been defined. Appointments to the bench, as one of my colleagues has said, have not shown any evidence of the new type of politics. But let us hope that we can get to the point where appointments to the bench and to other bodies of a judicial or administrative nature will be based upon competence. Let us get away from the old Canadian way of simply doing it on a political basis.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say, in a few words, that the resolution now before the house will be quite welcome in the province of Quebec. Indeed, I understand that its purpose is the appointment of an additional judge, in the Montreal district, who will specialize in bankruptcy cases.
I suggest that this initiative will be highly commended by the Montreal lawyers, because of the numerous technical problems involved in this practice. It is desirable that we have judges who specialize in such a field, in view of technical difficulties which may arise, sometimes in a very special way.
I also want to say a few words about the appointment of an additional judge in the judicial district of Trois-Rivieres. According to recent statistics, the number of cases heard from 1961-62 to 1964-65 increased by more than 20 per cent, while the number of judges decreased from three to two. This legislation

March 30, 1966
Judges Act
will bring back the necessary balance in the judicial district of Trois-Rivieres, and the general public will be most pleased with this measure, for there has been a considerable delay in the hearing of civil cases in the last few years.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) for this initiative which will be well received by the people in the judicial district of Trois-Rivieres, and will give them justice.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
LEnglish1


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is one minor question I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice. The resolution refers to the appointment of one additional judge to the district court of Alberta. I find some difficulty in identifying that jurisdiction precisely. It had been my belief that so far as the province of Alberta is concerned the district court was composed of two judicial districts, one for northern Alberta and one for southern Alberta, that appointment to one of these two district courts was exclusive of the other and that an appointment to the District Court of Southern Alberta had no application whatsoever to the District Court of Northern Alberta.
I do not wish to appear niggling, but if my thinking is correct the resolution would need to be more specific concerning whether it is dealing with southern or northern Alberta.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Perhaps I can answer that question quickly. The additional judge is for the district of northern Alberta and in particular for the city of Edmonton.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The appointment is to the whole of northern Alberta; there is no particular locality. I thank the minister for his information.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a few words about the resolution now under consideration.
Needless to say that this resolution will be welcomed by the bar of the province of Quebec, but I wish to point out to the minister that there is still a shortage of judges in the district of Quebec.
In fact, in the judicial district of Saguenay, where I practise, as in the district of Haute-Rive, there are about 800 or 900 civil cases pending and that is a source of great prejudice to ordinary men.

There are automobile accident cases which date back four years. They have been on the docket for that length of time and, in the interval, witnesses often disappear. Consequently, when those witnesses cannot be heard, the parties are compelled to arrive at a settlement because the witnesses are dead.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that because the number of judges is too small in the district of Quebec, great prejudice is done to our taxpayers, and I would call the minister's attention to that point.
I am also of the opinion that the minister should study the advisability of lightening the docket, in order to help our people. In my opinion, he should appoint three new judges in the region of Quebec, which would greatly help to solve our problems.
Mr. Chairman, it has too often been said in this house that the political appointment of our judges in the superior courts or courts of appeal was questionable. As a member of the bar, I wish to protest against that tendency to let the people think that the political appointment of judges is not a good thing.
In my humble opinion, and by experience, when judges are appointed to the superior court or to the court of appeal, in short, to any court, they retain, I am happy to say, that feeling of impartiality about the ordinary man. Just because a man is appointed by a Liberal government or a Conservative government or any other, it does not mean that he does not assume his responsibilities when he becomes a judge.
I once heard a member of the house say that the method of appointing judges should be changed, because the present method is unreliable. I challenge that position and more especially, I protest against leaving the public with the impression that the appointment of a new judge is often unsatisfactory.
I think our governments appoint judges mainly because of the appointee's experience and legal knowledge. I also believe that in addition to that knowledge, a judge must equally be aware of the problems facing our taxpayers. He must have been in touch with the people and, in my opinion, a former member of parliament and government member surely has greater competence, because ir. addition to his awareness of the people's problems, he knows the problems of the parties involved, which would prove useful to him when called upon to administer justice.
I am not suggesting that the government should not intervene when certain judges behave in a manner derogatory to their
March 30, 1966

profession or their status. But nevertheless, I do want to point out that if we were always to select judges outside the political field, our appointments would not necessarily be excellent, because besides being a theorician, a judge must also be a practitioner and know at first hand the problems of the people.
I also wish to point out to the minister that he might consider the possibility of changing the method of removing a judge from office.
At the present time, the act provides that, to dismiss a judge, a petition has to be approved unanimously by both houses, that is, the House of Commons and the Senate. Now, such a procedure is extremely difficult and complicated. I do not think it has been used very often in the political history of our country. As a matter of fact, if I am not mistaken, it was only used once.
Therefore, I would ask the minister to consider the possibility of amending the removal procedure, because the government is sometimes faced with a grave problem when a judge repeatedly commits acts that are not in keeping with his functions. In such a case, the government must submit a petition to both houses, in order to dismiss the judge. I should like to see the act amended so that the bar of a province could present to the governor in council a petition, signed by the majority of its members, for the removal of a judge who had committed acts not in keeping with his functions and so that the governor in council could be empowered to deal with such a petition.
I would like it to be possible for the governor in council to be called upon, once a serious inquiry has been made with the Bar of each province, to issue an order in council to remove the judge concerned from office.
Mr. Chairman, that resolution is well looked upon and will be welcomed by the Bar of the province of Quebec. I would like the minister to take into account my remarks about the appointment of judges to our various courts.
[English1


Mr. Brand:: 
Mr. Lailamme:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a few words. I am quite willing to admit the principle. Besides, I think that is the one we have always been looking for. In fact, the competence of the candidate for the judiciary must be considered rather than his affiliation to any political party.
However, while I admit that principle, I would hesitate, just like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), to apply it fully. I would not like it if, by acting in such a way, it could be said that anyone who has been very active in politics has become incapable or incompetent and cannot be a serious or objective judge.
I think that, for many years, generally speaking, not many mistakes have been made as a whole in the choice of judges but I want to point out here that the Bar of the province of Quebec, for one, has been asking for a long time to be consulted when it comes to appointing judges. I think that the general council of the Bar, in Quebec as well as in Ontario and the other provinces, feels that it

March 30, 1966
Judges Act
has a general idea not only of the competence, but also of the ability of the candidates to do the work well.
It has often been said, and the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) mentioned it a little earlier, that in several judicial districts of the province the calendar is several years behind.
I wish to point out the number of judges coming under the exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I should like particular attention to be given to this problem, in order to avoid the almost continuous appointment of judges to royal commissions, which relieves them of the obligation to hear and judge cases, so that during periods of six months, a year, or even several years, a judge cannot sit and perform the duties to which he was appointed. These are the comments I wished to make.
I also wish to add that, on the whole, the public has a great respect for the judiciary, and I respectfully submit that the recently created superior council of the Judiciary, without usurping any authority, could be very helpful to the hon. Minister of Justice in choosing candidates who will have the extremely serious and important task of handing down justice.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in support of the position taken by my colleague from Burnaby-Richmond and by other members in all parties. I had thought the minister might have risen and responded to the pleas of hon. members. What we are doing is trying to raise a problem which has given a great deal of concern to members of the bar in all parties and in all provinces, and I believe we can do so without casting aspersions in any way on the persons who are now part of the judiciary.
As the minister knows, the whole method of appointing judges, though it does produce excellent members of the judiciary, has always seemed to put them on the bench under a cloud because the method of appointment is such that it is easily open to the criticism of political partisanship. Even though we do manage to choose excellent people to put on the bench, by following this procedure we start them out under a cloud of political partisanship. That to me seems unfair because I am sure the objective of the Minister of Justice and of all hon. members is to get the highest possible calibre of people on the bench and to divorce them as much as

