1970-10-29

PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
mr. Macdonald (egmont)-information leading to

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice in accordance with paragraph 17(2) of our Standing Orders. It is one which affects the rights and privileges of all members of this House. It has to do with conflicting and misleading statements made by the Prime Minister and other members of the government with respect to the factors indicating a state of apprehended insurrection in the province of Quebec which necessitated the invocation of the War Measures Act. If it is the view of the House that there is in fact a prima facie case of privilege, I shall move that the question of an apprehended state of insurrection in Quebec and other matters related to the War Measures Act be referred to a special joint committee of both Houses of Parliament for a comprehensive inquiry, with a report to be made to both Houses with all possible dispatch.
The question relates to the information which led the government to invoke the War Measures Act. Replying to a question by the hon. member for York South, the Prime Minister stated, as reported in Hansard of October 28 at page 654:
I am just saying that we acted on the information which is known to the House, which is known to Premier Bourassa, which is known to Mr. Drapeau and is known to ourselves as well as to all members.
A little later he said:
I have answered repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat again, that the information we had is available to everyone.
In an attempt to resolve the substantial difficulty which has arisen, particularly during the past few days, in connection with this matter, I asked the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon whether, having regard to the apparent state of confusion existing in the country with respect to the information which had been given, he or the government would consider setting up an independent commission to ascertain the facts. The Prime Minister replied as follows:
I repeat for the umpteenth time that the facts on which we acted are known to the people.
He added that the only people who were confused were some politicians.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the same day as the Prime Minister gave that answer to the House, one of his own ministers stated in the city of Montreal, as reported in this morning's press, that a large amount of the intelligence gathered on the current Quebec crisis would "probably never be made public." The statement is attributed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). The report continues:
A lot of information we have on hand comes from informants, some of them highly placed. It would endanger their situation as well.
We have good and sufficient reasons for invoking the War Measures Act. There are other reasons as well, and we will probably never be able to make them public.
If this had been the only such statement or innuendo made during recent days in connection with the grave steps taken by the government, one might be willing to overlook it as a ministerial slip. But members of this House as well as the people of this country have been faced over succeeding days with comment after comment from minister after minister indicating that there was, in fact, a large amount of information which could not be made public at this time. Indeed, in his opening statement on the question of the invoking of the War Measures Act the Minister of Justice said, as reported on page 212 of Hansard of October 16:
As I said earlier, this has to be a question of judgment based on the information available to members of the cabinet. Needless to say, some of that information, because of the current state of affairs, is not information which necessarily can be made public.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Later in the same speech the Minister of Justice said, as reported at page 215:
It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the government acted can be made public-
We in this House, Mr. Speaker, are charged quite literally with the basic institutions of law and order in this country. We have in some measure been asked by the government to give our support to the invoking of the most serious form of legislation possible affecting the ordinary rights, privileges and responsibilities that are exercised in this country. But in terms of why it was necessary to take this action and why the House should give its support, we have been treated over succeeding days to conflicting information and rumour both inside the House and outside.
For example, just the other day, not in this House but on a well-documented radio program, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) introduced into a most critical municipal election campaign suggestions concerning one legitimate political party in the city of Montreal.
There have also in recent days been rumours circulated in this House in regard to the kind of opposition-the kind of parallel power, to use the Prime Minister's

October 29, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act term-that might be endangering the government of the province of Quebec. Suggestions are even being raised that perhaps some of that power lay within the government of Quebec itself.
The War Measures Act has been in effect now for 13 days and has substantially affected the freedom and the entrusted rights of all Canadians. To this date we have not received a clear statement from the government of this country or from the Prime Minister as to the necessity for the step that has been taken.
I believe-and in this respect I plead with the Prime Minister-that in order to do justice to the people of this country it is imperative that the kind of misleading and conflicting statements that are being made both inside and outside the House cease. In addition, to clarify matters the Prime Minister should offer to the House at this time a statement fully clarifying the confusion that exists, not just among politicians at far ends of the country but within the government itself.
If the Prime Minister is not able to make this statement, I trust he will realize that it is certainly in the best interests of the country to establish some form of independent body, whether it be a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament, as I have suggested, or a commission as suggested by a number of eminent persons in this country during recent days. Without that kind of information we will be increasingly treated to questions of privilege and to confusion which can but demoralize and greatly exacerbate tensions that presently exist in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair the notice required under the Standing Orders, and I have given some serious thought to the most important problem raised in the hon. member's suggested question of privilege. As he and all hon. members realize, the decision that has to be made by the Chair now is not whether this is an urgent matter, whether it is an important matter, or whether or not it should be discussed by the House; the problem I have to determine and the decision that has to be made is whether there is here a question of privilege.
I have had opportunity on a number of occasions to indicate what, in my view, a question of privilege consists of. I have serious doubts whether, even in view of the serious conditions outlined by the hon. member, there is a question of privilege or that a question of privilege should be the vehicle used by the House for the consideration of the matter raised by the hon. member. As I read his motion, I have the distinct impression it is a rather substantive motion. What he proposes is really not so much that conflicting statements be studied but that this whole matter be considered by a special joint committee of both Houses of Parliament. He proposes a comprehensive inquiry by way of a joint committee or perhaps in some other way. That, in my view, is not really a question of privilege.
There are a number of precedents which indicate that in circumstances such as those indicated by the hon. member for Egmont there is no justification on the part of the Chair to rule that there is a prima facie case of
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont) .1
privilege. I refer hon. members particularly to Citation 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
My conclusion must be that the hon. member's proposal is, rather, a substantive motion and that perhaps he will find some other way to have his proposal considered by the House. I suggest it cannot be done by way of a question of privilege at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Grey-Dufferin-Walerloo):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in the following case of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission cutting off over 400 miles of passenger train service in western Ontario, ending a vital service of over 80 years duration and reducing development possibilities. The final train will be on November 1.
Therefore, if the House gives unanimous consent, I intend to move that the whole question be re-examined by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in order to bring in amendments to the Railway Act involving reduction or discontinuance of rail service as suggested by the studies being conducted by the CTC and the provincial government of Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo. This motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have heard the same nays I heard. In the circumstances the motion cannot be put.



TABLING OF PROPOSAL FOR PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table under Standing Order 41(2) copies in both official languages of a proposal for a production and grains receipts policy for the western grains industry.
October 29, 1970



FINANCE


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, in accordance with Section 6 of the Tariff Board Act I should like to table copies in both English and French of the report of the Tariff Board respecting knitted outer garments, Reference No. 145, together with a transcript of the proceedings at the public hearings held by the board. Any interested parties who wish to comment on this report should submit their views promptly to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-178, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Hon. Roberi L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he can now tell the House how many of the 138 persons detained under the War Measures Act regulations have been detained for longer than seven days at the request of the Minister of Justice of Quebec?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I was talking to the Attorney General of Quebec about 25 minutes ago. Because of other pressing matters he tells me he has not been able to compile the statistics but hopes to get them to me later in the afternoon. I apologize to the hon. gentleman.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of complaints from the Quebec Bar that access to counsel has been denied prisoners held under the war measures regulations and in view of the sort of suspicions this kind of complaint engenders, will the Minister of Justice assure the House that the government will take steps promptly to guarantee that prisoners have access to counsel? I remind the minister that his government has the responsibility to ensure this in that it is his government that issued the regulations that permitted this to happen.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat what I said. It is true that the regulations issued
Inquiries of the Ministry
from this government, but the administration of justice under the regulations, as is the case under the Criminal Code, devolves upon the responsibility of the Attorney General of Quebec. It was to the Attorney General of Quebec that the Bar of Quebec made its submissions, and I feel he is perfectly capable of responding to those submissions and handling the situation as justice demands.


An hon. Member:: They felt there was no use sending them to you.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Minister of Justice that it is his government which is responsible for this situation and that the responsibility cannot be sloughed off on the government of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I therefore ask the minister whether the government will appoint a commission, as was done even in wartime by a previous Liberal government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -to examine into possible abuses regarding searches, arrests and detentions in all parts of the country? Will the ministers of this government accept their responsibility, Mr. Speaker?


John Napier Turner: The government is accepting its responsibility fully, but we understand how a federal state operates a little better than the Leader of the Opposition does.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: A commission along the lines-


An hon. Member:: Heil Hitler!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -referred to by the Leader of the Opposition has already been appointed by the Attorney General of Quebec.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about the other provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert on a supplementary.



INFORMATION LEADING TO INVOKING OF WAR MEASURES ACT

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I do not
know whether this is exactly a supplementary, Your Honour, but it arises out of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont. It has to do with information which has been denied the House of Commons. I ask the Prime Minister whether he has seen the report of the interview of the mayor of Montreal who was quoted as saying that the revolution was started and would have proceeded when the War Measures Act was brought into effect and, furthermore, that the provisional government that was to be set up by some "well-meaning" people in

October 29, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Quebec would not have been formed with the idea of turning over powers to revolutionaries. Then, he is quoted as saying that conversations were held on this question not only in Montreal but in other parts of the province. I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the circumstances outlined by Mayor Drapeau, on which this House has received no information, are in accordance with the facts?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: He is
asking if facts are in accordance with facts, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: This is a serious matter.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: You are Prime Minister; try to act like one!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister should cease to suffer from a dyspeptic annoyance with Parliament.
I ask him, was there such an arrangement among various people to form a provisional government in Quebec, and was it a fact that a revolution would have taken place within a matter of a very few hours apparently unless the War Measures Act were brought in? Can he tell us the truth for once in this House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: Silence is golden, but is the Prime Minister not going to tell the House the truth?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is silent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WAR MEASURES ACT-SUGGESTED EARLY REVOCATION IF DETENTIONS CONTINUE WITHOUT CHARGE

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, but perhaps it could also be addressed to the Prime Minister. If the situation outlined continues whereby under the regulations passed under the War Measures Act people are being held without any charges against them and without the opportunity to consult their counsel, will the government give consideration to an early measure revoking the application of the War Measures Act?


John Napier Turner: That is a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Justice.
Has anyone told him that Michel Chartrand is being kept in jail to teach French and religion?



INFORMATION LEADING TO INVOKING OF WAR MEASURES ACT

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
For the benefit of hon. members, may I ask if the rumour about the formation of a provisional government was one of the valid arguments to justify the government's action in the crisis we are facing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with all the patience of which I am capable, I shall repeat that the reasons why the government took its decision were stated in the House by myself many times. I want to point out that members of the opposition knew those reasons when 190 of them supported the government resolution against a dozen or so. It is for those same reasons that the people have given us their support ever since.
That other reasons may be bandied about as rumours or fantasies, or that the former Leader of the Opposition may himself have some information that is unknown to us, that is a question that some may wish to raise in the House. For our part, we have based our decision on the facts known to the people, of which we have informed the House, and which the opposition accepted when it voted in favour of our resolution. Those are the facts that remain.
Now, if the hon. members of the opposition wish to spread rumours, be they true or false or pure fantasy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Korchinski:: Four ministers said there were more. [Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question.
As I referred to that rumour-since I believe that the establishment of a provisional government is but a rumour-and as the Prime Minister replied that in any case a rumour may be allowed to exist, can he assert that he considers the possibility of a provisional government nothing more than a rumour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I replied to that question only the other day. I have several times given the three reasons for our move, the third being not only the disappearance of dynamite and arms but also the state of confusion and the forecasting of violence in the province of Quebec. Of course this state of confusion is interpreted by each in his own way. All I want to point out is that for the past few days it has not been the government but rather the opposition and the press gallery that have been launching other rumours. Let them take the responsibility for these and check their accuracy-


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, can the right hon. gentleman advise whether, before the imposition of the War Measures Act, he was categorically

October 29, 1970

advised by the Prime Minister of Quebec and/or the mayor of Montreal that such a plan did exist for a provisional government to take over the province of Quebec, and did he believe these statements if they were made to him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have stated the positions on which this government acted. They included advice from the government of Quebec and from the authorities of Montreal. Whether they believed these rumours or not is a matter for them to tell the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am telling the House-


An hon. Member:: You are evading the truth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am telling the House we did not act on
anything else than what is before the House. I am not saying we did not have any other information, but I am saying that if hon. members opposite want to use this information, let them take the credit for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for York South have a supplementary question?


Mr. Lewis:: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South was deprived yesterday when he considered what he wanted to ask not to be a supplementary and it turned out afterwards that in my estimation it was. In light of yesterday's experience I feel sure that his question today is not supplementary, so I will recognize the hon. member for Portneuf.



WAR MEASURES ACT-AUTHORITY OF QUEBEC OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell us whether the ombudsman, or the protector of Quebec citizens, is subject to the regulations under the War Measures Act, or whether he can waive them, so that political prisoners may freely communicate with him?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not understand the question.


Roland Godin: Can the Minister of Justice tell us whether the ombudsman, or protector of Quebec citizens, is subject to the regulations under the War Measures Act, or whether he can waive them, so that political prisoners may freely communicate with him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the Minister of Justice for a legal opinion. I do not feel that this question, as put, is in order.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INFORMATION LEADING TO INVOKING OF WAR MEASURES ACT-STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In light of his repeated statement this afternoon, can he indicate why it has been necessary for members of his government to make statements outside the House, and occasionally within it, indicating there is other important information which in effect motivated the government to make the decision it did in respect of the War Measures Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that couched in those terms this is an argument. Perhaps he would like to rephrase the question. He asked why is it necessary for members of the government to make statements. Perhaps that question should be rephrased.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will simply ask the Prime Minister whether it is government policy for ministers to make statements with respect to other reasons concerning the apprehended insurrection in the province of Quebec?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minisler): No, Mr. Speaker.



EXTENT OF SEARCH FOR KIDNAPPERS AND ASSASSINS- PARTICIPATION BY INTERPOL

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask either the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Attorney General-


Mr. Woolliams:: The Solicitor General.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am sorry, the Solicitor General-whether in fact the search for the abductors and assassins is confined to the province of Quebec under the direction of the Attorney General of that province or has extended to other provinces, and whether at this particular time, in view of the fact that it is now some three weeks since the original abduction took place, Interpol has been asked to participate in the search for some of these people who may have gone to other countries?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is such a detailed question that I think the Solicitor General ought to answer it. I will take it as notice for him.



QUEBEC-LOCATING OF STOLEN DYNAMITE AND GUNS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement and the statement of the Minister of Justice, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the quantity of dynamite and the number of guns that were stolen have been found?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the police report to the Solicitor General, and I will take this question as notice for him.

October 29, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



FOREIGN TAKEOVERS-LEGISLATION TO AMEND COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-POLICY STATEMENT

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have got a little weary of non-answers so I want to ask some questions on another subject.


John Napier Turner: What about non-questions?


David Lewis: They were not non-questions; they were non-answers. I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question arising out of the latest figures of domestic and foreign takeovers, which show that in 1969 there was a larger number of foreign takeovers than in 1968, which in turn had shown double the number of several preceding years. In view of this situation I want to ask him when we may expect his promised legislation on the Combines Act, and whether that legislation will deal with foreign takeovers in a distinct way from domestic takeovers?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation will be read the first time as soon as it is ready. Of course it would be improper for me to answer the second part of the question at this time.


David Lewis: "As soon as it is ready" does not give very much information. May I ask the minister whether the legislation is ready or almost ready and whether we may expect it very soon?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am working very hard on it, Mr. Speaker, and I have indicated a number of times that I hope to have it introduced as soon as possible.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us when we may expect the government statement of policy on foreign ownership in Canada, whether it is to be delayed some months or whether we can expect it in a few days or weeks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly not in a few days and more likely months than weeks, Mr. Speaker.



TAKEOVER OF CANADIAN FUNERAL FIRMS BY UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that, in the interim since I asked a question about this matter on April 7, some 23 Canadian funeral firms have been taken over by two United States corporations, will the government look into this matter in the hope that Canadians may at least be buried by Canadians?


Mr. Hees:: Stan, you are dead right.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the hon. member's concern with the ownership of funeral parlours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: The government, through the Director of Investigation and Research in my department, has been examining the situation for quite some time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if this investigation will be completed in time for the burial of the government in 1972?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
On May 15 and 21, 1969, in answer to a question that I had put to him, he indicated that he would study the advisability of establishing a commission to compensate victims of criminal acts. He said also, as is reported in Hansard, that he would submit this question to the commissioners responsible for the uniformity of law and to the provincial Attorneys General.
Could he say whether these discussions are completed and if he intends to inform the House forthwith about the state of the question, in the light of the events taking place in Quebec?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I discussed this matter with the ten Attorneys General of Canada in Halifax, in July last. I submitted the question to the commissioners responsible for the uniformity of law in the province of Prince Edward Island in August and September, and I can provide the hon. member, by letter or orally, with a more detailed report.



FINANCE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister consult with his colleague the Minister of Finance with a view to making an immediate annoucement with respect to the repegging of the Canadian dollar at an appropriate figure? I ask this question because of the immediate dangers facing secondary industry in Ontario and Quebec, where thousands of jobs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Finance.
October 29, 1970


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Your Honour, with respect, I directed the question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the Minister of Finance would like to know at what level the hon. member would like to have the dollar pegged.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the 24,500 Canadian auto workers now engaged in a strike against General Motors of Canada. Could the Minister indicate to the House what steps his department has taken to expedite the early settlement of this strike which is now well into its sixth week, or is the matter being left entirely to the United States union, management and government to negotiate terms and conditions for Canadian workers?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, the problem is left precisely where it should be, in the hands of the Department of Labour of the province of Ontario.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Since the lengthy duration of this strike is now resulting in serious adverse economic conditions throughout the whole country, is the minister not giving any consideration to intervening with the object of bringing about an early settlement?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have been taught for many years in the House of Commons to respect the constitution, and this matter falls entirely within the ambit of the Department of Labour of the province of Ontario.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for housing and urban affairs. In response to the Speech from the Throne the minister has put considerable emphasis on the problem of urban transportation. Is the minister in a position to tell the House if his department is presently working with the provinces in order to develop new programs for urban transportation and, if so, when will they be announced?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, first may I point out that, as indicated by the Speech from the Throne, it is not a department that is contemplated but a ministry system. I think it has been indicated also in the Speech from the Throne and in my subsequent remarks that all matters relevant to urban problems will be discussed with the provinces.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION FOR THOSE BELOW POVERTY LINE

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister in charge of housing indicate whether any consideration is being given to mounting a more concentrated effort on housing for those below the poverty line?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have increased our attention to that sector of the market very dramatically during the last two years, having in fact made commitments to housing starts for low income people equal to the total production in that area during the previous history of the National Housing Act.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which is being asked by a lot of people outside the House. Why have the minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development not been able to put their heads together and come up with a plan for turning the old Coqualeetza Indian hospital into an Indian community centre? Can he give any indication when they may be able to get together and bring this project into being?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the first part of the question is in order but perhaps the minister might wish to reply to the second part of the hon. member's question.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have to advise the hon. member that the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development and myself have got together on this question on several occasions. Within the last ten days we got together with the Indian people concerned and are working out the details of the transfer now with Indian Affairs so that this facility can be made available for the Indians.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. gentleman explain why the feasibility study of the Coqualeetza hospital languished in somebody's department without coming to the attention of the appropriate officials for a long period of time?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member for Skeena that I do not agree with his statement of facts at all. I do not think it languished. I think it was analysed quite completely so that we could realistically discuss it with the Indian people.

