1970-02-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the control of phosphate nutrients as an essential step toward the cleaning of polluted waters is one in which this House and the public generally have recently demonstrated great concern.
The report of the pollution reference board on the lower Great Lakes to the International Joint Commission has recently highlighted the most critical aspects of the problem with respect to Lakes Erie and Ontario.
In view of the undoubted seriousness of the problem, my department has been active in looking further into potential solutions to the problem of eutrophication caused in some considerable part by the use of phosphates in Canada.
Shortly after the report of the reference board to the IJC was published, I held discussions with my United States counterpart, Secretary Hickel, and informed him of our point of view on the need for joint action. In addition, senior officials from my department specifically discussed the phosphate problem on the Great Lakes with senior officials of the Department of the Interior of the United States. Other officials from governments in Canada and the United States were sent to Sweden to investigate the phosphate control program in that country and still others were dispatched to discuss research and development of phosphate alternatives with a major United States detergent producer. Furthermore, I held discussions with industry representatives to hear their point of view and to inform them of the gravity with which we viewed the problem, and to determine whether action and self-discipline on their part on a voluntary basis could be the successful approach to the problem.
With respect to the Great Lakes, it clearly appeared that there was little point in Canada acting alone, since most of the phosphates entering those waters emanated from the United States. United States action, as well as Canadian, was therefore essential if any real solution to the question was to be achieved, and if Canadian action to ban or control was to be anything more than an empty gesture.
I am, therefore, most pleased to report to the House that on February 4 at hearings in Rochester the U.S. federal water pollution control administration took a fresh look at its position and is now calling for the reduction of phosphates in detergents as recommended in the report to the IJC. The U.S. federal water pollution control administration have asserted their willingness to control phosphates within minimum practicable levels immediately and to look to the complete replacement of phosphates as soon as possible.
My department supports the recommendations to the IJC concerning phosphate control and looks forward to the commission's report to the governments of Canada and the United States.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
I have instructed my department to work in close conjunction with the United States federal water pollution control administration to attempt to achieve a co-ordinated plan of control and an imminent complete replacement of phosphates. I shall be consulting with my counterpart ministers in the provinces to attempt to achieve a plan of control and ultimate replacement of phosphates that is mutually acceptable and which will thus have the support of any provincial action required under our constitution.
I have further instructed my departmental officials to advise the IJC, at their public hearing today in Brockville, of our intention to act on this matter.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that intelligent comments are impossible, as we received the release only two minutes before coming to the House.

February 6, 1970
Pollution Control
This problem which is of great interest to all non. members has not only been mentioned in the House on many occasions, but has also been referred to the committee which is presently studying Bill C-144.
Though the release recommends that measures be taken with regard to the use of phosphates, it does not give any details with regard to such measures. We hope that the minister and the senior officials of his department will, within the committee, succeed in establishing a program and in determining the measures they intend to take.
The public can certainly and rightly ask that those products be taken off the market. The government is taking the very measures Ontario has already taken to ban the sale of such substances.
It is my opinion that the committee will be extremely interested in delving further into this matter.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party welcome most heartily the announcement of the minister today, particularly as it comes in advance of the International Joint Commission meeting in Brockville. It seems as though the government is doing a great deal. I commend the minister for having made public some of the things that the government is apparently doing because I firmly believe an informed public can and will support anti-pollution measures. This might not be the case if the public were kept in the dark.
I was pleased to hear that there have been discussions and that these discussions are continuing with the United States authorities, particularly with regard to the Great Lakes. Obviously this is essential so far as the Great Lakes are concerned.
We in this party feel that the Canadian government should take the initiative with regard to our waterways, lakes and coastal waters which do not come within joint jurisdiction. The federal government must take the initiative with regard to pollution of these waters and not wait until such time as there can be agreement with the United States authorities on an over-all program. I was pleased to learn that the minister caused his officials to go to Sweden to ascertain what is being done in that country, and also to discuss with a major United States detergent producer the development of phosphate alternatives.
[Mr. Comeau.l
We in this party are not sanguine with regard to the minister's opinion that perhaps voluntary action will achieve the desired result. We believe there will have to be definite target dates set not only for the reduction but also the elimination of phosphates. I know the minister referred to elimination as soon as is practicable. But this will not be hastened along without a good deal more effort than the hon. gentleman is putting into it now. I hope the minister is getting the kind of mail I am receiving these days-worried protests from women all across Canada who will not be satisfied to be told to go back to soap or to find out which detergent already on the market contains the least amount of phosphate. They want the government to arrange for the kind of research which will enable us to eliminate phosphate detergents completely.
We welcome the minister's announcement and urge him to continue the good work he is doing.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement, this morning, shows good intentions concerning pollution control. We have unfortunately had little time to study the document he tabled in the House, as we have just seen it.
Nevertheless, reading the first page of the statement, we see the government has good intentions in connection with control of water pollution, aiming to eliminate the use of chemicals such as phosphates as much as possible. However, one passage of the text surprises me. In effect, the minister says he will initiate discussions with a major United States detergent producer.
We know now that phosphates and soaps are the main factors of water pollution. What results can the minister expect from discussions with phosphate and soap producers if he wants to check pollution caused by the use of these products? In preparing his policy, I think he should instead consult scientists, who would likely recommend using biodegradable products which do not pollute water at all. He should confer with people who are not directly involved in phosphate or soap production or sales in order to be able to take measures likely to fight efficiently water pollution in Canada.
The minister has pointed out that the cooperation of businessmen involved should be voluntary. However, the problem of pollution is so acute in Canada now that we should do more than merely ask those who have been
February 6, 1970

directly polluting our waters for 25 years to share voluntarily in the fight against pollution.
The proposed policy is not drastic enough, because it contains only pious recommendations which suggest no new means of scientifically controlling water pollution.



PROVISION OF RESEARCH ASSISTANCE TO LIBERAL MEMBERS

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 1968 the government made available to the opposition parties in this House sums of money for research purposes to assist them in their vitally important task of analysing and criticizing government legislative measures and offering constructive alternatives. Following discussions with the opposition parties, a sum of $125,000 per annum was made available to the Progressive Conservative Party and a sum of $35,000 per annum was provided to each of the other two opposition parties. This money permits the employment of special staff by the House of Commons upon nomination by the several party leaders, and available to them. I am informed that this sum of $195,000 per year has permitted the opposition parties the use of research offices which now employ some 22 full-time and 5 part-time employees.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)

I think it fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that this scheme has worked well and has given to the opposition Members of Parliament means to carry on research which have never before been made available. This was but one of several measures which this government has taken to permit the private Member of Parliament to play a more effective role, and in so doing enhance the importance of Parliament as an institution.
As a result of the visible benefits of this new system which, I repeat, has been available only to opposition members, the government has decided to make funds available to private members on this side of the House as well.
A sum of money smaller than that available to all of the opposition parties, $130,000 as compared with $195,000, has been allotted for this task, as recognition of the fact that a heavy task of research falls also, on the government supporters.
DEBATES	3295
Research Assistance to Liberal Members [English]
I am glad to see that all hon. members welcome this announcement, Mr. Speaker. It is another step in the conscious plans of this government to strengthen Parliament and to assist the members who play such a vital role in our democratic processes.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we all welcome this effort on the part of the government to put its supporters in the House in a better position to enable them to play a full part in the work of Parliament. I do not know what will be the terms of reference of the grant, but I would think that quite possibly one of the major areas of research that private members on the other side of the House would have to undertake would be, at least in the initial stages, not so much research into specific subject matters but into how they can make their views known, how they can get their views across to members of the government.
I simply want to say that not only do I welcome this move to improve the position of the supporters of the government in the House, but if we can be of any assistance to members on the other side of the House in regard to how they may make their views be of more influence in their own ranks, then please, Mr. Speaker, may I convey the message to them not to be reluctant to consult us.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to indicate our support for the announcement made this morning by the Prime Minister. I suppose that the first and obvious comment to make about assistance being provided to government backbenchers is: "For heaven's sake, they need it."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: note that that sentiment is applauded by those on the government side of the House. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will recall that when the present deputy leader of this party and I called on him to discuss this matter shortly after the election in 1968 we made this very proposal, namely, that research assistance should be made available to all parties in the House. We repeated that suggestion when the matter was discussed on the floor.
I think it is perfectly correct that if research assistance is going to be made available to those who are not in the cabinet, then
February 6, 1970

Research Assistance to Liberal Members all members should be treated alike. In this respect I am sure that neither the Prime Minister nor anybody else will be surprised when I say that we think that the allocation of funds is not in proportion to the strength of the parties. We think that the amount accorded to our party should be greater, and we shall continue to press for this, but in any case we are making the fullest use that we can of the amount that is made available to our party.
A particular reason for our being in support of this proposition is that we believe it is proper that it should be the Members of Parliament, on whatever side of the House they sit, from whom the government should be getting its advice. We are disturbed over the extent to which the coterie of people who are attached to the Prime Minister's Office and the offices of ministers is growing and is producing what people sometimes refer to as the presidential system. I see the action announced today as an antidote to that.
When we complain about a presidential system we are not thinking just in terms of a name, of the Prime Minister being called the president instead of the Prime Minister, or being greeted with "Hail to the Chief" or something like that. We are thinking rather of the fact that under a presidential system the president makes the decisions on the basis of the advice he gets from those with whom he surrounds himself-his staff, which is responsible only to him. We think that is going in the wrong direction, and that it is to go in the right direction to get more advice from Parliament itself, either on this floor or from the members of the various parties. To the extent that strengthening the work hon. members on the government side can do is an antidote to any movement in the other direction, we welcome it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was quite right when he noted that his proposal has the support of all parties in the House.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for some time I had been expecting such a statement. As a matter of fact, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decided to make certain sums of money available to opposition parties for research purposes I wondered why members on the government side did not enjoy the same privileges.
At the time I surmised that the government was no doubt providing them with other documentation facilities. I feel that the action

announced by the Prime Minister is excellent since the same advantages are given to all members.
On our part, Mr. Speaker, we have used the funds at our disposal to the best advantage, but people will admit that even before this became the practice we were not doing too badly.


Mr. Ryan:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it will be quite apparent to Your Honour and to all hon. members that there is discrimination here against the independent party consisting of yourself and myself, and I would hope that the government would hasten to remedy this situation.


An hon. Member:: Come back to this side, Perry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment on the announcement, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not my impression that the hon. member has that status required by the Standing Orders. I should not think that he can make a statement at this time.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the backbenchers who have not had an opportunity to express themselves, I was going to thank the government for this action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to make the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That the matter of increases in war veterans allowances and disability pensions be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
I move the motion for the following reasons, and I will be brief. First, the concern with regard to the need for increases in assistance for veterans is continually being
February 6, 1970

brought to the attention of the government and all Members of Parliament, which emphasizes the hardships being experienced. Second, it is alarming to note that at present the maximum allowable income for single and married war veterans falls far below the accepted poverty line as laid down by the Economic Council of Canada.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
While it is realized that the government is reviewing the whole area of social legislation and while it is recognized on this side of the House that there is need to combat inflation, it must be considered of urgent concern that many veterans are reaching that age in life when immediate attention must be given to their needs and to the steadily increasing hardships caused to veterans due to rising costs and the effect on the living conditions of those citizens who are limited in their ability to earn for themselves due to service to our country.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the type of motion which requires the unanimous agreement of the House. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
agreement. Therefore it is not possible for the Chair to put the motion at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour who I had hoped would be here in view of the apparently deteriorating situation at some of the west coast ports, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet reached any decision concerning what action can be taken to reopen the ports or to ensure that the ports will open shortly so that the produce of the country can continue to move into export markets?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have already discussed this matter and have made a decision. Any further action will be announced in due course.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary, please. In view of the fact that we in Parliament seem to be continually faced with these problems which affect the nation's exports, I should like to ask when the government will bring in legislation to bring about a better relationship between management and labour so that our exports can be kept moving to the markets of the world?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East.



WHEAT-STATEMENT RESPECTING REDUCED PRODUCTION-FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO FARMERS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Was the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board expressing government policy when he indicated in London that prairie farmers will probably be advised to reduce wheat production in the next crop year? Also, is the government contemplating financial incentives for farmers who switch to alternate crops or increase their summerfal-low acreage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not verified what the minister said in London. As to the second part of the question, the minister answered that question in the House last week.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the government considering a price guarantee based on the International Grains Arrangement minimum or some other suitable basis if a limitation on crop production is introduced or encouraged? Is a similar guarantee contemplated for the 196869 final crop payment or for the current crop year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is making various suggestions. Last week he made such suggestions and the minister told him he would announce his policy in due course.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. In view of the reported statement in London of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board to the effect that farmers may have to leave their wheat land idle this year in order to reduce the grain surplus, has any decision been reached by the
3298	COMMONS DEBATES	February 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
government to assist the farmers in achieving course these items are fairly broad and no this objective so they will not be forced out doubt the provinces will want to elaborate on of business?	each of them.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), as the Prime Minister has pointed out, said in respect of this matter in the House last week that if the government has an announcement to make in this regard it will be made in the normal manner.


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the deepening financial crisis on the prairies, is the government now considering a deficiency payment to western farmers? I ask the question because the minister did not give us any indication in this regard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This question was asked by the hon. member and answered by the minister, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is not the case. The minister did not make a statement regarding a deficiency payment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



WHEAT-NEW QUOTA DELIVERY SYSTEM

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In light of the previous questions, is the government able to announce whether it intends to come out with a new quota system for the delivery of wheat by farmers in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I keep repeating the same answer. The minister is constantly confronted with such propositions. The government has its own policy and will announce any further srteps in due course.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS AGENDA FOR NEXT CONFERENCE

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the agenda for the forthcoming federal-provincial conference. There are three items on the agenda. The first is the economic situation. The second is pollution and the third is the report of the tax structure committee. Of


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the nature of the agenda and particularly in view of the importance of these topics, would the Prime Minister agree it would be desirable to have representatives of the opposition parties attend the conference as observers with a view to the opposition parties being fully informed concerning the nature of these discussions and the form of the conclusions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course such a matter could not be decided unilaterally by the federal government. I must say there has been no inclination on the part of any of the governments at the time of an in-camera conference to invite opposition members as observers at such in-camera conferences. This I believe has never been the practice even at the time the hon. member was leader of a provincial government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister not agree it has always been a matter for the leader of the federal government to decide who is to be included in the delegations and that if a provincial premier, for example, were to include the leader or a member of an opposition party no other delegation would have the slightest objection to this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe that would be correct. If it so happened that a provincial government wanted to include in its delegation members of the opposition, certainly we would have no desire to exercise any veto over such a composition of the delegation, but this supposes that in some places they do find opposition members who are co-operative and constructive.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of what the Prime Minister has just said, would he not agree that if the government of Canada included-surely there are some co-operative members in the opposition parties in the House-representatives of the opposition parties he has no reason to believe that any provincial delegation would object?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the provinces would not be in a position to object, but as a government we have reached the quite firm conclusion that in the matter, for instance, of the economic situation the opposition par-
February 6, 1970

ties in this House have proven to be a hindrance rather than a help to the government in its fight against inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will give the floor to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment but I am wondering whether we are embarking on a debate and whether we should in a moment try another subject.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think we have made some progress in this matter. I simply ask the Prime Minister whether he has not in the past given the impression that the opposition to including members of opposition parties stemmed from some understanding with the provinces whereas now he is disclosing it is purely a decision of this government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In order to help consumers faced with the economic recession the United States government recently reduced their so-called "Vietnam" surtax. Could the Prime Minister tell the House if he considers alleviating the tax burden of Canadians, and if so, what kind of action he intends to take?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member's question is much too general. If he wants an answer he might put his question on the order paper.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INCLUSION ON CONFERENCE AGENDA OF RIGHT OF PROVINCES TO ENTER INTO CULTURAL AGREEMENTS

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In connection with the federal-provincial conference would the Prime Minister object to the inclusion on the agenda of the said conference of the opportunity or right of the provinces to conclude cultural agreements with other countries having the same culture?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to note that a member of the opposition wishes to have constitutional matters put on the agenda of that conference. Some have already complained that the government and the provinces spoke too much about the constitution and they have asked that such conferences should not deal with constitutional matters. Now a nonconstitutional conference is proposed and the hon. member suggests that a discussion on the constitution should be put on the agenda. I am surprised.


Georges-J. Valade: I think the Prime Minister is greatly mistaken about my question, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the provinces and the opportunity they have to create cultural relations with other countries having the same culture.



POLLUTION


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in connection with his statement in the House earlier this morning. Does the minister intend to rely on voluntary co-operation on the part of detergent manufacturers to carry out his program?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I thought the statement was clear-possibly it was not clear enough.


An hon. Member:: It was clear to us on this side.


