1970-02-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I take the first opportunity given to me to rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice pursuant to Standing Orders.
It relates to comments made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and reported in the Ottawa Citizen of January 23, 1970; they deal with an invitation from the United Arab Republic to attend a peace conference to be held in the Middle East and to visit the Arab countries.
This is a matter interesting all members of Parliament who are occasionally invited by countries-friendly, neutral or former enemy countries-with which we have friendly relations.
Besides, many other members have accompanied me on that journey and I would not want to give here a list of the invitations I have accepted, along with members of the New Democratic party, to go to Washington or elsewhere.
I strongly protest against the innuendos of such a statement because it could cast doubts on my objectivity with respect to that tragic conflict.
As a matter of fact, I rose in the past against the spreading of hate propaganda against the Jews as is shown in the official report of the House of Commons' debates of June 1 and 14, 1967, at pages 824 and 1514.
I raise a strong protest against such insinuations which could make any invitation any member of Parliament could receive in future subject to criticism. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is so justified that I am not requesting you to refer it to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given me notice of the question of privilege he intended to raise, in accordance with Standing Orders. After studying the question and after hearing the hon. member's remarks, I would doubt that a question of privilege is in order when all the hon. member has to complain about is that another member suggests that a given action is not proper. I believe it is a matter of translation. We use the word "con-venable" whereas the word the hon. member for York South used in English is more specific.

I believe the complaint of the hon. member is that another hon. member has questioned the propriety of a certain action. I would think that this is a rather mild reference to the action of an hon. member and I fail to see how a question of privilege could be raised on this basis.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I have to add the circumstance that the matter was raised outside the House, not in the chamber, and for this reason I do not think there would be a question of privilege. As a third consideration, no motion having been moved the matter cannot be referred to a committee and no further action can be taken by the House.

Under the circumstances, I must render the decision that there is no ground for the question of privilege and that this matter cannot be considered further.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, perhaps on what may be my question of privilege. I do not have the clipping before me but I remember what I said to the reporter. I did not question the propriety of these members going. I said, if my memory serves me right, that if they went at their own expense that was one thing, but if they were invited by the Egyptian government one ought to appreciate the reason for the invitation, or words to that effect. I did not intend to question, nor do I question, the integrity of the members concerned. I do not want to prolong the debate any further, Mr. Speaker.
3936	COMMONS
Closing of Argentia V.S. Naval Base [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the House is unanimous on this point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on the ground ol urgent and pressing necessity I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion based on the following facts.
Following the announcement by the United States authorities on February 6, it is now certain that the phase-down of the Argentia naval base will leave more than 350 men unemployed on March 20, without alternative employment. These men have up to 27 years employment at the Argentia base. They are being let out on 30 days notice and with inadequate severance allowance or pension. These men are declared redundant in a province where the unemployment rate is close to 20 per cent. My motion reads as follows:
That the government take immediate measures to counteract the economic and social disaster which has struck the people of the Argentia community due to the phase-down of the Argentia naval base.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. As they know, it cannot be proposed at this time unless there is unanimous consent. Is there such agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. In the circumstances the question cannot be put for consideration at this time.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-190, to amend the National Energy Board Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

DEBATES	February 23, 1970


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the first reading of Bill S-14 (from the Senate), respecting the sale and importation of certain radiation emitting devices.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works was going to say, I hope sooner than it has taken him to find the question.']
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No, the government does not have a record of non-governmental assistance.
2.	N/A.



Mr. Fortin: 1.	What stage has been reached in the negotiations with France concerning the status of the waters between St-Pierre and Miquelon from Canada?
2.	What is the nature of the dispute?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Baselines have not been drawn in the vicinity of the St. Pierre and Miquelon islands because the boundary lines have not yet been agreed as between Canada and France. This issue is to some extent related to the question of the delimitation of the boundary of the continental shelf between Canada and France in this area; negotiations to define that boundary were begun in 1967 and it is hoped that they will be resumed in the near future.
2.	The difficulty concerning the drawing of baselines is of a purely technical nature having to do with the presence of certain rocks approximately half way between the French islands and the Canadian coast.

February 23, 1970


RE-ELECTION TO CERTAIN UN BODIES
[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Did Canada seek re-election to (a) the Industrial Development Board of the UN (b) the expanded Committee on Program Co-ordination for Economic and Social Development?
2.	How long has Canada served on these important UN bodies?
3.	What is the reason for the action of the Canadian Government on this matter?
4.	Is the government downgrading Canada's support for external aid programs as a part of the austerity program?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. (a) No; (b) No.
2.	Three years in each case.
3.	In the light of available manpower and other commitments, it was decided that Canada would not seek re-election to these bodies At this time.
4.	No, the Prime Minister said in the House on December 1, 1969, as recorded in Hansard p. 1424/5:
"We decided that we were going to be giving more but that we could not increase our percentage... We tried to freeze most areas of government spending. This particular area we did not freeze. We increased the spending but not the percentage."


ST. PIERRE-MIQUELON-JURISDICTION OVER TERRITORIAL WATERS
Mr. Crouse: How many meetings have been held between French authorities and the Canadian Government on the question of jurisdiction over the territorial waters surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon concerning control of fishing activities, mineral and oil rights in the past two years?


Mitchell William Sharp: Negotiations between Canada and France concerning the delimitation of their respective areas of jurisdiction over the continental shelf in the region of the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were begun in 1967. There have been no discussions concerning jurisdiction over territorial waters in this area although that question is to some extent related to the delimitation of the boundary of the continental shelf between Canada and France. No meetings have been held between the French and Canadian authorities on the matters under reference in the past two years, but it is hoped that negotiations on this question will be resumed in the near future.
Questions


ARMED FORCES-PREMATURE PILOT RELEASES, AIRCREW PREFERENTIAL PAY SCALES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	How many aircraft pilots were prematurely released from the Canadian Armed Forces from 1963 to 1965, inclusive?
2.	What was the total amount of special payments paid to these pilots as a result of their premature release?
3.	What is the total cost to date of the preferential pay scales for aircrew since its introduction over and above what would have been the total pay costs had the preferential pay scale not been introduced?
4.	Is there a surplus of pilots or other aircrew in the Canadian Forces at the present time?
5.	Are preferential pay scales paid to aircrew who are employed on non-flying tasks and on a permanent basis?
6.	Has the Department of National Defence a plan for premature release of aircrew in the near future?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. 284.
Eighty-nine of these pilots were serving on short service commissions, many of whom would not have accepted or been offered permanent commissions. Of the 195 pilots with permanent commissions who were released, not one was below 43 years of age; 31 of them were actually overage having previously been given extensions beyond compulsory release age; 72 were within one year of compulsory release age and 92 within two years of compulsory release age.
2.	Total amount paid to pilots as special benefits was $843,768.
3.	From 1 February 1966 to 31 December 1969, $7,117,205.
4.	At the present time there are no surplus aircrew officers in the Canadian Forces. As implementation of the new forces structure progresses a small temporary surplus will most likely appear in both the pilot and navigator classifications. Steps have already been taken to reduce training so as to minimize this surplus and to utilize aircrew officers in areas where their special qualifications are required.
5.	To qualify for aircrew rates of pay an officer must meet prescribed flying proficiency and medical standards, and he must be under continuous obligation to fly. Therefore, an officer remains eligible to receive aircrew rates of pay not only during the periods in his career when he is employed on flying duties but also during the periods when he is employed on non-flying tasks, provided he

February 23. 1970
Questions
continues to meet the prescribed standards and he remains under continuous obligation to fly.
6.	No, there is no plan for premature release of aircrew. However, as aircraft are retired from inventory a number of aircrew who are presently serving beyond their normal compulsory retirement age will be released. All are being given at least six months' advance notice.


ARDA PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURES, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since the establishment of the ARDA program, how much has been expended annually in the Province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	For what purposes were these expenditures made?
3.	What projects are now being carried out in Prince Edward Island under the ARDA program?
4.	What personnel from the Public Service of Canada are now working in Prince Edward Island?
5.	What are their duties?
6.	What was the involvement of ARDA program and personnel in the acquisition of a golf course at Stanhope, Prince Edward Island?
7.	What was the amount of financial interest of the Government of Canada in this project?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1.	1962-63,	$14,984;	1963-64,
$50,684; 1964-65, $82,797; 1965-66, $220,997; 1966-67, $435,820; 1967-68, $642,729; 1968-69; $1,123,677; Apr. 1, 1969-Jan. 31, 1970, $176,292.
2.	To assist programs under the Agricultural and Rural Development Act; for programs and projects for the more effective use of lands for conservation of soil and water
resources; for the development of new opportunities for increased income and employment and for research related to these aims.
3.	All projects are complete with the exception of a project at Brudenell to complete some works connected with a public golf course.
4 and 5. None for ARDA, which has now been replaced by the FRED plan. Those working for this plan are: L. E. Pratt, Director; M. D. Ross, Resource Adjustment Officer; E. M. Walton, Development Officer; S. Merrill, Clerk; Mrs. E. C. Higson and Mrs. S. E. B. Howatt, Secretaries.
6.	None.
7.	None.


INCREASE IN SERIOUS CRIMES
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the increase in serious crimes in Canada since 1960?
2.	What was the increase in population in the same period?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports: 1. As the Uniform Crime Reporting was first introduced in 1962, statistics prior to that date are not comparable with those of more recent years. Attached is a table of selected Criminal Code Offences for the years 1962-1968, the latest year for which these statistics are available.
2.	The percentage increase in population from June 1, 1960 to June 1, 1969 was 17.9.
Estimated population June 1, 1960, 17,870,000; estimated population June 1, 1969, 21,061,000.


SELECTED CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES
[Stage Direction]
Number and Rate(l) per 100,000 Population Age 7 Years and Over, 1962-1968, and Percent Increase in Rates
1962	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	Per Cent Increase 1962-1968Offence	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	Murder	217	1.4	215	1.4	218	1.4	243	1.5	220	1.3	281	1.6	314	1.8	+ 28.6Attempted murder	83	0.5	108	0.7	121	0.8	111	0.7	131	0.8	139	0.8	181	1.0	+100.0Manslaughter	48	0.3	34	0.2	35	0.2	34	0.2	28	0.2	56	0.3	60	0.3	± 0.0Rape	579	3.8	549	3.5	745	4.6	641	3.9	652	3.9	773	4.5	892	5.0	+ 31.6Other sexual offences	. 6,072	39.3	6,412	40.8	6,687	41.7	6,802	41.5	8,140	48.5	8,974	51.7	9,732	54.7	+ 39.2Wounding	. 1,258	8.2	1,267	8.1	838	5.2	822	5.0	972	5.8	1,030	5.9	1,293	7.3	- 11.0Assaults (not indecent)..	. 27,818	180.3	32,760	208.3	40,459	242.1	44,551	271.6	53,533	318.6	59,149	340.9	66,690	374.9	+107.9Robbery	. 4,951	32.1	5,885	37.4	5,666	35.3	5,576	34.0	5,710	34.0	7,212	41.6	8,382	47.1	+ 46.7Breaking and entering...	. 82,104	532.3	94,249	599.3	97,224	605.7	96,530	588.5	102,132	607.9	119,394	688.0	144,895	814.6	+ 53.0Theft-motor vehicle...	. 33,482	217.1	37,255	236.9	39,930	248.8	38,107	232.3	39,655	236.0	44,768	258.0	51,712	290.7	+ 33.9Theft over $50	. 59,370	384.9	62,784	399.2	66,934	417.0	67,925	414.1	75,841	451.4	86,889	500.7	99,167	557.5	+ 44.8(1)	Rates are based on population estimated on June 1 of each year.(2)	The percent increase is calculated on the 1968 and the 1962 rates.February 23. 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3939
Questions
[Stage Direction]
February 23, 197tt
Questions

Mr. Skoberg: 1.	How many C-119 (Flying Box Cars) are there still available for sale?
2.	Where are these aircraft stored?
3.	What was the purchase price asked for each C-119?
4.	What was the purchase price received for each C-119?
5.	Is there any knowledge as to the use these planes will be made of by those purchasing same?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. Nil.
2.	N/A.
3.	The C-119s in accordance with the Corporation's procedures were offered for sale on a competitive basis.
4.	Purchase Price received: 4 at $35,000= $140,000; 4 at $32,500 = $130,000; 1 at $30,000 = $30,000; 6 at $27,500=$165,000; 16 at $25,000 = $400,000; Spares, $235,000.
5.	This information is not available.


AGRICULTURE-DEFERRED GRAIN DELIVERY PERMITS
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): Of the 1130 grain delivery points submitting deferred delivery permits for the crop year ending July 31, 1969, by province, how many points have been able to accept their deferred delivery permits as of January 14, 1970?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Deferred delivery permits are an integral part of a producers delivery privileges for the 1969-70 crop year and deliveries under these permits may be made at any time during the crop year. It is not possible, therefore, to ascertain how many points have been able to complete all deliveries under deferred delivery permits at this time.


POLLUTION-MIRAMICHI RIVER
Mr. Smith (Northumberland- Miramichi): 1.	What is the present state of pollution of (a) the Miramichi River (b) the Northwest Branch of the Miramichi River, especially with reference to the effect on the fish population including shellfish?
2.	What types of industries are causing pollution and what proportion of the fault is ascribed to each?
3 Has any method of purifying the effluent to an acceptable standard so as not to damage fish-life been discovered and found by experience to be successful (a) with reference to base metal concentrators (b) with respect to sulphite pulp mills?

4.	If so, has the Department of Fisheries and Forestry any estimate of the cost of installation of such process, either in dollars or as a percentage of the overall costs of production?
5.	What steps is the Department taking to enforce industries or other polluters to clear up their effluent?
6.	What was the number of salmon counted at the Counting Station at Curventon on the Northwest Miramichi River in 1968 and 1969?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1.
There are a number of known sources of pollution on the Miramichi River, including the Northwest, which are being monitored and studied by Ministry staff. Active negotiations for improved conditions are being conducted with offenders. There have been no recent critical fish or shellfish problems as a result of these pollution sources.
2.	Pulp mills and a base metal mining operation. It is not possible to ascribe a proportion of the fault to these sources.
3.	The present method of treating base metal mine wastes with lime is not completely satisfactory. A new method is being investigated by Fisheries Research Board Scientists. Biological treatment, although not perfect, is the most successful known treatment of pulp mill waste. A new process has been under investigation by Fraser Companies in New Brunswick.
4.	The cost varies considerably with plant location and other factors.
5.	Persistent offenders are being given deadlines for clean up.
6.	Curventon fence salmon counts were 1,045 in 1968 and 2,493 in 1969.


ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS-1970
Mr. Kaplan: 1.	How many passports is the government expecting to issue from April to September inclusive, in 1970?
2.	What arrangements have been made or are being made to assure prompt issuance of such passports?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. 260,000.
2. The Passport Office continuing staff at Ottawa has been increased by 55 over January 1969 and is better trained and more experienced. This staff has been supplemented since January 2, 1970 by 30 short-term employees who are being trained; a further 32 part-time employees (students) are being trained and will be on call should the need arise for extra staff to deal with the peak volume of applications during the spring months.
February 23, 1970

In addition, Regional Passport Offices are being opened within the next four weeks in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver to deal with urgent passport requirements, to assist travellers having difficulty in the completion of their applications, and to provide advice on problem cases. (Mailed applications will continue to be directed to Ottawa.)
By means of public advertising, the Passport Office has been advising prospective travellers to apply for their passports well before departure dates, also reminding them to enclose documentary evidence of citizenship and to exercise care in completing their applications because of the high error rate, representing one-third of all those received. It is these applications that create delays in passport service.


INCENTIVES GRANTS-HIGNELL PRINTING LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to "Hignell Printing Limited" and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided, and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of "Hignell Printing Limited" and what is the address of each?
4 To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5. What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	As of December 31, 1968, the directors and executive officers of Hignell Printing Limited are: V. R. Hignell, President and Director, 429 Bower Blvd. Winnipeg 10, Manitoba; Grace Hignell, Vice-President and Director, 429 Bower Blvd., Winnipeg 10, Manitoba; J. R. Hignell, Secretary-Treasurer and Director, 456 Queenston St., Winnipeg 10, Manitoba; G. B. Glover, Director, 129 Claremont, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
4.	None.
5.	None.
Questions


CONSUMER INFORMATION PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Monieiih: 1.	How many publications similar to and including "Canada Standard Sizes for Children's Clothing" and "How Do I Buy and Judge Shoes" have been published by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during the last six months and what were the titles?
2.	What was the cost of preparation and printing of these publications?
3.	What was the cost of distribution of these same publications?
4.	How was the distribution list determined and who had the responsibility for determining this particular list?
5.	What was the reason for the publication and distribution of each issue?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Four Consumer Communiques:	Now... Standard Sizes for
Children's Clothing. Unsolicited Mail. Christmas: A Blaze of Light-Not a Blaze. How do I Buy and Judge Shoes.
2.	Approximately $4,500.
3.	$1,040.
4.	The distribution list was compiled from:
(a)	List of all media contacts, (b) List of representatives of consumer groups, trade associations, libraries, educational institutions, voluntary organizations, etc. (c) Individual requests from the public.
Responsibility for determination of the distribution list is divided between the Information and Public Relations Branch and the Consumer Service and Information Branch.
5.	"Now ... Standard Sizes for Children's Clothing". Production of a Consumer Communique was one facet of a publicity program on Canadian Standard Sizes.
"Unsolicited Mail". As a result of numerous complaints and enquiries reaching "The Consumer, Box 99, Ottawa".
"Christmas:	A Blaze of Light-Not a
Blaze". In view of the extensive use being made of decorative lights and the safety factor involved, this was an appropriate topic for the Christmas season.
"How Do I Buy and Judge Shoes". Published as a result of many complaints and enquiries, relative to footwear that reached "The Consumer, Box 99, Ottawa".


TOBACCO EXPERIMENTAL FARM-DELHI, ONTARIO
Mr. Buchanan: 1. Has the Department of National Health and Welfare consulted with the Department of Agricul-

February 23, 1970
Questions
ture on the use of government facilities, particularly the tobacco experimental farm at Delhi, Ontario, for research into the development of hybrid tobacco plants that might yield cigarette leaf having less of the constituents associated with health hazards involved in cigarette smoking-in other words, safer cigarettes?
2. Has the Department of Agriculture issued a directive to the Delhi Tobacco Experimental Farm to pursue lines of research leading to such tobacco?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Agriculture as follows: 1. Yes.
2. The terms of reference of the Delhi Research Station include the breeding of varieties and development of cultural practices for the production of tobacco to meet industry or government requirements as they are indicated.


POPULATION OF CANADIAN PROVINCES
Mr. Mather: What, by province, is the population of the Canadian provinces minus the ten largest-populated Canadian urban areas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: The latest available estimates of the population by provinces are as of October 1, 1969. However, the most recent estimates for the 10 largest urban, or metropolitan, areas are as of June 1, 1968. Thus, the latter estimates must be used to deduct metropolitan area totals from provincial totals for the same date, and are shown in the attached table.
			10 largest	
Province	Province	Metropolitan	totals	totals	areas	Province	October 1, 1969	June 1, 1968	June 1, 1968	(2) minus (3)(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)N fid	
515,000	507,000	-	507,000P.E.I	
110,000	110,000	-	110,000N.S	
764,000	760,000	-	760,000N.B	
626,000	624,000	-	624,000Que	
6,002,000	5,927,000	3,051,000(">	2,876,000Ont	
7,518,000	7,306,000	3,389,000<b'	3,917,000Man	
979,000	971,000	523,000( c>	448,000Sask	
956,000	960,000	-	960,000Alta	
1,573,000	1,526,000	786,000<<"	740,000B.C	
2,089,000	2,007,000	955,000<*'	1,052,000
(a,Census Metropolitan Areas of Montreal, Quebec, and that part of the Ottawa-Hull Metropolitan Area in the Province of Quebec.
<b'Census Metropolitan Areas of Toronto, Hamilton, London and that part of the Ottawa-Hull Metropolitan Area in the Province of Ontario.
("'Census Metropolitan Area of Winnipeg.
<d'Census Metropolitan Areas of Calgary and Edmonton.
([DOT]'Census Metropolitan Area of Vancouver.
P.E.I.-moneys required under	2 and 3. Not applicable.


DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1970-71
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Has a proposed budget been submitted by the Province of Prince Edward Island to the Government of Canada with respect to monies required for the fiscal year 1970-71 under the Development Plan?
2.	What are the details proposed In the budget submitted by the Province?
3.	Has the whole or any part of this proposed budget been approved by the federal government and, if so, what are the details of the projects approved?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. No, but it is expected shortly.
[Mr. Buchanan.)


CALGARY, ALTA.-TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY
Mr. Mahoney: 1.	As at January 1, 1970 (a) what were the names and addresses of the persons licensed as trustees in bankruptcy for the bankruptcy district or division in which Calgary, Alberta, is situated (b) how many bankrupt estates was each trustee administering (c) on what date had each last been appointed trustee of a bankrupt state?
2.	During each of the years 1967, 1968 and 1969, for the said district or division (a) how many trustees in bankruptcy renewed their licenses (b) how many did not renew their licenses (c) how many applications for new licenses were submitted (d) how many applications for new licenses were granted?
February 23, 1970

Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. (a),
Number of estates under
Name-Address	administration
Barclay, Harold J.
600-6th Avenue South West,
Calgary	_
Biddell, J. L.
850 Elveden House,
Calgary	2
Burton, A. G.
Commerce Building, 309-8th Avenue S.W.,
Calgary	_
Canadian Credit Men's Association Ltd.
121-llth Avenue S.W.,
Calgary	_
City Savings and Trust Company,
McLeod Building,
Calgary	j
Crown Trust Company
Calgary	X
Davis, E. A.
290 Bentall Building,
Calgary	64
Devonshire, M. S.
720-7th Avenue South West,
Calgary	1
Donaldson, G. B.
850 Elveden House,
Calgary	1
Fowler, J. C.
600-6th Avenue South West,
Calgary	56
Freedman, W. A.
1120-IBM Bldg., 606-4th Street S.W.,
Calgary	19
Graves, M. G.
850 Elveden House,
Calgary	-
Guaranty Trust Company of Canada
Calgary	2
Hudson, B. L.
600 Hollingsworth Bldg.,
301-8th Ave. S.W.,
Calgary	9
Hutchison, J. G.
309-8th Avenue South West,
Calgary	3
Miller, J. C.
625 Second Street South East,
Medicine Hat	4
(b), (c).
Date last appointed trustee
6.4.68
14.5.64
28.1.65
30.9.65
9.12.69 26.7.61
8.3.60
14.7.69
24.10.69
23.1.63
5.11.65
10.12.69
10.12.69
26.9.63
Questions

February 23, 1970
Name-Address Morrison, V. C.
Room 300, 330-9th Avenue South West, Calgary
Nash, W. R. H.
640-8th Avenue South West,
Calgary Ross, D. A.
209-8th Avenue South West,
Calgary
Whitehead, R. J.
1200 Guinness House,
Calgary Yeoman, D. R.
508-15th Avenue South West,
Calgary
2. (a) Licences renewed in 1967 Licences renewed in 1968 Licences renewed in 1969
(b)	Licences not renewed in 1967 Licences not renewed in 1968 Licences not renewed in 1969
(c)	No. of Applications for New Licences
in 1967
No. of Applications for New Licences in 1968
No. of Applications for New Licences in 1969
(d)	No. of Licences Granted in 1967 No. of Licences Granted in 1968 No. of Licences Granted in 1969


FROZEN RAINBOW TROUT IMPORTS
Mr. Harding: For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (a) how many pounds of frozen rainbow trout were imported into Canada (b) from what countries were they imported (c) what was the amount and the value of the imports from each country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 
INDIAN RESERVE COMMUNITY PASTURES, SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA
Mr. Burton: 1.	What is the location, size, authorized expenditure for land improvements and carrying capacity of each of the community pastures on Indian Reserves in Saskatchewan and Alberta commenced since 1963?
2.	Which of these pastures are now complete and In operation?
3.	What is the location, size, estimated cost for improvements and carrying capacity of each of the eight additional pastures for which agreements have now been signed with Indian bands?
4.	How many lease agreements were in effect in 1969 on each of the pastures in operation and how
1.	Name of Pasture
and Location
Cowessess-Sakimay, Grenfell, Sask.
Ochapawace-Kahkewistahaw, Whitewood, Sask.
James Smith, Kinistino, Sask.
Chagoness, Chagoness, Sask.
White Bear, Carlyle, Sask.
Touchwood, Punnichy, Sask. Thunderchild, Turtleford, Sask.
Louis Bull-Ermineskin, Hobbema, Alberta.
Alexander, Edmonton area Alexis, Edmonton area Bushe River, High Level, Alta.
Questions
many of the leases for each pasture were held by members of Indian bands?
5 What was the name, address and location of each lease holder in 1969 who was not a member of an Indian band and how many cattle were pastured under the terms of each such lease?
6.	How many leases have been signed, to date, for each pasture which will be in operation in 1970 and how many of the leases for each pasture are held by members of an Indian band?
7.	What is the name, address, location and number of cattle to be pastured in 1970 for each lease held by a person who is not a member of an Indian band?