October 29, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



APPROPRIATENESS OF PROGRAM &quot;AVALANCHE&quot; SUBSTITUTED FOR FILM, &quot;THE LEGACY OF LENIN&quot;

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct a question to the Secretary of State who was due to be in the House today but in his absence I shall direct it to the acting minister. Would the acting minister ask the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation why it was, when choosing a replacement for the film, "The Legacy of Lenin", which was due to appear on Tuesday night, they chose the program "Avalanche" inasmuch as in the middle of that program one full minute was devoted to the making of home-made bombs out of paint cans and sticks of dynamite? Does the minister not consider that this was a particularly inappropriate time for such instructions to be given to the Canadian people?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) I will take notice of the question which will be answered later.
:i;	*	*



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question should properly be put to the Solicitor General but in his absence I shall address it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is any action being taken to step up recruitment of French-speaking Canadians for service in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt that the question is one which can be asked at this time. I recognize that the matter is one of importance but I would think this is the kind of question which could be considered at the time of adjournment. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member and if the minister responsible would like to reply in due course perhaps he could do so.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Have any of his officials initiated steps to find out the nutritional value of the widely advertised enriched bread?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that this is a question which could be placed on the order paper. It is difficult for the Chair to determine which questions can be answered immediately but the recourse of hon. members, of course, is to return at the time of adjournment if there
is urgency and if in the opinion of hon. members my judgment is wrong. If there is urgency, perhaps the minister might like to answer.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase my question and ask the minister whether he or his department is giving consideration to the placing on the wrappers of enriched bread the nutritional value-the mineral content and vitamins?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that even the redrafted question should normally be placed on the order paper.


Gerald William Baldwin: Try it on some of the government backbenchers.
* # *



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the present situation mankind will still have to be fed. For this reason I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In the light of the decision of Common Market countries to vote a budget of $3,600 million for subsidies to agricultural producers in those countries in order to increase production and assist farmers, will the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether he will maintain his policy aimed at reducing the subsidies which are being paid to Canadian industrial milk producers at the present time?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some very useful discussions going on between the provincial governments as well as the provincial milk marketing agencies and the Canadian Dairy Commission. I hope that within a reasonably short time we will be able to make an announcement on new agreements reached that will further the income potential of the dairy producers.



PREMARITAL TESTS FOR VENEREAL DISEASE

Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth-Wilmoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister considering urging every province in Canada to introduce tests for venereal disease on a premarital basis, as is done in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba? I ask this question as a result of statements attributed to Dr. Stanley Acres of the department in last night's Ottawa Citizen.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will allow me to take this question as notice.

October 29, 1970



WHEAT-PRICES OF GRADES IN SALES

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he is prepared to provide the House with information indicating the price that was paid for grades one, two, three and four of wheat since the $1.60 a bushel is about 50 cents lower than the price which two years ago the farmers themselves and the farm organizations rejected and asked for at least a dollar more on domestic sales of wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to provide information to the House but I am afraid I do not understand the hon. member's reference to $1.60 in his question.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, at $160 million for 98 million bushels of wheat, a rough calculation is $1.60 a bushel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on the hon. member's quick mathematics, but now that he has referred, I take it, to the Chinese sale and has given the quantity and totals I can only say that the question of exact prices in transactions of that sort is considered by the Wheat Board to be confidential commercial information.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Does the professor not think it is about time he returned to take a refresher course at college?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Will the minister give consideration to making a statement on motions outlining the results of studies made by the federal government and the government of Ontario into the heavy unemployment in the Cornwall area and an early start on various programs under the provisions of the DREA legislation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are actively dealing with employment conditions in the Cornwall area.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]



AGRICULTURE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has any progress
Inquiries of the Ministry
been made in the establishment of the fur farm research centre in the vicinity of Ottawa? If so, what is the target date for its completion?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will attempt to get more detailed information on this question and reply to the hon. member very soon.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the decline in available protein foods for human consumption, has any effort been made by the minister or officials of his department to secure through international means agreement to limit the catches of herring now being processed as fishmeal among countries that are members of the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, some discussions along those lines are already under way.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the research being carried out by Canada, the United States and the U.S.S.R. regarding the herring fishery on the east coast of Canada, can the minister indicate whether the Canadian government is proposing a quota system to limit catches of herring, especially by the Republic of Germany, the biggest offender on the east coast?


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, we are now carrying out investigations to determine what the herring stock is and how it moves nationally and internationally. When we have this information we will move toward a sustained yield fishery as rapidly as we can.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Further to the minister's statement of October 16 with respect to infiltration into strategic places in Quebec by the FLQ and the Senate debate yesterday, does tne minister think that the reason the kidnappers have not been apprehended is because of this infiltration? Does he agree that the said strategic places are correctly identified as the press, radio, CBC and education?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question in a form difficult to accept from the point of view of the Chair. The minister is being asked to express an opinion.

October 29, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
<[DOT] Mr. Bell: May I rephrase my question? Are these strategic places mentioned by the minister on October 16 as identified in the Senate, namely, the CBC, radio, press and education?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I identified the places. If some did, they could give some explanations to the hon. member.



PROPOSAL FOR PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: I wish to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In light of the document the minister tabled earlier today, has the government decided to implement any of the proposals in the document, or is it to be considered as a white paper and that they are proposals only?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in tabling the document was to allow the producer organizations a further opportunity for discussion. As the document reveals, there are a good number of details in the program to be settled. As we go forward, we hope the discussions with producer organizations, the various provincial Ministers of Agriculture and others will lead to completion of the details of the program.



MEDICARE-DISCUSSION OF COST SHARING FOR PARAMEDICAL SERVICES AT CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister advise the House if in his forthcoming meetings with his provincial counterparts he will be discussing the whole subject of cost-sharing for paramedical services under medicare?


John Carr Munro: I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that this matter will be raised by the provincial ministers for discussion at that conference. Whether it will cover the entire range of paramedical services is not known at this time, but certainly many aspects of it.


Len Marchand: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member wants to ask a supplementary. I have intervened during the last two or three questions to suggest that we should not have supplementaries because

there are only four or five minutes remaining in the question period. Perhaps the hon. member can ask his supplementary and I will then return to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who was denied a supplementary a few moments ago. We will try to get on as quickly as we can.


Len Marchand: Will the minister advise the House which services will be discussed?


John Carr Munro: I would advise the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that the agenda is still in a tentative stage. We are trying to arrive at some agreement with the provinces as to what items will be discussed. It seems quite definite that this area will be discussed, with special emphasis, no doubt, on optometry.
*	* sB



PROPOSAL FOR PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Does the minister in charge of the Wheat Board have in mind any scheduled time for discussions on the document he tabled today? What is the latest date for his making an announcement to the House on the decisions the government has made?


Otto Emil Lang: I cannot set forth a precise timetable, but we do consider the matter of some urgency and we will find it very important to move toward the legislative stage on these proposals, many of which require legislation to put them into force.



BARLEY-AMOUNT OF FINAL PAYMENT TO FARMERS

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. On October 6 I ask the minister if he would consider the possibility of forecasting the final payment for barley in view of the concern in western Canada as to how and when the farmers should market this product. I appreciate the concern of the minister at that time. He promised me he would study the matter to see whether he could ascertain a reliable forecast as to what the final payment would be. Is he now in a position to give the House the benefit of his wisdom in that regard?


Otto Emil Lang: What I indicated was that I would be willing to look at the question to see whether in fact an earlier date could be selected for any such forecast. I am sorry to say I am no farther ahead at this stage.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As there are only two or three minutes remaining in the question period, I wonder whether the hon. member would mind if other members were permitted to ask questions?
October 29, 1970



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darmoulh-Halifax East):: My
question is for the Solicitor General. In his absence I direct it to one of the ministers of the Crown so that perhaps something will be done. On Monday the deer hunting season in Quebec opens for the first time in three years. I am concerned about the safety of non-residents of that province, including Americans, who enter that province for the purpose of deer hunting with all the necessary arms. What is the status of these people under the War Measures Act?



FEDERAL INITIATIVES FOLLOWING EVIDENCE OF MR. SAULNIER BEFORE COMMITTEE

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It is prompted by the answers of the minister to some earlier exchanges. In view of the fact that the minister understands the federal system and discharges his duties, can he inform the House whether he was one of the ministers who reviewed the evidence of Mr. Saulnier in light of the recommendation in the first report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts which was tabled in this House on December 5, 1969, for further study and consideration, as stated in the last sentence of the report? What federal initiatives, if any, were taken between the time of the tabling of the report with Mr. Saulnier's evidence and the opening of the letters by the minister or the Prime Minister which were received from Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Drapeau one year later?


John Napier Turner: It is true that evidence was reviewed, Mr. Speaker, but as I have stated in the House on other occasions, the primary responsibility for prosecutions at that time lay with either the police of Montreal or the Attorney General of Quebec. They saw fit not to prosecute.



KIDNAPPING OF JAMES CROSS-OFFERING OF REWARD BY PRIVATE INTERESTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I wish to ask the
Minister of Justice whether the matter of the reward offered by two private enterprises in connection with the Cross case was discussed with the government prior to the offer? In light of that and of other recent events, is the government now reconsidering the matter of a reward in this matter?


John Napier Turner: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. The last time the question was asked it was directed to the Solicitor General who stated he would report to the House in due course. I think I ought to leave it that way.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):: I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Regional
Inquiries of the Ministry
Economic Expansion in the absence of the Secretary of State. Would he ask his colleague to inquire of the CBC, both French and English networks, whether any special instructions have been issued during the past two weeks concerning the delivery of news on either network, and whether, should such instructions have been issued, the minister would make a statement concerning them in the House?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall refer the matter to the Secretary of State.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he inform the House whether the Unemployment Insurance Commission has the authority to issue social insurance cards to individuals who are not recognized as Canadians, such as American Army deserters, or to other classes of individuals who have entered Canada illegally?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question could be placed on the order paper.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Portage):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Is it a fact that the total flow of the Nelson River, Manitoba, was shut off as of yesterday and, if so, was his department notified of this action?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is asked in terms which are perhaps not entirely correct from a procedural standpoint, but I suggest the minister should be allowed to reply.


John (Jack) Davis: Officials of my department have been in touch with the Department of Mines and Natural Resources in Manitoba and with the Manitoba Hydro Electric Commission. We have drawn their attention to section 20 of the Fisheries Act and we have asked that a minimum flow be allowed to go down the river so as to protect the aquatic environment there.



POST OFFICE


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Com-

October 29, 1970
Federal Court
munications and Postmaster General. In December 1969, the minister tabled a study entitled "A Blueprint for Change", and in tabling this document he stated that a white paper revealing the government's plans for a thorough reorganization of the department would be released at an early date. Can the hon. gentleman advise the House when this white paper will be tabled in view of continuing widespread concern with regard to postal services in Canada?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: suggest the hon. member should put that question to my colleague who is in charge of postal operations.


An hon. Member:: Aren't you glad?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Might I be permitted to ask the Leader of the House what the business is likely to be during the coming week?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: The following is a tentative outline of government business for the coming week. We shall continue today with government order No. 11, the Federal Court bill, and when that is completed we shall resume debate on government order No. 9, Bill C-4 with respect to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. When that is finished we shall take up government order No. 10, Bill C-5, with respect to Deuterium of Canada Limited.
On Monday, we shall probably consider government order 18, Bill C-174 establishing the tax review board, and follow that with government order No. 21, Bill C-177 respecting co-operative associations. It is expected that next Thursday will be an opposition day under the auspices, I believe, of the New Democratic Party.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is it the intention of the government to bring in, and commence debate on, a bill to replace the War Measures Act within the next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I stated that this was a tentative outline; it may be we shall be in a position next week to interrupt this business and deal with the measure the hon. member has mentioned.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 28, consideration of Bill C-172, respecting the Federal Court of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, there was a discussion yesterday in the House in connection with two of the motions which were under consideration. They were submitted for the consideration of the House in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The suggestion was made by the Chair that there was some procedural difficulty with regard to these amendments. The Chair also indicated to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that motion No. 19 also appeared to be out of order. No argument was submitted at the time and I said I would be prepared, when we reached that item, to hear arguments either for or against the acceptability of that amendment.
Since then there have been discussions with the hon. member for Calgary North, the Minister of Justice and other hon. members. It was felt that, bearing in mind the work which had gone on during the committee stage, when this bill was under consideration, it might be the desire of the House to have a debate on the motions which were considered out of order by the Chair, that is, motions Nos. 1 and 2. For this purpose these motions would eventually be put to the House.
For the moment, my understanding is that when the House adjourned yesterday we had begun consideration of motion No. 14 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who had the floor. Perhaps, after we have completed consideration of this particular motion, we might return to motions Nos. 1 and 2 in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should just like to say that I appreciate the Chair taking this course; I assume the House has agreed to it. We on this side certainly agree to a discussion of the motion in the name of the Minister of Justice to which Your Honour referred.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair put it in this way-that I assumed this was the wish of the House. I take it that it is, and that is why I indicated the motions would be put in due course. But for the moment, the hon. member for Greenwood has the floor.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the amendment in my name, motion No. 14, proposes to strike out of clause 41 the words which are found in 41(2)-"or to federal-provincial relations."
Members of the House who are interested in this matter know that section 41 as a whole deals with the disclosure of documents in proceedings before the federal court which is to be established. The amendment I propose is not a sweeping one, but it does involve an important matter of principle. It represents an effort to break down to some extent the iron curtain of secrecy unnecessarily thrown around public documents. In explaining it I should like, first of all, to refer to 41(1). This is a section which enables a Minister of the Crown-how can I talk above all this noise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should try to assist the hon. member for Greenwood. It is very difficult for him to make his argument, and I might say it is difficult for the Chair to hear him above the conversa-
October 29, 1970

tions which are going on in the House at the present time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that the purpose of section 41 is to deal with the provision of public documents in the federal court. It states that a minister of the crown may make an affidavit that on the grounds of public interest a document should be withheld from production and discovery, or be subject to such restriction as is deemed appropriate. Then, if the minister makes the affidavit under the general provisions of subsection (1), the court is given the authority to examine the document and to make an order for its discovery and production to the parties as well as to the court if it thinks it appropriate so to do.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I was involved in some controversy with the Minister of Justice over the legal background to this matter. My view is that this clause is a very appropriate one because it reflects what is the most up-to-date view of the law at the present time, namely that the court has the authority, when an objection is made that the document is one of public interest and should not be produced, to look at the document and to determine for itself, without relying merely on the minister's affidavit, whether or not it should be produced. So far so good; I think subsection (1) is useful and worth while.
Coming to subsection (2), it provides as follows:
When a Minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations, or that it would disclose a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, discovery and production shall be refused without any examination of the document by the court.
The effect of this provision is that when a minister of the crown, who in this sort of case acts, I imagine, 99 times out of 100 on the advice of his officials, says that a document should not be produced, the court is then deprived of the opportunity of looking at it in order to determine whether the claim is or is not well founded. It is my submission that while this may be perfectly justifiable with regard to documents that the minister thinks are injurious to international relations, national defence or security, of that would disclose a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, it is little short of ridiculous to say that a document ought not to be produced, and not only that but that even the court must not look at the document to see whether it ought to be produced in the interests of the litigants involved, merely because it would be injurious to federal-provincial relations.
Surely, there is nothing secret about relations between the federal government and the provinces or between departments of the federal government and departments of the provincial governments. Surely we, the public of Canada, have the right to say not necessarily that a document should be produced, but at least that it be produced to the extent that the court, which surely can
Federal Court
be trusted in these matters, should have the right to look at it and decide whether or not it should be produced. This absolute prohibition that lies at the discretion of the minister, unexaminable by the courts, I do not think should exist. The purpose of my amendment is to strike out the words "Federal-Provincial Relations".
The habit of claiming secrecy with regard to official documents has reached proportions that are far too broad in this country. It is often claimed as a matter of course without reference to the facts at all. It is some protection of the public interest and the private interests of litigants whose future and fortunes may depend upon the production of a certain document if the court is able under subsection (1) to look at the document and to declare: "In our view the document ought to be produced; the affidavit does not satisfy us that there is any reason for not producing a document that perhaps is important to the litigation in question".
It is my submission, as I said in opening, that we should lift the iron curtain of secrecy surrounding these documents, at least to the extent I have stated, rather than rely upon the mere formal affidavit by a minister of the crown that the document concerns federal-provincial relations as the reason for restricting the administration of justice. It is a problem of balance between the administration of justice and the rights of litigants on the one hand, and the public interest on the other hand.
In my submission this particular clause goes far beyond any reasonable balance by giving the minister absolute discretion to say that federal-provincial relations are affected by a given document. After all, practically every subject of concern to government affects federal-provincial relations in some way. This provision gives the minister carte blanche to refuse production without the court even being permitted to inquire whether there is justification for that refusal. I submit that it is part and parcel of the over-secretive philosophy which is only too popular among bureaucracies. I invite the minister to look once more at this clause and to accept this very reasonable amendment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in order to address myself properly to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I think I should outline briefly to the House the purpose of clause 41. I did this in the committee, but now we are before the full House at the report stage it might help to state the position of the government with regard to this clause.
Clause 41 is an attempt to codify the principles relating to the production and discovery of documents in a court. I might say that clause 41 is not limited to the federal court but applies as against the crown in right of Canada in any court, including the provincial courts. Its purpose is to codify those principles where it appears that the production or discovery of documents may adversely affect some important public interest.
The state of the law in Canada at the moment is not clear. The hon. member for Greenwood and I have differed on other occasions as to what the law is. It is clear

October 29, 1970
Federal Court
that for a good time in the United Kingdom-and our case law and public administration law derives in some respect from the English law-the law was settled by the case of Duncan v. Cammell Laird Company, found in 1942 Appeal Cases, 624. This case was interpreted by the courts to mean that the executive had virtually complete control over the production of documents in the hands of the government as against the courts or against parties before the courts who might demand that production. It allowed a minister of the Crown to protect absolutely by affidavit any document the discovery of which, in the view of the minister, would affect the public interest, including the workings or operations of the public service. Indeed, the Cammell Laird case was thought by many people to have deprived the courts of any role at all in an area where a document might be in the hands of a minister acting within his ministerial responsibility.
Recently the House of Lords in the Conway v. Rimmer case, reported in 1968 Appeal Cases, 910, dealt with the question of the production of police reports in an action for malicious prosecution. In this case before the House of Lords two years ago a review of the rather broadly stated principle in the Cammell Laird case was undertaken by the House of Lords, and it is now clear that the courts should have some role in determining and weighing the various public interests that may be involved, when and if a minister of the Crown seeks to prevent production of a document on a court order.
Subclause (1) of clause 41 attempts to state the general principles that are laid down in the Cammell Laird case as interpreted by the Conway v. Rimmer case; but we have specifically stated that, in attempting to weigh the public interest in deciding whether the minister should have the power to withhold the production of a document by entering his affidavit, or conversely whether the court should have power to order production and discovery, the court should place-to use the words of the subclause- "such restrictions or conditions as it deems appropriate" upon the production.
It may well be, as hon. members recognize, that production may be valid in the interests of the parties concerned but perhaps invalid so far as the interests of the world at large are concerned. There are restrictions, but the general rule is as set out in clause 41(1), that the court has power to order production. Clause 41(2) sets restrictions against that ability of the court to order production or discovery of documents, and it reads this way:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
When a minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations, or that it would disclose a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, discovery and production shall be refused without any examination of the document by the court.
There are four specific areas of exclusion and I take it that the hon. member takes no objection to three of those areas of exclusion. He recognizes that the confidence of

the cabinet or the Privy Council ought to remain a confidence. I think he accepts the fact that if a minister is to certify that the international relations of Canada would be injuriously affected, that again would govern. I take it that in the realm of national defence or security he again agrees that if the minister certifies it would be injurious to national defence or security the affidavit would bind the court and the production of the document would be refused.
The point of his amendment is, should that exclusion include a document when a minister says its production would be injurious to federal-provincial relations. That is the purpose of the amendment. I find it difficult to see how, where, in a federal state, the relationship between federal and provincial governments and executives, is in a state of uncertainty and flux, and involves delicate matters of policy affecting the unity of the country, differ in terms of principle from the other exclusions. I think we must recognize that it may not always be in the interests of the country that correspondence, say between first ministers or between other ministers of government departments, should be produced.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Could I ask the minister a question?