John James Greene: As there are very few manufacturers of phosphates and detergents containing phosphates and as they are largely the same companies on both sides of the border, it was a very attractive thought that they might be willing to co-operate on a voluntary basis and on a basis of self-discipline to reduce gradually and ultimately eliminate the phosphate content in detergents. Hence, I tried this approach, but I fear that gentle persuasion would not be successful and therefore more forceful action is required as indicated in the statement.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I wish to ask the minister whether he has considered the possibility of requiring detergent manufacturers to print on their packages the percentage of phosphate contained therein?
3300	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Greene: We have considered that, but have discovered from research not only carried out in this country but in other countries where similar approaches have actually been tried, a strange manifestation of the female of our species, that she would be likely to buy detergents with the highest phosphate content which washed the old man's clothes cleaner.


Mr. Fairweather:: His shirts may be white but his lakes are polluted.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the House what specific proposals for inflation control the four cabinet ministers are now presently carrying to the provincial governments?


Edgar John Benson: The general discussions with the premiers of the provinces are taking place prior to the meeting merely to outline some of our thoughts in this direction.


William Gordon Ritchie: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to introduce selective or regional antiinflationary measures in the near future which would alleviate some of the worst effects on the depressed regions of the country?


Edgar John Benson: If the government intended to do any such thing it would be our policy to announce it to the House in the ordinary manner.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether it has been brought to his attention that while he was away a firm in Toronto announced an increase in the price of milk contrary to the expressed wishes of the minister before he left. Does the minister propose to do anything about this himself in order to keep the Prices and Incomes Commission in a position where it can have a satisfactory conference?


Edgar John Benson: understand that while I was away the Minis-

DEBATES	February 6, 1970
ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs looked into this matter and made a statement in that regard, but I am not sure of that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Finance consult the record and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to find out whether the latter really did anything because, according to his statement in the House, he was not going to do anything about it at all?


Edgar John Benson: I am always pleased to consult even with the Leader of the Opposition.



THE BUDGET


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the concern expressed across the country about the white paper on tax reform, can the minister tell us when he hopes to bring down his budget so that we may view it in light of the white paper controversy?


Edgar John Benson: Very early in March.



FINANCE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Having in mind his concern about inflated prices in the country, would he say what consideration is being given to the representations of consumer groups urging the removal of the 12 per cent sales tax on margarine?


Edgar John Benson: The matter is being considered. I have received representations in this regard, both from manufacturers and consumers, and of course we are considering the matter.



NEW BRUNSWICK-ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. Will the government agree to co-ordinate its efforts with the provincial government of New Brunswick to help the victims of the severe flood damage in southern New Brunswick, and will
February 6, 1970

the Prime Minister agree to take extraordinary measures to alleviate the severe hardship caused by this unusual phenomenon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for having notified my office of his question. The steps he suggests are already under way. I received a telephone call from the Premier of New Brunswick at my office some time yesterday, but of course, before that, I had been informed by the province of the storm and its effects. We are assisting the New Brunswick government in every way possible.
The RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces are engaged in assisting in the evacuation of persons from flooded areas. The forces yesterday commenced construction of a temporary 150-foot bridge to replace a highway traffic bridge that has been washed away, and the Emergency Measures Organization has offered its assistance to the New Brunswick Department of Municipal Affairs to form a joint team to assess the extent of damage and estimate the best method of repair as well as the cost. The federal Department of Public Works has instructed its local officers to assist in this respect. Finally, the financial assistance of the federal government is available to the province of New Brunswick under the formula employed in the past with all provinces once the damage estimates are complete and, of course, if the Premier of New Brunswick should request such federal assistance.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I should like to ask a question to his parliamentary secretary.
Can he tell the House whether the minister has received a telegram from the Central Council of the town of St. Hyacinthe informing him that 40 employees of the Goodyear Company were being laid off?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe that the hon. member can simply ask whether a telegram or a message has been received by the minister concerned. In such terms, the question is out of order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As the economic situation deteriorates constantly in St. Hyacinthe, would the Prime Minister be prepared to give particular attention to the matter and to suggest to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to make of the St. Hyacinthe region a designated area?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a suggestion to the government and he should assume that it will be considered.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Fisheries. In his absence I would normally direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary, but since he is absent I can only direct it to the Acting Minister of Fisheries, whoever he may be. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries in Montreal that the U.S.S.R. and Poland are depleting Canada's fisheries resources, what steps has the government taken to bring this matter before the international panel of experts at the United Nations, and what steps will be taken to call an immediate international conference on this matter which is of such vital concern to Atlantic Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of supplemen-taries. This is an urgent matter, and I think there is a question of privilege here. There is no Acting Minister of Fisheries here today, although the friend of the minister fielded the question and the Parliamentary Secretary is not here. This situation is continuing day after day even though the minister is designated to be present. Here is an urgent matter of international importance and we have no one to answer for the government. This is very critical.



FINAL PAYMENTS ON DURUM WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swiff Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Pending government action in reply to questions asked earlier this week on this subject, will the Prime Minister have an Order in Council
February 6, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry passed authorizing disbursement of the surplus in the Durum wheat account of the Canadian Wheat Board to the Durum producers, which apparently is prevented at present because of a technicality in the Canadian Wheat Board Act?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a suggestion which I shall refer to the minister when he returns.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to my good friend, the Minister of National Defence. In his poetic way is he now prepared to give some indication when his report on base consolidation in Canada will be ready? I ask the question in light of the very serious and worsening situation at Fairey of Canada's plant at Eastern Passage.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows there is not much left to be done in the way of base consolidation except the final consolidation of the report which will not be possible before the end of April.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Abolish many more and you won't have a job.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board on behalf of the Postmaster General in view of his statement to me yesterday. When will the freeze on the extension of letter carrier services across Canada be lifted so that the Postmaster General can supply these services to which communities are ordinarily entitled?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this matter on behalf of the Postmaster General. I shall be talking to him about it soon.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport


whether he has given consideration to the restrictive ceiling on applications to the railroad grade crossing fund being raised?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter of the railway grade crossing fund is being examined. The problem is that it would have to be raised from somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250,000 to $25 million and we are trying to find some other solution. I have had discussions with the province of Manitoba on this matter, and others will be forthcoming in a few weeks.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I wonder when the minister might be in a position to make an announcement as to the changes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it may be some time, and by that I mean a matter of a few months, because of the complexity of the problem. Because of the meetings held with the government of Manitoba last Monday, for example, there is a committee representing Manitoba and my department and also the office of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. We are all looking at it in that context. I hope we can speed up the discussions but I do not want to hold out any hopes that it can come within days or weeks.



POLLUTION


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Does he intend to introduce in 1970 legislation to compel detergent manufacturers to make biodegradable or non-polluting products that do not contain phosphates?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, these products have already been made biodegradable by virtue of voluntary arrangements that were made some time ago with the phosphate manufacturers. Unfortunately, biodegradability has not solved the problem, so it is not the issue. With respect to the measures whereby we enforce the announcement I made this morning, this is under very active consideration and as stated in the announcement, I will be discussing the matter with my provincial counterparts to try to enlist their co-operation.
February 6. 1970	COMMONS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since the minister has stated that he would initia e discussions with some detergent manufacturers in the United States, could he not also consult them about markeling at this time entirely biodegradable products, which are the only ones allowed in some American states?


John James Greene: Again, Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian product is already biodegradable. I do not intend to have further consultations with the manufacturers as I think I did everything I could usefully have done in this regard. As indicated, I think governmental action is required, not a voluntary method of discipline.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the matter of biodegradable detergents. Can the minister explain whether biodegradability applies only to non-phosphate components of detergents or also to phosphate components? I think this is an important question arising out of one asked earlier.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the technical connotation of the question. It is my understanding that biodegradability was achieved by a voluntary process in which the companies co-operated some time ago. It was because of successes in that regard that I was encouraged to think that possibly we could achieve similar successes in the entire field of phosphates. The companies have taken the view that, (a) there is no substitute at the present and, (b) that the answer is to build or develop sewage disposal plants to clear up the phosphates rather than prevent their use, inasmuch as phosphates themselves are not harmful. They merely enable algae to live and grow. The companies feel that cleaning up after the use of phosphates would be the answer. I deemed, therefore, that I could not obtain the kind of co-operation with respect to phosphate control which had been obtained on the issue of biodegradability.



REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON SALE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question
DEBATES	3303
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Based on the apparent success of his department in obtaining a larger part of the Japanese market for food on a commodity to commodity basis, would he now consider placing special emphasis on the sale of dairy products to alleviate the very serious problem here in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I will consider that, Mr. Speaker, in regard to Japan or any other areas. We try hard in all areas.


An hon. Member:: Do your very best.



MINAS BASIN-PUBLICATION OF STUDY

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Further to his indication to me a couple of weeks ago, could he now give some indication when the government might be receiving or be in a position to release the feasibility study on Minas Basin tidal power?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I understand the problem now is a question of printing. It is at that stage, in which case I think we should have it available very soon.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate if he or his department has made any decision on whether this report will be released?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the report was made in conjunction with the provinces and that decision will have to be the subject of negotiation. Such decision at the negotiation table has not yet been made.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The importance of this matter relates to the pending applications for rail line abandonments and more specifically as they affect western Canada. Can the minister advise the House what steps, if any, he has taken to defend the Canadian Transport Commission's costing formula before the Supreme Court of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the question asked is in order. The hon. member is
3304	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry inviting the minister to make a statement about action that has been taken or not taken previously. In these circumstances I think this information should be given on motions or the question placed on the Order Paper.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, this question has been put to the minister on several occasions and he has advised the House that he would look into the matter. I think it is important that he should give us some statement on this very important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: My suggestion was that the question be answered by way of a statement. The minister might indicate whether he proposes to make such a statement.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, at some time very soon I will make a statement indicating that the whole matter is very much under consideration.



POLLUTION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his or any other government department exercises any regulation over the entry of oil tankers into our territorial waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This was a matter discussed during debate a few days ago. There are limitations on our authority at the moment. As outlined, we are proposing improvements in the Canada Shipping Act. With the indulgence of the Speaker, may I give a report on the situation as it stands in Nova Scotia?
The Imperial Acadia is now on the scene. It now appears that the Arrow struck on its starboard bow and five forward starboard tanks are tidal out of 30 tanks. The engine room and boiler rooms are intact. The engine-room crew is back on board proceeding to get up steam in an attempt to refloat the vessel and also, if necessary, to transfer the oil to other ships which are now moving into the area. Little oil is escaping at the moment and the oil slick, about three miles long but very narrow, is thin and not visible from another boat.
The Department of National Defence is arranging to provide a heavy lift helicopter for ferrying salvage equipment if required.

DEBATES	February 6, 1970


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he meant to indicate that the authority of Canada is restricted now with regard to such regulations within our own territorial waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I did not answer the question as fully as I ought to have. The position is, in terms of accidental spills of one kind or another, that we have quite adequate controlling and remedial measures at our disposal. What we do not have, pending the outcome of the Brussels conference and an international agreement, is a means through which to attribute liability in the event of accidents of this kind; we do not have it specifically yet. I indicated to the House a few days ago that we would be introducing amendments to the Canada Shipping Act giving to us within those waters under Canada's control the same kind of authority as we were seeking internationally but which we failed to obtain in Brussels.
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax
East): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm reports that Imperial Oil, the owners of the cargo on board the Arrow, have now accepted full financial liability for any damage that may be caused?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would have to investigate that, Mr. Speaker, but I can say that Imperial Oil is co-operating fully in the salvage operation. As long as weather conditions remain moderate there is no major threat, as of this moment at any rate.



TRAINING OF COASTGUARD MEMBERS TO ENFORCE STANDARDS

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister answer my question of January 29 which he took as notice? Are members of the coastguard being trained in anti-pollution work?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, some training is being done of coastguard crews, but we find that it is more appropriate to have a group of skilled people who can be moved either by coastguard or by other vessels to locations such as the one referred to. At the present time, a marine industry salvage officer of the department is on the scene in Nova Scotia.
COMMONS DEBATES	3305
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
February 6, 1970



AIR CANADA


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In view of the fact that Air Canada will abandon its short-run services, will the minister make representations to Air Canada to the end that information this airline has already given to some airlines wishing to apply to the Canadian Transport Commission for this business will be made available to all airlines which may be interested in securing this business?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to make these representations to Air Canada.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the desperate economic situation facing the western provinces at this time, will the Prime Minister indicate whether the government will reveal its plans for the assistance of the western agricultural economy at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some aspects of the economic situation in all parts of the country will naturally come under discussion. I cannot predict what the representations of the provinces will be and, therefore I cannot predict what position the government will take in response to them.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister not say whether plans the federal government has prepared for the assistance of the west will be revealed at this conference? Will the government not do that instead of merely taking into consideration what the west is proposing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are asking me to show more respect for Parliament and not make such announcements elsewhere but to Parliament. I will answer his question by saying that I will very seriously consider that suggestion.



UNITED STATES ABM SYSTEM-METHOD OF EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that has alarming implications for the Prime Minister. Are we to believe that caucus leaks are a credible substitute for quiet diplomacy, as attested to in today's Globe and Mail which deals with the anger of the right hon. gentleman-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member if I appear to interrupt him, but from what I have heard of the question so far it appears that I would be justified in ruling that it is not in order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I have rephrased the question to meet this contingency. Are there not more effective and orthodox means of registering Canada's disapproval of the ABM Safeguard build-up than caucus leaks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts about the rephrased question. I will rephrase my ruling and say that the rephrased question is argumentative.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council with reference to the business of the House. Inasmuch as the order paper, particularly so far as government orders are concerned, is becoming a bit thin, I wonder if the bills to be dealt with between now and Easter can be introduced and given first reading so that we can study them, and so that the new research people will have something to put their teeth into? In particular, and very seriously, may I ask if we may expect very early the bill on supplemental pension benefits which the government promised would be in effect by April?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Presideni of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member will read the notice paper he will see that three bills have been added today. Several others on the list, as he may have noted, have been given first reading in the Senate. The bill to which the hon. member referred in particular will, I expect, be available for first reading very probably in the week after next.
February 6, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.-CLOSING OF PORT FACILITIES-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING WITH UNION

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to report on meetings he has held with the International Longshoremen's Union in St. John's regarding the closing down of port facilities there by Canadian National and the resulting unemployment in that city?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the vice-president, eastern region, of the CNR will be in Ottawa on Monday for discussions with me on this and a number of other related matters, including some referred to by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Since the new president of the Newfoundland Board of Trade suggested yesterday that large numbers of citizens should move away from that province, has the minister, in consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, considered any action to relocate the hon. members for St. John's East, St. John's West, Gander-Twillingate and Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe?



AIR TRANSPORT


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Since an aircraft has been missing for over a week in southern British Columbia can the minister tell us what our search and rescue people are doing to find it?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, they are doing then-very best to find it. Actually to date they have flown over 325 hours and covered 29,000 square miles of territory. We have three Albatrosses and two helicopters engaged in the search.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INCLUSION OF TRANSPORTATION AND FREIGHT RATES ON CONFERENCE AGENDA

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Min-

ister? Has the right hon. gentleman given assurances to the western premiers that transportation and freight rate matters pertaining to the western economic situation will be placed on the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a request to that effect made to the secretariat and the government accepted the suggestion that such subject be discussed, but I am not quite sure whether all provinces will be prepared to proceed with it. However, if they wish to do so it can easily come under the first item on the agenda, under ihe heading pertaining to the economic situation. There has been, in other words, some discussion of this. We have agreed to discuss it but we are not sure when it will be brought up and in what form. I can say that we have not received any briefs on this matter.