Abram Ernest Epp: Size (acres)	Authorized Expenditure* $	Carrying 1 Capacity (Animal Units)13,117	100,700	2,00027,271	149,600	3,0005,584	184,500	1,5005,813	186,000	1,8009,600	265,000	2,50016,000	260,000	3,0008,610	278,000	2,0004,370	233,050	3,0006,300	176,000	2,0005,380	164,000	1,50017,280	250,000	3,000* Authorized Expenditure is total cost which 2. Indian Reserve Pastures now in opera-includes fencing, buildings, as well as land tion: Cowessess-Sakimay, Ochapowace-Kah-improvement costs such as clearing and land kewistahaw, James Smith, Chagoness, White preparation.	Bear, Touchwood and Louis-Bull-Erminskin.Name of Pasture and Location	Size (acres)	Estimated Cost $	Carrying Capacity (Animal Units)Waterhen, Meadow Lake, Sask	3,936	185,000	1,800Frog Lake, St. Paul, Alta.	18,209	362,000	3,400Sarcee, Calgary, Alta.	5,440	150,000	1,800Stony, Morley, Alta.	8,860	260,000	2,000
Four pastures authorized in 1969 are in- 4. No leases are held by individuals within eluded in 1. above: Thunderchild, Alexanders PFRA community pasture.
Alexis and Busche River.	5, 6 and 7. Not applicable.
21701-39J

February 23, 1970
Questions
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION FOR DEFENCE	5. How many students dropped out of each DND
PERSONNEL	military college in each of the past five years?


Mr. Burton: 1.	In the past five years, what plans have been used by the Department of National Defence to provide university education for its personnel or prospective personnel?
2.	In each of the past five years, what has been the enrolment in each of the above plans?
3 In each of the past five years, how many students were enrolled in each of the Department of National Defence's military colleges?
4. How many students have dropped out of each of the above plans before completion in each of the past five years?


David Walter Groos: 1. The
various schemes used by the Canadian Forces to provide university education for its personnel, or prospective personnel are as follows:	*Regular Officer Training Plan
(ROTP); University Training Plan Men (UTPM); Medical Officer Training Plan (MO-TP); Dental Officer Training Plan (DOTP); University Training Plan Officers (UTPO).
*This includes students attending Canadian Military Colleges.
2. Year	ROTP	UTPM	DOTP	MOTP	UTPO1965-66	
631	41	13	54	NIL1966-67	
641	38	40	50	161967-68	
574	75	20	63	331968 69	
667	27	10	65	281969-70	
488	44	20	39	263. Year	RMC	CMR	RRMC	1965-66	
86	186	125	1966-67	
96	178	131	-	-1967 68	
97	190	134	-	-1968-69	
108	189	127	-	-1969-70	
106	201	130	4. Year	ROTP	UTPM	DOTP	MOTP	UTPO1965	
343	7	7	8	NIL1966	
325	8	5	2	1967	
309	14	4	8	1968	
340	8	2	1	1969	NIL	NIL	NIL	
IMr. O'Connell.]
5.	Year of Intake	Year of Release1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70


RMC CMR RRMC RMC CMR RRMC RMC CMR RRMC RMC CMR RRMC RMC CMR RRMC
[Stage Direction]
1965- 66	
14	78	43	8	25	14	5	18	1	4	31966- 67	
18	75	43	5	36	15	6	7	3	11967- 68	
36	80	48	4	39	201968- 69	
57	99	60	2	21969- 70	
14	18	40February 23, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3947
Questions
[Stage Direction]
February 23. 1970
Questions

Mr. Laprise: Did the government install a rock-crusher at Great Whale River and, if so (a) on what date (b) how much did it cost (c) what use has been made of it?


David Walter Groos: In 1956 a rock crusher was taken into Great Whale River by the Fraser Brace Construction Company on an airstrip and road construction contract for National Defence. As this equipment was owned by the contractor there is no record in the department regarding its disposal on completion of the contract.


RCMP-AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FILES
Mr. Nysirom: 1.	To what persons, corporations or agencies are RCMP files on criminals and non-criminal activities of individuals made available and under what circumstances in each case?
2.	What restrictions are put on the use of this information by those to whom it is made available?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: 1.	RCMP files as such are not made available to anyone, but information on criminal and non-criminal activities is made available to accredited police forces in Canada and the United States, and to Federal and Provincial Government departments when applicable.
2.	Where applicable, the following restriction is placed on information furnished to recipients outside the RCMP: "Property of R.C.M.P.-This police report is supplied to you by the R.C.M. Police for information of your Department only. It is not to be made known to any other Agency or person without the written permission of the R.C.M.P."


OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING PROVIDED TO INDIANS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Indians in each province took courses under the provisions of the Manpower Training Act in each month in the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
2.	How many Indians in each province took courses under the provisions of the Technical-Vocational Training Act in each month in the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Department of

Manpower and Immigration does not categorize trainees by ethnic group, therefore, it does not know how many Indians were trained during the years referred to in the question.


DESIGNATED INCENTIVE AREA SCHEMEADVERTISING
Mr. Burton: 1.	Since the proclamation of the Designated Incentive Area Scheme under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, how much money has been spent on advertising this program (a) on radio (b) on television (c) in newspapers?
2.	What newspapers have carried advertisements from the Department on this new program and on what specific dates?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) $64,130.22.
2.	Canada Commerce (Special Edition- October 1969). Financial Times (December 8, 1969)-(January 14,	1970). Financial Post
(November 8, 1969). Le Devoir, Montreal (November 10, 1969)-(December 30, 1969). The Gazette, Montreal (November 10, 1969). Montreal-Matin (November 10, 1969). La Pres-se, Montreal (November 10, 1969)-(January 24, 1970). The Star, Montreal (November 10,
1969)	. Canadian Hardware (December 1969- January 1970). Hardware Merchandising (February 1970). Toronto Star (February 9,
1970)	. Toronto Telegram (February 9, 1970). Toronto Globe and Mail (January 6, 1970)- (February 7, 1970). The Boston Globe (September 14-17, 1969)-(February 1970). New York Times (December 1, 1969)-(January 26, 1970) -(Feb. 1970). Wall Street Journal (December 1, 1969); Southwest Edition (January 19, 1970), National Edition (February 1970), Eastern Edition (February 1970). Houston Chronicle (January 18, 1970). Houston Post (January 18, 1970). Quebec Industrie! (February 1970). Canadian Plastics (February 1970). Heating, Plumbing, Air Conditioning (January 12, 1970). Home Goods Retailing (January 11, 1970). Canadian Electronic Engineering (January 1970). Electrical News and Engineering (January 1970). Commerce (Annual Edition-February 1970). Les Affaires (January 19, 1970). Dimanche-Matin, Montreal (January 11, 1970).


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE- DELINQUENT TAXES
Mr. Malher: 1 What is the total, in dollars, of delinquent taxes owed to the Department of National Revenue by individuals and corporations?
February 23. 1970

2. What is the amount in dollars of the interest owed for 1968 and 1969 on deliquent taxes?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: For Taxation Division: 1. As of March 31, 1969, the amounts owed by individuals for income tax were $147,704,235. collectible, and $8,872,024. uncollectible. The amounts owed by corporations at the same date were $92,306,912. collectible, and $3,729,340. uncollectible. (Source: Public Accounts of Canada).
2.	Not available. Any amounts of interest are included with the taxes owed but are not segregated until paid.
For Customs and Excise:
1.	Sales tax outstanding as of January 15, 1970-$14,194,390.99.
2.	Penalty outstanding as of January 15, 1970-$1,450,702.47. (Penalty interest not necessarily only for 1968-69).


AGRICULTURE-STORAGE OF DAIRY BUTTER
Mr. Souiham: 1.	Is imported dairy butter presently held in storage in Canada and, if so, what quantities are held?
2.	How many pounds of dairy butter was imported from New Zealand in 1968?
3.	Where was this butter stored in Canada?
4.	Who were the plant owners?
5.	What was the total cost to the Federal Treasury or, indirectly, the Canadian Dairy Commission for storing this butter?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	No.
2.	2,688,000 pounds.
3.	Abbotsford, B.C.; Alix, Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta and Calgary, Alberta.
4.	Valley Freezers, Abbotsford, B.C. Central Alberta Dairy Pool, Adix, Alberta; Northern Alberta Dairy Pool, Edmonton, Alberta; Trans-Canada Freezers, Calgary, Alberta.
5.	$21,806.58.


SUBSIDY TO POULTRY PRODUCERS
Mr. Robinson: What was the total subsidy paid to poultry producers during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Deficiency Payments Paid to Egg Producers by Agricultural Stabilization Board.
Questions
For Egg Year (Oct. 1 to Sept. 30)
1959-60	$2,090,608
1960-61	nil
1961-62	637,663
1962-63	nil
1963-64	986,347
1964-65	2,010,519
1966-67	nil
1967-68	141,774
1968-69	nil


LEGISLATION TO ABOLISH &quot;LOSS LEADER&quot; SELLING
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the advisability of providing legislation to abolish "loss leader" selling so that those utilizing such a selling method will provide better service and more consideration for the consumer?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Careful attention will be given to this proposal in the preparation of amendments to the Combines Investigation Act which are presently being considered.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES APPLICATIONS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many applications have been received by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act from the Atlantic Provinces since June 27, 1969, and of the total number received (a) how many have been approved (b) how many rejected (c) how many are still under consideration?
2.	(a) Of the number approved and rejected, what is the breakdown by province (b) of those approved, what are the names of the individuals or firms who have received the assistance?
3.	Of the applications approved (a) how many were involved with the expansion of existing facilities (b) how many involved the construction of new industries?


Abram Ernest Epp: This information was contained in the reports respecting the Administration of the Regional Development Incentives Act tabled on October 27, 1969, December 4, 1969, and January 12, 1970.


CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
-STATUS OF SERVICE IN NEWFOUNDLAND FORCES
Mr. Marshall: Is service in Newfoundland Military Forces, prior to 1949, considered to be qualifying service for CFSA purposes under section 38 Chapter 1 of the Terms of Union with Canada?
3950	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence): Service in the Newfoundland military forces prior to 1949 is qualifying service for Canadian Forces Superannuation Act purposes under section 5(b)(ii)(E) thereof, that is, wartime service in the naval, army or air forces of Her Majesty other than those raised by Canada.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Howard (Skeena): What is the number of employees from each department and Crown corporation of the public service of Canada who (a) resigned before normal retirement (b) retired (c) were dismissed (d) were laid oil, for each of the last five years?
Return tabled.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norfh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government House Leader or the Minister of Public Works when I may expect an answer to my starred question No. 1,041?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the President of the Privy Council will reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will have to make an inquiry on that point, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the Minister of Public Works getting up to say?


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works was going to say, I hope sooner than it has taken him to find the question.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I am sure today we will be able to get direct answers to our questions. My question relates to the increasing international concern over the vulnerability of airliners to sabotage. This perhaps comes into the area of immediate con-
DEBATES	February 23, 1970
cem of the Solicitor General. In any event I should like to ask the minister whether the Government is taking steps to improve safety regulations with a view to increasing the protection for civilian passengers using the airlines?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I regret to disappoint the Leader of the Opposition, but my colleague the President of the Privy Council should perhaps deal with the question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government shares with other governments a feeling of strong condemnation for these acts of sabotage and violence aboard international airliners. The representatives of Canada at the deliberations of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal, at meetings which will occur later this week on this question, will be pressing some proposals with regard to means to try to cut down on problems of unlawful interference with civil air transport. We will also make clear that the position taken by the government of Canada is one of strong condemnation for acts of the kind which so regrettably occurred over the week-end.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we take for granted that the government is concerned about this matter, as about nearly everything else, but would the minister consider at an early date making a statement in the House concerning what measures, if any, the government of Canada proposes to take in this regard and what proposals it intends to make in the way of suggestions to other countries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, I will be prepared to pass on this suggestion. The Leader of the Opposition will recognize, of course, that any measures to be taken would have to be taken in concert with the international community generally rather than locally and alone.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. What diplomatic activity is Canada engaged in now, other than through ICAO, to condemn this wanton killing as a result of the crash of the Swissair jet?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated, the government of Canada has made perfectly clear to all governments in the international community our condemnation of this particu-
February 23, 1970

lar action. It seems that any particular representations beyond those to which I have already referred within the framework of the international organization responsible would not be necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the right hon. member for Prince Albert a supplementary?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether or not the government has given consideration to bringing in amendments to the Criminal Code, which in reality is air piracy, to bring hijacking within the provisions respecting piracy as they now prevail?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I did have certain discussions with the Minister of Transport about this some time ago. It may be that the present provisions of the Criminal Code are inadequate. There is also a question of jurisdiction. Other than that I cannot say anything more at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the matter receiving consideration now? Is Canada going to take a lead in this direction and make piracy something more than the outdoor sport it is becoming today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of this most regrettable incident, will the President of the Privy Council assure the House that when the Prime Minister of Canada travels to the Far East he will do so on a Canadian government aircraft and not by other means?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that that observation will be taken note of on all sides and particularly in the editorial offices of the Globe and Mail.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, now that the safety of the Prime Minister has been taken care of, perhaps the President of the Privy Council would agree that it is not necessary for Canada to wait for international agreement in order to take effective action at least to protect people leaving Canada. Perhaps he would tell the House at an early date what measures Canada is prepared to take in this regard without passing the whole buck to international arrangements-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition is inviting the minister responsible to make a statement. The suggestion has already been made a moment ago.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. With regard to the team which visited some Metis communities in northern Saskatchewan over the past few days and in view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan told the House last Thursday that the conditions among the Metis people had been first drawn to his attention by Dr. Howard Adams, the president of the Saskatchewan Metis Association, early in January, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare when his colleague informed him about the conditions among the Metis-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have reservations about a question of this nature in which the hon. member simply asks the minister when he has had a communication from another minister. Perhaps the question might be rephrased to invite a response from the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister when the conditions among the Metis people were first drawn to his attention, and did he know in January that there was privation among the Metis? If so, why has no action been taken until now?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is only lately-I am referring to the latter part of last week-that I was made aware of serious charges of starvation. At that time I felt, even though one could state quite unequivocally that in terms of welfare the Metis are the responsibility of the province, that perhaps emergency welfare was in order. It was for that reason that the team was sent to Saskatchewan to meet the provincial officials to determine whether starvation was involved. After meeting the provincial officials and the leaders of the Metis communities themselves, it was ascertained that there was no starvation in the communities which our team visited.

February 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way): I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the departure for Europe of a 19-member trade mission concerned with finding wider markets for Canadian dairy products, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare examine the feasibility of initiating a program to supplement the diets of Metis families in northern Saskatchewan with Canadian dairy products?


John Carr Munro: Again I think it would be in order for me to bring this suggestion to the attention of the provincial authorities, and I am prepared to do so.



NORTHERN ALBERTA-PAYMENT BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF MEDICARE PREMIUMS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Will the minister advise his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, of the very serious situation he found in northern Alberta with regard to the Indians and of the assertion by the Indian people that their rights under the so-called "medicine chest" clause in the treaties entitle them to the payment by the federal government of their medicare premiums?


John Carr Munro: As I think the hon. member should know from studying my recent trip, the discussions I had principally concerned the Indian health question which involved my department, and many of the problems raised by the Indians are being investigated to see whether we can follow them.



ACTION TO CORRECT HOUSING AND HEALTH CONDITIONS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: May I
ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare what action is proposed by that department or jointly with the provincial authorities to correct the conditions which are described as including poor housing, respiratory diseases and gastro-enteritis?


John Carr Munro: I think the provincial officials are well aware of some of these conditions, and under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan there is latitude for appropriate action to be taken. I believe it is being and will be taken.

[Translation1



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Will he ascertain the assumption of his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the effect that the $10 million cut in subsidies to dairy producers could be used as compensation payments to those who do not promote overproduction?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, all of these things are under consideration.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Is it the intention of the government to accede to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture that the government not withdraw the $10 million from the milk subsidy which it has stated it intends to withdraw?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will remember that we spent quite a few hours on that very subject last Thursday from early afternoon until late in the evening. I have the impression that this question was asked, although I am not sure whether an appropriate response was forthcoming. However, the question was asked at the time.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have searched the records diligently, and although the question has been asked the minister has never deigned to answer it. I am asking him on behalf of the milk producers of Canada if he would answer the question now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as far as the recommendations of the standing committee are concerned, if the hon. member will look over the list he will note that there are many useful suggestions, and we are taking them under consideration.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this type of answer, where the minister refuses to answer the question, takes up too much time of the House. Do you intend to withdraw the $10 million in subsidies or not? Yes or no? Speak up like a man, if you can.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
February 23, 1970


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Did the minister give his approval to the Chairman of the Dairy Commission to state a policy decision relating to dairying prior to concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, but the Chairman of the Dairy Commission is free to express his own opinion without getting approval from the minister.


Stanley James Korchinski: Then, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is simply that the government is practising deceit not only on Members of Parliament but also on the public generally.
I point out that the Standing Committee on Agriculture was empowered to make a study of the dairy question and report back to the House prior to February 17. While the committee was in the process of studying the matter prior to making recommendations, suggestions were received from the Maritimes and from western Canada to the effect that a policy be devised taking into account regional differences. This recommendation became part of the final report of the committee. However, before the report was even drafted a decision apparently had already been reached by the government. I say this because the Chairman of the Dairy Commission addressed the Saskatchewan Dairy Association in Saskatoon on February 12 and is reported as having stated: "None of our operations are on a regional basis and none are likely to be."
A question of privilege arises since apparently Members of Parliament are being deceived, along with members of the public, when they are led to believe that their recommendations and suggestions, which are made at great expense not only to those participating in the committee hearings but also to the taxpayers generally who have to pay for the cost of committee hearings and for the reporting and printing of their proceedings, will be considered. I point out also that there is evidence that recommendations of the Indian Affairs Committee and the Transport Committee have not been listened to and what is more important, decisions are made which should not be made until the standing committees have presented their recommendations. This should not be the case. Therefore I move:
That the Committee on Procedure and Organization be empowered to look into the whole question
21701-40i
Inquiries of the Ministry
of the value of committee work, and report back on the advisability of continuing it in its present form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the minister I wish to say that there can only be a debate and a vote and referral to a committee if the Chair recognizes that there is a prima facie case of privilege. In a moment I will allow the minister to say a word to the extent that he himself, or a statement on his part, was involved in the question raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie. I trust that the minister's contribution will be brief. After this is done, I will be in a position to indicate to hon. members whether I believe there is a prima facie case of privilege or not.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, there has been no breach of the privileges of this House because the statement that was made is one I have made dozens of times not only over the past few weeks but over the past few months, that we do not administer the policies of the Canadian Dairy Commission on a regional basis but that a uniform policy is applied all across Canada. Therefore there was absolutely no breach of the privileges of the House. May I also say that the words that the hon. member used, that the House has been deceived, are in my view offensive, and I think the hon. member ought to be made to withdraw them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the matter should at this point be pursued further. I have to disagree with the minister with respect to his comment about the House in general being deceived. I would not think that this is unparliamentary in the sense that it should be withdrawn. I cannot agree with this suggestion on the part of the minister.
Returning to the proposed motion of the hon. member, again I have grave doubts whether this is a proper question of privilege. The very question of the operations of our committees has been raised on a number of occasions in recent weeks. The hon. member for St. John's East raised it very forcefully and ably some weeks ago. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie did the same, I believe. The
February 23, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member lor Crowfoot also raised the matter. The hon. member for Mackenzie does it again this afternoon.
My thought in the past, and I do not see how I can change my view at this time, was that this was not really a question of privilege but perhaps more essentially a grievance against a system or, if hon. members want, against the government. The motion proposed by the hon. member is really not a motion of privilege but rather a substantive motion. He is proposing that the whole question of the operations of the committee system be studied by a standing committee of the House. There may be some justification for this.
I have in the past volunteered my assistance to bring hon. members' grievances, or a particular grievance, to the attention of the representatives of the different parties on that committee, I would be very pleased to do so again. If there appears to be dissatisfaction on the part of some hon. members with the way the system has been working, I would consider it my duty to bring this to the attention of the chairman of that committee and the other members of the committee. I undertake at this time to do so, but I really do not think that the matter can be submitted to the committee by way of a question of privilege.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the words referred to by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member also said twice that the government had practised deceit on the House. May I suggest that the suggestion that any member or any group of members has practised deceit on the House is not a parliamentary expression. It imputes motives to a member or group of members and should not be allowed to stand on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the President of the Privy Council that the suggestion that there has been deception practised by an hon. member, by a group of members, by a party or by the government, is unparliamentary only if it is a suggestion that there has been wilful deception. There is no question whatsoever that this is the way the rules and precedents have to be interpreted. It is not my understanding that the hon. member has made his submission on this basis, and to the extent that there has been no suggestion of misrepresentation or wilful deceit on the part of an hon. member, I would not think that the matter can be proceeded with and pursued further.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question upon which the minister would not want, wilfully or otherwise, to deceive the House. May I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether the proposal of the Prices and Incomes Commission to indulge in an advertising campaign has his approval, whether his department has been shown the advertisements which the commission is to put in newspapers, and whether their contents have received his approval?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, originally one of the purposes of the commission, as spelled out in the white paper on price stability, was a public education campaign. I have submitted to Treasury Board an application to approve such a campaign. I have not seen the copy, and with an independent commission I do not think it would be quite proper for me to be in a position of approving or disapproving any advertising copy.


David Lewis: More specifically, Mr. Speaker, has the minister on behalf of the government approved any statement in those advertisements that constitutes a threat of possible sanctions if certain things are not observed? If so, can he inform the House what those sanctions are to be, as announced in the advertisements?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it clear by saying I had not seen any copy that I was not in a position to approve any such thing.


David Lewis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister informing the House that the Prices and Incomes Commission is authorized to lay down policies that can be implemented only by the government without any look by this minister or any other minister at the policies which the Prices and Incomes Commission proposes to set out in advertisements?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the communique issued by the federal-provincial conference last week and the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House last week indicated there was a measure of agreement between the heads of the 11 governments in that they supported the pricing criteria of the
February 23, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
Prices and Incomes Commission and, as gov- ment threaten a company with a review of its ernments, hoped it would not be necessary to income tax position if it violated the apply sanctions but indicated a willingness to restraints? do so if such were required.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is claiming, as he appears to be that he keeps completely away from all of the dealings of the commission under his control, would he agree that if this is the case he is not performing his proper function as minister? Whom does he think he is fooling, anyway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INFLATION-TYPE OF SANCTIONS AGAINST FIRMS VIOLATING PRICING CRITERIA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


An hon. Member:: Don't waste your time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will he make a statement in the House tomorrow or the day after indicating what sanctions the government of Canada is prepared to use against firms who violate the restraints? I ask this question on the assumption that the Canadian people are entitled to know not only what the policy of the government is but also the way in which this policy is to be enforced. Will the minister assure the House that he will make a full and frank statement as to the purposes of the government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the Prime Minister has already answered that question in the House. I would point out, as the Prime Minister has, that we have reviewed the various laws and policies of the government and have examined them from the point of view of which could be used as sanctions against any particular company or group that do not follow the pricing criteria as laid down by the commission. These sanctions will vary from case to case. Our view is that it would be better for companies to follow the criteria of the Prices and Incomes Commission than run the risk of having sanctions imposed upon them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask this question to indicate to the House the doubt left by the minister. For example, would the govern-



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, who is Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which I would ask him to draw to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that General Motors of Canada announced today that some 15,000 workers are to be laid off in the auto industry, what measures is the minister taking to prevent further lay-offs of this nature?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In relation to the planning of the ceremonies commemorating the 25th anniversary of world war II, will the minister consider as a significant mark of remembrance the announcement by the government of a 25 per cent increase in war veterans allowances and disability pensions?