John Napier Turner: I will answer the question at the end, if I may. I would, therefore, submit that the exclusion of federal-provincial relations is a proper inclusion. Putting it the other way, the exclusion of federal-provincial relations is a proper inclusion in subclause (2).
I think I should make it clear that subclause (2) operates only where a minister of the Crown certifies that in fact that particular document ought not to be produced. There is no automatic exclusion under clause 41(2). There is no automatic exclusion of any document simply because it falls within one of the listed headings set forth in the subclause. It may be that in the normal case documents involving the relationships between federal and provincial governments would be produced, as they are often produced in this House on Notices of Motions for production of papers, with the consent of the province being obtained. For these reasons I urge that the House reject the amendment.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister accept a question? Does the minister not consider that in those, I would think fairly rare cases, where a document relating to federal provincial relations is of such a confidential nature the minister does not want to produce it, it would be perfectly reasonable to leave that situation under the provisions of subclause (1)? The minister could make his affidavit and the court would have the responsibility of looking at the document, rather than give this blanket power to the minister under subclause (2).


John Napier Turner: The hon. member takes a view different from mine as to who is best able to judge whether federal-provincial relations might be affected by the production of a document. I submit that a
October 29, 1970

minister responsible to Parliament should take that responsibility and it should not be left to a judge.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: At the
outset, I should like to agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) on this particular point. I am not concerned about the exclusion of the other two or three types of documents, that is those relating to international relations, national defence or security, but I am concerned with federal-provincial relations. I appreciate the argument of the Minister of Justice that the executive would have knowledge as to what might affect federal-provincial relationships. Surely, if there were any question of confidentiality, then in the usual course of the production of documents, as stated by the hon. member for Greenwood, the production of documents could be held in camera by the court. Let me deal with some examples.
We are moving into a new field. Let us take for example the National Energy Board which has authority over pipelines which have become more important with the development of our country. Natural gas, coal, and no doubt wheat in the very near future, will be moved by pipelines. This often involves federal-provincial relations. It may be that litigation involving a citizen and the Crown might require a document, the production of which the lawyer representing the citizen felt to be necessary. If for some reason the executive felt there might be some injury to federal-provincial relationships as a result of the production of such a document, surely during argument it could be presented to the judge for examination. I have absolute confidence that if a judge were asked to keep the document confidential there would be no disclosure. I do not think we should give the minister this kind of power. This seems to be a catchall clause for anything the Crown does not want produced.
What a citizen is litigating with the Crown he is fighting a very powerful organization. He is fighting all the brains of the law officers of the Crown.


John Napier Turner: Thank you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are well briefed and they know how to win cases. They know what evidence is necessary and what evidence is not necessary. I have found, through my experience in tax cases, and I know my friend the Minister of Justice has had this experience as well in tax cases and expropriation cases, that these Crown officers do not like to disclose many of the cards they are holding.
I am concerned that this expression "federal-provincial relations" will mean that many documents, if not all documents, falling under that category will be excluded. The pertinent part reads:
When a Minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to... federal-provincial relations... shall be refused-
In other words, this shall be left solely to the discretion of the Crown or the minister. This gives the state too
Federal Court
much power. I am thinking of pipelines and litigation with regard to railways and national parks, which certainly involve federal-provincial relations when deals are made. I have had a little discomfort in that field and I do not intend to get into that.
On these grounds, I support clause 41(2) if the minister would withdraw that part, as suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood in his amendment No. 14. I would ask the minister to reconsider it. Surely, he is one man who I think, because he is a young minister with aims and objectives, would endeavour to appoint top men to the judiciary. He has shown his ability in that regard. Surely a judge should have the right to make this decision rather than to leave it to an executive of this powerful state.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this discussion so far has been on a very legalistic plane. It seems that we should consider what we are legislating here. I was quite surprised to hear the minister give the impression that our law now stems from the precedents he quoted. Normally, legislation does not follow the courts, the courts follow the legislation.
The arguments presented by the minister about the sensitivity and the very delicate nature, in a federal state such as this, of federal-provincial relations were interesting, I think, in so far as security is concerned, they rank equally to international affairs in some cases. Certainly in the situation which exists today, there is a great deal of discussion between the province and the federal government. It is not always advisable that all these discussions should be made public. We then get into a certain phase of this argument on the amendment which is this.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) wants the court to decide whether or not a document is or should be considered privileged. We in this House of Commons do not have this privilege at all because the parliamentary system is based on the idea of ministerial responsibility, and the government falls or stands with the ministers' decisions. So here, we are faced with a situation in which this House can be, and often is, refused information of this same nature by the minister because it is confidential. The courts, on the other hand, would be in a much better position because at any time they could have all or any documents. If we were to follow the course suggested, we would have to reconsider the whole idea of parliamentary government. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should stay with the exact system we have now, but if there is to be a change then we should not limit our consideration to just what is contained in the amendment but should broaden it to cover the whole field.
I put this to the hon. member for Greenwood. Let us suppose that the amendment carried. Then, if there should be no disagreement between the minister and the courts there would be no problem. But let us suppose there is disagreement. Then the minister, a minister of the Crown representing the people who elected this government, is in a secondary position to the court.

October 29, 1970
Federal Court


Francis Andrew Brewin: So he should be.


Steven Otto: The court might say that it does not believe the document has anything to do with federal-provincial relations. So, we would be placing the judiciary in a legislative position. In this case, it would be deciding what should be the policy of the government. Let us go further and suppose there is correspondence between a provincial government and the federal government which, at the instigation of the province, is meant to be kept secret. This government, in effect, says to the province that it has a certain relationship with the province and if the province desires information or correspondence between the two of them to be kept secret, this desire will be honoured. As a result of this understanding there is much more correspondence and freedom of expression.
However, if the provinces have requested secrecy and the government should be forced to disclose the information or documents to a court, the court might decide there should be no secrecy. Then, what is the situation in respect of the pledge that has been given? In other words, the consequence of this amendment obviously would be that communications between provincial governments and the federal government would be couched in such careful terms, in the knowledge that they might become public, that provincial-federal discussions would be meaningless. I, therefore, say that the hon. member for Greenwood should reconsider his position and I support the government's position on this amendment.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have no intention of reconsidering my position.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make clear that I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I believe the arguments of the hon. member and of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) are strong and valid arguments. I should like to add briefly to them. We are dealing with justice. People go to court presumably in the hope that they will receive justice. I cannot see anyone being satisfied if, when he goes to court, he cannot obtain a document and therefore cannot present his full case to the judge. I believe it is invidious to give anyone the power to withhold information, because it might make a few red faces in Ottawa or in the provincial capitals, which might make a great deal of difference to a person's case. This strikes at the very notion of justice.
I agree that we would not want our courts to become circuses such as happens too often in the United States. There should be a power to turn down mischievous requests. In any event judges probably have this power. I say that this Parliament would be committing a wrongful act if it were to give this power to any minister of justice, because it strikes at the very heart of justice itself.
Now, let me give a few specific examples of how I believe litigants could be placed in a very invidious position in respect of the conduct of their cases. My
honourable and learned friend from Calgary North has mentioned the dealings of pipeline companies whose pipelines extend across provincial boundaries. Such companies are under the jurisdiction of at least one national body and presumably, because the provinces have the natural resources which are being dealt with and carried in the pipeline, there is a flow of information back and forth between the federal and provincial governments.
There might be a situation where someone, whose case depends very much on some federal or provincial decisions, might wish to obtain such decisions so that he could present them to the court. His request could be turned down by the Minister of Justice, and that would make a mockery of his case. As a matter of fact, he could have initiated a case, spent thousands and thousands of dollars in retaining lawyers and obtaining documents, only to find when he got into court that his whole case collapsed because the Minister of Justice sitting in Ottawa refused to produce the document on which his case was based. I say that should not happen. As I say, I can see it happening in many cases involving business because in matters of trade the federal government has a responsibility under the constitution.
We have mentioned the situation in respect of the movement of natural resources, which are a provincial responsibility, across provincial boundaries. Let us take the illustration further and relate it to what everybody is talking about in Canada today, the tragic events in the province of Quebec. There may be situations in which people will decide to take action against someone in an effort to obtain redress for the loss of their civil liberties. I suppose under other parts of this subclause the minister could deal with such people peremptorily and knock out their case by refusing to disclose documents on the ground that they would be injurious to national defence or security. There seem to be a strange variety of crimes being committed in Canada these days under both headings.
In any event, I believe I am making my point concerning the power of the minister. I am not referring to this minister because I do not want to be in an ad hominem position in this argument. I am just saying that a minister of justice, to preserve the political applomb of himself and his associates or some friend in some provincial capital, could use his power and any ideal of justice would become very secondary. I think it is invidious and insidious.
I certainly support the hon. member for Greenwood in his efforts to knock out this provision. I hope the Minister of Justice, who does listen to reasoned argument and who is a first-rate fellow to deal with, even at this stage will change his mind and instruct his parliamentary secretary to say, "yes, you fellows on the other side have made your point and we accept the argument".
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), which was supported also by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for

October 29, 1970

Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Although this subclause appears to be a very minor one and only deals with a technicality, it strikes me that it gets to the very root of justice itself. Apparently, in relation to subclause (2), we are only worried as to who should make the decision, but I do not think that is all that is involved. As I understand it, the whole purpose of the bill is to try to get our administrative law out of the morass in which it has been, so we are setting up a federal court, presumably with judges who will be well schooled in the administrative law and also well able to defend, where necessary, the rights of the Crown. They are appointed and maintained by the Crown. We expect them also to keep a very objective view throughout any litigation although they are on the side of the Crown.
No doubt in most of these cases, success will depend on whether or not certain documents are produced. In subclause (2) we are asked to broaden the circumstances in which certain documents are not disclosed. If taken to its logical conclusion, this means the almost complete exclusion of the documents if the judge gives a very technical or very literal interpretation to the law. Although we know that the best judges will be appointed, there will be a continual pressure put on them to remain objective when the litigant is fighting the Crown, of whom the judge is a servant.
I am well aware of how injurious certain documents might be in matters of international relations and I agree that they should be screened out if their disclosure interferes with the security and defence of Canada. However, the wording used here is "be injurious to federal-provincial relations". I venture to say that the term "injurious to federal-provincial relations" is very wide in scope and would affect the whole of our Canadian life. We rely on one man's opinion as to what might be injurious. When we say injurious do we mean something which might drive Quebec out of the Confederation? The answer is, yes. In such a situation, we would have unanimous agreement and we would all be willing to screen out any such documents.
Since I think that democracy is based on reasonable compromise, and there will be some difficulty here if someone wishes to screen out a document, I suggest that when either side asks for a document to be withheld the court could be told that it is a touchy document. The judge could then hear the evidence in camera. Subclause (2), of course, rules out such a possibility completely and the document is withheld without any examination of the document whatsoever. It is left entirely to the judgment of the cabinet minister involved. Since the litigation might be directed at the very department where this document resides or a document might be in the very possession of the cabinet minister himself, he might well have an interest in not disclosing it. It seems to me that a great deal of discretion is put into the hands of one person.
Since I have full confidence in the judges of our courts, I can see nothing wrong with the suggestion that the proposal not to disclose the document be heard in camera. It seems to me that our judges will certainly not
Federal Court
be so perverse, on seeing that a document might be injurious to the interests of Canada, as to rule that it should be disclosed. If we adopt the amendment, we will have more than one person's opinion and nothing would be done in secret or behind closed doors, nothing would be left to the opinion of one man. As confidence in our law officers and in our governments at all levels is in some jeopardy, I think it would be very wise at this stage of the development of federal-provincial relations, and in our attempts to improve the whole administration of our administrative law in Canada, that we lean over backwards by saying that ministers of the Crown should not make judicial decisions on their own. We should ask the judge, the litigants and perhaps the cabinet minister, to get together in camera to explain why a document should not be disclosed, and thus reach a reasonable compromise.
Another way of dealing with this situation would be to separate the document in the presence of all interested people. I venture to say there are few cases in which all of a document is secret or all of it is injurious to the public interest. Some parts of a document might be very relevant to the proper adjudication of a case, and other parts might have to be screened out with the approval of all parties. Some of it could be used for the purpose for which the document had been requested in court in the first place. It seems to me that that part of a document which may be injurious to the security of the people of Canada or to the best relations between the provinces- and that is the crux of the present argument-could be screened out to everyone's satisfaction.
Therefore, I support the amendment, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I have examined the text of the committee's hearings with regard to the present clause and I find nothing of great import. As a matter of fact, I can find no discussion at all with regard to this subclause except for the statement which is recorded at page 3312 that clause 41 is carried. In other words, the clause was carried without previous discussion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not correct. If you look at other parts of the committee's proceedings, you will find that we did discuss the clause.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am saying there was no discussion at that time, that is when the clause was passed. It may have been discussed when the briefs were being presented, but we do not know who was present at the time. We do know that on certain occasions members were not able to be present at the meetings because they either had to be in the House or elsewhere. In any event, they were not there. I want to hear an explanation from the parliamentary secretary, and I am sure other members in the House would also want it, and a clear definition from him of what is meant by federal-provincial relations. If the term is as wide in scope and as all embracing as suggested by my colleagues and by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), then of course one
702

Federal Court
must object to it most vehemently. I think it is incumbent upon the minister or his parliamentary secretary to give us the full explanation of what is meant by the term "federal-provincial relations." On that basis, I say that unless such an explanation is given I will have to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
After all, we know that the whole of the jurisprudence and the common law are full of anomalies. In many cases that have been heard in the courts in Great Britain and in this country the Crown, as a matter of course, has for some reason or another declared that certain documents were privileged, and that was that. The citizen, who perhaps was suing the Crown for disclosure of a document related to a claim against the Crown, was left without recourse when the Crown took refuge behind this so-called privilege of Crown documents. This, in effect, perpetrated an injustice.
I should like to have a definition given by the minister of what is deemed to be federal-provincial relations. There are all sorts of relations. For instance, if a judge were able to find that there was federal control over a pipeline, but that provincial interests were also involved, would this be deemed to be federal-provincial relations? Would documents with respect to that matter be deemed to be privileged? We should not have anything like that. The minister should be fair with the House; come clean, and tell us precisely what is meant by that phrasing.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have the right, under the rules of the House, to speak twice at this stage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have asked the minister a question. Perhaps he may answer it on my time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member is asking a question, and if the minister replies to the question it seems to me it would be in order.


John Napier Turner: Thank you for allowing me to transgress the rules, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member knows what is meant by federal-provincial relations in the same way that he knows what is meant by international relations. The meaning of the phrase is clear. If I were to give an off-the-cuff definition, which would not be binding on any minister or on the courts, I would say this is the relation between the federal government and the provincial governments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 14? The question is as follows: Mr. Brewin, seconded by Mr. Lewis, moved:
That Bill C-172, An Act Respecting the Federal Court of Canada, be amended by striking out the words "or to federal-provincial relations," in subclause (2) of clause 41 at page 23.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
October 29, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said
motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Order. If hon. members agree, it might be the wish of the House now to consider motions Nos. 1 and 2, and I think No. 10 was consequential thereto. Hon. members will recall the remarks of His Honour the Speaker earlier this afternoon to the effect that these motions would be reinstated on the Order Paper, and also the other one with which His Honour was concerned from a procedural standpoint. So, if it is the wish of the House I will put Nos. 1 and 2. Is it the understanding of the House that No. 10 can be considered at the same time?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the only problem is that if Nos. 1 and 2 were defeated then No. 10 would become superfluous. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say you are correct and I would ask that 1, 2 and 10 be considered in one block. In that way, we can be brief because much of the material we discussed yesterday will apply to these amendments also.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we agree to that. We agree to reinstate Nos. 1, 2 and 10 on the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that we treat them together and they be voted on together.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my understanding that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) asked yesterday that No. 10 be withdrawn because of the Speaker's ruling, but that the House has now agreed that the three motions be considered.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) moves motion No. 1, which is as follows:
That Bill C-172, An Act Respecting the Federal Court of Canada, be amended by striking out subclause (d) of clause 2, page 1 thereof, and substituting therefor the following:
"(d) "Court" or "Federal Court" means
(i)	the Federal Court of Canada, and
(ii)	for the Province of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Alberta, the trial division or branch of the Supreme Court of the Province,
(iii)	for the Province of Quebec, the Superior Court of the Province,

October 29, 1970

(iv)	for the Province of Newfoundland, the Supreme Court of the Province,
(v)	for the Province of British Columbia or Prince Edward Island, the Supreme Court of the Province,
(vi)	for the Province of Manitoba or Saskatchewan, the Court of Queen's Bench for the Province, and
(vii)	for the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, the Territorial Court thereof;"
The hon. member for Calgary North also moves motion No. 2, which is as follows:
That Bill C-172, An Act respecting the Federal Court of Canada, be amended by striking out subclause (e) of clause 2, page 1 thereof, and substituting therefor:
"(e) "Court of Appeal" or "Federal Court of Appeal" means
(i)	that division of the Federal Court of Canada referred to as the Court of Appeal or Federal Court of Appeal by this Act and
(ii)	with respect to an appeal from a court other than the Federal Court of Canada, the court exercising general appellate jurisdiction with respect to appeals from that court;"
Is it the pleasure of the House to deem motion No. 10 to be read and put to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have already expressed my appreciation to the Speaker in reference to the reinstatement of motions Nos. 1, 2 and 10. Again, I want to say that I appreciate very much the courtesy given us, and the observations that were made concerning why they were declared to be out of order. I think I can be quite brief at this time, Mr. Speaker, because yesterday we dealt with many of the facts when we were dealing with clauses 18, 28 and 29.
What are motions Nos. 1, 2 and 10 all about? There is a Federal Court to be set up under this bill, with a certain jurisdiction. Basically that jurisdiction has been set out as covering Crown corporations, boards and commissions and where the Crown is involved in any matter of contract and tort, as well as various other things.
What we are asking for in this amendment is basically that the definition of the term "federal court" include not only the Federal Court that is to be set up under this bill but also the trial courts of the various provinces, that is, the superior courts, which would have concurrent jurisdiction. By concurrent jurisdiction I mean this: That a citizen who wishes to litigate, or the Crown for that matter if it wished, can choose the place where they want to litigate. If, for example, people live in Toronto and want to litigate through the superior court or Supreme Court trial division in Ontario, they may do so. If they live in Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver they may litigate in their own courts in the same way.
What is the main argument for this? Justice, like everything else today, has become a very expensive commodity. That is why I maintain that justice is somewhat rationed in Canada. The law is the same for every Canadian, but in the application of the law there is a law for the rich and one for the poor. I say it would be much cheaper and much more reasonable for people to be able to litigate in their home courts.
Federal Court
Over and over again in these debates the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has said, "Well, it is just as cheap to litigate in the Exchequer Court or in the Federal Court." If that argument were sound then my answer to it would be that I have confidence in the people. They will be able to decide which place is the cheapest in which to litigate.
I am satisfied that the Canadian people would use their own local courts, and I will deal with some evidence in that regard in a few moments.
In respect of the Exchequer Court, may I say that I have been criticized from certain sections for seeming to be against the Exchequer Court. I want to make it clear that I am not against it. It has had its place in Canada, and a good place in Canada, particular] v in tax matters and other matters, but what I maintain is chat it is a specialized court. These matters were studied very carefully by the Standing Committee. When Mr. Henderson came before that committee he pointed out that he was not representing the Canadian Bar Association, but had been asked by them to give evidence because of his knowledge. He pointed out that because the Exchequer Court is of a different calibre than the courts we have in our provinces, it takes a specialized lawyer years to learn the rules, the methods and the jurisprudence, all of which are necessary to litigate in the Exchequer Court. What really happens is that you are setting up a specialized field for a few people.
[DOT] (4:00p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Naturally, Mr. Henderson-and I am not being critical of him personally-had some affection for the minister's big federal court. Why? Somebody said he lives in Ottawa. He is a very distinguished scholar and counsel in the Exchequer Court itself and with that skill he knows that many cases will come to his office because not many men are trained in this field. It boils down to one thing, that a few people become specialists in litigation in the federal court or Exchequer Court, and that has been the situation. Professor Garry D. Watson, who is a professor of law at Osgood Hall in Toronto said that some lawyers from smaller centres-and when we are dealing with Calgary compared with Toronto, it is a small centre-will try their hand at litigating in the Exchequer Court, which is similar to the federal court. After they get their fingers burned, they will throw up their hands and say that they will never again try to use their ability in that court as it is not fair to their clients.
What will happen is that men of the calibre of Mr. Henderson, and a few others across Canada, will handle all the litigation in this court. Like specialists in any other field, say a gynaecologist in medicine, they can demand high fees but the average man litigating against that most powerful opponent, the state, cannot afford powerful and expensive lawyers.