ESTIMATES


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he is in a position to tell the House when he will be bringing down his estimates?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I hope it will be next week, Mr. Speaker, mid-week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to at least half a dozen questions I have directed to him and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the government of Canada intend now or at any time to protest to the government of Greece the fact that it is systematically torturing political prisoners in its jails?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot add anything to the reply the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already made to this question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in' the interest of all hon. members.
February 6, 1970	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) on a question of privilege.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I have just learned that members of a certain political party who sit on the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs have handed over their report on interest rates to members of the press gallery.
Mr. Speaker, I have received myself phone calls from certain members of the press gallery who wanted to know what was in the report I intend to table in the House as soon as I receive the French version. I refused to disclose such information because I thought it was my duty to present the report to the House as instructed on June 25 and October 30, 1969.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John James Greene: that Bill C-161, to provide for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board and for the repeal of the Canadian Coal Equality Act, the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Dominion Coal Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill, I would like to pay tribute to the excellent work of the Dominion Coal Board over the past 20 years and more. Without their efforts, our coal industry would not now be able to respond quickly to take advantage of the new markets which are developing for this resource.
The Dominion Coal Board not only brought the industry through difficult times, but working along with the mines branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, it took the initiative in opening up the Japanese market to Canadian metallurgical coal.
In the development of this important market, the Board arranged for the technical assistance required to make Canadian coal acceptable, in large volumes, to the Japanese metallurgical industry. The Board also pro-
DEBATES	3307
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act vided financial assistance, during this market development program, to enable Canadian coal to break into this market and achieve viability. These efforts of the Board have been successful because the coal industry is now in a position to undertake large, long term contracts on a strictly commercial basis and consequently the program of federal aid will terminate in 1970-71. The total value of the long term contracts with Japan is now approximately $2| billion. Consequently, the yearly value of coal exports to Japan will rise from the present level of about $15 million per year to $125 million in 1970-71 and to $180 million in 1972-73. By the mid-1970's, the value of coal exports to Japan alone is expected to reach $250 million per year. This will make coal one of the leading Canadian exports to Japan.
The Dominion Coal Board was established in 1947 on the recommendation of the 1946 Royal Commission on Coal, the Carroll Commission. It replaced the Dominion Fuel Board which had been established in 1922. That body was composed of federal public servants under the chairmanship of the deputy minister of mines. To replace it, the Carroll Commission recommended that "a statutory board be created with a full-time chairman to keep Canada's energy requirements under continuous review and to advise upon and administer transportation subventions."
Since then, however, there have been widespread and fundamental changes in the energy market, largely because of the enormous increase of discovered reserves of oil and gas in western Canada. There has also been, since 1947, an increased utilization of our hydro power potential. More recently nuclear power has started to supply some of our energy needs, although this new source has yet to make any real impact on our total energy picture.
In 1947, when the Dominion Coal Board Act was passed, coal supplied 59.3 per cent of our national energy requirements, so it is not surprising that special steps were taken to safeguard the continuing supply of a fuel so vital to our national needs. However, in 1968 coal supplied only 9.7 per cent of our energy needs, a tremendous drop from 59.3 per cent. Of this total, Canadian mined coal contributed only 3.3 per cent.
Today, then, coal is only one of a number of energy sources, and as I have mentioned, it has become a relatively minor one. Consequently, it no longer seems appropriate to maintain special legislation and a special administrative agency with respect to this one
February 6, 1970
3308	COMMONS
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act energy source. Instead, it seems far better to develop programs and policies for coal in the context of all energy sources.
I would like to say a few words about some of the more important responsibilities of the Dominion Coal Board, to indicate their present status. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I can tell of the arrangements being made to discharge the Board's remaining responsibilities. One of its major assignments has been to administer coal subventions. Over the years since the Coal Board was formed we have moved away from subventions conceived as merely part of the freight rate. Instead, we have given financial assistance to reduce the laid-down cost of coal at the point of consumption, to meet competition from imported fuels. This change has contributed to a steep climb in the annual expenditure for coal subventions. This rose from $1.7 million in the fiscal year 1947-48 to $33.3 million in the fiscal year 1967-68.
Since the subvention system was first introduced in 1928, total payments have exceeded $320 million. These have been administered by the Dominion Coal Board and its predecessor, the Dominion Fuel Board. In the past, subventions have been very useful in marketing Canadian coal. But changes in the Canadian energy industry, particularly the diminishing relative importance of coal, have made the subvention concept obsolete.
The work of the Coal Board has also been reduced by the creation of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and by Nova Scotia's acceptance of full responsibility for the smaller coal operations in that province. This reduced workload was predicted in 1966 by the Donald Report on the Cape Breton coal problem. This report also stated that "such duties as remain could be administered directly by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the staff of the Board absorbed into that department". Toward this end, the Donald Report recommended that the Dominion Coal Board Act be "reviewed and assessed".
The coal policy agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia was signed on June 13, 1967. Under this agreement Nova Scotia accepts complete financial responsibility for such support of the smaller coal mines as it deems appropriate and necessary.
The act to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation received royal assent on July 7, 1967. Devco is now operating the Cape Breton mines and related facilities of the Dosco group of companies on Cape Breton Island.


The Coal Board's subvention work has also been reduced by an agreement between the federal government and the province of New Brunswick, concluded March 26, 1968. This ended subvention payments to coal producers in the Minto field. Instead, the province is receiving lump sump payments over a five year period, and now is responsible for rationalizing its coal mining industry and attracting new industry to the Minto area. The province was paid $2.8 million in the fiscal year 1968-69 and the agreement calls for another four annual payments of $4,050,000. As well, the federal government transferred to New Brunswick the rights of outstanding loans granted to coal producers in that province under the Coal Production Assistance Act. The value of these loans, as of transfer date, was approximately $513,000.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
In western Canada, three major coal operators are receiving subventions for export movements, but all three have now completed long-term contracts for the export of coal to Japan on a completely commercial basis. Consequently, subvention assistance to one of these firms will end this coming March 31 and assistance to the other two will end on or before March 31, 1971.
Subvention assistance is also paid on smaller amounts of coal from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia shipped to markets in Manitoba and Ontario. Last year this assistance amounted to $252,000, but these subventions also terminate on March 31.
When the Dominion Coal Board is dissolved, the remaining administrative functions concerned with subventions will be relatively few. The residual functions will be transferred to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. However, the Board has responsibilities other than administering subventions. Section 6 of the Dominion Coal Board Act requires the board to advise the government on policies and measures related to the production, importation, distribution and use of coal in Canada. Section 7 of the Dominion Coal Board Act empowers it to undertake a wide range of research. This may be concerned with such matters as methods of mining and marketing coal and the competitive position of coal vis-a-vis other sources of energy. The Board has also served as a coordinating agency within government, between government and with the industry.
The dissolution of the Coal Board will not mean that these continuing and important
February 6, 1970	COMMONS
functions will be neglected. On the contrary, now that we are phasing out subventions it is in our interest to devote more time and money to research. This work will go on with a full knowledge of the relative importance of coal in our total energy picture.
The Energy Sector of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible for co-ordinating federal efforts related to all our energy sources and their utilization. It is therefore planned to attach the Coal Board staff to this section where their knowledge will complement the existing expertise in the fields of oil, gas, uranium and electrical energy. Within this energy sector, and through its ties with other parts of the department, our coal resources will receive continuing and close attention. This will allow their maximum use within a broad national policy which assures that each of our energy sources makes its most effective contribution to our economy.
The bill before us also calls for the withdrawal of the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Canadian Coal Equality Act, both of which are now administered by the Coal Board.
Now that Devco has been established and the coal policy agreement signed with Nova Scotia, there will no longer be a need for special mechanization loans to Nova Scotia coal producers. In New Brunswick the provincial government has accepted responsibility for the coal mines in that province. Meanwhile, the new large-scale export contracts with Japan have shown that the coal industry in western Canada can operate on a sound commercial basis without special loans or financial assistance. These are the reasons why the Coal Production Assistance Act is being withdrawn at this time.
During the 19 years that this Act has been in effect, 31 loans totalling $16.5 million have been made. Of this amount $10.5 million has gone to eastern producers and $6 million to western producers. Needless to say, coal operators whose loans are still outstanding will continue to make repayment.
Now that Devco, a Crown corporation, has taken over the production and marketing of coal in the Sydney area, there will no longer be any need of the Canadian Coal Equality Act. This act was passed in 1930 to aid the Dominion Iron and Steel Company works at Sydney. Under its terms a bounty of 49 cents a ton was paid on Canadian bituminous coal used to produce coke for the manufacture of iron and steel-that is to say, on Sydney area
DEBATES	3309
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act coal for the Dosco steel plant. During the 37 years this act has been in effect, payments have amounted to some $10 million. Devco will now set its coal prices at the levels needed to keep the markets it wishes to retain. And so, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coal Equality Act is being withdrawn.
At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the members of the Dominion Coal Board who served on the Board since its inception in 1949. I believe they have performed a service not only to the coal industry but to Canada. The Board membership was completely changed last July; it now consists entirely of senior officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In summary, the repeal of the Dominion Coal Board Act does not mean that the government has a lessened interest in our coal resources or in the social problems still affecting some segments of the coal mining industry. Rather, it means we must now deal with these problems on the basis of a new approach more appropriate to present-day conditions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Parliamentary Secretary permit a question? Can he tell the House whether agreement has been reached with the Dominion Coal Board or with the other Dosco subsidiaries regarding the price the government proposes to pay for the coal mines?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I gather that negotiations are still continuing in this regard. I am told there has been a meeting of minds and I am hopeful the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition will be answered very shortly.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: I shall not delay the House very long, Mr. Speaker. I rise to take part in this debate because the major effect of the legislation we are now considering will be felt in the Grand Lake area of the constituency I represent. I hope the plans of the New Brunswick government, which came about as a result of the grants to the Grand Lake Development Corporation, will do something to alleviate the grave anxiety felt for their future by many of the people who live in that area.
When the bill goes to committee I hope we shall be presented with a breakdown of the payments made not only to the government of New Brunswick but to various mines and individuals via the agency set up by the government of New Brunswick, that is, the Grand Lake Development Corporation.
February G, 1970

Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act
Rationalization is, of course, current jargon quite acceptable to economists when they gather to plan the future of the country, but I plead that when we use such terms here we bring to them a great deal of understanding and sensitivity. Unless we are sensitive to the needs of individuals who have been displaced or who are about to be made redundant, to use another contemporary jargon term, very real hardship may result. Speaking personally, I have no real objection to the plans of the government, though I do take objection when they are so inflexible as not to show a great deal of sensitivity for the problems of miners and their families.
e (12:30 p.m.)
In summary, then, I plead for more humanity. I plead for full disclosure of plans, because this will in large measure allay the fears of people who have given the best of their lives in what is a very tough, dirty and hazardous job. Thirdly, I enter a caveat in connection with some information I have received. I am informed that the Grand Lake Development Corporation has a very large measure of patronage attached to it, and that a good deal of money is being directed toward certain people. This is very hard for the representative of a New Brunswick constituency to understand. Nevertheless, to have people driving around in half-ton trucks making inspections endangers the credibility of people in the future of the Grand Lake Development Corporation.
Lastly, I should like to share with the parliamentary secretary in the warm tribute paid to those members who have served the public interest as members of the Dominion Coal Board for many years. In particular, I should like to single out Mr. Percival Streeter, who has the good sense to live in the constituency of Fundy-Royal.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to say a few words about Bill C-161, which not only seeks to dissolve the Dominion Coal Board but also to repeal three acts relating to coal operations. We find in clause 4 the repeal of the Canadian Coal Equality Act, the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Dominion Coal Board Act. Personally, I feel the time has come to consolidate the work of the coal board within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I have no opposition to this bill in that respect.
I, too, would like to pay tribute to the members of the coal board who over the

years have had a tough job to do. I think it is only right as this time that the members of this House recognize the job that they have done, and I believe have done well.
The Dominion Coal Board, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, dealt with a variety of functions pertaining to coal. I think the primary function of the board was that of setting up and allocating subventions for the various coal mining areas of Canada. The parliamentary secretary has already referred to the amount of the subvention for the year 1967-68, which came to some $33 million.
Personally, I am pleased to see that one year from now most of the subventions, as far as British Columbia and most of the other provinces are concerned, will have disappeared. It is to be noted that the development of certain coal resources has become uneconomic. While subsidies were paid on each ton of coal mined, the number of employees in the industry meant that these subsidies reached as high as almost $3,000 per miner, which I think all will agree is very, very high. In other areas, the subsidy was well over $2,000 per miner. When you reach this stage you begin to wonder whether it is not time to take a look at the industry and see whether there is some other development that could be better served economically by payment of this type of subvention. I am not going to go into this particular question. I am still of the opinion that subventions might have to be continued in certain parts of the country. However, I note that the coal board will be attached to the department, and therefore the board will continue to look into this particular problem.
There are one or two matters I should like to draw to the attention of the House. It seems to me that when you dissolve a department whose whole outlook has been directed toward coal and coal problems you are apt to forget in its incorporation into some new department some of the very important functions that have been carried on, in this case by the coal board. One of these functions was the role played by the board in the setting of freight rates. The board was party to the negotiations between the coal and railway companies when the railway was hauling supplies of coal to various parts of Canada. The Board had to be in the picture. I hope that in the reorganization, if I may call it that, of the coal board this very important function is not going to be overlooked.
In this connection, I should like to spend a moment or two underscoring the need for
February 6, 1970
taking a look at the important coal traffic problem in the Fernie area of British Columbia. Two of the big corporations with coal leases in the Fernie area have placed before the transport commission an application to build railway links hooking up with the Great Northern Railway in the United States for the purpose of transporting coal from this area over U.S. lines to the Pacific coast, and then back into Canada and up to Roberts Bank. I am 100 per cent opposed to this routing. The coal board had done a good job in getting the transport commission, the railways and the coal companies together to try to work out some kind of formula that would ensure that this coal was hauled over Canadian lines.
May I just put a few figures on the record to show how important this type of approach is. I submit it will be regrettable if the expertise of the coal board is thrown overboard with this transfer of duty. It is estimated that for every one million tons of coal hauled to the Pacific coast, $1.2 million is returned to the area by way of salaries, wages and other related employee benefits, such as pension funds and so forth.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
We cannot afford to lose this revenue. Currently, the Canadian Pacific Railway has two contracts to haul coal involving some 5 million tons annually. This means some $6 million a year is returned to the community in the form of wages, salaries and related employee benefits. This just shows you the tremendous input which would be lost if we were stupid enough to allow these reserves from the Fernie area to be transported by another railway line to the Pacific Coast. I cannot express myself too forcefully on this particular matter. We have heard stories that the CPR could not handle the coal traffic from Fernie down to the coast. Mr. Speaker, this is utter rubbish. The CPR can handle many times the quantity of coal which is now being shipped. It could easily handle 20 million tons of coal a year and more without any trouble at all.
I trust that the department concerned, and the coal officials in the department, will make absolutely certain that we as Canadians do not allow this lucrative rail traffic to get away from a Canadian company. I do not want anyone to think I am here speaking on behalf of the CPR because I have given them a first class hammering on many occasions and they will get it again, for example, if they try to do away with our passenger service.
21611-70J
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act
But when it comes to an issue of this nature, then I think we have every right to stand up and say that Canadian resources such as the coal resources in Fernie, should be transported, if at all possible, over an allCanadian communications route to our seaports, if we have to export them. I just leave this thought with the parliamentary assistant and the minister. I can assure them they are going to hear lots about this in the committee stage because we are not going to drop this issue.
There is one other point I should like to raise in connection with coal. There have been talks about a pipeline to carry coal from the Fernie area to the Pacific Coast. Whether this is feasible or not, I do not know. Whether it is feasible in any part of Canada I do not know. The coal would go in the form of slurry. Again, I would suggest to the department that this is a problem which our research authorities could solve in so far as coal is concerned. Maybe this is another matter which should be looked into, because one of the drawbacks to the use of coal as energy today, Mr. Speaker, is the high cost of transportation. If it can be cut by methods such as this I think feasibility surveys and research should certainly be considered.
I am not going to say anything more, but I do trust that other members in the House, and especially in the committee, will do a lot of delving into the question about the transportation of coal resources, particularly from the Alberta and British Columbia areas, to the Pacific coast. I hope they will make absolutely certain that we retain this commodity for our own Canadian transportation system and keep the benefits which accrue to the economy from this transportation in our own nation.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill provides for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board. It is not very often that a government, having created a board or agency, later sees fit to abolish it. Such bodies more often have a propensity to perpetuate themselves, regardless of whether the job they do is good or bad, or their existence necessary or unnecessary. The Dominion Coal Board is not being dissolved because it has not done its job. To the contrary it has fulfilled its role so successfully that, in the light of the vastly changing and changed energy demands, the functions of the board can now be carried on satisfactorily through ordinary departmental channels.