INCREASE IN HOSPITAL DOMICILIARY CARE RATE

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will he consider making a statement on motions to explain the recent increase in the rate charged disabled veterans for domiciliary care-


An hon. Member:: What on earth kind of care is that?


Francis Andrew Brewin: -from $120 to $300 a month, an increase of 150 per cent?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that as part of this government's campaign to limit price increases these proposed increases have been rolled back and no longer exist.

February 23. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Oza  Teiraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Prime Minister but, since he is not in the House, I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Does the federal government intend to allow the provinces to conclude international agreements, provided they respect its acknowledged rights?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been covered on several occasions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If the hon. member has any refinements to the previous answers that he is concerned about, I should be glad to take such questions as notice.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister in a position to tell the House what action has been planned by his department to help the people of the Argentia area who will be affected by the recently announced phase-out of the United States naval base in that area?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of what is going on in that part of the country and the department is studying ways of assisting workers who will be relocated because of the closing of the base.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouih-Halifax East):: I wonder if I could direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him if he would not-I hope this is not directly representational but perhaps in a sense it is-get togeter with his colleagues and seek to reopen the question of the early closure of the Argentia naval base, not only from an economic point of view but from the point of view of its strategic military role in the defence of the North Atlantic?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to draw the hon. member's question to the attention of the Prime Minister on his return later this afternoon.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. James A. McGralh (SI. John's East):: have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to tell the House whether an agreement is ready for signing between Newfoundland and Canada regarding a development program under his department?


Jean Marchand: I think it will be pretty soon, Mr. Speaker.


ESSEX COUNTY, ONT.-REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE
Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion if he has received any representations for assistance under the Regional Development Incentives Act from Windsor and Essex County in view of the 51 per cent increase in unemployment insurance claims in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether it is in order simply to ask whether an application has been received. Perhaps the hon. member might like to have the whole matter debated at the time of adjournment.


POST OFFICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to add to the harassment of the genial Postmaster General-
An on. Member: Why not?


John George Diefenbaker: -because there has been some improvement in the mail services from Montreal. Letters now come in three or four days. Is the minister in a position to report any success over the weekend and particularly so after the co-operation of the Minister of Labour had been sought by him? What is the present position in Montreal?
February 23. 1970


An hon. Member:: Chaos.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the situation is sufficiently improved that anybody in this House wants to claim any measure of success. However, we are hopeful. I have had a series of discussions with all parties, including the contractors who are taking over the delivery of mail services on April 1, the unions, business and industry and the contractor who now has the contract.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. Have any arrangements been made by way of emergency action so that the pile of mail can get moving between now and April 1?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we are sufficiently sensitive to the issues involved that we do not wish to escalate the situation in Montreal and thereby create a situation that could be very much worse.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Postmaster General whether the suggestion I made to him about ten days ago, regarding a provision in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigations Act which allows for one bargaining unit to be established with the consent of all the employers involved, has been conveyed to the union and whether any discussions have taken place on that direct way of meeting the problems?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the hon. member did make this suggestion to me nearly three weeks ago and it has been discussed. However, as he well knows, it demands the co-operation of the new contractors and I do not think they are greatly impressed by the suggestion. Indeed, one of the contractors already has the Teamsters' Union and he would be very loath to throw out the Teamsters' Union and recognize another union.


EFFECT OF INCREASED POSTAL RATES ON ETHNIC PRESS
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the statement by a representative of the Canadian ethnic press that six ethnic papers will cease publication in Canada due to the exorbitant increase in newspaper postal rates, what action is the
Inquiries of the Ministry
government taking to ensure that this vital part of the Canadian mosaic will be preserved?


Eric William Kierans: There are a great many ethnic newspapers in Canada, Mr. Speaker. I am not clear that the actual disappearance of the ones the hon. member is referring to is due entirely to the postal increases of a year ago. It may be well due to editorial policy, management policy, a lack of financial resources or a number of other reasons. However, if the hon. member would give me the name of the six I am sure the Post Office, without giving any particular privileges or discounts, would like to investigate and ascertain the validity of the hon. member's claim.


Donald Craig Stewart: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Postmaster General aware that some of these papers anticipate mailing their publications from the United States because the postal rates there recognize the vital role of the press in a national communications system?


POLLUTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the release last weekend of the report on the lead poisoning of foals in the Trail area, and as the Food and Drug Directorate participated in the investigation which found that lead poisoning had taken place, I ask the minister if further investigation into other possible environmental pollution has been recommended for the area?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a question which should more appropriately be directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the appropriate minister, either the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Agriculture. It is important enough to require an answer today. Possibly the health minister could reply.

February 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question today. I will be pleased to look into the matter and report to the hon. member later.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister make the report and the pertinent laboratory tests and studies upon which it was based available to the public, and can the minister indicate if the investigation fully covered the possibility of fluoride pollution in the area?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has a supplementary.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. Could he inform the House if this matter might be referred to the special committee on pollution which this House set up on Friday last?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider that in the general over-view of the work of that committee.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: My
question is intended for the Minister of Fisheries; in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. With reference to my question of February 16 concerning limiting of fishing for haddock by all member-nations of ICNAF, can the Parliamentary Secretary now inform the House whether a record-keeping and enforcement procedure has yet been worked out by the ICNAF countries?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the document in my office with the detailed information. I could give it to the hon. member later today.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that over a month has now elapsed since

the minister tabled in the House the special Barber Commission report on the prices of tractors and combines, will the minister take the earliest opportunity to make a statement on motions indicating what action the government is taking with respect to the recommendations in this report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I cannot say at this time how soon that will be. I am sure the hon. member and the House will recognize that some of the actions recommended by Dr. Barber of course require a lot of discussion and negotiation with machinery companies and that sort of thing. I certainly will report to the House as soon as I can.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Having in mind the extremely large debt owing by farmers in respect of the purchase price of these machines, is the government going to exercise the undoubted jurisdiction which it has to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to benefit the farmers who have this tremendous debt pressing them?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the amendments that have been suggested to that act by the hoH. member do not, of course, alleviate that situation in any way, shape or form.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Keni-Essex):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I do so because of some cases of hardship recently brought to my attention. Has a decision been reached by his department or a directive issued concerning sympathetic consideration of renegotiation of loans and interest payments due by veterans buying farms under the Veterans Land Act, especially in view of the drastically curtailed economic returns during the last 12 months?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: I will be very pleased to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


ADVICE TO RAPESEED PRODUCERS RESPECTING MARKETS
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In
February 23, 1970

view of the observations made by the President of the United Grain Growers about farmers collectively deciding to allow wheat inventories to drop and not replace them in the 1969-70 crop year with more wheat, will the Minister of Agriculture advise the House what direction his department is prepared to give rapeseed producers in order that there will not be a marketing crisis in this area?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to give the rapeseed producers all the information we have respecting the prospective markets for the coming year.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question. In view of the statement of the President of the UGG that there could be a world crisis because of overproduction of rapeseed, can the minister not give a more thorough answer to this question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lisgar. POLLUTION


PRECAUTIONS RESPECTING ARCTIC OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was beginning to think I was the invisible man. My question is intended for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Perhaps in his absence it could be taken by the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact it is reported that certain oil companies are being given the privilege of offshore drilling among our Arctic islands, what immediate precautions, if any, is the government taking to ensure that the drilling will not cause oil pollution of our northern waters?


George James McIlraith: will be glad to draw that question to the attention of the minister for answer on his return to the House.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the growing and alarming rate of unemployment in this country, is the government prepared to give the minister's department responsibility to coordinate federal government activities with a view to coming up with some emergency program to deal with this very serious and critical problem?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: This is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister assure the House that he will use his position in the cabinet to urge the government to switch from its preoccupation with inflation to the creation of economy based on the principle of full employment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


POLLUTION
J. Michael Forrestall: My question is for the Minister of Justice. Because of the extensive damage being done to Isle Madame as a result of the wrecking of the tanker Arrow, is the minister now in a position to advise these people of the procedures they will be able to follow to obtain some compensation for the damage done to them?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not at liberty to advise private citizens, no matter how difficult the circumstances, on what their legal remedies are. What I said to the hon. member was, that I have been in discussion with the Minister of Transport as to what amendments may be made to the Canada Shipping Act and other statutes of Canada to protect both the public and private interests.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. Is the minister indicating to the House and the people of Cape Breton who have been
affected by this disaster that there is no recourse or redress open to them for damages incurred?


John Napier Turner: I am not
saying that at all. I am just trying to explain to the hon. member the limits of my responsibility.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Because of the fact that
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill
the native Indian and the Metis people are at the bottom of the list when it comes to income and economic position, will the minister take steps to amend whatever is involved, regulations or otherwise, under his authority to ensure that the benefits available to other parts of the country in terms of industrial incentives for economic expansion will be available to Indian and Metis communities or in the surrounding area?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is under active consideration right now.


Frank Howard: May I inquire as to the timetable in connection with this active consideration? When may we expect an announcement?


An hon. Member:: In 1980.



SUGGESTED SUPPLYING OF SURPLUS DAIRY PRODUCTS TO METIS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: In
view of the fact that the Standing Committee on Agriculture recommended that surplus dairy products be used in cases of domestic need, would the Minister of Agriculture consider making some of these products available for the Metis about whom so much concern has been expressed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: These products are available now to anyone who wants to buy them, including the welfare agencies.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-186, to establish a commission for the reform of the laws of Canada be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the government is fulfilling a commitment which I made when I participated in a convocation at the Osgoode Law School in October, 1968, that within 18 months we would introduce a bill to establish a law reform commission for Canada.

In the interval, I have had the opportunity of discussing the nature of the proposed commission with several jurisdictions. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that there will exist in the legal world a law commission relating to the federal laws of a federal state. I had the opportunity last October of holding conversations on three separate occasions in London with the chairman of the English and Welsh Law Reform Commission, Sir Leslie Scarman, who a year earlier had been the guest of the Canadian Bar Association at its annual convention. He is now, and has been since its inception, the chairman of the Law Reform Commission in England. We were able to discuss the statutory framework of such a commission, the way in which it worked, its relationship to parliament, to the bench, the bar and the legal profession generally, as well as to the public. At the same time I had the opportunity of discussing the subject with Lord Kilbrandon, who is the chairman of the Scottish Law Reform Commission which has responsibility for Law reform in the Scottish system of law and jurisprudence. It is noteworthy that in the United Kingdom they should have decided to set up two separate law reform commissions for two separate systems of law. We, in Canada, have decided upon a single commission which will embrace within its purview two systems of law-the system of Anglo-American jurisprudence which obtains in nine of the ten provinces, and the civil law system which is practised in the province of Quebec and which derives from the Napoleonic Code and the French jurisprudence. We have also held discussions with members of the Ontario Law Reform Commission and reviewed the practice of the New York State Law Reform Commission.
The purpose of the bill before us is to establish a law reform commission in Canada. The commission will consist of a chairman and vice-chairman, two other full-time members and two part-time members. All appointments would be for a term not exceeding seven years for full-time members and not exceeding three years for part-time members. This would permit the commission to be renewed on a continuing basis. What we are attempting to institute here is a relatively small commission made up of personnel reflecting the priorities of law reform as they arise from time to time. I do not anticipate that the commission will provide a carrer. What we are looking for are men and women whose particular expertise and competence will
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill
reflect the priorities of law reform in the next five to seven years; as these priorities are changed, the personnel of the commission will be rotated, and new men and women will be commissioned to meet the responsibilities and priorities of the next period of reform.
I said I wanted the best years of their lives-men and women, of legal competence primarily-though members could be drawn from other disciplines if that could be arranged to meet the priorities of law reform. At least four members of the commission must be from the legal profession, either barristers or judges, but, as I have said, there is room on the commission for others outside those professions. At least two members of the commission, including either the chairman or the vice-chairman, must represent and reflect the civil law system in Quebec.
The commission would have a permanent staff appointed under the Public Service Employment Act, and it would have power to contract out work for specific projects. It follows that the necessary specialized expertise would be available to it. We realize it would be impossible to incorporate within such a compact commission as is proposed, all the expertise, specialized legal knowledge and familiarity with allied disciplines necessary. So the commission will be empowered to employ on a relatively short-term basis, experts in particular fields under review.
The commission will enjoy a substantial degree of independence. For example, it will be able to receive proposals for law reform from any person; and it will have power to initiate and carry out such studies as it deems necessary. However, it will be required to submit its program to the Attorney General of Canada, and the Attorney General, or the Minister of Justice, will have authority to insert any program for reform into the commission's program for study, should he deem it in the interest of Canada, and the commission will be bound to give such a program special priority when required. This provision has been inserted so as to ensure that the research program and undertakings of the commission will be' related to the priorities in law reform as they appear relevant from time to time, having regard to the priorities of the people as reflected by the debates in Parliament and so on. It is essential to the credibility of the commission that its programs be directed toward reforms, the need for which is felt by the government and reflected in Parliament.
The commission will be independent in its methods of working, in the establishment of its programs and in the conclusions which it reaches. The bill does not permit the Minister of Justice to control how the commission will perform its work once its programs and priorities are set. It does not permit the Minister of Justice to determine how its research shall be conducted. It does not permit the government or the Minister of Justice in any way to determine the recommendations which will be forthcoming from the commission.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The bill contemplates that the commission will consult broadly with the judiciary, members of the bar and persons engaged in teaching, research in legal and allied fields and with other interested bodies, including members of the public at large. The bill provides for the tabling of the commission's reports to the minister. It provides for the tabling of the annual report to the minister; and it provides for the tabling in Parliament of the program and studies approved by the minister.
In other words, the activities of the commission become the property of the people of Canada, through Parliament, in three stages. Once the program of studies is agreed upon by the commission, with the approval of the Minister of Justice, that program of studies must be tabled by the minister in Parliament and become public knowledge, and will be available to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and to Parliament as a whole.
Secondly, the commission must render an annual report to the Minister of Justice. The minister is bound to table that report on the floor of this House; and again that report will be made available to Parliament, presumably through the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and on the floor of the House.
Finally-and this is most important-any report on any particular study made to the minister must be tabled by the minister, again in the House of Commons, where it will become available to Parliament and its committees.

Mr. Speaker, the objects of the Commission are specified in the bill. Indeed, its mandate will be to study and keep under review on a continuing and systematic basis the statutes and other laws and to make recommendations for their improvement, modernization and reform.
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill
Without however, restricting the general scope of the above-mentioned objects, it may suggest especially the removal of anachronisms and anomalies in the law.
The Commission may also concern itself with the reflection in the law of the distinctive concepts and institutions of common law and civil law, as well as with the reconciliation, in the expression and application of the law, of the differences and discrepancies arising out of the differences between those two concepts or those two institutions.
I believe it to be a most important matter, since the federal judicial system should reflect both legal systems. It is therefore essential that the federal laws of the future not only be translations, but the reflection of both cultures and both concepts of law.
At the present time, when a bill or a policy to be put into a bill comes before the Department of Justice, the task is entrusted to a French-speaking editor familiar with the Civil Code, and an English-speaking editor, a lawyer versed in common law. The two versions are prepared at the same time and compared not specially for translation of words but for correspondence of concepts in both legal systems.
Thanks to that new commission for the reform of the laws, our federal legislative system will be not only bilingual but also bijural, that is will incorporate both legal systems.
Besides, the commission will be responsible for eliminating obsolete laws.
Finally, it will see to the development of new approaches to and new concepts of the law in keeping with and responsive to the changing needs of modern Canadian society and of individual members of that society.

It is contemplated that the commission may undertake joint projects with all other law reform commissions both abroad and at the provincial level. Several people with whom I talked before we drafted this legislation stressed the importance of not limiting the work of the commission strictly to the federal statutes but that we should keep in mind the general purview of the administration of justice that might involve the joint responsibility of the provinces.
There are a number of areas of the law that come quickly to mind. I could conceive of the necessity of having joint provincial legislation to back up the civil remedies enforcing the right to privacy. I could conceive a joint
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).l
provincial legislation that would be necessary to reconcile our systems of evidence-criminal evidence, which is the responsibility of the federal government, and civil evidence, which redounds to the provinces.
The commission will be competent, in cooperation with provincial law reform commissions, to review these joint areas of the law. I hope that in this way the commission may be able to provide some measure of co-ordination in the general area of law reform in Canada. Such co-ordination appears to be desirable since there is still in Canada a relatively small pool of qualified persons in the form of legal experts upon which to draw.
As a matter of fact, the deans of Canadian law schools and the Association of Canadian Law Professors are somewhat concerned that the impetus toward law reform may well put tremendous pressures on the pool of legal resources and research in this country. I hope that the eventual chairman of this commission will, at an early opportunity, discuss with the Association of Canadian Law Professors and with the deans means to ensure that in planning a program of legal research and a program of reform they proceed in such way as not to place an immediate burden on law schools in Canada, to the detriment of law students. I think it is important that the primary responsibility of the academic profession in law remains the students in law, and that the necessary taking of their talents for the purpose of public law reform be done in such way as not to interfere with the curricula and programs of the law schools of this country. It is my hope that this law reform commission in Canada will mean that the law will never again stand still in this country; that we will have a body of experts able to suggest reforms in the law on a continuing rather than on an episodic basis.
What I mean is this. There are certain branches of the law that are so complicated in their federal aspects that it is virtually impossible at the departmental level to give them the necessary complete review from section one to section 1,000, or from A to Z. Immediately, I think of the Criminal Code of Canada, which is in need of thorough housekeeping, thorough revision, not merely in lawyers' law as it applies to the Criminal Code but also in many of the Code's social aspects.
Although the Department of Justice will continue to try to meet policy problems as they arise and to anticipate those policy problems, as we are going to do in a month or so
February 23, 1970	COMMONS
in a new criminal law reform bill which relates to bail, to the right to privacy and so on, I think it is necessary that in the medium and in the long term there be a permanent body that is able to review statutes such as the Criminal Code, and to bring forward a consistent piece of legislation.
We have set up a new research section in the Department of Justice. This research section will have as its duty to research the law, to anticipate and to fulfil policy initiatives which we in the Department of Justice will have to take. I hope to be able to announce shortly the name of a director of this new research section. I also hope to be able to announce a new reorganization of the Department of Justice which will reflect the establishment of this research section.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I have always felt that in looking at the Department of Justice, the Attorney General's side has been stronger than that of the Minister of Justice. That is to say, that part of the department which acts as lawyer to the government and to the various departments of government, and prosecutes on behalf of the people of Canada in the enforcement of federal statutes, has been a stronger branch of the Department of Justice than has been that of the reform and research side of the law. We hope we will be able in this new research section to promote that aspect of reform and thereby provide liaison between the Department of Justice on a daily, short-term policy basis with an overview, if I might use the words of the President of the Privy Council earlier this afternoon, of the federal statutes as represented by the Law Reform Commission.
So, the establishment of this law reform commission in no way will derogate from the responsibility of the federal Department of Justice to anticipate and meet the policy of law reform within federal jurisdiction. I want to suggest that I hope the bill reflects the government's genuine concern about the serious and continuing improvement and reform of Canadian federal law.
I suggest as immediate priorities that the commission should have a complete rewriting of the Criminal Law as one of its' first projects. I mention also the necessity of revising, on a total basis, the Canada Evidence Act and, in doing so, arrange that the criminal laws on evidence correspond in so far as that is possible with the civil law on evidence across Canada, both within the civil law
DEBATES	3363
Law Reform Commission Bill system of Quebec and the common law system obtaining in the other nine provinces.
I should think it is incumbent upon the commission at an early stage to examine public administrative laws in Canada, the workings of federal boards, commissions and tribunals, as well as the remedies of the citizen by way of administrative review and judicial review. I think this House, in a report of the committee chaired by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) studying statutory instruments, has shown how Parliament might better review some of its administrative procedures. I think we have to buttress this on a local and national basis.
I hope I have been able, in a general way, to outline to the House the purposes and general contours of the bill. If the House decides in its wisdom to move this bill forward into committee, then of course members from all sides of the House, who contributed to what I might term the outstanding work under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, will be able to examine this bill in the detail which I hope it deserves.
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fairwealher {Fundy-Roy-al): Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should have a Member of Parliament on the law reform committee to shake the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) out of his boots. However, I will not destroy an obviously cooperative mood with that suggestion.
I think the House will appreciate, particularly those who have sat here for some time, the difficulty that so often is encountered by governments and by parliamentarians in translating ideas for reform into amendments to statutes or new statutes. The idea of continuing reform is an excellent one. It is one I may say that already operates not only in the state of New York but in the province of Ontario through its commission.
I also think of the Ontario government, and I am not making a big pitch here because it had its lumps during the weekend from a certain conference, was helped by the very special work done by former Chief Justice McRuer. His report will be of great value not only to this commission's work but to the administration of justice throughout Canada.
When one thinks of continuing reform of the law, one of course thinks of the tremendous work done in the private sector-nongovernment sector would be a better expression-by the American law institute and, I am
February 23, 1970

Law Reform, Commission Bill afraid to a lesser degree, by the commissioners on uniformity in our own country. I found, when I had office and hoped to get the commissioners to act, that speed in their case was very deliberate indeed. In other words, provincial governments would be interested in moving ahead on a particular issue in concert with other provinces but it would take the commissioners so long to translate the ideas into statute form, and then the ten legislatures to get around to doing anything about it, that we tended to circumvent the work on uniformity, and go about it on an individual basis.
I was very interested, and I think this is an assessment we should keep in mind, in the minister's idea of not making a career out of positions on this commission. I have been discussing with friends the fact that in 1969 not one of the graduates of the Harvard Law School went to what is known as the great law firms of the city of New York. Anybody who is interested in law schools and their graduates knows that usually the large, busy and prosperous law firms literally line up in Cambridge or elsewhere seeking the best brains from that and other important schools. This year, and I think this is very significant and shows an interesting new development of students, graduates prefer to work where the action is, so to speak. They prefer to work for Ralph Nader on the reforms that he is bringing about in respect to auto safety and protection of consumers' rights, and with organizations such as NAACP and others in the civil rights field for the black people of the United States. I hope very much that this type of orientation will pervade Canada's law schools. I think there is a great deal of evidence that it is beginning to occur here. In other words, this profession that some of us belong to is not primarily one for earning money. It is a profession which lends itself to a great deal of useful community activity. I think it is right that the minister does not sort of entrench his "tigers", because tigers too can get lazy if they lie in the sun too long. I should think that the commission should be transfused very often with new blood.
The other aspect, and I am sure the minister will keep this in mind, is the need for the use of what I might call the cross discipline aspect of law reform. For too long I think, lawyers have thought of the law as their preserve. This is by no means the case. I hope very much that when the minister gets around to amending the criminal law, for instance, a great deal of attention will be paid

to the useful and perceptive suggestions of others in the community engaged with crime and its results.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Many of us had the privilege the other evening, for example, of hearing a talk by a very remarkable young lady Miss Barbara Buck, who is devoting an important part of her life to work with drug addicts at Digger House in Toronto. Her discipline is not of the law; she is a sociologist. I was very impressed, however, by the very practical and knowledgeable way in which this young lady addressed herself to this serious social problem.
Although this will require joint provincial action, I would hope, in what the minister categorized as sort of a joint program, the minister would take into consideration the administration of justice in so far as the courts and all aspects of trial are concerned. In my own province, the judicature act was largely designed around the horse and buggy concept in the real sense of that term. The courts opened on Tuesday because in order to get to the centre where the court was located one had to start on Sunday. No one would think of travelling on Sunday so the court started on Tuesday. That is only a small aspect of a total problem.
I think many of us were shocked, for instance, by a situation which may be manifested in other parts of the country, although it occurred in Toronto. An accused person waited I believe some five or six months in the Don jail before being brought to trial. Obviously, in any reform in respect of this type of situation the commission would have to have very close contact with the provinces because of the constitution.
As to reporting certain segments of law reform undertaken by the commission, the minister I believe has undertaken that these reports will come to Parliament. This is an important departure. This is possibly just another cliche, but I would say this change is just the tip of the iceberg. The more governments find it necessary to have their work done by consultants, the more important it is that the results of this research get out to the public in some way. This is another subject for another time, but I think the minister is entitled to be congratulated for seeing, so far as this commission is concerned, that there will be no sitting on reports. As we reform the law I believe it it very important that the rationalization for the reform have very wide
February 23, 1970	COMMONS
public discussion and by the representatives of the public who happen to sit in this Parliament.
I hope other departments will follow this very useful precedent. There really should be no secret documents in a democratic state unless those documents literally have to do with the security of the state. I have never understood the passion for secrecy in our system in Canada and in the United Kingdom. If the commission on law reform can break through this type of secrecy, we will have accomplished a great deal.
This is about all I have to say. I am struck by the problems being faced in the United States today concerning the whole matter of the administration of justice and how really delicate and tenuous are some of the rights which are grandly proclaimed in rigid constitutions. This perhaps is wide-ranging, but I believe people who seek to list our liberties on a piece of paper should remember that it really did not matter very much, for example, if one was a United States citizen of Japanese origin or a Canadian of Japanese origin in World War II. Although one group was protected by the constitution of the United States and the other was protected by our jurisprudence each were extremely shabbily dealt with by the state.
So when I see people who want to have pieces of paper to put on the walls listing their rights-I am not condemning anyone who sees it in that way-I believe we must remember that rights can have a way of being twisted by governments which only pay lip service to them. I do not suppose Mr. Speaker would allow any more philosophizing, for instance about the results of the recent trials in Chicago and New York, but as we reform the law we should remember that it is the ethic of the country that supports the reform of law and this ethic will be very important in the days ahead.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party welcome Bill C-186 to establish a law reform commission, but we do so with reservations because we do not want to see the law reform commission become a stalling device for immediate and necessary legislation. In his remarks, the minister stated that he is fulfilling a commitment made in 1968 to the students of Osgoode Hall that he would bring in this bill within 18 months. He has now done so. I recall when I came down to Ottawa for the first time in 1965, the ten minister of justice promised complete revision of the Criminal Code. To
DEBATES	3965
Law Reform Commission Bill
date we have had the omnibus bill which certainly brought forth measures which were welcome and necessary in respect of the criminal law. Today, we have a statement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to the effect that he hopes to bring forth another bill in the near future concerning bail and arrest. In the interim, we have had the Ouimet commission which studied criminal law in Canada and which presented an excellent report concerning changes which it believes should take place.
I hope the present minister will not await a report by the law reform commission before implementing some of the recommendations contained in the Ouimet commission report. I can think at this moment very quickly of the right to counsel at trial. This is a very important aspect of the criminal law which has been neglected in Canada. When the minister brings forth the second bill on law reform, I hope it will include not only the matter of bail and arrest but also the right to counsel at trial.
There are three ways to reform the law. First, a special committee or commission could be set up to examine a particular matter, or a standing committee such as the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs could be set up or a permanent commission could be appointed. This bill would appoint a permanent commission. In respect of the first method, that of setting up a special committee of the House of Commons to examine a particular matter, I think immediately of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons that was set up to study the divorce laws in Canada.
As a result of the recommendations of this joint committee the divorce law in Canada has been brought up to the point of the law of divorce in England as set forth in the year 1870. Even at this stage, after the divorce laws have been changed, many hardships and grievances remain for some members of the community. It was only as a result of the work of this committee that the divorce laws were changed. I can think of the Ouimet Commission which studied the criminal law and recommended changes. I can think of the commission which was set up at least six years ago to study juvenile delinquency and which submitted a report in 1966. However, from that time until the present there have been no amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I can only approve this bill with reservation when I think of the urgency to amend the juvenile delinquents legislation in
3S6S
February 23, 1970

