1968-11-20

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe) asks for leave to introduce Bill No. C-132 entitled: An Act respecting Canada Day.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Marceau:: Mr. Speaker, I never did get a chance to mention your appointment to the high office you hold and I take this first opportunity to congratulate you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Marceau: Every legislation passed by the House of Commons must meet a need or recognize a state of affairs which the federal parliament feels is in the best interest of the Canadian people.

The bill I respectfully submit to the kind attention of the hon. members of this house meets at the same time these two requirements.

For most Canadians who have reached political maturity, Dominion Day recalls the past; Canada Day, on the contrary, represents the present and the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Marceau: The idea is not new, but it is like a ripe fruit and must be picked before it is too late.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Marceau: It will take me thirty seconds only.


Mr. Speaker:: In calling the hon. member for Lapointe to order, I am tempted to say
that the more things change the more they are the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Marceau: Exactly, Mr. Speaker, I would like things to really change, for once.
In order that the first Monday of July may become the day of the living and not of the dead, I move that the act respecting Dominion Day be repealed and replaced by an act respecting Canada Day.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government intend to appoint the Auditor General of Canada as auditor or co-auditor for Air Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Industrial Development Bank, the C.N.R., C.M.H.C. and the Canadian Wheat Board and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What is the advantage of appointing private auditors?
3.	Does the government intend to permit the Auditor General of Canada to recruit his own accountants?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. No. It is the belief of the government that the present arrangements are satisfactory and economical.
2.	By the very fact of incorporation, these crown corporations are intended to have a large measure of responsibility for the performance of their statutory functions and to be able to function more or less as other companies do, and in several instances to compete with them. Because they are commercially oriented and are intended to operate at arm's length from and without the day-to-day governmental and parliamentary surveillance that is the case with government departments, it would seem proper that these crown corporations should, as a matter of policy, be audited

November 20, 1968
Questions
by public accounting firms that would treat and serve any other commercial corporation. Such a policy will best ensure that the arm's length relationship and the operational independence and freedom of these corporations conferred on them by parliament are adequately safeguarded, and that the corporations have the use of the same kind of commercial accounting advice from their auditors that privately owned companies have.
3.	Such officers and employees as are necessary to enable the Auditor General to perform his duties are appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act.


PROPERTY EXCHANGE, CRAIG STREET, MONTREAL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Have transactions been completed relative to the exchange of property on Craig Street in Montreal?
2.	Has the Government of the Province of Quebec withdrawn its notice of expropriation relative to this property?
3.	Has the advisory committee established by Treasury Board relative to such properties (Craig Street, Longueuil) submitted its report and, if so, what are its conclusions?
Excluded Corporations
(a)	Air Canada Bank of Canada Canadian National Railways Canadian Wheat Board
Export Credits Insurance Corporation Industrial Development Bank
(b)	Air Canada Bank of Canada
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Canadian National Railways Canadian Wheat Board Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Eldorado Aviation Limited Eldorado Nuclear Limited Industrial Development Bank Northern Transportation Company Limited
Polymer Corporation Limited
Canadian Patents and Development Corporation


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Department of National Defence and the offices of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council as follows: 1. No. The city of Montreal was unable to complete the exchange of lands negotiated with the Department of National Defence because the province of Quebec expropriated the city's interest in the Craig street armoury site before documentation was completed.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. The report is in the form of a confidential memorandum prepared by officials in the public service for the use of the Treasury Board. It is not considered in the public interest to publish reports of this type.


PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFITS WITHHELD FROM CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fortin: What Crown Corporations are excluded from the following and for what reasons (a) the Government Employees Compensation Act (b) the Civil Service Pension Act (c) the death benefit program (d) the Group Surgical-Medical Insurance Plan?


Yves Forest: Reason
These corporations have made alternative arrangements.
These corporations have established pension plans of their own in accordance with statutory authority.
The corporation's staff are employees of the National Research Council of Canada seconded to the corporation and, as such, are not excluded.

November 20, 1968

Excluded Corporations
(c) Air Canada
Bank of Canada Canadian Arsenals Limited Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition
Canadian National Railways Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation
Canadian Wheat Board Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation Defence Construction (1951) Limited Eldorado Aviation Limited Eldorado Nuclear Limited Industrial Development Bank Northern Transportation Company Limited
Polymer Corporation Limited The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Canadian Patents and Development Corporation
(d) Air Canada
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Bank of Canada Canadian Arsenals Limited Canadian National Railways Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Canadian Wheat Board Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation Defence Construction (1951) Limited Eldorado Aviation Limited Eldorado Nuclear Limited Industrial Development Bank Northern Transportation Company Limited
Polymer Corporation Limited The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation


REPORT ON BAY OF FUNDY TIDES
Mr. Coates: 1. On what date does the government expect to have the final report from the Federal-Provincial Committee that is carrying out a feasibility study into the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy Tides from a power point of view?	[DOT]
Questions
Reason
These corporations have established group life insurance plans of their own, in accordance with statutory authority.
The corporation's staff are employees of the National Research Council of Canada, seconded to the corporation and, as such, are not excluded.
The corporations have established group surgical-medical insurance plans of their own, in accordance with statutory authority.
Participates in voluntary group medical plans.
2. Will an interim study be made available to the government in this matter and, if so, will this study be made available to Members of the House of Commons?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The report of the

November 20, 1968
Questions
Atlantic tidal power programming board is expected to be available in July, 1969.
2.	A progress report of the tidal power study was made available to the participating governments in February, 1968 and a press release outlining the progress achieved was issued at that time. No general distribution of this report is proposed because of the incomplete nature of most of the information then available.


REQUESTS FOR CANADIAN AIRCRAFT FOR BIAFRA RELIEF FLIGHTS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What international aid organizations within Canada (such as Oxfam of Canada) have sought to procure Canadian government aircraft for the purpose of air-lifting food supplies to Biafran war victims?
2.	What was the response to such requests?
3.	What criteria were stipulated as essential pre conditions to a transfer of Canadian aircraft for such purposes?
4.	Does the Government of Canada have any knowledge of aircraft of other countries being used in the air-lift of food supplies to Biafra?
5.	What is the total value of food supplies from Canada known to have reached Biafra?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Canadian Red Cross, on behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross, sought Hercules aircraft from the Canadian government to fly from Fernando Po into the rebel-held area in Nigeria. UNICEF has inquired whether Canada would be in a position to supply large helicopters to be operated between the offshore islands and the mainland. More recently, Norchurchaid, a Scandinavian church group operating from Sao Thome, requested the government to make two Hercules aircraft available to them for their own use.
2.	An aircraft placed at the disposal of the Canadian Red Cross for the airlift between Fernando Po and the rebel held area became operational on October 26. The government indicated it was unable to accede to the requests made by UNICEF and Norchurchaid.
3.	The major criterion was that the agreement of the Nigerian government be obtained for use of Canadian aircraft in Nigerian airspace.
4.	Reports indicate that the national Red Cross societies of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands have each made a single aircraft available to the ICRC for

the airlift from Fernando Po into the rebel held area of Nigeria.
5.	So far about $900,000 out of the food aid allocation of $1,000,000 has been shipped, arriving at Fernando Po November 7 and at Lagos November 9. Three sevenths of this amount is consigned by the Red Cross to the Biafran side.


C.B.C. ADVERTISEMENT &quot;TELEVISION IS&quot;
Mr. Peddle: 1.	What was the cost to the CBC of full page advertisements captioned "Television Is" and several smaller advertisements with the same theme, appearing in the Ottawa Journal and the Ottawa Citizen dated September 28, 1968?
2.	Have similar advertisements appeared in other Canadian newspapers and, if not (a) will they appear (b) in what newspapers, and (c) at what cost?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. There was no direct cost to the C.B.C. for the "Television Is" advertisement in the Ottawa Journal and the Ottawa Citizen (September 23 to 28 inclusive) since the newspaper space was made available on a contra-account basis whereby the newspapers received comparable dollar value in broadcast advertising in return for newspaper space.
2.	Yes, similar advertisements have appeared in several newspapers in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL POLLUTION CONTROL COUNCIL
Mr. Anderson: Have any replies been received from the provinces to the 1967 invitation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to establish a Federal-Provincial Pollution Control Council and, if so, what is the nature of the responses?


John James Greene: The offer to establish a national advisory committee on water pollution was presented to the provinces in 1967. Six provinces have commented on this proposal and their general reaction was favourable. This matter was considered further at a meeting of the Canadian council of resource ministers in October, 1968 and more discussions are planned over the next few months.
November 20, 1968


C.B.C. HEADQUARTERS BUILDING, MONTREAL
Mr. Valade: Did the Secretary of State communicate with or authorize any other person to communicate with any official of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Montreal to obtain a statement during the months of May or June on the proposed starting of work on Place Radio-Canada in Montreal and, if so, what is the name of that person and his position in the C.B.C.?


Gérard Pelletier: No, a search of departmental and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation records has revealed no evidence of any such communication or authorization.


STUDIES OF RIVER BASIN PLANNING
Mr. Harding: 1.	Have proposals been made by the government to any of the provinces for joint pilot projects and studies to develop and test comprehensive approaches to river basin planning and, if so, when were these proposals made?
2.	Have any projects been agreed upon and, if so (a) what and where are they (b) what is the estimated cost of each project?


John James Greene: 1. Yes, proposals were made collectively to all of the provinces on May 5, 1967 and individually to each province on December 21, 1967, and additionally to British Columbia on September 24, 1968.
2. No. (a) Preliminary discussions are in hand with British Columbia, (b) This information is not available at the present time.


AID APPLICATIONS FROM NON-DESIGNATED ATLANTIC AREAS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did any member of the Ministry indicate that the Atlantic Development Board would receive applications from the non-designated areas of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for aid similar to that given by ADA and, if so, whom and when?
2.	Were any applications received by the Board for ADA-type benefits?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices and the Department of Forestry and Rural Development as follows: 1. Yes- the Prime Minister in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 30, 1968.
2. Yes.
29180-187J
Questions


RED CROSS REQUEST FOR AID FOR NIGERIA
Mr. Haidasz: Has the Government of Canada received a request from the International Red Cross to provide relief for the victims of the civil war in Nigeria and, if so (a) what was the nature of any such request (b) when was such request made (c) what was the response?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes.
1 (a), (b) and (c). On May 28, 1968 an appeal was made by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the government of Canada through the Canadian Red Cross Society. The immediate response was a cash grant of $60,000 provided to the ICRC for relief work in areas of Nigeria where the need was greatest.
At a meeting July 12 with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, representatives of Canadian voluntary organizations, including the Canadian Red Cross, invited a Canadian government contribution to Nigerian relief and drew attention to the ICRC's need for transport aircraft. The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that the Canadian government would be prepared to consider a request from the Canadian Red Cross Society for an aircraft if the agreement of the parties concerned (the Nigerian government, the ICRC and the rebel authorities) could be obtained, and satisfactory arrangements made for its use. The Canadian government also, shortly thereafter, allocated $500,000 in food aid for distribution by the ICRC in the areas of greatest need in Nigeria.
In August, the ICRC developed a program involving agreed daylight flights into rebel held (Biafran) territory. The government learned that the ICRC would, through the Canadian Red Cross Society, ask for Canadian Hercules aircraft to participate. As agreement was not reached with both sides in the conflict, the daylight airlift was not possible and the Canadian government was not able to accede to this request.
On September 17, another allocation of $500,000 was made for food to be distributed in the needy areas in Nigeria. On September 26, following a meeting between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the national commissioner of the Canadian Red Cross Society, an offer of a Canadian armed forces Hercules aircraft was made to the ICRC for use in territory under the control of the Nigerian government. The aircraft in

November 20, 1968
Questions
question arrived in Lagos on October 14 and was put at the disposal of the ICEC.
Following discussions between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Commissioner for External Affairs of Nigeria, on October 8, in New York, agreement was reached by which the Nigerian government would allow Canadian armed forces aircraft to operate in Nigeria, including rebel held territory, for the purpose of transporting relief supplies on behalf of the ICRC. A Canadian armed forces Hercules scheduled for use between the island of Fernando Po (Equatorial Guinea) and rebel held territory received clearances from Equatorial Guinea on October 26 and was put at the disposal of the ICRC on arrival there on October 26.


OFFERS OF RELIEF BY CANADA FOR NIGERIA
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	What are the details of the arrangement between the International Red Cross and the Government of Nigeria with regard to relief offered by the Government of Canada, including the operation of Canadian aircraft?
2.	Were any assurances given to the Government of Canada that relief will reach the people in Biafra-held territory?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The food aid provided by the Canadian government for those affected by the Nigerian civil war is consigned to the Red Cross. No special arrangements have been necessary, as it is customary to consign relief to the Red Cross in these circumstances.
Use of Canadian armed forces aircraft by the Red Cross for the transport of relief supplies to all parts of Nigeria, including rebel held territory, is governed by an understanding among the Red Cross, the Nigerian government and the Canadian government whereby Canadian aircraft may operate in Red Cross relief operations. The Canadian government contributes aircraft and crews to the aircraft, which is under the operational direction of the Red Cross.
2. All Canadian government relief assistance to Nigeria is consigned to the Red Cross for distribution to areas in which they consider the need is greatest, including the rebel held territory. At the request of the Red Cross a proportion of the Canadian government's food assistance has been shipped to Fernando Po for airlifting into the rebel held areas by aircraft under Red Cross auspices and for distribution in these areas by the Red Cross.
TMr. Sharp.]


MICROWAVE RADIATION LEVELS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What is the source of the radiation guide numbers or levels being enforced by D.O.T. as part of its responsibility for the licensing of microwave relay towers?
2.	For how long have these radiation guide numbers been accepted as the standard for safety by D.O.T.?
3.	Has D.O.T., as part of its responsibility for licensing, done any systematic study of how the threshold of danger from microwave radiation changes with humidity, air temperature, the frequency of irradiation, the cumulative effect of exposure over long periods of time?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as telecommunication is concerned.
1.	The power level of the microwave radiation is controlled by the appropriate standard radio system plans (these are regulatory documents issued under the authority of the Postmaster General). These levels are determined by the following criteria: (a) The minimum antenna directivity pattern; gain versus angle; (b) The maximum transmitter power permitted.
2.	The first standard radio system plan was released in 1963 and at present most microwave bands are now covered by one of these documents. These documents are not safety standards, but are established for the purpose of controlling radio interference.
3.	No.


AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AT MICROWAVE RELAY TOWERS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the federal Department of Agriculture or any other federal department or agency ordered infra-red process aerial photography to be made of areas that are in near proximity to microwave relay towers and, if so, at what locations was such photography done?
2.	Is any federal department or agency now in possession of such photographs and what interpretation has been made to date of such photographs?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes. The area between the Gunton and Stony Mountain microwave towers was photographed from the air in the near infrared spectrum of from about 700 to 900 millimicrons.
2. Yes. Tonal differences observed in these photographs reflect variation in crop growth and conditions in accordance with water table
November 20, 1968

patterns, time of planting, crop differences and variety differences. There is not a linear pattern or other organized pattern which would show a zone of immaturity or of more rapid growth, or a physical change in general, in line with the microwave towers. Further, the forest and woodlot areas do not show a pattern of change through the area.


NEAR ACCIDENT, TORONTO AIRPORT
Mr. Robinson: What steps are being taken and/or are proposed to prevent the recurrence of the incident of August 22, 1968, when an airliner narrowly missed striking an apartment building in Toronto?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The incident which reportedly occurred at Toronto international airport on August 22, 1968 was investigated but factual evidence has not been found to substantiate the claim that the aircraft had in fact descended below the normal descent path.


AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, MONTMAGNY, QUE.
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the Department of Transport received representations from the Montmagny Town Council requesting the construction of an airport at Montmagny and, if so (a) on what date (b) has a study of this matter been made by the Department of Transport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The reply is as follows: (a) The town of Montmagny has forwarded an application for local airport assistance, (b) The application was received on August 10, 1966. (c) An economic and engineering study has been undertaken by the Department with respect to improving the existing runway, together with constructing a 1,500 foot extension.


CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Canadians have had a single criminal conviction for an indictable offence for more than five years?
2.	How many Canadians have had a criminal conviction for a summary offence for more than five years?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of the Solicitor General as follows: 1 and 2. Information not available.
Questions


CONVICTIONS FOR IMPAIRED AND DRUNKEN DRIVING
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many men in Canada have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or more convictions for impaired driving?
2.	How many women in Canada have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or more convictions for impaired driving?
3.	How many men in Canada have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or more convictions for drunk driving?
4.	How many women in Canada have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or more convictions for drunk driving?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of the Solicitor General as follows: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Information not available.


MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF IMMIGRANTS, LONDON
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration received complaints about the manner in which medical examinations of prospective immigrants are conducted in Canadian Immigration Offices in London, England?
2.	Are female applicants compelled to await examination in nude or semi-nude condition?
3.	Are x-ray examinations of semi-nude female applicants conducted in the presence of any personnel other than doctors?
4.	Is there any reason why female applicants are not supplied with the customary gowns normally used in medical examinations?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare is aware of one complaint only concerning the manner in which medical examinations of prospective immigrants are conducted in London, England. The Department of National Health and Welfare is anxious to learn of such complaints so that appropriate corrective action can be taken.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Female applicants are supplied with disposable paper chest covers when undergoing X-ray examination.


SKI FACILITIES, CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Brefon-The Sydneys): 1.	On what date was the initial decision made to provide skiing facilities at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park, what was the basis for the decision, who carried out the enquiry into the possibility of providing such facilities and

November 20, 1968
Questions
what was the location selected in the Park for the establishment of these facilities and on what date was the decision reached?
2.	(a) How does the present decision to provide ski facilities at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park vary from the former decision for the providing of these facilities and why have changes been made in the initial proposal (b) what changes were made?
3.	What would have been the estimated cost of providing ski facilities at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park with the initial proposal and what is the estimated financial involvement of the federal government with the present program?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Since 1958, there has been constant pressure from the Sydney Board of Trade, the Cape Breton Ski Club, numerous private individuals, and members of parliament, to have this department undertake ski development in Cape Breton Highlands national park. Investigations by departmental officials in 1961 and in 1966 indicated that the best potential location within the park for a ski development was South Mountain. Their surveys merely confirmed the technical suitability of the area for skiing and were not comprehensive studies of development feasibility. The decision to invite development proposals was made in June 1968, and was based on the report of a private consulting firm which examined the feasibility of a ski area in the park last year. The location selected for the establishment of these facilities, recommended by departmental officials and the consulting firm, was the northern face of South Mountain.
2.	(a) Originally it was planned to provide only basic facilities such as an access road, parking area, a rope tow and a warming hut. However as a result of the consultants' report on the development potential of the area, the demand for skiing facilities, and economic feasibility, it was apparent that a more comprehensive development could be considered, (b) In general, the changes concern the extent of development. The present call for tenders provides for more extensive development of the site in two stages. The first phase of development will include a day lodge with cafeteria facilities and a ski shop, a 2,200 foot T-Bar lift, a 5-run trail and slope system, and parking for 125 cars. Additional ski runs and facilities will be provided at a later date as the demand and profit warrant.
3.	The earlier work on planning ski facilities at Cape Breton Highlands national park was concerned with selecting a possible site with very modest facilities. This plan was not developed to the point of costing. With the

present program, the estimated financial involvement of the federal government is $13,000 for an access road and parking facilities. The balance of the costs of development will be borne by the successful tenderer for the ski facilities.


TASK FORCE STUDYING AIR CANADA
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Who are the members of the task force studying Air Canada?
2.	When was this task force set up and what are its terms of reference?
3.	When will this task force submit its report and will such report be tabled in the House?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. No special task force has been established to study Air Canada, although the government, internally, has under review the corporate structure and financial requirements of this crown corporation.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


EXECUTIVE CONSULTANTS LTD.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the task force on housing retained the services of Executive Consultants Ltd. or William Lee or William Neville in any capacity in association with its present work?
2.	If so, what financial arrangement has been negotiated for these services and what is the estimated cost to the federal Treasury?
3.	Have telephone enquiries been received at the offices of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport as to the present location and other information related thereto of William Lee and/or William Neville, officers of Executive Consultants Ltd. and, if so, what information has been made available to the callers on these requests?


Yves Forest: 1 and 2.
I am informed by the Minister of Transport that Mr. William Neville has been retained under contract for a maximum of 20 days per month at a per diem rate of $100 to act as secretary to the task force on housing and urban affairs until the completion of the task force study early in the new year.
3. I am informed that such telephone inquiries would have been referred by the office of the Prime Minister to the information service of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. Telephone calls asking for William M. Lee, as former executive assistant to the Minister of Transport, have come in at his former office, and a forwarding address and telephone number have been supplied.
November 20, 1968


PROPOSED MOVE OP STATION CKVR-TV
Mr. Forresiall: November 20, 1968
Questions


QUEBEC-COMPENSATION FOR 1967 JUTE CROP
Mr. Matte: Has a decision regarding the request by the C.F.U. and Quebec authorities for compensation of $10.00 per acre of jute harvested during 1967 been made and, if not, on what date will such announcement be made?


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: I am advised that no request for such assistance was received by this department.


STUDY OF &quot;CANADA NORTH DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR&quot;
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the Department of Transport undertaken any study of, or study as a result of, a proposal entitled "Canada North Development Corridor" prepared by H. G. Acres Research and Planning Ltd.?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such studies, and what conclusions, if any, have been reached?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 and 2. The report has been examined but no further studies have been undertaken as a result.


AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
Mr. Beaudoin: Has the Department of Transport considered studying or begun to study the possibility of building the new international airport in the huge natural basin which lies between Drummondville and St. Hyacinthe in the Eastern Townships?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The location of the new airport is subject to many complex and interrelated criteria. A large region, including the Drummondville-St. Hyacinthe area was carefully examined on the basis of these criteria. More than 20 possible sites were identified and five or six were judged to be most favourable.
This analysis is now the subject of discussion with the province of Quebec.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Clermont: What was the total amount of unemployment insurance contributions collected in each province in 1967?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises: Statistics of unemployment insurance contributions paid in each province are not 
kept. The reason for this is, that in most cases, large companies pay their contributions from a central point. In many cases, contributions paid by these companies cover most if not all provinces. It is therefore impossible to determine which contributions are payable on behalf of residents of each province.
However, during the fiscal year 1967-68, the total contributions paid by employer-employee amounted to $347,457,716. In addition, the government paid into the Fund, $69,491,543. The Commission collected $187,798 in penalties and $15,894,160 in interest on investments for a total revenue of $433,031,218.

LAND FOR EXPANSION OF TORONTO AIRPORT Question No. 671


Mr. Robinson:: 1.	Has the federal government considered implementing expropriation proceedings to acquire additional land to increase the present size of the Toronto International Airport and, if so, how many acres are to be expropriated (a) immediately (b) by 1970 (c) by 1975 (d) by 1980 (e) by 1985?
2.	Have any of the required lands already been acquired and how many acres are involved?
3.	Are any agreements pending with regard to the acquiring of additional acreage and how many acres are involved?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. There has been no decision as yet on acquisition of additional land for expansion of Toronto international airport.
2 and 3. N/A.


CLOSING OF POST OFFICES, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Carter: Does the government intend to close any post offices or semi-staffed post offices in Newfoundland and, if so, how many and what are their locations?


Eric William Kierans: Yes. Three, namely Angels Cove, Cuslett and North Boat Harbour.
Note: The question of closing other post offices, within the criteria established, is being studied, but no decisions have yet been reached.


PRESS RELEASES, DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1. Does the Department of the Solicitor-General of Canada issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
November 20, 1968

2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of man hours consumed in the preparation, production, and distribution of such documents?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1. Yes; 560.
2.	(a) $24.50; (b) Nil; (c) $13.58; (d) $12.15; (e) *$154.70.
^Includes for one press release during mail strike night letter telegrams at cost of $39.00.
3.	(a) Wellington Offset, basic 140 M and Book Offset, basic 140 M; (b) 5,830 sheets; cost $25.26.
4.	313 (estimated).


MINE DUMP FIRE, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have officials of the federal government carried out an investigation into the pollution problems associated with the mine dump fire at Springhill, Nova Scotia?
2.	If such an investigation has been carried out what were the results and are there dangers inherent in the pollution to the residents of the area?
3.	If no such investigation has been carried out into this pollution problem does the government intend to carry out such an investigation to determine the health hazard associated with this pollution problem?


John Carr Munro: 1. Yes.
2.	The investigation was conducted in August, 1968. There was no evidence of a health hazard in the vicinity of the dump. However, as smoke dispersion is usually favourable during the summer, further testing will be conducted in late autumn or winter. Discussions with officials of the province of Nova Scotia concerning the organizational aspects of this investigation are in progress.
3.	See answer in 2 above.


INDIAN RESERVE COMMUNITY PASTURES, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Burion: With respect to the community pasture projects now under development on the Muskowekwan and Gordon Indian Reserves, who will be responsible for the management and operation of the pastures once they are completed?
Questions


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: The prairie farm rehabilitation administration of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development.


CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Mr. Matte: Does the federal government pay all or part of the costs involved in the construction of retaining walls required because of dredging or navigation on the St. Lawrence River and, if so, (a) in what proportion (b) under what circumstances?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: The Federal Government under current practice may pay up to 100 per cent of the cost of remedial or protection works in cases where more than one-half of the erosion is considered to be due to navigation or the presence of Federal Government structures and where the value of the land to be protected is more than double the cost of providing protection. Where erosion is due mostly to natural causes, a lesser responsibility may be accepted but only in proportion to the extent that it is caused by navigation.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What amount was expended under the Winter Works Program for the City of Toronto and for each of the Boroughs of Metropolitan Toronto each year since the program was instituted?
2.	What projects were carried out by these municipalities and how much was paid under the Winter Works program for each project?
3.	What projects, if any, have been curtailed as a result of the cancellation of the Winter Works Program?
Return tabled.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask again when 1 can expect an answer to question No. 4, which has been on the order paper since September 12, a period of more than two months? If the delay is in the hope that the pensions referred to might be increased before an answer is given, I would not mind waiting a little longer. There must be some reason for the delay. What is the reason?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to question No. 43.

November 20, 1968
Questions
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is not in the house but I wish to point out that this question is only a repetition of two questions already asked; the only thing is that more recent information is requested.
I feel that an answer could have been given at least six weeks ago.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I wish to refer to a starred question because of the habit of this government not to give an answer within two or three days. I refer to question No. 761 with regard to protests from the mayor and other citizens of Rock Island, Quebec, protesting the construction of a new post office on the ground that it is not needed and would constitute an unnecessary expenditure. In these days of financial crisis it is quite wonderful for people in any part of this country not to be asking for things, and I would think an answer to this question would serve as an inspiration to some who may desire extra expenditures.


Eric William Kierans: The right hon. gentleman's question was placed on the order paper on November 14 and I was not aware of it. However, I believe I can answer it if he will withdraw it as a starred question. The situation in Rock Island results simply from a difference of opinion between two groups. One group prefers a modern, up to date post office which can furnish the postmen and the sorters with modern facilities and services in their work. It is the duty of the Post Office to provide facilities of this kind for its employees.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
On the other hand there is a group who quite naturally feel that the age of the building itself is an asset, that it carries with it certain relations with the past, with the traditions of the area; but of course they are not the ones who are working in it, and I think the Post Office Department is going to go ahead with its decision to provide up to date, modern facilities for all those who work for us.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that still does not answer the question as to what will be the expected cost of this building and the purchase of property in order to make a new post office possible. Is it not a fact, as asked in the question, that the mayor on behalf of the area says it is an unnecessary expenditure and should not be proceeded with?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There should not be a debate at this time. If the minister wants to give the information requested he should answer the question, but there should be no debate.


Eric William Kierans: Mayors, Mr. Speaker, have elections to win too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric William Kierans: So far as the last part of the question is concerned, it should not be addressed to me but to my colleague the Minister of Public Works.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that being so can the question remain on the order paper so the other hon. gentleman can give the answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken I believe the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance was anxious to answer my question.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the hon. member that this is a question requiring quite a bit of detailed information. It is true that some of this was put forward in answer to previous questions of a similar nature by the hon. member, but there is additional information involved which requires quite a bit of work to put it in the form necessary to give a complete answer. I will try to check into this and see that it is hurried along as much as possible.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 33 and 34 are agreeable to the government.
Would Your Honour be good enough to call notices of motions Nos. 29 and 32?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that notice of motion No. 4 be allowed to stand.