An hon. Member:: They must be Liberals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a result justice is left undone. Justice will be rough and that is the purpose for giving the
704

October 29, 1970
Federal Court
specialists that edge. I have heard the Minister oi Justice (Mr. Turner) talk about the average man being on the poverty line in Canada, and I do not think there is any difference between us on that philosophy. There are people below the poverty line who cannot afford lawyers and that is what we sold to the committee. Surely, with that underlying philosophy of the minister, and his affection for the average man, he will see that in order to get justice the average man should have an option to litigate in his own provincial court. That is really the reason behind motion No. 1.
Now, motion No. 2 provides that: if you can litigate in your own trial court, then you should be able to appeal in the court of appeal of that province. It is accessible and familiar to the average lawyer working in his own community. So you see, the arguments relating to motions Nos. 1 and 2 are identical; they both refer to concurrent jurisdiction.
Let us see what some of the evidence was in this regard. I have read the report of the Committee which did study this in May and June. The Committee went into this bill very extensively, and it was not only the Conservatives who agreed but the NDP went along with us as did certain Liberals. Indeed, I am surprised that some of them are not here speaking on this motion today. I should like to quote from the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, No. 26 where Mr. Hogarth, who is a distinguished counsel from British Columbia, is reported as follows:
You see, my basic premise is why not leave that to a provincial court to determine? I cannot understand the compulsion to give this power oi review to a whole new court structure. With the greatest respect, I cannot see why you just cannot give that power of review to the courts of ordinary inherent jurisdiction.
Meaning provincial courts.
Despite what you have said with respect to the restrictions placed on the prerogative writs by statute, those restrictions have never been particularly adhered to by the courts and the courts have always assumed their inherent jurisdiction. I cannot understand why we have to have the federal court structure to handle those appeals. Why not just give it to a provincial court judge?
Those are Mr. Hogarth's words. That is why there was a tie. It was rather unfortunate that one or two members who might have been with us on that day could not attend, but there are so many committees meeting at the same time that one cannot always be at a particular committee.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, for whom we all have a lot of affection, has twice been placed in a position of having to break a tied vote. He exercised his vote in favour of the bill as it is drafted. That was his prerogative, but what I am emphasizing is that the amendment had such a close shave in the committee. This is not a frivolous suggestion; this suggestion carries weight and I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, with your knowledge of the

committees, that sometimes a little partisanship slips into these committees. This is not all one-sided, of course; it is not all government members, because sometimes there is some failing on our side too.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Speaking of the Liberals and Conservatives getting together reminds me of a story told by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) on the hustings at one time but I cannot repeat it here. When the Liberals and Conservatives get together, there has to be something out of the ordinary to make them forget about their politics for the moment. The New Democratic Party went along with this sympathetic viewpoint. If the Minister of Justice would accept the motions on the Order Paper as we have accepted his, we would have a very good bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was hoping that he would have the same kind of feeling as some of his colleagues who hold him in high esteem, and that he would support us on this amendment as did at least half of his colleagues who gave it so much serious thought and support when we needed it.


John Napier Turner: You are breaking me up.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Terrible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think any one of us who held a job of privy councillor in the cabinet might find that the problem is that every department is so large it is impossible for everybody in it to know each other's views. The lawyers in the Department of Justice are very skilled; they have drawn the statute for the minister and have put in all the safeguards ahead of time, so that is pretty tough opposition for the little man.


An hon. Member:: It sure is.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a tough place to litigate, when you are fighting the state. It is all-powerful and very difficult for people who have not the money to fight that kind of power.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to quote from the evidence to substantiate my position which was supported by witnesses in the committee. Mr. Henderson said the suggestion had some merit. He went that far at least, even though he knew he was a specialist in the field. I asked if it was not a fact that a lawyer practising in a province knew the rules of the provincial court. Indeed, if he did not he should not be there. Normally, he is
October 29, 1970

familiar with the atmosphere and the judges who sit and is familiar with the environment in which he is practising. The judges are able to make decisions more fitting to the average man because of the familiarity not only the lawyer but of the judge, with the area in which the questions of contract or tort are based. This is what the professor said. I do not know who insisted on calling Professor Watson but as sometimes happens when you are the lawyer for the defence and find witnesses for the Crown more favourable to the defence, Professor Watson proved to be a good defence witness. Maybe it was the boys from the Liberal side from Toronto who felt that another view should be put forward, and that is why he supported this suggestion.


John Napier Turner: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he realize that Professor Watson is primarily dealing with another branch of law and has never handled a case before the courts?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He would not be alone in this regard- and I hope this gets reported-because I know a lot of Queen's Counsellors who would not know how to draw a small debt summons. I also know a lot of judges whose first appearance in court was after they were appointed. This does not shock me. I do not think there is anything wrong with that.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Many professors have not had court experience, but at least they do not become stereotyped. They analyse a problem from an academic point of view. The problem with a practising lawyer is that he becomes non-flexible. I am more of a defence lawyer. I have never prosecuted anyone, but I have defended many cases. Possibly my built-in ideas about the rights of people go too far because I am a defence lawyer. I find that Crown lawyers, including the Minister of Justice, have a different mechanism. The moment a charge is laid, Crown lawyers want to put the fellow away for a long time. Of course, the judges and juries keep the balance. I will return to the remarks which I was making before the very kind interruption of the Minister of Justice.


An hon. Member:: What about Joe?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is a very good lawyer. He is also a good salesman. This bill really only gives this court bits and pieces. In view of that, there will only be a few people in a limited number of situations who will be able to resort to the court on a regular basis. Consequently, only a small group of lawyers will practice in that court. This will produce a real problem with regard to the jurisdiction of the court in certain types of cases.
When a person from a small town or city in Canada becomes involved, he contacts his regular legal adviser. The legal adviser suggests that this is a matter for the Exchequer Court. The lawyer will tell him that he does not have much experience in litigation of this type. The normal pattern is for the lawyer to suggest some expen-
Federal Court
sive lawyer in Ottawa who will handle the case. This is why we need concurrent jurisdiction. The minister or one of his officials stated that in the United States they have these courts, but there is a difference.
In Canada, the judges are appointed by the federal government and the magistrates by the provincial governments. The federal government appoints judges of the county court, court of appeal, Exchequer Court, the new exchequer court of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. My friend stated that many matters will now come under the new federal court, because jurisdiction will be removed from the provincial courts. All the Minister of Justice has to do is to ensure that the men he appoints are specialists.
I have practised in most types of courts in Canada, including courts outside the province of Alberta. I have seen some judges deal with highly specialized matters. I am certain their judgments were equal or superior to those that would have been made in the Exchequer Court because they had knowledge of the situation. For example, a judge in the province of Alberta would have knowledge of national parks. In dealing with a dispute under the Canada Grain Act, a judge from western Canada would at least know the colour of wheat. Familiarity with subjects is important. That is why I ask for the support for this amendment. Professor Watson had this to say:
Looking at the news areas into which the Federal Court Bill would take us with regard to jurisdiction of the court, who is to be the grateful beneficiary of the investiture of the new Federal Court with concurrent jurisdiction over negotiable instruments?
That is a very important point. If we look at the present jurisdiction, we see that there is jurisdiction over negotiable instruments when the Crown is involved.
Is it finance companies or is it to be debtors who are going to thank the federal government for having given them another forum to which to take their disputes? Or will it be either one of them who first finds himself involved in a battle, a jurisdictional battle in the court for which he will pay to litigate to find out the answer as to whether or not-
As to whether or not he is in the right court. That is the trouble in the United States. There are so many different courts in that country they need a group of specialists to determine which court should deal with the matter. If provincial courts are given concurrent jurisdiction there would not be any procedural argument as to which court is the right one. He goes on to say:
I simply raise this question: Is the only answer to give this jurisdiction to a federal court? In other words, would it not be possible to draft, if there are problems-and I gather there are problems with regard to, for instance, the location of an action against a federal tribunal the problem of the plaintiff moving from one province to another suing a federal administrative tribunal-
He says it is very simple to get over that objection noted on page 13. Once you choose a jurisdiction, you are stuck with that particular jurisdiction in all provinces.
I now wish to deal with the matter of legal chaos. I will use the example of a three-way accident involving

October 29, 1970
Federal Court
cars A and B and car C, an RCMP vehicle. Because the Crown is involved this must be decided in the new federal court. A and B can have their case decided in the provincial court. What happens if the provincial court decides that A is at fault and the Exchequer Court decides that B is at fault? When the sheriff picks up the property to pay for the damages, which judgment governs?
Dozens of powerful corporations make contracts with such Crown corporations as Panarctic. If they become involved in litigation, there are eight corporations which could be sued. The problems of these corporations could be litigated in the provincial court, but if the Crown were in breach of contract the provincial court could not make a decision. If the provincial court decided that a company was at fault and the Exchequer Court decided that the Crown was at fault or one of the other companies involved, we then have legal chaos. Mr. Watson said that he did not have any experience as a court room lawyer, but he was able to look at the chaos that some lawyers meet with this bill.
I now wish to deal with one other thought. The most important instruments a citizen has are special writs. At one time I was very critical of administrative boards. I had a lot of suspicion about them, but I have changed my philosophy. There is a place for administrative boards. When a matter is decided by the board everything, including the kitchen sink, goes in. I compare the powers of a board to a book. It has four sides. The powers of boards are set out in a book about the size of the book I am now holding. If they exceed those powers, their orders can be quashed. It is very simple, really. There is no need to go through a procedure costing $1,000 or $2,000. You go to a judge and say: This board has exceeded its authority and I want its order quashed. The mistake is generally on the record, or it is a question of law, or the decision was contrary to natural justice. Those rights have existed for a number of years. They are the safeguard of the citizens against an all-powerful state. This is why we find special remedies given to the trial court in section 18 yet the right of appeal in section 28, sets out the same reasons as those applicable to special remedies. This is legal chaos in itself.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
To compound it, two of the witnesses before the committee said they still did not know whether, when boards exceeded their authority, people who felt themselves aggrieved should apply to the ordinary courts of a province or not. One lawyer may hold one view, and another lawyer may hold a different view. Lawyers do not always agree; that is why we have judges. But why should citizens be put to such great and unnecessary expense?
With great respect, I suggest that the motivation behind this bill was to give the Crown more power. Remember, people who work for the Crown, and I am not being disrespectful to them, naturally hold the philosophy that if you are going to play a game of cards it helps to have a good hand. But, Mr. Speaker, once in a while when I am playing cards I like to have the right to deal.


An hon. Member:: Stacked deck.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That's right. I want to make sure the deck is clean when I am playing blackjack. These people put together a bill. They have thought it out so as to give the greatest power to the Crown. The amendments I propose would at least put some safeguards into it from the point of view of the average man. These two amendments are very serious; in fact, I have never been more serious. I thank the House for its kind attention and I hope hon. members will give what I have said the kind of consideration for which I have sought to argue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: I shall not get into a forensic duel with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). Those of us who are members of the committee have heard his arguments a number of times.


An hon. Member:: Never better than today.


John Napier Turner: Never better than he was today. But there was nothing new. This issue was canvassed thoroughly by the committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie). I should like to pay tribute to him-he is sitting in the House today-for his leadership and impartial chairmanship of a very sensitive committee of the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: -a committee which transacts at least as much business as any other committee of the House.
Despite some of the flourishes of the hon. member for Calgary North, during most of our deliberations we engaged in a non-partisan review of the bills which came before the committee. The hon. member mentioned that Liberals had occasionally disagreed with the position taken by the government before the committee. I see no objection to that, because one of the merits of the committee system is that it enables Members of Parliament to exercise independent judgment relatively free from the control of party whips. As a matter of fact, I have found myself on the losing side on several occasions before that committee. One was in connection with the breathalyzer test; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) beat me on the penalty. The government did not seek to revive this issue on the report stage; we took our beating in committee because we believe in the committee system. The fact that the chairman had to break a tie in the voting on several occasions, as the hon. member pointed out, is in itself an indication that we have been considering this bill in a non-partisan way. But the question raised by the hon. member was considered thoroughly by the committee and rejected by it, so the hon. member cannot say the subject did not receive the consideration which it merits.
[Mr. Woolliams.)
October 29, 1970

I wish to analyze briefly the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The hon. member sought to give the impression that this bill was the expression of a reaching out for power on the part of the Crown. Well, the jurisdiction of the federal court differs from the present jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court in only a very few aspects. First, there is a jurisdiction of review and appeal over federal boards and tribunals. That is an extension of jurisdiction. The second extension is concurrent jurisdiction with provincial courts over matters involving promissory notes or bills of exchange, where the Crown is a party. The third extension is a concurrent jurisdiction with the provincial superior court in matters concerning aeronautics. Those are the only extensions in jurisdiction given.
I wish to analyze the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court and the Federal Court and attempt to explain it, through this House, to the people of Canada. Historically, the act was set up because there had to be some forum in which claims could be made against the Crown in right of Canada. So all actions against the Crown in right of Canada are taken in the Exchequer Court-and if I use the term "federal court" I am not doing so on the assumption that the House will pass this measure but to make it more convenient for hon. members by using a consistent terminology.
There are certain branches of federal law which, for historical and practical reasons, come before the federal court. This is because they are complicated, because litigation is specialised and because a certain expertise has to be developed. They involve questions of Admiralty, of industrial property, patents, trademarks and copyright, expropriation, estate tax and income tax. As I say, this type of law is specialized. It often involves the Crown and it has been adequately handled by the Exchequer Court in the past. As a matter of fact, several judges from provincial superior and supreme courts have advised me privately that they wished jurisdiction over industrial property could rest exclusively with the federal court. They say that a case involving patent or copyright so seldom comes before a provincial court that the judges lack the necessary background or expertise to deal with it, properly and trials are unnecessarily long because of lack of experience in this type of case.
There are other branches of federal law which are left to provincial courts-divorce and bankruptcy, both of which fall within the jurisdiction of Parliament. It is worth noting that because of the technical nature of these branches of the law, the law itself has to be supplemented by very full sets of rules. Indeed, in these two fields, the rules from a procedural point of view are almost as important as the substantive provisions of the act itself. In order to place a technical branch of the federal law within the competence of a provincial court it is necessary to supplement it with extremely comprehensive rules. Some Chief Justices of provincial courts have suggested to me that the federal government ought to take bankruptcy cases away from the provincial courts and give them to a federal court. There are a number of judges in Ontario and Quebec who would prefer to see the federal bankruptcy law handled by the Federal Court.
Federal Court
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We are not grabbing back jurisdiction, as the hon. member suggests. We have left bankruptcy where it is, and we have left divorce where it is. As a matter of fact, we are hoping that divorce cases will be handled not only by superior courts, but that advantage will be taken of the latitude in the law and that county courts will handle divorce as well. I would inform the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) that there is sufficient latitude in the law, in my opinion, to allow county court judges in Ontario or elsewhere to hear divorce actions.
There are certain branches of the law with national impact involving litigation that crosses provincial boundaries and which is probably better handled by a federal court than a provincial court, where only one party to the action might be in his home territory. This is why we suggested concurrent jurisdiction in the the aeronautics field. Supposing there was an air tragedy involving a major air line; it is likely that the passengers on the aircraft would come from more than one province. On the other hand, in the crash of a small plane in the Okanagan valley involving two or three people from British Columbia, any subsequent litigation obviously should properly be brought before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and there is nothing in this federal court bill to take away this jurisdiction.
However, in the case of a national disaster involving passengers from every province in the country and even from abroad, rather than have a host of actions brought in various provincial superior courts or supreme courts all across the country, it would be better for all litigants to have one forum where the action can be decided at one and the same time.
So there is no federal power grab, to use the synonym of the hon. member for Calgary North. The jurisdiction is not being increased except in the three areas I have described. The jurisdiction has been increased in the field of promissory notes and bills of exchange where the Crown in right of Canada is party to the action, and in the field of aeronautics. In both these areas the jurisdiction is concurrent, not exclusive. There is still concurrent jurisdiction left with the superior courts.
In reviewing the supervisory jurisdiction of federal boards, commissions and tribunals, the whole rationale of the bill is that there should be a review procedure, whether by way of the traditional common law prerogative writs or the new statutory review remedy available under clause 28. Right of appeal under specialized statutes is preserved under clause 29.
As I say, there should be a common forum so that the federal boards cannot be attacked or harassed by a multiplicity of jurisdictions. Federal boards should be dealt with on a federal basis. I make no apology for this because in clauses 18, 28 and 29, as I said yesterday, we are setting up the infrastructure of public administrative law in this country, a branch of the law that has been too weakly developed to this point.
The hon. member for Calgary North adduced an argument that I know by heart.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know yours too.