Law Reform. Commission Bill the 10 provinces of Canada and the delays of the present government in doing so.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The establishment of a standing committee is necessary to study the reform of the law. We have done this through the establishment of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. That standing committee has many shortcomings, one of which is the lack of research facilities, but I can recall that there has been a study in depth of certain subjects that affect many Canadians. We had a study with regard to bail; another one with regard to drugs, and a third one on expunging criminal records. The committee submitted reports in those three areas as a result of the studies.
The minister said with regard to bail that measures will be brought forth. I cannot be too critical of that. We are now awaiting a report from another committee that was set up by the government to study the use of drugs. With regard to expunging criminal records, a bill was presented by the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) which, however, is not in keeping with the thinking of the members of the committee on justice and legal affairs. In fact, the principle of the bill is totally contrary to their recommendations.
We have now before us Bill C-186 which sets forth the necessary framework for a permanent commission. As I said, we in the NDP welcome it provided it is not a stalling device, because there is no reason for a further delay in setting up a permanent law reform commission. We live now in a society where rapid technological, economic and social changes are taking place, a situation which has created a continuous shift in our way of life. Our legal system has failed to keep abreast of these sweeping changes. Many of our laws are couple; many are uncertain and often many are not adapted to our changing world. We operate under the law of precedents. It might be of interest to members of the House to know that in England there are one quarter of a million recorded cases that are used as precedents, and in addition we have statutes, regulations, orders in council and bylaws on three levels of government. Is it any wonder then that our law is not in keeping with the changing times?
I should like to refer to an article written by Allen M. Linden called "The Laggard Law: Machinery of Law Reform". He summed up by saying:
The present machinery of law reform in Canada is rusty and obsolescent; horse and buggy methods

are being used in a jet age. Efforts to keep the law responsive to societal aspirations are lagging because of limited resources, non-existent vehicles for reform, overworked public officials, and self-satisfaction.
The same author warns us as follows: Unless new institutions are established to transform our law to embody the aspirations of the majority of the Canadian people, our legal system will be in danger. Therefore, the time has come to create the machinery to expedite the intelligent growth and steady modification of law and legal procedure.
Here we are in 1970 passing a bill to set up a law reform commission. The minister mentioned consultations with officials from the state of New York. It is interesting to note that tire state of New York passed such legislation in 1934; that New Zealand passed it in 1937; California in 1953; and the great province of Ontario in 1964. As the minister stated, a law reform Commission bill was passed in England in 1965 and was enacted on the 750th anniversary of Magna Carta. With regard to the federal government, a bill was presented in 1965 by Richard A. Bell, a former Conservative member, but the bill did not go beyond first reading. In 1966, the Canadian Bar Association recommended the setting up of a law reform commission. The Ontario law reform commission has done an excellent job in the studies that it has undertaken, and has prepared about four or five reports. It prepared a report on the mechanics lien act, the perpetuities act, the personal property security act and the expropriation act. I think that their bill and their report on expropriation helped in no small measure in passing the federal Expropriation Act, which is similar in many areas.
The bill before us proposes, as the minister pointed out, the appointment of four full time members to the commission and two part time members. With regard to their qualifications there is a requirement that the chairman and vice-chairman, one to be full time and one part time, be judges or barristers with ten years' experience. This is one aspect which I would like the minister to take under advisement because the initiative with regard to the reform of the law has come from younger members of the bar and in many cases from academics in law schools across Canada, academics who have the time and the research facilities necessary to study the laws in depth.
On looking at the particular clause in the bill setting down the necessary qualifications of the chairman and vice-chairman we see that they must be a judge or a barrister. I
February 23. 1970

think the minister would be well advised to take into account law professors and law teachers for those positions. We have a precedent in the Ontario law reform commission. Mr. Allan Leal, Q.C., is the chairman and has been a practising barrister for some years. He then became dean of Osgoode law school and is now chairman of the Ontario law reform commission. It would be fair to say that he is doing an excellent job as its chairman. He is an academic with past practical experience. On that committee in Ontario, not only do we have an academic in Mr. Leal but we have a former chief justice of the high court, the Hon. James C. McRuer. At the present time the other members of the Ontario committee are the Hon. Richard A. Bell, W. Gibson Gray and William R. Pool. I would ask the minister to take into account what I think is a shortcoming, namely, the absence of any law professor or other academic.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: How about the Prime Minister?


John Gilbert: Possibly that is what he may return to after the next election.
The objects of the commission are set forth on page 5 of the bill. The first of these is the "removal of anachronisms in the law." I think it was Dickens who said that the law is an ass. Many people think that sometimes the practitioners of the law can also be included in that class. It is because of the anachronisms in the law that we, as legislators, have taken the initiative to remove them, and to remove obsolete laws from the statute books. Another stated object is "reflection in the law". Lord knows, we certainly need reflection in depth in the law. Another object is "the development of new approaches." One area in which we have to develop a new approach is that of the uniformity of laws across Canada. One would hope to see a codification of the law of contract, the law of torts, and the law dealing with land titles. When I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) condemn lawyers with reference to land law as practised in Ontario, especially with reference to the registration of legal instruments, it made me realize there is a dire necessity to up date the law of land and the procedure for registration of legal instruments in Ontario.
It is necessary to have uniformity with regard to securities legislation. At the moment we have ten different provinces enacting legislation with regard to securities.
Law Reform Commission Bill I would hope that the Law Reform Commission would direct its attention to basic security legislation which would prevail across the whole of Canada.
The provinces have passed laws with regard to compensation for the victims of criminal violence. We have a hodge-podge of different statutes covering compensation for victims of criminal violence. I recall that the minister said he would take up this subject with the provincial attorneys general during the summer, and try to get some uniformity in that area. I would hope we could have that uniformity so that when people are injured as the result of criminal violence in any province they will get just and equitable treatment.
I think it would be fair to say that the Law Reform Commission should give priority to laws which have an impact on individuals. It should give a priority not only to the area of criminal law but to many other areas which concern the freedoms we enjoy in Canada. I personally would like to see the commission take another look at the philosophy underlying criminal law. In the past we have had the adversary approach, and many people believe this falls far short in providing any basis upon which the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders may be considered. We have taken a half step with regard to juvenile delinquents. Now we look more at the reformation and rehabilitation aspect rather than merely at the commission of an offence by a juvenile delinquent. After reading a few books by psychiatrists and others indicating the shortcomings of the adversary approach, I would hope the commission would study this matter in depth so that we can meet some of the problems that are facing Canadians.
With respect to the current interest in the expungement of criminal records, I believe this interest would not have developed but for the fact that more first offenders are to be found in all classes in the community. For years young men in the lower income groups who had convictions registered against them had to face all the restrictions that were imposed on them with regard to employment, travel and bonding. In the past few years, however, a wider segment of the community has been involved in criminal offences. We have had the white collar frauds, and the impaired driving convictions to consider. These types of convictions affect another class, and now a first attempt is being made in the area of expunging criminal records.
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill
The minister said that the commission will present an annual report, which will be tabled in the House, and that it will also present reports of particular studies it makes. We welcome this. 1 would ask him to look at the British precedent in this regard, and more especially with regard to reports that are tabled on particular studies. In the British house, not only is a report tabled but sometimes it is accompanied with the comments of the Minister of Justice. Sometimes it is not only necessary to have a commission study a particular question but it is also necessary to have the Minister of Justice review that study and make comments on it. Otherwise, the government may be saddled with the commission's report, presented to the minister and tabled in the House. Under this legislation the minister should be given power to add any recommendations or comments that he may wish to make. This is the English practice, and I think it is a good one. The legislative supremacy of Parliament should never be undermined by the reports of commissions. I am sure there will be adequate protection in this legislation in that respect. When reports are tabled in the House I hope they will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, so that further representations from organized bodies and other interested people may be heard.
Another thing we must remember is that mere setting up of a Law Reform Commission does not mean we should do away with or undermine other commissions and committees that have been established. I am sure the minister knows this and will keep it in mind. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the law reform commission legislation we are now studying will justify the hopes and the expectations of the minister, of the members of this House, and of the Canadian public.
.[Translation]


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the introduction of this bill today, because we have been waiting for it for a long time. I congratulate the minister for having fulfilled one of the promises he made to us in 1968. I was a member of Parliament then and I remember. I think that it is the first time that a minister is true to his promise; many promises of this type have been made to us in the past.
In 1965-66, the same promise had been made to us and we were still waiting for the establishment of this Commission. We are happy to learn that this will be a permanent organization; today, the rhythm of life is so

quick and change is so rapid that it is absolutely essential that a Commission of this type be permanently established in order to attempt to up-date our laws.
Mr. Speaker, this Commission will likely operate much the same way as other commissions do. It will make inquiries across the country to sound public opinion. I hope that the witnesses who will come before the comi-missioners will be listened to carefully and that their testimony will serve some useful purpose towards the proposed reform. I cannot imagine that a commission is created merely for the pleasure of conducting studies or travelling across Canada. First of all, it is essential to know what people think about justice. It is certain that several persons administer it, but one must not forget above all else that the people suffer the consequences of its application. Therefore, it is at the people's level that we must seek basic ideas in order to adapt justice to the people's living conditions.
It interested me greatly to hear the minister say that the Commission would try to make a synthesis of our two legal systems in order to find a common denominator. I was happy to hear him say those things because he is definitely one of those who perceive disparities existing within Canada itself.
Too often today do we hear government authorities repeat that Quebec is a province like all the others and that Canada is an unusual country. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) just proved that in Canada there are really two cultures and two judicial systems and that we must not try to eliminate one in favour of the other but attempt to establish links between the two.
In my opinion, the Minister of Justice should be congratulated since he understood the nature of the problem and did not try to elude it. He studies the facts and attempts to make a synthesis of them. This is a real good start on the standpoint of justice if an effort is made to understand better the various mentalities in Canada which is such a large country to administer, as all the English provinces, as everybody knows, are under the common law while the Civil Code applies to the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I think he made a very interesting point there and I wish him, and the commission particularly, much success as the task is a difficult one and it will be hard work achieving a synthesis that reflects the true situation of law in Canada.
February 23, 1970

We laymen wonder how long it will be before the commission comes up with results. If I could ask a favour of the commission, it would be that it tackle the job as early as possible. In fact, the creation of such a commission, to guide the Department of Justice and also to help bring about a new code of laws was long overdue. I feel the commission should act without delay and take all possible steps to speed up its work and submit its report.
It is said that the commission will report every year. I think that if the official report is to be handed in every year, the commission must keep in constant touch with the department and that, as soon as the study of a subject is over and done with, it must report to the Department of Justice that will take it up to the House and will attempt to apply its recommendations.
A complete review of our judicial system was necessary. If we just leaf through the Code, we will be shocked by the number of sections that are obsolete. I think it a must to review it thoroughly and I hope such review will be conducted with order and clarity.
The new code should use clear vocabulary. In certain fields, particularly that of justice, it would seem that people who draft legislation do their utmost to find complicated expressions and to use incomprehensible language.
In my opinion, it would be possible to write legislation in a general way and still make the text simple enough so that everyone will understand; this would do away with arguments about terminology whose only result is to enable lawyers to prolong cases and quarrel among themselves, as I have seen them do myself. Indeed, I always found it tiresome to see them arguing for days to try to establish the exact meaning of a word.
It seems to me that the English and French languages are rich enough so that an end can be put to the obscureness of legal texts.
Certain priorites will have to be determined in that study. We have done so in the past. Some ministers of justice have advocated certain reforms here in the House. They claimed they were priorities. But we did not consider them priorities but merely promises. When the Criminal Code was amended, especially with regard to abortion and homosexuality, I did not consider them priorities, although some seemed to think that they should come first. Still, it was done, and I am sure that the members of the commission who will be appointed will be able to determine the priorities and then do the work that is required.

Law Reform Commission Bill
As I said a while ago, there has been concern about old matters, specially with regard to expressions that are still popular such as "air pirates". It is shocking to think that the civil code cannot include measures on that because it falls under the Criminal Code. The commission will have to deal with such matters to bring our laws up to date.
I hope the new code will be less punitive and more remedial, and that the social character of the law will be stressed. One must realize that the steel age and the muscle age are a thing of the past. We now live in the atomic age, the age of intelligence. And I feel that our laws must reflect this. The criminal must no longer be treated like a criminal. In former times, it was said of criminals that they were not like other men. The new code must treat them like mentally ill people and especially like human beings, taking into consideration their essence, their intelligence. Then we will have taken a wonderful step towards renewing and humanizing the Criminal Code, to my mind the greatest stride ever towards law reform.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I think that every member of this House will enthusiastically support this important proposal for legal reform which has been made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in the introduction of this bill. The minister has referred to some of the issues which might be studied by the proposed law reform commission such as the Criminal Code, the law of evidence and other matters. Each member who has spoken has added other issues which he regards as major and which call for study.
Following this pattern, I have one or two suggestions about major issues. They are based upon my experience, which has been rather extensive, in the study and application of federal statutes as a result of practising law in Ottawa for almost 20 years. One of the most appalling things about the present statutes of Canada is the lack of consistency and the lack of uniformity which characterizes many of the statutes. For example, in one statute a person who may be charged with a particular offence has the onus of proof cast upon him to show that he is innocent. In another statute where there may be an offence almost parallel in its terms, the onus is upon the Crown.
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill
There are hundreds of examples in our statutes where an important discretion is conferred upon a minister or a public official to make a decision. There are many different ways in which this discretionary power is conferred. What you might think would be the rule which would apply to the exercise of a discretion under one statute as a result of your experience, sometimes proves not to be the case because of some odd difference in the wording.
The operation and application of our statutes as a whole in relation to the rights and privileges of private citizens is something which should give great concern to all of us. This is now even more important because of the fact the Supreme Court of Canada, in an important recent decision, has given new life and vitality to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
As a major project of any law reform commission there should be a careful study of the statutes with a view to determining how they apply against individual citizens; how the rights of citizens are protected and enhanced in their dealings with their government; how the Bill of Rights applies to the statutes of Canada; and to what extent the statutes explicitly or implicitly recognize the Bill of Rights which in its most important sections is supposed to overrule statutory provisions which are in conflict with the fundamental rights of the people.
There are many big and popular issues which will engage the attention of this commission. I would not be surprised, following the practice of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, if the new federal commission became engaged in long and complex inquiries dealing with important and complex issues. As we know, the Ontario Commission had already published four large volumes and more are to follow. The very complexity of the inquiries that it has carried out, the difficulties of the subject matter and the difficulty of finding time, undoubtedly, in a parliamentary timetable to deal with its findings have of course slowed down the implementation of its recommendations. There is no way out of this problem because we all know that changes of a major nature in the law must be made only after careful study. If they are made precipitately and without due deliberation, they will not be satisfactory.
I hope this new commission will not concern itself only with big matters. I hope it will not be over-impressed by the fact it has the capacity to solve some of the larger legal problems of this country. I hope it will direct

its attention continuously and in detail to all the minor law reforms which it is necessary to make.
Our government operates according to law. It is governed in every respect by the statutes of Canada. Experience shows that in many instances, for one reason or another, the laws have become out of date. There may be some unexpected defect or imprecision in the drafting of a statute; some circumstances may not have been foreseen or some new circumstances may have arisen. I can recall many times in my practice in this city where, having presented a point of view to governmental officials, I was told and I had to agree that they had no alternative but to say, "Too bad we can't do what you want. We think we should be able to do it, but unfortunately the law does not give us this authority." In most of these circumstances, the number of people affected by this type of decision is small. It may be only one person or a very small number of persons who somehow or other have come within the purview of an obscure section of an act of Parliament.
I need not tell the members of this House that the correction of this kind of injustice and legal result is something which rarely happens in the experience of this Parliament. There are simply too many big and time-consuming issues which engage our attention for departments to continually, year after year, bring forward to this House small projects for the amendment of defects in the various statutes for which they are responsible.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I therefore feel that if the new commission directed its attention not only to big issues but to small ones it could confer great benefit upon the public of Canada as well as upon members of this House. Hon. members having read the bill will realize that the commission can act on its own account-that it can receive complaints from the public and take action. It will be in a position to make reports from time to time which will inform members of this House and of the public of problems which have arisen in the administration of sections of particular statutes. This kind of legislative reform could, perhaps, be wrapped up in a single bill, a miscellaneous law amendment statute-something which would not involve the House in a discussion of great principle. In passing it, we would be doing necessary housekeeping so as to keep the law up to date. In this way, the commission could exercise a great function in ensuring that justice is done not only to the mass of the people
February 23. 1970

but to individuals. It might become, indeed, a legislative ombudsman whose work would be of great assistance to us all.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, anyone on this continent who in the course of the last few weeks, and in particularly in the last ten days or so, has had occasion to observe the proceedings in Chicago, must have come to the conclusion that it was high time we in this country, as well as those in the United States, took a completely new look at where we stand on this issue of the status of the courts, and law and order.
In Chicago were represented the two extremes of a certain position. Between those two extremes the average person stands appalled, shocked and amazed at the spectacle presented of a courtroom in which the defendants and their counsel brought the programs of violence and confrontation which have been witnessed outside; where one of the defendants had to be literally bound and gagged, if I remember correctly, and where at the conclusion of the proceedings counsel for the defendants were sent to jail, one of them for a term of four years.
I have tried to read objectively the newspaper accounts of this affair, and I have listened to the radio and television accounts of what took place. It seems to me that the law and order faction was represented by a very repressive element. Obviously, if there is to be respect for the judicial system in the western world, and particularly on this continent, and respect for the statutes passed by freely-elected representatives of the people, there has to be change. If this sort of thing is re-enacted, and it appears there is every likelihood that it will be re-enacted all over the country, it will lead to a breakdown of the judicial process. More important than anything else, it will mean a loss of the respect people have for the judicial system.
My experience in the practice of law began when I was articled as a student at the age of 16. At that time, in the Province of Saskatchewan, there was a liquor enforcement act on the statute books, a silly, stupid law which did not reflect the thinking and the mores of the people. This was the law which replaced the prohibition legislation which had existed earlier.
What happened was this: all the respectable people were breaking this law over and over again. 1 remember those early days of complete prohibition. The way to buy a bottle of liquor then was to go to the local drug store. For $2 a physician would sign a large number

Law Reform Commission Bill of forms-prescriptions-and these would enable anyone to buy liquor as medicine. This is not the kind of system which leads to respect for the functioning of the judicial process or for statutes passed by a legislature. People lost all respect for the law and for those who administered it; it was a question of seeing whether one could beat the system. Bearing in mind what has taken place in Chicago, we need not feel sympathy for the extremists on either side. But we must feel sympathy for the people in the middle who are entitled to look to the judicial process and to reasonable and proper enforcement of good laws which are passed for their protection, health and assistance.
I have no hesitation in telling the minister that I approve of this bill in principle. I think it is capable of doing a great deal of good. But the commission will, I feel, be faced with some extraordinary problems for which it will need to find solutions in short order. For this reason I hope it will not be too remote- that it will not look at the situation from an ivory tower. This has been one of our problems in relation to laws which are passed from time to time-I have in mind amendments in statutes designed to block loopholes, to cross t's, to provide for situations not contemplated when legislation was originally passed. All too often we do not take into account the real impact of such actions upon the people most affected. It is fine to have people with judicial or legal knowledge appointed to this commission but I think it would be even better, perhaps, if we were to appoint for instance, a convict who had been rehabilitated, or a bankrupt who had made financial restitution.
What I am trying to say is that membership of the commission should include people who have some personal understanding of what these laws mean to those who are likely to be directly affected by them. In any event, the commission should make sure that they or their representatives get into the streets and talk to the people. I think it was Jeremy Bentham who said laws should be enacted so that they brought the greatest good to the greatest number. There are so many things which the commission might consider. There is the question of insanity-the application of the M'Naghten rule today; the increasing use of alcohol, the increasing use of drugs. What will be the impact of these changes both on the criminal law and on the civil law to the extent that it comes under federal supervision?
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I recall the case a number of years ago of a man who was successful in having a charge of murder reduced to manslaughter because the court found his degree of intoxication when he committed the crime was such that he was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act. This is not a defence which would have permitted him to be acquitted, but it did permit what would otherwise have been a charge of murder to be reduced to a charge of manslaughter. We will also have to look at the extent to which people commit acts under the influence of drugs. The formidable increase in the use of drugs of one kind or another is bound to leave its impact on the actions and conduct of those who use them.
I hope that in an issue of this kind the minister will either recommend to the commission or that the commission will consider, as I think they quite properly should, the contracting out of further inquiries to be undertaken by private individuals or groups. I think an immediate study should be commissioned by the commission into the whole question of legal competence and responsibility involving cases of insanity, use of drugs and so on.
I have noticed that one or two courts have used television to publicize their proceedings. I am not proposing the general use of television in our courts, but I think that on a trial basis it might be useful to bring home to the people the actual processing of legal disputes, whether in our criminal courts or otherwise. The courts are growing increasingly unfamiliar to the people.
It has been my fortunate experience to be involved in the study and practice of law in a great many small communities, communities where you knew the people and those who administered the courts; communities where juries were usually personally known to most of those who were unfortunate enough to be caught up in the criminal law. I think this condition had its usefulness, though it is not so prevalent today. All too often people today have the idea that law is remote, is austere, and sometimes far too antiseptic. I think the two safeguards which are available to the ordinary people are the legislative and parliamentary process-which I may suggest, as an aside, is slowly being scuttled; but more of that later-and the judicial process. Certainly the judicial process is tremendously important.
The statutes that are being set up through the legislative process must come increasingly under the scrutiny of a commission of this kind. However, I suggest to the minister that it might be very useful to have some liaison in this regard. I know that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) facetiously suggested placing a member of the House of Commons on the commission-I think he was being facetious in that regard. However, it seems to me that there is some scope for liaison here.
The present Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has in many instances acted quite objectively and done a good job in may respects. It is my hope that this practice will continue and that, Parliament by Parliament, this committee will become one of the important committees of the House of Commons. This is the committee that will, in due course, be studying in detail the statutes that the government may see fit to bring down following recommendations by the commission. I think some thought might be given to having some form of informal liaison from time to time between the commission and the members of the standing committee. This would be very useful at a later date.
For example, let me deal with some of the suggestions that have been made. The world has known for some years of the dangers that are inherent in the voyaging of large tankers to different parts of the world. For 12 years we have had available to us under international conventions the right to lay down regulations governing the innocent passage of vessels, even the innocent passage of foreign vessels, into Canadian waters. It seems to me that by now it would have been possible to lay down rules, regulations and statutes consequent upon consideration of the subject by a committee of this kind. This would afford those thousands of people so deeply affected and greatly injured by what happened recently off the coast of Cape Breton Island means by which they would have recourse to some compensation. I venture to say that today, faced with the necessity of taking legal proceedings in the civil court against either the owners of the vessel of their insurers, many people would simply forget about it. The world has known about this particular problem for a long enough period now for some action to have been taken. There should have been available some means to enable private citizens to have some recourse to compensation without the dangers and anxieties that arise in litigation that