DISCONTINUANCE OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE, NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Peddle:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House a copy of the application of C.N.R. to the Canadian Transport Commission to
November 20, 19G8
[Stage Direction]
discontinue rail passenger service in Newfoundland and a copy of the statement of costs and revenues during "Prescribed Accounting Years" which accompanied this application.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection whatever to producing a copy of the application of the C.N.R. to discontinue the Newfoundland rail service. However, under the law as it presently reads, the cost figures which the hon. member has also asked to have produced "shall not be published or revealed in such a manner as to be available for the use of any other person, unless in the opinion of the commission such publication is necessary in the public interest." The commission has not made any decision that the publication is necessary in the public interest.
I am informed, however, that the material which the hon. member has asked for was supplied to him inadvertently as the result of a telephone request which he made to an official of the commission.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Since he now has the information, and it is already in that sense made public, and since the hon. member is himself in a position to reveal it if he wishes, there is obviously no point in the government taking the position of refusing to produce it. Consequently I propose to table it voluntarily and would ask the hon. member if he would, in the circumstances, agree to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it has served its usefulness for me and the minister can have it back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


FEDERAL ADVISORY BODIES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a return listing all advisory committees, advisory councils or advisory bodies appointed by the federal government under the provisions of any statute, and showing also (a) the number of times each such committee, council or body is required to meet each year, and (b) the number of times each such committee, council or body has met in each of the last three years for which records are available.
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will notice this motion is wanting in 29180-1881
Motions for Papers
precision. It would appear to require the production of this particular information for all such advisory bodies right back to the beginning of federal government in Canada. The motion would be acceptable to the government if it would be understood that it refers only to advisory committees, advisory Councils and advisory bodies currently in operation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is quite satisfactory; that is what I meant.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Why didn't you say so?


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister is it the pleasure of the house that motion No. 32 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Coates:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the FRED Agreement between the Government of the Province of Quebec and the federal government.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Coates:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the FRED Agreement between the Government of the Province of New Brunswick and the federal government?
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to finance. In view of its importance I assume he is fully familiar with the situation involved. Is there anything he would like to tell the house in connection with the flying visit to Bonn by the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada, and with regard to whether this relates to the current

November 20, 19S8
Inquiries of the Ministry exchange crisis? If so, would he indicate whether Canada is taking any particular initiative with regard to this crisis or whether the minister and the governor of the bank were simply responding to an invitation to go to Bonn.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The position is that the minister did respond to an invitation, as the Leader of the Opposition puts it. He flew over to Bonn with the governor of the Bank of Canada and some other officials. The meetings are going on. There is no particular position which Canada has been instructed to take at those meetings.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Can the
right hon. gentleman indicate whether the minister has been asked for or will be tendering advice to the government of West Germany with regard to balancing its budget?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I believe you did not hear that question and therefore did not rule it out of order. I would say that in that sense we are not intervening in the affairs of West Germany. It is a problem that that government will decide itself. Perhaps this is just as irrelevant as the question, but I should like to say that the Canadian dollar is in a very strong position.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister in charge of housing, since the task force operations are about concluded, when he expects to present the report and subsequent legislation to the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am still hopeful that the report will be ready about mid January. We have one more week of hearings outside Ottawa and then two weeks of hearings, both public and private, in Ottawa following which we intend to write the report with the anticipation that it should be ready about mid January. Concurrently I hope to present to the government some recommendations which could be dealt with in the new year with the hope that legislation would be ready for consideration by the house some time in the new year, which would permit any impact it might have to be felt on next year's construction program.
[Mr. Stanfield.)


David Lewis: In the meantime would the minister inform the house whether his suspension of the financing of studies having to do with urban redevelopment is permanent or temporary and, if temporary, for how long. Could he also inform the house whether this means that some studies which were actually in progress have been cut off.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It does not affect the studies which are in progress. It was merely a suspension for a few weeks of the commencement of new studies. To answer my hon. friend's question concerning how long this freeze, as it has been called, will be in effect I can only suggest I would hope the government would be in a position to look at the information and reach a decision very early in the new year, well in advance of the requirements relating to any program for next year's building construction.
I think the reasons for this are apparent, but perhaps I might just briefly recapitulate them. In our studies we have found that the traditional method used in urban renewal, of taking a large area, razing the whole area and rebuilding the whole thing, while it may be appropriate in certain circumstances where the land use is to be changed, in other circumstances may not be the least bit appropriate. In some cases we have been razing perfectly habitable houses and other houses-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the minister should make a general statement at this time.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's last answer will he tell the house why it was necessary to suspend the financing of these studies instead of merely redirecting the purpose?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, unless some new guide lines were given to the people doing the studies I suspect they might come up with the same kind of solutions which the task force feels may not be adequate, and which we also feel could perhaps be considerably improved upon. It is therefore felt that we should determine the guide lines before any studies can continue.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the current newspaper advertising campaign by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, does the minister intend to make more moneys available to the corporation for these purposes before the task force reports?
November 20, 1968


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will realize that just a few weeks ago we did make additional moneys available in order to increase the number of houses started this year before the freeze-up. I think this was a very important move on the part of the government, because every additional house that is built takes pressure off the market and helps to alleviate the pressure of increasing loans and so on. In so far as next year's program is concerned, this is now being screened by the government and will be announced as soon as a decision has been taken.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the minister about more money being made available between now and mid-January when this task force will report.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have sufficient money for all the things currently required, Mr. Speaker, so I do not think the need for additional funds will represent a problem between now and January.
[Translationl


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
POSSIBLE FURTHER ACTION AS TO STATUS OF LABRADOR	
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Does he not think that the time has come to make an official statement on the present litigation concerning Labrador ownership? Is the 1927 decision of the judicial committee of the privy council concerning Labrador ownership now under consideration, or is it considered as final?
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us-


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question is very urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member asks whether the government intends to make a statement on this matter and I think the question is relevant.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that
Inquiries of the Ministry the then minister of justice clarified the situation in respect of Labrador when he appeared before the mines committee several years ago, so there is no problem whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the government has decided to abandon the winter works program, which has considerably increased unemployment in Canada, especially in Quebec, could the hon. minister tell the house whether the government intends to introduce a bill, as soon as possible, to correct this alarming situation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to introduce legislation of this kind at this point. We have expanded our training funds in Quebec and elsewhere, and we believe this will make a better contribution to the problem of unemployment than was made last winter by the winter works program.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. Since the retraining program, even if it was expanded, does not affect certain classes of older people who could take advantage of winter works, could the minister tell us whether he intends to introduce a measure enabling those older persons, let us say from 55 to 65 years of age, to receive some income this winter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, where it is to the advantage of the person and the economy that training or retraining take place, it is provided.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not agree that the rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec is reaching unacceptable proportions and perhaps requires supplementary measures in addition to those he has proposed?

November 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is certainly argumentative.


INCREASE IN U.S. DUTY ON CUT FLOWERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, if I may, to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's statement in Toronto regarding recent government action to stabilize corn prices, that an application for duty cannot be a unilateral action and thus compensation was granted to the United States, can the minister now state what compensation was granted to Canada when the United States tariff on Canadian cut flowers entering that country was almost doubled recently?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking about action taken by the government some time ago, and I think that kind of question should be on the order paper.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wanted to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, having in mind the excellent and serious statement issued by the minister earlier today warning cigarette smokers of Canada of the health hazards involved. My question is, would the minister consider early action to try to encourage, either by voluntary action by the industry or by legislation, curtailment of the promotion of cigarette smoking through advertising in Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, questions of this nature have been under consideration by the department and the government for some time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has
the minister paid attention to them?


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I have asked this question before and the minister has taken it under consideration. Would he put this whole question of cigarettes and cigarette smoking before a committee of this house so a thorough survey and study can be made of the entire question?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the hon. member's representations. The matter is still under consideration.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I would like to ask the minister whether there has been any change in the policy of the government, as stated by the previous minister on February 16, 1968, that counsel in the department would in drug prosecutions thenceforth ordinarily suggest jail terms for those without criminal records convicted of possession of marijuana.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No, sir.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Arising from the minister's Calgary speech in which he said, "Nor does it seem to me that giving criminal records to several thousand


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has to put the question directly as much as possible.


William Gordon Ritchie: Will the minister say whether, in so far as the responsibility of his department is concerned, the policy of the Department of Justice in regard to sentencing represents the approach taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES RESPECTING TRADE, TARIFFS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether at the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference it is intended to discuss with the provinces the establishment of permanent bodies to consult with the provincial governments on matters of trade, tariffs, customs and monetary policies, as was long advocated by the Prime Minister prior to his attaining ministerial rank.
Righf Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, at this conference it is not proposed that we discuss these matters. As
November 20, 1968

has long been practised by the government, however, there are constant meetings at all levels of government-both official and ministerial-to deal with various aspects of policy which concern the whole of Canada.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and arises from the statement made two days ago, when he said that many farmers were following half baked economic theories. I would like to ask the minister whether he had in mind certain theories with regard to money and banking which he held until 1968.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I have to deprive the minister of the opportunity to reply.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the light of the lay-offs which are scheduled to begin at the Ford Motor Company of Canada in Windsor on Friday, what action is the minister prepared to take to alleviate the serious unemployment which will result?


An hon. Member:: See Paul Martin.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there will be a lay-off at the Ford Motor Company beginning on Friday and continuing until the number reaches 1,000 later in the year. The manpower services are available in Windsor at the present time and we are interviewing the workers to determine in what way we can be of best service to them. We are in touch with the company as well. It would have been very useful in this case, as in others, if the government had been given some early notice about the intentions of the Ford Motor Company, so that plans could have been made to make the necessary adjustments.


David Lewis: Amend the law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send for Paul Martin.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question either to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration
Inquiries of i),e Ministry or the Minister of Labour. Can they assure the house that the processing of unemployment insurance and transitional benefit claims will be carried out as quickly as possible for the first group to be laid off this Friday?


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whilby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of his comments about the desirability of the Ford Motor Company giving advance notice before it lays off employees, which it is about to do, is the government giving any consideration to introducing a bill which would make it mandatory for companies to give such advance notice both to the employees and to the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, about a year ago a similar unexpected lay-off took place in Sydney and my predecessor, the then minister of manpower and immigration, asked himself whether it might not be necessary to oblige companies by law to provide advance notice. I think this situation raises the same question. It brings to mind the recommendation on this point that has been made by the Economic Council of Canada.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does it not bring to mind the recommendation specifically made by Mr. Justice Freedman two years ago about such legislation being needed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it brings to mind that excellent report which was on a much broader basis than this particular question.


Mr. Fairwealher:: But the formula was suggested.



SHIPBUILDING

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF SUBSIDIES On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In light of the lay-offs in the shipbuilding industry in the Atlantic provinces, is it the intention of the minister to make a public statement soon about the decision reached following discussions with provincial fisheries ministers regarding the amount of funds that will be made available to the provinces for shipbuilding subsidies?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, plans for assistance to the
2976	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry fishery through construction of fishing vessels is under consideration; but I might point out to the hon. member that employment in shipyards is a matter for another minister.



PROVISION OP BOX CARS TO INCREASE DELIVERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but due to his absence and the absence of the Minister without Portfolio who acts for the wheat board perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could give me the answer. In view of the very critical situation on the prairies due to the large amount of tough and damp grain that is now piled on the ground, is the minister now in a position to report on the availability of box cars to take delivery of the 3 bushel quota announced by the wheat board on October 31 for such grain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a report as of this morning, but my information is that the terminal elevators at Calgary and Edmonton are now operating on a 24 hour day, seven day week basis. However, the hon. member will realize that even though there has been a 3 bushel quota announced, this does not automatically provide the space in which to put those three bushels but is to give a priority to get this out of condition grain into the pipe line, if you like, ahead of grain that will keep longer.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would use his good offices to get some box cars out to the prairies in order to move this gram to the elevator space that is available.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has replied to this question. The reply was that he has had excellent co-operation from the railways in having a fair and equal distribution of box cars through the area where this tough and damp grain is located.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Would he or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce make a full statement to this house within a matter of days as
[Mr. Davis.)
DEBATES	November 20, 1968
to the results of their negotiations and discussions with the railways on the supply and allocation of box cars for grain movement?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will convey that representation to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. With reference to the first Alexbow experiment on Arctic ice conditions and the report that no tonnage requirements were demanded for that experiment, can the minister tell the house why some 2,000 pounds of freight are demanded when a similar type of experiment is carried out, as planned, into Churchill?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think I will have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to give an off the cuff answer.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the alarming statement by Dr. Gustav Prevost, a well known Quebec biologist, that all means of fighting water pollution have failed and that swift federal action must be taken at once to avert disaster, would the minister advise the house what steps the government is now taking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think a question of such a wide scope should be answered by way of a statement on motions, or preferably might be put on the order paper.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the question could be answered tomorrow on motions.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime
November 20, 1968

Minister was asked a question regarding promises or undertakings by the Canadian delegation to the NATO council with particular reference to the demands of the Mediterranean area consequent to the expansion by the U.S.S.R. of its naval strength there. I wish to ask him specifically this question. Did Canada promise to contribute four helicopter equipped destroyers and two support ships for use in the Mediterranean?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker. When the ships are built, and if our naval policy remains the same, the ships will come under the Atlantic command of NATO.


John George Diefenbaker: Are these six ships, the four helicopter equipped destroyers and the two support ships, still unbuilt? Does the Prime Minister say that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am referring to the four destroyers which were mentioned by the Minister of National Defence in Brussels, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: The question is not
whether they were mentioned in Brussels; I want to find out whether these things have been mentioned in Ottawa. I ask the Prime Minister specifically whether these four helicopter equipped destroyers and two support ships are yet unbuilt, and whether the representatives of Canada undertook to supply them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to identify the ships which the right hon. member is referring to. If he is talking about the ones which were mentioned in Brussels, they are now being built on the St. Lawrence.


John George Diefenbaker: We cannot get any information on the promises made there.



CONSEQUENCES OF REMOVAL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister, in connection with the reassessment of the defence policy, whether the government has had a study prepared and presented concerning the consequences of the removal of nuclear weapons from Canadian soil.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister if he is willing to give me his attention.
In view of the fact that, under the terms of the assistance program to underdeveloped countries $6 million have been made available to French speaking countries and $125 million to Commonwealth countries, does the government intend to improve its assistance policy to French speaking countries?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the representative of the government to submit a general opinion or to make a statement of general policy, and this should be done on motions.