possible from any suggestion of partisanship so that their reputation for impartiality will be unchallenged.
I hope the minister will realize we are quite serious about this problem. He might indicate to us before passage of this bill whether or not his tenure as Minister of Justice will be marked by a departure from the old system and the introduction of another method which will meet those fears respecting a cloud surrounding the judiciary because of the method of appointment.
As the minister knows, the Canadian Bar Association has passed resolutions on two or three occasions recommending that appointments to the bench be made on the basis of merit only without any political consideration being involved. This started as far back as 1949 when the annual meeting of the association in Banff suggested to the then minister of justice that the government consult with a committee to consist of the chief justice of the province, the chief justice of the trial division and representatives of the benchers of the law society in the province before making any appointment to the bench of that province.
In 1965 the Canadian Bar Journal carried an editorial suggesting the appointment of an independant body to which the minister might refer in connection with judicial appointments. Of course, such a committe could not dictate to the minister. No one would suggest that, but some consultation should take place.
In 1965 the Canadian Law Teachers Association undertook as one of their principal concerns a study of the whole question of the administration of justice with particular reference to the appointment of judges. My colleague from Burnaby-Richmond has already mentioned an article by Professor Angus, which was framed in pretty colourful language but which raised serious concern on all sides and, of course, those great organs of journalistic authenticity, the Toronto Star and the Toronto Telegram, have carried numerous articles and editorials dealing with the problem.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I suggest to the minister that he devise a formula whereby in each province a committee can be established, composed of the vice president of the bar association, the treasurer and some other member of the law society, the chief justice of the province and the chief justice of the trial division of the Supreme Court of the province, and that the minister
March 30, 1966

might consult with such a committee in private and in confidence about appointments. After the appointments were made the committee could then comment favourably upon them. It seems to me that the advantage in such an arrangement would be the general knowledge in the profession that consultation was taking place and that appointments were being made without regard to political affiliation. In addition, of course, it would relieve the minister of press criticism with regard to the political aspect and also the result sometimes obtained in that appointees turn out to be somewhat less than the ultimate in the carrying out of their duties.
It seems to me that this is something which can be handled in a purely non-political way. All of us have the same objective, to surround the bench with the greatest possible degree of protection and independence. A real contribution could be made by the Minister of Justice during his term of office by departing from the old way and bringing in this new method of appointing people to the bench. I think this would be a great step forward. It would be a tremendous credit to the minister and it woud be a real memento of his term as Minister of Justice.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take long, because I do not want to delay unduly the passing of this resolution. As already mentioned, the appointment of three new judges to the superior court of the province of Quebec will certainly be most welcome, first of all by the bar, and especially by the people who, for several years now, have been asking that the number of judges of the Quebec superior court be increased. The number of judges has certainly not grown, in the last few years, in keeping with the increase of population.
In rural districts, especially, the situation has been abnormal; indeed, when two and even two and a half years elapse before a case is heard, it can rightly be said that justice is being denied, and this does not encourage the population to respect the administration of justice in the land.
I remember how, in 1963, I had the opportunity to congratulate the then minister of justice who had attended to the appointment of another judge in the St. Frangois de Bedford district. I wish to point out to the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) that, since we have appointed another judge, delays before bringing a case before a court, formerly from two to two and a half years,
Judges Act
were reduced to less than a year. The appointment of one additional judge made that much of an improvement.
The main cause for those delays was a shortage of judges in the province of Quebec. I know that the number of judges and their districts, are based on the province of Quebec, by virtue of the constitution, and that they are appointed and remunerated by the federal government.
I trust that the Minister of Justice will urge his colleagues in the province of Quebec to request a greater number of judges for their province.
Mr. Chairman, we have discussed the appointment of judges. For my part, I wish to congratulate both the present Minister of Justice and his predecessor for the appointments in the province of Quebec. I have heard only praise from the legal profession as to the appointments made by the present Minister of Justice and his predecessor. They were experienced lawyers, respected and trusted by the legal profession, their colleagues and the general public. If such appointments continue to be made, I think there will be no basis for the fears expressed earlier by the hon. members.
I only wish to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice that the salaries of judges were last increased in 1963. To attract competent lawyers who will be a credit to the high calling of presiding over our courts, the salary will definitely have to be raised so as to entice the best lawyers to leave their private practice and to sit on the brench as a service to society.
I would also ask the Minister of Justice to look after the amendment of the Judges Act so as to improve the pensions for the widows and children of deceased judges.
Mr. Chairman, these are the only comments I wish to make at this stage.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: I regret exceedingly, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has seen fit to put on record in the house an article by Professor Angus which I venture to suggest constitutes a reflection upon the whole judiciary of Canada. I say to you, sir, that this article is so irresponsible and immoderate in its tone that it really deserves no answer. However, I wish to put to the committee that it is totally devoid of reality. The article suggests that judicial appointments in Canada are a national disgrace. I say that the very contrary is the.

March 30. 1966
Judges Act
truth. Judicial appointments in Canada are a credit to our nation. Any professor who seeks to denigrate the judiciary of this nation is doing a grave national disservice.
I say to you, sir, that the independence, the impartiality, and the ability of the judiciary of this nation compare exceedingly favourably with the judiciary of any other nation. I know of no other place in the world where you will find a better judiciary than we have here in Canada. When that article speaks about the harmful effect upon the administration of justice, I assert there is not one tittle of evidence that there are any harmful effects upon the administration of justice. That is totally irresponsible conduct on the part of this professor and I regret that the hon. gentleman has given some respectability to his statement by putting it on the records of the house.
I want to add that I never have believed a man should be disqualified from any office because he engages in public service, and I say there is no higher degree of public service than service to a political party because service to a political party is the bedrock of Our democracy. If you do not have people of ability who are prepared to serve in our political parties and give a spirit of enthusiasm to political parties, then we will not have democracy in this country.
I think the last thing in the world we should have is the elimination from appointment to the bench of men and women who have sought to give public service through our political parties. At many bar conventions I have engaged in discussion concerning what might be done to improve the technique of appointment. I believe successive ministers of justice have tried very earnestly to make their appointments on the most conscientous basis possible. Undoubtedly the occasional mistake is made. But I submit there are fewer mistakes made in the appointment of the judiciary of this nation than are made in the election of members to this House of Commons or in appointments to a lot of other places.
I wish to express my full disapproval of the outrageous reflection upon the judiciary of Canada by this professor.


Mr. Leboe:: I rise, Mr. Chairman, for only a moment to take part in the discussion this afternoon. First, may I say that I am in full support of the position taken by members who have spoken in support of keeping appointments to the judiciary outside of politics.
IMr. Bell (Carleton).]
I take exception to the statement made a moment ago by the hon. member for Carleton to the effect that this would mean that people known to have political leanings would be denied appointment to the judiciary. This is not the case and that was not the suggestion. The suggestion is that judges, regardless of their political affiliation, be appointed on the basis of their capability and merit. On reflection I think the judges themselves would be the first to suggest to us that appointments be made outside of politics because once put on the bench appointees would be free of being accused of being a Liberal, a Conservative, a New Democratic Party supporter, a Social Crediter or what have you.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is very important and essential that we give consideration to this point. I had intended to place a motion along these lines on the Order Paper as well as a similar motion in connection with the appointment of individuals to the Senate. When I learned I could only place one motion on the order paper at a time I decided to frame a motion with regard to Senate appointments and that motion still stands on the Order Paper.
I feel that the judiciary can be better served if appointments of judges are made in such a way that after their appointments they can be satisfied that their positions are completely independent, which is not the case when appointments are made on a political basis.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bert Raymond Leboe: Just one moment.


Richard Albert Bell: That is not true.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I am not a judge nor am I a lawyer. I will never be a judge because I have no intention of becoming a lawyer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bert Raymond Leboe: The fact remains that on the basis of plain commonsense and logic the judiciary is going to be in a better position if appointments are made outside of politics. The hon. member for Carleton suggested that it was a good thing to be of service to a political party, and that is true. The undertone of his remarks might suggest that someone who has been of service in political circles would make a better judge. I do not believe that is true.
March 30, 1966


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would take the same position in respect of the appointment of directors to the boards of directors, of provincial banks?