3312	COMMONS
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act
When the Dominion Coal Board came into being in 1947, coal accounted for about 60 per cent of the energy sources in Canada. Today, it accounts for about 10 per cent. The foundation of the board resulted from the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Coal, composed of the hon. Mr. Justice W. F. Carroll, of Halifax, the chairman; the hon. Mr. Justice C. C. McLauren, Calgary, and Mr. Angus J. Morrison of Calgary. Commissioner Morrison, who was then Secretary Treasurer of district 18 of the United Mineworkers of America made a minority report and he was explicitly emphatic on the necessity of establishing a coal board. His report recommended that:
A dominion government agency is needed to coordinate the administration of government activity relating to coal now handled by different departments; to undertake new research work with respect to both technical and marketing problems and to distribute information thereon.
A large part of the work of the proposed Canadian Coal Board would deal with the expenditure of public funds and policy relating to such expenditure must be a responsibility of the government. The board would be an administrative and advisory body rather than a policy making body, ft would therefore be appropriate to include upon it representatives of the coal mining industry, employers, employees, as well as of the dominion government.
As a result of that recommendation, the government acted quickly to set up the Dominion Coal Board.
It was not long after the coal board began functioning that the coal industry began to face its most critical test. Large scale discoveries of oil and gas in western Canada brought these energy sources into competition with coal, while in Nova Scotia extensive modernization requirements coupled with the competition from imported oil put extreme pressure on the industry. Particularly because of the grave situation in Nova Scotia, the board was asked to study the existing policy in 1953. The board's first recommendation to the government as a result of this study was that:
The production of coal in Canada continue to be maintained at a level which would preserve the basic structure of the industry and permit rapid and efficient expansion to meet increasing future needs.
I submit that without this determined and foresighted attitude on the part of the board it is entirely possible that the Canadian coal industry could have succumbed. As it was, much of it did not die, particularly in western Canada. Following the oil and gas discoveries in Alberta, markets in western Canada com-
[Mr. Sulatycky.l
DEBATES	February 6, 1970
menced to deteriorate due to the dieselization programs of the railways, the greater use of fuel oil in industry and the building of a vast network of natural gas pipelines which soon covered all the cities and towns of western Canada. This resulted in the permanent closure during the 1950's of most of the bituminous mines, whose principal production was locomotive fuel, and most of the underground mines producing coal for domestic and commercial heating. The ultimate result was that, despite every effort made to assist them by way of subvention, 80 per cent of the mining operations in Alberta and British Columbia were forced to close permanently.
Because of the continuing difficulties faced by the coal industry, the government in 1959 appointed the Hon. Ivan C. Rand a royal commissioner to inquire into the problems relating to coal production. The report of Mr. Justice Rand was made in August, 1960 and amongst its recommendations was that the government cease assistance on the export of coal to Japan. The Dominion Coal Board, to its everlasting credit, reacted strongly in opposition to this recommendation. I am sure that many of the people who are today dependant on the coal industry in western Canada shudder to think what the future would hold for them if it were not for the strong reaction which the Dominion Coal Board took to this recommendation of the royal commission in 1960.
The board felt that such assistance for the export of coal to Japan should continue for at least two or three years, at the end of which time another assessment of the situation could be made. It was because of this insistence that the few western mines still operating were able to continue doing so on a limited scale. As far as the western coal industry is concerned, if the Dominion Coal Board did nothing else, it justified its existence merely by insuring the continuation of assistance to western mines exporting coal to Japan. This assistance was substantial and without it it is difficult to say whether the Alberta coal industry would be as sound as it is today. However, it is most likely that it would now be dormant rather than the thriving force it in fact is. This was ably pointed out by M. F. Clemmer of Kaiser Resources Ltd. at the last Canadian conference on coal when he said:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The Canadian, taxpayer subsidized the small amount of production that did take place just to keep the industry alive as he still does throughout Canada. Let me say that this last was extremely important, because if the industry had been
February 6, 1970	COMMONS
allowed to die a natural death, it would have been doubly hard to bring it back to life-and that its resurgence might have been delayed much longer than it was. So there is very definitely something to say for keeping a function going even when it appears uneconomic if there is good reason for hope.
The fact that within the last five years the Alberta and Crowsnest coal industry has been rejuvenated as a result of huge export contracts with Japan, is history.
The development of this export business has been the result of a co-operative effort by the producers, the coal board, the mines branch and the federal government itself who, in spite of some doubts and misgivings, agreed to support the movement as long as it continued to show progress. This is one of the real success stories of the coal industry and the results thus far attained make the amounts expended on subvention assistance look very small indeed. A further bonus is that a greatly expanded export of Canadian coal to the western United States is likely to develop in future years so that the western bituminous coal industry now appears to have established itself on a solid basis for the foreseeable future.
The leadership shown by the board in finding stable markets for the western high rank coal presents a good example of the board's use of its intimate knowledge of and close contact with industry in guiding the latter from an uneconomic position to one of viability in its exports to Japan. Without the technical and financial assistance of the board with its specialized knowledge, it is doubtful that there would have been the same degree of success achieved in the development of this important export trade.
The board explored the potential and technical needs of the Japanese steel and gas industries. It suggested and guided a number of technical studies by the research arm of the Energy Mines and Resources Department. This included the implementation of its recommendation to establish in Canada a technical-scale coking coal evaluating facility.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Dominion Coal Board has served its purpose very well.
I wish to turn briefly to the impact of some of the foregoing on my area of Alberta, in particular. I do so only because the full force of the operations of the Coal Board has been felt mainly in two regions, Cape Breton and the coal mining areas of the rocky mountain district. All these mountain coal mines are in my riding or immediately adjacent to it, so the significance of the impact is national in character.
Before the advent of oil and gas there were prosperous, boisterous communities throughout the Crowsnest Pass region and at Can-more within the Rocky Mountain riding. Towns such as Blairmore, Bellevue, Coleman, Frank, Hillcrest, Burmis, Cadomin, Robb and Canmore were well known because of the wealth that was brought out from under the ground by the people who lived and worked
DEBATES	3313
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act in them. Then, slowly at first, soon at a quickening pace, the mines started closing as a result of dieselization. The coal branch area became a series of ghost towns. In the Crowsnest Pass area, both in Alberta and British Columbia, communities also declined. The few mines which remained in operation, such as Canmore Mines Ltd. and the predecessors of the present Coleman Collieries Ltd., did so mainly because of the subvention payments made to support the sale of the products of these mines. These subventions were very impressive. Their total for Alberta and the Crowsnest Pass area is more than $60 million. They helped many miners retain their employment. They allowed many families to remain in the communities they loved and called home.
I had the great pleasure some months ago of visiting the mines at Canmore and going underground with the miners. I met many of them who had been working at this mine for thirty or forty years. They probably knew the rooms of the mine, as they are called, as well as most of us know the rooms of our houses. I know these men are very glad the government saw fit to continue the assistance to their mines so that they could continue to work at the jobs they knew best. The same applies to the miners in the Crowsnest Pass area. I recently was in this beautiful and historic region of western Canada and talked to many people regarding the coal industry there. I found that the people were pleased with the revival of the coal industry and optimistic about its future. They are proud of the fact that very soon their mines will be, operating without any government financial assistance in the form of subventions, but they are also grateful that these subventions have kept their coal industry alive during its dark years so that there now is a future in the Crowsnest Pass area. Last year there were almost 500 people employed in the coal industry in the Crowsnest Pass area receiving wages of almost $3 million.
But it is not only in these long-time coal producing areas that the industry has been revived. It is also being extended to new areas. The coal branch deposits will again be mined and this is giving a great impetus to the nearby modern town of Hinton where most of the employees will be living. The most impressive development, however, is taking place around an entirely new mining operation, that of McIntyre Porcupine on the Smoky River some 300 miles northwest of Edmonton. There, an entirely new town,

February 6, 1970
Nuclear Liability
Grande Cache, is being built to accommodate the employees of the new mine. It will be one of the most modern and scenic communities in the entire country. Within a few years it is expected to consist of about 5,000 people. The impact of this development, together with the revitalization of the coal branch, is being felt in almost all communities in the area, including the important towns of Hinton and Edson. All these foregoing developments are in large measure the result of the efforts and the foresight of the individuals who have served on the Dominion Coal Board and are tributes to these people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the house, I should like to revert to routine proceedings in order to table a committee report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gaston Clermont: I have the honour to submit the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: that 
Bill C-158, respecting civil liability for nuclear damage, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, the nuclear liability bill is intended to lay the basis for suitable financial protection against the consequences of accidents that may occur in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, equipment and materials.
Like other industrial plants, nuclear reactors and other major nuclear installations may be subject to accidents involving injury to persons and damage to property. However, in the 27 years that have elapsed since the first reactor was operated, there has not been a single case anywhere in the world, as far as we are aware, of death or injury to health of a person outside a nuclear plant resulting from an accident in it. There has been no case in Canada, and only one abroad, of damage outside the plant property caused by such an accident. Moreover, waste materials from nuclear energy installations have not become objectionable pollutants in our rivers, lakes and atmosphere.
The good safety record of nuclear installations in Canada is partly due to the early provision of appropriate control legislation, establishment of suitable safety standards, and the introduction of adequate protective measures while the industry was still developing, as well as the careful safety review by the Atomic Energy Control Board before approving the design and licensing the operation of these installations. In other words, the legal nature of nuclear materials caused concern 20 or more years ago and action was taken at that time to ensure, not only public safety, but also the protection of our waters and other segments of our environment.
Had we as a nation, and possibly as a world, the concern about the pollution of our waters, our air and our surface then as we have today, and had we taken the effective steps at that time to control the situation, today we would not be facing as a world the serious dilemma we are facing at present in trying to improve and restore our environment.
In spite of the good record, it would be unrealistic to ignore the possibility of accidents causing personal injury and damage outside the boundaries of a plant. Nuclear installations differ from other industrial plants in that maloperation or malfunction
February 6, 1970

may permit the release of radioactive material in quantities that might be hazardous to health outside the plant and cause contamination of property requiring costly decontamination or disposal. This fact raises a number of considerations which require special provisions in the bill.
Because the mention of radiation injury reminds us of the dreadful effects of nuclear weapons, it is important that we do not exaggerate the dangers from the use of peaceful nuclear installations and nuclear materials. It is physically impossible for a peaceful nuclear installation to explode with the violence of a nuclear weapon and produce such a powerful flash of radiation. Even apart from such unwarranted fears, the fear of being held liable for radiation injury could cause anxiety, for example, to manufacturers of equipment used in nuclear installations about the possibility of being exposed to exceptionally large damage claims. This bill, therefore, provides that each nuclear installation should have not only basic insurance but also subsidiary insurance that could provide, if necessary, for the highly improbable or almost inconceivable catastrophic event.
The need for protection of this kind has been recognized by other countries also. Canada is the only industrially important nation in the western world that has not yet enacted legislation to provide for it. The need in Canada has become more pressing since nuclear reactors are being constructed outside federally owned establishments.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Owing to the difficulties of establishing the contributory causes of a nuclear accident, and because some of its consequences may not be apparent for some time, a costly pyramiding of insurance, much litigation and interminable costly delays in settlement could easily result if unrestricted pursuit of damages were allowed. To meet these difficulties, the bill, resembling in this respect comparable legislation in other countries, would impose a duty on the operator to ensure that no injury or damage in Canada resulted from the operation of his installation. The operator would be absolutely liable for any breach of this duty without the claimant having to prove any fault or negligence. Financial responsibility would be channelled to one person, the operator, and subject to minor exceptions he would be the only one liable to third parties for injuries or damages.
Nuclear Liability
The operator's financial responsibility would be limited to $75 million for any one nuclear incident. Toward this amount, the operator would be required to take out basic insurance with an approved insurer for an amount fixed by the Atomic Energy Control Board with the approval of Treasury Board. The amount of this basic insurance would be fixed after consideration of such things as the type and power of the reactor and its location in relation to population and to geographical features. This basic insurance might be quite small for, say, a research reactor of a well proven type. For large nuclear power stations it would probably approach the limit of commercially available insurance, understood to be about $25 million. Firm quotations for premium rates cannot, of course, be obtained until this bill has been passed, but on the basis of some figures suggested by insurers' representatives it would seem that the premiums should not unduly burden the industry. The terms and conditions of both the basic insurance, which would not be reinsured by the government, and the supplementary insurance, which would be reinsured, would require approval of the minister.
The difference between the amount of the basic insurance and the total of $75 million which is to be available for the protection of the public would be reinsured by the government under an agreement between the minister and the insurers approved by the Treasury Board. The bill provides that a fee may be charged for this supplementary insurance and the amount of this fee would be worked out with the Department of Finance.
If the claims exceeded the $75 million, Parliament could intervene to provide additional funds as it has in the past in cases of major disasters, and these funds would be administered under the terms of the act.
Due to the need for prompt relief in a nuclear incident of catastrophic proportions, the bill provides for setting up a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission when the circumstances warrant. This commission would have wide powers to determine and pay claims.
The bill provides also for compensation for injury or damage outside Canada where suitable reciprocal arrangements exist or have been made with another country.
At the present time, all operating nuclear reactors except one are the property of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and that crown company has agreed to indemnify all operators, suppliers and contractors against

February 6, 1970
Nuclear Liability
liability in the event of an accident in these reactors that is not due to gross negligence or wilful default of a senior officer of the operator. The one operating reactor not owned by AECL is a research reactor at McMaster University. Under an existing arrangement, it is indemnified by AECL against liability for claims in excess of $500,000 for which amount the university is required to carry insurance. This arrangement would be superseded by the application of this legislation. It is anticipated that the cost to the university would, if anything, be lower under this bill.
The bill provides that it shall not affect the operation of such things as employees' compensation, health and other insurance, and pension plans. Since the bill was introduced and received first reading in November last, it has been widely circulated among scientists, utilities and others concerned. To date, comments have indicated that the general principles of the bill are acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, as we move the bill to the Committee on National Resources and Public Works the committee will have an opportunity to examine some of the technicalities- basically I would say that the bill is a technical bill-and to provide assurances to the Canadian public that in the unlikely event of a catastrophe in the field of nuclear science there would be protection for the people of this country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the chairman of the Atomic Energy Control Board, Dr. Lawrence, and the former and still active legal adviser, Mr. Jarvis. Both gentlemen have been involved in the business of controlling and policing atomic energy uses in Canada. They have made a great contribution and I believe that we, as a Parliament, should recognize their contribution to our country.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mankind stands on the threshold of a new era. He is harnessing the greatest power known to man and beginning to turn it to his peaceful purposes. The potential peaceful purposes of nuclear power are immense. Indeed, the ultimate potential probably lies beyond man's limited imagination. Certainly, the most important of the present prospects is the generation of electricity.
The second half of the 1960's marks the time when the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity became a commercial reality after more than 20 years of research and development. In this achievement, Canada has been one of the pioneers. We owe a great

debt to our scientists, researchers and nuclear administrators. Our dependence on nuclear energy for our supply of electricity is bound to increase. A recent study by the National Energy Board projected our energy demands to 1990. That demand will grow by over 6 per cent annually and it is forecast that nuclear installations will soon be providing about one-third of that requirement.
This harnessing of nuclear power is a double boon for mankind. The western world has suddenly awakened with a dreadful start to the pollution and corruption of its environment. Nuclear power will represent a positive step toward the control of air pollution since, unlike power stations using fossil fuels, they emit no fumes into the atmosphere. In fact, most industrial applications of nuclear energy cause little or no contamination of the environment. We will have to become very careful of what is being called thermal pollution. This is a general problem with thermal power stations but there appears to be a bigger threat from nuclear stations because of the greater heat discharge. When water drawn from adjacent rivers or lakes for cooling purposes is returned, it may disrupt the total ecology of aquatic life. We will have progressed very little, Mr. Speaker, if we simply stop killing our fish with phosphates to start killing them with heat.
However, mankind should be thankful that the advent of the peaceful use of nuclear energy is giving man another chance to come to a peaceful reconciliation with his environment. It is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.
Nuclear power can be a great benefit to Canadians. Our first nuclear power station began producing in 1962 at Chalk River. Expansion has continued since then: Douglas Point on Lake Huron, Pickering, the Bruce plant at Douglas Point, Gentilly-these are the names of Canada's nuclear record. We have met numerable technological problems. Basic decisions have to be made with regard to the future orientation of our peaceful nuclear energy program. But today is not a time to dwell on these matters, however important they may be. The use of nuclear energy is spreading rapidly in our industries and universities. Transportation is another area of potential nuclear development.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The bill before us today, which I am sure will receive support from all parts of this House, relates to an important matter which I
February 6, 1970

am sure is of general concern. We must insure that nuclear energy is a total benefit to mankind. We must make it safe. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions which are contained in this bill are never used. I hope we will never have a nuclear incident which could endanger the lives and surroundings of Canadian men, women and children. But we certainly must make provision against that unthinkable day.
We on this side of the House, therefore, welcome this bill. In general, we think it is a good bill, one obviously based on the experience gained from the operations of other Canadian claims commissions, especially the War Claims Commission. The provisions to do with ensuring absolute liability of the operator, the setting up of controls over the insurance carried by operators, and the establishment of the mechanism for possible claims commissions fill gaps in the Canadian law.
There are a number of points in the bill which I feel need very careful consideration by the committee. Four points in particular that I feel must be changed are as follows: First, there is a need for a review procedure. Clause 24, subclause 6, provides that a single member of the commission may hear and decide claims, and that his decision has the same effect as if it had been rendered by the entire commission. This is unacceptable in this form. There must be some procedure either in the legislation or in the administrative mechanisms of the commission which assures the right of appeal to every claimant. Only through such review can the uniformity of treatment which is the very essence of justice be preserved. Experiences of the War Claims Commission which operated during the 1950's must be instructive in this regard. I shall not belabour this point, but I submit it is something to which the committee will have to give serious consideration.
Second, unless the minister can come up with a good explanation, clause 28 will also have to be changed. As it reads now, the minister has the discretion to refuse to pay any claim awarded by the commission. No sensible, concerned minister would do so. However, I can see no good reason for leaving this discretion in the bill, and it is another point to which the committee must give its most serious consideration.
Third, perhaps the most serious point to be looked at with regard to this bill is the question of the setting of the limit of liability. Seventy-five million dollars is the limit set in the bill. The committee will have to look very 21611-71
Nuclear Liability
hard at this figure and will have to cross-examine the minister and his officials very carefully to see what the basis was for the setting of this figure. A nuclear incident in one of our crowded cities could very conceivably cause damage to humans and surroundings which could exceed that figure. This fundamental principle must not be abridged; every person must receive full compensation for any injury or damage which is inflicted upon him. Human suffering cannot be repaid at 50 cents on the dollar. If this limit is not found adequate for every conceivable situation, then the committee must change it.
We have no reason to be complacent about the problems of regulating our nuclear activity. The recent problems which developed with the 3,000 megawatt Bruce Plant at Douglas Point are vivid illustrations of that. The belated shift of construction to avoid the risk of endangering the labour force with hydrogen sulphide emission is a clear signal that we must give more attention to the way we have been supervising the construction and operation of our nuclear installations. We cannot wait for a major mishap to stir us from our lethargy.
My fourth and last point is a small one, but it could be important. We must have an adequate explanation of subclause 4 of clause 34. As it reads this subclause gives wide, wide, power to the cabinet to amend the very legislation which we are passing. There may be some justification for having a leverage with which to negotiate reciprocal treatment of Canadians in foreign countries, but we must consider this section very carefully to guard against any abuse of it.
These four points I have mentioned are important and, as I have said each time, the committee must look at them carefully. But the general structure of the bill is good, and I must congratulate the minister on it. I only wish that the other bill he is presently involved with, the Canada water bill, could deserve similar applause.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The government gets a big zero for that bill.