Bernard Dumont: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. I should like to ask him what statute provides the Cape Breton Development Corporation with the authority to pension off employees at the age of 60?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for the interpretation of a statute or for a legal opinion, and that type of question is out of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my question did not ask for the interpretation of any statute. I ask again, is there a statute providing the Cape Breton Development Corporation with the authority to pension off its employees at the age of 60?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is precisely that type of question which the rules do not permit to be asked.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you hire a lawyer?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further point of order which is brought on by the interjection
November 20, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry of the Prime Minister who suggested I hire a lawyer. I would think that in the interests of a just society the Prime Minister himself might volunteer his help to the Cape Breton miners.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time, so I suggest we go on to another question.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that he met recently with the provincial fisheries ministers, and bearing in mind the critical situation prevailing in the fishing industry in eastern Canada, would he not give consideration to making a statement on motions as soon as possible?


John (Jack) Davis: will consider it, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. If any small post offices close, will the postal department institute a rural delivery to take its place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is hypothetical.



ABSENCE FROM HOUSE OF MINES AND RESOURCES MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any information on the whereabouts of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his failure to be here in his place today, in view of the fact that he was seen in the house last night looking tanned, healthy and well after his trip to South America?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister forgot who it is.
Another hon. Member: Who the hell is he?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know who the hell he is, Mr. Speaker, and this is not funny because he is in hospital in Montreal.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to hear that, but may I also ask the Prime Minister if he would take it easy with the Solicitor General when he gets back, because his attendance has really been very good on days when he should not have been here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister whether the Canadian Transportation Commission has received an application from the Canadian National Railways for the abandonment of the rail service in Prince Edward Island.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to direct the question to the Canadian Transportation Commission, but it would seem to be the kind of question which might be answered just as quickly if it were placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development responsible for the national parks policy. Could the minister give some indication when the federal government will come to a decision as to the establishment of a second national park in Manitoba?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the question might be placed on the order paper.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the
November 20, 1968

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and ask him whether the bill to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act has yet been printed. If so, when is it the government's intention to table it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the bill is being considered by the cabinet, and it should be tabled as soon as the study is completed. However, it is a very voluminous bill and its complete study by the cabinet will require some time yet. While I am on my feet-

I should like to inform the leader of the New Democratic party that perhaps he should read the papers sometimes. I have been Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the past five months now.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the rules do not permit me to comment on what the minister just said, though I should like to.
May I ask the Prime Minister the following question. On Monday my colleague the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked the right hon. gentleman a question regarding an opponent of the present Greek military regime who had been condemned to death. He inquired whether the government was contemplating any demarche to the government of Greece on the subject, and the Prime Minister said he would have to inquire into the matter. I wonder whether he has any information today.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I did inquire, but I have not found any information that in my opinion would justify intervening in this matter.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by Treasury Board of judges who die while in office, and authority to make recoverable advances for
Supply-Justice
the administration of justice on behalf of the government of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $5,892,200.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, revised estimates of the Department of Justice, fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 254 of the blue book, the details thereof being listed at page 255.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make a very long opening statement since there was a thorough discussion of a number of matters affecting the department when the amendment to the Judges Act was before the house. I anticipate that when the criminal law omnibus bill returns to the house there will be ample scope to review the criminal law.
Since the main estimates of the Department of Justice for 1967-68 were considered in some detail by the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, with the consequence that no extensive statement was made before the house, I think it would be in order for me to make a short general statement concerning this year's estimates of the department.
Hon. members will know that the Government Organization Act of 1966, which was proclaimed on October 1 of that year, transferred to other ministers various branches of the public service that previously fell under the superintendence of the Department of Justice. The result of these changes was that the Department of Justice now has the same responsibilities that it had under the original statute following confederation in 1868, and those duties now remain virtually unaltered.
As matters presently stand, Mr. Chairman, responsibility for the institution and conduct of prosecutions within the federal field of jurisdiction remains with the Attorney General of Canada. This is true even though the supervision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police now rests with my colleague, the Solicitor General.
Notwithstanding this, Mr. Chairman, prosecutions resulting from police investigations within the federal jurisdiction continue to be the responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada, and are conducted by him through his officials and agents. This situation applies as well to prosecutions under the Combines Investigation Act. While ministerial functions relating to that act are now transferred to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission reports directly to parliament

November 20, 1968
Supply-Justice
through that minister, the decision to prosecute and the conduct of a prosecution in any particular combine, merger, monopoly, restraint of trade or price fixing case continues to be the responsibility of the Attorney General.
So, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada continues to be responsible for providing legal services to the government generally, as set out in the Department of Justice Act. In fact, the Attorney General is lawyer for every department of the government service. His functions are advisory. He is charged with conducting litigation on behalf of the people of Canada. He is charged with advising on the drafting of legislation for every government department, and so on.
This year's estimates show an increase in staff amounting to 72 additional positions and a proportionate increase in the amount provided for salaries. I would not want the committee to think that this increased number of 72 positions represents an equivalent increase in the over-all establishment of the government. It has been made clear that it is the intention of the government to provide an integrated legal service along the lines generally recommended in the Glassco report. That is to say, the Department of Justice will now be responsible in a general way for the legal functions that are carried on in every department of government, and to that end we are in the process of integrating the legal services of the government.
This policy, Mr. Chairman, is reflected in the fact that 27 of these new positions represent transfers from other departments-one from Industry, one from Finance, 14 from Defence Production and 11 from National Revenue, customs and excise. This in turn results in an equivalent reduction in the estimates of the other departments involved.
The balance of these positions, apart from some nine in the minister's office, which were not included in previous estimates as a result of former Treasury Board policy but now are included, result from support of the positions that have been transferred

nine secretarial positions have been established for this purpose-and increase in the strength of the department not only in Ottawa but in the regional offices that we plan to set up in major regions of the country.

Honourable members know full well that we have established in Montreal an almost

independent office to deal with the department's business in the metropolis of Quebec and Canada. There is also another regional office in Toronto and one in Vancouver. We intend to set up other regional offices, perhaps one in Winnipeg and the other in Halifax. This is the indication of some decentralization in the management of the department's business with a view to ensuring quicker action and a more accessible justice for the citizens of these areas.

Each of these offices has a professional staff of roughly a dozen lawyers, and these offices have been found to work out very well in practice. It is the intention of the government, as I say, to continue to extend the regional office idea so as to facilitate the work of the department. These local offices can handle claims and prosecutions and provide on the spot legal advice for the various federal government departments that have offices in such cities or districts.
Apart from the work of the department as I have described it, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice concerns itself with the subject of law reform. In the very near future I will be reintroducing a bill that will make extensive revisions in the Criminal Code, and I will also be introducing a completely revised and new Expropriation Act. We intend to set up a new research branch in the Department of Justice that will be charged with the reform of the law and the revision of statutes.
I mentioned when I spoke to the students at Osgoode Hall that we were going to set up within the next two years a national law reform commission charged with reviewing the entire area of federal statutes and the criminal law. I hope too that we will have a permanent statute revision next year. The purpose of the research branch of the department will be to co-ordinate and to liaise with the national law reform commission, with institutes of criminology across the country, with law faculties and, of course, the profession in general.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question at this point. Would he relate what he is now saying to the matter of the new edition of the Revised Statutes of Canada? Can he tell us what is the status of that work?


John Napier Turner: I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.
November 20, 1968

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We are in the process of introducing new types of typesetting and text, and we are introducing the use of the computer in the revision of statutes. The amount set aside in last year's estimates was not expended. We will again set aside $1 million to set up a permanent revision commission. We are negotiating with Queen's University and the University of Montreal to have on a permanent basis, and not a decennial or periodic basis, a permanent revision and consolidation of all types of statutes.
I hope with the use of the computer, the new tapes and the application of the new science called jurimetrics to establish a system in the French and English languages whereby legislators, lawyers and the public generally will be able to go to the regional offices of the department and receive almost instantaneously an up to date version of any consolidated statute on the statute books of Canada. I hope that with the use of computers we can narrow the time gap between the revised statutes and the continuing statutes to about four months.


Mr. Foriin:: Mr. Chairman, further to the question put by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I should like to put the question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
As the statutes are officially revised every ten or 15 years, can the minister tell us approximately when they will next be revised and published because, at the present time, when we want to refer to, for instance, chapter 116, all we find is sections which have been amended. Consequently, can the minister give us the approximate date of that revision?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, before we finish dealing with these estimates, I shall obtain confirmation on an approximate date. I agree with the hon. member that it is most awkward for the citizen, and especially in the case of an expert, to look up something in the statutes. He has to read them all year by year, since 1952. As this is not practical we are trying to get them revised, and I shall try to get the approximate date on which this is supposed to be done.

There is under consideration in the department a complete revision of the Canada Shipping Act and the Admiralty Act. In conjunction with the Department of Transport we
Supply-Justice
hope to bring in a new maritime code. This is a long term project to be developed continuously in the next five or ten years. After that we will have a rationalized code in Canada for maritime matters.
On other occasions I hope to bring forward revisions to the Exchequer Court Act which will probably provide for some means of relieving some of the pressure that is put on the Supreme Court of Canada. Proceedings must now be by way of a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The revisions will be in the form of an appellate division of this court and a reform in the administrative law. We shall consider the process of judicial review of administrative tribunals.
These are examples of what we believe to be relatively major undertakings to be undertaken by the Department of Justice in the area of law reform. It is the view of this government that even greater efforts in this area ought to be made, and I therefore intend to bring forward legislation in the months to come that will be directed to this end. I look forward with interest to what hon. members of the committee have to say and I shall do my best to answer their questions.


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Chairman, we thank the minister for his introductory statement. He has attempted to explain why his departmental estimates are considerably higher than they were last year. I suggest that there are still unanswered questions, and the committee would like to hear answers to those questions.
The minister explained that it would be the policy of the department to establish 72 additional positions within the department. I notice that the estimates this year provide for a vote of $185,000 for professional and special services, while the amount for that item last year was only $50,000. In 1966-67 the amount applicable here was only $10,000. If the minister is to establish 72 additional positions in the department, why does he need the vote of $185,000 to provide for professional and special services? Surely some of those 72 additional men who are to be put on the department's payroll could take care of a good many of the professional services the department is to be expected to supply.
I notice in vote 1 an item of $1,088,000 for the publication of departmental reports and other material. In 1967-68, that is last year, that vote amounted to only $40,000. I think the committee is entitled to know why the amount has jumped from $40,000 to $1,088,000. Another item had to do with travelling

November 20, 1968
Supply-Justice
expenses. I presume that has reference to travelling expenses for the officials of the department, since judges' travelling expenses are provided for under another item. This year travelling expenses are up by $19,000. Accommodation provided by the Department of Public Works is increased by a figure of $447,000.
The fact is that the estimates of the Department of Justice this year are $4,778,500 higher than they were last year. I suggest that in these days of so-called austerity, of cutbacks by governments, when provinces are told they are practically on their own from now on, it is strange to find that in the Department of Justice, which is a comparatively small department of government, spending estimates for this year are $5 million above those of last year. Before the estimates pass I think the minister must give us a detailed explanation of how this increase has come about.
We hear the minister say that he intends to proceed with proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. This is a very, very important piece of legislation and one which at some time or other could touch virtually every citizen of this country. The amendments were introduced last year under bill C-195. That was an omnibus bill which purported to be an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and the Customs Tariff. That is legislation of a very wide scope. The Prime Minister said that the law has no place in the bedrooms of the nation; but these proposals are so wide in scope that if they do not make their appearance in the bedrooms of the nation they will affect almost every other phase of our living.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We have not as yet seen this new bill. If it contains everything that was contained in the previous bill C-195, which was submitted last year, it will contain much that is good. The bill contains at the moment some things with which all of us might not be able to agree. We therefore hoped we would not be placed in a position where we would have to vote against the entire bill, including those parts which we considered to be good, simply because there were other parts with which we could not agree. The former minister of justice, the present Prime Minister, indicated last session that the house would be required to vote upon this omnibus bill in its entirety-that it would not be broken up. Since

then there has of course, been a change in the administration. The present minister gave us some hope when he intimated that he would like to see the bill divided so that it could be voted on in sections. He expressed himself to that extent. But apparently the great white father who sits in the seat of the prime minister decreed otherwise, and the poor Minister of Justice was faced with the choice of either falling into line or picking up his marbles and going home.
I do not think that even Adolf Hitler ruled with a firmer hand than does the present Prime Minister, nor do I believe there has ever been a more docile group of ministers than those who hold office now. If the medical profession ever gets around to doing spine transplants there will be an open field over there, because these men are spineless. Why cannot the Minister of Justice be an exception to this general rule? I am sure he is convinced in his own mind that this bill should be broken down and voted upon in separate parts. He knows very well that this is the proper way in which to proceed. He knows very well that this is the manner in which the majority of members would like to see it dealt with. I suggest he be not afraid any more of the great white father. The Prime Minister is not going to fire him; he is too good a minister. The Prime Minister will not let him go. If the bill the minister introduces in any way resembles Bill C-195 it could very conveniently be dealt with in separate parts. It is designed in such a way as to be very conveniently broken down. Were this done we would not be obliged to vote against the whole bill simply because there were some clauses or divisions in it with which we could not agree.
For example, there are members of this house whose moral convictions would not allow them to approve those parts of the bill which propose the relaxation of the law relating to homosexuality. I suggest that anyone who feels this way should have the privilege of voting against this part of the bill, and still not be obliged to vote at the same time against those provisions which he feels are good. There are some-and I include myself in this classification-who cannot believe that abortion even in the early stages of pregnancy does not constitute the taking of a life. For this reason, those who think this way should be allowed to vote against this provision without voting against the bill as a whole. We shall expect a statement from the minister with regard to this matter. I hope he will follow the dictates of his own conscience, and
November 20, 1968

November 20, 1968
Supply-Justice
who assumed unto himself the functions of a court of appeal.
The Minister of Justice stated further, as recorded at page 2721 of Hansard:
The case for Mr. Banks' extradition has been before the United States courts and the proceedings have been exhausted.
Further on he said:
-the extradition proceedings having been taken unsuccessfully before the United States courts those extradition proceedings are spent, and that the case could not be successfully reopened before the courts.
That, Mr. Chairman, is not the case. The extradition proceedings were not taken unsuccessfully before the United States court. They were taken successfully before commissioner Abruzzo and he decided that extradition should be granted in this case. The decision of the commissioner was that this alleged criminal should be extradited and returned to Ontario to stand his trial. It was the decision of Dean Rusk that he should not be extradited, and again I say this was purely an executive decision and can be reversed by a new executive.
I am afraid that the whole spectrum of American politics looms high over this executive decision by Mr. Rusk. Even our former secretary of state for external affairs, Hon. Paul Martin, challenged Mr. Rusk's position when, on March 27 of this year, he was reported to have said that the ground on which Mr. Rusk refused to return Banks to Canada-
-does not exist under the terms of the extradition convention between Canada and the United States.
In other words he argued that Mr. Rusk probably did not have the authority-certainly did not have the judicial authority-to over-rule the decision of the commissioner.
This man Hal Banks is a fugitive from justice. He must be returned to this country, if there is any way of getting him back here, to stand trial. He skipped his bail. He is free today because in the first place he was rich enough to put up $25,000 bail. The sum of $25,000 did not mean anything to Hal Banks. Then he left Canada and, in essence, defied the courts to bring him back. I hope in all sincerity that Hal Banks has not got a friend in court so far as the government is concerned. I hope the minister will do his very best and co-operate with the senator from New Mexico to have this man returned to Canada.

