1970-03-25

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House Ottawa
25 March 1970
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th day of March, at 5 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday on a question of privilege the hon. member for Ontario took exception to the fact that mail intended for him and addressed to "My Member of Parliament" was being intercepted when addressed to a certain post office box. The hon. member represented that this action was an interference with his privileges as a member of this House.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
While it may well be that this is the kind of situation which might be looked into by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, as suggested by the hon. member yesterday, the Chair is bound by the rules and by precedents in determining whether there is a prima facie case on which a motion can be founded.
In particular, as I mentioned yesterday, a matter of privilege which claims precedence over other public business should be raised at the first opportunity. On this point I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 104(3), as follows:
The matter should be raised at the earliest opportunity. A matter which occurred during recess was refused precedence because it was not raised on the first day of the session.
I also refer hon. members to May's seventeenth edition, page 378, as follows:
A matter of privilege which claims precedence over other public business should be a subject which has recently arisen... a matter concerning an article in a newspaper published on 6 May was refused precedence because it was not raised till the 14th, and a speech reported on a Saturday because it was not raised until the following Tuesday.
These precedents, which have been observed faithfully over the years in this House, cannot be ignored even in the circumstances stated by the hon. member for Ontario. The hon. member complains of a situation which in fact arose over a month ago. I suggest that the Chair is not at liberty to ignore the precedents which clearly establish that a question of privilege must be raised at the first opportunity. With this in mind, I must come to the conclusion that the hon. member's proposed motion cannot be put to the House.
This ruling obviously does not preclude possible action by the hon. member, or by any other hon. member interested in this question, by other means or under other proceedings. While the matter cannot be pursued at this point as a question of privilege, its several aspects might well be considered, for example, by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, which committee has before it for consideration the estimates of the department concerned.



TRIBUTES TO RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ON 30 YEARS OF SERVICE AS MEMBERS

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to clarify information which I gave to the House some time ago. The statement to which I refer was correct but it is perhaps capable of misinterpretation, and for that reason I am anxious to remove any possible doubt which may be in the minds of hon. members.
On September 18, 1968, I reported to this chamber on the activities of one of the most select organizations in Canada, one which claimed but three living members, the Prime Minister's Alumni Association. I do not wish to become involved in a debate about the

March 25, 1970
House of Commons
degrees of selectivity, Mr. Speaker, but I do feel it important that I discharge properly my responsibilities by reporting to this House on another, equally select organization, one which claims but two members, The Thirty Year Club.
Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, marks the thirtieth anniversary of the election to Parliament of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcllraith).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this record of service to Parliament is indeed a brilliant one. Measured in terms of sheer political survival, these gentlemen have illustrated their ability to understand and to adapt to the changing moods of Canada over a period of three decades.
It is not my purpose, nor indeed am I competent, to comment on the distinguished parliamentary careers of our two colleagues. Their records speak for themselves. I wish only to say that their continued presence here is evidence of the strength and the effectiveness of the democratic process in Canada.
Our friends in the Press Gallery usually use the term "30" to close their dispatches. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, as an hon. member opposite says, that they will not take that as any indication, and that they are astute enough to recognize that "30" will not close the public career of either of these two members.
Today, Mr. Speaker, is the last opportunity for us to look upon these two gentlemen while they are still "under 30." Before they pass that symbolic barrier let me, on behalf of the 261 other members of this House who are well under 30, present them with a touch of flower power.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the Prime Minister presented the Solicitor General with a red flower, and the right hon. member for Prince Albert with a blue flower.]


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is a great occasion. 1 am sorry that because this is the day before the recess there are not more of us here, but I am sure those who are agree that the cream of the members of the House of Commons are present.
I congratulate the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) on his long career which is a trib-

ute to him as a parliamentarian as well as to the respect in which he has been held throughout the years by his constituents. Despite the great changes that have taken place in this city, he has retained the confidence of those people whom he has represented for 30 years. He strikes us as a fair man but a man who has obviously never carried fairness to the point where he has extended too much of it to his opponents and thereby run the risk of defeat.
As for the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), it is 30 years since he acquired whatever protection parliamentary immunity affords, in addition to whatever protection the game laws at that time afforded a Conservative in the province of Saskatchewan. He came to the House as a distinguished lawyer and very rapidly became a great parliamentarian. While he was Prime Minister of the country I was associated with him in certain endeavours in another capacity and had full opportunity to sense the depth of his feeling for the country, his compassion for the unfortunate and for the underdeveloped parts of the country. But there is no need for me to emphasize here the compassion of the right hon. member for Prince Albert because every day we see him exercise it toward the ministers of the Crown in the questions he asks.
We honour these two men, and I am proud to be associated with them, proud to be here on this day. On behalf of my colleagues, it is a great pleasure to wish them both the very best on this very wonderful day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is the understatement of the year to say that we have our differences in this House. However, on this occasion when we are extending our congratulations to two of our colleagues I know that the views which have just been expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will meet with unanimous concurrence in all parts of the chamber.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
It might seem out of place for me to say that these two members have been here a long time in view of the fact that I was here when these two new boys arrived. I remember their arrival very well. I remember the Solicitor General as a flaxen-haired, dedicated new member. The hair may have receded but
March 25, 1970

the dedication has not diminished at all. On coming here he immediately modelled himself on the late W. L. Mackenzie King. As all hon. members know, the pupil has outstripped his mentor because while the teacher's answers were sometimes ambiguous, the pupil's are now completely incomprehensible.
I think the peak of the minister's career was when he was Government House Leader. All of us who had occasion to work with him developed a deep affection for him and found him to be a man of integrity and good will.
I recall the right hon. member for Prince Albert arriving like young Lochinvar from out of the west. He immediately took on the most formidable opponents he could find, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe and the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner. He adopted Murphy's law: wherever there is trouble we will find it, and if there is no trouble we will make it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He became one of the most effective parliamentarians in this House. Like the Leader of the Opposition I had occasion to deal with him when he was Prime Minister of Canada and found him to be a man of deep compassion and concern for people. Certainly the people of Saskatchewan will always be grateful to him for the dam which was built on the South Saskatchewan River. I was deeply indebted to him on behalf of my province, as was the government of British Columbia, for the amendments he made in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. Those two provinces who had been carrying hospital insurance out of their own resources for many years were assisted. The amendments he brought in started the movement toward making hospital insurance universal across Canada, and for that the people of Canada will always be indebted to him.
On behalf of my own party and, I am sure, of every hon. member of this House, I extend congratulations to our two colleagues for 30 years of devoted service to the public life of Canada and to this parliamentary institution. We also extend our best wishes and hope they will have many years of good health to enjoy the affection and friendship of their colleagues and the gratitude of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, following the example of the
House of Commons
previous speakers, I am happy to say a few words with regard to the announcement just made by the Prime Minister about our two colleagues' thirty years of political life. Those of us who have been in the House for a few years readily admit that to have been a member for 30 years is something quite remarkable, since it means a considerable amount of work. As a matter of fact, in 30 years they must certainly have faced all kinds of political events.
Personally, I have had the opportunity, since 1962, of meeting them and of taking part with them in the debates of the House, and I was thus able to appreciate their talents as parliamentarians.
I cannot, like some hon. members, pride myself on having been here for 30 years, nor can I say that I have seen my two colleagues take their seats for the first time. However, I can recall the events which took place in 1962 and afterwards.
But I have been in a position to see that those two hon. members have always strived to ensure the well-being of the Canadian people. Not only have they been great parliamentarians, but also builders who, through their goodwill, wanted to accomplish something good for all Canadians. If unfortunately they did not fulfil their dream, it is because they have been the victims of a system which prevented them from reaching the goal they had set for themselves.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I was ready to defer to the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith). I so indicated to him but he did not rise. Therefore it is my responsibility to speak first and to express, on this emotion-laden occasion, my deepest and most heartfelt appreciation for what was said by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) as the leader of the New Democratic Party, and the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).
Most people do not understand the House of Commons. They do not realize that there develops in this institution a relationship unlike any to be found in other organizations -deep divisions but equally deep feelings of appreciation for all members, each endeavouring in his own way to make his contribution in his day and generation.

March 25. 1970
House of Commons
The Prime Minister referred to the fact that 30, when used by the press, has a certain connotation, one which I immediately suggest will not apply to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I look forward to many more celebrations of this kind. I received a couple of years ago from a Jewish congregation in Vancouver, British Columbia, a plaque on which was the tree of life. I inquired from the chief rabbi the meaning of this great honour, and he told me it meant that those who received it would live as long as Moses. I immediately looked up the Scriptures and found that Moses lived for 120 years. I need not tell Your Honour what the reaction was when that news reached Ottawa!
I also wish to point out something that only we westerners can fully understand, and I say this to the leader of the CCF-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The NDP. I was never very good at letters. I still recall him in those days as one of the great orators of the House of Commons. As I was about to say, we westerners realize that even if there is snow on the roof, that does not imply that the fire has gone out in the furnace.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I do not know how to thank my right hon. friend and hon. friends for what has been said here today. It is a long way to look back. We saw the great ones of that day. We saw this House of Commons rise to heights of grandeur. We lived through days of darkness but never despaired. We never feared for the outcome, although daily we realized that we in this country and those within the British Commonwealth of Nations as it then was, stood alone, facing almost insurmountable odds against us.
The House of Commons is a place for which I have not only deep reverence but affection. Each of us as members of this House contributes something to the chamber. Ulysses said he was a part of everyone he had met. The House of Commons is a part of everyone who has ever sat in this chamber throughout its entire history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have seen the House at times when people wonder whether our disagreements are beyond what is reasonable. But the day the House of Commons becomes a

place in which the cut and thrust of debate is absent, that day, freedom dies. While we do not all see things the same way, it is essential that each of us should come to realize that the other member has the same desire to help his country.
I will not say more. I have been to the mountaintops and I have been down in the valley. I do not want to mention personal matters, but on an occasion like this, filled with emotion, I do want to say that one's happiness is greatly increased by having a wife to support and to counsel one. I am not passing that on to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: - by way of a suggestion, but I say to him that if he would follow my advice in that connection he would be amazed at the transition that would take place.
Today I look back over 30 years. Some will say: "What of the House of Commons?" Each of us has his life to live and I can say here today that no one could have had greater happiness than I have known through the fellowship, the friendship and the feelings that pass between those of us who, while we disagree as to the means of achieving them, join in working toward common objectives.
This morning somebody asked me what meant more to me than anything else after all these years as I approach the sunset of life. I sent out to my library, and took these words from John Masefield:
In the sunset's flush.. .that most lovely hour
When the light gentles and the wind Is soft
And beauty in the heart breaks like a flower...
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and friends in this House: This is a day for me to remember.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like my first words to be words of appreciation to my colleagues for this manifestation of their feelings on this day.
The Prime Minister raised a question of privilege and there have been many questions of privilege in this House, although I must say I can only recall raising one in my lifetime. He made reference to the figure of 30 used by the news media. May I remind him that this is a figure used by only one section of the news media-those who rely on the written word-and that the media in this modern age have other sections which rely on the spoken word and on pictures. One of
March 25, 1970

these personalities who attained a great deal of fame in that part of the media used the figure of 39 when he was referring to anniversaries and things of that sort. I wonder what that means in terms of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. Maybe that is not quite equal to the number attained by Moses, but it is quite a large figure in terms of the proponent of that figure on the news media.
I am most appreciative of the gesture of hon. members. It is very interesting, you know, that the whole burden of the attack made against me by the official opposition 30 years ago was that I was too young. Regrettably they have stopped saying it these last few years. But some of them are still very helpful in keeping me here, and I wish them well in that mission in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: When there are two of us mentioned on an occasion such as this it means we were both here together in this House of Commons. I must say that the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert gave me a great deal of difficulty in those 30 years. When he was an opposition member in the [DOT]earlier days he used to persist in asking questions. In those days, when notice was given of his questions and for written questions, I had to dig up the answers to them. Some of the questions were yards long and obtuse and others were very acute. Then came the time when the right hon. gentleman became Prime Minister of the country, and I had an opportunity to get some back by questioning him. I am sure I got a fair amount back, as the right hon. gentleman will remember. Now that the situation is once again reversed I think he feels-and I am sure I speak for him in this regard-that this is an opportunity for him to get some back from me, but I am afraid he has not been getting very much information from me in the last few years.
Some 25 years ago in this House, or a little more, a distinguished guest speaking from the head of the table-it was during the latter part of the war years-referred to "these tremendous times". I have always remembered that phrase in the context in which it was used then. I believe it is an apt reference to the whole 30 years during which the two of us have had the honour to serve in this chamber. They have, indeed, been tremendous times.
House of Commons
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It is true there have been great changes. But throughout all this and whatever vicissitudes of work have been mine, I have become firmly convinced that this parliamentary system of government that we seek to practise gives the best opportunity for men and women and their families to develop their lives to the maximum. I only hope that this institution will be able to address itself to the adaptations that are necessary to meet the changing conditions of this day and the requirements of the future, which are coming upon us very quickly, and to do so in a way that those who come 30 years after us will as well say: "These 30 years have indeed been tremendous times".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members might allow their Speaker to add just one word to what has been said this afternoon. It is a great honour and privilege for me to join with the leaders of the parties who have expressed congratulations and good wishes to the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the Solicitor General for Canada.
The matter was raised as a question of privilege. Some members might say that the question was not raised at the first opportunity, that it might have been raised 30 years ago. However, I will rule, and I am pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to rule, that there is a question of privilege, that it was raised at the first opportunity, and that a motion would be entertained extending unanimously congratulations and good wishes to both the right hon. gentleman and the Solicitor General for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MAYOR OF WASHINGTON AND WIFE

Mr. Speaker:: While I have the floor, and the chair, perhaps hon. members might allow me to bring to their attention the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished visitor to Canada and to our nation's capital, the mayor of the city of Washington in the United States, Mr. Walter Washington, and Mrs. Washington.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MAYOR OF OTTAWA AND WIFE

["Mr. Speaker, on February 16 the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) directed a question to me about Canada's attitude on the subject of chemical and biological warfare. In response to that question I should like to table copies of the statement made by Mr. George Ignatieff, our representative at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, on this question."]
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should take this opportunity to welcome to our House for the
March 25, 1370

Delegates at Niamey Conference first time since his election to his high office the mayor of the city of Ottawa and his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Fogarty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of letters and telegrams exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Quebec concerning the participation of that province in the Niamey conference which ended recently.