Louis-Roland Comeau: In rounding out my comments on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make this rather personal observation. This modern age continually forces us to think and talk about the "unthinkable". The catastrophe of loss of life and permanent injury of human bodies through a nuclear incident is one of those "unthinkables". As I said earlier, my sincerest hope is that the second part of this

February 6, 1970
Nuclear Liability
bill will never, never be used. And to insure that, Mr. Speaker, we must take a twofold approach to nuclear safety in Canada. This bill represents the second approach; the necessary but second approach. The first approach must be the most rigorous and vigilantly applied standards of operation, transit, and administration of our nuclear installations. Human safety of employees and the general public must be our primary concern. Only in this way will we ever realize my present hope that the provisions of this bill will never be used.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, our party does not wish to impede the progress of this bill to committee, where it will receive further consideration. May I point out in my introductory remarks that this bill, which was originally presented to the Liberal caucus as the nuclear hazards bill has now been brought in under the more comforting title of nuclear liability bill. I presume it was thus not as likely to frighten anybody. The parliamentary secretary attempted to play down the horror of a nuclear holocaust. In any event this bill, I feel, is enlightened in that it recognizes the growing use of fissionable material in Canada in industry, agriculture and medicine. We can expect the use of such material to grow in future. It will be a possible source of electrical energy. This, on one hand, may bring about improvements to our ecology but, on the other, harm our ecology. Possibly, the building of nuclear plants will make unnecessary large hydroelectric dams which block our rivers and desecrate large and beautiful valleys in different parts of rural Canada. Alternatively, the nuclear installations may raise the water temperature and, although that temperature may be adjusted only a few degrees by using river water to cool the plants, the whole spawning process of anadromous fish may be disrupted.
The bill looks forward to the time when nuclear power plants will drive ships, aeroplanes and perhaps even cars. It attempts to provide some measure of insurance protection against nuclear leaks or the failure of operators of nuclear installations to protect the public generally. From that point of view, the bill certainly is worth while.
I notice however, that under the definition of radioactive waste products, products to be used in medicine, agriculture and in commercial products are excluded from the provisions of the bill. I am disturbed by this omission. We are constantly learning that material we once thought to be non-toxic is toxic
IMr. Comeau.]
because of its cumulative effect. It is possible that the thousands of different and complex chemicals which are being put into our environment every day may, in the long run, cause us damage that, in the first instance, is not readily apparent. Certain chemicals, as is well known, build up in the body over a considerable period of time.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Consider problems associated with the uses of the drug thalidomide, pest control agents DDT and compounds of mercury, the latter being used on the prairies. These chemicals which formerly we thought were safe to use we now know, as the result of several years of experience, are not safe at all. I think the same thing might be said about nuclear material which will be used in medicine, agriculture and other parts of industry which we may not now feel has any toxicity but may, because of their build-up, lead to all kinds of horrors that at the moment we hesitate to contemplate. I think the public recognizes the horror of nuclear explosives. All over the world ban-the-bomb groups have marched to show their concern for the future of humanity. We are not dealing with some plaything when we are dealing with nuclear energy. But until recently only minor concern has been expressed over the threat to human survival on this planet if we fail to introduce bold anti-pollution measures. This is why I tend to be over-emphasizing my concern, so that it will be blatantly clear to anyone who will listen and read about this matter that the public is becoming alarmed at the dangers to its very survival.
Scientists tell us that we have just about one generation left to make a choice between a balanced ecology and disaster. Whether it is pollution disaster or nuclear disaster, it is really a Hobson's choice and the results will be the same. Since the public is becoming more aware and alarmed, it is getting to the point where a consensus is developing which will support strong and bold measures to protect the future existence of life on this planet.
I think there have been great and justifiable outcries about the underground testing of nuclear weapons, certainly over the testing in Amchitka in the Aleutian Islands last year. The proposed tests have raised considerable public concern not only in Canada, but in the United States, Japan and other parts of the world. Conservation groups are concerned as are seismologists about earthquakes. Even Governor Egan has expressed opposition to
February 6, 1970



these tests on behalf of Alaska. Despite this, nuclear testing continues. It has not stopped, it has just gone underground.
We can now look forward to the detonation of an atomic test proposed to be three times as large as the original test last fall. A stupid and possibly devastating nuclear escalation is now going on through ABM and related underground tests. I think these tests pose a potentially greater threat than anything that could be covered by this bill.
While this bill is an important measure dealing with the peaceful uses of atomic material, there is nothing in it that accords the public any kind of protection for the kind of things that occur when we have underground bomb tests and other tests which go on from time to time. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made some stern remarks lately about the United States moves which are euphemistically called defensive measures. I hope Canada's stance will be much more stern than the last time. I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) a question regarding Amchitka on July 15 and he did not get around to sending a note to the United States about this matter until September 19.
I notice this bill includes exemption from liability for damage caused during times of war. I can understand why no insurance company would be interested in providing this protection during times of war, but I wonder about the fact that the bill appears to neglect the possibility of mishaps in military installations where ground-to-air missiles or other like atomic weapons are stocked for defensive purposes. I think the committee should consider this particular matter. I think while war is one situation, a possible mistake or error causing unlimited damage by atomic weapons stored on Canadian soil is certainly a very serious matter for Canadians to consider.
I could go into a great deal of detail about the possible threats of radiation, fall-out and genetic adjustment concerning the island of Amchitka, but perhaps this is beyond the purview of this bill. While I would like to express it because it concerns me and many other Canadians very greatly, I will not trespass upon Your Honour's good humour and get into that discussion at this time.
I feel that Canada has had a very good safety record with the nuclear installations in this country. We have had no major disaster associated with these reactors. Since we have had no major disaster concerning nuclear and fissionable installations, I wonder why the 21611-71*
Nuclear Liability
insurance companies have been so reluctant to move into the protective field, and why it is necessary for the government to guarantee these insurance companies in the way it is planning to do in this bill. It seems if money were to be made and the risks were slight, this would be exactly the kind of situation into which the insurance companies would be delighted to move. Obviously, because the insurance companies have displayed reluctance up until now to get into this field, it has been necessary to produce a bill which would allow a limited liability backed by the government rather than an unlimited one.
This situation is closely paralleled by the oil spills on Canadian waters. As hon. members know, when we were considering the Canada Shipping Act, a subclause covering unlimited liability for such spills was taken out of the act on the grounds that no insurance company would cover all the damage caused by such a disaster. We are now faced with a potentially major disaster off Nova Scotia. Although the minister did assure me during the debate on the Canada Shipping Act that he would take this matter of unlimited liability to the international conference, which he did, the fact still remains that at the moment we have no real protection against the possibility of a commercial disaster of the proportions of the one which could possibly occur right now while I am speaking.
This may reflect the same kind of reasoning that is behind Bill C-158. It is because of the gargantuan costs involved in possible damages that no insurance company will cover them. In instances such as this a limited liability is imposed and the public must be responsible for any other remaining damage costs which result. The insurance companies will not cover this. They feel they cannot do so because the financial risks are too great. Whenever disasters of this kind take place the public, through taxes and other disaster measures are required to pick up the tab.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In case any hon. member feels there is no risk to atomic waste disposal, I wish to read a rather lengthy letter written to the editor of the Montreal Star recently by F. H. Knel-man, chairman of the humanities of science, Sir George Williams University. It is headed: "The Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy-Perils of Pollution must be Emphasized." Mr. Knel-man is replying to a letter from Dean R. E. Bell of McGill, commenting on an article by Mr. Knelman "Myth of the Peaceful Atom".

February 6, 1970
Nuclear Liability
Mr. Knelman, in his letter to the Star, takes up the specific points raised by Dean Bell. He writes:
1.	Radiation Protection-The history of this issue offers so much support of my position, namely, the lag in the establishment of proper limits behind the total accumulated exposure from all sources, that it would require several issues of this newspaper to provide the evidence. After a dozen years of intense involvement in the issue of radiation hazards, I read Dean Bell's comments with a powerful sense of it all having happened before-the glib assurances of "tame" scientists and government atomic energy officials followed inevitably by the voluminous eating of their own words. I might paraphrase Dean Bell by stating that anyone who has the faintest knowledge of the subject couldn't possibly challenge my point. Ernest C. Tsivoglou, professor of sanitary engineering at Georgia Tech (chief of radiological water pollution control, U.S. Public Health Service, 1956 to 1966) has indicated that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) constantly neglects both the problem of multiple sources and local conditions of high exposure. Moreover they ignore considerations of potential harm to lower organisms. Also they leave no reserve capacity for accident or expansion of radiation sources.
2.	Water Pollution by Radioactive Substances- Here Mr. Bell reveals misquotation, misunderstanding and outright ecological ignorance. Let me cite some documented cases:
(a)	A study of the Columbia River by Norman Lansdell revealed serious radioactive pollution and uptake by all forms of river life.
(b)	Some radioactive isotopes from civil reactors such as Zinc 65 find their way into humans. Thus people in the Columbia River Valley have greater amounts of radiation in their systems than allowed for people in atomic energy installations.
(c)	The fish kills and genetic mutations at White Oaks Lake, Tennessee as reported by Dr. Robert Pendleton of the University of Utah.
(d)	A recent investigation found plankton in the ocean having radioactive levels 150,000 times that of the water. Dr. Lamont Cole, world famous ecologist at Cornell University, has argued that introduction of biologically active substances into the ocean could prove calamitous by destroying the diatoms which produce most of the earth's photosynthetic oxygen. Bell's supercillious, parenthetical date-dropping and public school posture just reflects his insensitivity to the hazards involved.
3.	Thermal Pollution-there Bell once again reveals his ignorance. The fact that a coal fuelled power station can cause thermal pollution in no way detracts from the issue. Is Bell not aware of the Great Indian Point fish kill (Indian Point, N.Y.) or the Lake Cayuga controversy? A report by J. G. Terrill, Jr. to the American Society of Civil Engineers established that fossil fuel plants have thermal efficiencies about 1.5 times that of nuclear plants which therefore results in higher thermal pollution from the latter.
The letter continues at even greater length than I have quoted, Mr. Speaker. I shall not quote from it further. It goes on to indicate that we should be concerned not only about

protection from possible atomic explosions, but also about the cumulative effects of radiation pollution.
I believe the committee, when it considers this subject, should propose amendments to the bill designed to prevent radioactive buildup, regulate transport of nuclear materials, and ensure that what has happened in the United States through neglect of such precautions does not happen in this country.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of representing Canada at the United Nations during the recent session of the United Nations. After reviewing the report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation, and having listened to testimony at the United Nations I can only say there is no reason for complacency on the part of any of us.
Increasingly we are discovering that serious dangers are attached not only to nuclear testing in the atmosphere but to underground testing and even to minor, peaceful applications of nuclear power. The United Nations Scientific Committee studying the effects of atomic radiation was established in December of 1955. This marked the beginning of the kind of co-operation which I believe is required increasingly in this world. Here was a committee not concerned with ideological differences; it was not concerned with the battle between communism, capitalism or the other "isms" in the world. It was concerned with trying to save poor, battered mankind from making itself extinct. Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, the Soviet Union, the United Arab Republic, Britain and the United States are among the nations which make up the Scientific Committee.
This must be one of the rare instances in the history of mankind when Soviet scientists sat down with United States, British and French scientists to decide what might be done to save mankind. This is what they have been doing. Today, I want to tell the House briefly some of the frightening evidence which has just come out. The terms of reference given the committee were as follows:
(a)	To receive and assemble in an appropriate and useful form the following radiological information furnished by States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies:
(i) Reports on observed levels of ionizing radiation and radio-activity in the environment;
February 6, 1970

(ii) Reports on scientific observations and experiments relevant to the effects of ionizing radiation upon man and his environment already under way or later undertaken by national scientific bodies or by authorities of national governments;
(b)	To recommend uniform standards with respect to procedures for sample collection and instrumentation and radiation counting procedures to be used in analyses of samples;
(c)	To compile and assemble in an integrated manner the various reports, on observed radiological levels;
(d)	To review and collate national reports, evaluating each report to determine its usefulness for the purposes of the committee;
(e)	To make yearly progress reports and to develop by July 1, 1958, or earlier if the assembled facts warrant, a summary of the reports received on radiation levels and radiation effects on man and his environment and indications of research projects which might require further study;
(f)	To transmit from time to time, as it deems appropriate, the documents and evaluations referred to above to the Secretary-General for publication and dissemination to States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies.
There is no secrecy in this field. Oh, there may be secrecy about the emplacement of ABM's or of Soviet missiles and the rest, but world scientists are sharing information relating to radiation in Iowa and Irkutsk, Des-moines and Minsk, centres in the United States and Liverpool over in England, and centres all over the world, and we have provided our quota of this information.
From 1955 to the present day there has been an admirable degree of co-operation between members of this committee and, indeed, between all members of the 126-member United Nations organization on this subject. The speaker who has just preceded me mentioned Amchitka. Many people harbour the thought that testing underground is a safe form of testing. This is a complete fallacy. I quote from the report of the World Scientific Community issued by the United Nations. On page 14 of the report reference is made to radiation levels in 1969:
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Temporarily increased surface-air activities have been observed from time to time. The composition of the radioactive material suggests that it has originated from underground explosions.
There is also concern, and rightly so, about continued United States nuclear testing at Amchitka. We should make our position very clear on this point. We should also make it crystal clear that we are not concerned with criticizing one ideology or another. We should be just as stern and critical when talking to the Soviet Union about continued
Nuclear Liability
underground nuclear testing on Soviet territory. Such testing is a continuous threat to the whole world.
The report states that debris from nuclear tests in the atmosphere is still the major radioactive man-made contaminant of the environment. The report continues:
Small amounts of radioactive material have leaked from a few underground tests, and the crash of an aeroplane carrying nuclear weapons resulted in a localized contamination by plutonium-239 off the coast of northern Greenland in January 1968.
That instance did not result from an atmospheric test. We do not have to be concerned about the effects of radiation from peaceful uses of atomic energy.
What else did we learn from this discussion of radiation levels? We have learned that brain damage has resulted from radiation exposure in the case of unborn babies. As a result of this, safeguards to prevent exposure are increasingly being improved; nevertheless such radiation has done a great deal of damage and affected a great many lives.
What else have we learned from this report? I should like to make reference to paragraph 10 on page 5, which deals with a matter that relates not to atmospheric testing or underground military testing. The report reads:
That severe damage to the nervous system can be induced in man also is shown by a number of observations of children born to mothers irradiated for medical reasons during pregnancy. Doses are unknown but are believed to have been high. A number of cases of reduction of head size, often accompanied by severe mental retardation, have been reported among these children as a result of irradiation from the second through the sixth month of intra-uterine life. However, contrary to what animal experiments would lead one to expect, major structural changes of the nervous system have seldom been observed, perhaps because these would be incompatible with sufficiently long survival of the human embryo for the damage to be detected at birth.
This radiation resulted from the peaceful use of atomic energy, and that is why I suggest this is one of the most important bills to come before the House in years. The report continues:
In children, on the other hand, the evidence suggests that, at least with regard to the induction of malignancies, the nervous tissue might be about as susceptible as other tissues such as the thyroid and blood-forming tissues. It is, however, in the pre-natal period that the vulnerability of the nervous system is highest. There is clear evidence that, from the second to the sixth month of pre-natal life, doses from 50 rads onwards are associated with increases in mental retardation and microcephaly. Evidence on the effects of lower doses during this