If there is any possible chance, and I think there is, that the executive decision of Dean Rusk can now be over-ruled by the new executive, then I suggest nothing should be done to hinder that being accomplished. This is a very important matter. I repeat that this man is a fugitive from justice and the government-no government-should do anything at all to help him. Had he been a poor man he would probably still be languishing in jail. He is free now only because he was able to put up $25,000.
That, Mr. Chairman, leads me to the next matter on which I would like to comment briefly. As a practising lawyer and as a former attorney general, this is a matter which has always given me quite a bit of concern. I refer to the matter of detention after arrest, and of course the question of bail. I feel that this is presently receiving the attention of the department.
My experience in the field of criminal law, both as a prosecuting attorney and as a defence counsel, has led me to believe that in many cases the police unnecessarily arrest a person, take him into custody and lodge him in jail when the circumstances of the case do not warrant such drastic action. This has resulted in a great deal of unnecessary hardship and very considerable personal inconvenience and embarrassment, when a summons in the first instance would have been all that was necessary to make sure that a man appeared for his trial.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that arrests are not in some cases necessary. An arrest is quite often necessary not only for the protection of society but also for the protection of the person arrested. But there are occasions when persons who are very well known, who are large property owners, and where there would be absolutely no question about turning up the next day for trial, have been placed under arrest. Such a person, I maintain, should not be arrested in the first instance but should merely be summoned. I am afraid that very often an arrest is made, with the result that the person concerned is punished by the very arrest itself. This is punishment in itself, even before he is tried and convicted. He is punished once he is placed in custody, and this of course is contrary to the whole spirit of our laws.
I am of the opinion that possibly the Criminal Code leaves a police officer with very little discretion. If a policeman decides to detain a person he is almost obliged to arrest him and place him in jail. I suggest that this matter should be studied by the law officers
November 20, 1968



of the crown with a view to suggesting certain amendments to the Criminal Code, if necessary, which would allow policemen to use discretion in certain cases. I am not suggesting that all persons should be immediately released. I am suggesting, however, that the arresting officer should be empowered to exercise some discretion in matters of this kind. Very often, as I say, the arrest causes not only inconvenience and humiliation but also is done at some considerable cost to the public. Every time a man is arrested there naturally is some expense involved.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I have looked into this in a rather cursory manner and it would seem to me that if we could amend section 435 of the code to make the officer's right to arrest without a warrant dependant not only upon his having reasonable and probable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed, but also upon its being reasonable for him to arrest rather than to summon, this would leave him some discretion if he should feel in his own mind that the reasonable thing to do is to release the man immediately and issue a summons. I believe if we were to amend section 435 of the code we could probably accomplish this purpose.
A number of other changes could be introduced into the code. Unless these changes are made we will find that the summons procedure will not be used extensively and that the police will continue to arrest almost indiscriminately. This is actually what happens. A study of a sampling of 6,000 cases was made a few years ago and it was revealed at that time that 90 per cent of those charged with Criminal Code offences were arrested, while less than 10 per cent were summonsed. It was also revealed in this study-and this is an alarming situation-that approximately 85 per cent of those arrested were kept in police custody until their first court appearance. In many instances this involved a substantial period of time.
In one division in the city of Toronto, for example, over 80 per cent of those who were booked between seven o'clock in the morning and midnight were kept in police custody for more than 10 hours before their court appearance, and then they were required to raise bail. This would seem to me, in many cases, to be an injustice, because of the 80 per cent of these men or women who were booked I think I would be safe in assuming a very large percentage were responsible citizens
Supply-Justice
who could have been released immediately and would have appeared in court the next day on a summons. In these cases it would not have been necessary for them to have been kept in custody for a period of up to 10 hours and be faced with the inconvenience of attempting to find someone who would put up their bail.
This leads me to my next point, the question of bail. Here I suggest that a change in the law is very definitely needed and long overdue. The provisions for the ordering of bail prior to trial, in all offences whether indictable or summary conviction, are found in section 451 of the Criminal Code. They are identical to the provisions relating to preliminary inquiries. Section 451 of the Criminal Code provides:
A justice acting under this Part may (a) order that an accused, at any time before he has been' committed for trial, be admitted to bail
(i)	upon the accused entering into a recognizance in form 28 before him or any other justice, with sufficient sureties in such amount as he or that justice directs,
(ii)	upon the accused entering into a recognizance in form 28 before him or any other justice and depositing an amount that he or that justice directs, or
(iii)	upon the accused entering into his own recognizance in form 28 before him or any other justice in such amount as he or that justice directs without any deposit;
It is clear, therefore, that the ordering of bail is a judicial act. It must be done by a judge, a magistrate or a justice. The amount of bail and whether or not it is to be granted at all is decided by the justice. I am not levelling any criticism at the men who make the decisions, but I believe it is pretty generally recognized, particularly in the smaller jurisdictions, that some of the justices who make these decisions are not trained in the law. I know this does not apply in the major centres. We would probably not find this situation in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver or Calgary. However, in some of the smaller areas there are justices who, although they do their best, are not trained in the law and for that reason perhaps cannot properly appreciate the situations with which they are faced, and therefore perhaps are not in a position to exercise properly the discretion vested in them. I agree that the law requires that before exercising this discretion the justice should obtain as much information as he can regarding the nature of the alleged offence, the character and background of the accused, the likelihood of his appearance for trial and such other relevant factors as will assist him in exercising his discretion. But the important

November 20, 1968
Supply-Justice
thing to remember is that under our present system there is no absolute right to bail.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired, unless it is the wish of the committee that he be allowed to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Melvin James McQuaid: Thank you. There is a basic principle of law which recognizes that a person should retain his freedom until he is convicted of the offence for which he has been charged. Because this is a basic principle it certainly is as applicable to the poor as it is to the rich, and it should be. It should be just as applicable to the man who does not have a cent as it was to Hal Banks, who was able to put up $25,000 in the form of bail. As was the case in respect of Hal Banks, the ability to raise a large amount of money places an accused person in a more advantageous position than an accused person who cannot raise the money and therefore must remain in jail. I suggest this is contrary to the basic principle of British justice, and I believe something should be done by way of amendment to the code to correct that unfortunate situation.
I understand the Department of Justice has the matter in hand. When the omnibus bill is brough in I hope there will be something in it to take care of both these situations, the detention of people immediately after being arrested and the broadening of the law with regard to bail, so that people will not be required after arrest to be penalized merely because they cannot find the cash necessary for bail or perhaps because they are friendless, alone in a strange place and do not have someone to go on their recognizance. These are a few things which we would hope the Minister of Justice would take into consideration when he is drafting his omnibus bill.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. I shall restrain myself until later, except in respect of one point, in order to set the record completely clear with regard to the Hal Banks situation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I must say to the hon. member that I respectfully differ with his interpretation of the law. When I learned of the reports of the statement by the United States senator from New Mexico I immediately contacted the legal officers of the crown and asked them what recourse the government had to reclaim
(Mr. McQuaid.]
Mr. Hal Banks within our jurisdiction. The law officers of the crown consulted United States counsel in New York City, in fact, the same counsel who had advised the attorney general of Ontario in the earlier extradition proceedings.
It is the view of the United States counsel, supported by the view of the law officers of the crown, that the extradition proceedings are at an end, and that the incoming United States administration cannot reverse the decision taken by Mr. Rusk and order Mr. Banks re-arrested and retained for extradition to Canada. The hon. member for Cardigan suggested that the action of the secretary of state, Dean Rusk, in refusing to sign the extradition order after Commissioner Abruzzo had committed Banks for extradition, was an executive act, not a judicial act, and therefore the judicial process had not been interrupted.
It is the view of the law officers of the crown, supported by United States counsel, that the executive act of the secretary of state, Dean Rusk, was part of the judicial process as contained in the extradition act and the extradition treaty itself. In this respect there is really no difference between the law of the United States and our own. Under our own Extradition Act, before a person who has been committed by a judge or by an extradition commissioner for surrender can be extradited, the minister, in our case the Attorney General of Canada, must so order in writing. The situation is the same in the United States. After committal for extradition or surrender, the person so committed can be extradited from the United States, but the secretary of state must so order in writing.
If in a particular case the Attorney General of Canada, or the secretary of state, being the equivalent officer under the act in the United States, should refuse to make an order for extradition we do not believe it possible-by "we" I mean the law officers of the crown, supported by the advice of United States counsel-that it can be seriously argued that the secretary of state or his successor, can later change his mind and order the person re-arrested for extradition to a foreign country.
In other words, once the discretion of the secretary of state or the Attorney General of Canada has been exercised either in favour of signing the extradition order or against it, then the proceedings have been exhausted and cannot be re-opened. I think to argue the
November 20, 19G8

contrary would mean that any person so concerned would continue in peril indefinitely, depending on changes in the administration or in policy.
I have to re-affirm, with the greatest respect to my colleague in the law, that an executive act or administrative discretion once exercised by the secretary of state of the United States, under the extradition act or the extradition treaty, cannot later be reexercised either by that same secretary of state or by a successor. Mr. Banks once having been brought into jeopardy under proper judicial process cannot be brought into jeopardy again.


Gerald William Baldwin: I read the press stories in this regard and it seems to me that the senator based his opinion on the results of some inquiries or legal opinions he obtained. This is a very serious point. I am not suggesting that the minister or his legal advisors are wrong. I have great respect for both, although I have occasionally had reason to differ with their judgment. On occasion judges have found that I was right and they were wrong.
It is well known that an information and complaint may be laid against a person who is suspected of having committed a criminal offence. A preliminary inquiry is then held; but before the time comes for a charge to be preferred in another court we often find that a stay of proceedings is entered. That stay of proceedings is an executive act. The attorney general of a province in exercising his discretion refuses to proceed with the charge in the Supreme Court or the county court, as the case may be. The entering of that stay of prosecution, the nolle prosequi, does not prevent a charge from being proceeded with against the person at a later date.
That is on all fours with this situation. I put that as a comparable case to the minister and suggest it would be of some interest to members of this committee if the minister made inquiries as to the basis of the senator's statement. It may well be that senators in the United States have access to higher priced legal talent than the department of the attorney general over there.


John Napier Turner: I do not
know whether the United States senator for New Mexico sought legal advice, but I suggest to the hon. member for Peace River that while the attorney general might have discretion as to whether to prosecute or not if his law officers advised him there was a case, it
Supply-Justice
would be highly unusual for an attorney general to act if his law officers told him there was no case.


Gerald William Baldwin: He would never lay a charge in that event.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to preface my remarks by congratulating the minister on his appointment. I was rather disappointed, however, by his opening statement in respect of this important department. In speaking briefly on the Banks case, which has just been discussed, the minister stated that Mr. Banks would be placed in double jeopardy if there were to be a rehearing of this case. Double jeopardy is an old principle in respect of accused persons, but it seems to me that if Mr. Banks were retried and sent back to Canada, not only would he be in double jeopardy but the Liberal government would be in double jeopardy, because some of the members of this government sponsored Mr. Banks when he came to Canada in the first place, and some of them received contributions from the S.I.U. for their political campaigns. Therefore, there really would be double jeopardy if Mr. Banks did come back to Canada. If he does come back to Canada I hope the hon. member for York South will in future get some of those S.I.U. contributions.
I said I was disappointed in the minister's opening statement. I thought we had a minister who had a flair for reform, and one who would stand up and set forth some of the great changes he has talked about outside the house, some of which have been reported in Maclean's magazine. The minister made a rather complete presentation of the work of his department, and then made an apology for employing 72 more individuals. He has actually reached the position now that he is only a part time minister. This was the result of the reorganization measure of November, 1966. Prior to that the office of the Minister of Justice was very important. After the reorganization, the department was castrated of any real jurisdiction. Its main jurisdiction now is in respect of constitutional matters.
The Prime Minister has taken unto himself the problems associated with the constitution. He set up a task force and decided not to refer constitutional matters to any standing committee. He has kept unto himself and his officials some very important aspects of constitutional law. One might have thought that the imaginative and bright Minister of Justice would persuade the present Prime Minister to refer this matter of the constitution to a