I should like to table as well copy of the telegram sent by the government of Canada to the government of Manitoba concerning this same subject. In both instances, of course, the documents are tabled with the full consent of the respective provincial governments.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on February 16 the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) directed a question to me about Canada's attitude on the subject of chemical and biological warfare. In response to that question I should like to table copies of the statement made by Mr. George Ignatieff, our representative at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, on this question.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that there was tabled yesterday volume I of the Auditor General's report on the public accounts ended March 31, 1969. If there is unanimous agreement, I wonder whether the following could be made an order of the House:
That the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1969, and volume I of the Auditor General's report thereon be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EASTER RECESS-ADJOURNMENT FROM MARCH 25 TO APRIL 6

Donald Stovel Macdonald: That when the House adjourns on March 25, 1970 it shall stand adjourned until April 6, 1970, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Rynard: 1.	Since becoming law, how many applications have been received by accredited hospitals for therapeutic abortions under Section 237 of the Criminal Code of Canada?
2.	How many therapeutic abortions have been performed in the accredited hospitals?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 2. At the request of the Department of Justice, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has initiated arrangements with the provinces to secure monthly statistics on therapeutic abortions performed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. A majority of the provinces are in the process of setting up appropriate arrangements with individual hospitals. As soon as these have been completed, and returns are made available to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, national statistics will be published on a monthly and annual basis.
March 25. 1970	COMMONS


LIBERAL CONVENTION, NFLD.- CNR FACILITIES USED
Mr. Carter: 1.	Was the CN Ferry William Carson used by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Association during the Leadership Convention in that Province October 31-November 1 and, if so, what amount was charged?
2.	Were several CN railway cars used by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Association during the same period for the same purpose and, if so, what amount was charged?
3.	Was payment made in advance and, if not, has payment been made?
4.	If such transportation services were used, upon the authority of whom?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Selling accommodation on trains and ships with the objective of gaining revenues is a normal part of the activities of the Canadian National system and no special authority is required for individual transactions. On the occasion referred to accommodation on the William Carson which was in St. John's for its regular refit, and aboard railway sleeping cars being stored in St. John's was rented to the Association. It is the practice of the Company not to disclose financial details of arrangements made with others.


DEMURRAGE FEES PAID BY WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Siewarf (Marqueiie): For the crop year ended July 31, 1968, and for the crop year ended July 31, 1969, what demurrage fees were paid by the Canadian Wheat Board to (a) ships at the Port of Vancouver (b) ships at the Lakehead terminals (c) CNR for box cars (d) CPR for box cars (e) any other demurrage fees not included above?
DEBATES	5449
Questions


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister withoul Portfolio):: As indicated in the Annual Report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the 1967-68 crop year, $86,187 was paid in respect of demurrage charges in that crop year. Of this amount $80,601 was applicable to vessels loading at the port of Vancouver and the balance of $5,585 to vessels loading at the port of Montreal. Particulars of demurrage for the following crop year, that is 1968-69, will appear in the Annual Report of the Canadian Wheat Board for that crop year when it is tabled in Parliament.


WAITING PERIODS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many people who have applied for Unemployment Insurance benefits have had to wait after applying (a) three weeks or longer before getting their benefits (b) four weeks or longer before getting their benefits (c) five weeks or longer before getting their benefits (d) six weeks or longer before getting their benefits (e) more than six weeks before getting their benefits
2.	In Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax, how many employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission worked overtime in the months of October, November and December, 1969 and how much overtime did these employees work?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1.	Information afforded by statistical records provide the interval required to process claims from date the application is received to the date authority for payment is issued. Payment cannot generally be made before the third week following the week the application is made as it is in that week or later that the first declaration is received from the claimant.
Percentage of Claims Percentage of Claims Week	No. of Claims for Which Authority for Which Authority
Commencement	Received During for Payment Issued for Payment Issued
Date	Week	by 3rd Week	4th W'eek or Later30 Nov.	1969	
71,721	98.6	1.47 Dec.	1969	
67,279	97.4	2.614 Dec.	1969	
62,666	96.3	3.721 Dec.	1969	
55,098	98.2	1.828 Dec.	1969	
65,221	98.6	1.44 Jan. 1970	
75,818	98.5	1.5
2.
Montreal Toronto Winnipeg Vancouver Halifax
October	
257	160	5	17	0November	
200	62	9	12	1December	
184	98	30	120	16
Questions

March 25, 1970'
Number of hours of overtime worked:
Montreal	Toronto	Winnipeg	Vancouver	HalifaxOctober	
2294|	2634}	39}	74}	0November	
20381	1478}	32}	39	4}December	
1284|	2396}	384}	1285}	72}


EMIGRATION FROM CANADA 1950 TO 1969
Mr. Robinson: How many Canadians have emigrated from Canada during each year 1950 to 1969 inclusive, to what countries did they go and have any of them subsequently returned to become Canadian citizens?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports: Estimated emigration from Canada, for the calendar years 19501969 and numbers going to United States and Great Britain are shown in the attached Table I. Emigration to other countries is not available. The number of Canadian-born who, after leaving Canada and becoming a national of some other country, returned to Canada and again became citizens are shown in Table II. There are no statistics on the number of Canadian citizens who are non-Canadian born, who leave Canada and later return, and then take out Canadian citizenship.
Table I
Estimated Emigration from Canada
Calendar Year	Estimated Total Emigration	Emigrants to United States	Emigrants to Great Britain1950	.. 45,300	23,251	a)1951	.. 49,300	27,277	a)1952	.. 59,800	37,848	a)1953	.. 57,800	35,842	6,9601954	.. 57,500	32,941	9,5481955	.. 62,800	37,206	10,6421956	.. 67,000	44,061	7,9441957	.. 73,800	50,057	8,7721958	.. 62,700	35,687	12,0241959	.. 68,600	41,395	12,2521960	.. 75,000	48,682	11,3061961	.. 72,400	45,209	10,3441962	.. 75,000	47,579	7,4321963	.. 76,700	51,512	5,2401964	.. 80,000	49,995	9,7761965	.. 79,900	49,656	10,2411966	.. 58,083	28,837	9,2461967	.. 68,900	38,854	10,0661968	.. 67,100	34,583	12,4861969	.. (1)	(1)	(1)
(i) Not available.
Note: Emigration to other countries is not available. Source: The United States Justice Department, Immigration and Naturalization Service; and The United Kingdom General Register Office, Statistical Division.
[Mr. Mackasey.l
Table II
Persons granted Canadian Citizenship who were bom in Canada, Emigrated and became a National of another country and then returned to Canada for the years 1953-1968:
Year	No. of Citizenships Granted
1953	184
1954	166
1955	181
1956	126
1957	157
1958	177
1959	140
1960	141
1961	142
1962	119
1963	169
1964	163
1965	135
1966	132
1967	130
1968	144
Source:	Canadian Citizenship Statistics,
Dominion Bureau of Statistics Publication No. 91-205.
Note: The date of emigration or of return to Canada is not available.


CRIMINAL CODE-NUMBER SENTENCED UNDER HABITUAL CRIMINAL SECTION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many persons have been sentenced under the Habitual Criminal Sections of the Criminal Code and sentenced to preventive detention in each province in each of the years 1960 to 1969?
2.	How many of these people are still in prison (a) after ten years (b) after five years?
3.	How many of these people have been paroled? 4 How many of these people have violated their
parole?
5.	How many of these people have returned to prison?
6.	How many of these people have received paroles in each of the years 1960 to 1969?
7.	Do the inmates serve their original sentence and then serve a number of years before parole is considered?
March 25. 1970

Questions
8.	What special programs are made available to 9. How much time must be spent on these pro-these inmates and in what prisons are these pro- grams before parole is considered for these pri-grams made available in British Columbia?	soners?


George James McIlraith: 1.
Province	I960	1961	1962	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969
Nova Scotia											
Quebec	
1	1	1	1	-	-	1	1	2	5Ontario	
1	-	-	-	1	-	Manitoba	
1	-	-	-	-	1	1	Alberta	-	1	-	1	-	4	2	2	4	British Columbia	
1	1	1	10	21	14	3	4	1	2Totals	
5	3	2	12	22	19	6	8	7	72.	(a) N/A; (b) 7.3.	Fifty (46 first parole, four second parole).4.	Twenty-five (23 first parole, two second parole).5.	Twenty-five.6.	1960, Nil; 1961, Nil; 1962, Nil; 1963, Nil; 1964, Nil; 1965, Nil; 1966, 4; 1967, 17; 1968, 20 (17 first parole, three second parole); 1969, 13 (12 first parole, one second parole).7.	No.8.	Education, vocational training, citizen participation, religion and social education. These special programs are available in British Columbia Penitentiary, Matsqui Institution, Mountain Prison, William Head Institution and Agassiz Correctional Camp.9.	There is no mandatory time limit imposed in respect to these special programs before parole may be considered.


EMPLOYMENT BY PANARCTIC OIL LIMITED OF INDIANS AND ESKIMOS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	How many native Indian and Eskimo people are currently employed with Panarctic Oil Limited?
2.	In what capacities are they employed?
3.	What remuneration do they receive?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. None. Panarctic Oils' operations are conducted by contractors. Contractors working for Panarctic, however, have on their payroll three Eskimos at the Rea Point base camp, one Eskimo at the Drake Point well.
2.	All four are labourers.
3.	Wages for labourers are $1.75 per hour for an eight hour-day and time and a half per hour for any time in excess of eight hours.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA
Mr. Robinson: Is the research branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare carrying out any studies on the use of marijuana and its effects on users and (a) if so, have any specific conclusions been obtained (b) if not, when will the Department be in a position to advise on the use and effects of marijuana?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No research is being conducted in the Department of National Health and Welfare on the use of marijuana and its effects on humans, (a) non-applicable; (b) further to above statement, it is therefore not possible to predict when the Department will be in a position to advise on the use and effects of marijuana on humans. However, the Commission of Enquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs is studying the current state of medical knowledge respecting the effect of drugs which are liable to abuse.


ACCIDENTS INVOLVING INTER-PROVINCIALLY OPERATED TRUCKS 1968
Mr. Mafher: 1.	What was the number of accidents involving inter-provincially operated trucks by large motor carriers in 1968?
2.	What was the number of fatalities in such accidents?
3.	What was the approximate property damage?

March 25, 1970
Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1, 2 and 3. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics does not compile statistics on the number of accidents involving inter-provincially operated trucks by large motor carriers.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-STATISTICS OF EMPLOYMENT AT EAST COAST PORTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the National Harbours Board statistics on employment of labour such as longshoremen at its East Coast ports and, if so, what were the manhours per month over the last twelve months including January of this year at (a) Montreal (b) Quebec City (e) Saint John (d) Halifax?
2.	Have any studies been made of any alteration to the manpower picture caused by containerization?


Gérard Loiselle: The National Harbours Board advise as follows: 1. No.
2.	No.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-PURCHASE OF JET AIRCRAFT
Mr. Nesbitt: 1 When was the decision made to purchase four jet aircraft for the Canadian Armed Forces to replace the existing Yukon aircraft?
2.	How many Aircraft Companies tendered on this project?
3.	Did the Douglas Aircraft Company submit a tender and, if so, what was the amount of the Douglas tender?
4.	Did the Department of National Defence discuss with Air Canada the possibility of Air Canada servicing any aircraft made by the Douglas Aircraft Company that might be purchased by DND?
5.	What is the estimated annual cost of servicing and repairs for the four Boeing 707 aircraft purchased by DND?
6.	How many persons will be obliged to receive training to service these aircraft?
7.	What will be the duration of this training period?
8.	What is the estimated life of the existing Yukon aircraft?
9.	What is the intended disposition of these aircraft?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Treasury Board approved the Boeing program January 29, 1970.
2.	Two.
3.	Yes, total program cost for four DC8/ 63CF was estimated to be $66.4 million (Canadian Funds).

4.	Informal discussions concerning the servicing of DC8F and Boeing 707's were held with Air Canada representatives.
5.	The estimated annual cost of servicing four Boeing 707 aircraft is $3 million.
6.	283.
7.	The longest course is of 19 days' duration, and the shortest three days. Training commenced in February and will be completed in June 1970.
8.	The Yukons have an average of approximately 14,000 hours expended life against an estimated life of 40,000 hours. The unexpended life in the Yukons was taken into account in determining the economics of replacing these aircraft with Boeings at the present time. The annual estimated savings to be realized by operating the Boeings in place of the Yukons is six million dollars.
9.	The Yukon aircraft will be declared surplus to National Defence requirements and turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposal.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES
Mr. Peddle: 1.	How many post offices in Canada (a) have been closed during the past year (b) are presently in the process of being closed (c) are being considered for closing, but no final decision yet made?
2.	By province, where are these post offices located and what population served in each case?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1.
(a)	(b)	(c)N ewf oundland	34	83	121Prince Edward Island	23	3	3Nova Scotia	82	147	44New Brunswick	55	52	64Quebec	145	73	41Ontario	206	84	62Manitoba	27	49	44Saskatchewan	64	62	165Alberta	65	30	76British Columbia	20	5	81Yukon	1	-	-Northwest Territories	2
2. (a) See 1. (b) Departmental records are not maintained in such a way that would make it possible to compile these statistics.
March 25, 1970


EMIGRATION OF CANADIANS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Orlikow: How many Canadian scientists, research workers, engineers, university professors and medical doctors left Canada to work in the United States in each of the past three years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 
SALES OF TREASURY BILLS IN 1969
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	In 1969, what was the volume of sales of (a) 91-day (b) 182-day (c) 253-day Treasury bills?
2.	What percentage do banks have to pay to buy Treasury bills?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. The total volume of Government of Canada three month and six month Treasury Bills sold at tender and issued during 1969 was $6,910,000,000 and $1,785,000,000, respectively. There were no 253 day Treasury Bills issued in 1969, but special bills were issued on three occasions. These had terms to maturity of 268 days, 308 days and 364 days and were 21774-67
Questions
issued in amounts of $20,000,000, $175,000,000 and $75,000,000, respectively.
2. Treasury Bills are offered for sale to banks and other primary distributors of Government of Canada securities at weekly Treasury Bill auctions and are allotted at such auctions to the highest bidders. At the tender for three month bills held on February 19, 1970, the last auction before the date of the question, the average of successful bids was 7.66 per cent, and the range of such bids was from 7.65 per cent to 7.67 per cent.


ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT, 1967
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the advisability of changes in the Adult Occupational Training Act, 1967, by extending the occupational training courses beyond 52 weeks duration of full-time instruction?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: At the present time a trainee may receive up to 52 weeks of educational upgrading and this may be followed by up to 52 weeks of skill training, for a total of up to 104 weeks of full time training. As part of its continuous review of the Canada Manpower Training Program, the Department of Manpower and Immigration is considering the issue of whether this is the best possible arrangement.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-RESEARCH STUDIES 1960-1969
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of Finance during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are presently being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4 What is the estimated cost of each of the studies presently in being or contemplated during the next five years?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Intergovernmental Liaison on Fiscal and Economic Matters; The Canadian Fiscal Structure and Economic Stability; Trends and Projections of Government Revenues, Expenditures and Debt; Studies for the Federal-Provincial Tax Structure Committee; Trends, Projections and Cost Factors in Federal-Provincial Joint Programs; Studies on Alternative Equalization Formulae; Study concerning Parental Contributions in connection

March 25, 1970
Questions
with the Canada Student Loans Plan; Survey of the Characteristics of the Post-Secondary Student Population in Canada during the Academic Year 1968-69; Studies on Aspects of the Carter Commission Report on Taxation; Investigation of the Effects of Canada's Present Income Tax System, of the tax structure proposed by the Royal Commission on Taxation, and of various alternatives including the proposals put forward in the White Paper.
3. 1959/60 to 1965/66-Nil.

Intergovernmental Liaison on
Fiscal and Economic Matters 3,925
Study concerning Parental
Contributions in connection
with the Canada Student
Plan
Survey of the Characteristics of the Post-Secondary Student Population in Canada during the Academic Year 1968-69 Studies on Aspects of the Carter Commission Report on Taxation
In addition, research studies have been prepared in the department as listed below. It is not possible to relate a cost figure to these studies as personnel work on various projects at the one time.
The Canadian Fiscal Structure and Economic Stability;
Trends and Projections of Government Revenues, Expenditures and Debt;
Studies for the Federal-Provincial Tax Structure Committee;
Trends, Projections and cost Factors in Federal-Provincial Joint Programs;
Studies on Alternative Equalization Formulae;
Intergovernmental Liaison on Fiscal and Economic Matters;
Investigation of the Effects of Canada's present Income Tax System, of the tax structure proposed by the Royal Commission on Taxation, and of various alternatives including the proposals put forward in the White Paper.
4.	See answers to parts 2 and 3 above.

2. The Department is engaged in a continuous analysis of the economy and of government programs and their effect upon the economy, drawing upon fundamental research done elsewhere. These analytical studies cannot be identified as specific research studies and it is not possible, at this time, to determine what further studies may be called on now or contemplated during the next five years.
1967-68	1968-69	1969-70

35,000
6,200
45,000	30,000
12,500	4,500
NUMBER OF NATIONAL REVEiNUE CONSULTANTS 1950 TO 1970


Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of National Revenue during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) why were the consultants necessary?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: For Taxation Division, Three, (a) 1950 to 1967 inclusive, Nil; 1968, $29,187; 1969, $44,813; 1970, $58,500.
(b) (i) Costs totalling $71,000 in 1968 and 1969 represent Taxation Division portion of the costs of a study initiated by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, (ii) A study costing $3,000 to assist in the design testing and implementation Management Insight Training Course material for Taxation personnel is included in 1969 costs, (iii) In 1970, $58,500 covers a Management Consultants' study to review the existing procedures for processing T1 returns and to provide recommendations leading to the most efficient and effective future operations for both the short and long terms.
March 25. 1970

(c) (i) To study the feasibility of National Revenue, Taxation, taking over the payroll audit and collection functions of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the development of comparable collection systems, (ii) Neither Departmental or Central Agency resources were sufficient to carry out this study, (iii) Internal resources were not sufficient to undertake this study.
For Customs and Excise, Four, (a) 19501965, Nil; 1966, $2,000; 1967 and 1968, Nil; 1969, $40,000; 1970, (Years ending March 31), $14,000.
(b)	(i) An Organization and Management Seminar with the purpose of providing advice on plans for the regionalization of Customs and Excise, (ii) A Computer Application Concept Study costing $10,000. (iii) A study costing $30,000 of Planning and Financial and Management Services. This study covered the department's requirements with respect to Planning, Programming and Budgeting, and the organization of the Services Branch, (iv) A personnel climate survey of a departmental area, to examine on a pilot basis the employee morale environment and the potential for improving communications between all organizational levels.
(c)	The studies were carried out to develop and apply new organizational concepts and improved management and administrative techniques. Internal resources were not sufficient to undertake the studies.


PORT OF CHURCHILL REPORT
Mr. Simpson: 1.	What terms of reference were laid down in respect to the report entitled: "Port of Churchill-Potential for Development" prepared for the Department of Transport and the National Harbours Board by Hedlin, Menzies & Associates Ltd. and Gibb, Albery, Pullerits and Dickson, which was tabled in the House of Commons on January 14, 1970?
2.	What was the cost of this report?


Gérard Loiselle: Terms of Reference for the Transportation Study of the Port of Churchill, Manitoba: 1. Study the present developments in Manitoba along the Hudson Bay rail route and connecting routes to determine: (a) the importance of Churchill to their initial development and present operation; (b) the importance of these various developments to the Port of Churchill. In addition, if it appears desirable, study possible future developments in Northern Manitoba to determine the importance of Churchill to 21774-67}
Questions
them, and vice versa. Examples: (i) Nelson River Power Development; (ii) Churchill Forest Products Limited.
Examine the factors influencing cargo flows through the Port of Churchill and identify those factors which may have impeded the growth of traffic, and comment on the possibility of modifying the impediments. In this context, the following should be reported on: (a) effect of short shipping season; (b) shipping services and ocean freight rates; (c) vessel insurance practices; (d) navigation hazards -both at Churchill and the route from Atlantic Ocean incl. Hudson Strait and Hudson Bay; (e) port facilities and services (including manpower); (f) inland transportation rates and services; (g) import commodity distribution practices; (h) policies of federal government agencies directly or indirectly with the marketing of grain; (i) Other factors which may be of relevance.
Examine the cargo handling capability of existing port facilities under normal conditions in relation to (a) current and (b) anticipated traffic flows (see Items 4 and 5 below).
Forecast traffic volume (over 5, 10 and 20 years) that may be anticipated with no major changes in existing facilities and services.
Forecast traffic volumes (over 5, 10 and 20 years) assuming that existing facilities or practices are modified (as may be suggested under paragraph 2 above).
Traffic flows, both actual and potential, should be examined under the general headings of coasling trade and ocean traffic and each of these general headings should be further subdivided as follows: (a) general cargo; (b) bulk cargo; (i) grain; (ii) other bulk commodries.
Report on steps or procedures which may increase traffic flow through the Port of Churchill and estimate the benefits and costs of any expenditures (capital or operating) which may be involved.
In addi'ion to studying Churchill as a deepsea ocean port and rail terminal, (a) appraise its role (both present and potential) as a supply and transportation service centre for Northern Canada; (b) appraise its need for highway transportation.
In carrying out the study, cognizance must be taken of such developments in modern transportation technology as containerization, increased use of larger bulk carriers, bubbler systems, technical innovations facilitating ice navigation cargo submarines, etc.

March 25, 1970
Questions
Cognizance must also be taken of existing studies, in particular the report by Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners, prepared for the Government of Manitoba, September 1962, "Port Churchill-Future Developments" and the National Research Council study on the "Feasibility of Extending the Navigation Season at Churchill Harbour" December, 1966.
Throughout the study, it will be mandatory to keep in close touch with the Manitoba Royal Commission's work, especially with its comprehensive examination of resources and economic developments in Northern Manitoba.
2. $56,500.


PERSONNEL OF CANADIAN TEAM ENGAGED IN CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian team engaged in Canada/United States bilateral negotiations respecting airline routes?
2.	How many, and which departments are represented on the team?
3.	Who is the chairman of the team?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The members of the Canadian Delegation for the first round of the Canada-United States Bilateral Air Negotiations held in Washington on December 15, 1969, were: A. E. Ritchie, Ambassador, Canadian Embassy, Washington, D.C., Head of Delegation; G. Morisset, Chairman, International Transport Policy Committee, Canadian Transport Commission, Deputy Head of Delegation; R. E. Reynolds, Head, Transport, Communications and Energy Division, Department of External Affairs; R. Azzie, Director, International Relations Branch, International Transport Policy Committee, Canadian Transport Commission; J. W. Green, Executive Director, Air Transport Committee, Canadian Transport Commission; Miss D. Burwash, Counsellor, Canadian Embassy, Washington, D.C.; R. T. Y. Yang, Department of Transport; Miss A. Szlazak, Transport, Communications and Energy Division, Department of External Affairs; C. I. Taylor, General Manager, Marketing Research, Air Canada-Observer; H. D. Cameron, VicePresident, International Affairs, CP Air-Observer.
2. The Departments of External Affairs and Transport, and the Canadian Transport Commission were represented on the Delegation- i.e. two Government departments and one agency.

3. The Head of the Canadian Delegation, as indicated above, was Mr. A. E. Ritchie, at that time Canadian Ambassador to the United States, now Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Delegation for the second round of negotiations has not yet been named.


EIDERDOWN HARVEST
Mr. Orlikow: What was the harvest of eiderdown in (a) the Lower St. Lawrence area (b) the Arctic regions for the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?


Russell Clayton Honey: (a) The Lower St. Lawrence Area.	Pounds of uncleaned down
1965	1,380
1966	1,897
1967	1,687
1968	1,922
1969	2,044
(b) The Arctic Region	
	Pounds of uncleaned down
1965	569
1966	630
1967	2,490
1968	2,370
1969	6,109
EDUCATION AND HOUSING EXPENDITURES	
FOR	INDIANS

Question No. 1,468-Mr. Mazankowski:	
What was the total	expenditure for the Indian
population, for education and housing in the fiscal	
years 1966-67, 1967-68	and 1968-69?


Russell Clayton Honey: Total expenditures:	
Indian Housing	
1966-67	$ 8,828,658
1967-68	$14,050,000
1968-69	$14,341,000
Indian Education	
1966-67	$53,000,000
1967-68	$58,933,000
1968-69	$68,981,000
March 25, 1970


JASPER NATIONAL PARK-FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What are the measurements, size and thread, of the couplings and hydrants in Jasper National Park?
2.	Could an exchange of other hoses, pumps and fire-fighting equipment be made by outside help should an emergency ever arise in Jasper National Park?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. (a) Townsite hydrants, fittings and couplings used thereon are 2J inch size with 6 threads per inch, (b) Campground standpipes and all couplings used in campgrounds and for forest fire protection are inch standard forestry type CSA B 89-1954 with llJr threads per inch.
2. (a) For hoses and fire fighting equipment using 2J inch couplings-Arrangements are being made to obtain a supply of adaptors which will allow Alberta equipment to be used with the present Jasper hydrants and couplings, (b) For hoses, pumps and fire fighting equipment using 1J inch couplings- Yes.


ACTION AGAINST PIERRE BOURGAULT RESPECTING INCOME TAX
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the government taken action against Pierre Bourgault of the Province of Quebec with respect to income tax matters?
2.	What has been the result of any such action?


John Cole: 1 and 2. This information is confidential and cannot be divulged.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MEAFORD TANK RANGE
Mr. Noble: Is it the intention of the government to phase out the Meaford Tank Range and, if so, would the government convert the area into a national park?


David Walter Groos: No, the Meaford Range will continue to be used by both the regular and reserve units located in the area.
Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


FEDERAL CABINET STAFF SALARIES
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many members of the staffs of members of the federal cabinet receive a salary of $12,000 or more?
2.	In each instance, what is the name of the person who receives $12,000 or more and what is the actual amount of his salary?
Return tabled.


PERSONNEL OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What are the names of the persons appointed to the Prime Minister's office staff since he became Prime Minister, their position, the date of their appointment and their salary per annum?
2.	How many of these appointments were filled by the Public Service Commission?
3.	What are the names of the persons appointed to the Privy Council Office under the present Prime Minister, their position, the date of their appointment and their salary per annum?
4.	How many of these appointments were filled by the Public Service Commission?
5. How many persons were employed on the Prime Minister's office staff by the previous Prime Minister, their position and their salary per annum?
6. How many persons were employed in the Privy Council Office by the previous Prime Minister, their position and their salary per annum?
7.	How many of the present Prime Minister's staff will be dismissed under the government austerity program?
Return tabled.


DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS-NUMBER OF PERMANENT INVESTIGATORS
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	By province, how many permanent investigators does the Dominion Bureau of Statistics have on the road in Canada?
2.	How many are there in each constituency in Quebec?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the investigators in the constituencies of Shefford, Drummond, St-Hyacinthe and Sherbrooke?
4.	What is the hourly wage of these investigators?
5.	What type of expense account do they have?
6 What is the average annual cost of each of these investigators?
Return tabled.