February 6, 1970
Nuclear Liability
same period of pre-natal life is still extremely tenuous and does not permit exclusion of the possibility that increased incidence of the same effects may be a result of exposure in this lower range.
It is said that we must fight pollution today at all levels-pollution of our soil, our air and our water. And so we do, Mr. Speaker. But we also have a threat posed by nuclear pollution, and all of mankind is affected by that threat, regardless of ideology.
According to page 9 of the report, exposure to radiation may result in an increase in the number of chromosomal aberrations. These aberrations are clearly of genetic importance and may in fact comprise the major component of the genetic damage resulting from radiation exposure. Scientists of the world are working feverishly to check the findings gathered thus far, which indicate that the very chromosomes which decide the future genetics of mankind and the ability of man to survive are affected by nuclear testing.
I do not claim, nor does anybody else on the government side claim, that this was a Liberal inspiration because I am sure all Canadians give their support, but I am proud to say that at the United Nations Canada has acquired the reputation of being the nation that presents the resolution dealing with the continuation of scientific testing of nuclear levels throughout the world. This year Canada again moved a similar resolution, supported by Czechoslovakia. Although there may be some disheartening moments at the international level, when a Canadian resolution is supported by Czechoslovakia, the United States, the U.S.S.R., South Africa, Israel, Great Britain, France and all the rest of the nations, it is an indication that Canada is taking an initiative which mankind believes to be useful. We believe that in its 14 years of existence this committee of world scientists has conscientiously discharged its responsibilities. During this same period the world has experienced a rapid and alarming rise in radiation levels, happily followed by a substantial reduction as a result of the partial test ban treaty of 1963.
However, nuclear tests, be they atmospheric or underground are, I repeat, far from being the only source of radiation to which the world population is exposed. As the report to which I referred indicates, the peaceful application of nuclear energy, valuable though it is, carries with it a constant hazard. As these uses grow and spread, the importance of continued monitoring and the interpretation of contamination data will

assume even more significant dimensions. In his speech to world scientists on May 7, 1969 the Secretary General referred to the assistance that the nations of the world derive from these scientific reports. He expressed the concern of all mankind when he stressed the importance of measures to deal with environmental radiation and its dangers.
There is one difficulty with this report that has been issued on the dangers inherent in military and even peaceful applications of atomic energy. That difficulty is that the report is a highly scientific document which it is difficult for people generally to understand. If the masses of the world were to understand what the scientists of the world were trying to tell them about the dangers of radiation, then they would be just as alarmed about nuclear pollution as they have now become alarmed about pollution of their water, air and the rest of the environment in this biosphere.
Next year the scientific committee will issue a popular pamphlet. The final chapter of this scientific report will be written in layman's language. I hope that a good journalist with a scientific background will write that chapter. A couple of members of this House have experience in that field. The report should be made available to every Canadian, hopefully to every resident of the world. In this way will they understand the dangers which are an inherent part of the scientific advances that have been made.
The report that the scientific committee has just completed represents a continuation of its previous activities. As I have already said, the Canadian resolution had the unanimous support of all nations at the United Nations. Another scientific report will be published next year and the scientific committee will be carrying on its work.
The importance and rapid development of three subjects critically reviewed by the committee, namely radiation carcinogenesis in man, the genetic risks of ionizing radiation and radiation-induced chromosome anomalies in man, will mean that they must be reviewed even more intensively during the coming 12 months and another report issued.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
We said at the United Nations that we are confident that in the discharge of the full range of its responsibilities with respect to the levels of radiation to which the world population is or may become exposed, involving careful assessments of a wide range of
February 6, 1970

data, the committee of scientists will continue to perform the excellent service we have come to expect of it.
I wanted to rise and express my support for Bill C-158 and to urge at the same time that this government not stop here, but continue its efforts at the international and at the national level to protect the citizens of the world and the citizens of this nation against nuclear pollution wherever it may occur.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to make a speech but to ask a question. As I understand the bill which we are discussing, it would fix compensation for persons injured as a result of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I think I am right in saying that. The parliamentary secretary to the minister in introducing this measure was at some pains to point out the unlikelihood of any such loss or damage, and the fact that it would be very small or almost negligible.
Having this in mind, I wonder whether the government, which has given so much consideration to fixing compensation in respect of people who very likely will not be injured, has considered providing compensation for those Canadians who are in more immediate danger of suffering loss as a result of the impending nuclear underground explosion to be conducted by our friends to the south, in the North Pacific within the next few months. I raise this question now because it will be recalled that last year, when a similar but much smaller test was undertaken, our government told Washington that it would hold the United States responsible for damage incurred by our citizens as the result of that test.
I thought it would be timely today- although it has nothing to do specifically with this measure-to ask the representative of the minister to accept this as a question which he might raise with the government. Inasmuch as we are going to provide some protection for civilians in respect of damage resulting from the peaceful use of nuclear energy, we in this group think it is much more timely to act to protect citizens who are in potential danger from this impending, very massive nuclear blast in the North Pacific.
I agree with the speaker who has just concluded his remarks, that Canada is playing an important role in seeking to bring about between the United States and the U.S.S.R. a test ban treaty on underground explosions. I hope that in line with general protection for civilians which the government has in mind, this effort will be stepped-up.
Criminal Records


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from February 5, consideration of the motion of the Solicitor General of Canada that Bill C-5, to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, we have Bill C-5 before us. It is an important measure, and if it is not carefully considered in the House and by the committee it may have very serious consequences to the welfare of Canada both as it affects the individual members of our society and the nation as a whole. At first view it may appear innocent enough, but for those who do not know what Bill C-5 is all about let me say it is an act to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves. If we take the last part first, as a humanitarian and a person raised in the Christian ethic I would be the first to say let us destroy all criminal records and start anew. Unfortunately, those people who may find themselves responsible for making this decision do not have very many of the facts at their disposal.
This matter might be fairly simple in the case of a juvenile. We have had some very commendable suggestions both by the committee and in the House, that when the offender is a juvenile and becomes of age the sins of his youth should be largely forgiven. I go along with that provided of course, he has been rehabilitated. I agree with the last speaker that nobody wants to see a child of tender years carry a criminal record for the rest of his life after he has reached the age of discretion. This is particularly true if the mild correction he received from society had the desired effect and there is no real danger of his again breaking the law. We must have very firm guidelines.
As we learn more about penal psychology, which is the subject we are discussing, we find that in our genes inherited from our

February 6, 1970
Criminal Records
ancestors there are weaknesses or weak tendencies which do not necessarily have an effect upon character in so far as criminal make-up is concerned. Unfortunately, this relates to the behaviour pattern of the child or grown-up in society. We have to be very careful to separate, outline and define what we are talking about-a person's character or the mathematical chance, if you like to put it that way, of a recurrence of a very serious crime. I do not think we should be carried away by our sentiments, certainly not to any unlimited degree, in suggesting that we wipe the slate clean.
As I always attempt to do, I shall cite a number of cases other than personal ones in respect of which I think everybody would agree that we cannot wipe the slate clean. Let us consider a case where the prison psychologist or doctor is consulted before an individual is convicted of a sex offence, in order to determine whether the individual is in fact in his right mind. Such an individual, according to the prison psychologist or doctor, may not be dangerous in that he will necessarily repeat the offence. If that individual's behaviour was so abnormal, even in our permissive society, that he attacked another child or grown-up, the chances are that short of a miracle he will at some time in his life repeat the offence.
I remember one terrible case that occurred in the city of Winnipeg, I believe back in 1945. A small boy was murdered in a coal yard. I was not in the police force at that time, but the Winnipeg city police told me, as one who lived in the district where the offence occurred and as an ex-policeman who was trying to help solve the crime, that they had 300 deviates in their records and any one of them might have committed this offence. It was commendable that they went to the trouble of checking each one of these 300 people. They did not find the criminal among them; he was located in another urban centre. I understand he was found because the police did their work in checking all those persons who were capable of committing the offence and had done this sort of thing before, whether to a child or an adult. The police were able to come up with a solution to the crime.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
If we are to wipe out the records of offenders, they should receive forgiveness and an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. This is not only a Christian but a sensible approach, if these people are to be rehabilitated. I

believe the chairman of the committee said there is great economic advantage to society in these people not being hounded for the rest of their lives by an overactive police force or ambitious members of a law enforcement body. Again, that is not to suggest that all offenders should be given carte blanche; nor does it suggest that because we have forgiveness in our hearts, the forgiveness should go to the point of wiping out all criminal records after an arbitrary five-year period.
There is also the situation in respect of the security of Canada involving a person who may have been actively engaged in a serious riot, subversive activity or violence toward a person or society. It might well be that such a person, having done his dirty work in Canada, would move to another country where the labour situation seemed ripe for the same kind of unrest, and after a period of five years when what he had done had been forgotten, he would come back and do it again.
Another point made during the committee hearings was that it is almost impossible to destroy records. One might think of the story about the small boy whose mother had a system of recording his small crimes by driving a nail in the wall every time he did something wrong. Pretty soon there were a number of nails in the wall. Then after the boy had a change of heart and began to fill the wood box or attend to his school work properly, his mother would pull out a nail until eventually there were none and he became well adjusted.
One day he came to his mother and told her he was not feeling very well. She asked him what was wrong. He told her that although she had pulled out all the nails, the holes were still in the wall. So I suggest when a person has committed a series of offences, or an offence, it is difficult for a policeman to forget that perhaps such a person had stolen a car in his youth. But it is equally true that by far the largest number of good policemen do forget, at least to the point that the person is forgiven. Policemen are not out to destroy the life of a young man. As a matter of fact, most policemen I have met I am proud to say have spent a great deal more time attempting to keep young people out of trouble than bringing them before the courts.
I hope that after a little more tailoring has been done to the bill, and a little more thought has been given to it, it will pass. I hope it will go a long way toward removing any chance of the persecution of people
February 6, 1970

who have seen the light. If there is any way in which this can be done, it will certainly have my support and, I am sure, the support of every member of this House. But I suggest that we should not necessarily destroy all criminal records merely because those of us who are more adjusted in society believe a criminal should get a break.
There is another very important point to keep in mind. I refer to the protection of society. I could go so far as to say that one protection we have is by making sure that the criminal is not mollycoddled or treated too well, because the fact that he has a record may encourage him not to make it any worse.
In matters concerning the security of Canada I have no hesitation in saying that when a person has proven himself to be an enemy of society, some permanent record should be kept in the event that in the future he may endanger a citizen or Canada as a whole. Having served in the force myself, I am pleased to see that "commissioner" in the bill refers to a commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think that permanent records such as those kept at the headquarters of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would not be abused.
In cases where it is thought by the Solicitor General, the Attorney General of Canada or the Governor in Council that the person is dangerous, a permanent record should certainly be kept. I cannot imagine a safer place than the headquarters of our highly respected and responsible force. This is a great responsibility and I know that in the past responsibility has been undertaken with great decorum. I hope we never lose the feeling of satisfaction we have with the way this force has carried out its duties.
Because the treatment of our police in general has been somewhat severe in recent years, and because I am afraid there has been almost a campaign against the police, I suggest that we do not spend sufficient money to make sure that we have proper law enforcement officers across this nation. From my own experience I would suggest several things might be done. One would be to have a series of police colleges across Canada at which policemen who come in contact with members of the public in respect of law enforcement would have an opportunity to be properly trained. I believe we should take a broader view in respect of this whole problem and decide to spend the necessary money on training our police officers.
Criminal Records
I would refer to the unfortunate incident which was recently reported in the newspapers involving an official of the British Columbia government who was manhandled. I shall not pass judgment on this incident, but from what I have read it would appear to be the type of incident which should not occur anywhere in the world and certainly not in Canada. I am sure this type of incident could be prevented if we had a proper school and screening for our law enforcement officers.
The type of police college I have in mind would be available to police officers preferably before they go out on the beat. At the colleges these persons would have instilled in them the spirit of police work and their duties would be outlined. This would involve the expenditure of a certain amount of money, but the money would be an investment not only in respect of the prevention of crime but in terms of the respect all citizens would have for law and order.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Revenge has largely gone out of our law. We have come a long way in the last 150 years when under the British law and our tradition at least 120 offences carried capital punishment. We thought nothing of sending our young men and women as far away as we could from their own country to prison camps in Australia for offences such as stealing a sheep, or in some cases for being suspected of stealing a sheep. It was a corrupt law, but we have come a long way since then.
However, I enter my plea that we must not become so soft that all our attentions are directed at making things soft for the criminal. We still have to protect society. We must not become so broadminded that our brains fall out. I am sometimes accused of being a little emotional, but I do not think this is one of the areas in which we can afford to be mere flag-raisers. I think that the protection of society is as important as the humanitarian treatment of the offender. Our security and the protection of past offenders is our main duty here.
I cannot possibly cover the whole question of rehabilitation in the short time that I have at my disposal. I agree with those who have said that it is no good putting our young people out of circulation unless we intend to do something positive for them. Revenge is out, and rehabilitation is expensive. It costs a lot of money to bring a boy back after he has started on the wrong road. I am not one who underrates rehabilitation, but I want to harp

February 6, 1970
Criminal Records
once more on an old and favourite belief of (mine. The cost of rehabilitation can be cut down a great deal by taking another, very positive step, that is, by giving these young people proper guidance before they commit their first offence. Let us spend more money on physical fitness programs, backyard baseball and community efforts of the family, thus eradicating the need for rehabilitation after the event. The prevention of crime pays us off a hundredfold. The John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies have done noble work with limited funds and in the limited atmosphere in which they work.
Before I sit dowTn I should like to make one more suggestion. In the treatment of criminals-and I use that word in a charitable sense, meaning people who have broken the law or who have been caught breaking the law-we should ensure that we keep in mind, first, when they come to court the importance of treating them like gentlemen or young ladies. Let us show them for the first time What their duty is to us, by the way we treat them. Let us make sure that our jails are not places of punishment but places of rehabilitation; I do not mean places where they run the jail, but jails which are fit for human beings. Instead of taking a boy out of a more or less innocent group of petty offenders on the street corner and putting him into jail for a long time among hardened criminals, where he has nothing to do but learn worse habits than he had before, let us rehabilitate him. This, again, will require the spending of a lot of our hard-earned money on well-planned and properly built places of incarceration.
We must encourage lawyers to not only exert themselves to win cases but to win back to society the men they have in their care, and to convince their clients that they should not perjure themselves and compound the felony. A young man who has only stolen a bicycle is now taught that if he lies convincingly he may be acquitted, or if he robs a bank he may be able to buy justice. I think that our trained professional men have to take another look at their profession and realize that they not only have a duty to protect young offenders but they must try to get these young men back on the rails as soon as possible.
My view is that hard and cruel sentences never did anybody any good. I venture to suggest that a young man going to jail suffers the greatest shock in the first 48 hours in jail. If you are ever to impress them that this is not the right environment for them, that is the

time to do it. If being locked in a steel cage for 48 hours does not impress a young man with any pride or decency in him, he is a difficult case. I do not suggest that he should be sprung immediately. Perhaps he needs more time to think things over. I suggest that in a great many cases the sentences should be indeterminate. The offender should be taken immediately out of circulation and his rehabilitation should be started shortly after his arrest, not five or seven years later when it is far too late. His rehabilitation should start almost as soon as he is arrested, and he should be given fair treatment but not more than he is allowed.