Bert Raymond Leboe: That is a completely different matter. The directors of provincial banks are chosen because of the interest they have in a particular bank. The situation is the same as in any other business and no comparison with the appointments now under discussion exists.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the proposition now before the committee should be accepted. There is tremendous backlog of cases in all our courts as a result of which injustices are caused by delays. With regard to the question of appointing extra judges to the bench I feel that the number proposed is the minimum requirement and that it should be doubled so that cases can be concluded and judgments delivered.
Having regard to the question of the advisability of making appointments outside of politics, I cannot understand what the argument is. We cannot operate in a vacuum. Every single corner of public life is affected by politics and I am one who likes to believe that politics attracts the highest type of public servant. I fail to see why an association with politics should disqualify any man from any position anywhere in Canada.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member when he heard anyone in this house suggest that because someone had belonged to a political party he should be disqualified for appointment as a judge?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member thinks the hat fits he should wear it. I am trying to put forward an argument against any suggestion that the appointment of judges should be removed from politics. I do not understand how any decision of moment in Canada can be taken outside of politics. I think politics demands individuals of the highest character and ability from every segment of our population and in my opinion it is patently ridiculous to suggest that because a man sat for two weeks in the House of Commons he should be prevented from ever taking a position of authority on the bench.
If one took this suggestion to its logical conclusion I suppose it would mean that all individuals associated with politics would be unqualified for any civil service position or to be members of the R.C.M.P. or the armed
Judges Act
forces. I should like to think that the experience gained by individuals as members of this house, the highest court in the land, if they had the other qualifications required, would help to qualify them even for the position of judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised that this small but not unimportant measure should arouse so much intellectual shot and shell in this chamber. However, I appreciate both the motive and the point of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. At the same time I should add that I must support the proposition eloquently advanced by the hon. member for Carleton.
I respectfully point out that the standard of the judiciary in the United Kingdom is unsurpassed anywhere. There, the Lord Chancellor, who is the holder of a political office, from time immemorial has dealt with appointments to the courts. I respectfully direct the attention of the house to the fact that the Attorney General in the United Kingdom invariably succeeds to the office of Chief Justice if a vacancy occurs during his tenure of office as Attorney General. It is generally regarded in England that active participation in politics is beneficial to the qualities of a judge.
In conclusion let me say that during my 20 years at the bar I have never heard the slightest suggestion that the prior political activities of a judge in any way influenced his judgment. I say this at the same time recognizing the point made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. I respectfully commend this resolution to the committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General? Is it not a fact that appointments to the bench in the United Kingdom by the Attorney General do cross party lines, which is something that does not happen in this country?


Lawrence T. Pennell: In reply to the hon. member let me say that as I understand the situation appointments are made by the Lord Chancellor and frequently do cross party lines. Such appointments happen occasionally in this country, and I use the word "occasionally" candidly, but I would point out that the Lord Chancellor selects members of the House of Commons frequently in making these appointments.


Reid Scott: I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether it is true that

March 30, 1966
Judges Act
in England the Lord Chancellor, although he makes the appointments, does have a committee outside politics to advise him which he consults prior to making such appointments?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am not familiar with everything which leads the Lord Chancellor to a decision but I know he is unfettered in his discretion. Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice, was actively engaged in the office of Attorney General when a vacancy occurred in Great Britain and he was acclaimed by members of the bar when he was elevated to the office of Chief Justice. The same was true of Lord Birkett who was a member of parliament when appointed to the high court. I point out that it is generally regarded in Great Britain that active participation in politics is beneficial to the quality of a judge.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a lot of straw men are being knocked down this afternoon. No one has said that judges are influenced by politics or make political decisions. We are complaining about the fact that at any one time judges in Canada are picked almost exclusively from one political party. No one suggests that their decisions are not impartial from a political point of view. Let us be clear about that. It appears to me that the hon. member for Carleton was rather selective in what he listened to because I said that many of the best people in this country have been involved in political life and should be considered for appointment. My suggestion was that we should consider them all and not exclusively those from a particular group. Let us consider many other people who have not been active in politics but who would make excellent appointments to the judiciary. I think some hon. members have misinterpreted the remarks I made this afternoon.
The hon. member for Carleton has taken exception to an article by Professor Angus to which I referred. On another occasion I will quote from a great many more articles on this subject, because his is not the only one that complains about the system of appointing judges in Canada. In fact, there is a whole bibliography on the subject. In presenting a bill on this subject I will cite some of those complaints.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Let us be clear about one or two other things. People who have taken part in political life should be eligible for appointment to the bench. When I said that in recent years there had been complaints made about the appointment of judges I was not referring just to newspaper stories we have read about

the troubles some judges have got into. I am referring to the fact that there are judges who are much less competent than they should be. I say this as a result of speaking to a good many lawyers in the different political parties. I was rather shocked when I first heard a group of lawyers talking about some judges and saying that one should try to get a case on the list in such and such a court rather than have it heard by such and such a judge in another court. Here was a plain case of incompetence without regard to the person's political affiliation.
We should try to have the best lawyers appointed to the bench. From what I have heard from lawyers from the different provinces there are a great many people who are not capable of doing the kind of job they should be doing on the bench. They do not get into trouble but the fact is they are not the most able people in the profession. This is the point. We want the most able people in the profession appointed to the bench.


Reid Scott: I would not have participated in the debate again except for the intervention of the hon. member for Carleton. He, with his impassioned oratory, managed to shed a good deal more heat than light on the subject under discussion this afternoon. He has suggested that the position we are advancing is in some way an attack upon the judicial system. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. member permit me to say that I did not suggest anything that the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond or the hon. member now speaking personally, said was an attack upon the judicial system. In my opinion, however, the article which was read into the record was a serious reflection upon the judiciary. I refer to the article by Professor Angus who suggested that the judicial appointments in this country were a national disgrace. I say it would be a grave national disservice to allow that article to appear on the record of this house without being challenged.


Reid Scott: Naturally I accept that correction and I am glad to have the position clarified. As I listened to the hon. member's speech I took the other interpretation from it which turned out to be a misinterpretation. Naturally we accept the hon. gentleman's word. However, he did make a suggestion which I feel should be corrected. He seemed to say that by taking the position we have this afternoon we are somehow
March 30. 1966



suggesting that people who have been active in politics should be disqualified or not be available for appointment to the bench. This is the reverse of what we are suggesting. The point we are trying to make is that the present system is in effect injurious to the judiciary in some ways because it starts judges out in their job with a cloud of political partisanship surrounding them. No one is saying we do not have good judges. No one is saying that people who have been active in politics should not be appointed to the bench. In fact, I am not even convinced that they should be lawyers. Someone has said that if we could make a lawyer into a Minister of Agriculture why could we not make a farmer into a judge or a Solicitor General?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Agreed.


Reid Scott: All we are trying to say is that we all have the same objective, to have the strongest possible judiciary free from any connotation of political partisanship. It is more than coincidental that appointments to the bench, even though they may be good men, always happen to be supporters of the ruling party. All we are trying to suggest to the minister is that for once he take a courageous step and remove the judiciary from this cloud of partisanship. He should devise a system of appointments that will free judges once and for all from the cloud of political partisanship. This is in no way an attack upon judges themselves or upon the integrity or impartiality of those who are appointed to the bench. It is merely a suggestion that we get rid of the cloud that has always been attached to the judiciary in Canada and that we start judges out free and clear of any charge of political partisanship in connection with the method of their appointment.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we have fully aired the problem with regard to the appointment of judges. I should like to direct the mind of the Minister of Justice to the problem of training judges. I was very happy to have the Solicitor General refer to England as an example of a country in which people of the highest calibre are appointed to the bench. In Canada since confederation we have never had any training of the members of the legal profession who have been elevated to the bench. You may rightly say that this does not happen in England either, but the situation is different in England. In that country the High Court of
Judges Act
Justice is divided into different branches. We have the Queen's Bench Branch, Chancery, Probate Division, Admiralty and so forth. Each division deals with a different branch of the law. When a person is appointed he generally concentrates on that particular branch of the law.
In England we also do not have the county courts possessing jurisdiction over criminal matters. The civil courts there do not have the same wide jurisdiction that some of our civil courts have. A more important feature, Mr. Chairman, is the division between barrister and solicitor in England. It is only the barristers in that country who are eligible for appointment to the bench. In Canada 99 per cent of our lawyers are both barristers and solicitors. It would be fair to say that not more than 5 per cent of lawyers specialize in counsel work. Therein lies the big problem. When a person is appointed to the bench, in all probability he has been a solicitor and has had very little counsel work. He is not familiar with the law.
The question arises, just how do we train these men to assume their duties? It has been suggested that once a person is appointed to the bench he should, before he assumes his full duties, sit with a judge in a criminal court for a period of time and then he should sit with another judge in a civil court for an allotted time. The reason suggested for this is that he would become familiar with the different branches of the law. If he were to sit on a criminal case, a murder case, in the high court he would get the feeling of the procedure and the feeling of the law. If he were to shift to a civil court he would get experience in contracts, negligence law and so forth. If he were to do that for approximately six months, perhaps he could then take a short course conducted by the senior judges in the provinces with regard to particular branches of the law. In this way I think most of the difficulties that are present today would be overcome because many who are appointed have not had a broad experience in the field. I ask the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to give some thought to this aspect of the question of appointments.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-160, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Judges Act