CMHC STATISTICS
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1. Of the 169,739 new dwelling units started in 1969 in Canadian centres of 10,000 population and

March 25, 1970
Motions for Papers
over (a) how many were (i) single detached (ii) double or duplex (iii) row (iv) apartment and other (b) how many in each category were started in each of the ten provinces (c) how many of these starts were (i) private (ii) public (iii) limited dividend (d) how many were built with the aid of CMHC loans (e) how were these CMHC loans distributed as among provinces (f) what was the rate of interest on these loans?
2.	Of the 169,739 new dwelling units started in 1969, how many cost (a) under $10,000 (b) from $10,000 to $15,000 (c) from $15,000 to $20,000 (d) from $20,000 to $25,000 (e) from $25,000 to $30,000 (f) from $30,000 to $35,000 (g) over $35,000?
3.	How many applications for CMHC housing loans for these 169,739 new dwellings were granted to individuals with incomes of (a) under $5,000 (b) between $5,000 and $8,000 (c) between $8,000 and $10,000 (d) between $10,000 and $15,000 (e) between $15,000 and $20,000 (f) between $20,000 and $25,000 (g) over $25,000?
Return tabled.


PERSONNEL OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date, was Dr. Gerard V. G. LaForest taken on strength by the Prime Minister's Office, what will his duties be and what will he receive in salary?
2.	What is the total staff of the Prime Minister's Office at the present time, what are the names of the individuals, the duties and salary of each and on what date was each taken on strength?
3.	Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to make any further additions to his staff and, if so, how much additional staff is contemplated and what will be the responsibilities of the additional staff members?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 368 is acceptable to the government.


WHEAT BOARD UNIT AND ONE-BUSHEL DELIVERY QUOTAS, SASKATCHEWAN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 368-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of the 388 elevator delivery points in Saskatchewan which were on a Canadian Wheat Board initial unit quota on February 9, 1970, and a list of the 567 elevator delivery points in Saskatchewan which were on a one-bushel per specified acre Canadian Wheat Board quota on February 9, 1970.
Motion agreed to.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion 397 is acceptable to the government subject 
to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 397 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 397-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of contracts and agreements and relevant documents relating to the vehicular delivery of mail in Montreal with effect from April 1, 1970.
Motion agreed to.
David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, will you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 14, 309, 377 and 392. I ask that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


PATENT AND COPYRIGHT LAWS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the federal inter-departmental committee under the Commissioner of Patents regarding patent and copyright laws in Canada.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the inderdepartmental committee referred to in this notice of motion was established to draw together a group of persons from various departments of government who are knowledgeable of copyright matters pending receipt of the report from the Economic Council of Canada on copyright. The committee itself has not prepared a report. In view of this I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Nystrom:: I withdraw the motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


RITCHIE REPORT ON RESEARCH INSTITUTE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 309-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Ritchie report on "the establishment of a Research Institute where long term research and
March 25, 1970
[Stage Direction]
thinking can be undertaken on governmental matters of all kinds" as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and reported in Hansard of November 19, 1969 at page 996.
Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the policy matters dealt with in this report, which was received from Mr. Ritchie in December last, Eire now under examination by the government and will be the subject of publication in due course. In view of this, perhaps the hon. member would wish to withdraw the motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS-CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 377-Mr. Souiham:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Ministers of Agriculture of the Provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia, concerning the application and enforcement of the Regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board, between December 1, 1969 and January 31, 1970.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


LOWER INVENTORY FOR TOMORROW AND WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 392-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all background studies and reports prepared for the government in connection with the Lower Inventory for Tomorrow and Wheat Acreage Reduction Programs.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the hon. Otto E. Lang, Minister without Portfolio, that there are no background studies or reports prepared for the government as requested by the hon. member. Background material on this subject has been prepared by government officials. However, such material constitutes internal government documents and is therefore privileged. As there is no material suitable for tabling, the minister would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
behalf of the hon. member it had better be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the indication in the report of the Auditor General that all is not yet perfect in the area of government expenditures, can the President of the Treasury Board tell us when the government will be introducing the legislation the Auditor General has been seeking to better define and enable him to carry out his position, duties and responsibilities? Can the President of the Treasury Board give the House the time when this legislation will be introduced?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give a time. I recognize that there are certain things wrong with the present legislative arrangements in respect of the Auditor General, and to this end studies have been conducted looking toward new legislation. I have not been able to get a satisfactory time as yet from the House Leader so I would hesitate to give any undertaking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is apparently not only the existing legislation that is not entirely satisfactory. Does the President of the Treasury Board intend to take any steps to ensure that the arrangements in respect of staff for the Auditor General are more satisfactory to the Auditor General so that as an officer of this House he will not be dependent upon the overriding decisions of the minister and so that he will have the staff that he thinks he requires in order to do the job of investigation which obviously, as can be seen from his report, is required?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I might point out in this connection that the authorized establishment of the Auditor General has never up until the present been filled. The numbers authorized have always exceeded the strength. This continues to be the case. If the

March 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Auditor General, by filling his establishment up to authorized strength, indicates that it is possible to secure more people for his purposes and that they are indeed available and can be attracted and that more people are needed, then there is no question but that the authorized establishment would be increased. The principal purpose of trying to arrive at numerical ceilings in these cases is rather more for budgeting purposes in an effort to obtain some accurate forecast of the total cost of personnel in the government than to try to impose a manpower ceiling.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is apparent that the Auditor General is dissatisfied with the arrangements. Could it be that the positions are set up in such a way and that the salary and other arrangements are such that it is not possible for the Auditor General to have these positions filled under the arrangements which now exist? Is the minister saying the fault is the Auditor General's or would he admit that there must be something wrong with the establishment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNAL AUDIT SYSTEMS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. In line with the recommendation contained in the Glassco Commission report that an internal audit system be established in all departments of government and in view of the fact that the Auditor General reports that these have been established in only 13 out of a total of 40 departments, can the minister say how soon these internal audit systems will be established in the other departments?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as part of the internal organization we recognize it is an important problem. Without trying to establish a timetable I can say we are proceeding as rapidly as people can be recruited and the organization put in place to achieve this. It is recognized it is important. Indeed, in a number of major government departments such a system is already in operation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this program was instituted one year ago does the minister not think it should have been completed by now?


Mr. Speaker:: The juestion clearly is
argumentative.
[Mr. Drury.)



CHANGE IN FORMAT OF REPORT

Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board is going to suggest that the Auditor General change the format of the presentation of his report so that it could be more objectively presented and in a fairer manner than is the case at present?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who put you up to that one? Which minister wrote that question for
you?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, following in the footsteps of my friend, the hon. member for Ontario, I do not wish to become involved in a debate, but I think it should be pointed out to members opposite that this is a question I worked on myself as a result of doing a bit of investigation and finding out that if the Auditor General presented a report on his own organization we would find that he overshot his budget-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure it is assumed and recognized by hon. members that all members prepare their own questions and give their own answers.



INDUSTRY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the Auditor General's report where he comments on the fact that in excess of $180 million has been paid to automobile companies under Order in Council P.C. 1969-172. In view of the statement by the Auditor General to the effect that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance follow criteria additional to those incorporated in Motor Vehicle Tariff Order 19'65 and that the officials of these departments appear to place greater emphasis on criteria not included in the Tariff Order than on certain criteria which are included, can the minister tell the House what are the criteria used by the Department of Finance and by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and what is the basis in law for those criteria?
March 25, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the minister to reply to this question if he can do so briefly. However, it is obvious that basically the question as asked by the hon. member is perhaps complex and the type of question which normally calls for an extended statement on motions. Second, I suggest to hon. members that we should not really get into a detailed discussion of a report which, if I understand the proceedings, was referred to a committee of the House a few moments ago. This having been said, perhaps the minister might reply.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend is following Murphy's law I should like to take the question as notice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this happens to be Henderson's law and it is very important that we have some information. May I ask the minister whether or not the government intends to act on the Auditor General's recommendation that these criteria which have been used be incorporated in the motor vehicles tariff order in order that the payments made will be made under that order and not by the very dubious method of paying them through orders in council?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Henderson has many duties and one of them is not writing the law. I will be pleased to take my hon. friend's suggestion into consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister, or any minister who is prepared to answer for the government, this question. Since the Auditor General has raised this matter in successive reports, why has no action been taken and why does the government continue to make these payments, which are now in excess of $180 million, by order in council rather than in the way set forth by the statutes of this country?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as an accountant I would simply like to say that accountants make poor lawyers.


An hon. Member:: And poor politicians!



SUGGESTED DISSOLUTION OF CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since the Canadian Wheat Board has demonstrated its inefficiency at the international level, in letting mountains of wheat accumulate, could the Prime Minister tell the House if he is considering the abolition of the Commission in order to encourage free trade between eastern and western Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I must admit that I did not hear the question very well.



FINANCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement yesterday by the president of the Bank of America, the largest bank in the world, that he is confident that the prime interest rate in the United States will drop by June at the latest, does the information the minister has received from the governor of the Bank of Canada and the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada indicate to him that such an eventuality may also take place in Canada in the near future?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there has certainly been some easing of interest rates in the United States and in Canada and I am hopeful that, as the effective methods we have followed in fighting inflation are successful, interest rates will ease further.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I notice the minister has been having some difficulty with communication. I wonder whether he has received any communication on the subject from Senator Lamontagne?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I have not talked to him recently.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
I would have preferred not to deal with this matter today, because it is a memorable day

March 25. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry for the Solicitor General, but as the House is about to recess for ten days or so, I should like to know-as a fifth suicide has recently happened at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and due also to charges of negligence laid against the authorities of that penitentiary-if he has ordered a complete investigation on the causes of this disastrous situation.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, an inquiry is going on into this particular incident. I should add that I am very concerned about the large number of these cases and I am giving attention to trying to find out what form of investigation we should have to discover more than we now know about the underlying causes for the number of suicides in that institution.



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry arising out of the fact that the House is about to recess and that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry will not have completed its consideration of the salmon licencing provisions proposed by the minister prior to the time when commercial fishermen will be applying for renewal of licences in British Columbia. In view of this, will the minister agree to suspend the application of his phase two proposals until the standing committee has completed its consideration? Alternatively, if he will not agree to a general suspension will he agree at least to suspend the application of these provisions so far as Indian fishermen in British Columbia sire concerned?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: It would be impossible to accede to this request, Mr. Speaker. A number of the fishermen have already paid their fees for this year.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I address a related question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in view of the reply received from the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development say whether he agrees that all Indian fishermen, if they are not otherwise able to do so, should be assisted in paying the $100 salmon licencing fee, in order that they may not be

squeezed out of their traditional method of earning a livelihood because of the action of his colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I gather the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is waiting for a reply to the question he asked a moment ago.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: No, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that apparently I am not to get an answer from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I would like to address a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister see that the two ministers to whom I have addressed my questions get together and work out an arrangement which will protect the Indian fishermen of B.C. from being deprived of their basic livelihood?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shall simply answer by saying that I shall look into this matter and that I intend to discuss it with the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in order to reach a solution.



NATIONAL PARKS


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
As more than six million Quebecers are awaiting the development of a national park in Quebec and in view of a statement by the Hon. Marcel Masse in Rimouski two weeks ago, could the minister tell the House whether the province of Quebec has made available land for the development of the national park at Forillon and when work will start on the project?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received official confirmation of this land transfer from the Minister of External Affairs or rather of Intergovernmental Affairs of Quebec. As I said before, we will start work when the land is transferred to us.
March 25. 1970



POLLUTION


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambion-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Following the disturbing information given yesterday relative to mercury contamination of certain species of fish, particularly pickerel, in Lake St. Clair, can the minister say whether further tests indicate that harmful levels have been found in the other large catch in that area, namely perch?


John (Jack) Davis: Pickerel is the only species in which have been found amounts of mercury which might be deemed to be harmful. Other important commercial species such as perch are completely free of any of this contamination so far as we can determine.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I ask the minister a supplementary question. Has any consideration been given, since the ban on pickerel fishing went into effect yesterday, to support the fishermen who depend on this fishery for their livelihood? Will there be something similar to what was done, for example, in Newfoundland?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, this matter has been discussed with the Department of Lands and Forests in the government of Ontario.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the industry responsible been told to curb this pollution, and has it in fact taken steps to do so?


John (Jack) Davis: The company which owns both of the plants in Sarnia was approached several months ago by the Ontario Water Resources Commission after we had begun our studies on mercury pollution. The company, was told in effect, to clean up the plants. One plant has done so and the other one is in the process of conversion at the present time.



MONITORING OF PLANTS USING MERCURY

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question about mercury poisoning. I ask the minister whether his department has a list of all the 21774-681
Inquiries of the Ministry manufacturing plants in Canada which use mercury in their manufacturing processes and might be a source of contamination. If so, are they being monitored for possible contamination?


Randolph Harding: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry a few moments ago and I think he was not aware that I had put the question to him. Might I repeat it? Has his department a list of all the manufacturing plants in Canada which use mercury in their manufacturing processes and which might be a source of mercury contamination and, if so, are they being monitored by his department for possible contamination?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. We have prepared a list of all chlor-alkali plants which use mercury, and these have been checked out by our fisheries research people or by the provincial departments with which we work.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does current legislation under the Fisheries Act allow the minister's department to handle the contaminants which are being put into the rivers, or does the act need amendment and, if so, will the amending legislation be introduced this session?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize that his question is not in order.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House when he expects to introduce legislation setting up the Canada Development Corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think it will be brought in within a month or two.


Robert Norman Thompson: Would the Prime Minister inform the House whether the government has reached a decision regarding the selection of a qualified person to serve as general manager or president of Denison Mines in the event of a takeover by the government?
5464	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



CONTRAVENTION OF BILL OF RIGHTS BY HATE LEGISLATION

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I asked the Minister of Justice whether following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in
The Queen v. Drybones the law officers of the Crown had been asked to give their opinion as to the competence of Parliament to pass the hate literature bill and its constitutionality.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: said at that time, Mr. Speaker, that the law officers of the Crown of course had passed on that bill before the case was decided but that as a result of the right hon. member's question I referred it back to the Deputy Minister of Justice and the law officers of the Crown. They have again confirmed to me that there is nothing in the Canadian Bill of Rights, as interpreted by the Drybones decision, which in any way would invalidate the hate literature bill.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he either table a report or make a statement in the House as soon as possible on the results of the high-level discussions on the question of Arctic sovereignty that I understand are going on with the American government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are no discussions going on at the present time with the American government about Arctic sovereignty. We did have a meeting last week with Mr. Alexis Johnson who brought some officials here with him to talk about this and other subjects. The next step in the procedure will be bringing legislation before this House.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alarming statement made by a research doctor at the University of Wisconsin that saccharine used as an artificial sweetener and in diabetic foods may be cumulative

DEBATES	March 25. 1970
to cancer-causing levels, and in view of the removal of cyclamates within the next few months, would the minister consider making available diabetic foods on prescription?