Mr. Gibson:: Let us first make sure that he is guilty.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That is another point. My experience is that there are very few innocent people languishing in jail. If there were, I would be willing to take time off from the House of Commons to defend them. I am a lawyer as well as a tired, old policeman. I do not think there are many innocent people languishing in jail, but from my own experience I believe an indeterminate sentence would do the most good once a man has been convicted and put in a steel tank.
Once a man demonstrates that he has seen the error of his ways and is ready to co-operate, he might be given an indeterminate sentence. Then he could get out on parole almost immediately, particularly in the case of the first offender and the young offender. He could be put in the charge of someone from the John Howard or Elizabeth Fry Societies who will arrange for him a good, clean, satisfactory environment under control while on parole. This would give him time to rehabilitate himself, before there is talk of wiping out his record. Let us not concentrate on wiping out the record but, rather, as one of my hecklers pointed out so well, let us first make sure whether he is guilty. I was assuming that under our law he would be found guilty before he got as far as jail.
Let us ensure that the rehabilitation of an offender is started right away, instead of putting him in an environment much worse than the one in which he was when he committed a petty offence. The atmosphere in any jail that I have seen-and I have seen a good many of them-is not conductive to the formation of a better character and the longer you leave these young offenders there, the worse they are likely to be. We should adopt a common sense approach. On the other hand,
February 6, 1970



COMMON'S DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
I do not think that coddling these people will make them into nice little boys, telling them that they did nothing wrong and society is the real offender, or that he would have been a nice fellow if his mother had loved him more and allowed him to have his own way. In a great many cases a boy has a much better chance of making something of himself if he is not given his own way and if society treats him fairly and firmly and starts him on the road back. This is where we should concentrate our efforts.
I hope this bill will be taken back to committee. There we will take a close look at it to ensure that we are not just using the whitewash brush, and that where serious cases are involved and the security of individuals or of the realm is to be protected, we will not be sentimental and do a big whitewash, erasing job. On the other hand, criminal records should not be abused. If we are doing this because of police brutality, I say we are working at the wrong end. We should improve the standard of our police force, because that is where the trouble lies. Presumably, if the right people are in charge of records no offender would have any complaint about the way he is treated in our Canadian society.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent during the course of the debate that practically everyone in this chamber is in favour of the general principle of this bill. I have no intention of going over that general ground because at this stage almost everything has been said not once but many times. I believe we all feel it has contributed quite a bit to straightening our thinking to have the bill in this form of granting a respite .or a second chance to people, rather than trying to expunge records. I do not think it is conducive to straight-thinking to suggest that the past can ever be wiped out. It cannot be. As Omar Khayyam said:
The moving finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your piety nor wit Shall lure it back to cancel hall a line Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.
The past is gone; yet its memory is still there. What this bill is trying to do is wipe out the possibilities of persecution once people have been rehabilitated and returned to society. There is one point which I have not heard discussed in this debate. I hope the Solicitor General (Mr. Mellraith) will listen carefully, and perhaps when he replies he
Criminal Records
will give me an answer to my question. The bill itself has gone far to straighten out our thinking on this matter, but there is still one point which is just not logical to me and that is the whole idea of a pardon.
If a person has committed an offence, if he has served his sentence and made restitution to society as far as he is able, he has paid his debt to society and that should be finished. I am not a lawyer but as a lay person I feel it is not logical to talk in terms of a pardon when the debt has already been paid. I can understand one saying that a person is rehabilitated, gets a second chance or that the slate is wiped clean, but for the life of me I cannot understand why he should have to ask for a pardon when he has already committed the sin and has been convicted and sentenced. Apparently he has paid his debt to society.
This may be a small point, but every time I have looked over the bill 1 wonder why we think in terms of a pardon. The man is not coming up for a pardon he is coming up to make sure that there will not be any discrimination when he starts afresh in society, that he will not be discriminated against because of his past.
That is all I want to say on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I should like to hear the reasoning of the minister as to why he talks in terms of a pardon. Maybe it is legal language that I do not understand. Goodness knows, there is a great deal of legal language that does not make sense even to lawyers.
I see the minister is now interested to the point that he will try to tell me what was in his mind when he talked about pardon. The only pardon I know of is one in connection with a crime when a person has committed a murder or a serious offence and is granted a pardon, so that the sentence is not executed against him. But in this case he has served a sentence and paid a penalty for his crime, so it is a pardon for what? It is not a pardon for his offence; he had paid for that. I would be extremely glad to know the reason for this, if the minister would be so gracious as to explain it.
I wish this bill well. I believe all of us in this corner of the House and in the chamber generally think this is a real attempt to give a person a fresh start and treat him like a human being instead of a second-class citizen for the rest of his life, and someone to be persecuted and made into a pariah. I will now resume my seat, Mr. Speaker. I hope the bill will have reasonably swift passage through the committee and back to this House.
Criminal Records


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Fortin) made a brilliant plea yesterday, the realism, truth and sincerity of which impressed me greatly.
The bill now before us concerning the records of criminals deals with a most controversial matter. Although our other institutions have evolved, our judicial system has remained the same. We indulge in senseless talk and pettifoggery while we forget the human being. We still act as if the convicted man was a horrible beast. Most of our prisons and penitentiaries are schools of crime, with small, dark quarters, and unhealthy atmosphere, which bring to mind conditions in medieval times. This situation is painful enough without having to add the indelible stigma, that 20th century disgrace: the criminal record.
The principle of this bill is therefore justifiable, for it is high time we should get rid of those antiquated laws because of which the individual who gets caught-and I repeat, the man who gets caught is branded for life. God knows that countless thieves, crooks, bandits go about freely, very often wear white collars and are considered quite respectable.
As I was saying, the man who gets caught thereby becomes branded for life with the seal of approbrium. It should therefore be proved that much more is needed than a mere "minor reform". Major reforms must be made. Rumour has it that the convicted will be granted a pardon. One should also wonder if a condemnation was always just. Is there anything more revolting than getting a police record merely because the police wants to get even, or because the Crown wants to win its case, or even because a judge has allowed himself to be influenced?
I should like to illustrate what I mean through concrete examples in order to convince hon. members. In today's Montreal-Matin one can read the following heading:
The deputy minister claims he was beaten and thrown naked into a prison cell-
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In view of the fact that a deputy minister from British Columbia is involved, the matter will be dealt with more rapidly, the police will plead guilty and the Quebec government will simply apologize. However, had an individual been involved, the police might have wanted to be right at all costs. I am simply quoting a newspaper report regarding 
February 6, 1970
the misfortune of Mr. Redel. Here is what it says, and I quote:
Within the hour following his arrival at the police station, he received medical attention and then sent home.
That is what the police claim. However, Mr. Walter Robert Redel, from Victoria, deputy minister in the government of British Columbia, contends the opposite. I continue with the quotation:
-stripped of all his clothes and deprived of his personal belongings he was left in a cell, stark-naked, for three hours.
Finally Mr. Redel asked one of the guards to call for a doctor. Half an hour later a doctor arrived. Mr. Redel had a skull injury and the bone above his left eye had been fractured.
Later on, four or five men came to question him and they finally admitted their error, following a telephone call to the Department of Lands and Forests of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, is it conceivable that such things can happen in a civilized country such as ours? Is it possible that we can witness such stupidity, such errors? In most cases, when ordinary people are involved, they are unfairly convicted and this is how new criminals are made.
I am for criminal records being wiped clean after a certain time. If untrained police forces, as the Quebec police in particular, are left to do what they want and if we let Crown attorneys do what they want to win their cases at any price, we shall end by creating a kind of society that makes me think of the one described in the film "Z".
I have personally lived through very practical experiences which I would like to expound in this House. This will help prove that it is really time to do away with criminal records and to question our police methods as well as our legal system so that we can begin to really respect the human being.
Last August 23, I was stopped by two officers of the Quebec municipal city on the grounds that I was driving at 49 miles per hour in a 30-mile zone and that I had been spotted on the radar screen.
It can be said without exaggerating that all automobile drivers break regularly highway regulations, either by running through a red light or by forgetting to make a stop or by parking illegally or too long and especially by failing to drive within the speed limit. Therefore, it is not necessary to be a genius or even intelligent to arrest anybody at any time and for any reason. Thus, a good number of our policemen, whose worth is measured in

February G, 1970

inches, feet and pounds, go driver hunting with gusto. Their favourite weapon is the traffic ticket.
Another invention, radar, is still more deadly. On the look-out in the traffic jungle, they watch and stop just in case the first driver that comes along. It even becomes a game, sometimes. They decide, for instance, to stop the driver of every fifth car or of every green car, or so as to make it easier for themselves still, the driver of the car that came to a stop at the red light, as the others are getting away too fast. That is what happened on August 23, 1969.
Who will dare argue in such circumstances? The policeman, hunter and not protector as he should be, invested with the supreme authority that goes with his uniform and his revolver, is infallible. Insinuations, lies, perjury, he is allowed everything. His word is worth more than that of an honest and respected man in public life, even if he is supported by his wife and other eye witnesses. Why? There is the uniform, the club, the revolver, we know that, but there is also the fact that an ineluctable law has been established for the police, namely that they must not lose any case. With his club and his big flat nose, the policeman would sell his own mother if that could help him win a case or save his skin.
A Crown attorney asked me why I argued with the policemen who stopped me since, knowing the law, I could always speak for myself in court, and that is what I did. The results are there to be seen. The good people of this country have known for a long time that it is better to pay $3, $5, $10 or even $20, even when one is right, than to be insulted in court, where one's word is worth nothing compared to that of a hoodlum policeman and where any citizen can finally get ruined.
As I wished to prove that justice is justice after all, I pleaded not guilty on the four charges with which a sensation-hungry policeman had saddled me on that August 23, 1969. But it was a waste of time. The evidence from my wife and two eye witnesses, apart from myself, could not outweigh the untrue statements of a policeman, supported by a buddy who, wishing at all costs to keep his job and for reasons of solidarity, was willing to corroborate anything, provided he was told about it first. The judge had seemed very sympathetic to me, even though he was employed by the town, as the policemen, and the evidence of my innocence was so crushing that I took it for granted that the four cases
Criminal Records
would be won. The policeman's blatant insincerity about two charges could only confirm my innocence as far as the first two were concerned.
You might think that the incident has no relation whatsoever with the bill before us. Maybe, but the very fact I was charged with abusing the police, with opposing arrest, has made of me a criminal. When did you ever see a man driving at 49 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone being handcuffed and taken to jail? Confronted with such flagrant injustice, I thought there would still be men able to use their common sense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I believe the hon. member was right and that he is getting away somewhat from the subject.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I could not be closer to my subject and that is what my remarks have tried to prove from the start. The point I am making is that one can have a criminal record simply because of an unfair sentence, thus proving that criminal records should be vacated right after the sentence has been rendered or the fine paid. But what I really want to show is that a lot of people have criminal records and that, for no reason whatsoever.
I would like to give you an example. I described in detail, in a letter addressed to the mayor of Quebec, copy of which I sent to the chief of police, the incidents in which I had been involved.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, completely disregarding the facts stated by a public man who is, I believe, respected as are all our colleagues here, a unilateral decision was rendered. The letter ends as follows:
In view of the complete lack of ethics of these two brutes: I urge and demand that official apologies to my wife and myself be made by the City of Quebec and its police force.
I strongly urge that the municipal police eliminate such fiends from its ranks.
Obviously all charges brought against me should immediately be withdrawn.
The foregoing is without prejudice of any action for damages that could be filed, particularly in relation to the effects of this incident on the health of my wife-
-who was eight months' pregnant at that time.
We all work to build a just society. As a member of Parliament, I must defend fearlessly the interests of all my fellow-citizens.

February 6, 1970
Criminal Records
I am not afraid to say, right in the House, in front of the Prime Minister himself, what I have in mind. And I shall not be deprived of that sacred democratic right by two ruffian cops badly in want of sensation.
I thank you in advance knowing that you will deign follow up my petition.
And what was done then?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. We are now debating a bill of federal jurisdiction and I would ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the subject matter of the bill and not to refer to the jurisdiction of another authority.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I just want to demonstrate that having a record is often due to the police seeking revenge, the Crown seeking to win at all costs, or a judge unwilling to commit himself.
The role of a policeman is above all to protect the citizen against incidents or persons who may attack his reputation and integrity. It too often happens that the public is seen by police as an opponent. Children fear them, teen-agers avoid them, and adults do not like their neighbours to see that police is inquiring in their homes. Why? Because there are too much "mini-brains" in "maxibodies" within the police corps.
I recognize their essential role for the smooth functioning of society and the maintenance of order, and I admit that they must be respected and helped. But support and respect must be conditioned by sound protection. If ever a citizen cannot defend himself fairly and win a case similar to mine, the public will gradually lose faith in the advent of the just society.
I would like to speak on behalf of an incalculable number of individuals who, injustly, are born losers. Besides having huge expenses to defray, they are unable to fight this unfair law whereby the police are always right. In these trying years, when public figures are always criticized, insulted, run down and often physically assaulted-remember for instance the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King and the Prime Minister of Canada when he attended the St. Jean Baptiste parade in Montreal-it is even harder for him, especially if he is on the wrong political side, to maintain his dignity and his honour if the police are allowed to mistreat him.
To put it another way, in the example quoted a minute ago, should there have been two charges because I was a member of Parliament? Should I have had to pay the maximum fine of $50 for having allegedly insulted

a policeman? The next day another judge ordered an individual who had assaulted a policeman with his fists to pay the same fine.
This incident, which resembles somewhat La Fontaine's fable "The Wolf and the Lamb", took place on August 23, 1969. The assailant, a policeman, abused and handled an individual roughly. In order to justify his behaviour, he accused the other of the misdeed he himself is guilty of. The devilish satisfaction with which this police officer wrote up and gave out tickets was something to see. Since when is the victim to be condemned? I am puzzled by this situation and I would like to intervene in order to ensure the disappearance of this climate of constant conflict between the protector, which is the police, and the taxpayer who should have a right to protection.
Naturally, I am bitter, and the 50 witnesses to the disgraceful incident that took place on August 23, 1969, understand what I mean. Many immediately came to the aid of my wife, and I take this opportunity to thank them publicly. I believed that two or three of those witnesses would be enough at my trial, but I had believed in the impossible, since the police is always right.
We have a part to play here, that of safeguarding the rights of the citizen, of endeavouring to improve the lot of the human being and of allowing everyone to develop fully. We must not allow our police forces or our legal systems to be mainly responsible for the wave of crimes of which we are the unfortunate witnesses.
This extremely important matter prompts youth to lose faith in the established authorities. Why? Because it is too often the witness of those glaring injustices. It rests with us to see that a stop is put to those injustices, so that everyone may be truly himself, without having to experience the disadvantages of the offences which are becoming more and more serious.
Perhaps I let myself be carried away while making those comments, but I was involved in those incidents and this shows that it is time to do something. That is why I am making a suggestion which should be taken into consideration.
The fact that a man is arrested does not mean he is automatically guilty. Everyone has heard about the recent incident when a deputy minister of British Columbia had his nose and brow ridges fractured. That is absolutely ridiculous.
February 6, 1970

For the police, anyone who is arrested, is guilty. The law should provide better protection for the citizen. For example, if the police were not allowed to bring anyone to a police station or to put anyone in jail-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
This has nothing to do with the matter before us and for the third time I would ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the subject.