March 30, 1366
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Reid Scot! (Danforih): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) is prepared to respond to the representations we have been making this afternoon regarding the setting up of some consultative machinery for the appointment of people to the bench. I would have risen earlier but I had asssumed that the minister would respond.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I should point out to the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to thank hon. Inembers who took part in this debate which I found most interesting because suggestions were made that will prove quite useful to me, in my capacity as Minister of Justice, and could make my task easier.
I do not think that there is much difference of opinion about increasing the number of judges in this country. The increase in our population naturally requires that we have a greater number of judges than we have now and that they be in a position to administer justice efficiently throughout the different provinces.
lEnglisKi
I do not think there has been too much difference of opinion, Mr. Speaker, on the basic point in the bill before the house, which is to increase the number of judges in the different provinces concerned. As hon. members realize, there have been delays in the hearing of cases and delays in bringing down judgments for no other reason than that there has been an insufficient number of judges able to perform this important work in the provinces concerned.
However, I think it should be noted, though most hon. members do realize this, that the number of judges in any province is determined by the provincial authorities, not by the federal authorities. So far as the government and the Department of Justice are concerned, we are always willing to increase the number of judges requested by the various provinces.

One problem which has arisen and is causing some difficulty to the Chief Justices and the Attorneys General of the different provinces is the increasing number of inquiries and commissions which require the presence of sitting judges. This disorganizes the arrangement of the work by the Chief Justices for the different court terms. I and my predecessors have in the past been trying to work with the Chief Justices and Attorneys General in order to work out a plan whereby these inquiries can be carried out without disrupting too much the work organized and planned by the Chief Justices, and these arrangements are working out fairly well.
I was rather surprised that more stress was not placed by hon. members on the salaries of judges. Every one who has spoken has mentioned the need for the best possible calibre of judge available and I think that the salaries of judges are one important aspect which members of the house should consider.
It is true, as has been mentioned, that there have been representations made by the Chief Justices of the different provinces to the Minister of Justice regarding an increase in the salaries of judges so that they may be able to have that standard of living and prestige which we as Canadian citizens would wish them to have. I may say that very serious study has been given and is being given to adopting a system whereby an increase in the salaries of these judges will be favourably considered.
One of the burning questions which has been brought up concerns the appointment of judges. As hon. members can easily see for themselves, there are two different schools of thought on this matter. I do not agree that in the past the judiciary has been affected by the method of appointment which has been followed. I do not agree that the judges are not independent. Some hon. members said that you only have to ask a judge to find out whether or not he would rather be named independently but those to whom I have spoken, and I have spoken to a good many, are completely independent of any political party and their judgments on the bench have likewise been independent.
Nor do I think that we have to be ashamed of our judiciary or of our method of appointing judges. Our record in this country has been as good as, if not better than, any other country in the world so far as the judiciary is concerned. I am not saying it is perfect. What I am saying is that it has been good and that we can be well proud of it.
March 30, 1966

Personally, and I think I can say this very sincerely, I have been very much concerned about the appointment of judges. I have very carefully read the briefs prepared by the Canadian Bar Association and many other *organizations which have spoken about the method of appointing judges. I have also spoken to my colleagues about it and many of "them have had long discussions on the whole problem of appointing judges.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Suggestions have been made by hon. members today and I have heard suggestions by .some of my own colleagues respecting appointments, but no suggestion that I have so far heard is one that would ensure that better judges would be selected under the proposed system than have been appointed under the system that has been followed until now. There is a constitutional responsibility upon the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General and the government to name the judges. It is a responsibility which should not easily be thrown away. I have not closed my mind to any further suggestions as to other methods of appointing judges and of trying to be sure that the government is given the best possible legal minds in this field, but I must say that most suggestions and recommendations I have heard have not convinced me that by the utilization of any of these suggested methods we would in fact have better judges.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to tell hon. members that this is a question which has been very much on my mind and in the minds of my colleagues. We are very sensitive about it. We want to have, as all members want to have, a judiciary of which we can be proud. We, as all governments that have administered Canada, can be proud of the record of our judiciary.
I want to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this debate. I will take into account the suggestions which have been made and I hope that it will be possible to put some of them into effect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 4-
Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, did I understand the minister to say that the government is giving consideration, whether active or not, to the salaries of the judges?
Admiralty Act


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, what I did say was that the government was considering the revision of the judges' salaries but not necessarily in this bill.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the Minister of Justice?
Could he tell us for which judicial district the three judges will be appointed? Would there be one for Montreal to deal especially with cases of bankruptcy?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, among the three judges to be appointed in the province of Quebec, one will deal with bankruptcies in the district of Montreal, another will sit in the district of Trois-Rivieres and a third one will sit on the board of appeal of the Canada pension plan, in which the province of Quebec is participating.
lEnglish]


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ADMIRALTY ACT


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Admiralty Act to authorize the appointment of not more than three deputy judges for each admiralty district and to provide for a certain change in the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to make a statement?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The statement will be very short indeed. I simply wish to say that the purpose of the legislation is to authorize the

March 30. 1966
Admiralty Act
appointment of not more than three deputy judges for each admiralty district. As hon. members may know, representations have been made to them and have been made to me that there has been an increase in admiralty work, particularly in areas such as British Columbia, Toronto and Quebec city. It is for these areas particularly, that deputy judges in admiralty districts are proposed. The bill generally covers all admiralty districts, although it is not necessary to name the deputy judges immediately.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the minister how many admiralty districts we now have?


An hon. Member:: I think it is six.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I wonder whether I could answer that later?


Richard Albert Bell: I think there are eight districts now. What we are doing here through this measure is authorizing the appointment of 24 deputy judges. My understanding is that the present situation is that for each of the admiralty districts there is a district judge and that the district judge now has the right, where the necessity arises, to himself nominate a deputy judge.
I assume that this legislation is taking that authority away from the district judge and vesting it in the Governor in Council. Perhaps the minister would be prepared to indicate how many of the 24 judges now being authorized for appointment it is intended in fact to appoint, what the anticipated salaries of those deputy judges will be and whether it will be a fixed annual stipend or will be in accordance with the work which they may do from time to time.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is not correct to say that this legislation is taking away from the district judge in admiralty the capacity of naming a deputy judge. This power remains with the district judge in admiralty. The power the district judge now has is to appoint one deputy judge. What we are trying to do is to give him power to name two but not more than three judges in areas where that is necessary, which as I have indicated would particularly include British Columbia, Toronto and Quebec city. So far as the remuneration of these deputy judges is concerned, may I point out that deputy judges are not remunerated by the government but usually are paid fees, as I understand it.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Barnett:: Can the minister explain what is involved in the portion of the resolution which states that a certain change is proposed in the administration of the act? This seems to involve more than the authorization to appoint additional judges. Can the minister give us some idea of what is intended?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I suggest we might do better to wait until the bill is before us before considering this point.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-161, to amend the Admiralty Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: the second reading of the bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question while we were on the resolution stage and the minister suggested we might consider it when we had the bill before us. We have given the bill first reading and a motion for second reading has been made but I have yet to see the bill. I am wondering where I can get a copy.