John Carr Munro: That matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was a little easier getting your attention today when I did not stand. In any event, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour since the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is not in the House. It has to do with the lay-offs planned by the National Steel Car Company and International Harvester in Hamilton which apparently will affect some 600 skilled and unskilled workers. Is the minister aware of this, and has there been any consultation or dialogue between these companies and his department in an attempt to reduce the effects of the lay-offs by way of financial assistance, special employment arrangements or special retraining programs?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that these problems fall under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario rather than under the federal government. In any event, I will bring the question to the attention of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration because it does not come under the Department of Labour. I do not know what correspondence, if any, he has received on the subject, but I certainly will bring it to his attention.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Have the abuses of the sales practice commonly known as referral sales been brought to the attention of the minister and, if so, what action has been taken by his department to protect consumers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I take it
March 25. 1970

that the hon. member is referring to a report from the Canadian Consumer Council, which of course I have read very carefully. The practice can most successfully be outlawed by provincial legislature and the legislature of British Columbia outlawed it last year. I was in Saskatchewan last week, and the legislature there was debating a bill introduced by the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, an amendment to the Direct Sellers Act of Saskatchewan, outlawing the practice in Saskatchewan. 1 would hope, with the Consumers Advisory Council, that other provinces might take similar action.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As a supplementary question, is it the intention of the minister and the government to deal with the matter of referral sales by amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, as recommended by the Consumers Advisory Council of Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the council made recommendations to the provinces and also to myself relative to the Combines Investigation Act. As the hon. member knows, or should know, we are currently reviewing the Combines Investigation Act and I hope to introduce a revised act this session. In the course of that review we are looking at a number of trade practices that may require attention.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON LACK OF FOOD FRAUD PROSECUTIONS

Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked a question on Monday, as recorded at page 5342 of Hansard, relative to prosecutions under the Food and Drugs Act with regard to economic fraud in the sale of food and food products, and why there were no prosecutions undertaken by my department from early 1969 to November, 1969. The reason is that the statistics on prosecutions were reported for that period by the Department of National Health and Welfare, who were actually undertaking the prosecutions for my department. Since we started doing the prosecutions ourselves in December, 1969, from then to the present day there have been 16 cases initiated, leading to two convictions, and the other 14 are still proceeding.
Inquiries of the Ministry REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION



SYDNEY, N.S.-INVESTIGATION OF HUSTLER CORPORATION

Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whif-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but since he is not here I will direct it to his able Parliamentary Secretary. Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion recently begun an investigation into the affairs of Hustler Corporation in Sydney, Nova Scotia, with the intention of determining whether there has been a misuse of public funds?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I would have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada, but he was not in the House on Monday and he is not here today although these are his duty days. Therefore my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the remarks of the new head of Information Canada to fellow federal information officers that he "belongs to a generation for whom the very word propaganda was a dirty word. I don't believe in propaganda"-end quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member reached the end of the quote just in the nick of time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I had to give the quotation before asking the question. I ask the Prime Minister, is this the same Jean-Louis Gagnon who between 1955 and 1958, as set out in Who's Who of Canada, 1968, was the chairman of the committee on publicity and propaganda of the federal Liberal Party in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question was not in order. Perhaps the hon. member has a different question to ask. I am sure he realizes that the question cannot be asked in these terms. He may have another question that could be accepted from a procedural standpoint.
5466	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate you ruling on the question, Mr. Speaker, but I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister consider that a man who was the founder of the Quebec Liberal Party in 1955, and served as chairman of the propaganda and publicity committee as set out in Who's Who, could be an objective, non-partisan head of the new service called Information Canada to allay the suspicions of many people in this country that it is going to be a propaganda tool?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned with allaying suspicions which are clearly unfounded. Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon is a very distinguished journalist and has been honoured as such by his fellow members of the press in this country. He has performed an excellent job as a royal commissioner, and whether or not he was active in politics ten years ago to me is irrelevant.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the government decided what it is going to do with the third report of the B and B Commission; and if that decision runs counter to the report, what is the position of Mr. Gagnon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He would be in the position of other royal commissioners whose reports are not implemented. The question is purely hypothetical but that would be his experience, and it would not be unusual for royal commissioners to be in that position.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister now undertake to table in the House early after we return in April the white paper on social security, so that we can get moving on old age pensions and the war veterans allowance?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the white paper will be ready by the time the hon. member indicated.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When does the Minister of National Health and Welfare believe the white paper will be ready?

DEBATES	March 25, 1970


John Carr Munro: The only assurance I can give, Mr. Speaker, is that it will be ready before the end of this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will it be in time for any action to be taken on it during this session?


John Carr Munro: I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darlmoulh-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader. Has he, as a good little Easter bunny, any news for us about the status of our national anthem and the state of negotiations between the government and members of the Weir family with regard to releasing it, so that Canadians can have a national anthem in fact and in law?
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that one of the other bunnies will have an opportunity during the recess to discuss this matter with the people involved.


Mr. Forresiall:: No progress!



TAXATION


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Has he received any criticisms from the opposition leader in the Quebec legislature (Mr. Bourassa) who recognized at last that the white paper contains some proposals that will run counter to the best economic interests of the Quebec people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is asking whether the minister has received a letter from the leader of a provincial party. It seems to me that the question as put is not in order. The hon. member could perhaps seek to obtain this piece of information by rephrasing his question.
March 25, 1970	COMMONS



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport but in his absence perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary could answer it. Having in mind the recommendation of the Engineering Institute of Canada this week that a standing committee of the House of Commons become, in effect, a national protective body on all matters of highway safety, would the minister consider encouraging such a step?


Gérard Loiselle: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, seeking further clarification of the dairy policy for the coming year as announced on Monday by the minister. The minister announced that the subsidy on manufactured milk will be maintained at the same level as this year, namely $1.25 per hundredweight. Does this mean that $125 million will be available if needed, which is the same amount as last year, rather than $10 million less, as was announced some time ago?


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: It is very difficult to know, Mr. Speaker, what the requirements of the Canadian Dairy Commission will be as the farmers associations are negotiating an agreement between themselves at the present time with a view to bringing all producers of industrial as well as fluid milk to contribute to the setting of marketing rates or marketing prices. Once these plans have been submitted to the government, we will be in a better position to know what marketing will cost.


Roch La Salle: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette has the floor.
DEBATES	5467
Inquiries of the Ministry


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture if he can tell the House quite clearly, in the interest of the dairy producers, whether or not the $10 million subsidy will still be granted. I think it is important that this question be answered in the House, Mr. Speaker.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I can only give the same answer. The announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture was based on one of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The hon. member for Joliette and my colleague who asked a question a moment ago, moved in the Committee on Agriculture that the price be maintained at $1.25.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Halifax-East Hants.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Postmaster General. Can the hon. gentleman indicate whether the Goldenberg report on the Montreal postal dispute has been received and, if so, what is its nature? Second, what action will be taken to continue postal service in Montreal beyond the end of the month?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this report will be made to me as Prime Minister. I have spoken to Dr. Goldenberg. I understand his report is ready and that it will be delivered to me later today.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-K'indersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of reports that the minister will personally tour the Arctic during the recess to check locations for a national defence command post there, will he say whether the preliminary studies have been completed in this matter and only his final approval remains?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to correct the hon. member: it is not during the recess but after the recess, from
5468	COMMONS DEBATES	March 25. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry April 7 to 11. We have received some preliminary studies on all the locations we are going to visit. As stated by my hon. friend, the purpose is to find a location for a northern command post. The studies are continuing and will be completed, we hope, when we come back. After that I shall be in a position to announce the location.



SCIENCE SERVICES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I have asked this question several times. I wonder whether during the Easter recess he could prepare a statement outlining our priorities and laying down a science policy for Canada.
Hon, C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not quite understand the end of the question.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I am asking whether the President of the Treasury Board would kindly make a statement after Easter with regard to a science policy for Canada.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think an analysis of the scientific effort of Canada is now being made and a report thereon is likely to emerge soon in the Senate. I think it would be a little foolhardy to make a statement in anticipation of this being done.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader. Could he inform the House as to when he plans to introduce a new Fisheries Act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the balance of the legislation we hope to deal with will be available as early as possible in the remaining part of the session.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I should indicate for the benefit of the House that upon our return on April 6 it is the government's intention to take as the first order of business Government Order No. 5, Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Like other members I am anxious to help him get started on his second 30 years. In view of the report in yesterday's Montreal Star by W. A. Wilson of certain harassment of his family by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will the Solicitor General have an investigation made not only into this case but into the extent to which the RCMP is carrying on harassment of this kind?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am quite familiar with the subject matter of the story in the Montreal Star. I must say that the part which related to me personally and to the allegations about the telephone call from me is totally wrong in substance and in fact. As to the other part of the article, I did check into that matter rather thoroughly myself because I was concerned in case there had been harassment by the police. I found that there was no harassment by the police but there was some unfortunate and improper conversation by the police in that case. However, they were properly there, for a proper purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister deal with the other part of my question and inquire to find out whether this kind of harassment has taken place in other cases?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear that I found there was no harassment in this case. That being so, I do not know how I can find out if there is similar harassment in other cases. If the hon. gentleman has in mind any other case that he would care to mention, I will certainly have it looked into.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question to the Solicitor General of Canada.
In view of the incident reported earlier, does he intend to ask the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not to question young children about their parents' behaviour?
March 25, 1970


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is not in the form of an instruction, although that point was discussed rather thoroughly as a result of the Wilson case.



POST OFFICE


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I shall not recite the preamble to my question: I hope it will still be intelligible. I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice whether the second-class mailing rate increases, due to start April 1, will be halted.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: These government members would not know the answer.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General and I would have to take the question up with him.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, since the
matter involves several government departments, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer either. I am not sure what the intention of the question is, and will therefore have to answer in the same way as did the Minister of Finance.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it seems that I should recite the preamble, which is as follows: Since today is the last clear chance in Parliament to stop the statutory increase in second-class mailing rates which is to become effective on April 1, may I ask-etc.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for the preamble. I will try to give him the post-cript later.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-192, respecting the Federal Court of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Federal Court Bill
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think those of us who attended in the House today will agree this is one of Parliament's good days because the Prime Minister and the leaders of the parties showered tributes on two very distinguished hon. members who have enjoyed the confidence of the people they have represented for almost a third of a century. Both hon. gentlemen deserved the great, unanimous tribute of the House of Commons. They have also enjoyed the good opinions of their fellow citizens for many years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), my senior colleague representing Ottawa Centre, is present in the House and I therefore enjoy this happy opportunity to tell him, on behalf of his fellow Members of Parliament representing this metropolitan area, that we admire him for his good work, good judgment, capacity for friendship and loyalty to principle, and we salute him as the senior elected representative, in terms of years of service, of the people of Ottawa.
Some hen. Members: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: There is not much that I can add to what has been said about the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). May I say that he is undoubtedly one of the political and parliamentary giants of his age in Canada. I will leave it at that and say we sincerely admire his great abilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Bill C-192 respecting the Federal Court of Canada, the bill for which I bear responsibility, received first reading on March 2. It is designed to effect very substantial changes in the administration of justice in this country at the federal level. In so far as court reorganization is concerned, the bill represents the first significant reorganization of the Federal Trial Court since it was first established in 1875.
For the past 95 years litigants before the Court of Exchequer or the Exchequer Court of Canada have enjoyed but one appeal, namely, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I might mention here that no hidden meaning or significance ought to be injected into our abandoning the historical name "Exchequer Court". In truth, the court is no longer the exchequer court; that is, it is no