Mr.   Malle@: Mr. Speaker, if the bill does not refer to convictions, if the measure before us is not titled "An Act to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves", I wonder what I am talking about, since it is what I am reading in the bill.
All I ask, Mr. Speaker, is that you do not lose patience with me, I have almost finished.
I just wanted to conclude by making a suggestion that has some merit, I think. If we accepted it, we would never see in the newspapers and on television what has happened recently and, what is in my view most unfortunate. I am a bit ashamed of being from Quebec when I see the Provincial Police doing such stupid things before the eyes of the whole population.
We must put an end to that, that is why I am making the following suggestion: When a person is arrested and jailed by a police officer, an impartial witness should be on the spot, to ascertain that the accused is not ill-treated, that he is not knocked on the head, that he is not handcuffed uselessly before it is ascertained that the charge is justified.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion, public bills, private bills.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have checked on this side, and I think in the House generally there is some disposition to waive the private members' hour. The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has very graciously agreed to stand his motion, so it will not be charged against him and will be debated later. May I suggest we go on with this bill and, hopefully, finish it before five o'clock? Certainly we will not sit past five. In fact, if we could have another one or two short speeches we might finish a few minutes after
Criminal Records
four o'clock and we could repay the staff for the extra time we asked them to sit a couple of weeks ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it so
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I had decided to end my speech on these words, but if the House wishes to hear the rest, I can go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Sarnia.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognize it is somewhat hard for the Chair to see a backbencher this far back in the House, and sometimes it is difficult to be heard.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay our proceedings unduly; I wish to co-operate with the House by forfeiting the time available to me in the private members' hour. But what puzzles me a little is that last week a fisheries bill was under discussion in the House, the question was put and thereafter there was no chance for anyone to make a speech or to go back to the bill. However, today we have passed a bill and it appears there is an opportunity for someone to speak on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I should like to apologize to the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen). I failed to notice him when he got to his feet and I had to recognize him afterwards. I should like to remind him that the House has agreed to go on with this bill.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be difficult; I am interested in hearing from the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen). Nevertheless, I should like to give Your Honour the precedent upon which we are basing our observations. Last week a bill came before the House, a vote was called and an agree-

February 6, 1970
Criminal Records
ment was made. Subsequently, even though the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), who was sitting there, raised the point vigorously and six or seven members pursued it for almost an hour, we could not get the decision reversed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I recognize the argument of the hon. member, but there was no condition attached to the unanimous consent given this afternoon.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I express my thanks to the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) for giving up the time on his private members' motion. I do not intend to impose unduly on the time of the House, but I have a few remarks which I shall try to summarize.
I think it is incumbent upon me to compliment the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken), because I think he set a high tone for this debate when he led off for the opposition. I was not in the House when the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) spoke, but I have read his comments. I was very pleased to note that he commented on the contribution made by his colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who has done pioneer work in this field.
One other hon. member who I feel must be mentioned is my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. Tolmie), who is chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. He put forward a private member's bill which was referred to that committee for study, and last meeting he gave what can be described as a comprehensive and thought-provoking address upon this subject for the consideration of the minister and of his committee.
I was not a member of the last Parliament and at the present time I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. My opinion, therefore, might best be described as having been shaped by the citizens with whom I dealt in the 12 years I spent in the practice of law. During that time- although my practice was not solely dedicated to defence, prosecution or criminal work-I did have contact with officials of police courts and with members of the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society, as well as with citizens who were endeavouring to organize homes which would provide a transitional home environment for men and women who had served prison sentences and had to make adjustments.
I was also involved with legal aid work both before and after the legislation passed toy the province of Ontario. In this capacity I

had occasion to deal with those who needed and sought the kind of legislation we have before us today. I feel, then, that I have been in contact with individuals who endeavoured to rehabilitate themselves and who subsequently found that their records still stood as a matter of public information-this was, so to speak, their albatross.
I want to congratulate the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) for bringing in this bill and for devoting the time, effort and study which has obviously gone into the legislation. It is natural to criticize almost any bill on the ground that it does not go far enough. I think this is a valid criticism as far as the measure before us is concerned. I am cheered, however, by the minister's comment, recorded in Hansard of January 30 at page 3045:
I hope it will get quick passage through the House, then be re-examined at the end of two or three years' experience when we shall be in a better position to know what improvements can be made in the administrative procedure and what changes and other improvements should be made to its provisions.
First, I want to say I am not too happy with the word "pardon". For a while I thought the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and I must have been using the same research assistant. The hon. member said she was not a lawyer. Well, I am a lawyer, but it seems to me that in the ordinary context or use of this word one thinks of an individual who has committed a crime, perhaps served part of his sentence and then received a pardon.
We are dealing here with individuals who have served such time as was necessary and have afterward been successful in rehabilitating themselves. Now we are saying to them, "You are not only a free man, but you are free from this blight-your criminal record." We are, in essence, telling a man or a woman that they have wiped the slate clean; that they have not only served their sentence but have proved they can be good citizens in the community. This may not appear an important point, but in view of the fact we are breaking new ground I feel a more appropriate word might have been found. I still like the word "expunge" as applied to records, because it denotes the kind of thing this legislation seeks to accomplish.
The next point I wish to make bears repetition although it has been touched on by other hon. members, including the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I share the concern expressed with regard to the
February 6. 1970

Criminal Records
question which we find appearing on so many forms, namely, "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?" I cannot imagine forms being changed in the way the minister has suggested. It is my view that a provision should be inserted in the bill clearly stating that when a man is asked this particular question he should be able to say, unequivocally, that the answer is no.
The hon. member for Welland referred to the countless letters he has received on this subject. I have received many myself, and there is one in particular from which I should like to read, because in many ways it is typical. This letter came to me after I had been elected. It was sent by an individual who was aware of my interest locally in this particular field. I shall not read enough of it to identify the writer; I simply wish to draw attention to the difficulty with which he is faced.
Dear Mr. Cullen:
I wish to enquire into the possibility of obtaining a pardon. At the age of 17 I was convicted of a break and enter charge and was sentenced to 12 months in the Ontario Reformatory at Guelph. I am now 29 years old and have been working steadily for 11 years. During this time 1 have increased my job qualification by passing numerous examinations and courses. At the present time I am employed in a supervisory capacity. I hold a current second-class stationary engineers certificate from the Ontario department of labour. I am married with children and I am paying for my own home. On different occasions 1 have tried to further myself and my experience by applying for other employment and each time I have run into the question on the application forms: Have you ever been convicted under the Criminal Code? In these cases I must answer, yes. This holds true even for civil service applications. Surely this must come under human rights or have I forefeited the right to be human?
I doubt very much that this individual would have difficulty is securing a pardon, as the word is used in the bill. I like to think of this legislation as amounting to an operation "clean slate" in favour of individuals who have proven to the community that they have rehabilitated themselves. Once a person has secured this pardon he is given a clean slate, and the records of his offence should be treated as dead records; they should not be trotted out again or revived for any purpose.
I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg). I confess he raised arguments which I had not previously considered. Perhaps they ought to be considered. If the individual concerned subsequent to being pardoned commits a further offence, I believe it should be looked on as a first offence. I do not like the word "pardon," but I do like the idea of a provisional pardon.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In conclusion may I stress my final point. I am opposed to the individual having to make the kind of application that is suggested in the bill. An individual may not have chosen to tell his wife, his family or his neighbours about his criminal activities. If he seeks a pardon, are we not denying him the right to make even this choice? He has decided in his own mind to lead the life he feels best meets his need, and if five or ten years hence he wishes to apply for a pardon we are even taking away from him this choice.
I am also a little concerned about good behaviour and about what might be considered to be an exemplary life. In his comments the minister stated that the application should not be automatic. I should like to see something more dramatic in this bill. I think we should consider making the application automatic.
In the first instance there would be a flood of applications. Are we going to discourage those individuals who apply by making bureaucratic excuses to the effect that we have had so many applications that we have not had time to deal with them all, or that this is something new, that we are breaking new ground? If we are going to take a serious look at the act in two or three years' time, let us do something dramatic now. Let us remove the necessity of applying to any board. Let us set up a situation whereby an individual can say that he committed an offence on a particular date; that in his opinion he has rehabilitated himself; that he has now secured a job, has not committed an offence during the past five years and feels he should qualify for a pardon.
If this situation is abused, we will be able to change the act later. But let us at least give these individuals the benefit of our mistake, for a change. I submit that this kind of legislation is not only a second chance or a second opportunity for a man with a criminal record; but it is a second chance for a society which may have been responsible for the man's criminal record in the first place.
It may not seem appropriate to a layman's interpretation of the way the House should operate that a member on the government side should be critical. I disagree with this basic philosophy or tenet. I think government members have an obligation to be critical. However, they have an obligation to be critical in a constructive fashion, and this is what I am trying to do.

February 6, 1970
Criminal Records
I endorse this legislation because I think it is a great step forward in the humane treatment of individuals who have found themselves in trouble, individuals who by dint of good work and decent living have been able to rehabilitate themselves. I have no hesitancy in supporting this bill, even in the form it is now, just as I have no hesitancy in offering what I hope will be taken as constructive criticism of some of its provisions. Hopefully, some of the provisions will be amended when the bill goes to the committee.
Many good points have been raised by members on all sides of the House. Knowing the minister's sympathetic tendencies in this particular field, I hope these suggestions will not fall on deaf ears. I hope that immediately this legislation passes the minister and his department will commence work on phase two of the bill, which seeks to bring into law some of the splendid ideas the minister has heard expounded in this House.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long. I think the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and others have put the core question, and I am sure the committee will be looking very carefully into it and perhaps the minister will want to give it new consideration. The core question is: What is the legislative position regarding the practice of pardon? Pardon is not a new phenomenon to criminal procedures, but how does the citizen reply to application forms given him by the civil service in this regard? A more serious, or potentially more serious matter is: How does the citizen answer certain questions on visa applications prepared by governments such as that of the United States?
I should like to recount to the House an incident in which I was involved. I had an office in New Brunswick and arranged parole for a person who had been convicted of criminal negligence. This person was a university graduate. He was paroled in order that he could attend university where he obtained his B.Sc., went on to get his M.Sc., and is now making a very worth-while contribution to the country. Incidentally, he also received a pardon. The unfortunate aspect is that he is still unable to travel to the United States since he is unable honestly to answer that question which is found on so many forms.
I do not think we should be alarmed at the technique of expunging criminal records. This is a phenomenon that any lawyer knows is

found, for instance, in adoption cases. The birth certificate of an adopted child, once final adoption is made, bears no evidence whatever of the origin of the child; and for the purpose of filling in forms the child is regarded as a natural-born child.
Apparently the statisticians took a little time to swallow this practice since they were used to dealing with exactitudes. However, if this practice can be adopted in a human and proper way in the case of adoption, there is absolutely no reason why a similar technique could not be followed in the expunging of records of those who have been previously convicted.
It has been made plain throughout this debate that the usefulness of a Member of Parliament lies in his acting as a sort of ombudsman between state and citizen. I think that our role of ombudsman has been fulfilled in this debate. After all, as members we have an opportunity of meeting these individuals who may be hung up, if I may use the expression, over the effect of what they feel is an insensitive decision.
Like the hon. member for Sarnia and others, I wholeheartedly support the principle of this bill. Nevertheless, I think we will have to make some improvements when the bill gets to committee if it is to have full effect, certainly the effect that I have noted members on all sides of the House wish it to have.
I do not want to be anecdotal at 4.20 on a Friday afternoon, but I would like to give the House one other example of the sort of difficulty that can arise. Another parole that I recall involved a man who had committed a rather unpleasant crime. The crime was committed at a very young age and the person concerned had rehabilitated himself. His former employer was very willing to have him back and showed social conscience, and so on. Unfortunately, the Post Office Department of this country, where the man was engaged delivering special-delivery letters, refused to employ him in view of his previous conviction.
This is another example of the kind of bind we can get into unless departments of state are tuned in to the progressive reforms that the minister is putting before us within the terms of this bill. It is no secret if I tell you that it took the most intense pressure on the part of the then Attorney General of New Brunswick and the then Minister of Justice of Canada to get the Post Office Department to understand the social implications of their
February 6, 1970

Criminal Records
-act, which was, of course, quite in conflict with this whole new theory of probation.
I make one last comment. The Chair has displayed generosity in regard to the tragic incident that recently occurred in Quebec. Apparently we are now free game. My feeling about this is that the tragedy, surely, was not that an official of the British Columbia government was concerned, but that any police department would render a beating to any citizen of this country, no matter what stage the proceedings in question had reached.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty under our Standing Orders to remind the House that if the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) speaks now, he will close the debate.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will seek to keep my remarks down to a reasonable length. The subject itself, the speeches which have been made, interest me very much. Much as I should like to go through each speech in a detailed way, I will try to refrain from that exercise. I hope that all hon. members who have raised points or questions wilh which I do not deal will understand that it is not that I think they may be unimportant points, but rather that they may be of a nature that can be more easily and more properly dealt with in the committee than during the second reading stage of the bill. I should like, if I may, to try to answer some of the main points raised.
The bill is an attempt to get something practical which will work to assist those unfortunate people who are not being treated fairly in society by reason of the fact that at one point in their lives they had a conviction registered against them, even though they have long since rehabilitated themselves. This involves finding a method of dealing with that situation. It does not involve the objective, because I think there is unanimous agreement on that. The debate has indicated that we should try and remove this unfortunate and unjust circumstance in respect of persons such as I have described.
After a lot of examination of the 1966 private member's bill, and the evidence given before the committee which studied it in an attempt to deal with the subject, it was finally found that it simply did not meet the objectives it was intended to meet. We can go into those reasons when we get the bill before the committee; at that time we can deal with this matter in a detailed manner.
After an examination of the many proposed methods of dealing with this situation-and there are not many statistics, much information or experience on this subject that is very helpful-we came up with this method. We decided we should adopt the idea of granting pardons. I will deal with that word in a moment. We said that the granting of a pardon would vacate the conviction. The significance of that has apparently been missed in the debate.
Once a conviction is vacanted, a lot of consequences in law flow from that action. For example, this means that the legislation or local provisions dealing with licencing by the various jurisdictions, or the running for local office and all sorts of other things, no longer apply, the conviction having been vacated. That point, which was covered by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), is one of the difficulties that confronts these persons but which will be removed by this legislation.
In addition to the granting of a pardon and making that pardon vacate the conviction, we have achieved the purpose of the earlier private member's bill. We have provided for the drawing in of the records and the sealing of them. That point seems to me to have been missed, but that is its significance. It was asserted that we should expunge the records. I think I should make it very clear that very early in our work we found that the use of the word "expunge" did not seem to meet all the needs we were seeking to meet by legislation on this subject. This is not a good word to use.
Having regard to the point raised in a more particular way by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) as to the use of the word "pardon", let me say this is purely a matter of seeking to obtain a method to provide a satisfactory document which will achieve our purpose. The use of the word "pardon" seems to come closer to achieving this than anything else we came up with, because it became clear very early in our attempt to get this legislation into reality that a blanket provision which legislated out of existence these convictions would not achieve this objective.
If you had an automatic blanket removal of all convictions, it was thought that we would be right back where we were because the record of conviction would be found. Miake no mistake about that, it would be found. There are always, shall we say, unfriendly friends who will disclose this. There are newspaper

February 6, 1970
Criminal Records
articles, letters and a dozen and one things which might account for such a disclosure. It became quite clear that such a conviction would come to light by some device.
We felt that we needed something for people who seem to have rehabilitated themselves, in order that they could get away from the consequences of having had a conviction registered against them. This measure is intended to cure this, and that is its objective. I think this is clear to hon. members on all sides of the House. The blanket legislation we tried to come up with did not seem to achieve this at all. Indeed, it seemed to put us right back where we were before we started to do anything on this subject. I do not know that I need labour that point any further at this time.
If you are discussing semantics, the word "pardon" may not be the perfect word, but by a considerable margin it certainly is the best we have been able to come up with and the best of any that have been suggested from all sources. There are some points raised by other hon. members which I think I should clarify at once. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), when dealing with this subject, suggested among other things that juvenile offenders are not covered by this bill. That is quite wrong. The Juvenile Delinquents Act is a federal statute and offences against that act are covered. There was a total miscomprehension of that point.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) raised a rather interesting point. He read one of the clauses of the bill in a way which indicated to him that there was no provision for granting a pardon where there was a suspended sentence. That is not a correct reading of that clause. Convictions followed by a suspended sentence are covered by this legislation just as fully as convictions followed by any other sentence.
The hon. member for Portneuf raised a point I was particularly pleased to hear. I must say I was trying to listen to his speech in French at the time. I think I understood the hon. member correctly when he pointed out that in this legislation we must remember we are dealing with individual persons, and that what we are seeking to do here is to assist such individual persons and make life fairer for them. It is not an academic exercise in theory or in creating a nice, paper structure.
I believe I understood the point he raised about persons who apply for local office, and so on. This legislation provides for vacating

the conviction and therefore there is no longer a prohibition under other legislation. Many other interesting points were raised. The hon. member for Sarnia spoke about civil service applications. For some time now the question to which he referred has disappeared from civil service application forms; it is no longer asked. I have reference to the letter which related to this.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I think that matter is well under control. We can deal with it perhaps in a more particular way before the committee, but I want the hon. member to know this has now been removed from federal government application forms. I hope the person who wrote the letter has applied for a pardon, because under the royal prerogative of mercy, if the facts are as stated, the pardon would have been granted automatically.
I might say that in an effort to prepare for this legislation and institute a method to alleviate the situation in the meantime, we have been using the royal prerogative of mercy in a way that is very close to the procedure set out in the bill. In the last year 131 such applications were approved. That rate which accelerated in the latter part of the year is at a higher level now. Because of the present procedure there is every reason to expect it will accelerate again.
The machinery exists now in the National Parole Board to handle the legislation immediately it becomes law. We have gathered a great deal of practical knowledge from the considerable contact we have had with persons who have found themselves in the unfortunate position of having a record although they have long since rehabilitated themselves. Also, interestingly enough we have gained a great deal of experience from employers, particularly the larger employers. I shall welcome the opportunity at the committee stage for hon. members to give such information as they have and to learn exactly what we have found out in this connection.
It would certainly seem that by this method employers would be able to avoid considering the matter of a conviction when they know, if there has been no pardon, that they can obtain the information or, if there has been a pardon, they need not even bother attempting to obtain the information. I would also welcome an opportunity to have this subject examined at the committee stage. There are other aspects of the matter which are very important but I do not feel they should be
February 6, 1970

dealt with at this point in the debate on second reading. I think they can be better dealt with in a more specific manner at the committee stage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Criminal Records


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.
At 4.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.