Mr. Turner:: The copies are here.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I now have the bill before me. This completes my remarks on second reading.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Appointment of Deputy Judges.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the minister care to explain now what is involved in these administrative changes?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: They are very minor changes. Under the present act the district judge in an Admiralty Court can nominate one deputy judge. The present bill contemplates giving him permission to nominate two or not more than three deputy judges so as to enable
March 30. 1S66

better progress to be made with this type of work which has increased in certain areas of the country, particularly British Columbia, Toronto and Quebec city. That is the purpose of clause 1.
So far as clause 2 is concerned, the sheriffs of the various districts and counties are also marshals of the Admiralty Court. Under the present law they have jurisdiction within the judicial district in which they serve as sheriffs. It is now contemplated that each sheriff or marshal should have jurisdiction in the whole of the admiralty district so that, for example, if a ship goes from one district to another a marshal may nevertheless have authority to serve a writ or do whatever is required.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I take it then that the sheriff of the county of Nanaimo, for example, could in a case which involved a ship exercise authority outside Nanaimo just for the purposes of the Admiralty Act.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is correct. He would be able to act within the Admiralty district which is wider than the normal judicial county or district.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have leave to make two motions referring the subject matter of certain bills and certain motions to a standing committee?
Industrial Relations Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member requesting that we revert to motions? Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty):
That the subject matter of the following private members' bills, now on the order paper, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs: C-26, C-49, C-87 and C-118.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty):
That the subject matter of the following private members' notices of motions, now on the order paper, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs: Motion No. 26 in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster and motion No. 31 in the name of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to provide that an employer shall not introduce or implement any technological innovation, development, or change which would materially and adversely affect the working conditions of his employees until after he has negotiated the matter with the bargaining agent of his employees, and that if no agreement is reached, the matter shall be referred to a conciliation board as provided by section 22(2) of the act, and that if the employer introduces or implements the proposed changes without such negotiation and conciliation, his employees shall have the right to strike immediately as if the collective agreement had expired and all other statutory requirements had been met.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the report I hold in my hand has a longwinded title, "Report of Industrial Inquiry Commission on Canadian National Railways 'Run Throughs' ". When it was published in November 1965, it quickly became known as the Freedman report, after Justice Samuel Freedman of Winnipeg who was commissioner of the inquiry.
Most important, it was immediately hailed by labour as the great document of this age
3634	COMMONS
Industrial Relations Act on the problem of automation and the anticipation of adjustment to technological change. Part of the quality of the Freedman report's impact stemmed from its literate, analytical exposition but much more from the recommendations on how labour, management and government should meet the future. My motion, although it does not acknowledge it in words, is inspired by the Freedman report.
I am a railroader, a long service employee of the Canadian National Railways, a member of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, a witness before the Freedman Inquiry, and a participant in the strike of October, 1964, which led to the inquiry. In presenting this motion I am continuing a tradition begun by present and previous colleagues of my party who have insisted for a decade that much more protection and planning should be given to smooth the transition of technological change and the damaging social consequences which flow from it.
My motion zeros in upon one aspect of the general problem. It appears to everyone to be good sense that neither government nor its agencies such as boards and bureaus, nor a host of complex formulae, should get in the way of direct dealing between management and labour. So many critics, hostile to labour, imagine that labour clamours for government interference because of some principle. This is not true. An intelligent union man knows that the ideal situation is where management and labour settle differences at the bargaining table by themselves. Much of the vociferous lobbying of government by labour is to seek a fair chance at the bargaining table. In essence this is the purpose of my motion. When management always has the initiative so that it can introduce or implement any substantial technological change which materially affects the conditions the workers face, without any right of the worker to negotiate regarding the change, then the worker is really at the mercy of management.
Railway labour in its relations with railway management is a model of the problems created by technological change. Railway unions have held contracts for most work on the railways for five generations and have an honourable history of good, responsible relationships with management and with the federal labour agencies which have the jurisdiction in this field. They are even more a model because their membership spreads from sea to sea.
Not long after the second world war railway management, led by the government

DEBATES	March 30, 1966
owned C.N.R. and supported by huge sums from the federal treasury, began both to modernize and innovate. The process was centred on the switch from coal burning to diesel locomotives, the switch to a form of central traffic control based on electronics, and to maintenance and rolling stock changes which emphasized machine operations, much longer trains, faster schedules and remarkable improvements in telecommunications.
Regrettably, the railways in taking these bold incentives for change retained and expanded the implicit theory of unlimited managerial rights. In a nutshell this theory, known as the residual rights theory, permits management to make drastic changes in working conditions during the closed period of a contract. Unless a union has been able to get restrictions of a specific kind written into the contract, it has been defenceless.
Management has not needed to negotiate the changes. It has unilateral power. Any of you who know the history of railway union negotiations in Canada know that management, supported by quasi-judicial opinions of conciliation board judges, has accepted this theory.
As Judge Freedman puts it on page 86:
There is a deceptive allure about the doctrine. It appears to be eminently sane and reasonable. Since the property and plant belonged to management who else but management should run it and make decisions? True enough, if management by its agreement has surrendered a part of its managerial function, that part is lost to it; but the residue remains. Could anything be more logical?
In confession to certain doubts and misgivings about the adequacy of the doctrine for the contemporary industrial scene, the commission must in fairness record that these doubts and misgivings do not appear to have been shared by the great majority of people who have been called upon to deal with it in an official way. A study of decisions in labour arbitration cases shows a distinct numerical preponderance in favour of the validity of the doctrine. To the extent that this body of jurisprudence may be taken as having settled the law it undoubtedly furnishes impressive support for those who hold the theory as correct. None the less-
I beg hon. members to note this.
-the commission still has reservations about the doctrine. It seems to treat too lightly the changes in labour-management relations which have been wrought by collective bargaining.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Before I return to the question of residual rights which Mr. Justice Freedman said "lies at the heart of this inquiry", I want to tell you something about the crisis which led to
March 30, 1966

Industrial Relations Act
the Freedman inquiry. What a story it reveals about obdurate management, a complacent government with its ears blocked and its eyes blinded, and a discontented labour force seething and desperate with a common cause for grievance even though it was scattered in dozens of separate locales from Vancouver to Moncton.
Let me emphasize this. Repeatedly the government was warned by parliamentarians and by union leaders who were frankly somewhat frightened at the surging militancy of their membership. The recommendations of a committee of this house were ignored by the Minister of Labour and by a succession of Ministers of Transport, including the incumbent. The House Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines in 1963, with great unanimity, had recommended, after considering a private member's public bill, that the government so legislate that material changes must be either negotiated or take place within a regulatory framework which set out some formulae for compensation, retraining and adjustment.
Why was the committee so convinced that it gave what is so rare in parliamentary history, approval to a private member's bill? The arguments that convinced them were the arguments that convinced Justice Freedman. As early as 1960 delegations had come to Ottawa from unions and from community representatives of railway towns to protest the casual and unplanned consequences of railway management's innovations springing from the residual rights theory.
Let there be no mistake about it, gentlemen. There were warnings. The wildcat national walkout of October, 1964 in its nature was spontaneous. It had no official leadership; it streaked like wildfire across this nation; it tied up one major railway and it would have tied up another if the government had not guaranteed an inquiry. A lot of pumpkin-wise guys, especially those who write editorials for newspapers, were astounded and shocked at this illegal event. Why did railway labour have to be dragged screaming into the mid-20th century? Could they not see that their archaic practices, their featherbedding, their resistance to change were impeding the orderly development of an improved system? Well, my friend, railway workers, like their brothers in most of the world, are neither stupid nor conservative but they wanted and want a fair shake.
Canadian National management's most publicized invokement of residual rights was
in their institution of run-throughs. A run-through is a trip or assignment which requires crews to run through a recognized terminal or turn around point where crews normally change off and the incoming crew books off duty for rest. Run-throughs double the mileage and time on duty of the crews for a single trip.
Obviously the C.N.R. had a policy to introduce run-throughs from coast to coast. Put cleverly, their plans were introduced piecemeal and without much notice. From the first the union officials objected at all levels. Despite their protests run-throughs were instituted in certain places beginning in 1958. By the time the C.N.R. was ready with its second round in 1960, more coherent objections had been formed. I remember coming to Ottawa to protest one run-through planned in my home area. The minister of labour did not listen. He did not intervene to establish a board of conciliation. It took the threat of a wildcat strike to head off these run-throughs. The railway went on with its plans. Demoralizing rumours about changes, about the coming death of railway towns like Nakina and Wainwright, rippled across the railway system.
At negotiation time the railways refused to bargain on the issue or to let any protection be placed within the contract. Management had the initiative, government was deaf and blind, and the men seethed. There were more and more delegations from across the country. Sometimes it would be union leaders, sometimes regional and local union officers, sometimes mayors and community delegations. They came to Ottawa, they told their story, they pleaded for protection, they asked for changes in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and in the Railway Act but to no avail. Thus, when the C.N.R. management announced plans in the late summer of 1964 to introduce run-throughs in late October, 1964 which would decimate both work and community life in Biggar, Saskatchewan, and Nakina, Ontario, the balloon went up. Again there were delegations and representations to Ottawa. The Ministers of Labour and Transport listened and did nothing. And so the strike came and then the inquiry and then the Freedman recommendations. I am going to quote parts of the recommendations at pages 91 and 92 of the report of Mr. Justice Freedman:
The commission must accordingly conclude that on the basis of the law as it exists today the company does have the right, as it contends, to-institute run-throughs. That conclusion at once
March 30, 1966