November 20, 1968
Supply-Justice
standing committee in order that we could call experts and hear what they have to say about the delegation and redistribution of powers.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Apparently he has not been able to persuade the Prime Minister in this very important area. This is why I say he is really operating on a part time basis. He still has control of the Criminal Code. Although some parts of the Criminal Code appear to be divided with regard to jurisdiction, I am very saddened that the Minister of Justice has not taken any initiative with regard to setting up a fund from which to compensate innocent victims of criminal violence. This matter was raised by the former member for York-Humber and the principle was accepted by the government. It was referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, and after a very thorough investigation I thought we had adopted the principle with regard to compensation.
There has been wide experience in this field and some of the provinces have initiated action. The lame excuse of the government is that law enforcement falls within provincial jurisdiction, and therefore the minister sidesteps the question and fails to appreciate that the federal government has contracts with eight of the ten provinces in Canada with regard to providing police services. Those services are provided on a controversial basis. The two provinces not covered are Ontario and Quebec; all other provinces are covered by contract with regard to police services. There would be nothing wrong in including in the contract sufficient money to pay compensation to innocent victims of criminal violence.
We have heard a great deal about persons who have suffered as the result of criminal violence and have received no compensation. In this respect the unimaginative minister takes no action whatsoever. He does not rise and say that the government is going to take positive action in this field, and I am greatly disappointed because of this.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Gilbert: When I have finished I will be glad to receive questions. Another area in which we are greatly disappointed is that of the expungement of criminal records. In the last session the solicitor general, in response to a question of mine during the discussion of

the estimates of the previous year, said he had laid before the cabinet a memorandum with regard to the expungement of criminal records, and the bail system. This gave encouragement to the members who had served on the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, because in respect of a bill sponsored by a Liberal member from Welland the committee studied this matter in depth, expert witnesses were called and a report was made to the house with regard to the expungement of criminal records. The same thing applied to bail. Here we had the undertaking of the former solicitor general that the matter was in memorandum form before the cabinet for decision. We had encouragement in this respect.
What happened? An election was called. We now have a new cabinet and no initiative has been taken by the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General with regard to action in these very important fields. This is something with regard to which the part time Minister of Justice could take a real stride forward in introducing legislation in the house.
I am now going to give the minister more suggestions with regard to things he could do, and thereby make himself a name in Canadian history, as one who never stood in the background but was always in the forefront of reform. There is the question of the Expropriation Act. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that in this session the hon. member for Peel South introduced a motion with regard to the setting up of a new Expropriation Act. The motion was adopted, and accepted by the government in principle.
The minister has said-this is in the throne speech, and statements made by the minister-that he intends to bring forth legislation with regard to a new Expropriation Act. Perhaps you do not know this, Mr. Chairman, but it is very significant that back in 1962 this government also brought forth an act respecting the expropriation of land. This matter was started in 1962, but here we are in 1968 and no measure has been placed before the house. Surely the Minister of Justice, a very bright, intelligent and active minister, could bring forth this measure in a matter of days and have it referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.
The hon. member for Peel South is very interested in this act, because if the airport in Toronto is extended there will be a great deal of land expropriation. If this measure is not introduced by the time the expropriation
November 20, 1968

takes place, the hon. member is in real jeopardy with regard to being re-elected next time, because he knows how old the other act is. Since 1889 there have not been any amendments to the Expropriation Act. The hon. member knows that the important item with regard to compensation is giving notice to landowners in respect of expropriation. These are the two main areas in the Expropriation Act, and they were pretty fully covered in the 1962 act. There is no reason why the Minister of Justice cannot at this time bring forth a new act and have it referred to the standing committee.
The next question I wish to discuss is that of marijuana, Mr. Chairman. If ever an issue has been debated recently it is the issue of marijuana. We find there is divided jurisdiction between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and possibly the Solicitor General, or it may be the Minister of Justice, if he is in charge of the drug and narcotics control act. We have had evidence from the deputy commissioner of the R.C.M.P. of an alarming increase in marijuana convictions. It should be fully appreciated that 80 per cent of this increase applies to young men and young women between the ages of 16 and 25. This was the statement of the deputy commissioner.
One has to appreciate what a conviction means to a young person. It means he has difficulty with regard to obtaining employment, with regard to travel and bonding. Yet here we sit, with the Minister of Justice taking no action with regard to a proper amendment to the act. No action is taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and we have a statement by the Solicitor General that no action will be taken during this session. This is a field into which the Minister of Justice should step, and correct the situation, because it has a serious effect on our young people.
The next item with which I wish to deal is that of corporal punishment. Every time I pick up the Criminal Code and read section 641 I realize that this section must have been drafted back in medieval times, in the 16th century. I will read section 641 which falls under the heading of "whipping":
Where a person is liable to be sentenced to be whipped, the court may sentence him to be whipped on one, two or three occasions within the limits of the prison in which he is confined.
Is it not time that our Minister of Justice took some steps with regard to corporal punishment? The John Howard Society says
Supply-Justice
that the approach to criminal law today should be that of rehabilitation and reform rather than that of revenge. This is the approach that is dear to the hearts not only of the members of the John Howard Society but also the hearts of social workers throughout the country. Reform in this matter of corporal punishment is an area in which we would have no difficulty in getting the full support of the house. The days have long passed when we resorted to these cruel and barbaric methods.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The other item which I am sure falls under the minister's jurisdiction is that of the uniformity of sentencing. There has been a wide disparity in sentencing throughout the country, and if there were some guide lines within the Criminal Code to ensure some measure of uniformity, justice would be applied equally throughout the country. I will ask the Minister of Justice to take immediate action with regard to sentencing, which I am sure falls within his area of jurisdiction, and to bring this legislation up to date. It needs it.
Another matter which I should like to mention is the review of the Criminal Code. I thought the minister would say that since this is an electronic age it is necessary to have legislation with regard to electronic devices for bugging, that he would make a statement on it and refer it to a standing committee, or else give us a promise of legislation. However, not a word was mentioned.
The other matter which I should like to mention regards the insanity rules in the Criminal Code. It has been a long time since any change has been made in the M'Naghten rules on insanity and surely, in view of the progress in the field of psychology and psychiatry, it is time we made some changes in those rules.
Another matter regards the appeal procedure in summary convictions. Many people have found those provisions very difficult to comply with and often cases are thrown out on very technical grounds. It is important that the poor and the innocent are not convicted unfairly.
Another matter is that of vagrancy. This has been a charge under the Criminal Code used by the police as a holding charge, with regard to some other offence which the police may want to apply. I believe the minister should take a forward look at this matter of vagrancy and change this section so as to stop the police from using it as a holding charge.

November 20, 19G8
Supply-Justice
The minister mentioned rather cursorily that he was setting up a permanent law reform committee. It is high time that this was done, because the last revision of the statutes of Canada was made back in 1952, and from 1952 to the present time we have had annual statutes. Now we are about 16 years behind the times, and one would hope we could make a revision at this stage. With the use of computers we could be in very close touch with the changes that are taking place today. This is one area where we could call together all the experts in the field of the law and have them direct their minds to the reform of our laws. As the minister knows, this has been done with success in Ontario. Again we at the federal level fall behind. We seem always to be acting too little and too late. If the minister is going to make his job into a full time job, this is one area in which he could really excel.
The last matter regards the Exchequer Court of Canada. I thought he was going to say he would abolish that court. The two main items dealt with by the Exchequer Court are taxation and expropriation appeals. He did mention that it may be a forum for administrative tribunal appeals. This makes me shudder, because it is in opposition to the present administrative law, with the exception that under the administrative law there is the right of appeal in the case of a denial of natural justice. I can imagine some of the boards that have been set up being delayed by administrative procedure, according to which not only does one appear before the board but both parties have the right to appeal to the Exchequer Court.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order? I should like to say to the hon. member that I was speaking more in terms of a judicial review by the court, rather than appeal, and that would bring in what the hon. member said about natural justice, and so on.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have always maintained that we would be very proud to have the minister here with us in our part of the house because I have always thought he was a forward looking minister. I am sure that after he hears my speech and starts implementing some of the ideas he will say "I am one of you". We will be happy to have him any time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
have a vacancy right here.


John Gilbert: As I said, it has been said with regard to the Exchequer Court that it is a very expensive way to get justice, and that it involves great delays. I believe that court could be abolished, and the matters with which it presently deals could be dealt with either in the Supreme Court or the county court of a province. When it comes to minor taxation appeals, there is no reason why a county court judge, for a small amount of money, could not deal with them, and there is no reason why the supreme court in any province could not deal with them. The more serious problem regards expropriation matters. Although the Exchequer Court travels across the country from time to time, it is very expensive to appear before that court on expropriation matters. Again there is no reason why these matters could not be referred either to a county court or to the supreme court of a particular province.
I should like to say at this point that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice played a very active role in the standing committee on justice and legal affairs. When I look at him and at the minister I feel encouraged that they will take these words as words of advice-


John Napier Turner: Yes, real pearls.


John Gilbert: -and that they will implement them immediately.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks with regard to item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice, even if I have to come back later to the other items so as to make a thorough and precise study of their subject matter.
The purpose of my remarks is to raise four or five specific points dealing rather with the general policy of the department. Therefore, I shall start immediately with the first point so as not to delay the discussion.
I will point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Justice which cannot pride itself on being one which very much promotes and encourages the introduction, progress or expansion of bilingualism within the civil service.
I should like to call the attention of the hon. minister on the Exchequer Court, for instance, whose rules of practice are printed in English only. I have already put to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question in which I indicated that, as far as
November 20, 1968

students are concerned-just to mention one instance and to repeat the expression used a minute ago by the minister-it was inconvenient. In fact, if the students want to get an official reference on the rules of practice of the Exchequer Court, most of them must refer to the English version, since there is no official French translation.
It should be mentioned in passing that the same applies to the B.N.A. Act; our country is bilingual but only the English translation is official.
The second point on which I should like to call the hon. minister's attention is this: For the last 100 years, all the judgments passed by the Supreme Court of Canada have been brought down in English and whenever one is passed in French, it is not official. If a lawyer refers to a judgment or the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and wants to have an official reference-I do say "official"-he has to refer to the English version, since these judgments are not passed in French.
During the last session, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) had moved a bill on this subject which did not come up for consideration. Let us hope that the question will be dealt with this year and that the hon. minister will take this definite point into consideration.
I was happy a moment ago to hear from the Minister of Justice himself (Mr. Turner) that the statute revision commission will be able to give us, through the minister, the approximate date of publication of the Revised Statutes of Canada, since the last revision dates back to 1952. It has therefore been 16 years since the statutes were last revised.
I pointed out a while ago that chapter 116-to take only one example-of the revised statutes of 1952 contains an act about the Auditor General of Canada.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if I want to refer to chapter 116 to find out about the present legislation, I see that following all the amendments made to the 1952 act-that is for more than 16 years-it is no longer valid, having been replaced by a good number of measures. As the minister said earlier, that is very inconvenient.
I would like to tell the minister that we would greatly appreciate knowing the date, even approximate, when the statutes will be revised and printed. If he could give an exact date, we would be very happy.


John Napier Turner: It would be in October 1969.
Supply-Justice


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank the minister, Mr. Chairman.
We now know the date; that is a good point.
As I said, I would like the minister to take into consideration the first points I mentioned concerning the Exchequer Court and the Supreme Court, so that if our country is to have a bilingual look, this becomes a fact and not only words.
If the act on the official languages is to become a living reality, the Exchequer Court, the Supreme Court of Canada and other federal organizations must set an example.
Mr. Chairman, during his brief statement when these estimates were first put before the house, the honourable Minister of Justice spoke of administrative courts indicating that this whole matter would be revised.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Before closing my brief remarks, I should like to draw the attention of the minister to those famous administrative courts, so that he might take note of the following recommendations.
We feel that a special committee on administrative courts should be set up, as soon as possible since, to my mind, that whole matter has been dragging far too long, in order that various acts creating organizations exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions might be studied. The said committee could give advice to the members and Canadian citizens on the passing of a specific legislation on the administrative courts which the minister could then put before the house in the near future.
In addition, we would like this committee to consider certain matters thoroughly. For example, I would like this committee-which, as suggested by the minister, would be established in the near future-to study the structure of judicial or quasi-judicial organizations. At the present time, we do not know the nature of that structure, it is rather topsy-turvy, to use a common expression, since one cannot make head or tail of it. I see that the minister is smiling and I know that he agrees with me.
I think that is is essential to review the organization of those administrative tribunals, in order to get acquainted with those judicial and quasi-judicial organizations, and to consider as well the status of the members and support personnel of those organizations.

November 20, 1968
Supply-Justice
Moreover, certain members do not know what they are doing in this respect; they do not understand the role they are to play. They admit themselves that their personal jurisdiction sometimes overlaps with that of their neighbours or colleagues. There is total confusion. Therefore, that is the first point which should be studied by the committee.
Secondly, and I think the hon. minister will again agree with me, this special committee on administrative courts should examine their territorial jurisdiction and the sanctions of rules of competence. That does not need much explanation.
Third, I should like this committee to study the procedure to be followed in appearing before these administrative courts, so that the rights of every citizen, every person under the jurisdiction of the courts, may be properly protected and a more uniform procedure established. I think that is a fundamental point, Mr. Chairman. The rights of every individual under the jurisdiction of the court must be clearly protected, so that justice may not be a question of money, prestige, resources, the reputation of a businessman or whatever, but really a human question. Everyone should be on the same footing before the law, which is supreme.
I would also like the committee to study thoroughly the advisability of establishing a court of appeal from the decisions of lower courts dealing with administrative matters. The representations I am now making to the minister are valid, and the minister will be able to consider them in due time, since they could be a part of the study made by the special committee.
Finally, I would like this committee on administrative courts to examine thoroughly the advisability of appointing an ombudsman or using some other method to ensure that the rights of every individual under the jurisdiction of the courts are fully protected against encroaching administration.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have set up a program of work for the special committee which could be appointed to study the structure of the administrative courts. These five specific points present a whole program of activities, and hon. members would be very glad with the opportunity of studying the matters in depth, in order to ensure an equitable treatment for every individual coming under the jurisdiction of the courts and to see to it that the justice dispensed is not unjust.
Mr. Chairman, I have the English translation of the remarks I have just addressed to 
the minister about those administrative courts.
I have even put that matter in a notice of motion which he will find in the order paper.
I will therefore give him immediately an English copy of what I have just said about setting up a special committee, so that if he is getting ready to reply immediately or to make a few definite comments on those points, he might do so in the language in which he is most fluent.
I should like to be able some day, Mr. Chairman, to deliver a speech in English. A while ago, I had decided to do so in the case of my very short speech, but I would rather attend for some time the government language school before making my first attemps in that language, as I cannot "skate" as easily in English as in French.
One must realize that this word may have different meanings. To "skate" like the member for Temiscamingue and to "skate" like the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) are two very different things, Mr. Chairman.
I should like to say to the minister that I appreciate his work in the Department of Justice and I am not necessarily of the opinion of the member who spoke before me and who said that the minister is a mini-minister or a part-time minister.
I think he is doing an excellent job, but he should deal with some fundamental matters. One would be, of course, the setting up of a special committee on administrative courts. I am most anxious to hear his comments.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the minister upon the energetic and capable leadership he has given this house and country in the field of criminal reform.
The hon. member for Broadview spoke about compensation for victims of crime. If the minister were to heed the hon. member's exhortations, however, I feel a great burden would be put on him to legislate with respect to something that falls clearly within provincial jurisdiction. The minister would be wasting his already scarce time on something over which he has no jurisdiction.
Today I wish to make two points. The first is a suggestion that the summary conviction appeal procedure be streamlined or made simpler and easier for those who fall prey to the technical barriers which confound the path of one who appeals. I suggest that subsection 3 of section 722 of the Criminal Code,
November 20, 1968