March 25, 1970
Federal Court Bill
longer a court of the Crown's exchequer because its jurisdiction ranges far beyond fiscal matters. It is not a Crown-oriented court. It is not a court destined or organized to protect the purse at the expense of the citizen. Although the name of the court may have great historical significance and enjoy a great deal of emotional attachment on the part of certain members of the legal profession, the purpose of the court under its present name is not readily apparent to the people of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada has been required to act as both a first appellate tribunal and a final appellate tribunal since it became the court of last resort in this country in 1949 so far as appeals from the Exchequer Court of Canada are concerned. This lack of an intermediate appellate court between the Exchequer Court as a court of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court of Canada has given rise to a number of problems. I should like to mention one or two. First, it has meant that rulings of the Exchequer Court in relation to important matters of practice and procedure have been reviewed only infrequently on appeal, and this in turn has resulted in a lack of satisfactory jurisprudence. Second, it has meant that in recent times a very high percentage of the time of the Supreme Court of Canada has been taken up with appeals from the Exchequer Court. These appeals, in turn, have taken more time than they otherwise would if there had been an intermediate court of appeal to sift the record or to prepare the record on which an appeal is based.
Third, litigants who do not wish to accept a trial judgment as determining their rights and obligations have been forced to appeal immediately to the highest court in the land without the opportunity of going through an intermediate court of appeal. Under this new law as proposed, these litigants will be able to obtain not only a trial on their doorstep, because this court will be a circuit court, but they will be able to obtain as well an appeal at their doorstep, because the court of appeal will also be a circuit court. As a result, I anticipate that only more important matters will proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada, as is now the case with litigation before the superior courts of the provinces.
I have said on several occasions that I hope the Supreme Court of Canada can become a more creative court. In saying this I hope I am not putting myself in contempt. I also hope that it will deal primarily with ques-
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1
tions of law, with matters of constitution and matters of public administrative law. The bill dealing with the Supreme Court of Canada that has been read the second time and is currently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will, after it has been passed, be instrumental in filtering out a good many of the more factual appeals, that is to say, appeals depending merely on an interpretation of fact. The bill now before the House will also ensure that there is a further filtering process.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The Supreme Court of Canada can then be left as a final appellate court dealing with matters of law, matters affecting the constitution of this country, matters affecting public administration and the interpretation of the statutes under which administrative tribunals operate.
I wish at this juncture to underline the fact that the new federal court of appeal will be an itinerant or circuit court of appeal. Like the trial division, it will sit throughout Canada with a view to meeting the convenience of the parties. Indeed, the bill expressly provides in clause 16(3) that this shall be done. In other words, the court will continue the decentralizing process that was begun under the present President of the court. It will bring justice to the people, decentralize the operation of the present court, make the court more accessible, quicker and less expensive.
In addition to the fundamental change in court structure that I have mentioned, the bill proposes what I consider to be an important administrative law change in relation to the superintendence of federal boards, commissions and tribunals. For many years federal boards, commissions and tribunals have been subject to the diverse jurisdictions and practices of the various superior provincial courts in this country. For this reason federal boards, commissions and tribunals can be supervised to a much greater extent than can their provincial counterparts since provincial boards, commissions and tribunals of similar nature can be supervised only by their own provincial courts.
This multiple supervision, with a lack of consistent jurisprudence and application, can work serious hardship not only on the boards and commissions but on those who appear before them. Indeed, hon. members can readily see the possibility of harassment and the possibility of the misuse of this multiple su-
March 25, 1970

perintending jurisdiction. It is for this reason, plus one other that I shall mention shortly, that the conclusion was reached that this superintending jurisdiction should be vested in a single court that enjoyed the same nation wide jurisdiction as the federal boards, commissions and tribunals themselves. The bill is therefore designed to create a single and uniform basis of superintending jurisdiction in relation to federal boards and commissions and to place them on the same footing in this regard as provincial boards and commissions.
I said there was another reason for this change in the administrative law applicable to federal boards, commissions and tribunals. It appears that the superintending jurisdiction now exercised by provincial superior courts over these federal tribunals arises out of what may be fairly described as pre-Confederation legislation that has not yet been repealed or modified by the Parliament of Canada. That being the case, it seems readily apparent that no significant improvements can be made in the existing superintending jurisdiction of the provincial courts over federal boards, commissions and tribunals by the provincial legislatures and that unless changes are made by Parliament, resort will have to be had to the ancient remedies of prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto, mandamus and the like. What I have said is based on the unanimous judgement delivered by Mr. Justice Fauteux, as he then was, in the Supreme Court of Canada- he is now the Chief Justice of this country- in the case of Three Rivers Boatmen Ltd. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al, on May 13, 1969.
There is a growing feeling among those who practice law and those who observe the judgments of the courts that these ancient common law remedies are no longer adequate for present-day purposes. We as legislators must surely be certain that when we set up a statutory body to administer the fine legal principles in accordance with defined procedures, or in accordance with the rule of law and natural justice as interpreted by the courts, the jurisdiction we have created and conferred will be exercised properly and for the proper benefit of those for whom it was established. There is only one mechanism that can afford us that satisfaction, and that mechanism is the duly constituted and independent courts of this country.
I believe that our courts must be properly empowered to make certain that the jurisdiction which Parliament has created and given to boards and tribunals is exercised in the
Federal Court Bill
way that Parliament intended the jurisdiction to be exercised. For this reason, the bill provides that the new court of appeal will have jurisdiction to review the decisions and orders of the federal boards, commissions and tribunals stripped of the archaic legalisms that have traditionally applied to the old remedies.
I think I must make a distinction here between policy and administration on the one hand and the quasi judicial and judicial aspects on the other. Parliament sets up these statutory tribunals such as the Canadian Transport Commission, the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission, the National Energy Board and other boards. We deliberately delegate to all those boards and commissions a certain range of policy decisions that have to be made falling within a general area of competence. We do this because we want a certain independence in those decisions, because we want to withdraw the decisionmaking power to a certain degree from the political arena, and because ministers and departments do not have the necessary opportunity and time in certain cases to deal with and address their minds to those problems.
In so far as policy or the administrative function is delegated, there is no intent that the courts should supplant the policy determined by tribunals and commissions. Parliament delegated the administrative policy to those boards; the courts should not interfere. The courts should not supplant their policy for the policy that Parliament determined should be decided by those boards. There is nothing in this bill that does that.
Where an administrative tribunal-I am talking now within the federal sphere-exercises a judicial function, or that gray area between the judicial function and the administrative function which is known as quasi judicial, where there is a dispute or contest between parties by way of an application for a licence or the determination of a rate structure, or where two or more parties have to be heard and a decision rendered by the administrative tribunal, that judicial or quasi judicial function should be exercised according to certain principles, principles of natural justice. The members of the board should have no conflict of interest. Every party should have an opportunity for a hearing. Each party should have the opportunity to hear the other party's case, cross-examine, obtain production of documents and have before him the evidence upon which the board or tribunal makes its decision.

March 25, 1970
Federal Court Bill


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question in order to clarify a point? Would a party have the right to appeal a decision of the board which had refused to grant a hearing, if the legislation itself gave the board the discretionary power as to whether or not a hearing should be held?


John Napier Turner: That is a good question. It will depend on that individual statute. The remedies in this bill are wide enough to go beyond that type of privity clause. This bill sets out the reviewing power quite clearly. Where the principles of natural justice are not applied, where hearings are not granted, where each party does not have an opportunity to make his case, where the board has exceeded its jurisdiction or gone beyond the scope or ambit of the statute which gave birth to the tribunal or the administrative scope with which it was charged, where the board refused to exercise its jurisdiction, where the board has misinterpreted the law, whether the error in law appears or not on the record of that decision, the decision of the board can be set aside. It will not be open to the board to avoid declaring its reasons. The boards will have to declare their reasons. If they do not, that will not forestall the court from looking behind the reasons to ascertain why the decision has been made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the question only on a matter of law, or is it on a matter of fact?


John Napier Turner: The court will not have the opportunity of reviewing the facts unless the facts were determined in accordance with an error in law. I think the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) understands what I mean. If the selection of evidence was based on an error in law, then, of course, the error in law would open the case to review.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Clause 28 speaks of "perverse or capricious manner".


John Napier Turner: Indeed, that is in there as well. One of the advantages of this review process will be the mere fact that the process exists. Those who administer and preside over federal commissions and boards in this country will know that their findings are subject to a review of this kind. I should likq to recall what Louis Brandeis, one of the great associate judges of the United States [Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1
Supreme Court, had to say about regulatory agencies. He said that over a period of years an agency begins to reflect the interest of the industry it is supposed to be regulating, and particularly of the establishment in that industry. Thus, the agency charged with regulation of broadcasting tends eventually to reflect the interests of the networks as against those of independent operators. The old Board of Transport Commissioners had the reputation, certainly among the truckers who I represented from time to time, of being a railway board, and so on.
For the independent businessman, for the man trying to succeed in an application which might not be favoured by the establishment, this is a step toward ensuring that he has a fair hearing, that the decision of the commission will be based on a proper interpretation of the law and that the policy embodied in the governing statute, whatever it may be, is fairly interpreted legally. The opportunity now provided for recourse will give such an applicant a better chance when he appears before an agency or tribunal.
Again I underline that the bill will not permit the courts to do the work of these federal boards and commissions. The courts will not substitute their judgment on policy for the judgment of the board. But this will permit the courts to make certain that boards and commissions perform their functions in accordance with the law and as Parliament intended, within their jurisdiction and following the law as laid down.
[ Translation]
The bill contains several other elements which need mentioning; for instance, the Petition of Right Act is repealed. In the future, proceedings against the Crown will be instituted by simple declaration. In addition, the same prescription period will apply to the Crown as to the subjects who will thus be placed on an equal footing before the Court.
The bill clarifies and codifies the rules of law which will apply in the future to the production of documents in the course of legal action. But, where formerly their production might have been refused in the public interest, the rules of law provided for in the bill will allow the courts to decide on the merits of public interest by non-production, as opposed to public interest by proper administration of justice, subject to certain exceptions, such as national security, instead of having the government or a minister decide whether a document may or may not be produced.
March 25. 1970



The bill will also operate to increase the jurisdiction which has traditionally been exercised by the Exchequer Court of Canada. The court will, of course, continue to exercise its present jurisdiction in relation to industrial property, trademarks, patents and copyrights. It will administer the law of expropriation if Parliament in its good judgment passes the expropriation bill which is now before it. It will continue to be responsible for income tax appeals, estate tax appeals and appeals against decisions in citizenship cases. But it will also exercise new jurisdiction. For example, the new trial division of the federal court will exercise concurrent jurisdiction in relation to bills of exchange and promissory notes, in relation to aeronautics and in relation to works and undertakings extending beyond the limits of a province. This means that a member of the public will have resort to a national court exercising a national jurisdiction when enforcing a claim involving matters which frequently involve national elements.
In this way it will be possible for litigants who may often live in widely different parts of the country to find a common and convenient forum in which to enforce their legal rights. Consider what might happen after an unfortunate tragedy in connection with an aircraft. The passengers may reside in various provinces. Instead of being obliged to institute cases in the province which may have particular jurisdiction, all the claimants will be able to decide on a common forum, thus eliminating duplication of effort, and obtain one judgment.
I should mention also that the bill will give the trial division of the federal court jurisdiction in relation to persons and claims beyond provincial boundaries. Canada, as an international personality, enjoys rights and jurisdiction beyond the territorial limits of the provinces, and there must be a court that has competence to administer the rule of law in that regard.
As a result of the offshore mineral cases decided by the Supreme Court some years ago, provincial boundaries are held to extend only to the low-water mark. I suppose that according to the terms of the judgment this decision would be limited to British Columbia, but there are those who feel the judgment could be more widely interpreted. In any event, in terms of pollution control, in terms of admiralty jurisdiction, in terms of conflict over royalties and oil rights, or litiga-
Federal Court Bill
tion involving similar matters beyond the territorial jurisdiction of provincial courts, a way is now open to litigate in the new federal court.
The bill also has important ramifications from the standpoint of navigation and shipping. The ancient and unsatisfactory Admiralty Act is to be repealed and the jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Exchequer Court on its admiralty side will from now on be exercised by the trial division of the federal court. The admiralty jurisdiction has been clarified and extended in relation to such matters as ships' mortgages, through bills of lading and state-owned ships.

Several other provisions in Bill C-192 should be stressed, but I must limit myself to the main points. With regard to the very structure of the courts, I should perhaps mention that the right of appeal from the court of first instance to the federal court of appeal entails no restrictions.
However, an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada can be brought by right, when the value of the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000, or with the authorization of the Supreme Court or the Federal Appeal Court.
It should also be pointed out that the new Federal Court of Canada will be presided by a Chief Justice and an Associate Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will be the president of the Court of Appeal and ex officio a member of the Trial Division, while the Associate Chief Justice will be the president of and a member of the Trial Division and ex officio a member of the Court of Appeal.
Transitional provisions stipulate that the persons who, at the coming into force of the new legislation, were holding the office of judges of the Exchequer Court, will continue in office as judges of the new Court so that their independence and security are preserved.
Furthermore, the bill provides that the Federal Court of Canada will consist at the most of twelve judges, including the Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice. Finally, four at least of these judges, that is at least one third of them, will be chosen among members of the Bar or the Queen's Bench of the Province of Quebec.

I should like to mention briefly the new provisions dealing with the publication of the

March 25, 1970
Federal Court Bill
official reports of the decisions of the court. At the present time the law is wholly silent with regard to the publication of the official reports of the Exchequer Court of Canada, and I have concluded that steps should be taken to provide new procedures for the publication of these reports. To this end, the bill will permit a person holding the office of Attorney General of Canada to appoint an editor and a committee of not more than five persons to advise the editor on the publication of the official reports of the court. The bill expressly provides that each decision reported in the official reports shall be published in both official languages.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to one other provision of the bill which provides that judges appointed after the coming into force of the act will cease to hold office upon attaining the age of 70 years. Consequential changes are to be made in the Judges Act, including those provisions that provide for judicial annuities or pensions.
Although it is recognized, particularly in the atmosphere of today's House of Commons, that views differ in relation to the proper compulsory retirement age of judges, and while it is recognized that exceptional men perform important and useful judicial services after the age of 70 years, it is, I believe, generally felt that we should not in this matter legislate for the exceptional, of whom there are no doubt many, but that we should seek to find the rule that will in its application substantially favour and improve the administration of justice in this country.
This change in the law can be made without any constitutional amendment since we are not dealing here with judges who were appointed pursuant to section 96 of the British Nor'.h America Act. Hon. members will doubtless remember that in 1960 an amendment was made to the British North America Act to provide for the retirement of provincial superior court judges at age 75. Before that amendment the only retirement was the grave. Although a few questioned the wisdom of that change in the constitution, and although some may question the change in judicial retirement now proposed, I am of the view that this change represents an important step in the right direction.
If this House moves the bill forward, I am sure that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will want to study its provisions very carefully. It is a complicated

piece of legislation that involves fundamental changes in structure, fundamental extensions in jurisdiction, and makes what I believe is a very important advance in the public administrative law of this country.
I have had the benefit of consulting a number of leading practitioners and academics in law schools who are familiar with the practise of law before our administrative tribunals and the general principles that I hope to introduce in this bill. In addition, I have through the courtesy of the Canadian Bar Association, who allowed me to use their Addressograph facilities, sent out a mimeographed letter to all 13,000 members of the Canadian Bar Association asking them for their comments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not advice?


John Napier Turner: For their
comments.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): You would be charged if you asked for their advice.