Industrial Relations Act poses a question: Should it continue to have that right? The commission is satisfied that it must be answered only in one way. The institution of run-throughs should be a matter for negotiation. To treat it as an unfettered management prerogative will only promote unrest, undermine morale, and drive the parties farther and farther apart. In that direction lies disorder and danger. By placing run-throughs, on the other hand, within the realm of negotiation a long step will be taken towards the goal of industrial peace. More than that. Such a course will help to provide safeguards against the undue dislocation and hardship that often result from technological change.
Then, at page 93 of his report:
Run-throughs should be negotiated. It is worth noting that in the United States they are negotiated. That conditions in the United States are not parallel with those on Canadian National may well be the case. The fact remains, however, that American railways are quite able to function under a system in which, voluntarily or otherwise, they negotiate the issue of interdivisional runs. No doubt they would prefer to have unlimited freedom to establish such runs at their own discretion, since no manager welcomes with enthusiasm any restriction upon his sphere of action. The point of significance is, however, that they manage to carry on despite the necessity of negotiation- which suggests that fears conjured up by management about the dire consequences that would result from any interference with its unilateral right to institute run-throughs are largely groundless.
At page 94 the report states:
Non-reviewable discretion to establish interdivisional service is essentially what Canadian National now has, and what it should not have.
Then, at pages 95 and 96 of the report:
In advocating the negotiation of run-throughs the commission has in mind something more than mere discussion. At Nakina and Wainwright the scope of permissible discussion was very much restricted, as the commission has already found. What is required, if the men are not to feel that they are victims of a plan instead of participants in it. is negotiation on a basis of parity. Mr. N. J. MacMillan in the course of his testimony said that negotiation necessarily carries with it a right of veto. The commission has little doubt that Mr. MacMillan was here sounding a warning or alarm. Duly warned though it is. the commission is not greatly alarmed by the prospect of run-throughs being made a subject of negotiation. A power of veto is not necessarily and inherently a vicious thing. It is the irresponsible abuse of that power which is vicious and should be condemned. The term "veto" may have a sinister connotation in an international setting dominated by a cold war. But after all, is it not something which is encountered every day whenever two contracting parties sit down to arrive at an acceptable meeting of minds?
Then, at page 96:
A second reason for taking the risk of negotiation derives from considerations of self-interest. It is surely important to the brotherhoods that the railway undertaking if which they are a part should be viable and progressive. In its economic well-being they have a personal stake. Enlightened

self-interest accordingly demands that they should not stand in the way of its development and progress.
Page 97:
There is yet another reason why the commission recommends the taking of the risk. The alternative is worse. If run-throughs are allowed to remain as a managerial prerogative the men will simply continue to feel that they	are	victims	of	technology, inert instruments in a process beyond their control. Such a situation is fraught with danger. A mood of rebellion already confronted in Nakina and Wainwright, may arise again. No one wants to see the law flouted. Wildcat strikes are at once a defiance of law and a threat to industrial peace. As such they are to be condemned, and the commission does condemn them. But how is their recurrence to be avoided? Surely not by turning one's back on something which	has	proved	to	be a
contributing factor in their development and pretending it does not exist.
A change from unilateral control to negotiation would bring it advantages	of a	positive	kind. Itwould lessen the possibility	that	the benefits	from
a run-through program would fall largely on one side and its disadvantages largely on the other.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It would strengthen the operation aspects of the run-through actually put into effect, since the men who are daily concerned with the running of trains would be able, through their representatives, to contribute ideas and suggestions to the common pool. And it would improve the climate of labour-management relations and boost morale by the mere process of acknowledging the dignity of the individual worker and according to him a voice in decisions affecting the conditions under which he is to work.
At page 100 Mr. Justice Freedman continues as follows:
Here then is the commission's recommendation in the matter. Run-throughs, as already stated, should be negotiated. But in the course of those negotiations either party should have the right to refer to an arbitrator the quesion whether the proposed run-through falls in the former class or the latter. If the arbitrator should conclude that it is in the latter class-that is to say, that its effect is so relatively slight that it cannot fairly be described as causing a material change in working conditions- the company would at once be entitled to put its run-through plan into effect.
If, on the other hand, the arbitrator should decide that the impact of the suggested run-through would indeed cause a material change in working conditions, the company would be obliged (unless it could secure brotherhood consent) to withdraw its plan until the next open period. At that open period negotiation could proceed subject to the legally available sanction of the strike and lockout. Incidentally, a run-through plan which is being established in periodic instalments would have to be assessed on the basis of its total effect rather than in terms of its individual stages considered separately.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make this point very emphatically. The Freedman inquiry was very comprehensive in its extent. It was costly and time consuming.
March 30. 1966

Surely in the light of these factors, plus the genuine faith and confidence that was placed in the ability and honesty of this eminent jurist, it is incumbent on all hon. members to sustain his recommendations which in essence are embodied in my motion.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the spirit and terms of this resolution I do not feel it goes far enough, nor do I feel it deals adequately with the problems to which it refers. If we are going to amend the law to deal with the problems of technological innovation or automation-if I may I will use that word to include all types of technological change or innovation-we should do so in a way which will take into consideration the entire problem and provide for a more comprehensive solution. We should consider not only railroading but all industries and commerce where automation is probable.
More specifically, I do not feel that the present resolution is adequate for the following reasons. It does not contemplate action at an early enough stage really to prevent disputes concerning automation. If dislocations resulting from automation are to be properly handled they must be considered when the possible innovation is first studied. If consideration is left until a new contract comes up for bargaining it may be too late to make the proper adjustments.
There is also a feeling by many people that these problems could be more adequately dealt with away from the bargaining table and that collective bargaining is often too much beset by pressures, delays and multiple cross-currents. There is also the fact that the vast majority of the workers affected by automation are not organized for collective bargaining, and something must be done for them.
I should like to refer to an address given by Walter Reuther to a committee of the 86th Congress of the United States on automation. Mr. Reuther said that while collective bargaining has an essential role to play in meeting the problems raised by automation it cannot provide all the answers. He said that negotiated programs must function side by side with public programs, that negotiated retraining programs, for example, cannot meet the needs of all workers who require retraining. Nor can negotiated relocation programs help the employees of a firm which has gone out of business. Mr. Reuther also suggested that in addition programs similar to
Industrial Relations Act those negotiated through collective bargaining will have to be provided for the millions of workers still unorganized.
If we are to have a complete, balanced and co-ordinated program then it is necessary that the measures suggested in this resolution be considered in conjunction with other measures, especially those which entail direct government action. To begin with, we must recognize that automation is a good thing for society. In that same address by Walter Reuther to which I referred earlier, he foresaw a rate of growth in the United States of 5 per cent per annum as the result of the introduction of automation and he pointed out that this increased production could lead to many good things such as the elimination of poverty, improved standards of living, improved standards of health, the elimination of slums and increased assistance to underdeveloped countries. But at the same time we must also recognize that automation creates difficulty. It leads to many problems and often leads to labour displacement. It leads to decreases in manufacturing employment, increases in white collar and service employment, industrial concentration, commercial amalgamation, centralization and the desertion of many towns and communities.
Mr. Justice Freedman in his report, which was referred to by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett), made some suggestions about the implementation of technological innovation. I consider the report of Mr. Justice Freedman to be outstanding and progressive. It contains a lot of very good information regarding the changes in society brought about by technological change and automation. Mr. Justice Freedman stated that implementation of technological innovation places a responsibility on all parties-government, labour and management. I should like to refer to a few of his statements, the first of which appears at page 84 of his report:
The old concept of labour as a commodity simply will not suffice; it is at once wrong and dangerous. Hence there is a responsibility upon the entrepreneur who introduces technological change to see that it is not effected at the expense of his working force. That is the human aspect of the technological challenge, and it must not be ignored.
Later he states on the same page:
There are responsibilities upon labour as well. Perhaps chief among them is not to use its organized strength in blind and wilful resistance to technological advances. Labour must recognize the constructive role of technology in the general welfare and economic strength of the nation.