which deals with appeals from summary conviction courts to county judges, be amended to read:
The appeal court may at any time up to the date of the hearing of the appeal, waive any defects or omissions in the appeal process when the court considers it in the best interests of justice so to do.
I think that such a provision would remove some of the technical barriers people encounter through failure to have an affidavit sworn, to find a magistrate, who may be away on his summer holidays, or to raise sufficient costs. This would also cover many other matters urgently requiring attention.
I have had 18 years experience in practise of the criminal law, both in defence and, latterly, as a crown prosecutor. I have had a chance to view the matter and I have seen many difficulties of the nature I have described. I shall refer to only one case, that of Regina v. Amyot, 1968 Ontario reports, volume 2, at page 626. There an Ontario county judge found he had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal because the listing of the appeal was not properly posted at a certain place in the court house. If the appeal had been listed inside the court office it could have been heard; but since some clerk placed the list outside the court room, the appeal could not be heard. That does not strike me as being the course of true justice and I am sure the minister will be interested in assisting in this field of reform.
My second point deals with prelimary hearings. I urge the minister to consider the saving of money and the convenience of witnesses which might result from our adopting the British use of depositions. For instance, if a witness is to be called merely to give a formal statement such as, "Yes, I picked up a document at 5 a.m. on November 12," that statement could be reduced to a simple deposition or affidavit, and filed. Of course defence counsel would still have the privilege of calling that witness. I submit that in many thousand of cases in this country much money could be saved and many people con-venienced by adopting such a system.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, I have only one comment to make, or only one question to direct to the Minister of Justice. He must realize, as we all realize, that there is a controversy about the widespread use of marijuana. Marijuana itself does not seem to be a particularly dangerous drug. The greatest danger lies in the fact that a user may 29180-189
Supply-Justice
move on to more dangerous substances. There is however remarkably little medical literature about its effects.
In February, 1968, and again in March, 1968, the then Minister of Justice when replying to questions said that the policy of the government was to adopt what might be called the hard line. Since then there has been much comment and controversy. Suggestions have been made that this approach is hard and harsh. Speaking in Regina to the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that narcotics legislation might be amended or modified by introducing a marijuana control bill.
The question of narcotics has long exercised our officials. I think it is well known that the intent of the Narcotic Control Act is to control the widespread use of drugs. I think it is conceded that we ought to be more concerned with distributors of these harmful substances than with users. In other words, there ought to be changes in the act which would remove the profit that pushers may make by selling drugs. Perhaps the law ought to provide more severe penalties for those who push drugs. There has also been a suggestion that under the new legislation it may not be necessary to lay a formal charge of possession against those who possess drugs. In any event, if the narcotics legislation were changed I suggest it might be a good idea not to punish the users of marijuana as severely as the pushers who traffic in the drug for profit.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill S-15, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Code, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.
The time being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion and public bills.
November 20, 1968
2994	COMMONS
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to amending the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act so as to modify the composition of the various commissions with a view to obtaining more logical and equitable redistribution of constituency boundaries and to provide that any and all reports and recommendations of the said commissions shall be accompanied by full and detailed reasons for any proposed changes, all of which changes and the reasons therefore shall be debatable in this house.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on proposals that have been submitted during recent years, particularly in the course of the first revision by a commission established for reviewing the electoral boundaries, as required by law. I believe that every one of us, in the light of his own experience, will be able to determine the results that have been achieved.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

The purpose of my motion is to persuade the government to introduce amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, in particular to sections 6, 13, 18 and 20-and there may be some other sections related to these. You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, to read out the terms of the resolution so I shall not repeat it. The main purpose is to consider the composition of these commissions, their method of performance, the principles upon which they proceeded, the nature of their reports and the manner in which these reports were handled in the house.
I bring up this subject with some diffidence. I wish it to be clearly understood by hon. members that I make no reflection whatsoever on the ridings which they represent. Those who have been elected to this house for the first time will, naturally, have no experience of the long and difficult debates on this subject which took place in 1964 and 1965. Most of them will not have gone over the public hearings, the subsequent debate on the reports, and the representations made when those reports were adopted by the house.
Regardless of the experience which may have been reflected in various places, I would
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]

say that the last redistribution, the first under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, left much to be desired. In some provinces it could be termed a disaster. I believe every canon of good sense was traversed. One of my former collagues said he thought that in many areas there had been gerrymandering by lack of knowledge and perhaps by some incompetence. I would agree with him. People in the Province of Alberta, in particular, are singularly bitter about the results; we thought they were among the poorest. I am telling the commissioners nothing new when I say this; I have told them so before. In other places they were adequate, but no more.
There was supposedly a professed independence among the commissioners. But as a result of some of the decisions in these connections no other conclusion can be drawn but that some of the divisions had been motivated by political considerations of the type they were not supposed to have. Frankly, there was some gerrymandering in certain districts and some hiving off, and no one will explain them to me in any other way because I could go into those particular districts and show that there is no rhyme or reason about the decisions-no reason of demography, no reason of social contact, that the people go to the same market town, that the children come from the same school district, that they are on the same side of a major river, or anything of that sort. There was a hiving off.
I suggest that in the main the act unfortunately lays too great emphasis on the so-called equality of numbers, with a tolerance of 25 per cent up and down. Those of us who were here will recall there was a great deal of debate about the extent of that tolerance before we finally settled on 25 per cent. Members of two commissions have told me: Thank goodness parliament showed a minimum of good sense in going so far. In their provinces it would have been impossible to operate on any legal tolerance less than that figure. After all, 25 per cent was not mandatory; the commissions could work within a tolerance of 5 per cent up and down if peculiar circumstances dictated it.
Section 13 did provide for looking to demography, to special geographical features, to elements of growth in suburban communities, difficult boundaries and so on. In the main, these were ignored. Take my own riding, so that I do not point a finger at anyone else. I was left with a strip of land two miles deep and ten miles long which straddled the northern edge of the whole city of Edmonton.
November 20, 1968

I do not object to the people there. I had this territory before, though much more. But this two miles is now an area of development on the north of Edmonton from Edmonton centre. My neighbours between the centre of the city and Edmonton east, to the east of the centre, are inhibited in growth; they have no new area of development.
The northern strip is being developed at a great rate at the present time, particularly next to Edmonton east. My colleague from Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko) lives there; he bought and built there because he knew this area was supposed to be included in his constituency. But it was not. The net result is that people who are on the far northeast part of the city are attached to the people living in the far western part of the city though there is no contact whatsoever beyond the fact that they live in the city of Edmonton.
I can tell you the reason why. There was in between a military base and they wanted to leave it in my constituency; they felt that 300 or 400 Liberal votes coming from that base would perhaps work to somebody else's advantage. There is no other reason for leaving that two mile strip.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: However, it did not work out that way. Never did that traverse the minds of the commissioners? Well, knowing the commissioners as I do, I shall leave it at that.
The complicated constituency boundaries resulted in confusion for civilian voters. May I say, also, that I was able to examine the lists of all servicemen west of the Great Lakes, and I know from the scrutineers connected with the service vote that hundreds and hundreds of ballots were spoiled because of the complicated boundaries which resulted from the commissioners' decisions in many instances. I am thinking particularly of the Province of Alberta-leave it to others who wish to talk about their own experience.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Ridings made no sense geographically, leading to very difficult election campaigns. Often, no interior roads existed. We have one constituency that stretches along the eastern slope of the mountains, running some 450 miles, I would say, from the United States boundary, and 36 miles south of the city of Grand Prairie. There is not a road running directly through that constituency. The people in it have no community of interest. My
2995
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act colleague from Athabasca has to get around his constituency in an aircraft because there are no direct roads, unless he goes through four or five other constituencies.
It seems to me that a constituency should be so designed that its member shall be able to have reasonably quick access to his constituents and they to him. There should be a form of unit. Instead of that we get these conglomerations designed strictly on the basis of so-called population squares that head off to nowhere. I told the chairman of our commission in Alberta that as punishment the commission should have to travel the boundaries of all the constituencies it designed.
I believe that section 13 has to be amended in order to get the emphasis removed from being placed purely on numbers, and to give effect to demographic reasons. During the past election, and I think this is a question of political science, we were asking for the involvement of the people with government. Yet the last redistribution of constituencies has made it practically impossible for many constituents to have contact with their members, or members with their constituents, or even contact among the constituents themselves.
Then there is the question of the commission reports. I always feel that he who desires to make a change has the onus of proof upon him and must advance the reasons for the change. We did not see anything like that in the last redistribution. We were simply given a report and a map with legal descriptions, on the basis that they had been handed down from on high. I found the attitude of some of the commissioners to be as though they had been commissioned by God and were handing down an edict. Their attitude was that anyone who dared to criticize their decision just did not know what he was talking about, and any appearance made at a commission's public hearings was a nuisance to the commission.
I found that the commissions had gone to work on the basis of paper furnished to them by the staff of the boundaries commissioner who had been working on a sort of jigsaw puzzle fitting the pieces together. I believe that hon. members and the public generally are interested in putting viable political units together. In a growing city riding no one can say, "We can put this section in there because we think we have more Liberal",-or Tory, or Social Credit or N.D.P.-"votes in it." This is nonsense. There is no pattern of voting in newly developing areas. It cannot be forecast.
2996	COMMONS
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Certainly there has to be some equality of numbers or relationship of numbers, but I am sure hon. members will agree it is a better principle to establish a political unit upon reasons of demography, geography, community of interest and other factors.
As provided in the act, a commission's reports and reasons should come before the house if there is objection to the redistribution in the required volume. The reports and reasons then become available for examination. As a result of the last redistribution my colleague from Calgary North and other hon. members, including myself, sought to obtain the records and memoranda on which redistribution commissions operate, in order to see what on earth led to this blessed mess; but this was denied on a fine legal point. Then the motion was transferred for debate and got lost in the complexities of the legislative machinery.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will want to examine this question. I have proposed this motion at this time for serious consideration. I have not spoken about the composition of the commissions, although I think my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre may wish to talk about that. I think difficulty in this connection could be avoided if as originally proposed and provided in the act, and as we thought we were getting, a representative would be recommended by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and one by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to sit on a commission. This would eliminate any, shall we say, political jiggery-pokery.


Mr. Deachman:: That is a good word.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Or shenanigans-whatever word you want to use. I am sure that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) can come up with somewhat more colourful ones but he knows fully what I mean. If that were done there would be a stand-off respecting the question of political influence. There would certainly be a greater understanding of political principles and of a political unit than was demonstrated by most of the commissions during the last redistribution.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say we want to have something better in the composition of commissions. We want to have something better in the way of the principles upon which a redistribution shall take place, and we want to have the reports of commissions so that we can see just why certain constituencies were put together, thus placing the onus for

DEBATES	November 20, 1968
changes upon the commissions. They have to justify the changes. They may want to make a change by saying, "In this district the population has changed." That is perfectly valid. This is a reason; but there are other reasons that must be included.
To talk to one of these commissions and try to justify your own opinions is almost like beating a pillow, and a very soft pillow at that. I do not think I have seen anything work so arbitrarily and poorly as the last electoral redistributions. Therefore I urge hon. members to consider my motion, and I trust in its ultimate adoption.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Yves Forest: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly, if I am granted the time to answer.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken if, according to his proposal, the commission's report could be discussed in the house? Furthermore, could the house amend the commission's reports or merely submit recommendations?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker. This matter was thoroughly discussed during the debate. Members could not have the report amended, because we could have done so ourselves at the very beginning. If members were permitted to amend the report, I think the commission's independence would be destroyed. We want to know why changes were made so that we can make representations, but if we are not told, how can we express our ideas or oppose those which motivated the report?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion which is now before us seeks to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and therefore, hopefully, to establish at some future time more logical and equitable redistribution of constituency boundaries. To this end it asks that all changes and the reasons therefor be debatable in this house before being put into effect. Certainly every member of this chamber believes that constituency boundaries should make some kind of reasonable sense, and that no constituency should be more burdensome or difficult to represent than any other. What
November 20, 1968
we would like and what is possible, however, never converge, but like parallel lines run merrily together into infinity. Logical and equitable constituencies are hardly possible in a nation like ours, which in itself is neither particularly logical nor equitable. It has been said that some countries have too much history but that Canada has too much geography. Well, that may be so, but despite seemingly insurmountable geographical obstacles our ancestors who came from here, there and everywhere forged an unlikely nation in the northern part of this continent. Canada may not accurately be called a logical political, geographic or historical entity, yet it survives and even thrives.
If our nation cannot be described as a logical outcome of historical forces, neither can it be described today as a shining example of equality. We continue to be troubled by glaring inequalities of economic well-being and opportunity which exist from region to region, and within our major cities as well. Thus, it may be said that we have the kind and size of constituencies which we deserve, living in a nation such as ours, constituencies which are as illogical and inequitable as this nation itself. Certainly, when it comes to the question of size, as the member for Thunder Bay I have something to complain about. This riding is much too vast for any one man to represent adequately, even if he were a reasonable facsimile of Paul Bunyan, which I am not. A region which includes 155,000 square miles is a huge area to cover adequately, even during the term of a single parliament. Yet in all this expansive acreage there are only 55,000 people, of whom approximately
26,000	are eligible to vote. If I subscribe to the democratic principle of one man one vote, which I do as nearly as it is possible to hold to that principle, it is neither reasonable nor logical for me to expect my constituency to shrink in size unless-and this is something for which we in northern Ontario press all the time-through a vigorous program of regional development we can attract thousands of people into northwestern Ontario to enjoy with us the good life there, and help us develop our almost limitless natural resources.
The mere alteration of constituency boundaries really is no certain guarantee of greater equity for either members or the constituents whom they represent. To this end it does seem reasonable to make a small suggestion to the commissioners of internal economy. I am sure my hon. friends from Kenora-Rainy
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act River, Algoma East, Cochrane, and many others, would agree with me when I suggest that those who represent extremely large rural ridings should be given some extra financial consideration to assist them in meeting the extremely heavy expenses which are incurred in representing such constituencies. The people of my riding are a great distance from most departments of government. Therefore they rely very heavily upon their member, whom they expect to see regularly and often. I am prepared to agree that in the constituency of Thunder Bay there are certain illogical aspects which we would like to see changed. For example the southwest corner of the riding includes people who live near the outskirts of Fort Frances, a town which lies within the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River. Naturally these people look to Fort Frances as their centre for commerce and recreation. It follows therefore that logically they should reside in the same federal constituency as the townsfolk. Again, my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River has included in his riding the town of Sioux Lookout, which is linked in its educational system under the new reorganization of school districts in Ontario with the town of Dryden, the largest community in Thunder Bay.
In order to reach Sioux Lookout the member from Kenora-Rainy River must follow a fairly long route through Thunder Bay. Since we wear the same political colours there is no problem, but there is great inconvenience for the member, and the charge of illogical redistribution is probably justified. Further, a constituency like Thunder Bay is faced with the problems of communication which fight against the existence of a community of interest or common concern, and it is not logical that people in one constituency should be so isolated from each other that they are unaware of what people in other parts of the constituency are doing, or of what problems there may be in another part of the constituency. There is no single radio or television outlet which serves the whole area. No one newspaper is read by the majority of the constituents. Some look to Winnipeg, others to the lakehead, and still others to Toronto as their chief urban centre.
As I have indicated, we in northwestern Ontario certainly are not at a loss to offer full and detailed reasons for a more logical and equitable redistribution of some of our constituency boundaries. There is, however, one very troublesome aspect to this notice of motion which prevents me lending support to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
2998	COMMONS
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act Lambert). The troublesome clause contains the suggestion that in the future full and detailed reasons for any proposed increase shall be debatable in this house. I can imagine a very long debate in which each member would want to have the opportunity to explain why the particular reasons given for the changes in his constituency are neither right nor justified.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It seems to me, however, that this house has more pressing, urgent and serious matters to consider. There is not enough time at our disposal for us to become bogged down in trivialities, to major in minors. We should in fact count ourselves fortunate that we are spared the laborious effort of having to consider the justification for the boundary lines of 264 constituencies. What member is there who would not argue long and strong that some particular city block, some village or town or some small region does not properly or logically fit into his constituency? The motivations for such reasoning would be many and varied, but among them would be a feeling of hostility for that city block, village, town or small area which happened to be mainly of a political persuasion different from that of the member. How pleasant it would be to attempt to jettison those troublesome voters who live in darkness and have not yet seen the light of our political wisdom.
No, Mr. Speaker this house has no time for such pettiness. The Canadian people expect us to get on with the job of governing. Even now, the proceedings of this house are all too tedious and tardy. Time is propelling us rapidly and irresistibly into the 21st century, yet our nation is still burdened with worn-out laws, and in so many ways we are still basically an underdeveloped nation.
I conclude by saying, let us leave the problems of constituency boundaries to non-political commissions; let us put up with the few illogical or inequitable aspects which trouble us; let us not waste the precious time of this assembly, but rather, let us push on with the job of building Canada into a just and modern nation which is governed in a way that is relevant to the needs of the present and the future.