John Napier Turner: I am using the absolute privilege of saying that there is no charge attached to any of my words. As the hon. member for Greenwood knows, I did a similar exercise in regard to the expropriation bill. Some 1,200 lawyers asked for a copy of the bill; 400 replied, some in quite significant detail on technical aspects of the bill that perhaps we had not anticipated. There were significant improvements made in the expropriation bill as a result of lawyers across the country writing to me or to some of the members of the standing committee. I hope the same benefit of the advice of the profession can be given in a technical way to this bill.
Again, I believe that this is a further step toward balancing the rights between the citizen and the state, providing some sort of recourse against bigness, remoteness, alienation, distance from the decision-making power. I believe it will give the average citizen the power to enforce his rights against the government and against the structures that government sets up.
This is not the final step by any means. I hope that when this House has the opportunity to consider the report of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) on statutory instruments, Parliament will have a permanent basis for reviewing regulations made pursuant to statutes.
March 25, 1970

This bill adds a further dimension by allowing the courts of the country to ensure that administrative tribunals and federal boards are exercising their jurisdiction within that jurisdiction and in accordance with the law as set forth by Parliament, and without interfering with, interjecting or substituting policy or administrative discretion. I think that we in Parliament may have to look into an administrative procedures bill some day that will set minimum standards of procedure for these federal tribunals to ensure that federal boards and commissions operate procedurally in accordance with the principles of fair play and what the courts have called the principles of natural justice.
In any event, this measure does go some considerable way, I hope, toward improving an area of the law that has always been vague under the common law-public administrative law, the relationship between the courts and federal tribunals, and between the Crown and the citizen. I look forward to hearing what other members of the House will have to say about the matter.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a rather interesting day in the House of Commons. Perhaps it is of more significance to those of us who are lawyers because we are dealing with this very important measure, but it is also significant because two lawyer members of the House have received a tribute from everybody here. I refer to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith).
Ordinarily the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) would be replying to the Minister of Juctice (Mr. Turner). This is because the hon. member for Calgary North scrutinizes the Minister of Justice whereas I scrutinize the Solicitor General. However, the hon. member for Calgary North cannot be here today, and I think this is the kind of day on which it is safe to let the Solicitor General disappear from one's view for a while. I hope that after 30 years in the House he has earned at least some small celebration. As a matter of fact, I am going to be irreverent enough to hope that either the Solicitor General or the right hon. member for Prince Albert has bought the other a beer-just one beer; I do not want to be extravagant-and perhaps they are sharing it from two straws.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
don't know them very well.
Federal Court Bill


Robert Jardine McCleave: In any event, I join in the appreciations that have been expressed of their total of 60 years distinguished service.


Mr. Bigg:: And sobriety.


Robert Jardine McCleave: And sobriety. I think I know them well enough for that. Certainly they will be perfectly safe company for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) during an evening.
I think the minister is right in changing the name of the Exchequer Court since it has embraced wider purposes than those for which it was originally established. I have put down the irreverent note that we should call this bill the son of the Exchequer Court Act, but that is not really so; rather it is the creation of something that has the flexibility of provincial supreme courts, their ability to move about the country and exercise jurisdiction in certain fields. The aeronautics example given by the minister is probably as good as any. In this regard there will be no controversy. If there is controversy at all when the bill is examined in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, it will be as to certain of its details. In making a few remarks this afternoon I should like to mention one or two matters that bother me and my associates, so that the minister and his officials will have the chance to look at these points over the recess. I should also like to make a pitch for one important amendment to the schedule, one which I think could be made and would be very helpful to a lot of people to whom the new Divorce Act does not apply.
The minister has made much of the provisions of clause 28 concerning appeals from federal boards and commissions to the new federal court of Canada. I think this is an important step. However, I think its application will be a lot broader than the minister suggested. From reading the clause I would have thought some pretty good appeals could be launched on findings of fact, if only to determine whether those findings of fact were erroneous or not, in addition to whether they were perverse or capricious. All in all, I think the provisions relating to appeals from administrative boards, commissions, tribunals, and so on, are very generous and that anybody who feels aggrieved by decisions handed down by such tribunals will really be able to have his day in a federal court.
5476	COMMONS
Federal Court Bill
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
One thing on which I should like to question the minister-which of course will be a matter taken up later in committee-is whether there was any consultation with the provinces in respect of this change from the limited amount of appeal or scrutiny that exists by provincial supreme courts over decisions of federal boards, and so on. I believe we could get into a field, where provincial supreme courts would be scrutinizing the actions of provincial boards and tribunals and where a federal court would be doing likewise. One would hope common practice could develop. Also, I would hope the provincial legislatures might show the lead. The minister has suggested that a similar type of appeal should exist so that there would tend to be uniformity. Because administrative law is the fastest growing part of the law, I think it is important to have as much uniformity as possible.
The minister mentioned the work of the Statutory Instruments Committee headed by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and recognized, I believe, quite fairly that we still have not yet reached the stage in this Parliament where we have scrutiny of regulations, Orders in Council, rules and examinations which direct changes of patterns of behaviour of people or corporations. We still have nothing like that in Parliament.
The report tabled by the hon. member on the very last day of the last session sets forth pretty useful remedies, I think. I hope we will get around to it sooner rather than later. I say this particularly because I believe scrutiny as a process is probably a pretty good thing. Perhaps this would provide for correction early in the game so that a person who may feel himself aggrieved by the actions of a federal board or commission would not have to shoulder the rather costly burden of taking his grievance to a federal court in order to seek a remedy. I think the minister agrees with my argument in that regard.
I shall move on very quickly because I understand we will probably hear a knock on the door in 45 minutes' time and I know other members wish to speak. I shall shorten my remarks considerably. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make this point for the minister through you. I think the provisions set forth in clause 31, in respect of a $10,000 floor on the amount involved before an appeal could be considered, will be seriously questioned in the committee. Also, I believe the

DEBATES	March 25, 1970
provision in the same clause in respect of the appeal being to the Supreme Court of Canada by leave of the federal court will be questioned in the committee. I think there will be considerable questions on these two points. We will also have questions concerning clause 41-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the hon. member if he is aware that the $10,000 figure is to be in harmony with the amount already involved in an appeal from a provincial superior court. Is he also aware that leave can be granted by the Supreme Court of Canada itself at any time?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, I think I can say I am aware of both those points, but I do have objections for the reasons I state. I may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness on both points, but in any event I thank the minister for his interjection. Perhaps in my hurry I am omitting the preamble and other important statements, as I did today in respect of a question relating to first-class mail service.
I think the provision that the minister may declare that certain documents should not go before a federal corut represents a power which could be abused. I think that from a practical viewpoint we will have to examine that provision pretty carefully in the committee. One thing that delighted me is perhaps a small point. I refer to the provision that a person who has received an adverse decision of the court cannot be taken into custody under process of execution for debt. In some provinces it is still possible to issue a capias and put someone in jail. I think this is a good, civilized step. I do not suppose anyone has gone to jail for evasion of a federal statute. Perhaps they have, so I had better be careful.
In the schedules there is a reference to a change in the Divorce Act which rather interested me. I have a point in this regard. I hope the minister will consider it before the bill goes to the committee. This change would permit the federal court to hear both petitions for divorce if the two parties should file their petitions on the same day. This is a neat way to deal with such a problem. I have no quarrel with that. However, the point I wish to make is that there still are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Canadians-certainly all those Canadians who are temporarily out of Canada-who do not now have a remedy under the Divorce Act of Canada because they simply do not qualify under the residence requirements of that act. It seems to me that obviously they would have the
March 25, 1970

remedy of coming and humbly knocking on the doors of the other place and going through the procedure there which we have had for many years. I am quite convinced they could do that, because this is the court of last resort when there is no remedy in the other courts.
In cases where jurisdiction is in doubt, or in cases where there is a difficulty in respect of the residence requirement of the Divorce Act, the federal court, by a change in the schedule, could handle these cases and thereby save people considerable expense. A point which particularly appeals to me is, as the minister pointed out, that the federal court will go to the people and not be anchored here in Ottawa where it would be remote from the lives of Canadians. I understand it will function in all the provinces and in the territories. The appeal court, likewise, will be in these places so that the people may realize the majesty, if I may use that phrase, of the federal court.
These are some thoughts I have. By and large I hope I have left the impression-I certainly intended to do so-that I think this measure deserves the generous support of members of the House. It is a very important step forward to create a federal court. I would hope we will all unite to give this very important undertaking our unanimous blessing.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention today to disturb the harmonious and almost placid atmosphere that prevails in the House. I think that this is important but highly technical legislation. The appropriate time for serious discussion of this bill undoubtedly will be when it is before the committee. So far as this party is concerned, I undertake that when the matter reaches committee our representatives will do their best to give it a searching examination, because I think it must be accepted that in respect of a bill as sweeping as this in many respects-a bill which could have a very great impact on the property and lives of Canadians, and sometimes an unintended impact-we must exercise the utmost care.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
As I read the act, there is in it a vast extension of jurisdiction to the federal court. The court is to be reorganized, and we welcome this feature of the legislation. If there has been a complaint about the Exchequer Court in the past by litigants and by counsel involved before it, it has often concerned the
Federal Court Bill
apparent remoteness of the Exchequer Court which usually, although not always, sat in Ottawa, and also about the high level of expense that was often involved in conducting litigation therein. But the proposed reorganization is to make the court more accessible and, I hope, when the rules are written, less expensive. If this is so, it will be a great gain.
The success of the court will depend, as the success of other courts depends, upon the quality of the people appointed to preside over the court. I want to take this opportunity-and sometimes I hate to do it as a partisan member of this House-to commend the minister for the high and non-political nature of the appointments he has made to the bench.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will not go into detail, but I hope he is setting a tradition which will last a long time. The appointment of people for purely political and regional considerations is not good enough. It has happened in the past, although I do not think it has happened while this Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has held office. As we are creating a new federal court I hope we will continue to have a rule which will ensure that the appointments are made on non-political grounds, on the grounds of capacity to do the job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No
more Liberals.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think we could have a few Liberals in the court: small "1" liberals especially are badly needed. The most interesting feature of this legislation, in my opinion, is the novel extension of the power of review and control over the findings of boards, commissions and tribunals of a federal nature. It seems to me a very sweeping jurisdiction. I do not want to go into the details of the bill at this point, but I think I detect some confusion-at least it seemed confusing to me- in the bill.
Clause 18 deals with the exclusive original jurisdiction of the trial division to issue injunctions and various other forms of proceeding against any federal board, commission or other tribunal. It seems to me that the language of clause 18 is extraordinarily broad. There seems to be no limit to the degree of control that the trial division is said to exercise under clause 18. Yet when we come to clause 28 which deals with the juris-

March 25. 1970
Federal Court Bill
diction of the appellant tribunal, we find what to me is a confusing provision. The clause reads:
Notwithstanding section 18 or the provisions of any other act, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application to review and set aside a decision or order, other than a decision or order of an administrative nature-
Three alternatives are placed there: the failure to observe a principle of natural justice or a refusal to exercise jurisdiction, errors in law, and perverse or capricious findings of fact without due regard for material before the court. It seems that a much more limited power is conferred on the appellant tribunal under clause 28 than is conferred by clause 18 on the trial division.
I do not know whether the words "notwithstanding section 18 or the provisions of any other act" mean that clause 28 supersedes clause 18. This may be the intention, but I suggest it is not clear and that clause 18 standing by itself seems to give a very wide and extensive power of review. I think these two clauses should be harmonized.
Again, the confusion seems to me to be compounded by clause 28 (3) wherein the court of appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application to review a decision, and the trial division has no jurisdiction to entertain any decision or order. I could understand it in cases where the court of appeal has exercised or assumed jurisdiction, but to say that it has jurisdiction although the trial division has none, when clause 18 appears to give a wide and sweeping jurisdiction, seems to me to be wrong. I think we have to give careful attention to both sides of the coin.
I agree with the principle that decisions of so-called inferior tribunals, tribunals with judicial and quasi-judicial powers, should be subject to review. I believe it important that that review be properly and clearly limited, because I think there are very serious dangers that judicial decisions can cause delay and vast expense.
I remember hearing of a case in the United States which had to do with labour relations, the right to be certified and to represent employees, which took four years to go through the various stages of decision in the courts. By the end of the four years the situation being reviewed had totally changed. The effect of allowing too many appeals and too wide a ground for appeal was to tie up the beneficial purposes of the legislation which, for very good reasons, conferred the powers

on an expert tribunal. That is a side of the case that must be considered. I hope that when the committee studies this bill it will look at all the cases to see whether we may not have gone too far in this matter.
Just the other day in the Supreme Court of Canada there was a decision relating to labour relations with which I imagine the Minister of Justice is familiar, I would not criticize, if I could, their legal grounds for the decision, but I understand its practical effect is to throw Labour Relations Boards all over Canada into a state of utter confusion. I think that was the Metropolitan Life case. This is a danger that has to be observed when dealing with this matter.
I would like to mention one or two other details before I sit down. Clause 21 deals with an exclusive original jurisdiction vested in the trial division to hear and determine appeals under the Canadian Citizenship Act. These are appeals from Canadian citizenship courts. I call the attention of the minister- this may not be entirely in his jurisdiction because other departments are concerned with it-to the fact that in most practical matters of citizenship there is no appeal at present. Under section 10 of the Canadian Citizenship Act the minister is given the discretion at his own will to refuse a citizenship certificate without giving any reason or any hint as to why he has so acted. Many people who belong to cultural organizations which may have left wing tendencies, people among us who are politically minded, or even people who belong to cultural organizations are denied citizenship by a fiat of a political officer, namely the minister, presumably on security grounds.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
These are people who have been in this country for many, many years. It is most unsatisfactory to have to go to them and say, "The minister cannot tell us or will not tell us why he is exercising this jurisdiction. We do not know whether justice is being done or not; we cannot tell you."
I believe that the recent Royal Commission on Security suggested that there be a review board. I believe there can be a review board on this very important matter of jurisdiction. I remember that even during the perils of war, when people were interned on security grounds, a procedure was evolved whereby not all the security details and the sources were disclosed to them, but particulars were given of the basic reasons for their intern-
March 25. 1970

ment, even though these were security reasons. A certain procedure by way of review was vested at that time, I think in the hands of county and district court judges. As I say, this was in wartime.
I do not believe there is any good reason why at this time people should be denied the right to citizenship in this country when very often the right is not of any great practical value but is of immense emotional importance to the people concerned. I do not think citizenship should be denied without any right of appeal. I point out that clause 21 does not deal adequately with that matter, and it is one which must be dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who preceded me and spoke for the Progressive Conservative Party, I express my reservations, indeed more than reservations, in regard to clause 41(2) of the bill. This clause deals with the important question of secrecy and the disclosure of documents when it is alleged that disclosure is not in the public interest. I think that clause 41(1) satisfactorily and adequately sets out the law as I understand it to be at the present time. It gives the court the ultimate right to inspect documents and decide whether the public interest is more strongly on the side of disclosure or non-disclosure, and I suggest that is where the responsibility should be.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question which might allow me to clarify a point made by him and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Is he aware that the section he has recited really reverses the present state of the law as determined by the House of Lords case of Duncan v. Cammell, Laird which is followed in Canada, namely, that a minister's certificate to the effect that it would not be in the public interest to publish a document will govern and take precedence over a judge's discretion? We reverse this and allow the judge to go behind any certificate, except as subclause 2 says where publication would be injurious to our national security, international relations, federal-provincial relations or would disclose a confidence of the Privy Council. But, in general, we are reversing the whole state of the law and making the production of documents at the discretion of a judge.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am afraid the minister's intervention illustrates the difficulty which always arises when two lawyers get into a
Federal Court Bill
legal discussion, because I have never believed, and do not believe that the decision in the Duncan v. Cammell, Laird case, which has been severely criticized judicially in many different courts, sets out the law of this country. If it did, I believe the minister would be perfectly right. But starting from a different premise to him, I believe that the proper law is as set out in subclause 1, and I do not think it makes any difference. I have said I commend subclause 1, but I do not commend subclause 2 which gives an absolute right to a minister of the Crown by affidavit to prevent the discovery of documents, not only on the vague and general grounds of it being injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations-