October 29, 1970
Federal Court


John Napier Turner: I also know mine by heart, and I make it only in response to the speech of the hon. member. We did introduce evidence to the effect that the federal court is no more expensive for the litigant than any other court. I submitted the tariffs of the Exchequer Court and they compared favourably with those of the Supreme Court of Alberta, the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Superior Court of Quebec. There was very little difference between them.
The hon. member also argued that the federal court is not accessible. Let me tell him it is now on circuit. I have tried to explain that under clause 7 and clause 16 the court is empowered to go on circuit, to go where the litigants want to litigate. If an action arises in the federal court between citizens of Alberta, then the federal court will go to Alberta to hear the action, whether it be an application, motion, or any other type of interlocutory proceeding, or whether it be a trial on the merits or an appeal. The circuit procedure that has been part of the practice of the court for the last two or three years under the present president is now written into the law in statutory form.
The hon. member for Calgary North argued that the procedures of the court are complicated. We have submitted the rules of procedure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister does not agree with Mr. Henderson.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Henderson is very knowledgeable before the court, but he knows as well as I-and I have had a good deal of practice before the court as well, I might add-that the new rules of procedure were modernized and published last year. I say that they are as streamlined and as non-technical as the rules of any of the supreme courts or superior courts of this country.
This is a court that tends to have a certain type of specialty, a certain type of expertise, as a result of the very nature of the sort of litigation that comes before it. It is true that lawyers do not get before the federal court, or will not get before it, as often as they appear before the Provincial county court or superior court. The simple answer to this is that there happen to be more automobile cases, more matrimonial cases, more property cases and more contractual and tortious cases, or delit cases, to use the language of the Code Civile of Quebec, than other types of litigation.
However, in regard to matters that have historically and properly placed within the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court, matters having a national impact, a certain specialized importance, matters that involve the provinces or the federal government and citizens of the country, this court is a useful vehicle for the purpose of administering justice in the interests of the people of Canada.
One final remark, Mr. Speaker. I listen often to the hon. member describing the forces of the Department of Justice being mobilized against the little guy. I would remind him there have been times when the Department
of Justice has had to take on some of the big landowners in Alberta who are represented on occasion by the hon. member for Calgary North in order to defend some of the leasehold interests in that province. I know his argument is fiction, and I always listen to it with a smile, as I did on this occasion.
The Department of Justice represents the people of Canada and ensures that the people of Canada are properly protected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: It ensures that the laws of taxation are fairly administered. Sometimes the Department of Justice, on behalf of the people of Canada, has to prosecute tax evaders and the like. It also has to make sure that the people of Canada get the best price in cases of expropriation. So I suggest his argument works both ways.
The department tries to recruit the best lawyers it can. It is true to say that 50 per cent of the cases coming before the Supreme Court of Canada and 50 per cent of the cases coming before this court are brought on behalf of the people of Canada. We bring cases dealing with admiralty matters, taxation, industrial property cases and expropriation. I think the people of Canada expect the Department of Justice to represent them as best it can, and the department will continue to do so, even against clients represented by my hon. friend from Calgary North.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Calgray North wishes to ask a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Assuming for a moment that everything the minister says is acceptable, rather than letting the minister or his department decide, has he any objection to letting the people decide whether it is cheaper to litigate in court A compared with court B.? That is all I am asking. What is the objection to letting the people decide?


An hon. Member:: No answer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all apologize to the House. I misread part of a report, which was more or less a synthesis, with regard to clause 41 (1) and (2). The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) moved an amendment in the committee which was negatived on division. I said that it had carried seemingly without discussion, and I apologize to the hon. member for innocently misleading the House. I goofed on that one.
There does not seem to have been much continuity to the discussion but I can readily understand some of the points made by the minister, though I was not so persuaded by some of the arguments put forward by the deputy minister, Mr. Maxwell, at the committee hearings, particularly in view of some of the final amendments made by the committee which appeared in the report of June 9. It seems to me that, notwithstanding the persua-

October 29, 1970

siveness of Mr. Maxwell, there is a built-in attitude or frame of mind as a result of his extensive communication with the department. Quite frankly, I think he is too involved with the department to look at the situation as one does from the outside. I would caution the minister very seriously and sincerely that while the department does say it sets out to defend the interests of the people of Canada, that is not so in fact. The interests of the Crown become paramount. It is not the interests of the people that become paramount. There is a very grave distinction between the interests of the Crown and the interests of the citizen.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The minister knows that when he was with a firm in Montreal which made a specialty of taking on the Department of National Revenue, those who took cases for prosecution on behalf of the department were not doing so with the interests of the people in mind. This was done on behalf of the government with a capital "G".


John Napier Turner: In those days we took on every department.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In any event, that was the case. There is one point I want to suggest to the minister which may provide an out in respect of the point made by my colleague the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The minister did say that judges would travel on circuit as provided in clause 7 and subsequent clauses. He said a person from Vancouver would not necessarily have to come to Ottawa to pursue a case. There are many interlocutory procedures. This is the point that concerned my friend.


John Napier Turner: They will be heard there, too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Interlocutory procedures arise for certain purposes and need one judge. Perhaps this judge will not be travelling at the time. I trust we are not going to have judges travelling around like the stars in the firmament.


John Napier Turner: There is provision for deputy judges in clause 10.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is the point, the provision involves difficulties. The appointment of a deputy judge under clause 10 can only occur on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, as I recall it, with the approval of the governor in council. In other words, there has to be an order in council for this. The clause states:
-any judge of a superior, county or district court in Canada, and any person who has held office as a judge of a superior, county or district court in Canada, may, at the request of the chief justice-
I presume that is the chief justice of this federal court. Let me repeat:
-may, at the request of the Chief Justice made with the approval of the governor in council, act as a judge of the Federal Court-
Federal Court
I wonder why a couple of superior court or county court judges in a province could not be appointed on a permanent basis. They could hold the position of deputy judge for the purpose of interlocutory proceedings in respect of which one has to obtain an ex parte order or orders that have to be obtained for substitutional service and this sort of thing. I refer to what we call interlocutory applications made in chambers. These are the things in regard to which you are able to go down to see a judge in his chambers. I suggest this would remove a great deal of difficulty. If the judge or members of a federal court did not happen to be in Edmonton, for instance, I, as a barrister with a case for some citizen in hand, could get an order for substitutional service or something of that nature. Under this clause, I would have to wait for the federal judge to come or retain an agent in Ottawa to get that order from a federal judge in his chambers here. I do not think that should be the case.
Let me offer as a sincere suggestion to the minister that one judge could be appointed in the city of Calgary, the city of Edmonton and at other points on a permanent basis so that members of the bar would know they could go to see Mr. Justice so and so, or his honour judge so and so, and get the necessary order in that way.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is aware that this matter was discussed yesterday. I intervened in the discussion on amendment No. 3, which has already been put to a vote. This dealt with the rota of judges. I hope he will not feel I am being discourteous if I do not reply on this issue, because I am already on record in Hansard on the point.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry I did not see
those remarks in Hansard. It seems to me the minister might have replied in the same vein to the hon. member for Calgary North because this was a good part of the argument of that hon. member.
Having said that, I will not come to the practicalities of the matter. I suggest to the minister that this will create almost a bar here in Ottawa to deal with the federal court. The minister may shake his head but this happens to be one of the facts of life when working in centres some distance removed from Ottawa. The minister, when practising in Montreal, found it easy to get up here to Ottawa, but I will ask him whether his clients of very limited means could afford to send him from Edmonton or Calgary to Ottawa at an expense of some $220 just for airfare?


John Napier Turner: He would not have to do it because the court is on circuit.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Because of the timing, it may be necessary to appear before the court here. One may have to retain an agent in Ottawa to initiate the proceedings because, undoubtedly, they will have to be initiated in Ottawa. Statements of claim and other documents will have to be filed here. There will be a tremendous business created for members of the Ottawa bar. If the minister does not think that is going to increase the costs, I do not know what will. He mentioned that court
710

October 29, 1970
Federal Court
fees will be the same but has he ever considered that other item we call solicitor-client fees? Has he ever seen an agent's bill? It may be that justice is expensive in this country, and it can be very expensive when the procedures become more and more involved.
My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North, is familiar with the situation and knows what he is saying. He has had considerable experience practicing before the court here in Ottawa. I have had limited experience before the Supreme Court of Canada, but let me assure you that the costs of agents are particularly high. They get involved in these cases as much as possible because this is part of a specialized business. One has only to look over a bill of costs to see what this expense involves when a special application is made by an agent in chambers here in Ottawa.
Let me go to another point in relation to the reservation and exclusive right for writs, as provided for in clause 18. Recently I attended a meeting of the Edmonton bar association. That meeting was attended by distinguished counsel from both the academic and practising fields. They examined this bill. It appeared as though they had just seen it for the first time. 1 find it rather strange that the bar as a whole in Canada has not responded with more interest to the provisions of this bill. I do not think even the Canadian Bar has directly made any full representation or examination in the form of a detailed brief.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is a dispute concerning the nature of the approach that was made here to the effect that no one made representations directly on behalf of the Canadian Bar. I can make a safe bet, I believe, that the British Columbia Law Society, the Alberta Law Society nor any other law association in the country have not turned their minds officially to this bill. When it comes time either to have it appear in the other place or be proclaimed, there will be a great awakening and the minister will receive all sorts of representations. Before long, we will be asked to amend the bill. I am only blaming the lawyers themselves. They did the same thing in respect of the Canada Corporations Act. Until representations were made to them, and they were asked to react, very few if any made any contribution or comment. Now, when one speaks to them about the bill they express horror concerning some of the provisions. I think a somewhat similar situation will occur with regard to this particular bill.
I wonder why it is necessary that to have a reservation of exclusive original jurisdiction for the application of writs of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, writs of certiorari, writs of prohibition or writs of mandamus as provided in clause 17? I must say that under clause 18 we also have these exclusive, extraordinary remedies referred to the trial division. In the past, as I understand it, these have also been under the jurisdiction of the

superior courts of the provinces. It seems to me I come back to the principle advocated by my hon. colleague from Calgary North, that it should be up to the individual to choose the court in which he will launch his action. I must say I realize what the intention is, but I have these reservations. It is a large central court. I do not know whether the ultimate idea is that regional divisions of the Court shall be established, such as exist in the United States, and that there would be a Canadian federal circuit court based regionally, say, in the Prairies, in Ontario, in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces. In any event, I support the amendment of my hon. colleague. I have some hesitation, as I have indicated, in respect of particular clauses.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in supporting my hon. friend from Calgary North. First, I assure the minister and the House that I shall not become involved in the area of argument between the minister and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in which each portrays himself as sort of a barefoot boy David of the law profession fighting the horrible Goliath. I will leave that battle to be determined between them as best they can. But I do not think we need take up a collection to provide either with shoes.
I should like to make one point in respect of the minister's suggestion concerning the rates in this new federal court being similar to those in other courts. What we pay for when we find it necessary to see a lawyer is that lawyer's time, and what is in that lawyer's "noggin". If that lawyer should be an expert in divorce work or in whatever field it might be, it is not necessary for him to spend all the time in the world on the case and it will be handled competently.
However, if once in a blue moon a lawyer has to launch an action in the new federal court, the first thing he will have to do is read the rule book of that court. The minister says it is simple. Perhaps it is as simple as the rules which now exist in respect of the Exchequer Court. But the fact is that the lawyer would have to read them. He would have to spend some time in determining their simplicity and in deciding how to proceed. If he should have only one case in a particular year in this court, then the full burden of his investigation of the rule book would fall on the client who comes to him with that one case. On the face of it, while one might compare the tariffs between the courts, that is not the whole story. We must consider that it is the time involved for which the lawyer charges, as well as his knowledge or lack of knowledge, and the time he has to spend obtaining the knowledge with which to serve his client. It is for this that he must be paid.
Those of us who are lawyers know that in some courts the procedure is as intricate as an 18th century minuet or the ritual courting dance of the whooping crane. It is necessary for one to have a great deal of skill to find his way through the procedure in order to serve a client. Therefore, I hope the minister, recognizing the basic common sense of the argument from this side, will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North.
October 29, 1970


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready tor the question? The question is on motions Nos. 1, 2 and 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 45 the recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan)-Fisheries-Initiatives to offset overfishing by foreign draggers-Oceanographic studies; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-War Measures Act-Vancouver police refusal of permission to Viet Nam Committee to hold march.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Private Bills. As there are no private bills listed on today's Order Paper, the House will now proceed to the order of business Notices of Motions (Papers).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Frank Howard: That on Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on attitude of Indian people based mainly on a visit to the Six Nations Reserve on July 16, 1969, submitted to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Ltd., as referred to at page 6 of the quarterly report on public relations activity, June, July, August, 1969 by the said Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Ltd.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He said: May I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) desires to make a comment first.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Indian Affairs
Speaker, the department has not felt able to table this report, which should be termed a letter since that is what it is. The reason it has not felt able to do so is that an undertaking has been given to the people who made the comments which have been included in this letter that they would be made on a confidential basis, and that their names would not be divulged. That is the reason the department has felt it was not in a position to table the letter, and therefore the notice of motion for the production of papers has been denied.
However, this morning I had a chat with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and explained this to him. He said that so long as we would table the letter he would be quite agreeable to having us substitute, instead of the individual names, the name of an Ind:an spokesman, and delete the reference to other individuals. Otherwise, the letter is exactly as it came to the department. So, with this understanding we will be happy to table the document as amended and I believe the hon. member will then be prepared to withdraw his notice of motion for the production of papers.


Frank Howard: Generally, I am quite agreeable to that. I appreciate the courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary in calling me earlier today and explaining the situation. I also commend him for doing a fine research job and in convincing the department that it was in error last year when it advised the parliamentary secretary of that day of the circumstances surrounding what is now termed a letter.
I might add that the quarterly report of the company in question, namely, Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Limited, makes reference to this particular document, which is now called a letter, and in fact it is called a report. My reference to the word "report" was based on the use of that term by the company in question.
I wonder if I could say in passing that I do not think it is material whether I withdraw the motion or whether we assume it is passed. In either case the same effect will be accomplished, namely, the document which the department has refused to make public earlier will now be made public and quite appropriately so. I am agreeable to withdrawing the motion, but this is immaterial except for the fact that if I withdraw the motion I think the Parliamentary Secretary will have to have the consent of the House to table the letter because there will be no order of the House to do so.
All this leads us to conclude that parliamentary secretaries and cabinet ministers all too often in the past-and this proves the point-have been at the mercy of department officials who may want to conceal something which they have no right to do. I would appreciate it very much if the newly appointed parliamentary secretaries, in prosecuting their positions to the full would look more closely at their departments when documents are classified as confidential.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the document be tabled, subject to the reservations and
23226-46J

October 29, 1970
Welfare and Income Security
conditions mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary in his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Stanley Howard Knowles: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any reports or reviews with regard to social welfare legislation and income security prepared by or under the direction of Dr. J. W. Willard, Deputy Minister of Welfare for Canada, since June 25, 1983.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the material which is the subject of this resolution and that is why I sometimes refer to it as the Willard report and sometimes as the Willard reports. That is not a matter of consequence but I thought it might be useful to indicate that whichever term we use, singular or plural, we are talking about the same material.
The Williard report, as I understand it, is a document prepared either by or under the direction of Dr. J. W. Willard, deputy minister of welfare for Canada, on the question of social security, perhaps social welfare, perhaps income maintenance, and other related questions. It is some time since that report was prepared. We did learn that it was in the process of preparation, and a couple of years ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) indicated that consideration was being given to the tabling of that report when it was completed. After a time that tune was changed. We were told that we would not get the Willard report as such but that we would get a white paper based on it. That promise was very definite. Indeed we were told that we would get that white paper before the last session ended. The session ended and we did not get the white paper. We have been told in this session that we are still going to get a white paper, that it will not be the same white paper that we did not get last session but that it will cover some of the same ground.
It is not my purpose in these few remarks to be as provocative as these few sentences I have uttered may suggest. We can save that for other occasions. I should add that what we are most interested in is the legislation that will arise out of this whole study, whether we are talking about the Willard report or about the white paper based thereon. But it does seem to me that a pretty fundamental issue is involved in this motion, and I make an earnest appeal to the government that it reverse its decision of last year and that it agree now to make the Willard report public. This government has had a great deal to say about participatory democracy. It has declared that its aim is to get the people of Canada involved in the decision making process. It has set up Information Canada which is supposed to be established for the purpose of getting information through to the
people of this country. In fact, some ministers on the other side of the House have declared openly that they think the stance that has been taken in the past-and which is still taken-that no government document or material is to be produced unless there is a clear case for it should be changed. This means that a great deal of government material never sees the light of day. As I said, there are many ministers who say that the reverse should be the position, namely, that every government document should be made public unless there is a good case for not doing so.
In the field of social security, pensions, welfare and income maintenance we have a subject that is extremely important. I do not deny for a minute that I have some ideas in this field. Some people might even think I have some prejudices that I press time after time. But even though I admit that, I insist that in the decade of the seventies we have got to do some real sorting out of the whole question of income levels and the relationship of social security legislation to our economy as a whole. We have got to take a good, hard look at all of our income programs, whether they apply to income from earnings or income from social security programs.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the government has used public funds and has put such an eminent civil servant as Dr. Willard to work on this whole question, the material he has produced should not be withheld from the people of Canada. I know of Dr. Willard's work well enough to know that whether his conclusions agree with mine or not, which after all does not matter, in his report there will be abundant material that would be useful to the parliament and to the people of Canada in grappling with this whole broad question of income levels, income maintenance and social security.