Mr. Deakon:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


B. Keith Penner: Certainly.


Walter Cyril Deakon: I was wondering whether the hon. member could inform this house how
DEBATES	November 20, 1968
many of the 264 federal constituencies have boundaries equivalent to the provincial counterparts?


B. Keith Penner: I am not able to answer that question, except in relation to my own riding. In that area there are three provincial constituencies which touch upon or are included within the federal boundary of the Thunder Bay riding. I cannot answer in respect of the whole of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has a grievance. In fact, I well recall the expressed feelings of most of the Alberta members of the last parliament about the redistribution map in respect of that province. I think I would only be facing reality if I admitted there was a general feeling on the part of those members that they all had grievances.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) has just reflected the fact that there are other members in the house who likewise have grievances in respect of certain aspects of the boundaries of their constituencies. I must say, however, that I do not agree with the solution to the problem proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West. We sit near each other and we have to be good friends whether we want to be or not, but I do not like the retrogressive step proposed in this resolution.
It is my feeling that one of the most progressive steps of a political nature parliament ever took was the step we took when we ended 100 years of political, partisan gerrymandering that went on every time we had distribution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They only do it a different way now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was a member of two or three parliamentary committees that engaged in redistribution, so I know something of what that experience is, and I certainly do not want to go through it again. It is a proper procedure that the boundaries of our constituencies should be determined by some body other than the members who run for and seek to represent those ridings, and I hope it will stay that way.
There are one or two things the hon. member for Edmonton West said with which I may have some sympathy, but I must dissociate myself from some of his remarks. He has indicated that he said to the commissioners in

November 20, 1968	COMMONS
the province of Alberta what he thought of their work. I have to leave to him and the Alberta members what their experience may have been with their commissioners. Perhaps I am one of the fortunate ones. I come from a province where we had redistribution by an independent commission on a provincial basis before this was brought in federally. Not only did we have this take place provincially ahead of the federal scheme, but the same people who were assigned to do the provincial job were called upon to do the federal job. The only change was to add the representation commissioner, Mr. Castonguay. So we had experienced people do the job in Manitoba.
I do not suggest there are not some complaints that members from Manitoba could make, and I do not think any map could be drawn that would be perfect to anyone. But I am prepared to say that the Manitoba division as a result of the last redistribution seems to be about as good as it could be, and as fair as possible to all concerned. I have heard rumblings of discontent in one or two other parts of Canada, but surely that is a small price to pay for getting it established that the boundaries of our constituencies are determined by someone other than the members who are affected, who after all have a conflict of interest.
The hon. member for Edmonton West talked about the way in which these commissioners brought in their reports, as though they were edicts from on high. I suppose that could be said about any commission or body which has been given a delegated authority. Whenever they make their reports they seem to be edicts. But let me point out that these commissions have only the authority given to them by a parliamentary statute. Let me also point out that in the statute we provided that the commissioners had to publish their first or preliminary reports and then hold hearings at which the public might appear and make representations. The fact is that this was done, in all ten provinces.
The hon. member for Edmonton West called for involvement. This is a new word that is used a lot, whether we practise the idea or not. I suggest with regard to redistribution, it is at these meetings where the involvement should take place. It should be the people affected who have the right to appear before the commissions which propose boundaries and suggest any alterations that should be made. Hon. members I am sure will remember that this practice was carried out.
DEBATES	2999
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act In fact it actually was taking place during the time of the federal election in 1965, which was called a little bit soon for the restribution that was then pending.
I attended the hearings that were held in the city of Winnipeg. I took no part and made no contribution, but I attended, showed my interest and listened to the representations made by others. As a matter of fact, I showed my belief in the independence of the commission to that extent. Although I was a candidate in that election I felt this problem was one that belonged to the people themselves, and this is the way it should stay. I am not suggesting that this is the last step toward perfection, or that there are not some changes that could be made, but I think anything which detracts from the principle that an independent body should do the job and anything that would add to the participation of members of parliament in this affair would be a mistake.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Frankly, that is what I dislike most of all about the proposal of my friend the hon. member for Edmonton West, namely his suggestion that the extent to which this matter is debated back on the floor of the house should be increased. He made it very clear, and I give him full marks for this, that he would not give the house the right to order the commissioners to make any changes, but he does ask for more debate on this matter on the floor of the house than we have under the statute as it now reads. The statute now provides that when the commissioners have made their second drawing of the maps, those maps are delivered to Your Honour and we have them before us, and by statute time has to be set aside during which members can make their observations. We cannot make any motions; we cannot make any recommendations: we just make our observations and copies of Hansard are sent to the appropriate commissioners.
But if when those second maps were forwarded to Your Honour to be presented to the house there was added to them the reasons in detail for all the changes that had been made, and if the statute were amended to provide for members not just to give their observations but to debate, or in other words to argue on each individual change, each individual reason, I submit that we would be moving back in the direction of the practice of the first 100 years of confederation, namely partisan activity, with respect to a matter that I submit, with all seriousness, is none of
3000	COMMONS
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act our business. We are elected to represent the people, but surely we do not decide what areas are to comprise our constituencies. That is for people other than us to deal with. I think the arrangement that was arrived at in the debates of a few years ago was a pretty good one.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing that this practice is sacred and cannot be improved in some respects. I am not arguing against my hon. friend's feeling that he has a very real grievance. I suggest that the place to express that grievance is, of course, at the next redistribution, to make sure that he gets to the public hearings of the commission in his province and makes his point there as clearly as he has made it here.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We made these points there, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member says that he made them there, too. All I can say is that the hon. member apparently was not as favoured in Alberta as we were in Manitoba. We had men who were experienced in the matter. The hon. member for Edmonton West suggests that there were political considerations. I would have to dissociate myself completely from that suggestion, at least as far as my province is concerned. The men who filled these posts could have their political pasts identified, and most public people in this country are such that this can be done. Certainly none of the Manitoba commissioners came from our part of the political spectrum. But I think they did a fair, reasonable, responsible and non-partisan job.
I am sure that in future redistributions some of these bugs will be ironed out and some of the problems such as that mentioned by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) will be dealt with. I sympathize with him, too. I did a little campaigning against him in his constituency, but I do not think I ever got within 500 miles of the hon. member because the constituency was so huge. These things can be ironed out. But surely the basic principle upon which we have finally agreed after many years is a good one. I believe we should stick with it and should not bring back into the arena or the cockpit of parliamentary debate this matter which belongs to the people of the country, and not just to the members who happen to be here.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Speaker-

DEBATES	November 20, 19S8


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, Mr. Speaker; I would like to participate in the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Champlain.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, at first glance, it would seem that the motion of the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is well founded. However, considering the argument of the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I feel some reservations should be made.
I should therefore like to express, at least, the reactions of the people in my riding with regard to the new electoral map. In my riding of Champlain, there is some astonishment. Indeed, some people did not even realize, before June 25, that they were voting in the Champlain riding only. Obviously-it was to be expected-people cannot adapt to a new situation within a few months.
However, I believe most sincerely that the limits of the Champlain riding were not set up in a scientific and logical way. In fact, I wonder why the recommendations made by the municipalities and the people concerned were not taken into consideration, as in the case of the municipality of Portneuf which made representations to the commission-I think that this cost approximately $2,000 to $3,000-and evidently it did not win its case, so that today, it is annoying for the town of Portneuf to be in the constituency of Champlain. I think it will take many years before people get used to writing "Portneuf, county of Champlain".
Surely this is a striking case. We can see that there is a lack of logic in that, since the twenty municipalities of the county of Portneuf, unsatisfied with the new boundaries, went over to the county of Champlain. I wonder if the people living in those constituencies should not have something to say about it. They thought that some politicking was involved and they decided to have their revenge saying: "Instead of one Creditiste member, we will have two." This is why they voted for the Credistites in the constituency of Portneuf as well as in that of Champlain.
I wanted to make those few comments to point out that those commissions should take a little more into account the views of the people. The constituency of Champlain extending from Portneuf to Cap-de-la-Madeleine to the south and north as far as
November 20, 1968

Parent-that is some 250 miles from the river-is far from homogeneous.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The southern part, densely populated, is almost exclusively agricultural, while the northern part has almost no ties with agriculture.
So, this factor should be taken into consideration since homogeneity, to my mind, should be taken into account. The limits should be set up according to demographic criteria and it seems to me they were not respected in this case seeing the Portneuf riding was split in two, giving it a population of
100,000	while that in the neighbouring riding is only 70,000.
Objectively, one wonders whether there may have been some error or other. I therefore agree with the member for Edmonton West in saying that the way the electoral boundaries were readjusted should certainly be looked into.
Let the house discuss that. Of course it must be hard for a member not to look after his own interest. I know that it is very difficult, but we are reasonable enough to set aside narrow political considerations and express ourselves as objectively as possible.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to trouble hon. members a second time today, but it seems that, once the ice is broken, one forms a taste for this sort of thing.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for providing us with the opportunity of discussing this notice of motion.
I see that the members of the opposition- as I have always thought, incidentally-often have excellent ideas, and that the party in power is not the only one to make intelligent and interesting suggestions.
I do not have the experience of the hon. member for Edmonton West, who was a member of the committees which studied this matter. However, in the last election campaign, I realized the importance of the boundaries of a riding and I saw that, in the particular case I am concerned with, they are sometimes illogical.
I had the opportunity to visit mostly the rural areas of my riding and to learn from my electors that they would have preferred to be in another riding. I do not know if it was because they were not for me but in any case, 29180-190
DEBATES	3001
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act after listening to their arguments, I came to the conclusion that they were right.
Mr. Speaker, I noted that when the boundaries of the ridings are set, no account is taken of regional interests, of the tastes and normal likes of the electors who prefer, for instance, to be in one area rather than in another.
That is why in my riding I have to go to Laperriere, 25 or 30 miles away, at the edge of my riding, when Saint-Ambroise, five miles away, is in the next electoral riding.
Mr. Speaker, here is a solution that may be acceptable. I mentioned it earlier. Federal ridings should coincide with provincial counties.
In my area, there are five provincial counties included in the limits of four federal ridings. This creates great confusion. When we know that provincial and federal election acts are different, this adds to the confusion, and there comes a time when people ask themselves when and where they should vote. They are uncertain.
Mr. Speaker, I was very much impressed by the oratory of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about whom I had heard for a long time and whose constructive ideas I have had the opportunity to appreciate since my coming to this house. I was very much impressed by what he said about the independence of the commission. I believe this is a factor that has to be maintained at any price. But that does not mean that decisions should be taken without consulting with the voters and the people concerned in order to know if they are interested and if they have any reasons to be listed in such a riding rather than another.
Mr. Speaker, I think that in my riding, they have used arbitrary limits such as a river. The commission has failed to find out if the people really wanted to be in such a riding instead of another and if, by normal attraction, for geographical reasons or through habit, they were going to my riding, for example, to Jonquiere, rather than Chicoutimi or Alma.
Mr. Speaker, surely there are no easy or perfect solutions. In my opinion, if the commission had obtained further information from the constituents, I think a more equitable decision would have been reached.
As far as I am concerned, I disagree with the hon. member for Edmonton West when he says there are political undertones in establishing electoral boundaries. I must say that such was not the case for my constituency One part only was annexed to a neighbouring

November 20, 1988
Business of the House constituency, whereas part of the neighbouring constituency was annexed to mine without the slightest political motives of discrimination.
Not taking into account my own interest, I must say that many voters have sincerely admitted they were not happy. For strictly practical and business reasons, they would prefer to belong to the other constituency which generally follows the provincial boundaries.
I think that, in the light of my own limited experience, if the boundaries of the federal constituencies were established through an agreement with the provincial governments, this would solve part of the problem.
If an agreement between the parties were reached that would show fewer differences between the federal and provincial legislation, many obstacles would be eliminated.
On concluding my remarks, I wish to say that I completely agree that the commission
must be free from interference. However, this sometimes does not preclude the members from voicing their opinions and it is up to the commission to reach conclusions regardless of any political considerations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour assigned for the consideration of private members business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the business of the house tomorrow, I should like to confirm that we shall deal with the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock the house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 21, 1908