Mr, Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That happens every day.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I don't know what would be injurious to federal-provincial relations, but if the minister's ipse dixit, his say so, is to prevail on this question, I feel the opportunities for maintaining secrecy will be carried on. What is wrong with letting the courts, as provided in subclause 1, look at the thing themselves? Surely we can trust the judges that the minister will appoint to the new federal court. Surely we can trust that they will exercise sound discretion. But if this provision preserves an absolute right, it may very well be abused. It has been abused sufficiently in the past to make it justifiable for us to think that it probably will be abused in the future.
If I had time I could cite to the minister case after case of judicial decisions, both in England and in other jurisdictions, where they have spoken about the tendency of the official mind to put a cloak of secrecy around some of their own proceedings when it would be far better, in the public interest, that these things be disclosed. I suggest we can properly leave that question to the courts and that subclause 2 should be deleted from this bill.
There is one matter in which I have been particularly interested. It has to do with the Immigration Appeal Board. Now that the appeal does not lie with the Supreme Court of Canada-it lies with a different tribunal-I would have hoped that the same provision which exists in clause 31 with respect to appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada might be introduced into the new section 23 which is in the schedule, and that that provision would give a right of appeal where the

March 25, 1970
Federal Court Bill
question involved is not one of fact alone. I suggest that the formula used in clause 31 might very happily be introduced into section 23 dealing with appeals from the Immigration Appeal Board.
I am delighted that the net effect of this legislation seems to be to relieve the Supreme Court of Canada of a very heavy or case burden. It seems to me that in the past the Supreme Court of Canada has often been involved in dealing with matters that should not have been before it, sometimes relatively small matters. I know that in the Supreme Court of the United States, another great institution, at least 90 per cent of the cases are of a constitutional nature or have to do with the rights and liberties of individuals.


John Napier Turner: Or interstate matters.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I believe our Supreme Court of Canada should eventually be performing a similar function. I do not have any doubt that as this place remains busy and legislates, there will be plenty of opportunity for the Supreme Court of Canada to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction. I am glad this bill seems to move in that direction.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we support the general principle of this legislation. All I can do is repeat what I said at the opening of my remarks, that when this bill comes before the committee, the representatives of our party will do their best to submit it to a searching examination to make sure that the excellent intentions that are involved in it are in fact enacted in the wording of the law that Parliament will be asked to pass.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed that the speeches today on this bill have been relatively short. I think the reason is that so far those who have taken part in the debate have been lawyers, and you know, Mr. Speaker, the first admonition of a lawyer is never to talk for nothing- always be paid for it. I do not intend to break that very good rule or legal practice, and I shall be very brief.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) mentioned the problem arising with regard to clause 41 and especially subclause 2. The argument went something like this, that there is no reason to disallow the court or the judges to delve into the secrecy or the rea-

sons for the certificate on national security, and so on. As the hon. gentleman from Greenwood said, surely we can trust judges to delve into this question.
I put it to these hon. gentlemen and to the committee that will be considering this bill that having gone into the reasons for the secrecy, what shall the judges do then? Shall they put in their judgment the reasons why such a document is secret? Shall they disclose it, or sit in camera and not give any reasons? If they give no reasons, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the role of the judges because then there will be suspicion that somehow there was a political connection and the judges acted in concert with the minister.
I should like the hon. member for Greenwood to reconsider his stand on that matter and consider what would happen if, first, the judges had gone into the reasons why a document was secret and did not publish their reasons. What would the hon. gentleman have said then? And second, if they did not publish the reasons because-


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Steven Otto: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would he not feel that a judicial mind would be a greater degree of security to a person concerned with the document, and that he would be more likely to accept this than a political judgment by a political officer?


Steven Otto: I think I would. I think the hon. gentleman would accept the judge's opinion in blank; that yes or no, it is a secret document and should not be published or produced. But a suspicion may still hover in the minds of many other citizens that possibly the judge's decision was not correct, and the same thing could come up again. As it stands, the bill gives much better protection.
The point I want to bring to the minister concerns clauses 19 and 32. The details of the bill be gone into very thoroughly by the committee, but here we are proposing to continue giving constitutional jurisdiction to our Supreme Court. I daresay that is not a good idea for Canada, for the Confederation that we have. It may be a perfect solution to a constitution such as the American constitution and the republican system and it may be good for other nations. However, if we consider our experience in Canada, I wonder whether Supreme Court decisions rendered
March 25, 1970

in regard to constitutional jurisdiction have been beneficial to the unity of Canada or to our whole structure.
We now find that we cannot amend the British North America Act by a mere majority of the House and the Senate, as was originally anticipated, because over the years the Supreme Court has ruled certain things within and others without the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments. It also rules, or practically has ruled and now it is accepted, that we must have the consent of the provinces. These were court decisions that we must have the consent of the provinces in order to amend the constitution, otherwise we would have repatriated it a long time ago.
I think the Supreme Court has a great role to play if there is any dispute between a citizen and the state. The Drybones case was probably the first example of where the court exercised this jurisdiction. As most hon. gentlemen know, this was the case of an Indian who was prosecuted under the Indian Act for being drunk in a hotel. The final court decision was that according to the Bill of Rights, which is in our parliamentary library and is bedecked with red ribbons, the punishment was wrong. The decision was that unless there is federal legislation specifically excluding the Bill of Rights, it shall stand. The minister is nodding at me but he might remember that in the Criminal Code, with regard to the breathalyzer test there was no specific exclusion of the Bill of Rights. While it says in the Bill of Rights that a man shall not be forced to incriminate himself-


John Napier Turner: By statement.


Mr.   Olio@: I have very grave doubts about the position of the Supreme Court on constitutional matters. I am much more likely to subscribe to the viewpoint expressed at times by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that there is going to be a meaningful role for the Senate. I know some hon. members would like to do away with the Senate, but that will not happen and a meaningful role can be given to the Senate with respect to just that question, the jurisdiction as between provinces and the federal government. Things change, and with a division of power over a period of 20, 30 or 40 years the whole structure of Canada will change and somebody will have to decide whether one area is no longer to be under the jurisdiction of the federal government and should be under the jurisdiction of the provinces, or vice versa.
Federal Court Bill
For example, today we have the Trent Canal and the Rideau Canal system still under the jurisdiction of the federal government because it was originally a defence measure. Surely that is no longer so and it could easily be transferred to the provinces. But who is going to decide whether such use has expired? I strongly support the view that if the Senate is made up of members on a provincial participation basis, there should be no reason why it should not have that very important role, to decide or keep under constant review the question of jurisdiction. I would much rather see that than have this role continuing with the court.
I understand, of course, that the minister cannot remove this function or jurisdiction from the Supreme Court at the present time because there is no other agency. But I should not like it to be too solidly established in the minds of the people of Canada, and possibly in the mind of the court, that this is the strongest position they can assume. I do not believe that in Canada it should be their main role.
With these remarks I should like to support the bill and join with others who complimented the minister. We know the amount of work he put into this measure and the arguments he has had in connection with it. I hope the committee gives it careful consideration and that it passes.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, with my eye on the clock I shall keep my remarks brief. First, I want to say that the bill brings forward several new concepts in legal systems in Canada and gives more strength to the federal system, raising the status of federal courts and statutes. I believe it points up the great expansion of federal law-making in recent years and the extension of rules and regulations by the federal Parliament. Now it is necessary to recognize that while provincial courts are administered by provincial laws, there is a need for extensive and broad federal courts to deal with federal laws. I think this bill also recognizes the need for more direct means of access to the courts for people with complaints against federal government decisions and actions and, in fact, the increase in the number of such complaints that arise.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I shall refer to two points which have not been referred to by other hon. members. The minister might comment on them. The first relates to the question of veterans' disability

March 25. 1970
Federal Court Bill
pensions and appeals from Canadian Pension Commission decisions. The wording of the clause relating to jurisdiction with respect to appeals is very broad. It appears to give a right of appeal to the federal court of appeal from any federal court, board or commission. But the appendix to the bill does not mention the question of veterans' disability pensions or appeals from the Canadian Pension Commission. To that extent the bill contains an anomaly which ought to be cleared up, and I ask the minister to examine that aspect of the matter. I am also intrigued to see that marshals are to be ex officio officers of federal courts.


An hon. Member:: You can almost smell the gunsmoke.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The idea stems, I suppose, from our establishing in this way a federal presence; and we must distinguish and continue to distinguish in courts under federal jurisdiction, between the federal jurisdiction of marshals and the provincial jurisdictions of sheriffs. Will the minister advise us why it was necessary to include both marshals and sheriffs in the bill? Certainly, all this brings to mind the annals of the old American west.
We hope the provisions of this bill will not create the kinds of difficulties which seem to arise south of the border. There jurisdictional conflicts arise when people acting under the federal power step into areas that seem to lie within the jurisdiction of the local or city power. This causes me some concern. Although I wanted to make some other remarks, in the interest of seeing this bill pass I shall say no more.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I had in any event intended to be brief, and since there are only a few moments left for me to speak I am forced to be. I had intended to heap encomiums on the minister's head, and to describe the rungs in the ladder of law reform he is building. However, may I instead touch on several substantive points, including two raised by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).
It is true that there is a fairly complex relationship between clauses 18 and 28. Clause 18 apparently retains all the old rights to the prerogative writs and leaves jurisdiction over them in the hands of the trial division, while clause 28 relates to certain new rights of appeal. That clause would appear to supersede clause 18, if an appellant were to take advantage especially of 28 (3).

It can be argued that clause 18 is not necessary at all, and that clause 28 could even have eliminated all recourse to the old prerogative writs in matters pertaining to review of decisions of administrative boards. I think it is fairly safe to predict that clause 18 will not be used very much in the light of advantages of the appeal procedure stemming from clause 28. In fact, it is hard to imagine circumstances which might lead to review under clause 18 and not under clause 28. Therefore, it seems safe to predict that clause 28 will supersede clause 18 from the point of view of practice.
The hon. member for Greenwood also raised the question of the breadth of the grounds for appeal granted by clause 28. Possibly he also had in mind the question of the grounds for review under clause 18. When I was studying administrative law in law school some 12 or 13 years ago, the whole course was devoted to the question of prerogative writs and how to make certain that a case which had been heard by a board came before some reviewing body. Anyone who has experienced that kind of frustration in study or in practice will appreciate the advantages of the tidy and effective procedure provided by clause 28.
It seems that the minister and the department have hit a nice balance. They have not taken away the rightful and necessary freedom of action which a board must have in order to fulfil the purposes for which it was set up; at the same time they have provided that in cases where there is a violation of natural justice, where a body has operated beyond its jurisdiction or where there is an error of law, there is a right of appeal as laid out in clause 28.
I should like to deal with these matters in more detail, but considering the hour I will sit down and await the further proceedings of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, while I know this House abhors a vacuum of silence, since I have not suggested another item of business for the House to consider I wonder if we might not sit here in respectful silence until the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod knocks.


Robert Jardine McCleave: There you have it: the program of the Throne Speech is running dry already.
March 25, 1970

[DOT]	(5:00 p.m.)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
[DOT]	(5:20 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Parole Act.
An act respecting the labelling, sale, importation and advertising of consumer textile articles.
An act to amend the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act.
An act to establish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and regulate interprovincial and export trade in saltfish in order to improve the earnings of primary producers of cured cod fish.
An act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
An act to repeal the Deep Sea Fisheries Act.
An act 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.
An act respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicles and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicles im-
Royal Assent
ported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another.
An act to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.
An act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1970.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1971.
Mr. Speaker:: Before adjourning, I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that there will be the usual reception in room 16, where hon. members are invited, as well as members of the press and of course the staff of the House, to review the achievements of this part of the session and to plot the possible achievements of the second part of the session.

I am pleased, as I said a moment ago, to invite my honourable colleagues to come and fraternize at the Speaker's residence as soon as the House adjourns.

Pursuant to Special Order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m., Monday, April 6, 1970.
At 5.24 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.



END OF VOLUME V