An hon. Member:: The guaranteed annual income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, the guaranteed annual income is something that comes into it and, as I say, I am speaking in a very restrained manner this afternoon because I do not believe that this is the time to get into the particular social security changes that I want to see developed. There are plenty of opportunities to do that, but rather I am basing my case for this motion on the fundamental proposition that here in the Willard Report is a mass of material, a mass of information that I am sure would be useful to the people of Canada, and would be useful to us now, not when it is let out of the archives 25 or 30 years hence. It has been paid for by the people of Canada, and I think we ought to have it.
I have no sympathy for the argument that the government probably has, even though it will not put it forward, that it will embarrass the government if it produces this report and then comes down with legislation that does not go along with what is suggested in the report. Surely we are big enough not to take that approach.
If Dr. Willard's studies were to be valuable they had to be done on a broad basis without just suggesting this or that particular program. There had to be an examination of the whole question of income levels and social securi-

October 29, 1970

ty. I am satisfied, as I say because I know of the work of this distinguished civil servant, that the material he has produced is valuable material. I think it is a shame, I think it is irresponsible on the part of the government to say that this is in the private preserve of the members of the cabinet.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I presume, will be responding to me, will realize that in this appeal this afternoon I am refraining from what I might have done-making an appeal for raising the old age security pension, for establishing a guaranteed annual income and what have you. He knows my views perhaps as well as I do myself. But I am approaching the matter in what I think is a fair, almost academic manner.
Here is a mass of material, produced by an eminent civil servant, and paid for by the people of Canada. It is material that relates to a pressing problem facing Canada in the seventies. I do not think it is fair for it to be kept secret, and even though last year the government turned my motion down I hope it will accept it this year and table the Willard Report in parliament.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say a word on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He has always been interested in social legislation in Canada, and I know also that his interest is genuine.
However, one must not forget that if the government seeks to progress through normal means, it must have at its service people who can work in peace and quiet, undisturbed by public opinion, in order to better devise progressive programs, especially as far as social security is concerned. I know that all that information is accumulated at the present time so that such a document can be put at the disposal of all in due course.
Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 51 deals with the production of reports of studies on social welfare legislation and on proposals concerning income security, prepared by the federal Deputy Minister of National Health and Welfare, or under his direction, since 1968.
That motion covers all the area of social security, namely income security, as well as welfare care and services. In dealing with that motion, I thought I could give a brief outline of some important progress made in the area of social security, and examine some of the main problems we are facing today in that area.
As I just said, the expression "social security" is often used to mean income security programs, as well as those designed to ensure welfare care and services. Through the years, Canada has understood social security in various ways. Although what progress has been made stems from long years of steady evolution, it is only in the last 25 years that the most important legislation has been adopted. Indeed, it is only in that period that the overall system of social security we know today has evolved.
We note three very distinctive stages in the progress of social security in Canada.
The first stops with the World War I. Until that time, social security legislation was almost non existent and
Welfare and Income Security progress slow. With the growth and the expansion of the country, new economic and social needs appeared, and it became necessary to supplement private and local social measures with wider measures such as provincial legislation on child welfare, on the provincial ownership or control of institutions for the mentally ill, the retarded, the consumptives, the blind and the deaf-mute, and the act of 1908 on Canadian annuities which marked the start of federal legislation for old age security in Canada.
The second stage stretched from the beginning of World War I to the beginning of World War II in 1939. The progress of social security is closely linked to the rapidly increasing industrialization, the social and economic upheavals of the depression of the 30's, as well as the migration from rural areas to the cities, and the increase in prices. It is this gradual increase in prices which slowly has contributed to the transfer of social security planning from the local and provincial governments to the jurisdiction of the federal government. Several major programs were set up at this time: provincial workmen's compensation boards, allowances to needy mothers, and federal-provincial old age pensions.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The adoption, in 1914, by the Ontario government of legislation to help workers injured on the job was one of the first steps toward a modern social security system. It included, and this is important, the principle of collective responsibility and State insurance. Moreover, it inaugurated a new way of protecting the temporarily or permanently disabled or sick worker, and his family in case he should die at work. The legislation provided for medical assistance and cash allowances over the period of time the employee was disabled and also for the implementation of accident prevention programs. The example thus given in the legislative field was to be followed by other provinces. Then came a second important accomplishment in that field: the introduction of a complete rehabilitation service for disabled workers.
In 1916, the Manitoba legislature passed legislation in order to help needy mothers and their dependents and other provinces followed with similar legislation in following years.
The year 1927 was outstanding as the year of the first important federal move in the income security field, namely the old age pension legislation that was passed then. The scheme provided for federal participation to the cost of provincial pensions granted to people 70 or over, who were declared eligible following a means test taking into account the applicant's income and assets. The same policy was followed in later years with respect to legislation concerning the blind (1937), old age assistance at 65-proclaimed in 1951-and allowances to wholly disabled people, in 1954.
On account of the extensiveness of unemployment during the depression period of the 30's, unemployment assistance measures had to be introduced and one can say that the provinces asked the federal government to assist provincial as well as municipal governments in coping with the high cost of unemployment. It was at

October 29, 1970
Welfare and Income Security that time that the federal government decided to create a national unemployment programme.
The federal unemployment insurance legislation, passed in 1940, provided among other things the establishment of a national unemployment service.
The third stage covers the World War II and post-war periods, the most flourishing era of social security in Canada. It coincided with times of great industrial expansion and economic growth which enabled us to finance the new and more ambitious social measures that became necessary to cope with numerous urgent problems in the social and economic fields.
It was during that stage that we adopted a new concept of social security. It marked the advent of plans granting universal coverage to nearly everyone above or under the age limit and redistributing revenues to the benefit of households with children and adolescents; this was achieved under the family and youth allowance program whereas, on the other hand, the old age security pensions took care of senior citizens.
In 1951, the implementation of a Canadian old-age security plan was becoming one of the most ambitious- and I would say daring-undertakings that Canada had ever devised in the area of income security.
In order to supplement those universal programs, in 1965, the government established the Canada Pension Plan which is a complete program of social security, providing retirement pensions and disability allowances as well as benefits to survivors. Contributions to the plan started in 1966, benefits to survivors in 1968 and disability allowances in 1970. Under the plan, retirement pension related to income, which will come to maturity after a ten-year transitional period, will supplement the uniform standard old-age security plan. Benefits under the Canada Pension Plan will follow wage changes and will increase with consumer prices; old-age security is also controlled, in a way, by consumer prices.
The Canada Pension Plan provides for its application not only in a province where such a plan would have been established. The province of Quebec has in fact set up its own plan, as we know, the Quebec Pension Plan. The two plans have however been coordinated so as to offer throughout Canada a contributory pension plan. Under such a formula, we have tried to cover nearly the whole active population by adopting a compulsory system.
Another way-
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wifi the hon. member permit a question? In view of the fact that what the hon. member is giving us reads like the introduction to the Willard Report, I wonder if it would not be simpler just to table the report?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre that I have not received that report. In second place, if I can conclude my study on the review of the social security social
legislation which Canada passed several years ago we could perhaps reach a consensus and make hon. members admit that the publication of such a report now is unthinkable. Indeed, I have the impression, as I said at the beginning, that all the studies dealing with this matter should be reconsidered, in order to publish a new and complete report. I am as eager as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to read that report, which according to various rumours is extraordinary.
Another approach, Mr. Speaker, to income security for older persons was introduced in 1966 when the guaranteed income supplement for all old age pensioners was established through legislation. Until then, these people, because of their age, received little if anything under the Canada or the Quebec Pension Plan. The legislation providing for a guaranteed income was implemented in January 1967; it guaranteed a minimum income to old age pensioners. The concept of a guaranteed minimum income is a major new development in the field of income security in Canada. Indeed, instead of a means test in terms of the actual income, the use of a means test in order to determine the entitlement to the benefits of this new plan is a departure from the universal coverage connected with Canadian income security schemes.
Great progress has been achieved in the field of health protection for the citizens, through the establishment of a federal plan of health grants in 1948 a national hospital insurance in 1958, a federal health fund in 1966 and the medicare plan in 1968.
Under the Hospital Insurance Act, the Canadian government shares the working expenses connected with hospital care in general hospitals, that is, active treatment hospitals, chronic disease and convalescent hospitals which operate under hospital insurance plans administered by provincial authorities. All provinces participate in the plan which offers a complete range of hospital services available to all residents in each province. Furthermore the federal government shares the expenses of out-patients clinics if the province so desires.
Among the main objectives of Medicare there is the determination to provide to all Canadians the medical services available, regardless of their financial means, thus making early diagnostic and treatment easier.
The federal government agrees to pay 50 per cent of the costs incurred by the participating provinces provided that the medicare plan of each of those provinces meets certain minimum criteria in connection with the extent of the coverage, the universality of the coverage, the portability of benefits and the public administration of the plan. Each provincial plan must meet the following requirements:
a)	Be administered as a non-profit public organization under the control of some provincial authority;
b)	Provide all necessary medical services, through practising physicians, to every citizen of the province, as insured services available to all under the same conditions, or, in other words, general coverage of medical care;
c)	Insure in addition at least 90 per cent of the total number of insurable residents in the province during the first year, and undertake to raise this percentage of

October 29, 1970

insured people to 95 per cent during the three following years;
d)	Make the system "portable", that is to say, to give full coverage including all services, after three months' residence in the province, as well as coverage outside the province during the waiting period when a person decides to settle in another province.
Besides, the Medical Care Act allows the federal government to include other services provided by non medical specialists and this, also pursuant to the conditions laid down by the Governor in Council. Up to now, such extra services have been limited to some special techniques used by dental surgeons, within the framework of hospitalization.
Two provinces, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, joined the federal plan on July 1, 1968. Maniloba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland did so on April 1, 1969, Alberta on July 1, and Ontario on October 1. As of November 1, that is next Sunday, the province of Quebec will also be in it. It is foreseen that other provinces will eventually join the plan in 1970.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has undertaken, under the Canada Assistance Plan, enacted in June 1966, to pay half the cost of medical care provided by the provinces and the municipalities to recipients of assistance payments, these being based on a means test. Other people in need of medical care and not receiving payments can, after their needs have been similarly assessed, receive periodic medical care. The provinces decide on their own how such care is allotted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but I must remind him that his time has expired.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support this motion that an order of the House do issue for a copy of the Willard report. We are informed that one of the reasons no action has been taken on the veterans affairs report is that the government is waiting for the master plan to be unfolded. This is my main reason for supporting this motion. I do not want the government to have a screen to hide behind, if indeed they are using the Willard report to hide behind. Our veterans, particularly the Hong Kong veterans, should be attended to immediately.
When the Willard report is issued, it will be of great value. I cannot state now that I will support most of the findings in that report because I do not know what it will contain. However, I presume it will attack the problem of poverty in Canada and will no doubt suggest some form of guaranteed income for all Canadians. That is not a partisan priority; I think all members are interested in some form of guaranteed income.
The way in which this problem is attacked is very important. We want to know what an expert in the field, such as Dr. Willard, has to say about it. That is only one of the things to which we look forward. I do not expect we will get the Willard report immediately, even if this motion is unanimously adopted. I suggest we should be
Welfare and Income Security making plans right now to deal with the poverty situation in Canada. We should be working on the problem of unemployment today. Young Canadians in particular are upset spiritually and economically. Although Parliament may not be able to do a great deal for them in a spiritual sense, it can help them in an economic sense. I suggest there should be government assistance for these people. They should not be offered handouts. What they need is a challenge to use their youth and to show faith in Canada. They should be offered the opportunity of exploring our resources. They should be paid bonus wages for making a proper survey of the natural resources in our northland.
There should be an income tax incentive for our youth. It is ridiculous to charge young people income tax on the one hand and to give them bursaries or scholarships on the other. The finest way of encouraging them to get a good education is to pay them well for participating in the development of our burgeoning young nation. They should have the opportunity to pay their own way through university. I have no sympathy for those who do not look after themselves and are not able to attend university. By assisting our young people we will be preventing poverty before it can occur. I am not saying that we should abolish many aspects of social justice. I am in favour of most of it.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
But let us plan now and not wait until even the Willard report comes out as an excuse for inaction. Let us give them right now an opportunity to take up their responsibility, to use their imagination, their initiative, their energy, and make sure right now, even if it is at considerable expense, that we use and develop resources of our nation as a lodestone to involve these young people. Then they will not be such easy prey for the FLQ or any other crackpot organization to get hold of, when we need each and every one of them for the development of our country. I will close without more ado. This is only a short pep talk I am giving. Hon. members know what is needed as well as I do. 1 support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I hope it will come to a vote.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I, too, Mr. Speaker, wish to support this motion for the tabling of the Willard report. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Isabelle). I have come to know and admire his qualities during the time he has been chairman of the Health and Welfare Committee. I admire, also, the way in which he outlined the history of our social welfare legislation and spoke of some of the developments which might be expected in the future. However, I should like to have heard a little more about the policy underlying the government's refusal to accept this motion. I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will even now undertake to reconsider this decision before very long.
Several of us have a number of similar motions for the production of papers. I believe the government's refusal to table them is based on an old-fashioned way of look-

October 29, 1970
Welfare and Income Security ing at things. In the old days, the idea was that experts got hold of papers, documentation and information, and then hung on to them, feeling that this was a source of power or, in any case, that other people were quite unable to extract any value from them for a useful purpose. I do not believe this is any longer the case. Today people are accustomed to getting a great deal of information over radio and television and in other ways; they are becoming more and more involved in forming opinions on policy. I am glad to know that the government has been disposed to help members of the opposition parties in this House to get secretarial assistance, technical assistance and assistance in research so that they may be in a better position to deal with the questions of policy which arise.
To return to the Willard report, for a number of years a good many of us who sit in this House have been deeply concerned about social security issues. We want action to be taken on the basis of the fullest possible understanding. We have been waiting all summer very hopefully to get this report. We do not want to find, when the report is finally tabled, that there is insufficient time in which to study it or to consider all its ramifications. We would like very much to see this report now.
Dr. Willard is a man with wide experience, a man who has done a great deal of work in this field and we should like to have the benefit of hearing his recommendations as soon as possible. I believe the government itself would have everything to gain by making them available to us. There may be reasons why the government does not wish to present this document.


An hon. Member:: They are afraid.


Winona Grace MacInnis: They may be afraid that in some cases the people who were involved in the research would be embarrassed. I am sure Dr. Willard would not be in the least embarrassed to have his research work made public and discussed publicly. I am sure he would be the first man in this country to want the fullest discussion of his work, not only by members of this House but by the public generally as a means of preparing the ground for the legislation which he has been urging for a long time.
Dr. Willard was one of the first to suggest the need for greater income in the form of a guaranteed income or in some other form. I cannot believe, either, that the government would be embarrassed by this report if it were produced. What has the government to be embarrassed about, unless they do not intend to go along with Dr. Willard's findings and hope that if they withhold it they can bring in some kind of mini War Measures Act, at which time it would be impossible to discuss this issue in a calm atmosphere?
There is another possibility which may underlie the government's reluctance to table this report. It is the snobbery of a lot of scientists, a snobbery which remains in some quarters although most modern scientists are getting away from it; the idea that it is the mark of a real scientist to be able to keep his work and his findings away from the public. This is a very old-fasioned attitude. The Parliamentary Secretary put it in a few words when he said that these people liked to "travailler dans l'ombre et le silence" undisturbed by the "bruit du public", or something like that-I did not take down his exact words. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I have great sympathy for people who like to work undisturbed by crowds and noise, but in this case the work is finished. The work in l'ombre et le silence est fini, et maintenant c'est le moment d'exposer leur travail au peuple et aux membres de ce Parlement.
People are not stupid. People are able to use these findings. But even if they were stupid and could not use the findings intelligently, let us not lose sight of the fact that it is the people of this country, the taxpayers, who pay to have these studies done. If you have paid your money, whether it is for shoes, food, a house or a report, you have a right to see what you have paid for. I really think this is the most compelling argument in favour of production and against keeping all these things under wraps.
Hon. members will see that a large number of motions for the production of papers are on the Order Paper in my name; two or three dozen, I imagine, and I know it will seem at least twice that number to hon. members on the government side. But I have not placed them on the order paper just for the sake of being cantankerous. I think there is a real principle at stake; it is that members of this House have a right to know the facts and members of the public have a right to know the facts. I, for one, intend to keep on bugging and bothering and making a nuisance of myself along with others in this House until we get satisfaction.
These studies do not belong to the government. The public has paid for them and we, as representatives of the public, have just as much right as those sitting on the other side of the House to know what is contained in these reports. It is the government's right, of course, to decide what to do on the basis of the facts and figures contained in the reports, but as to the contents of the reports we feel we have a right to know. Therefore, I strongly urge the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the position he has taken. He is a man of science himself. As a matter of fact, I have heard him argue at various times in favour of getting witnesses before us who could speak on the subject from different angles. Certainly, he showed himself in favour of bringing out the fullest possible information concerning matters before us before we took up our positions.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We have been through that with the inquiry into smoking and with various other inquiries, including abortion and birth control, and I have found that he has been fair and most anxious to facilitate the largest possible number of witnesses with different points of view appearing before the committee. Appearing before the committee means appearing before the public and helping to mould public opinion before there is any question of legislation being introduced. The old-fashioned idea

October 29, 1970

that the law comes first, that the government says "This is it" and then tries to squash the people under it until it is accepted, will not work these days. The new approach is to have the facts discussed and examined first. Anything that cannot stand this kind of public scrutiny will not work today; it is wrong and unworkable because the public insists on having the facts.
Therefore, it is with a great deal of conviction and appreciation that I support this motion for the production of the Willard report. At the same time I ask the government please to reconsider its policy of trying to keep these reports and studies away from the members of the House and the public whom we represent.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) requests the tabling of the report by Dr. J. W. Willard on social security in Canada. I listened very intently to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and I am sure that when the government tables its white paper on social security some time during the session, the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs will have many hours of deliberation on much of the information contained in the Willard report. Doubtless Dr. Willard himself will also appear before the parliamentary committee.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that we must do some real sorting out of our income security and protection programs. I agree with that. It seems to me that this is exactly what the government has been doing in preparing its white paper which will be presented to Parliament this session. The Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and the whole House will have a chance to debate this white paper at considerable length.
Dr. Willard's report is an internal document, not the report of a royal commission. Certainly it will have had a most useful bearing upon the preparation of the government's social security white paper which will be presented this session. There are many family income security programs in Canada. One of them which I am sure will be considered in the white paper on social security is the family allowance program. One aspect of social security is the protection given under the system to families with children. Canada has had an income security program providing cost allowances to dependent children since the end of the Second World War. In many respects our program was unique in terms of its structure and it would be interesting to review the development and some of the consequences of this program.
The family allowances program was established in Canada in 1945. Prior to this date, family allowances were studied in Canada by a parliamentary committee of the House of Commons in 1929 and by a social insurance commission in the province of Quebec in 1933, but in neither case were any recommendations made. In 1943, Dr. L. C. Marsh, in his report on "Social Security for Canada" prepared for the advisory committee on reconstruction, recommended a family allowances program for
Welfare and Income Security Canada and suggested that this scheme should occupy a key position relative to a general social security system.
The implementation of family allowances in Canada was motivated by many social and economic factors. On the social side, the program was intended, firstly, to recognize the economic burden of families with children as compared with the needs of families without children. Secondly, it was designed to give a greater measure of equality of opportunity to children. Thirdly, it was contended that it would help ensure an adequate income for social insurance and social assistance recipients with children.
On the economic side, the prime consideration was the role which family allowances were expected to play in helping to maintain a high level of employment and income by stabilizing consumer spending on goods and services. Another important economic consideration was that family allowances were seen as a means for adjusting the wage system in Canada to provide for the social responsibilities of the worker with children. The cost of family allowances in the first year of operation was estimated at $245 million. It appears that the present and future costs of this program were carefully considered in relationship to the national income and the ability of the Canadian economy to support these costs. One of the substantial criticisms levelled at family allowances when the program was being considered was that it was too heavy a fiscal burden to be assumed by the federal government. It was argued by some that the federal government could easily support this program provided national income continued to increase.
Another argument in support of the ability to pay was that the economy had managed to support was expenditures at an annual rate of $4 billion, so that the $200 million for family allowances should be easily provided for. Events have since shown that the Canadian economy has experienced a rate of economic growth which not only has been sufficient to finance family allowances but has been adequate enough to finance a comprehensive social security system which has largely developed since the end of the Second World War.
The foregoing have been some of the important considerations which influenced the development and design of the family allowances program. Let us now look at the structure of payments and benefits available to children in Canada. Family allowances is a program which pays benefits to all eligible children in Canada meeting certain minimal conditions. The program of children's allowances consists of: family allowances, which pay benefits to children at the monthly rate of $6 for each child under 10 years of age and $8 for each child aged 10 or over but under 16 years-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair, to resume same at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

October 29, 1970
Federal Court AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-172, respecting the federal court of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the House commenced private members' hour at five o'clock we had deferred the vote on motions Nos. 1, 2 and 10. With the leave of the House I shall now call motion No. 13.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That Bill C-172 respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by adding to clause 38 page 22 thereof the following subclause:
"(3) The provisions of section 38 shall apply where persons other than the Crown are involved in any such proceedings".
He said: Your Honour, I have nothing to say on this motion because it merely provides that the provisions of section 38 shall apply where persons other than the Crown are involved. I put forward the argument in this regard this afternoon, so there is nothing more to say. This amendment just brings the matter into line with the earlier discussion.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we believe that for the reasons we advanced, the amendment is not necessary. We believe it is clear from the first subclause of clause 38 that the clause applies to all matters and proceedings in the court, and subclause 2 was added merely to make it clear that the general rule stated in subclause (1) was binding upon the Crown. In those circumstances, we feel we have covered the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 13 (Mr. Woolliams) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now consider motion No. 15.