February 23, 1970

involves the expenditure of large sums of money.
I should like to suggest to the minister that while we do not want unduly to speed up contemplation by the commission of the sorts of things that are covered within the four corners of the commission's terms of reference, nevertheless once the commission has come to conclusions and made recommendations, the government should see that these recommendations are made public. It may well be that the commission itself would make them public; but I think that all too often the public have become disillusioned over the length of time involved, the gestation period as it were, between the time that someone gets an idea about dealing with a certain problem and the time it first sees the light of day in this House. Consequently, as I say, the public loses its confidence and trust.
In the course of his remarks, the minister dealt with the proposals that were made by the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is true, as the minister said, that some of the recommendations of that committee outlined proposals with which this House should deal. There were 23 recommendations, 18 of which involved proposals with which the government should deal. Now, I know there are problems of personnel and manpower. Nevertheless, it is now over a year since this committee was set in motion. It was a good committee, non-partisan and objective, a committee that made a united and unanimous report.
I suggest that some of the proposals made in that report should have been implemented by now. If not, then at least the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), in his capacity as house leader, should have brought them before the House for discussion. This report followed years of research, of discussion, of requests made by members of the House who had felt for too long that, while we have ways and means through standing committees for dealing with laws, we really have no effective way of dealing with the substantial, in fact overwhelming, extent to which the lives of the people of this country are affected by regulations.
I think that the bill with which we are dealing does bear this point in mind. I notice that one clause makes reference to "statutes and other laws". I think those who framed the bill had in mind doing something about the extent to which the legislation dealt with orders in council, decrees and regulations.
Law Reform Commission Bill
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
What are some of the things that were recommended? It was recommended that regulations made in the exercise of the prerogative power of the governor in council be subject to the same procedures and requirements. This is something long overdue for discussion. It was recommended that there should be no exemptions from the requirements of the Regulations Act. I am sure that the Minister of Justice will do a good job, but it was recommended that he should be charged with the responsibility of deciding for all regulation making authorities which documents should be classified as regulations.
It was recommended that departmental directives and guidelines as to the exercise of discretion under a statute or regulation where the public is directly affected should be published. What is the use of having a law if you do not publish it to let people know what it is? We should not be like the Roman emperor who, when compelled to publish his laws, had them engraved upon a tablet which was then hoisted so high nobody could read it. That is our situation today in respect of regulations, and orders in council. I do not blame the minister for this situation because I think he is well disposed towards this particular problem. However, if the attitude of this government towards this committee's report is an indication of the way in which the government is going to treat recommendations of the law reform commission, then we are beaten before we start. In that case, we should forget the whole thing and scrap the bill. The indications at this stage of the session are that the government will probably not bring its proposals before Parliament until near the end of the session. Then, the session will end and we will have to start all over again. I think it is a disgrace that this committee's reports which bear right on the issue brought up by the minister should be allowed to wither on the vine in this way.
I give the minister full credit for desiring to deal with this issue in order that there might be more expeditious action in government terms once the commission has made recommendations. I understand the government is not necessarily bound by these recommendations. However, as in the case of the third report of the committee on statutory instruments, if the government does not like the recommendations, it should come out and say so. The government should indicate the view it takes and what parts of a report it does accept. It should then place the matter before
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill the House for debate and let the House decide on the issue. That is what this House is for, and that is what we were elected to do-consider, discuss, debate and then decide the issues. So, it should be with this law reform commission.
I wish the commission well and I urge upon the minister once more that the personnel of the commission, the people who are going to do the job of contemplating, ruminating and acting, should represent a cross-section of the community. I think it is tremendously important that the membership should include academics and professionals, as well as those who can be said to be truly representative of the great majority of people who will be affected. It is in that sense they will consider and recommend what ultimately will be translated into law, and it is in this sense that the great virtues of this proposal will be found. I hope the committee will consider these facts and make the changes which are needed. I urge the minister to concentrate on this idea when seeking the people who are to be members of this commission, because I think this is the true test of the success or failure of the proposals and objectives found in this bill.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, as it is late, I will only say a few words, leaving out the fine shades and distinctions which would be necessary.
To my mind, when the act to establish a commission for the reform of the laws of Canada is adopted, it will be a red letter day. The purpose of the Commission, as stated in clause 11(d) is as follows:
The development of new approaches to and new concepts of the Law in keeping with and responsive to the changing needs of modem Canadian society and of individual members of that society.
I feel that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) should be congratulated for having introduced such a bill.
But obviously, I did not wish to take the floor only to pay compliments; I also want to comment on the matter.
As far as I am concerned, the clause which outlines the objects of the Commission could be made more explicit. Also the bill should state in a more precise way the philosophy which underlies the development of the new methods mentioned in clause 11(d).
In fact, I believe that certain fundamental principles should be carefully spelled out in the Commission's mandate.


I also believe that this mandate should cover parliamentary procedure and the legislative process. In this way, we shall touch upon social and political sciences and I think that one disguises the truth when one says that the Department of Justice has never taken into account the progress of such sciences.
When clause 11(d) mentions the changing needs of modern society, it obviously refers to one of the main objects of social sciences, that is social change and the history of societies. In this regard, I believe the clause would be improved through a more precise wording.
If it is true that the philosophy that must be the basis of the Commission's activity should be more explicitly defined, I fail to understand why it is required that certain members of the Commission must have been members of the bar for at least ten years, when we know that youth today plays an important, even an essential role in the legal field and the scientific world.
I know some law faculties where most of the professors have been members of the bar for less than 10 years. In the United States Ralph Nader for instance, the barrister who has brought in the most drastic changes regarding the rights of consumers, has been a member of the bar for less than 10 years. I do not think that these two criteria are necessary.
Finally, I think that if democracy has a meaning, members of the Commission should be appointed at the discretion of the government, so that if the latter changes, the new Minister of Justice will be completely free to appoint other members since there should be a community of thought between political parties, at least regarding the main objectives.
I do not see why some members of the commission should be irremovable for a period of years.
Finally, to my mind, one of the reasons that make the passing of the bill necessary is, paradoxically, the lack of technical means provided for members of the House who are interested in the reform and updating of the laws. If members had had the means of doing this work, if they had them today, the commission would not have to be set up. I do not want to minimize the usefulness of the commission, but I think members could have achieved this task, had they been given the proper tools.
I would like the commission, the establishment of which is hoped for by all political
February 23, 1970	COMMONS
parties, to concern itself with both theoretical problems and the implementing of justice, in other words the democratization of justice.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
{English]


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I intend to join only very briefly in the chorus of acceptance we have heard in respect of this bill. I believe it is long overdue. A law reform commission should have been in existence over the years. I do not say that as a condemnation of the minister because his term of office has not been very long. There are one or two things I should like to say about this particular bill. As has already been mentioned, the quality of those who serve on the commission will be of tremendous importance. I do not know whether this is the minister's view, but it is my view that the legal profession tends to be very conservative with a small "c". It does not tend to be reform-minded in any way. Certainly, that used to be the case. Whether or not it still is 1 am not sure. I see that the bill provides that a majority of the members should be persons who have been judges or lawyers with ten years' experience. I hope the minister will strive very hard to get younger people appointed to this commission, so that it will not be composed largely of senior people.
In the legal profession I think the tendency to be concerned about reform in any way is apparent among the younger generation and not among the senior generation of lawyers, by and large. It would seem to me that on this commission we need people with radical ideas. A law reform commission could very easily turn its attention to the tidying up here and there of little details. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Blair) seems to believe it is an important function. I do not think it is an important function. I believe such a commission should come up with radical ideas in respect of making the law more just in its application. I would hope that on the commission there would be members representing welfare and labour. They would represent the vast majority of the population. I believe the people who see the inside of a lawyer's office most often come from the top 10 per cent of our people. From my personal experience as a lawyer for many years I know that the average person tends to avoid going near a lawyer's office. This certainly has been true.
If we are to have thorough-going law reform, I think people who have had experi-21701-41
DEBATES	3975
Law Reform Commission Bill ence of the law at the labour and welfare level should be involved. I hope also that we will not forget about the academic people. For a long time in the legal profession there was sort of almost a contempt for those whose experience in law was largely academic. I would think the chairman of this commission should be a person who has had academic and judicial experience, perhaps someone like Mr. Justice Laskin if he should be available. In any event, the chairman should be a person of that type whose training has been in the theory and purpose of the law. For too long the legal profession has been complacent, concerning itself with what an excellent institution it is. The minister may have attended meetings of the Canadian Bar Association where the general tenor of the discussions seemed to be what a good service lawyers provide to the community. As a lawyer I would not belittle this attitude, but I do not think this sort of complacency is justified.
I hope the minister will seek out for the commission people who will be radical critics and not merely people who would become engaged in tidying up little pieces of legislation here and there. Another suggestion, which I believe was made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), is that one section of the commission should look almost exclusively into the question of the repeal of obsolete laws. I would like to see a rule in this House that we never bring in one law without repealing another, because we multiply laws without reason. I would like to see a thorough review made of the Statutes of Canada in an effort to find laws which are absolutely useless at the present time.
In conclusion, I should like to say that this law reform commission is an excellent idea. It is long overdue. It could give impetus to making this a more just society.


Mr. McQuaid:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you might be prepared to call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



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
February 23. 1970

Labour Tribunal Concerning Strikes at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Pollution-non-phosphate detergent research; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Agriculture-Investigation of removal of serial plates from imported tractors.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Notices of Motions.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be agreement to stand the first two notices of motions and proceed with the third notice of motion on the Order Paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to making strikes and lockouts illegal within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and creating a special labour tribunal whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties for the term of an agreement to be arrived at or where there is no agreement, for the terms set by a Court appealed to for a judicial determination of the best and most just solution or arrangement for the parties.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I was prompted to submit this notice of motion because of some of the unhappy events of the last year or two, including the strike of the St. Lawrence Seaway workers, the grain handlers' strike at the head of the lakes, the grain handlers' strike at the west coast and innumerable other strikes which have had a very serious effect on markets, particularly export markets, for farm products.
At the outset I should like to quote from page 3 of the report of the task force on Canadian industrial relations:
1.	Periodically the conduct of labour-management relations in any country is subject to severe criticism. In Canada, as well as in many other western countries, the attack on collective bargaining has been mounting in recent years. The result verges on a crisis of confidence in the present Industrial relations system.
2.	Why has the public apparently lost faith in the prevailing collective bargaining process? The rash of strikes which have caught the headlines in

recent years provides much of the explanation. In many of these disputes the protagonists seem to suffer less than the public. Worse still, there is apprehension that the parties are using the public as their whipping boy while they work out theii differences.
3. Many of these stoppages have interrupted services seldom before affected by collective bargaining. Strikes by professionals-even doctors, nurses and teachers-have disturbed the public. So also have shutdowns in what have long been thought to be essential services, notably school, hospital and postal services.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
4.	Public misgiving has been aggravated further by violence that has accompanied some recent labour disputes. Pictures of trucks being overturned and of pickets and police scuffling has not helped the image of industrial relations.
5.	Nor can one minimize the damage done by corrupt and undemocratic practices which the Norris Commission revealed in the Seafarers, International Union of Canada. Added to earlier revelations of the unseemly conduct of certain unions in the United States, the publicity convinced many that organized labour was not the idealistic force for good that they had been led to believe.
6.	To these events must be added a public predisposition to blame unions and collective bargaining for inflation which has plagued the Canadian economy in recent years.
It seems ludicrous to me that in this country where we pay so much lip service to the cause of peace, law and order, we should continue to settle many of our most important disputes in our land by the use of raw power or force.
My proposal is that the government should give consideration to the outlawing of strikes and lockouts within the jurisdiction of federal Parliament and to the setting up of a special labour tribunal which would have power to help settle disputes and, if necessary, to make binding awards. Many of the critics of such proposals seem to assume that they are aimed solely at labour unions. This is most emphatically not the case, because in many instances employer groups are equally reluctant to accept these proposals. I prefer to argue that this proposition is aimed at neither labour nor management, but instead toward the welfare of all concerned and the country as a whole.
It is true that a settlement by binding arbitration would likely be unsatisfactory to one or both parties to the dispute, but it would only be binding for the term set out in the award and no doubt the matter would be reopened for negotiation after a breathing space or cooling off period approximating the term of the settlement. There would be an excellent possibility of renewed negotiations producing an amicable agreement. In the
February 23, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES
meantime, work and production would continue; no pay cheques would be missed; the employer would remain in business, and the public would receive uninterrupted service.
The sort of tribunal I have in mind would consist of three members who might be selected from a larger panel of persons who would be appointed by the government and who would have special training in law, economics and labour matters. A larger panel than three would be necessary to make sure that there would always be enough people available to form a tribunal and to take care of the possible need for more than one tribunal at certain times. These tribunals would, hopefully, weigh the arguments carefully and render a decision on the basis of what would be just and fair and in the public interest. What happens now is merely a test of strength as to which party can best withstand the punishment and hardship inflicted by a strike or lockout.
Labour has gained enormous strength and bargaining power throughout the years. Management groups are also very powerful. Management does, however, have certain checks which do not apply to labour. In most cases management has competitors, either domestic or foreign, or both, whom they must take into consideration. There are also laws against combines and price fixing. Nevertheless, there is a tendency for management to accept the demands of labour because they believe they can pass the increased costs involved on to the consumer. It is my opinion that this process has contributed greatly to rising price levels, to the inflation that threatens to price Canadian products out of the export market and which also tends to give foreign products an advantage in our own markets. Incidentally, this has recently become recognized by the federal government as our number one domestic problem. That is why I say that these tribunals should be able to keep the public interest as one of their prime considerations when dealing with disputes.
It may be argued by some that setting up machinery for compulsory arbitration would discourage meaningful negotiations, and result in a large number of disputes being referred to these tribunals. I doubt if this would happen. The very prospect that an arbitration award might go in favour of the other party, would be a powerful incentive for the disputants to make every effort to settle their differences themselves. Even if there were a large number of compulsory arbitrations at first, there might be compensa-21701-41J
Labour Tribunal Concerning Strikes tions, particularly if, as I would expect, the awards were made with the welfare of the country in mind.
The report of the Royal Commission on Labour Disputes in Ontario by the late former supreme court justice, Ivan C. Rand, recommended that the provincial government should have authority to designate essential industries where strikes would be prohibited, and would also forbid strikes by public employees. He also recommended that a provincial industrial tribunal be set up with wide powers to deal with labour-management disputes. I am suggesting in this motion that the federal government do likewise in areas of federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice Rand's recommendations produced a violent reaction from some labour spokesmen, as well as a certain amount of unfavourable comment from the management side. This, to my mind, bears out my contention that there would be enough apprehension about the results of arbitration by an impartial tribunal to prevent an undue rush to use such a service. The Woods Commission also recommended a three man public interest disputes commission, and I am going to quote from the same report again.
At page 170, paragraph 581, reads as follows:
We recommend that there be created a three man public interest disputes commission, independent of any government department, reporting to the Prime Minister, and composed of public members only. We recognize a potential difficulty in obtaining the consent of persons to serve on the public interest disputes commission, particularly if it were a full time responsibility. We therefore recommend that the commission be composed of persons serving part time, with a small full time secretariat of high calibre and with access to the Canada Department of Labour and other sources for assistance. To ensure that the members of the commission have the confidence of the parties as well as the public, the Canadian Industrial Relations Council, the creation of which we recommend later, should have the equivalent of tenure during overlapping terms of nine years each.
Paragraph 582 on page 171 reads as follows:
The commission would have two major functions. The first relates to determining special procedures for resolving industrial disputes in industries in the federal jurisdiction which, because of their record of industrial relations, are prone to disputes which are likely to jeopardize the public interest. The second function relates to the handling of actual disputes in any industry under federal jurisdiction where the public interest is threatened.
In fact, compulsory arbitration is quite common now in the field of labour relations, as well as in other fields such as damage
February 23, 1970
3978	COMMONS
Labour Tribunal Concerning Strikes suits, and compensation for expropriation of property. Labour grievances, matters of union jurisdiction, and alleged unfair labour practices, are subject to final adjudication by labour relations boards set up either by provincial governments or through collective agreements. It seems to me that the people who most fear the prospect of submitting to a fair and just settlement are those who have the most power to exact an unjustifiable one.
Sweden has been used as an example of a country with a fine record of industrial peace. Back in the 1920s and early 1930s that country was torn with the same sort of industrial strife that is plaguing our country today. When their labour court was first set up in 1928, it was strongly resisted by the unions. There were protest strikes and bitter charges that this court would be a tool of the employers. Gradually this instrument became accepted, and in fact the unions have made greater use of it than the industrialists. Sweden has had only three major strikes in the last 33 years.
Canada's population is about two and a half times that of Sweden, but in three recent years, 1964, 1965 and 1966, Canada lost more than nine million man days due to labour disputes, compared to 389,000 lost by Swedish workers, a ratio of 24 to 1, which means that our record for that period was about ten times worse than theirs.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Management-labour disputes have had a particularly detrimental effect this past year or two on the area I represent. Two strikes affected shipping on the Great Lakes for almost three months in 1968, damaging Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of grain and other products, and quite probably losing us markets for our wheat which is currently in such large surplus. I would like to quote some editorial reaction to those strikes. This is taken from a T.V. editorial dated July 16, 1968:
The Seaway strike lasted 24 days and immobilized hundreds of ships in the Great Lakes ports and along the St. Lawrence. It meant a loss of at least $15 million to the ship owners. The Seaway Authority, the strikers, and sailors who were laid off because of it. So this is the immediate effect of the walk-out which to all the experts was considered a strike against essential service to the public. It is still too soon to evaluate the longterm consequences of this strike but we can foresee that there will be repercussions on our international trade in the months and years to come. It is clear that the Seaway and inland Canadian ports are no longer attractive to shipping, and that shippers intend to divert their cargoes to other ports. This attitude has been strengthened by the
[Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia) .1

fact that the labour problems in all the St. Lawrence ports leave much to be desired. We still ask the government the same question-what measures will be taken to prevent further work stoppages which affect the public interest and essential services?
Here is another editorial, from The Western Producer of September 16, 1968:
This is the kind of strike that should never have happened. There could be an endless argument as to how it was brought about-was the burden of the blame on one side or the other? The hapless bystander, the farmer, who suffers the greatest injury, hasn't enough information upon which to make a judgment. All he knows is that the union demanded a wage increase that would give its members parity with West Coast grain handlers, that the employers refused to meet these demands on the ground that they were prepared only to match increases in other local industries at the Lakehead and that both sides stuck to their inflexible positions until the Labour Minister moved in on them on Sunday, September 8.
Almost the same things could be said about the dispute which was recently settled at the west coast. In my opinion, we have lost sales and lost markets which we may never regain.
The thing the farmer is interested in, no matter where he places the blame, is that this kind of strike should not happen again. He does not wish to see the process of collective bargaining break down. He would, however, like to see some definite move made in the direction of establishing procedures for settlement if settlement cannot be reached through normal bargaining.
A strike of this kind is wrong, no matter where the blame is laid; it is wrong because of its damaging effect on grain farmers and other producers who depend on export sales, and on the whole economic structure of the country.
Then, there was the postal strike in 1968 which outraged people in every part of Canada, and there is the one that is hurting people in Montreal right now. The editor of the Rural Councillor, a publication of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, had this to say in the September 1968 issue:
Sympathies vary between the workers and employers, depending on one's position. But, does anyone have sympathy for the innocent victims not responsible or involved in the disagreements, but who invariably suffer untold confusion in the management of their business, in addition to monetary loss? These people are hit hard by strikes, in which common sense, justice and reason are no longer the governing factors. Instead, supposedly intelligent people in our modern society revert to the ancient theory that "might is right". What a barbaric way to settle our economic problems!
Strikes are occurring one after the other like a plague on our society. It is high time our politicians faced this problem squarely and produced a solution based on justice-the same justice on which our whole way of life has developed over the years.
February 23, 1970

We have courts in our land for the sole purpose of administering justice, whether dealing with criminals or settling business and financial disputes. Let's outlaw strikes, and turn the labour squabbles over to courts conducted by experts, who have special knowledge in the social and economic life of our nation.
There is no system better devised by man, to deal with the processes of law, than our courts. This system will keep the nation's business moving without interruption, and labour and management can argue through the various courts of appeal with the assurance that in the end justice will prevail.
The Canadian public is looking to Parliament to take effective steps to reduce industrial strife significantly. As I stated earlier, this proposal is not aimed at the legitimate interests of either labour or management, but is rather to try to reach settlements based on justice and enlightened public interest.
The government has created an independent Prices and Incomes Commission to study, investigate and report on problems of rising costs and prices. The purpose of the commission is to discover the facts, analyse the root causes, processes and consequences of inflation, and to inform the public and the government on methods of achieving better performance in our economy. I hope that its influence will be such that all Canadians in positions of power are well informed as to the economic implications of their actions, and that they will exercise a greater degree of restraint in price and income determination, in their own long-term self-interest as well as that of the country as a whole.
I hope that government action along the lines recommended in this motion, coupled with the activities of an independent Prices and Incomes Commission, will result in a much better climate, conducive to the establishment of industrial peace in Canada, by substituting reason, good will and justice for what is far too often the law of the jungle. I hope other hon. members will support this motion.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr Speaker, it would be very easy for me to support this motion proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) because it represents a possible, and in many ways practical, solution to one of the major ills facing our economy today which is, of course, the uncontrolled right to strike. I refer to the situation where a union concerns itself strictly with its own well being, strictly with the well being of its members, with no concern at all for the effect of the strike on the rest of society, with no concern at all for the impact it has on the nation's economy as a whole.
Labour Tribunal Concerning Strikes
Many times it has been pointed out how an employer, usually the large corporate entity, has in the past abused his power with respect to labour. This is generally acknowledged and has been true in some cases. Now, it is acknowledged in many quarters that the shoe is on the other foot, that labour has attained too much power and is wielding the big axe, abusing that power as it once accused employers of abusing it.
But in seeking solutions to these problems it is easy for us to look for direct and obvious measures, with no thought for the implications they may have in the future. Many people today advocate free enterprise for themselves, but controls and compulsion for someone else. Coming from an agricultural area I have sometimes seen this in certain sectors of agriculture, where people advocate controls and boards for other areas of the economy and free enterprise for themselves. If we were to propose compulsory controls for labour unions, we would be taking away a basic individual right of their members. We must look for a solution that will not infringe upon such a right.
I am no expert on labour relations but it seems to me we must always consider the fact that we cannot have compulsion in one area without having compulsion in another area. I believe it would be possible for the government, which has already done a little in this area, to establish price and wage guidelines. The government could say what it thinks wage increases could be, and what price increases could be, with the idea of relating them to productivity. Such guidelines could apply to businesses, the larger corporate entities, as well as to employees. In the case of employers, it would be possible for the government to control prices by means of tariff adjustments. I think we should reduce tariffs and regulate them. By importing goods from other countries we would keep prices in this area at a competitive and reasonable level. I think business in general would have to adjust to this competition.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In the case of labour, I believe the same guidelines could apply. If labour did not conform to wage increase guidelines related to productivity, the government should see that the employers involved were protected in seeking alternate sources of labour. This would require a great many refinements. I realize this is rather a broad generalization, but I do not think we can allow labour to be
February 23, 1970
3980	COMMONS
Labour Tribunal Concerning Strikes as irresponsible in tying up the economy as it has been many times in the past.
The methods I have outlined of using tariffs to regulate business, of seeing that alternative labour sources could be used by business affected when the unions did not conform to the guidelines, would give to the unions and companies concerned the choice of conforming to government wage and price guidelines or else competing with imports or alternate labour sources. Whether or not the suggestions could be made workable, the fact remains that if voluntary controls cannot be effective, we may have no recourse but compulsory arbitration.
What we are experiencing in the realm of labour disputes is intolerable and devastating to our economy. I can cite no better example than that of the grain trade with which I am familiar and in which we have had many disputes over the years. These disputes always seem to come at key shipping times when it is critical to move grain. This has always been the time when unions have seen fit to make their demands. Consequently, we have ruined our reputation in the grain marketing area and have lost the sale of many millions of bushels. Our international reputation regarding wage disputes is poor. Often boats arriving in our ports have had to go awray empty or have been tied up for long periods costing a great deal of money in demurrage charges. This cannot go on. If there is no other recourse, I would be in favour of adopting the suggestion of the hon. member from Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Scarborough West.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, any national industrial relations system reflects the character and temperament of its people, and sometimes the events surrounding the birth of the nation. It reflects also the national philosophy and, often, the dictates of the ruling or dominant class. The American revolution in the third quarter of the 18th century, with the constitutional guarantees that grew out of it-for due process of law, freedom of speech and assembly and against involuntary servitude- profoundly influenced the history and direction of labour relations and labour legislation in the United States. Sweden, for reasons of national economics and survival, has a system based on industry-wide bargaining. The
[Mr. Downey.)