March 30, 1966
Industrial Relations Act
With respect to the government he says at page 82 of his report:
It is only when the economy is sluggish and when government action has been inadequate or ineffective to strengthen it that technological innovations bring unfortunate consequences to individuals.
What then are the other measures which should be considered in introducing legislation of this nature in order to deal with the entire problem? First of all, I would suggest that the government should expand the scope of the manpower consultative service so that it can intervene at the earliest stages to assist in working out solutions to these problems. In the United States the government has established committees representing government, labour and management to work out the problems related to technological innovations. As a result of this automation has been introduced in some cases without the loss of a single job. Some workers have been retrained, some reassigned and some upgraded. This was possible because they considered the problems at an early enough stage.
These committees have found that the introduction of automation can be a human as well as a technical success if certain guide lines are followed. In this regard I should like to refer to a report made by Arthur Goldberg, former Secretary of Labour in the United States, as reported in the New York Times on April 2, 1961. He was referring to the guide lines that are necessary in the introduction of technological change. Mr. Goldberg says that there must be an adequate lead time between the decision to automate and the actual changeover and that there must be sufficient consultation between labour and management concerning employee displacement and job changes. He says there must be a general and honest report to the people directly affected and, most important of all, the time of the change must coincide with a period of employment or market expansion.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In addition to the formation of these tripartite committees the government could also assist in several other ways. I am thinking of worker retraining and mobility. It is true that the government has already taken action on these matters under its manpower program and is also attempting to provide more coordination by establishing a manpower department. I feel that this is a tremendous step forward. Many of us will be watching to see the effect of this measure.
[Mr. AllmandJ
The government, Mr. Speaker, must extend and co-ordinate its war on poverty program to assist those areas particularly affected by industrial innovation and change. If the government were to intervene before the changeover and early enough in the process it could possibly take steps to prevent the abandonment of towns with its accompanying uprooting of families and social disorders. Through government assistance it may be possible to keep industries and employment in some of these towns. This may be done by providing better transportation, technical schools and in other ways.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the mover of this resolution. My only criticism is that this problem should not be considered in isolation but along with other measures which are being introduced and which can be introduced in this same area.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I was particularly interested, Mr. Speaker, to find that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett) is a fellow member who served his initiation in the labour movement amongst the unions which dominate, quite properly, the railways of Canada. While the hon. member for Nickel Belt is a product of the running trades, I am one of those unfortunates who served a five year apprenticeship in what was referred to in those days as "the shops". Perhaps more tragically I am also a victim, if one wants to use that word, of a decision made by Canadian National Railways at the outset of the war in 1939 or 1940 arbitrarily to close what was known in those days as the St. Malo shop, with which I am sure the hon. member for Nickel Belt is familiar. Hundreds of families in Quebec city were uprooted with very little prior notice and told to reestablish themselves in Montreal to work in the Pointe St. Charles shop.
I can remember quite vividly, Mr. Speaker, the emotional impact such a move had upon those families in 1940. We were emerging from the depression years. Jobs were still fairly scarce. We were uprooted from our familiar surroundings and transferred into an area of hostility. The hostility came from the workers at the Pointe St. Charles shop. It was quite normal because our arrival by the hundreds on the local scene created a tremendous disruption in such fundamental things as seniority rights, the dovetailing of this and that job and so on. The fact that my own father died within months of the transfer has always left me with the impression,
March 30. 1966

which I still hold but not in any feeling of bitterness, that one of the contributing factors to his death at the age of 56 after serving 42 years with the railway was the very dictatorial manner in which we were transferred from Quebec to Montreal.
This took place 25 years ago. I like to think we have come a long way from that very bleak day in my life. I am not so sure, of course, that we have. I remained active in the labour movement of Canadian National for many years, as recently as 1952. Like the hon. member for Nickel Belt, I hold that the Freedman report is one of the most progressive reports that has ever been brought before the labour movement in Canada. I feel that in time the impact of the Freedman report will be as great or even greater than the report made by another courageous man not so many years ago, Mr. Justice Rand.
I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to say this before my time runs out, to be attached to the Department of Labour and to serve under a minister who has on several occasions openly stated his respect and admiration for the Freedman report. I say this not because the minister is here. If he did not share this point of view I would not want to be his parliamentary secretary. He knows I am independent enough to resign if at any time I felt he was not working in the best interests of labour.
Those of you who had the privilege of listening to the presentation of the annual brief from the Canadian Labour Congress will realize that a certain portion of the brief was based upon recommendations in the Freedman report. I do not want to read too extensively from the contribution of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) when he replied to the brief, but I quote briefly from a transcript of the proceedings:
In the same connection might I refer to two other things. The first is your reference to the Freedman report, which I think is an admirable thought-provoking document. Some people criticize it as having gone too far beyond the terms of reference, but I must say I think the commissioner, Mr. Justice Freedman, is to be commended for having brought this problem so much into the open. It has brought it into the light, and it is something that I know my colleagues in government and the officials of my department and the manpower [DOT]department are all studying very carefully.
In that Mr. Justice Freedman says that the most important thing and the first step should be for the employees concerned and the management of the railway concerned to get together and see if they cannot find, and bring about a solution; I am happy -to tell you that, having had meetings with representatives of the railway union-some of whom are
Industrial Relations Act
here today-and with representatives of management of the railway, encouraging steps are already being taken along that line.
Addressing the Canadian Labour Congress manpower training conference in Ottawa on Wednesday, February 23, 1966, the minister also said:
During the past few years we have seen some very unfortunate examples of what can happen when technology and automation are allowed to progress faster than the human element can keep pace. We have also seen what can happen when technological decisions are made without due consideration for all those people about to be or who think they might be affected. Not only is there likely to be some hardship for those immediately involved, but like the proverbial pebble in a pool, waves of worry and apprehension ripple across the entire community, the entire district, the entire country.
In his speech the minister also talked about co-operation and said:
Such co-operation, in my opinion, involves sitting down with someone else, with the desire and sincere intention to work out your mutual problems together. It is the principle of fully and frankly exchanging ideas on subjects which were once considered outside the realms of joint discussions.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think, Mr. Speaker, the minister made two very important points. First, he stressed in his remarks the very strong impact of these decisions on any community which depends upon railways for its existence. He was talking in a much broader sense and of the very fact that we had no alternative in this country but to introduce, through legislation or by other means, complete co-operation between labour and management. The day has come, if we are to maintain our competitive place in a free society, when management and labour in this country must cooperate before and not after decisions are taken.
Unlike the experience I had 25 years ago, the day has long passed when the voice of labour must be considered as something to be heard after decisions are taken. It is to the disadvantage of management, employers, industries and of Canada that far reaching decisions affecting the lives, the wages and the future of Canadians from the labour class are reached by an autocratic body making a unilateral decision without prior consultation.
I think the present Minister of Labour, with the vast experience he has had in the executive field with Polymer and other corporations, understands this fact, and I am proud that he has said so quite openly in public. I have read into his remarks-I am sure I am reading properly-an indication on
March 30. 1966