Hon.   John. N. Turner@Minister of Justice: That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by (a) striking out line 5 on page 35 and substituting the following:
"the Crown in any proceedings in the court shall be paid to
the Receiver"; and
(b)	striking out lines 19 to 21 on page 35 and substituting
the following:
"Crown in any proceedings in the court"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I make this suggestion. The Minister of Justice was good enough to advise us that the reason for some of these amendments was procedural in order to clean up certain matters in the bill. It would expedite matters if he would give an explanation of the purpose of each of the amendments.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is quite right. I circulated to those interested in the bill the reasons behind motions Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19. They are technical and are only for the purpose of clarification; they do not involve any change in policy. The purpose behind motion No. 15 is this. Dealing first with the proposed change to subclause 3, it was decided that no special procedure need be established by the Governor in Council for the payment of money, so that these words can be viewed as unnecessary. The law should not require a procedure that is unnecessary. With reference to the change in subclause 1, this is proposed simply to make it clear that the provision deals with proceedings in the federal court only.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall now consider motion No. 16.


John Napier Turner: That Bill C-172, respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by striking out line 33 on page 37 and substituting the following:
"applies, to the exclusion of any other right of appeal in respect of a judgment, de-"
He said: Mr. Speaker, here again the purpose of the amendment is for clarification and does not involve any change in substance or principle. The introduction of these new words is in order to clarify the route of appeal that must be taken in respect of a judgment, decision or order given or made after the act comes into force. As the provision is now written, it might be open to the view that two conflicting routes of appeal exist, and such a view could give rise to uncertainty and confusion. The amendment proposed therefore makes it clear that an appeal will lie to the new court of appeal in the first

October 29, 1970

instance and a further appeal will be open to the Supreme Court in accordance with clause 31.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 16 (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider motion No. 17.


John Napier Turner: That Bill C-172, respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by (a) striking out line 16 on page 40 and substituting the following:
"Parliament of Canada other than this act, including any such act passed in the third session of the twenty-eighth Parliament": and
(b) striking out lines 26 to 29 on page 40 and substituting the following:
"Column I of Schedule B to this act are repealed or amended in the manner and to the extent indicated in column II of that schedule."
He said: This amendment would make it clear that all references to the Exchequer Court and the Exchequer Court Act in existing acts and in bills being introduced in this session are amended. This amendment would also delete any reference to Part II of Schedule B.
e (8:10 p.m.)
When the federal court bill was introduced in the last session, it was introduced sufficiently late in the session to enable other bills in the House that contained reference to the Exchequer Court and the Exchequer Court Act to be precisely identified and amended in Part II of Schedule B. Since the federal court bill is being introduced at an earlier stage in this session, it was thought preferable to delete Part II of Schedule B and merely amend all bills introduced in this session by reference. Some of the bills now referred to in Part II of Schedule B require precise amendments. However, those bills have now received royal assent and are more appropriately dealt with in Part I of Schedule B.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 17 (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


John Napier Turner: That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by striking out lines 30 to 37 on page 40 and lines 1 to 11 on page 41 and substituting the following:
"65. This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation."
He said: Mr. Speaker, clause 65 deals with the coming into force of the bill. Since it is proposed to delete Part II of Schedule B, the references to the coming into force of the acts mentioned in that part may be deleted. Sub-
Federal Court
clause 3 is also deleted, as it deals with the Supreme Court Act amendments which have now received royal assent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


John Napier Turner: -That Schedule B of Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended
(a)	by striking out the subheading "Part I" on page 43;
(b)	by striking out the amendment to the Canada Elections Act, 1960, c. 39 and substituting the following amendment to the Canada Elections Act, 1969-70, c. 49, on page 43:
"Canada	Subsection 3 (4) is repealed and the following sub-
Elections stituted therefor:
Act 1969-70,	"(4) The Chief Electoral Officer shall be paid a
c. 49	salary equal to the salary of a judge of the federal
court of Canada, other than the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice of that court, including any additional salary authorized by section 20 of the Judges Act, and is entiled to be paid reasonable travelling and living expenses while absent from his ordinary place of residence in the course of his duties."
(c)	with reference to the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, as follows:
1.	by striking out the first line of item 7 set out in Column II on page 46 and substituting the following:
"7. Subsection 658(1) is re-"
2.	by adding immediately after item 7 on page 47 the following item:
"8. Subsection 658(2) is repealed."
3.	by renumbering items 8 to 10 as items 9 to 11, respectively,
4.	by striking out the first line of the renumbered item 10 on page 47 and substituting the following:
"10. Subsections 710(1) and (2) are repealed"	;
5.	by striking out the first twelve lines on page 48 and substituting the following:
"discharging of cargoes on board or from that ship, or the trimming of coal on board that ship, and that ship is at any time found in Canadian waters, the Admiralty Court may, upon its being shown by any person applying in accordance with rules of court that prima facie the claim against the owners is a good claim, issue an order for the arrest of the ship."
6.	by striking out subsection 710(3) on page 48;
(d)	by adding the following item to the amendments to the Customs Act set out on page 52, as item 1 thereof, and by renumbering items 1 to 6 as items 2 to 7, respectively:
"1. Paragraph 45(1) (c) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) any person who entered an appearance in accordance with subsection (2) of section 44, if he has a substantial interest in the appeal and has obtained leave from the court," "
(e)	by striking out the renumbered item 7 of the amendments to the Customs Act on page 54 and substituting the following :
"7. Paragraph 45(21) (e) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) "rules" means rules made under the Federal Court
Act." "

October 29, 1970
Federal Court
(f)	by striking out item 4 of the amendments to the Divorce Act on page 55 and substituting the following:
"4. Subsection 20(2) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) For the purposes of this section, where any petitions for divorce pending between a husband and wife are removed under subsection (2) of section 5 by direction of the federal court-trial division into that court for adjudication, the proceedings shall be deemed to be taken in the province specified in such direction to be the province with which the husband and wife are or have been most closely associated according to the facts appearing from the petitions." "
(g)	by striking out the amendment set out in column II opposite the Excise Tax Act on page 55 and substituting the following:
''Subsection 58(3) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" (3) Where leave to appeal under this section is granted, the appellant shall, within sixty days from the granting of the leave, deposit in the registry of the federal court the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars as security for costs, and thereupon shall set the appeal down for hearing at such time and place as the court may direct, and an officer of the registry shall notify the Tariff Board, the appellant and the other parties to the proceedings under section 57 accordingly." "
(h)	by striking out the amendment to the Expropriation Act, R.S., c. 106 and substituting the following amendments to the Expropriation Act, 1969-70, c. 41, on page 55:
''Expropria- 1. Paragraph 2(1)	(a) is repealed and the foltion Act lowing substituted therefor:
1969-70, c. 41	"(a) "Court" means the federal court of Canada;"
2. Paragraph 43(b) is amended by adding thereto the words "except that upon the coming in to force of the Federal Court Act, the reference shall be construed as a reference to Section 57 of that act;"."
coming into force of the Federal Court Act, the reference shall be construed as a reference to section 57 of that act;"."
(i) by striking out the last twelve lines on page 58 set out in column II, with reference to the Industrial Design and Union Label Act, and substituting the following:
" "24. A certified copy of any order of the court for the making, expunging or varying of any entry in the register of industrial designs, or for adding to or altering any registered industrial design, shall be transmitted to the minister by an officer of the registry of the court, and such register shall thereupon be rectified or altered in conformity with such order, or the purport of the order otherwise duly entered therein, as the case may be." "
(j)	by adding thereto, immediately after the amendments to the National Energy Board Act set out on page 61, the following:
"Northern Section 21 is repealed and the following subinland	stituted therefor:
Waters Act "21. (1) An appeal lies from a decision or order 1969-70, c. 66 Qf a board to the federal court of appeal upon a question of law, or a question of jurisdiction, upon leave therefor being obtained from that Court on application made within one month after the making of the decision or order sought to be appealed from or within such further time as that court or a judge thereof under special circumstances allows.
(2)	No appeal lies after leave therefor has been obtained under subsection (1) unless it is entered in the federal court of appeal within sixty days from the making of the order granting leave to appeal.
(3)	Any minute or other record of a board or any document issued by a board in the form of a decision or order shall, if it relates to the issue, renewal, amendment or cancellation of a licence, be deemed for the purposes of section 20 and this section to be a decision or order of the board."
Nuclear
Liability Act The heading immediately preceding section 26 1969-70, c. 67 and section 26 are repealed."
(k)	by striking out the reference to "subsection 64(3)" in the list of sections contained in item 1 of the amendments to the Railway Act on page 62; and
(l)	by striking out Part II thereof on pages 65 and 66.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the whole of amendment No. 19 relates to amendments to Schedule B. These amendments to Schedule B are proposed as one motion because they are all technical in nature. Most changes are the result of the bill being introduced at a later time, so that amendments to bills that were in the House in the last session and that were set out in Part II of the schedule are now amendments to acts and should be set out in the portion of Schedule B that is now Part I. Part II would be deleted and replaced by the general enacting words referred to in connection with clause 64. A few other amendments to Schedule B are proposed in order to make other technical changes that have been recommended for purposes of consistency or clarification.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the
minister one question which is not pertinent to this amendment but relates to a problem I have. There is a group of acts which set up boards which have appeal procedures, and there is a group of acts which set up boards which do not have appeal procedures. Do all the acts which involve appeal procedures now come under the federal court of appeal?


John Napier Turner: All those acts which came under the Exchequer Court now come under the federal court of appeal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 19 (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the votes which have been deferred in accordance with section 11 of Standing Order 75.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I think we should clarify the situation so that we all know where we stand. As I understand it, my motions Nos. 1, 2 and 10 will be voted on together. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), or perhaps someone on his behalf, may speak concerning his amendments. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 set up the concurrent jurisdiction of the trial division and the court of appeal, and motion No. 10 sets up the procedure for that. Motion No. 3 will be voted on separately because it provides that judges move around. Therefore, there will be two votes so far as our amendments are concerned.

October 29, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping there would be some way in which a nonlawyer could get into this discussion. On behalf of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) I am happy to indicate that one vote on amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 9 will be satisfactory.


John Napier Turner: What about the vote on motions Nos. 5 and 6?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They also go together.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps Your Honour would summarize the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I understand it, the situation is this. It is agreed that motions Nos. 1, 2 and 10 are to be grouped and taken in one division. Motion No. 3 would be taken separately. Motions Nos. 4, 7 and 9 would be grouped and taken in one division. Motions Nos. 5 and 6 would be taken in one division, and motion No. 14 would be voted on separately. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered. The question is on motions Nos. 1, 2 and 10 (Mr. Woolliams) as follows:

That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by striking out subclause (d) of clause 2, page 1 thereof, and substituting therefor the following:
''(d) "Court" or "federal court" means
(i) the federal court of Canada, and
(ii) for the province of Ontario. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Alberta, the trial division or branch of the Supreme Court of the province,
(iii)	for the province of Quebec, the Superior Court of the province,
(iv)	for the province of Newfoundland, the Supreme Court of the province,
(v)	for the province of British Columbia or Prince Edward Island, the Supreme Court of the province,
(vi)	for the province of Manitoba or Saskatchewan, the Court of Queen's Bench for the province, and
(vii)	for the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, the Territorial Court thereof;"

That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by striking out subclause (e) of clause 2, page 1 thereof, and substituting therefor:
"(e) "Court of appeal" or "federal court of appeal" means
(i)	that division of the federal court of Canada referred to as the court of appeal or federal court of appeal by this act and
(ii)	with respect to an appeal from a court other than the federal court of Canada, the court exercising general appellate jurisdiction with respect to appeals from that court:"

That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by adding to clause 28 page 19 thereof the following subclause:
"(7) The notice of appeal and the filing shall follow the rules set out in section 27."
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motions lost. The question now is on motion No. 3 (Mr. Woolliams) as follows:
No 3
That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by striking out clause 7 on page 5 thereof and substituting the following:
"7. (1) The rules may provide for a rota of judges to provide for a continuity of judicial availability in any centre where the volume of work or other circumstances make such an arrangement expedient."
(2) No judge shall be required under rules made under subsection (1) to remain in any centre other than the National Capital Region for a period longer than one month, unless it becomes necessary to do so to complete the hearing of a cause or matter, or unless he consents thereto."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motions Nos. 4, 7 and 9 have been approved by order of the House to be taken in one division. The question now is on motions Nos. 4, 7 and 9 (Mr. Brewin) as follows:
No. 4.
That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by striking out clause 18.
No. 7.
That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by striking out subclause (1) of clause 28 and substituting the following therefor:
''The court of appeal has jurisdiction under this section to hear and determine an application to review and set

October 29, 1970

aside a decision or order made by or in the course of proceedings before a federal board, commission or other tribunal upon the ground that the board, commission or tribunal
(a)	failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b)	erred in law in making its decision or order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or
No. 9.
That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by striking out subclause (3) of clause 28 and substituting the following therefor:
'The court of appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction (a) to use an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and (b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a) including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal;"


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motions lost. The House will now divide on motions Nos. 5 and 6 (Mr. Woolliams) as follows:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada be amended by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 18 thereof and substituting the following:
"28. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act, the court"
No. 6.
That Bill C-172, an act respecting the Federal Court of Canada, be amended by striking out paragraph (c) of subclause (1) of clause 28 on page 18 thereof and substituting the following:
"(c) based on its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner."
Division
Messrs:
McNulty Mahoney Major Marceau Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
Mumro
Murphy
Noel
O'Connell
Olson
Otto
Penner
Pepin
Perrault
Pilon
Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Roy (Laval)
Serre
Smith
(N orthumberland-Miramichi)
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stafford St. Pierre Sullivan Thomas
(Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London East)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Walker Watson Weatherhead Whelan Whiting-94.

October 29, 1970
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motions lost. The House will now divide on motion No. 14 (Mr. Brewin) as follows: That Bill C-172, an act respecting the federal court of Canada, be amended by striking out the words "or to federal-provincial relations" in subclause (2) of clause 41 at page 23.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-172, respecting the federal court of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (9:10p.m.)
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to get it out of the road and to see whether the government really has any effective legislation available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not clear to the Chair what the hon. member is agreeing to.


Gerald William Baldwin: Third reading.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.	'



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-4, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in 1948 the original Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was passed. It was designed to be a very temporary measure to aid mining communities throughout Canada while they passed from a period of wartime, with its shortage of men and materials, into the new era that was developing in our country, an era when the mining industry, particularly the gold mining industry, found itself in difficulty. I think everyone who participated in the passage of the original act thought that the measure would bring forth other measures of a more permanent nature to solve the problems of the gold mining industry.
The reason the country was so concerned about the gold mining industry was that during the war the industry had lost many of its employees and had had difficulty buying equipment and simple requirements such as hoses, drills, steel, machines and so on. The hope was that the mining industries of Canada would return to their former condition, prior to the war. I am sure many members here are unfamiliar with the role played by the gold mining industry in the years prior to the war. I remember when most of the employment in northern Ontario was in the gold mines. People came from all over Canada to work in the industry. Wages were considerably higher than those of other industries in the country. A salesman in a gold mining community could expect to make money on his sales, something that was almost impossible in other parts of the country.

October 29, 1970
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act We believe that we built Toronto. There are those who disagree, but nevertheless we believe that we supplied most of the money that built Toronto, and in turn that there is an obligation by Toronto that has not been met. The fact is that the gold mining industry was a key industry in the late depression years. Without the industry>
the depression would have been much more severe in Ontario. Therefore, in 1948 when mines were being closed as a result of economic conditions during the post-war years it was only reasonable that this measure was passed to assist the industry.
I am sure that no one who participated in passing the act in 1948 expected it to stay in existence for longer than three years, which was the original period, but several things happened to make it impossible for the gold mining communities to return to the economic level they had attained prior to the depression. For one thing, the product of the gold mining industry is a national commodity. All newly-mined gold in Canada is sold to the Canadian Mint, and the Canadian government in turn sells that gold, or most of it, to the United States which deposits it in Fort Knox where it becomes part of the international money system of the world.
While the cost of every other commodity has gone up, with the resultant effect this has had on the gold mining industry as on every other industry and individual in Canada, the price of gold itself has not changed. I do not intend to make a speech about the gold standard because a number of Socialist colleagues sitting behind me are not known for their great love of monetary metals. However, I think it is important to ask what role gold plays in our monetary system.
Since 1948 the government of Canada has paid out a subsidy of $281 million to the industry, and this is a period of 22 years. I think everybody who is interested in the payment of subsidies should ask why the Canadian government has been willing to sell gold at $35 an ounce to the U.S. treasury when it costs them a subsidy of $281 million to ensure the continuance of gold mining. We have now reached the stage where today 28 mines employ a total of roughly 7,300 gold miners. We shall be paying $14 million this year by way of subsidy to the industry. If that sum were divided among those employees, it would go a considerable distance toward providing them with an income to stay at home.
No one has decided what relationship gold has to the International Monetary Fund or what value there is in continuing to mine gold. I am sure there are some who do not realize the contribution made by the industry in post-war years which enabled the Canadian treasury to sell gold to the United States in return for U.S. dollars, at a time when this currency was badly needed to develop areas of Canada.
The industry presented a brief to four ministers and members of Parliament last June. They pointed out in their brief that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act had been responsible for keeping in existence most of the gold mining communities. Not only did it help maintain jobs, but part of the general subsidy sustained 
long-established communities that were facing serious
threats to their continued existence.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I am sure some people ask why we bother to keep these communities in existence. It is very interesting to note that in most of the major mining communities in Canada where gold mining has been subsidized over the last few years, changes have taken place. This would indicate that there will be an end to the type of assistance the federal government has supplied under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I am thinking particularly of the town of Timmins. Originally Timmins was one of the largest gold mining camps in North America. It produced a great deal of gold for the monetary system of North America and it was developed almost entirely around the gold mining industry.
I can remember when one of the mines in Timmins had close to 5,000 employees. Each employee was making 52 cents an hour on the surface, and when I first started, 58 cents an hour working underground. That does not sound like very much money today, but in those days they were among the highest paid employees in the country. Over the years, as other industries have developed in the mining field, gold mining wages have remained notoriously low. Very little of the subsidies has gone directly or proportionately into the wage structure. In Timmins we now have one of the largest copper producers in the country. We also have several large asbestos producers. We also have producers of zinc, lead and base metals. Even the McIntyre Mine, which is known all across the nation and across the world, has been able to develop a copper property inside the old gold-producing area, so that the same facilities are now being used to produce copper and gold.
Changes have taken place and some advantages are enjoyed in the communities because of new methods. This has only been possible as a result of maintaining the gold mine over a period of time in order to keep up the communities vital to any mining taking place in the area. The situation at Kirkland Lake is very similar. In 1957, when I was elected, there were probably nine gold mines in Kirkland Lake but today there are only two. We have added to that mining area a copper producer, an iron producer and in the immediate periphery we have developed several other base metal mines. Although the area is not self-sufficient, it is heading in that direction as the gold mining industry fails.
I have been told by the industry, as certainly the committee that met with them was told, that it is their opinion that in the very near future-in mining, that means in the next five years-world gold production will probably be used solely for industrial purposes with very little gold being made available for monetary purposes. I am not making a financial speech on financial matters, because I certainly am not capable of doing so. Since I have been a member of this House I have found that very few people are capable of making such a speech, and most of them are not here now.
October 29, 1970