United Kingdom has a system that is in its liberal, laissez-faire tradition, into which the labour government has tried to introduce legislative controls because of a faltering economy and serious balance of payment problems. The USSR has an authoritarian labour relations system in which the objectives of the state are paramount, a heritage of its own revolution.
In turning now more directly to the industrial relations system in Canada, it exemplifies what has been said above about the evolution simplicity to sophistication-though not as yet the more involved kind of sophistication to be found in some aspects of the industrial relations of the United States, though the two systems are basically similar.
The industrial relations history of Canada is marked by a number of significant influences. In the beginning, when industry became active, the earliest efforts toward union activity in Canada came in large measure from emigrant craftsmen from Great Britain. But unionism finds it hard to develop in a new country. The old country connection disappeared, to be replaced by the United States union ties that exist today in the vast majority of Canadian trade unions.
This American connection was deeply affected by the open border for labour which existed in the 19th century and for part of the 20th. There are persons still living who worked between Canada and the United States intermittently, and there are those who knew the Canadian and American printers and railwaymen who tramped or travelled freely between the two countries to take work as members of the same union and being assisted in finding work by their fellow unionists. Besides the early craft groups of printers, railwaymen and shoe workers, the Knights of Labour also came into Canada. Today we have some 108 international craft, multicraft and industrial unions in Canada.
It can be safely said that no Canadian has had more influence on the Canadian industrial relations system than Mr. Mackenzie King. His interest in labour was the basis of his fame, the foundation of his fortune, and the springboard to political office that made him Prime Minister of Canada for many years.
He was the genius behind present Canadian federal labour relations and disputes legislation which has roots going back to 1907, when it was the direct result of a bitter coal strike which took place during the previous winter in the coal fields of Alberta. The settlers of the province, living in tents and sod huts,
February 23, 1970

suffered great hardship and privation before the strike ended. Out of his experiences in attempting to settle this strike, Mr. Mackenzie King, then the deputy minister of labour, developed his famous labour philosophy that in any civilized community private rights must cease when they become public wrongs. In 1907, Parliament passed an act containing legislative principles designed to further this philosophy which have existed to this day, despite the enactment of successor legislation. The principles adopted were:
(1)	The public should not suffer from hasty or ill-considered strike or lockout action.
(2)	There should be no strike or lockout pending compulsory conciliation.
(3)	Public opinion, informed through the investigation and report of a board of conciliation, would exert an influence toward reasonableness in labour relations.
The second greatest influence on the Canadian industrial relations system was that arising from the United States New Deal legislation of the early 1930s. It will be recalled that following the crash of 1929, an economic depression enveloped the United States. When Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1932, he initiated a number of extraordinary legislative measures in attempts to restore the shattered economy. One of these steps grew into the National Labour Relations Act, through which a trade union could compel an employer legally to engage in collective bargaining. It is beyond doubt that the growth of unionism, and particularly the development of the industrial form of union organization, were due to this beneficial representation and collective bargaining legislation.
This type of legislation spread to the Canadian provinces in the later years of the thirties and to the federal field of jurisdiction in 1944. It brought the same encouragement and growth of collective bargaining and trade unions as it had in the United States, by protecting the right to organize and to bargain collectively.
e (5:30 p.m.)
The influence of World War II on the Canadian industrial relations system and its participants was also very great. The co-operation of labour in producing war supplies and munitions in huge quantities was essential. This co-operation was obtained by further recognition and protection. A series of orders in council, passed pursuant to the War Measures Act, protected labour in the early years of the war prior to the wartime labour rela-

Labour Tribunal Concerning Strikes tions regulations, P.C. 1003, of 1944. The wartime labour relations regulations incorporated the representation and collective bargaining protection already mentioned as originating in the United States National Labor Relations Act. By the end of the war, organized labour had increased greatly in number, strength and status.
In 1948 the existing Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act was passed. It combined the dispute-settling provisions already mentioned as originating with Mr. Mackenzie King and the representation and collective bargaining provisions originating in the United States National Labor Relations Act.
As a result of all these events and circumstances, collective bargaining has emerged as the dominant influence and force in the industrial relations system in Canada. While only a third of the work force has been organized by trade unions, collective bargaining influences the wages and working conditions of a much greater proportion of industrial workers. Where conditions established by collective bargaining do not extend to unorganized workers, they are principally aided by labour standards legislation which provides minimum rates of wages, maximum hours of work, vacations with pay, statutory holidays, etc.
Collective bargaining is the keystone of the industrial relations system in Canada. Through it there is a very large measure of industrial self-determination of working conditions and wages, backed by the economic threat of strike by employees and lockout by employers. This institutional arrangement known as collective bargaining is relatively free in its functioning to the same extent as the other factors of production which determine interest, rent and profit. It is the indispensable element of a free, democratic society. It would be impossible to control or suppress collective bargaining without at the same time controlling other factors of production and destroying democratic institutions. Another dominant but less volatile feature of our industrial relations system is the vast amount of federal and provincial labour standards legislation which has been referred to already.
A third feature of our system is the widespread application of beneficial policy by Canadian governments apart from the provisions of direct labour legislation. For instance, there is the positive encouragement and promotion of good labour-management relations
February 23, 1970

Labour Tribunal Concerning Strikes as a matter of policy by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). This is done through the establishment of joint labour-management committees, the provision of preventive mediation, the provision of research facilities and the dissemination of information and statistics of value to labour and management in conducting their joint affairs.
Hon. members may wish to think about what system we might have in Canada if we did not have the prevailing industrial relations system. The alternatives to our present system of collective bargaining are basically two, or perhaps three. One alternative, unilateral decision-making by employers, has been challenged with increasing effectiveness by employees, their trade unions and governments since the first days of the industrial revolution. It is already impossible today as a way of industrial life, having been replaced by collective bargaining and by labour legislation designed to protect workers in various ways.
Another alternative is unilateral decisionmaking by the state, with legislation regulating all aspects of employment. This is not in our western democratic tradition, and from the viewpoint of production and productivity does not seem to be working out well in those eastern European countries where it has been tried. While we cannot attribute the benefits completely to collective bargaining, it is true that the western democratic countries that have given free rein to it have the highest productivity and the highest living standards in the world.
The third alternative that I mention as a possibility is a more enlightened form of collective bargaining on a tripartite basis, with labour and management having the active advice and assistance of governmental agencies in their bargaining relationship.
The current industrial unrest has brought all labour relations and disputes legislation under critical examination. This is also true with respect to the IRDI Act. In 1966 the then Prime Minister appointed a task force of academics of distinction to review the legislation and suggest revision. The task force made their report about a year ago and their recommendations are now under study. There will be some changes made in the legislation as a result, though not as many as are proposed.
The act as it now stands deals with four kinds of disputes:	(1) representation, (2)
unfair labour practices, (3) colllective agreement and (4) industrial grievances. Thirty-five


years ago federal legislation dealt only generally with disputes under one procedure, a conciliation board. There has been a procedural evolution since then whereby such disputes, other than collective agreement disputes, are submitted to processes of summary settlement by a Labour Relations Board, by arbitration or by court action. That is to say, decisive procedures have replaced strike or lockout action as the method of resolving representation, grievance and unfair labour practices disputes.
Existing legislation does not deal with controversies such as those arising suddenly because of displacement of workers by technological change. Five years ago the Freedman Commission made recommendations in this connection, and they also are being studied in connection with the revision of the federal act. It is reasonable to say now that sooner or later our industrial relations system will be radically altered because of the influence of automation, new methods, processes, techniques-all summed up as the technological revolution-in giving rise to disputes and special legislative measures for their settlement. The future of our industrial relations system, or parts of it, may be greatly affected. Canadians have to compete in an industrial world. Changes in our present industrial relations principles and legislation must not have an adverse impact on productivity and on our export trade. If this happens, labour and management, like the Swedes, may have to regulate themselves or be regulated in the national interest.
Industrial relations, collective bargaining, strikes and other phenomena are very much in the public eye today and, as I said earlier, it is difficult to find a person who is passive or neutral in such matters. A number of inquiries other than that of the federal task force have been sponsored by provincial governments and private agencies over the past few years, and most of them have been sparked by the high level of strike activity. These inquiries have sought to find out if we have in Canada adequate laws and policies for a stable industrial relations system and, where these are lacking, to recommend effective measures.
The adverse effects of technological change on employees and on collective bargaining have been a very live topic of study. Perhaps the most difficult question arising is whether we should continue to tinker with the present system or seek a new, bold and radical approach. Further, how can a new
February 23, 1970	COMMONS
approach succeed, living as we do in the shadow of the same system in the United States, with its closely connected business and trade union ties to Canada?
Whatever the system and its laws and policies, industrial disputes will always be with us. The methods of settlement will be different and will probably evolve in collective agreement disputes, as they have in the other types of disputes mentioned earlier, toward a more orderly method or procedure. Concerning the inevitability of disputes, it has been said, "Ever since Jacob went to work for his Uncle Laban and after seven years of toil received the wrong wife in payment, there have been disputes of one kind or another between employers of labour and those who work for them. Jacob, it will be recalled, protested bitterly against the injustice done him but his employer-uncle was a law unto himself and so Jacob had to make the best of it."


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a moment we would have to set up compulsory arbitration here in dealing with this compulsory-oriented bill of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) . It makes me wonder whether he is really proposing this bill due to some unfortunate, unhappy events which have happened to him in the west or whether he has done any thinking whatsoever about the notice of motion he has introduced in this House.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It seems to me the hon. member who introduced the motion took a good deal for granted. Many members in this House come from rural areas; I do myself. I was born in Alberta not far from the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey), and a neighbour of mine is the hon. member for Assiniboia. The people in the area I represent are just as concerned about unhappy events which have taken place in the past as are those who live in the constituency of the hon. member or, indeed, in any other constituency represented here. If notices of motions are to be used in this House for the sake of political opportunism, I think the hon. member is wasting the time of the House and that other methods should be used for drawing attention to these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Leroy Skoberg: The hon. member drew attention to the strike at the port of Vancouver less than a year ago. But he failed to draw attention to the fact that the president of the
DEBATES	3983
Labour Tribunal Concerning Strikes Saskatchewan Farmers' Union had an understanding with the union involved that no wheat would be held up due to lack of handling.


Eugene Whelan: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) did that. Keep the record straight.


John Leroy Skoberg: Last spring there were many ships waiting in the harbour at Vancouver. Many boxcars were scattered around the country; there were no locomotives to pull them. There was a great deal of No. 2 Northern to be hauled. The transportation system had broken down. Some hon. members would like to represent the situation as being different from what it was so as to provide an excuse for the motion we are now considering. I would point out that when this strike was on in Vancouver and when the ships were supposedly tied up, the SFU and the NFU-at that time they were separate-had an understanding that the grain would be handled. In spite of this, the hon. member for Assiniboia refers to unhappy and unfortunate events.
Mr. Speaker, the people of this country are well aware of the importance of free collective agreements. As time goes on and more people are affected by the economic ills of this period, they will realize even more clearly what negotiation and collective bargaining mean. The hon. member for Assiniboia is quite familiar with collective bargaining by the National Farmers' Union at the present time. The hon. member for Assiniboia appreciates, I realize, that the people generally must have representation. He knows the people realize that both management and labour are responsible. No one has suggested otherwise. We must also as a people decide whether what we are seeking is true collective bargaining or not. If our goal is industrial peace at any price, the way has been pinpointed by a number of countries including Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy a number of years ago. We know what was done by those countries which insisted on industrial peace at any price. People who refuse to subscribe to a policy of industrial peace at any price are surely not willing to endorse a policy of compulsion.
Let us consider the social implications of compulsory arbitration. The Dictionary of Sociology and Related Sciences suggests that arbitration is the process of referring disputes between employers and employees to a decision of impartial adjudicators whenever a collective labour
February 23, 1970
3984	COMMONS
Labour Tribunal Concerning Strikes agreement provides for the machinery of impartial adjudication. Compulsory arbitration, according to this dictionary, refers to a requirement that both parties submit their disputes to arbitration whether the collective agreement calls for it or not. The intent and definition of the word "compulsion" indicates a situation or process in which a person or group feels forced by external threat or danger to act against what had previously been in his or its interest and will or, alternatively, the act of compelling a reluctant person to perform acts against which the ego rebels.
It can readily be seen from this definition that compulsory arbitration is repugnant to our way of life in this country. The Minister of Labour should have a serious talk with his hon. friend from Assiniboia and tell him what his specialized industrial branch is all about. I am sure the hon. member would learn a great deal; the object is to beat out brush fires before they break into open flame threatening everything surrounding them. The desire for compulsion comes from political opportunists in a hurry to get somewhere, anxious to take up the cudgels because they believe the majority of people are not aware of the realities of the situation.
The hon. member suggested that this would be a temporary situation, one which would not last. But all of us, including the mover of this motion, should realize that to force unnecessary and undemocratic compulsory arbitration upon members of any society can result only in social demoralization or the loss of group morale, or the breakdown of personal habits, attitudes and social values through which individuals or groups of individuals maintain normal adjustment within society.


Mr. Foster:: Who wrote that?


John Leroy Skoberg: We have seen such a situation come about in many departments of government. We have heard ministers tell us what they intend to do to certain people. Mr. Speaker, you cannot talk to people in that way. There has to be meaningful negotiation, but it is not possible for there to be meaningful negotiation under the threat of compulsion. In order to bring about compulsory arbitration it is necessary to take away the rights and privileges of some of our people. The hon. member for Battle River expressed concern about work stoppages which affect every area of the country, but at the same time he realized that each individual is entitled to a fair share of the products of our society and


to an equal opportunity to express his wishes even if this means a little hardship at the time.
It is not hard to say we ought to pass legislation to take the place of collective bargaining. I would point out, however, that collective bargaining in Canada has a very good record. There have been instances, of course, when it has fallen down, with the result that other means have had to be found to take its place. Nevertheless, I believe the majority of the members of this House are reluctant to vote for bills calling an end to strikes.
In Saskatchewan we have experienced a situation in which the Premier of the province has crawled on the bandwagon, supposedly in the name of the people he claims to represent, and promises to call an election on the issue of work stoppages if he can. Mr. Speaker, the people of Saskatchewan are much better versed in these matters than they were in days gone by. I am confident that anyone who attempts to use a manoeuvre of this kind, either in this House or in the provincial legislature, will find his is a voice crying in the wilderness.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Labour-management disputes cannot be solved by means of compulsory arbitration. This cannot bring about increased peace on the labour front. Any member of this House who has had anything to do with the labour movement will appreciate that. What has been lacking is a really meaningful attempt by both labour and management to sit down and negotiate a true collective agreement. The government will not bring this about by passing legislation to provide for compulsory arbitration. The government cannot exercise compulsion in the sense of saying that unless the parties negotiate, compulsory arbitration will hand over their heads. I am sure no one here would like to see this state of affairs.
As I have said, compulsory arbitration brought about by the state will never succeed in replacing true collective bargaining. This is why I hope no member of the House will support the notice of motion that is before the House at this time. It seems to me that to do so would be an indication to the entire world that labour and management in this country are unable to look after their own affairs.
There are three items that must be considered, I suggest, in all collective bargaining processes. If these items had been considered hitherto, the hon. member for Assiniboia would not have felt impelled to introduce a
February 23, 1970	COMMONS
motion of this nature. I suggest that if prices, incomes and profits were taken into consideration in collective bargaining, no employee could justify an increase in his take-home pay unless prices had gone up. I am positive that every area of community life in this nation would be quite prepared to accept this proposition, and this is the way in which we will finally have to resolve our differences. It has been said that we should pass legislation to provide for the postponing of some labour disputes. I repeat that compulsion does not settle a dispute; all it does is postpone it.
I realize there are other hon. members who would like to say a few words before the vote comes at six o'clock, so in conclusion I contend that if we really mean what we say when talking of a free collective society, there is no place for compulsion whether it be in reaching collective agreement in this House of Commons or in any other sphere of Canadian life.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sauli Sie. Marie):: 
Mr. Speaker:: The hour assigned to the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner that Bill C-186, to establish a commission for the reform of the laws of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to extend my congratulations to the government and, of course, to the minister for bringing in this long awaited and much needed piece of legislation. A reform of our laws is something which is long overdue. I only hope that this move on the part of the government will not prevent if from following through on something else which is badly needed and which I understand is under way at the present time, that is, a revision and consolidation of the laws of Canada. I understand this is presently being developed and it is something, of course, which will be welcomed by the members of the legal profession who have to refer quite often in the course of their practice to the statutes of Canada.
The purpose of this legislation, as I understand it, is to keep under review on a continuing basis the statutes of Canada. I was very happy to hear the minister say this afternoon that one of the items which would receive top priority was a revision of the Criminal Code of Canada. This is very necessary because there are many obsolete provisions in the Criminal Code which probably at one time served a useful purpose but which now have no place in our law. I made a hurried review of the code this afternoon and found Section 72, for example, which states:
Every one who
(a) challenges or attempts by any means to provoke another person to fight a duel... is guilty of an indictable offence-
That provision, of course, is no longer necessary under Canadian law. I do not think too many duels are fought at the present time.
Section 179(h) provides that no person shall for valuable consideration carry on or


play or offer to carry on or play, or employ any person to carry on or play in a public place or a place to which the public has access the game of three-card monte. I wonder how often three-card monte is played in modern society. These laws, of course, were probably necessary at the time the code was originally drafted.
Then we have section 308 which provides:
Every one who fraudulently
(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft... is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
I do not think there is much witchcraft practised in Canada today; at least, I hope there is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is some by the government.


Melvin James McQuaid: These are some of the anachronisms which are presently contained in our Criminal Code and which only take up valuable space. They should be deleted. For that reason I was particularly happy to hear the minister say that one of the first things which would be considered by this law reform commission would be the Criminal Code, with a view to revising it Where necessary after taking a close look at it.
For the most part this is a good bill. There are some provisions to which I think some objection can be taken. One of the things which bothers me particularly is the tremendous power vested by this bill in the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I have every confidence in the present Minister of Justice, but there will come a time when he will no longer occupy that position. If we pass the statute in its present form, we will be giving very great powers to people of whom we have no conception.
The bill provides that every appointee to the law reform commission must first have the approval of the minister. In other words, no man can be appointed to this commission unless he has the approval of the minister. Clause 3 of the bill provides:
A commission is hereby established to be known as the Law Reform Commission of Canada, consisting of a chairman, a vice-chairman, two other full-time members and two part-time members to be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister.
So the minister actually is the man who will say who shall comprise this commission. Under clause 7(2) the minister will decide what remuneration shall be paid to part-time members. In other words, he will say what money the part-time members will
February 23, 1970	COMMONS
receive for their services. I suppose the minister will naturally be anxious to have people as competent as possible appointed to the commission, but I think this provision gives him a little too much power when it suggests that he in his own discretion shall decide how much money these people are to be paid.
Let me refer to clause 12 of the bill which provides:
In carrying out its objects, the commission (a) may receive and consider any proposals for the reform of the law-
It does not have to receive them, but it may receive them. Then it goes on to state that the commission-
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
-shall, in accordance with any programs for studies described in paragraph (c) that are approved by the minister, undertake or direct the undertaking of studies-
In other words the minister, not the commission, shall decide what studies are to be undertaken. Further, it states that the commission-
-shall, with the concurrence of the minister and to the extent that the commission is able to do so without, in its opinion, impairing its ability to carry out any studies that have been or are to be undertaken by it pursuant to paragraph (d), provide information, research material and study results and make recommendations to departments-
In other words, only with the concurrence of the minister can the law reform commission do these things. Then we find this provision:
The commission shall include in any program for studies prepared by it pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (1) any study requested by the minister-
The only study it can undertaken is one requested by the minister. Then it states:
-and the commission shall, in determining its priorities for studies in relation to any such programs, be governed by any request so made to it.
Therefore, the commission must be governed, not by its own feelings or its own discretion but rather by what the minister says. Clause 13 states:
The commission may in its discretion and with the concurrence of the minister undertake any particular study-
As I see it, the whole thing depends on what the minister says. This commission is to be composed of six or seven men, at least five of whom must be either judges or barristers of at least ten years' standing in the profession. Surely, if we are to have a commission
DEBATES	3987
Law Reform Commission Bill made up of such qualified men as these we should be able to leave to their discretion what they should undertake and what recommendations they should make, rather than have them under the direct control of the minister. I submit that the bill leaves too much discretion in the minister and not enough in the commission itself, which of course would be composed of very eminent and highly qualified people.
The bill provides, further, that the commission may receive and consider any proposals for the reform of the law. I only hope the commission will try to do this as closely as possible to its base. One thing that has astounded me is the tremendous amount of money involved in sending committees and commissions all over this country to study problems which in many instances could be studied just as carefully here in Ottawa.
I took the time to look up the record. I find that last year the Agricultural Committee in its eastern and western tours cost this country $65,711.88. The Committee on Transport and Communications visited Charlottetown, which is not very far away. That trip cost the taxpayers of this country $18,244.35. The Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts travelled only to Montreal. That trip cost $3,796.87. Last year the External Affairs Committee went overseas to visit the NATO bases. That trip cost $19,093. Then it went to Halifax, at a cost of $1,150. The Committee on Fisheries and Forestry last year travelled to the west coast. By the way, I was a member of the committee and took part in that trip. The cost involved was $53,295.29.


An hon. Member:: And you were on it!