Industrial Relations Act
his part of a realization that the Freedman report and its Implications go beyond the limited scope of railways and railway negotiations. The time must come when the Freedman report is extended to the complete field of labour-management relations, not only relations between the railways and their unions but relations between all companies and their employees.
There is, of course, implied in the Freedman report, and properly so, a sense of responsibility which must lie with labour. There are times when labour must realize the fact that in many instances technological changes render a particular source of employment in a small community no longer capable of competing with other firms and businesses willing to change and to do things in a more modern manner.
There must be placed at the disposal of management and labour certain steps. I hope, if I may indulge in some idealistic thinking, that all the changes in the future which will protect labour, prevent disruption and protect small communities can be arrived at by the simple expedient of sitting down and showing some good will and co-operative planning. Unfortunately this has not been the experience of the past between management and labour, and in this type of atmosphere somebody suffers, in most cases labour.
That is why I think the Freedman report should be required reading on the part of everybody interested in the future of this nation. I am particularly referring to the fact that if Canada is to survive and maintain its present standard of living it must compete more and more for the markets of the world. More and more as we compete the natural aims and ambitions of labour and management become the same. The day has passed when labour and management can make unilateral decisions, because in effect their destiny is one and the same.
I think the government realizes the importance of the Freedman report. I think that its implications and its impact upon labour relationships and industrial disputes are selfapparent. I think the minister and his department are prepared to give and are at this very moment giving full study to this report so that in the very near future they can bring before the house recommendations along the lines envisaged by Judge Freedman.
Perhaps the Freedman report treats of more than just the rights of labour and management. It treats of the rights of the

third element in the community-the storekeepers, the shopkeepers and the little businessmen who live in a community which is so dependent on one or two industries or, in the case of the run-through, on the railways exclusively. These people too have rights.
I think that the thinking of all enlightened people today indicates that management and labour do have a common destiny, that they must not go their merry way alone. It is imperative that labour understands that today management is not something designed strictly to take complete, cold and callous advantage of labour. On the other hand, I think that management must understand that the labour force is a partner which is needed very badly, that good will and harmony is to the mutual advantage of both and that strikes and lockouts benefit nobody, least of all the Canadian people.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: May I ask the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) a question? I followed his remarks with considerable agreement and with great interest, but in his comments about small industry and small communities, particularly the small towns of Canada, was he predicting the demise of small industry? I ask that question having in mind particularly the tariff policy which this government is contemplating.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I am also presuming that an industry in a small community which hires 35 people and turns out a product it is finding harder and harder to sell owing to the activities of a similar industry situated 100 or even 50 miles away in another community, an industry which has seen fit to start from scratch with new methods of production and with a new approach to the problem, will have no choice but to modernize itself, perhaps at the expense of reducing its staff from 35 to 12 or 15 employees. This it must do if it wants to stay in business, and it is one of the vexing problems facing small industry.
What does an industry do in this case? Does it try to go along with 35 employees and produce something it cannot sell in a competitive market? Or does it face reality and modernize its shop even if it means reducing its staff from 35 to 12? At least these 12 people would have a future. It is at this time that the fate of the 23 people left out has to be considered, long before the changeover is made to modern methods.
Consideration must be given to the impact of this step on the lives of these 23 families
March 30, 1966

and also the economic impact of the move on the community itself in which the industry is situated. This must all be taken into consideration well in advance of the change.
What I am advocating is that management should not decide to modernize on a Friday and notify labour on Monday about a fait accompli involving the dismissal of workers after 15 to 20 years service. What I am advocating is complete and early co-operation before decisions such as this are taken in the more realistic light of a modern day, competitive spirit.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett) is an expert railroader for whom all of us have a very high regard. He is probably destined to make a contribution to this house and to the public service of Canada along with some other very distinguished employees of Canadian railway companies. I have found through my associations that members of the Committee on Transport and Communications are broadminded, fairminded and certainly well acquainted with the problems of the employees of the railway industry.
I must say that the Freedman report is a far reaching document. It is regrettable, however, that the terms of reference of the commission only allowed the tribunal to deal with a specific question. It is regrettable that he could not have gone farther and made this report in such a way that it would have been applicable throughout all industry. It is significant that this report deals with the railway problem. As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications I am somewhat dismayed at the distance between management and labour. As was indicated by the witnesses appearing before that committee, it seems that labour is under the impression that whatever management endeavours to do is done in such a way as to ignore completely the employee as such. There does not seem to be the meeting of minds that is characteristic of a more compact industry such as manufacturing and even mining, I believe. That is perhaps because the railway employees are spread right across the country and there is not the opportunity for closer relationships and discussions with top management that there is in more compact industries.
I said earlier that I am amazed that this situation exists to the extent it does, and for that reason something obviously needs to be

Industrial Relations Act done in respect of labour-management relations in both of our great national railways. There is a danger, however, it seems to me, of the government interfering in such a way as to bring in legislation which may have the effect of hampering the development of technological changes such as automation to a greater extent than those changes are now hampered by human antipathy against change of any kind.
For instance, if in 1950 the railways had been required to enter into negotiations with the unions to determine whether it was in the best interests of the railways and of the employees to introduce the diesel locomotive, perhaps this matter could have been rationalized at that level at an early date. However, I fear that this would have led to quite prolonged negotiations because it would have had to be stated at that point that some employees necessarily were going to be displaced. Otherwise there would be no point to the technological improvement brought about by the introduction of diesel locomotives.
If I may be permitted to refer to evidence before the committee, it was early in 1950 that the Canadian Pacific Railway began its studies of the development of their train, the Canadian. That meant that concurrently, of course, there had to be the development of the diesel locomotive. If my memory serves me correctly, it was not until 1955 that the Canadian was established as the C.P.R.'s number one transcontinental passenger service. During that time surely there could have been ample arrangements made to discuss what was going to be the ultimate division of labour along the route both with respect to the Canadian and with respect to the much longer freight trains with several locomotive units being operated by two or three men in the front cab.
If the companies had not been free to study the technology of railway operations without having first received the sanction of the employees, I wonder where railroading would be today. Some time ago I discussed with a railroader why it was that the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National had not adopted earlier two or three-deck flatcars for transporting automobiles. He said that because of the fly ash which came from the steam locomotives of the day it was impossible to have automobiles transported in that fashion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the proceedings but the time allotted for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
March 30, 1966

Business of the House Mr. Knowles: You gave it the fine axe.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the business for tomorrow will be item 8 on today's Order Paper, house in committee of the whole on Bill C-145 dealing with commercial fisheries in Canada; item 9 on today's Order Paper, second reading of Bill C-153, to amend the Aeronautics Act; item 5, second reading of Bill C-151, to establish a fund for economic and social development; item 6, second reading of Bill C-152, to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act; item 26, house in committee on Bill S-14, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act; item 12, second reading of Bill C-146, to amend the Northwest Territories Act; item 13, second reading of Bill C-147, to amend the Yukon Act; item 42, the resolution to introduce a measure for the construction of a railway in the province of Ontario, and item 39, second reading of Bill C-154, to implement an agreement respecting taxes.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Michael Starr: What are we going to do in the
evening?


George James McIlraith: We will take the Science Council bill.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the leader of. the house could go farther and give us the business beyond Thursday.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I would be glad to. On Friday we will begin the budget debate and continue it on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I should perhaps point out to hon. members, in case this has been overlooked by anyone, that this would mean a vote on Monday and again on Wednesday,


An hon. Member:: At what times?


George James McIlraith: I have forgotten the hour. It is set out in Standing Order 58.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 31, 1966