It seems to me there is a relationship between gold and world trading. We have always been very happy to sell wheat to Russia because Russia did not pay us, as some other countries did, with money which we loaned them on a long-term basis to be paid back to us in bits and pieces. Russia paid us in gold bullion. We were very fortunate in this regard because we could accept that gold at $35 an ounce, hold it for a short period of time and then sell it to the United States at a profit of $7 per ounce. Perhaps we should deduct that profit from the subsidies we have paid. This might reduce them to some extent. This side of the gold mining industry is one we have not explored. I am not sure that the Bank of Canada has ever known what to do with gold. I do not know who the bright guy was in the treasury board who a few years ago said we should start hoarding gold and establish our own stockpile. But this paid off; it was a good move. There must be some smart financial people who are not in that field now because the price of gold on the international market is very little higher than $35 an ounce.
As far as the gold mining communities are concerned, they are still selling gold at a fixed price. The price has been fixed for many years. This industry, unlike any other, is not able to take advantage of the marketplace to meet higher costs, higher wages and higher maintenance expenditures. In northern Ontario, particularly in my part of the country, we have tried a number of schemes over the years. I was very pleased to hear the minister say when he introduced this legislation that there were strings attached. He said this is the time for municipalities, labour unions, employers and the gold mining industry itself, as well as the provincial government, to cooperate with the federal government in finding some way of solving the problem that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was established to solve. I congratulate him for coming to this conclusion. I came to this conclusion before I came to this House when I was working in the gold mines.
When I first started working in the gold mines, the industry made a good profit on each employee. This good profit has not been made on each employee for a long time. The industry has just got by, but has been doing a service to communities and to itself. If you think in terms of a woman who likes to be kept in the manner to which she has been accustomed, the gold mining industry has been accustomed to a fairly high standard but it is not now being kept in that way. The gold mining communities are willing to participate with the federal government in its attempts to find a solution.
We not only have the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; we have the incentives program and assistance to northern minerals exploration. The industry is asking that this program be extended to the whole of Canada and that more money be put into the fund so that finances can be provided for exploration in all parts of Canada rather than in the Yukon and Northwest Territories only. Assistance in the form of incentives has been of help, but it has not been directed in the proper way. If
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act it is to be directed to the mid-Canada corridor, where most of the development is taking place, we will obviously require much stronger incentives than we now have. It is all right to hold out a carrot to entice industry, but what industry do we expect to entice? We do not find anyone coming to nibble at the carrot.
We can offer to supply new development companies with services such as water, sewage, fire departments, schools and all the modern facilities of a big city at about one one-hundredth of the cost of these services in our major cities. But it seems to me that if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is going to hold out to these communities a carrot in a form other than subsidies, he will require the co-operation of four or five branches of government which would have to decide that certain industries would be better off in these areas than in our major cities.
* (9:30 p.m.)
This was done in England in two ways. First, the industry was told that the undistributed profits of the company could not be used unless the company had a lease, and that it could obtain a lease only if it were prepared to move into the area to which the authorities wanted it to move and, secondly, it would not be granted a building permit in any area other than the one designated. I know this plan did not work 100 per cent. But industries were enticed to go beyond the periphery of London, Coventry and other major points and settle in areas such as the Midlands which had gone out of textile production. Heavy industries were brought into these areas, with some success.
I should like the minister to table the interdepartmental report he received. This was prepared not only by his department but, I understand, by a number of departments. The gold mining industry is not like any other industry; its problems are different. I am not particularly concerned about the 20, 25 or even the 40-year old people in the gold mining industry. We are concerned about the 50 per cent in the industry who are over 50 years of age. They have only a limited educational background and over the years they have been trained only in lode mining.
Although there are other mines in the area, the miners cannot work in them because of the dissimilarity in mining methods. Originally, gold and silver mining was carried out by one or two miners in an isolated area almost entirely on their own initiative, although supervised by others. This situation is not duplicated in other areas of mining. So the gold mining industry is in serious difficulty and, more importantly, the communities that have been built up around the industry are in serious difficulty.
In my opinion, the mid-Canada corridor concept mentioned by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) the other day in this debate is a matter to which the government should give serious consideration. Here we have a plan developed by private initiative, which indicates the immense potential of the mid-Canada

October 29, 1970
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act corridor. It indicates to the general public that those who invest money in the mid-Canada corridor will reap immense financial benefit. I have absolutely no interest in Mr. Rhomer running a large portion of Canada. I am not the least interested in giving him that large section of Canada, but I think the government should not neglect the study he has made and the information he has given concerning the immense potential of this area. I suggest, as the minister mentioned, that the gold mining communities are centrally and strategically situated in this area. They would be the basis for any organized development in that part of Canada.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) indicated that growth centres would be established. If he has pursued that policy very far, the results have missed me because in northeastern Ontario the growth centres obviously will be the established mining communities which have immense quantities of social capital. They have houses and all the amenities of the major cities. In most of these communities there are educational facilities the equal of any in Canada. In my opinion, for the employment factor we have in these communities today the facilities are far in excess of their needs.
I do not think a man who has worked for 30 or 40 years in the gold mining industry can be retrained mentally or even physically. He cannot be retrained to work in an office or even to do factory-type work. Over the years he has worked in that area and has educated his children, who cannot find employment in the area. He has worked in order to build a home for himself and his family. He has roots in the community and has made a contribution to the social capital of the community. Now he is faced with the almost immediate closing of all the gold mines if the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act are not continued.
I believe those who say that the subsidy is rather silly will have to come up with an immediate solution to take care of the people who will be displaced almost immediately if emergency gold mining assistance is cut off or curtailed. So I am looking forward to the meetings of the committee to which this bill is to be referred and to hearing the views of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in respect of the bill and his discussions with people in the mining communities concerning a solution to this problem.
The people in the mining communities today are not particularly happy with their record in respect of welfare. Kirkland Lake is the highest welfare area in the province of Ontario, with Timmins a very close second. They are not proud of these statistics or of the fact that the mining communities are dependent upon the federal government for emergency gold mining assistance to enable them to continue in existence-not to make their industry viable, but just to keep them there at all. What we want is an opportunity to expand Kirkland Lake. Every year in the past 30 years Kirkland Lake has lost a small portion of its population. We have reached the goal of the many young people today who say that we should 
have a population increase of zero. We have done a little better. Because of the facilities we have, the fact that we own our own railway in northern Ontario, the fact that we have good highways and have commodities other than the products of mines, we should with the assistance of the government be able to develop a viable community.
If the government could come up with a well thought-out, well planned and well founded policy that would have hope of success, the people of northern Ontario would owe the government a vote of thanks. The people of the gold mining communities are not happy that they have to come before the public every two or three years and request the continuation of the subsidy for a commodity which most Canadians believe should be left in the ground.
On behalf of the people of these areas, I say that I do not believe they have anything to be ashamed of, because the contribution of the gold mining communit.es to the economy of Canada and the development of the provinces in which the gold mines are situated is a very great one. Because of this I believe these people deserve support in respect of the passage of emergency gold mining assistance legislation.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
If I am at all unhappy about this bill, it is because we have retained the word "emergency" in its title. It seems to me, and it has seemed to me for some time, that anything that goes on for 22 years is no longer an emergency but is a fact of life. I am an optimist, although not sufficiently optimistic to buy gold mining stock; but I am always hoping that the international price of gold will go up.
I am sure that if the world continues in the unsatisfied and unsettled condition which exists in almost every part of the world, there will continue to be people putting gold under their beds and it is possible that the price of gold will go up. I suggest that if it goes up sufficiently high to enable mining communities to exist on their profits, they will be able to pay back to the rest of Canada many times over the contribution people have made to them over the years, because as the situation in the world deteriorates it is my opinion that gold will again become a very valuable international trading commodity.
I hope members of the House will find it easier to support the contribution that will be made under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act than wait for the day when an increase in the price of gold will make it possible to expand this industry.


Mr. B. Keiih Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks concerning this bill will be brief, because although at one time my constituency was a major producer of gold, that is no longer the case. There are many abandoned gold mines throughout the area, but the last of these closed down in the spring of this year and salvage operations are now under way. So I am pleased
October 29, 1970

October 29, 1970
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act should be allowed to retire in the communities in which they have spent so much of their lives, and some of the profits of the companies should be made available to allow them to retire in an acceptable manner.
Provision should be made for some sort of severance pay and also for some sort of payment to communities which have lost this industry. The aim should be not only to assist the corporations that mine the gold but to assist those workers who invested their lives in the industry, and also the communities surrounding the industry. When a gold mine closes down the community is left, and so are many of the miners, with no assistance provided for them.


Mr. Oza  Telrauli@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the minister is in the chamber and I know he will listen to my remarks. In March of this year I made a speech on the subject of gold mines, especially those in northern Quebec, seeking extension of the subsidy on gold mining which was to be discontinued on December 31, 1970. Now a new approach has been taken and the subsidy will be paid until June, 1973. In my speech in March I emphasized that the municipalities in my constituency were very nervous about the prospects for the mining industry. We did not know whether the government was going to continue the subsidy. This is a situation which has existed since 1948, and every three years people have been sent from my constituency to plead with the government to continue the subsidy.

Mr. Speaker, representatives of many municipalities have submitted fairly long briefs to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) clearly showing the importance of gold mining in northwestern Quebec.
I appreciate the fact that the cost to the government of subsidizing gold mines is fairly high, since that has amounted to $280 million since 1948. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the citizens of the different mining communities pay taxes, unemployment insurance contributions, etc. If the government does the necessary computing, it will find, I am sure, that it is not the loser, since it has surely received millions in direct and indirect taxes.
Some 2,000 gold miners with their families live in northwestern Quebec. Consequently, the closing down of those mines would compel thousands of workers to migrate, and this would increase unemployment as these men are not trained for other work.
Mr. Speaker, experience has shown that retraining is not always possible for workers over 40 and, right now, almost 50 per cent of miners are 45 years old or over and about 75 per cent of them have less than 10 years of schooling.
As the representative of a region where the economy is based mainly on the mining industry, I know full well

that Canada could not do without that precious metal currently used in the making of various products. In fact, which of us does not own a gold watch, ring or chain?
The few millions the federal government gives this industry represent a real investment, because the importance of gold in private industry is forever increasing. Indeed, South African engineers say that industry will soon absorb almost all the gold produced.
Moreover, with grants to gold mines, the government is promoting exploration, which is essential. Everything possible should be done to ensure successful results.
Mr. Speaker, let us simply recall the good years when prospecting played an important part in the economy of northwestern Quebec. The Horne mine was discovered there and it is now the Noranda mine, one of the richest copper deposit in Canada.
One thing for sure, the problem we are discussing today will crop up again in 1973. I think that the federal government should endeavour to come up with a final solution to the problem of gold mining assistance. As I said earlier, stopping subsidies would create insurmountable difficulties in various areas of the province, particularly in northwestern Quebec.
One method has been suggested to counteract the closure of gold mines and that is to retrain the miners and grant them allowances enabling them to relocate where-they might work at their new trade. Unfortunately such a program would strangle the economy of mining towns where there would be nobody left but children and older people.
Above all, I do not understand why the government is paying the farmers to prevent them from producing; wheat and that, on the other hand-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has
expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I feel deeply honoured that we have two eminent environmental experts in our presence this evening in the person of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and in the person of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). Their presence almost
October 29, 1970

flabbergasts me because I am going to touch on a topic that demands a tremendous amount of expertise and I have only two or three minutes with which to scratch the surface.
It is encouraging to notice that in the area of oceanography, about which I raised this question with the Minister a couple of days ago, Canada by its efforts with Hudson 70 has been making some dramatic moves. It is also encouraging to read a report in the Globe and Mail on trilateral efforts by Canada, the Soviet Union and the United States in the area of research respecting herring resources on Canada's east coast.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I want to open up the question of the whole business of marine resources-not only the renewable resources but others such as oil, minerals and the like. I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry if he could now for a few minutes, and later in a prepared statement, elaborate on Canada's present and future efforts in oceanography and matters to do with marine resources.
I have been reading a great deal of literature on this subject and I notice that most people writing on it today acknowledge that our marine resources are of much more value than our land resources. It startled me to learn that the offshore oil resources and the continental shelf resources as outlined at the 1958 Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva indicate that there may be as much as 300 billion barrels of oil as one type of resource. That is over and above fishing and what can be called renewable resources.
I have been reading a number of articles by eminent people in the field who feel that Canada, among the major marine nations of the world, has to regain lost ground in terms of oceanographic study. Rear Admiral Harry Porter, writing in the March, 1970, edition of Canadian Shipping in an article called "Seapower and Canada," said:
Today, much effort is being spent on oceanographic research -research into the biological content and chemical and physical properties of the sea. This work has major economic and military significance, and is of particular importance to the fishing industry. Canada carries out a modest program in this field, while the U.S. has a large program. The Russians have a research fleet that, in numbers, is larger than the rest of the world's put together.
I do not know if Rear Admiral Porter knows exactly what he is talking about, but I have checked him out and apparently he is a rather conservative individual, in the non-political sense. There is also an article by Mr. M. J. Colpitts, chief of the marine division of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which appeared in the June/July, 1970, issue of Sea Harvest. In this he indicates practically the same conclusion and goes on to point out the efforts being made by a number of countries such as the United States with its 1966 Marine Resource and Development Act in order to give all its marine studies, oceanographic studies, and so on, a particular direction, a
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion specific and encompassing contribution. They feel it is very important to be in the vanguard in this area.
Great Britain in 1968 formed the Committee on Marine Technology, and also in 1968 France announced a program to tie together all the efforts they are making in this particular area. The Republic of Germany, which is one of the greatest predators of the fisheries on the east coast of Canada, in 1968 set up the German Commission for Oceanography. Six other nations, including France, constitute what was termed Eurocean. These six nations are trying to work together on oceanographic studies.
I raise the question because yesterday I had an opportunity to talk with a number of people at the United Nations who are expert in the field, regarding the Law of the Sea. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has been saying we must have a vehicle for bringing about discussions and negotiations on our marine resources as they pertain to fishing, but these people tell me that they Eire only now in the stages of setting up a preparatory committee to find out if they will have such a conference, what the agenda will be and who will participate.
They tell me that the United States has assembled such a mass of information and such documentation on the business, and has accumulated ecological studies, mineral rights, territorial rights and so on, that it will take them about two years to find out exactly what the United States has presented. Indeed, they feel it is likely to take about five years before the preparatory work can be carried out for such a study. However, they feel it is physically possible within two years but could take as long as five. I look forward to hearing from the minister about the work he has done in the last few weeks with respect to the Soviet Union and Canada, and I hope he will tell us more about his plan for the east coast of Canada.
It seems that discussions along the lines that have taken place will form the burden of our activity in connection with marine technology. We are concerned about what happened on the west coast, where Canada held discussions in this area. We are so backward in this area that we cannot sit at the same table. It is like me trying to twist arms with Yukon Eric. I wonder if the minister, notwithstanding-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) covered a lot of ground in his seven minutes. I will try and cover part of that ground. First, with regard to oceanography, I do not think Canada needs to hand her head. The hon. member mentioned recent explorations over Georges Bank where Canada, the United States Emd the U.S.S.R. were diving to see what actually happens on the bottom.
The Russians, with all their men and vessels reached certain conclusions. Canada, renting a little submarine that was built in my riding, went down to the bottom to

October 29, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion see what was happening for the first time. They provided data which is really unique, with regard to herring spawn, for example. No one had this information before. It was found out by Canadians in a submarine that cost three-quarters of a million dollars. The Americans have never come close to this in terms of competence in a submarine that was built at a cost of $11 million by Lockheed. Canada got there first. We got there at a fraction of the cost to the Americans. We are doing all right.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member say that we are not spending money on oceanography. Canada has one of the world's best, if not the best, centres of oceanography at Bedford in the Halifax area. We are spending millions of dollars in oceanographic studies in the north Atlantic. We know a lot about fish in that area. We have some of the best people and best equipment. Coordination of our efforts will be better under the new department of environment which will bring together all matters in connection with our waters. I think we will be more effective in the future.
The agreement with the Russians on the west coast was possible as a result of our closing the port of Vancouver. If we had not done that, the Russians would not have come to us. When we closed the port, the Russians pleaded with us to let them have fresh water so that they would not have to travel 4,000 miles to Siberia. We said we would open the port if they got off the continental shelf. They agreed to do so. Perhaps the hon. member is pleading a similar case for the east coast. If so, is he asking us to close St. John's in order to get the Russians to come to us?


John Howard Lundrigan: That's not fair. You know the
difference.


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member has said that we should do the same on the east coast as we did on the west coast. I believe we have to take a different approach.


John Howard Lundrigan: I did not say any such thing. I will get even tomorrow. That's dirty pool.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Order, please. It is my duty to interrupt the minister and inform him that his time has expired.



WAR MEASURES ACT-VANCOUVER POLICE REFUSAL OF PERMISSION TO VIET NAM COMMITTEE TO HOLD MARCH

Winona Grace MacInnis: 
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the sympathy I feel for the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I am afraid that my statement tonight will not give her nor her friends of the Viet Nam Committee the satisfaction they were looking for.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that the planned march will take place. However, I would like to inform the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have repeated time and again in this House and elsewhere that the War Measures Act proclaimed on October 16 was to apply only to the specific FLQ problem in Quebec. To the knowledge of the Justice Department, it would seem that Vancouver's Viet Nam Committee does not pursue the same objectives as the FLQ.
On the other hand, the implementation of the regulations provided for in the proclamation of October 16 is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Attorneys General of the provinces.

October 29, 1970

Consequently, I think that the hon. member tor Van-couver-Kingsway might abide by the answer given yesterday by the Minister of Justice, namely to get in touch with the Attorney General of British Columbia.
In any event, this march will take place, and I cannot say whether this demonstration will be the consequence of the representations made by the Minister of Justice.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion However, I cannot but repeat that the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice does not extend as far as that, since this matter is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.16 p.m.
735

Friday, October 30, 1970