Melvin James McQuaid: The Indian Affairs Committee did some travelling at a cost of $18,598.25. The Committee on Privileges and Elections, which made only a couple of trips, incurred expenses of $9,195. The Committee on Transport and Communications spent $81,299.36. If you look at all the figures you will find that last year-just one year-it cost the taxpayers of this country $293,529.23 to send our committees all over this country to do work which I suggest in many cases could have been done just as conveniently and efficiently here in Ottawa.
I believe it would be much cheaper to bring witnesses to Ottawa than to have committees travel all over Canada. Although this commission, naturally, will have to inquire into many aspects of the law or reform of the law and
February 23, 1970

our experience in committees is that the government and the minister seem very reluctant to make any changes to a bill as originally drafted. Those of us who have served on committees must be impressed by that fact: no matter how strong or logical an argument one puts forth, it seems almost impossible to convince the powers that be that some changes could satisfactorily be made to the bill as drafted. I do not know why this should be.
Actually, this is what we have committees for-to study bills in every detail, to make recommendations to the minister and subsequently to report to the House. So while I do not have very much hope that many changes will be made to this bill at the committee stage, I suggest very seriously to the minister that he give consideration to some of the changes which I feel would make the bill more workable and which would incite the committee to do a better job.
After all, if you are going to appoint a committee of competent men, you must have confidence in them; and if they are going to do a good job, they must feel they have some leeway in their work. As I read the bill, the law reform commission will not have too much leeway. All it will be able to do is make recommendations which then must be approved by the minister.
The minister pointed out this afternoon- this is a good feature of the bill so far as it goes-that he is required to report to the House on the work of the commission. But I call the attention of the House to clause 18 of the bill which states that the minister shall, within 15 days after the approval by him of each program of studies, make his report to the House. He does not necessarily have to make a report to the House of every program of studies recommended by the commission, but only of programs of study which have first been approved by him.
Why should he not be required to report to the House on all the programs of studies which have been recommended by the commission? He is the one who decides which programs shall be submitted to the House. A very worth-while program of studies, at least in the opinion of the commission, may be submitted to the minister but he only reports to the House on those which have first been approved by him.
These are some of the things which I feel have a tendency to destroy our democratic system of government. I do not care how confident a minister is, after all, he is only a human being and he has all the failures of a
February 23, 1970	COMMONS
human being. I feel it is wrong to put too much power in the hands of any one man. I am afraid this is what the bill does. As I said, it has many good features and this type of legislation is long overdue. However, I hope the minister will give serious consideration in committee to making changes along the line of some of the recommendations which have been made during the second reading stage.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, a full review of the Criminal Code is long overdue and I am pleased that Bill C-186 envisages reforms on a very wide range of subjects. If the House will bear with me for a few minutes, I would like to outline a few areas requiring reform which have come to my attention, especially during my career as a law enforcement officer.
I agree with previous speakers who have expressed the hope that having set down that the chairman and vice-chairman of the commission must be chosen from among judges or notable members of the Bar, this commission would be better balanced by ensuring that some of the appointees come from branches of society which have to deal with the law from the people's point of view, or at least from the point of view of people who have had to administer the law at the grass roots level. I say this because there is no branch of public life wherein greater harm can be done than when law is divorced from common sense.
So right from the start I hope-because the duration of the appointment of these people might be for as long as seven years-that great care will be taken to appoint men who have experience in the humanities. I will not make any suggestion beyond that. I think that all those within sound of my voice know perfectly well what I mean.
I am alarmed at the sweeping powers given in this bill to a minister of the Crown. I do not know that this is necessary, particularly in view of the fact that our House of Commons is being subdivided into committees of specialists. I would like to see whether the committees system will really blossom into full flower and produce the results which I know it can produce if given the power. Committees should have a great deal to do in seeing that the intentions of Parliament, when we put something into statute form, are carried out.
I for one do not know any one person to whom I would be willing to delegate full and supreme authority in such an important matter as law enforcement throughout the
DEBATES	3989
Law Reform Commission Bill country. It has worked reasonably well in the past perhaps, but with the high incidence of well-organized crime-I might say even international crime-we have to ensure that every safeguard is taken to give a fair and just hearing to everyone.
It appears to me that there is a danger when a minister of the Crown is given such tremendous authority, not only in issuing his flats for the prosecution but in withholding them. If any lawyer in Canada wishes to look them up, he can read the record of notable cases where the file has not been used when it should have been used. Unfortunately, we can also say that in the hands of unscrupulous men the power to put out the long arm of the law to padlock people out of their rightful places of assembly or of business has been abused.
It is not always possible for the little people, particularly, to go to the higher courts of the land to obtain justice. I have every respect for our Supreme Court of Canada, but one can get to that august body only if one can afford the tremendous costs involved and has the time for the long delays necessary to get there. I have read some of the judgments, to which I take off my hat and which I respect; but it is a long and hard road for the small man with limited means to get to that high court. Perhaps this subject is not too wide in scope and is within the terms of the statute and the powers we will give the commission to enable it to look into this and related matters.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In fact, as I see it the terms of reference contained in this legislation and the powers of the commission should be such-with the few exceptions mentioned by the previous speaker-that the whole gamut of Canadian law can be reviewed. I apply the same caveat to this subject; that where there are abuses, I do not think it should be left in the hands of any one minister of the Crown to say what subjects are to be reviewed or even what priorities are to be assigned to them.
We have within Parliament a fully capable justice committee. We have plenty of jurists to serve on it, with a total of hundreds of years of experience at the Bar. They are quite competent to report to Parliament and to work in liaison with the executive arm of government and this commission which, as I say, I hope will make a full investigation into every branch of our law.
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill
There are certain things which I hope the commission will look into very carefully. Whether you attack the problem from the point of view of the lawyer who is defending or the lawyer who is prosecuting, from the point of view of the lesser officials of the court, or whether you are one of the principals in an action, you must be impressed- although sometimes dismayed-by the archaic laws of evidence which we have to assist the courts in bringing justice to everybody concerned. All too often these laws of evidence, which are supposed to protect the innocent and give redress to those who are wronged, tend to shelve the whole problem-sometimes to protect those who are most guilty and to give little redress to those who need it.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who is an experienced man in these matters, touched upon the law of insanity which in its present form is far from adequate. With up-to-date psychiatrists, psychologists and criminologists working together it should be possible to devise something better than the M'Naghten rules so that people will not be able to hide behind faked insanity.
The question of bail has been brought forcefully to my attention on various occasions. Recently the law on bail has been improved, but it is still very difficult for a young lad with no means and of no fixed abode to escape the first inequity of the law. If he has no family, no money and nobody to speak for him, he may languish in jail for a considerable time. At the end of that time, whether innocent or guilty, he has been behind bars-and that is not a good place to be. I venture to say that with our modern methods of keeping track of people and the great stake our young people have in their own security, most young men are hardly likely to leave the country. Bail, after all, is just a guarantee to the court that the living body of John Doe will appear to answer the charge laid against him.
Many young people who are without support are away from home trying to establish a home of their own. They do not have the physical resources, in terms of money, to return home. I speak from experience when I say it is all too easy to round up all the loose lads in town under the pretext that you think they have committed a crime. It is a serious matter to these young boys and to society as a whole. A young offender-and he is not always an offender; he may be just a suspect-occasionally has his future course of


action dictated by his first contact with the law. That first contact often sets the path for him-whether he returns to be a productive member of society or whether he sets off on the road to crime.
In fact, if a young boy is innocent and is badly treated during that first contact with the law, he may very well turn to a life of crime. If a young man has been under arrest for three or four weeks in a new community, and everybody knows about it, it is difficult for him to convince the public that he has been held without bail though innocent of any offence.
I hope the commission will also be rapidly seized with the problem of seeing what can be done to standardize many of our quasi criminal statutes, such as our traffic laws and liquor laws, which stipulate certain criminal offences of which we are all guilty from time to time. There is no uniformity in these laws across Canada. You would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to know what your rights are when you take a drink or park your car in every jurisdiction in Canada. Surely it is not beyond the powers of the federal and provincial ministers of justice to devise some kind of consensus on what normal standards of Canadian behaviour should be in this regard. I hope the commission will feel free to recommend, if necessary, changes in our constitution which will make this possible. If it is impossible for provincial officials to give up their power to the federal authority in this respect, and vice versa, surely this is a question concerning the good of Canada; therefore, I hope the commission will quickly be seized of that problem.
A great effort should be made to standardize penalties across Canada. There is a ridiculous spread between what happens to various law offenders in this country. You will hear of a case, perhaps in British Columbia, where a boy goes to jail for six months for stealing a packet of cigarettes. In another place he will get a suspended sentence. If you are languishing in jail for six months, and you know of a friend of yours who got a suspended sentence for the same offence in another jurisdiction, it is quite natural for you to feel badly treated. The fact that a person knows what the penalty will be under the law can be a deterrent of itself in a great many cases. It is an assurance that a person knows how he will be treated. And if we achieve uniformity in penalties, a great deal more can be done between magistrates and judges to work out some kind of uniformity in the treatment of offenders.
February 23. 1970

People are sometimes more careful when penalties are spelled out in the statutes. Now there is no escape when one is found guilty on a charge of drunken driving. As already noted by Canadian law enforcement officers, the very fear of being nabbed by the breathalyzer has had a considerable effect on the driving public. They are afraid of a scientific test. A breathalyzer reading of .08, whether it is a fair level or not, is a scientific measurement; and when a driver knows he is near .08 he becomes quite concerned about getting into jeopardy with the law.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I think a great deal can be done if this commission will get together with the attorneys general and other law enforcement people in the provinces to work out standard methods. As every lawyer knows, there are different rules of procedure in every province of Canada. If they were standardized, a lawyer who takes his training in Ontario, say, would feel at home practising in any other province. It may be that some of these rules have been handed down from the old family compacts, the monopolies of ancient times, but many of these old monopolies and outworn procedures are going by the board today. This is one field in which I think a revamping of our whole attitude to public service should be gone into very thoroughly.
It would be very helpful-though perhaps this is asking too much-if the commission could take our courts and the appointment of judges out of day-by-day politics. I have often said that I do not like to see Crown corporations created, though they are above politics, and I know the people who recommend them are just trying to do what I am recommending now, that is, they are trying to elevate certain areas of our public service out of the realm of dirty politics.
Though the appointment of judges has been very fair in the past, it is an area that might well be looked at. While they are at it, the commission might look into the circumstances when a judge is suspected of violating the very high standards of behaviour expected of him in public life. We had an example of this a few years ago when it was deemed necessary to bring a judge before a parliamentary committee. Whether that particular judge asked to come before the committee is irrelevant, is history. I know I was shocked at the time, and sometimes the methods used appear to be those of the Star Chamber. This commission might look into the question of how judges are to be disciplined if necessary. There must

Law Reform Commission Bill be a better method of removing a judge than treating him as though he were guilty of a traffic offence.
There is, and should be, a standard of the highest order for appointees to the bench; but there should be no hiatus in the law when stern action is required to ensure the maintenance of those high standards. Judges should know the terms of their appointment and should know also, should the occasion arise, what sort of tribunal will be seized with the responsibility of determining whether they are fit to continue to serve in that capacity.
They should also know, of course, whether they have earned any part of their retirement allowance. In this day and age their security is as inviolable as anybody else's and the terms of their appointment should be clearly set out. Let us not be inverted snobs and say that a poor man has rights but a judge has not: he has the same rights in the tribunals of Canada, from the magistrate's court to the Supreme Court, as anyone else. I do not think the case to which I have referred was handled in a very dignified manner and consequently I should like this question to be one of the terms of reference of the commission.
I am not happy that the personnel of this board should be restricted necessarily to judges and lawyers in the strict sense that they must be on the bench or barristers. If we could get men of international renown such as the great international lawyer Freidman who sat at the Nuremburg trials, they should not have to qualify as a member of the Bar of Canada. Then there is Mr. Finkelman, who has made a great contribution to labour law and who knows the law from the grass roots, from the mines to the lumber camps and the lower echelons of labour in the country. This is the type of man who knows how a criminal code or labour code will work amongst the masses.
When this bill goes to committee, as I presume it will, for further study I hope this aspect of the matter will be looked into very carefully. I think it is a little restrictive in this respect and I am sure it is within the prerogative of the minister, in the final decision, to accept men such as the two I have mentioned who may not necessarily have practised at the bar but who perhaps have as great a knowledge of jurisprudence and the interpretation of statutes as anybody in the country. Very often it is in the misinterpretation of statutes that injustice occurs. The intention of Parliament is often frustrated because statutes have not been properly
39S2
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill foamed. Therefore, it is important that the men appointed to this commission be very well-balanced men who are not only conversant with the law as written but as it is interpreted and practised.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Interpretation Act, which governs all the statutes of Canada, might be thoroughly gone over at the same time. There are occasions when a witness is given the protection of the Canada Evidence Act, and this act should also be overhauled. We do not want mere words to frustrate the intention of the Criminal Code of Canada. As we all know, there is a danger in codifying a law as it is then liable to lose an element of common sense. The written word is often taken as the true spirit of the law, so it is most important that the right people are put in the position of framing laws. It is practically impossible to interpret a stupid law, so it is of utmost importance that the law be properly framed in the first place.
I would be satisfied with the type of law which they have in England, the English common law. If we codify it and say on paper what the statutes are, we will cut down the human error of judges. We must be very careful about what is put on paper. It must be wisely done, clear and practically beyond argument, if that is possible. Not only must the new statutes be clear, but the interpretation statute which governs them must be even clearer. The responsibility upon this commission and upon the men who are to oversee it is of the highest order.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In closing, I wish to repeat the warning that was given by the previous speaker. I do not think any man is sensible enough to make these decisions by himself. If I were minister of justice I would want to share this responsibility with a well-informed committee of the House. I know that is the minister's intention. I know he would not act unilaterally or arbitrarily with the great powers which are shown in this bill, but the danger is that when sweeping powers are incorporated in an act, they can be used in that manner.
I would like the minister to spread the responsibility so that no minister who got too big for his boots could say, "It says in the act that I am Pooh-Bah, and I need no help." Perhaps when the bill goes to committee some attention will be paid to these few remarks. I thank the House for its attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this has been a lawyer's day. I suppose I am committing a foolish act to get into this debate, but it seems to me that there is an emphasis that a non-lawyer might be permitted to make. Such law as I have learned I have picked up in this House, so if I have any wrong ideas the lawyers about me will have to take the blame.
I understand when one looks at the law he is supposed to look at the words and draw from them their plain meaning. As I read Bill C-186, it refers to all the laws of Canada. No one has denied that, but most of those who have taken part in this debate have spoken as though this bill related to the criminal law and the laws governing the courts, the laws dealing with people who get into trouble with the law. I am sure that it does have that meaning and significance, but that is not all it means, for I come back to the plain and simple language that I find in the bill which is to the effect we are setting up a commission to review all of our laws. Perhaps I might read a few words from clause 11:
The objects of the commission are to study and keep under review on a continuing and systematic basis the statutes and other laws comprising the laws of Canada-*
That seems to say that we are giving this commission the power and responsibility to carry on a continuing review of all the laws of this country. I think that is a good idea. There are a good many of them that need to be reformed and brought up to date. I notice also with respect to all of the laws of Canada that this commission has the right to make "recommendations for their improvement, modernization and reform, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing", and so on. That is a lovely legal phrase which I very much enjoy. I then come to these words:
(a) the removal of anachronisms and anomalies in the law-
I look to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and I say, "God bless you. You are what we have been waiting for for a long time, someone to come into this House and say we need to remove the anachronisms in the law, not just in the criminal law, not just the laws respecting the courts, but in all the laws of Canada."
I recognize the fact that this commission is not going to change any law; it is only going to make recommendations. This commission is not going to become superior to Parliament itself. I again say, thank God for that. Nevertheless, this commission in the pursuit of its
February 23, 1970

responsibilities does have the right and authority to study all the laws of Canada with a view to removing anachronisms and anomalies in the law. I note also, Mr. Speaker, that the commission in carrying out its objective will have the right to-
-receive and consider any proposals for the reform of the law that may be made or referred to it by any body or person-
It could not be any wider nor any more sweeping. Any body or person in Canada who thinks that any Canadian law has in it anachronisms or anomalies may ask to appear before this commission and request the commission to consider recommending the removal of those anachronisms or anomalies. How long have I got, Mr. Speaker? Have I got long enough to list all the things I can think of that are anachronisms or anomalies in our law? We have had examples today of things that are wrong in the criminal law and in the laws respecting our courts.
What about the provision in our pension legislation that says that a pension increase cannot be more than 2 per cent in any one year, no matter what happens to the rise in the cost of living? Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is now an anachronism. Possibly that 2 per cent ceiling was all right a few years ago when the cost of living went up on the average by about 2 per cent a year, but now that it is going up at the rate of 4 per cent or 5 per cent a year, is not that provision an anachronism? Is that not something this commission should study?
I am looking at my good friend who is sitting behind the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube). He must be aware of some anachronisms in the laws for which he is responsible. The rates of allowance paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act had some meaning and significance a few years ago, but surely they are out of touch with the times. Surely they are anachronistic. I submit that this commission should consider recommending that those rates be increased, as was suggested by someone today, perhaps 25 per cent to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the ending of World War II.
I mentioned the pension situation. There is in the guaranteed income supplement legislation a provision whereby under certain conditions people can get the amount of their supplement adjusted in a calendar year, but under certain other conditions they have to wait one, two or three years. The Minister of national Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has
Law Reform Commission Bill admitted that this is an anomaly which has to be straightened out. I am not putting words into this bill: they are there. There is an anomaly, and I hope the commission will be able to consider anomalies of this kind.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I can think of some other things in our laws which need changing. There are provisions in the laws of Canada which distinguish Indians from the rest of us. We have an Indian Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member in his very imaginative approach to this proposed law. I shall allow the hon. member to pursue his argument, but I am wondering whether we might not be opening the door at this stage to a general debate, which might go on for many days, about everything in the laws of Canada which could be deemed to be anachronistic.
I have serious doubts as to whether this approach is the right one, and whether the anachronisms referred to in this bill are of the type to which the hon. member is referring at the present time. I mention this to protect the position of the Chair in due course. But again I say that the hon. member will be allowed to pursue his interesting and imaginative remarks on this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: should like to assure Your Honour that I do not intend to develop the arguments which you have heard me develop many times with respect to the issues I have raised. I still wonder, though, whether what I am doing is imaginative. I think it is straightforward common sense. Your Honour has said that this type of speech might open the door to a wide-ranging debate. Well, I did not bring in this bill; it is my friend the minister who brought in this bill the purpose of which is said to be the reform of the laws of Canada.
I heard the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) say in an aside a few moments ago that it related to the criminal law. If I misheard him, he will correct me. But the bill does not say that its purpose is the reform of only the criminal law. It says it is for the reform of the laws of Canada. I see I am getting smiles from all over the place. I would be happy if someone would rise on a point of order and show me where I am wrong.
The language is as clear as can be: it speaks of a commission to study and keep under review the statutory and other laws comprising the laws of Canada. Somebody
3994	COMMONS
Law Reform Commission Bill says the commission will have to study the criminal law, the laws of evidence, the law respecting our courts and their functioning. Do we not have to look, also, at the Indian Act and ask whether it is not anachronistic that it should contain provisions which are different for Indians than for other Canadians?
What about provisions in our laws which discriminate against women? The fact that there has to be special legislation to provide certain rights for women-


Mr. Gibson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in my submission the hon. member is following the same line as he was taking before he was overruled by the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: welcome the point of order. I wish the hon. member would tell me where I am wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would point out to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) that the Chair did not overrule the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I expressed misgivings about the interpretation which he applied to this bill; I thought the hon. member's approach to it was rather generous. But having said that,
I indicated I would not prevent him from pursuing further this interesting approach to the measure now before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thank you for your observations, Mr. Speaker. The reason I said I would welcome the raising of a point of order is that, after all, you and I cannot have a discussion about this on the floor. I recognize you seem to take the view- and, after all, you are a distinguished member of the Bar-that in some way the bill is limited, that it does include all these things. I wish somebody would rise and tell me, quoting chapter and verse, that its scope is limited to the criminal law.


Mr. Woolliams:: That was the intention. I think you missed it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member says this was the intention. But I doubt that my learned friend would attempt to argue in court that the intention behind a law amounted to very much as practical consideration. What counts in court is what the law says, not its intention. If, after this commission has been set up, I as an individual, or along with other people, go before it and ask

DEBATES	February 23, 1970
to be heard with respect to the reform of any Canadian law, I do not see how the commission can refuse to hear me or the group with which I might be associated. That is why I welcome this bill and express the hope that its scope is, indeed, as wide as it reads.
I do not want to get hon. members thinking that I intend to ride a number of my hobbies and make a long speech on subjects in which I take a particular interest, but perhaps I can still name a few titles. I think there are some anomalies in the income tax laws. I think there are anachronisms in the Immigration Act. I think the minimum wage law is out of date. I think our freight rates legislation is anomalous as far as the various parts of Canada are concerned.
I have already said I do not want the commission to become superior to Parliament. It is Parliament, after all, which will decide these matters. But I think it is an awfully good idea that a commission should be set up to review the laws of Canada and make recommendations to the minister and, through him, to Parliament in cases where it feels there are anachronisms or anomalies in the laws of this country. I simply hope that full advantage of this law will be taken by the commission and by the people of Canada.
When I first saw this item on the Order Paper I thought it was a wonderful idea-a bill for the reform of the laws of Canada. Even before I read it I thought of everything from the ten commandments to the most modern laws we have. They are all good for reform. No, I shall not go over those first ten! It has been suggested I am following an imaginative approach to this bill. Maybe I am, but at the same time I am deadly serious because there is a mass of anomalies and anachronisms of the kind of which I have directed attention. Their rectification is part of the political process.
We argue for these changes on the floor of the House. But I think it would be useful, too, to receive recommendations about these things from a body as responsible as the one which is to be constituted by this bill. I therefore welcome the measure before us and I join those who have praised the minister for bringing it in. I hope that when the commission is established it will not work in any narrow field but, rather, will recognize that Parliament wishes it to make recommendations for the reform of the laws of Canada wherever there are anomalies or anachronisms contained in them. In that spirit, I support this bill.
February 23, 1970	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to that recently-admitted member of the profession of the law in Parliament, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I do not know whether the hon. member, backed by the confidence which he acquired during the debate on the expropriation bill, is now committed to participating in our debates whenever the law is mentioned. As I suggested to him earlier, perhaps it is because he has been in this House for so many years that the learned expertise of the law has brushed off on him. He is perfectly right when he says that the bill is drawn in wide enough terms to embrace the totality of federal law and is not limited in its terms to the criminal law.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I enjoyed the debate on second reading of the bill. I cannot deal with every item raised or every question that was posed by the members who participated but I am sure, should the House give the bill second reading this evening, that when it reaches the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs we will be able to deal with some of these points in detail.
I do want to say in answer to some members who participated in the debate that nowhere within the purview of the bill is there any provision to permit the Department of Justice to abdicate its initiative in the introduction of bills relating to policy or to reform of the law where either Parliament or the people of Canada should so demand. I anticipate that the law reform commission of Canada will deal in a global way with the totality of federal legislation as priorities become apparent from time to time. I suggested that some of the immediate priorities might well be the Criminal Code of Canada, the Canada Evidence Act and the public administrative law of this country. As we go on from year to year, other priorities will establish themselves and relate to the program of the law reform commission.
Whatever the law reform commission may do, I anticipate that the Department of Justice, particularly since it will be reinforced by a new research branch, will continue to probe those areas of the law in the federal jurisdiction relating to the authority of the Department of Justice and other areas of the law that are within the factual statutory confines
DEBATES	3995
Law Reform Commission Bill of the federal government. Wherever policy demands that laws be reformed, reviewed, revised or consolidated, the federal government will act.
Neither do I conceive that this law reform commission of Canada will in any way detract from the authority of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of this House of Commons. First of all, any report from the law reform commission, a report given to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, under the terms of the bill will have to be tabled in Parliament. After such tabling I see no reason, the government having taken responsibility for it or having added comments to it-I thought the suggestion of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) was very apt in this respect-why the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should not review it.
Nevertheless, the report of the law reform commission of Canada will be just a report. It will be important, before the government takes responsibility for it, for the Department of Justice to review it, for the cabinet to review it and for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to review it in order that it become the property of the people of Canada through the executive and through a standing committee of this House.
Nor do I anticipate that this law reform commission will displace the utility of the uniformity commissioners, that permanent body composed of provincial and federal government officials, and commissioners appointed by these governments and embracing the academic community in law, members of the practising profession and the departments of the attorneys general across this country.
Once policy is adopted by the federal government or by a provincial government, we have found it useful to consult all of the 11 jurisdictions of this country so as to test the practicality of reform measures, to test the availability of provincial co-operation in that respect. I do not anticipate in any way that the role of the uniformity commissioners will be set aside. I hope as well that the Canadian Bar Association, through its various provincial sections, and the various sections representing branches of the law will continue to advance their suggestions for reform.
What I am saying to this House is that the law reform commission will be looking in a global medium and long-term way at the general federal statutory fabric of the laws of
February 23, 1970

Law Reform Commission Bill Canada. It will have the time, the expertise and the independence, even the tranquility from everyday activity, to look at the federal laws of this country. We need reform which will eliminate, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, the anomalies and anachronisms of the law, to consolidate where necessary, to codify where necessary and to bring up-to-date and render contemporaneous the laws of this country.
To the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) may 1 say that in no way do I expect to use the 10-year qualification as a means of discouraging those younger reformers who might well contribute to the impetus of legal initiative in this country. As a matter of fact, I was accused by one of the local newspapers of leaning too far on the side of the tigers, on the side of youth. What we want to balance is a genuine instinct or urge for legal reform, on the one hand, with experience, credibility and knowledge of the law on the other hand. If we can find men and women who embrace both those aspects of the human complex, all the better.
Law teachers, of course, and members of the academic community are eligible, within the terms of the bill as it now stands, if they are members of a provincial Bar-and most of them are. I want to avoid the "instant experts" on Canadian law. A professor might come from Great Britain, the United States or France, and merely because he is a member of a legal faculty of a university in this country might otherwise become eligible for appointment. I would think that membership of the Bar and a certain knowledge of and acquaintance with the customs and laws of this country are prerequisites of membership of the commission. Of course, members of the academic community will be eligible; but I hope their qualifications will be reinforced by membership at the Bar.
Finally, before I put this bill to the test of the House, might I say that I believe quite firmly that the legal profession should not be a hired gun or dart-thrower for any establishment or status quo in this country. I believe that society generally has now become the lawyers' client, and that society will hold the law to account. I believe that in a changing world where there is a search for new relationships both between man and man and between man and his government, a law and order that is rigid and that reflects yesteryear will not do. I believe that the law must respond to change, to options, to movement
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1

and to the urge for reform. A law and order that reflects merely yesterday's priorities, and yesterday's priorities only, may become tomorrow's oppression. I do not believe that the law can afford to stand still. It is my hope that this commission will contribute to law in motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the minister would answer a question. The minister talked about the fabric of our statutes. In view of the fact that under the manpower legislation there were about 600 orders in council passed, will this commission have the right to review all orders in council that this institution gives the executive the right to pass?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference in the bill are wide enough, and I hope that if this House under government initiative is wise enough to implement some of the committee's recommendations in the report on statutory instruments, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan), we can achieve this not only by way of judicial review but also by way of parliamentary review.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one other question I should like to ask the minister. Just now when he referred to the reports of the commission being received, he said that he saw no reason why these reports, once the government's comments were added to them, should not be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am not quarrelling with that, but I should like it to be clear that so far as tabling the reports in Parliament is concerned, that has to be done within a certain period whether or not the government adds comments.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is perfectly correct. I was only incorporating a remark by one of his friends and colleagues, the hon. member for Broadview, to the effect that it might be useful if the Attorney General of Canada were to attach comments to any report in order that the government's reaction and response to those recommendations could be made clear. If comments were not attached, that would in no way obviate the necessity of the Minister
February 23, 1970

of Justice under this legislation to table in this House any report received by him on a program of reform of the law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-184, to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the over-all objective of this bill is to exempt certain of the practices of steamship conferences from the operations of anti-combines legislation and to attach conditions to the granting of the exemption. This bill really results from the report of June 17, 1965, of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in which it was found that certain practices of shipping conferences contravened the Combines Investigation Act.
Characteristic features of this breach are that conferences-if hon. members are not familiar with that term, they are associations of shipping lines serving precisely-defined general cargo ocean trades-by formal agreement between their members adhere to common tariffs of rates and charges and, typically, to restrict competition, bind shippers to use only conference line vessels by a form of contract known as an exclusive patronage contract, or shippers rate agreement, in which the inducement to the contract signatory is that he will have applied to his shipments a schedule of rates which is lower than that applied to non-contract signatories.
There are other more innocuous practices, and yet others which the commission found objectionable in any circumstances. The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission none the less concluded that as an alternative to unbridled competition characterized by fluctuating rates and irregular service, conferences perform a useful and desirable function by providing a stable rate structure and regular and frequent service, and that the performance of this function was generally accepted by
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act Canadian exporters and importers as reasonably satisfactory. Accordingly, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission recommended that in certain respects, and subject to certain safeguards, shipping conferences be exempted from the application of the Combines Investigation Act. The alternative possibility was proceedings under the act to secure a prohibition order, but for the broad reasons cited the commission did not recommend such proceedings.
The report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and its recommendations were subjected to detailed and lengthy study by an interdepartmental committee which in due course in its report substantially approved the recommendations. In December, 1968, the then Minister of Transport, with the concurrence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, devised a series of recommendations. This bill really implements those recommendations.
By nature, the bill is primarily a transport and trade measure with implications in the field of external relations. It is directed toward the protection of those Canadians who are users of ocean transport which means, directly or indirectly, substantially all Canadians. It substitutes regulation and scrutiny while safeguarding a degree of competition as an alternative to the unrestricted competition that would result from the application of the Combines Investigation Act. The legislation will extend only to international shipping. Shipping between Canadian ports is not exempted and will continue to be subject to the Combines Investigation Act and other applicable statutes.
It will be seen that by clause 11 the power of the director to make inquiries in the field of transportation is expanded. The bill is not unique, incidentally, in permitting a degree of collaboration between carriers. Section 337 of the Railway Act, as amended by section 53 of the National Transportation Act, reads as follows:
337. Railway companies shall exchange such information with respect to costs as may be required under this act and may agree upon and charge common rates under and in accordance with regulations or orders made by the commission.
An important point to be noted is that conferences have been in existence since the latter part of the nineteenth century; that is to say, their development more or less coin-
February 23, 1970
3998	COMMONS
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act cided with the development of regular steamship liner services after the end of the era of sail.
The value of the conference function has been acknowledged by governments throughout the world, sometimes with tacit approval and sometimes reluctantly. Subsequently, all governments have been obliged to permit the operation of conferences because no suitable alternative mechanism to provide stability and service has been developed. For example, the government of the United States, by the Shipping Act of 1916, explicitly exempted conferences from the Sherman anti-trust laws, but by the same act applied extensive and detailed regulations. The U.S.A. position was confirmed by an amendment to the Shipping Act in 1961, which in part clarified the law and in part strengthened and increased the degree of regulation.
However, hon. members may be aware that a conference is necessarily composed of shipping lines, but a shipping line is not necessarily a conference member and, indeed, many shipping lines operate independently, frequently in competition with conferences. It might be useful if I attempted to define what is a shipping line. To begin with, a shipping line is not necessarily a corporate entity by itself. Many shipping companies operate several so-called lines.
The essential characteristic of a shipping line is that it performs a scheduled and advertised common carrier service from named ports to named ports. This is very different from the type of service performed by so-called tramp vessels which, generally speaking, are chartered to carry full cargoes anywhere in the world as inducement offers. Liners and tramps tend to be somewhat different in design, but they need not be so and, indeed, liner operators have traditionally chartered tramps to augment their liner fleets in times of high demand. The real difference is in the type of service. I re-emphasize that the shipping line is one that operates between named ports.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It may be said that a liner is analogous to a bus operating on a scheduled route, and that a tramp is analogous to a taxi seeking fares all over town. This bill has no application to the tramp trades. The question whether or not there is, or should be, a Canadian merchant marine is not relevant to this bill. Canadian flag ocean-going ships would operate either in the liner trades or the tramp


trades, and the owners of those in the liner trades would decide to become conference members or operate independently for commercial reasons that would not be different from those of owners of other nationalities.
This bill has the same application to all conference members, regardless of their nationality and of the flags flown by their vessels. Violations under this bill are in two categories which might be described as major and minor. Major violations are those which impose the application of the Combines Investigation Act and will arise from certain breaches of clauses 3 and 4 of the bill. Minor violations are failure to file certain documents as required by clauses 5, 6 and 7. The penalty, to be found in clause 8, is a fine of $100 a day which in practice is likely to apply to every member of a conference that is in breach.
The filing requirements are important in that they expose the basic conference relationships to public scrutiny. Thus, the bill accomplishes the dual purpose of providing conditional exemption and enabling continuous scrutiny. The bill covers all important aspects of the contractual relationships between members of a conference on the one hand and between the conference and shippers on the other, and is a recognition on the part of the government of its duty to protect the interests of its citizens.
Indeed, it might well be said that under the national transportation policy as enunciated in the National Transportation Act there is a duty to seriously scrutinize and seek to influence ocean shipping upon which Canadians are so enormously dependent. Perhaps not the least important aspect of this duty is the responsibility imposed on the Canadian Transport Commission by section 14 of the National Transportation Act to perform its function "with the object of co-ordinating and harmonizing the operations of all carriers engaged in transport."
This is in some respects a rather complex measure and I have no doubt that at the committee stage members will wish to examine its various clauses in detail. Of course, there will be expert witnesses in this rather complicated area in order to attempt to answer questions of members. I believe I have in these few remarks, however, set the scene and explained why we feel it is necessary to bring forth this legislation at this time.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, this is a very complicated and technical bill. I am
February 23, 1970	COMMONS
really only substituting because some of the great legal minds over here are busy with the work the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is setting forth these days. After hearing tonight that this law reform commission may be looking into the 22,000 orders in council that are in existence, it would seem that there may be more substituting and in fact perhaps a breakdown in the health of all the lawyers in the House.
As the minister implied, this bill is brought about by the episode of the Dan ships. These ships went up the St. Lawrence River in the winter a few years ago. They started this service and the people in the maritimes were not happy about it because it was an attempt to cut into our winter season. We knew it was foolhardy to do this and I think that has been proven to be the case. However, their activities in the St. Lawrence showed that a shipping conference was in existence which contravened the Combines Investigation Act. The appropriate words, to which the minister did not refer directly, appear in the report headed "Shipping Conference Arrangements and Practices" at page 102. Recommendation No. 3 on that page states:
Agreements among shippers or consignees for the purpose of organizing for negotiation with carriers of the rates and terms for the ocean carriage of goods would not be contrary to the public interest.
Such arrangements and their consequent exemption from the Combines Investigation Act are very rare in our history. I believe there was an episode on the west coast in which on a yearly basis certain exemptions from the Combines Investigation Act were granted to fishermen in British Columbia. We do not like this. There must be some better way to do business in this regard.
I think the minister has given a straightforward appraisal of what is in this bill. I quarrel with whether this might be a dangerous precedent. What are we getting into? Is it quite as innocuous as he says it is? I hope these matters will be raised in committee. I suggest, however, that the following questions might be asked. I do not care if the minister replies to them now. First of all, I notice there are no explanatory notes in the bill. I do not know whether it was too complicated for those who drafted it, but it is one of the few bills I have seen which does not contain an explanation of what is contained in it.
One might also ask how urgent this measure is. I know the story of how these infringements were uncovered because of the activity during the winter to which I have referred.
DEBATES	3999
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act Are there other matters with which the House should be dealing, or is this bill necessary in order to tidy up legislation? Some of these questions might be answered.
Although the minister says these tariff conferences and resulting contracts would have no effect whether or not Canada has a merchant marine, I take the opportunity to point out that this may be true but if we had our own merchant marine our bargaining position at these conferences would be greatly increased. We would not be the victim of the different rates and tariffs set by these conferences which are virtually dominated by the United Kingdom. We always object to them in eastern Canada because so many of the conference rates are set up on a St. Lawrence basis and are prejudicial to the eastern ports of Halifax and Saint John. I do not wish to become involved in this question, but that has been our impression.
At the committee hearings questions may be asked of the witnesses when we look at the over-all aspects of the legislation. "Shipping conference" itself is a very nebulous term. The minister defined it quite well, but I still think it is a legal term. We might ask really who is included in this term. The minister said that the corporate entity, the shipping line, has no actual relationship to the shipping conference. I believe that, but it is a fairly general term and perhaps a more specific example is necessary.
In clause 5 there is reference to the necessity of filing documents with the Canadian Transport Commission. This will involve more work for the Canadian Transport Commission and our good friend the chairman. I suppose that is the body best equipped to do this work, but it involves a further increase in the powers of the Canadian Transport Commission whether desirable or not.
We speak of the sovereignty of the north and the problems there. I have always been one who believes that if we are to exert our sovereignty in the north we must do it with our own ships and our own men to man those ships. This, of course, increases our need for greater marine activity and policies. The terms of all the clauses in the bill seem to be excessive. We should ask more questions about them.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
As the minister said, all government departments are involved in this question. As he also said, many different departments were
4000	COMMONS
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act involved in the formulation of the legislation that is before us tonight. He said, I think, that it is almost an external affairs matter. I am inclined to agree with him, because it has many international aspects.
Maritime transport is international. This brings me back to my original question as to what exactly we are getting into. The one precedent that I know for this is the matter to which the minister referred which was dealt within in the United States. But I have grave reservations about the method of exempting anybody from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. This could lead to many other inroads and exemptions. It may be the next step for other modes of transport, although the minister spoke about the exemptions that we have for railways. We could get involved in many other types of activities.
Experts have advocated that Canada should allow many of its companies, for example those in the lumber industry, the right to combine so that they may compete in a better way internationally. There is merit in this suggestion. However, here I am opening up a can of worms. Therefore, with this one reservation I hope that the bill will be gone over carefully in the Committee on Transport and Communications to which it will be sent. At that time we can look more carefully into the necessity of amending some of its clauses.


Mr. Max  Bailsman@Waterloo: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the minister for bringing in this measure based on the recommendation of the Combines Investigation Branch, because it only recognizes what has been going on for a long time anyway and what is inevitable in this field. It is making an honest woman out of the minister's non-tramps. It is legitimizing something that is going on.
What I like about this legislation is that at least it is honest and above board and we can see what is going on. There is nothing worse in this country than pretending we have competition in some areas when in fact it does not exist. This has been the case with shipping of this kind for a long time. I suggest that we could benefit substantially by expanding this principle to other sectors of our economy. There are many areas of our economy in which there is supposed to be unbridled competition, when in fact there is no competition and instead what you have is price leadership.
In that situation the strong in the industry permit some of their weaker competitors to

DEBATES	February 23, 1970
limp so that the stronger can take higher profits. If you try to look at their operations they say they have lots of competition, when in fact it does not exist. It is for this reason that I prefer to see things above board. In a case of this kind, when we recognize that there is an agreement, where there is collusion among the shippers, if they abuse this privilege and the rates are raised too much somebody will step in and they will be watched. We know what the situation is in this industry now.
When we had a similar example we had to step in and remove some of the competition, which was becoming very destructive in the case of the west coast fishermen, because it simply did not make any sense. There is only enough business for a certain number of people to earn a livelihood. If too many get in, instead of reducing costs it simply raises them-no one can make a living because of the unbridled competition and the senseless anarchy that prevails in such a situation.
One of the difficulties we face in this country is that we have inherited a pattern of competition from the United States that does not really make any sense for Canada. If you look back at the history of the combines legislation you will see that Canada brought in the legislation at just about the same time as did the United States. In the United States, a country eleven times our size, a case can be made for much more competition than in a country such as Canada.
Where you inherit the U.S. form of competition, where you have, as we have here, the number of branch plants which are almost a Dinky toy replica of U.S. companies, you wind up with a terribly inefficient structure in your industry and economy. If you examine our economy you will find that almost everywhere that U.S. branch plants have moved in, the effectiveness and competitiveness of Canadian industry has been destroyed. Contrary to much of the conventional wisdom that is held forth in this country about the great advantage of U.S. investment in Canada, I think it has destroyed our ability to be efficient and competitive and in the long run will lower our standard of living rather than raise it.
It may be true that when capital first came in, we got off a little faster; we got a better start than we might have otherwise. But in
February 23, 1970

fact, if you watch these industries develop you will find that the first advantage disappeared very quickly. It is interesting to note that perhaps the most efficient industries that exist in this country are either privately or publicly-owned industries in Canadian hands-such as the steel industry, which remains largely in Canadian hands-Crown corporations and the beer industry. I could go on in this way.
My comments will not be very extensive. The point I am trying to make in supporting this legislation is that it is realistic; that we are facing up to certain facts. But we should go beyond the legislation, beyond the problem of shipping and look at some other industries in Canada where it may be to our advantage to stop pretending that competition exists and let the companies get together so that we can regulate them and see what is going on in them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, in consultation with Mr. Speaker, be directed to study the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its Committees, including the legal, procedural and technical aspects thereof, and the question of arrangements made for reporters for the electronic media in the Parliament buildings.
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that the hon. member has already spoken in this debate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I say on that point of order, Mr. Speaker, that I have not spoken in this debate. I had begun my remarks on the previous occasion and had just commented briefly on what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had said.
DEBATES	4001
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I take it the hon. member for Crowfoot is correct. He started to speak on the previous occasion.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the previous occasion I mentioned that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had suggested that the introduction of television would vastly change the whole concept of the House. He implied that we would even have to watch how we dressed and how we delivered our speeches. He stated that nowadays we see members making speeches from what are in essence completely printed texts, and he said that if television were introduced we would have to "act out" our speeches.
I said, commenting on his remarks, that if we were making a speech on western Canada, in particular on wheat, we would have to deliver our speech in an angry tone to make it convincing; and if we were talking about other subjects we would not only have to sound convincing but would have to look convincing. This would destroy the sense of argument with regard to logic, and more emphasis would be placed on the acting ability of the member speaking. I said that we were not sent here on our merits as actors or orators, but on our ability to reason, to get to the root of some of the problems, whether those problems were in the House, in a cabinet minister's office or in a deputy minister's office.
From time to time the suggestion has been made to me-and in this debate a previous speaker put it forward-that it would be all right if we just televised our proceedings for a two or three-hour period per day. What effect would that have on the work of this House? Too often constituents of mine tell me that there is too much party politics played in Ottawa and that Members of Parliament are more concerned with serving their parties than looking after the good of the country.
There is no question in my mind that televising the proceedings of the House, whether for a two-hour or three-hour period per day, would only strengthen the party system; I do not think it would necessarily result in better legislation and in more interest by Canadians all across the country. In fact, I believe it would bring about less interest by Canadians and would put party interests ahead of the good of the country.
It has also been suggested that the televised proceedings would be turned over to some
February 23, 1970
4002	COMMONS
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates sort of editing system and people would be appointed to edit-out everything except that which was really worthwhile. Who would determine what was really worth while for my constituents, for somebody in eastern Canada or somebody in the maritimes? How would they determine this? Who would these editors be? One hon. member opposite is claiming in newspapers across the country that he does not get the opportunity to speak in this House. He is a former mayor of Toronto. I suppose that if the proceedings of the House were televised, he would make a grandstand effort to get his words on television. Yet now he has every opportunity to put his words on Hansard, for all to read. He may freely criticize the government for its attitude to the cities, and we can read his speeches in Hansard. But he does not do that too often.
Look at the question of costs. Hon. members are concerned about inflation and rising costs. What a tremendous cost there would be if we were to televise the whole proceedings of this House. How many cameras would be necessary? How many people would be employed? How many people across the country would listen? Who would have the time to sit down all day and watch the proceedings?


Eugene Whelan: After one week, 2 per cent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not know whether it would be 2 per cent or 3 per cent, but I believe most of the electorate voted for their member, sent him to Ottawa and placed their trust in him to do what was best for them.


Mr. Allmand:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) rose to speak, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) brought to your attention that the hon. member had already spoken in the debate and you said he had been the last speaker on the previous occasion. On checking Hansard I note that he spoke on Monday, February 16, and he adjourned the debate that night; but when the debate was taken up the subsequent day, which was last Friday, he did not start to speak first. I bring this matter to Your Honour's attention because it seems to me this may be a new precedent-a person calling it ten o'clock, being interrupted by three other speakers and recommencing the debate at another time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Does the House wish that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I understand the point of order raised by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). The hon. member for Crowfoot was the last speaker, not on the Friday but on the previous day of the debate, when he adjourned the debate. I thought that due to the fact that the hon. member was absent last Friday, he should be allowed to continue his remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, almost a month ago I raised the point that housewives across the country, through the daily use of detergents are forced to contribute heavily and unwillingly to water pollution in Canada, and I asked if the government was considering asking the National Research Council to initiate an emergency research program to develop a non-phosphate, non-pollutive detergent. That was on January 28, nearly a month ago. A lot of water has gone under the bridge and over the dam since then-and a great deal of it polluted.
The situation has now changed because in the meantime we have had full details of a non-phosphate detergent which exists, which has been tried out and which has been given very wide publicity. In fact, I believe the program "W5" last night was seen by people from coast to coast and the result will probably be that in addition to the 500 letters I received in my office during the last week, I will receive another inundation of mail this week on the same subject. My consolation is to know that a great many members on the government side of the House are also receiving a flood of the same type of mail. I am glad that consumers are concerned enough to send this mail to us.

February 23, 1970

Dr. Philip Jones of the University of Toronto has now given us details of Formula N, which to the best of my knowledge is the only non-phosphate detergent in existence. Sweden has a detergent of this type, but it has 8 per cent phosphate content in it. Formula N is absolutely phosphate free and is non-polluting. Further, it cleans as well as the phosphate kind, and in many kinds of washing cleans better. It has been tried out by a group of Toronto housewives over a period of three months. I believe it was also tried out expri-mentally on Saturday last by a number of people in a laundromat, with the same result. In the third place, it takes only half as much detergent as the regular phosphate type to do a wash. In the fourth place, according to Dr. Jones it can be manufactured much more cheaply.
The present problem is not for the Research Council to initiate an emergency program to find a non-phosphate, non-polluting detergent, because we have it. As Dr. Jones has made clear, research must be kept up and this product improved, if possible, by continued research. There are two steps which should be taken by the government now. First of all, detergents containing phosphates should be banned at the earliest possible moment. The minister has said that he will aim for a complete ban by 1972 and will phase it out in several stages, that he will make amendments to the Canada Water Act in this direction, and that he now has the agreement of the provinces to proceed with an amendment to the Criminal Code.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I should like to see this timetable speeded up. The phasing-out could be achieved more quickly, now that there is an alternative available. Banning detergents containing phosphates is the first thing. The second is the government's responsibility to get Formula N on the market as quickly as possible in order to avoid a serious cause of pollution.
We have Crown corporations to handle a great many things that private enterprise cannot handle adequately. We have had great success with Polymer. In this House we set up a fresh fish marketing corporation, the uranium corporation, and there is Devco which has made a success of the steel industry in Sydney. If the detergent companies are too slow about getting this new non-phosphate
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion detergent onto the market, I cannot see why the government should not set up a Crown corporation to make it available to concerned consumers across the country. If other companies come along later, then the government is already providing healthy competition to try and save our waterways.
There should be an immediate regulation to enforce upon manufacturers the need for listing the phosphate content on existing detergent packages. "Pollution Probe" and "STOP" have done a wonderful job in publishing the phosphate content of detergents presently on the market, but I do not think that should keep the government from its responsibility of insisting that the contents be listed on detergent packages or other containers for cleansing agents. The consumers of this country are not fooling about wanting to see phosphate detergents wiped out. They are tremendously concerned and worried about the damage occurring daily to our streams and waterways.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge that these steps be taken with the least possible delay: first of all, the banning of detergents; second, getting this new non-phosphate detergent on the market; and third, pending that, requiring manufacturers to list phosphate content on detergent packages and containers.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I could not help but be impressed with the hon. lady's suggestion that the government get into the business of manufacturing soap. I can almost see the first annual report of the new government soap company with the title, "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles".
The hon. lady suggested that the government somehow or other get into the problem of marketing Formula N. Obviously, the hon. lady watched the television program "W5" last evening when a professor of the University of Toronto gave his ideas and suggestions which may or may not be good and may or may not be bad.
I think we have to look at the basic problem which is: How do we get rid of phosphates in our detergents? Tomorrow representatives of the detergent companies will be meeting with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) to talk with him about the edict which he handed down last week to the companies. It does not
February 23, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion have the force of a law yet, but the minister suggested to them that by this fall the reduction of phosphates be reduced to 20 per cent of the total content of their detergents and that within two or three years phosphates be totally eliminated from the detergents used by housewives.
We have the problem of what we should do about phosphates. I think we should be careful that whatever other product we produce, it does not create the same kind of situation that phosphates have created. I defy anyone in this House or anywhere else to say that when phosphates were first introduced in detergents they had any idea of what would happen. The problem is to rid ourselves of phosphates in the detergents of this country. We must ensure that whatever kind of replacement there is-and we still have to wash our clothes and clean our dishes-it will not have an effect on our waterways, as the hon. lady said, so that in four, five or ten
years from now we do not have the same kind of situation that we now have.
I commend the hon. lady for her comments. I know what she means. 1 know the Canadian people are concerned. I believe that we must place the responsibility on the shoulders of the people who have the major investment in this industry, the detergent manufacturers. We say to them: This is what must happen: you must reduce the amount of phosphates; you must find a replacement. It is up to the private sector to come up with their own ideas. Perhaps the government can help through the National Research Council or other agencies, but I believe it is up to the private sector to make the first move. It is in their interest and the interest of their stockholders so that they may continue to survive in industry in this country.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Tuesday, February 24, 1970