1970-01-30

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I must again rise on a question of privilege. I do so with reference to a document that has come to all of us. It purports to be from my friend, Bruce Phillips, president of the National Press Club.
At the outset I should like to make it clear that all of us in this place know the difference between the National Press Club and the Parliamentary Press Gallery. As I say, this matter relates to the National Press Club which has its quarters in a government building located at 150 Wellington Street. This letter starts off as follows:
Honourable Members of the Senate and the House of Commons,
Gentlemen:
All of us received a copy of this letter. I checked with my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). She received it although it was just stuck in the box with no envelope. She does not know whether she is invited or not. She received the document but she is no gentleman. I understand the same dilemma obtains in respect of women members of the other place.
I know that in grammatical terms the masculine includes both masculine and feminine. I know that in the Interpretation Act the masculine is to be read both ways. But in the context of current events and in view of the fact that the National Press Club has in its constitution a ban on the admission of women to its membership and in view of the fact that this matter has been raised several times recently in Parliament, it seems to me this document is either an act of gross discourtesy to Members of Parliament, particularly the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and women members of the other place, or it is a calculated insult because of the questions we have raised about this matter.
The document is an invitation to all of us to attend an event which I should like to attend, for it has to do with recalling the anniversary of the night the House burned, but how can I? I point out that one reason for this question of privilege is that in the letter there is a specific request that the Speakers of both Houses and the leaders of all parties be in attendance. It seems to me that so long as the National Press Club practises discrimination we should consider seriously whether with propriety any of us, including Your Honour, can accept this invitation. I have not drafted a motion-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: You are seeking publicity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -because it could be that this document is a fraud. It could be that we should assume that the National Press Club would not be so stupid as to send this out. In that case maybe what is necessary is an investigation to find out how this document came into our possession. In any event, I believe the matter should be considered by all of us.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to advise the House that most of the delays and difficulties which have recently been experienced in the government pay system have now been resolved.
In making this statement I would like to express my thanks to several hon. members who have brought particular pay problems and particular cases to our attention.


Mr. Baldwin:: It is our pleasure.


James Armstrong Richardson: At this time I would like to report on the present position in the Central Pay Office and also on the government's plans for continuing to improve the pay process.
January 30, 1970
3018	COMMONS
Public Service Retroactive Pay Cheques
During the past year the government has signed 78 collective agreements covering 185,000 of its employees. In addition, the government has negotiated another 36 collective agreements for employees in Crown Corporations, boards and agencies. Most of these agreements include retroactive pay increases back as far as two years or more. This enormous volume of pay changes imposed an unprecedented burden on the departmental personnel officers and also on our paying offices. The size of this burden is made evident by the fact that during the last nine months of 1969 the Central Pay Office alone issued over 100,000 cheques for retroactive pay increases.
It should be emphasized that at no time did the government pay offices fail to process and to issue regular salary cheques on time. The delays which have been of concern to the government and understandably frustrating to some of its employees have been with respect to the delays in receiving increases in pay.
When the backlog of pay changes began to climb as a result of the increasing flow of collective agreements, a number of steps were taken. We employed 75 additional personnel, we worked an average of 3,000 hours a month overtime, and we strengthened the management of the paying offices.
The result of these actions was that by last November we were able to meet our initial objective of having the paying offices in a current position with respect to the implementation of collective agreements; that is to say, if some employees were not receiving on time retroactive pay increases due them under a collective agreement, the problem was not in the paying offices but in other areas of the pay process. Every effort has been made through the personnel offices of the departments and through the staff associations to identify such cases and to take immediate action.
As soon as we were up to date with the implementation of collective agreements we were able to turn our full attention to the processing of normal pay changes, that is, pay changes for employees who are promoted, who go on leave without pay, who retire, or who change their medical or other deductions. Every month our paying offices receive more than 75,000 pay changes of this type. The backlog of these normal pay changes had built up to a serious level, but I am pleased to be able to report to the House that it has been reduced steadily in recent weeks and
IMr. Richardson.]

that within the next few days the backlog will be down to a very small number of unresolved cases.
Now that the current difficulties have been overcome-I want to emphasize this-because of the hard work of many people in the departments and in the paying offices, we have an opportunity to undertake a fundamental examination of the pay system. To make the most of this opportunity, and to help make certain that the recent difficulties will not recur, I intend to engage a firm of Canadian management consultants to examine all aspects of the government's pay system.


Mr. Hees:: Here we go again, more Liberals on the pay roll.


James Armstrong Richardson: My intention is that our pay system should be re-examined in terms of its responsiveness to the present system of collective bargaining in the Public Service, in terms of its relationship to over-all government personnel policy, and in terms of the ease with which an individual can understand how his salary cheque is calculated. It is my hope that representatives of the staff associations will be actively involved in this examination to express the point of view of their members.
I hope I have made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that we intend to do everything possible to ensure that the pay system measures up to the high standards of the government and to the understandably high expectations of its employees.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ter North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the minister now feels that the Central Pay Office is in a current position with respect to the implementation of collective agreements. I wonder whether the minister is referring to agreements affecting employees in the Ottawa area or across Canada, for I was informed this week that 13 employees in my constituency have been waiting since last May for both their retroactive pay and increases under a collective agreement and, unless they received them in the mail today, are still waiting to secure the increases agreed upon.
The minister points out the large volume of collective agreements and the tremendous volume of changes in the amount employees have received both in pay increases and retroactive pay, but there can be no excuse for the very substantial delays that have developed between the signing of agreements and the date on which such increases have
January 30, 1970

been effected. The government knew what would transpire when the system was altered but, like everything else this government does, they did not prepare themselves for the situation that did in fact develop and as a result people have suffered and continue to suffer.
Now the minister informs us that the future will be bright because another firm of management consultants will be hired by the government to examine all aspects of the government pay system. At this late date the minister has decided that the whole pay structure system should be examined. If the government continues to hire management consultants at the present rate we will soon be informed that they are hiring a firm of management consultants to study the work of the multitude of management consultant firms they have retained to study the oversights they have failed to anticipate when they undertook changes. If management consultants were required by the Department of Supply and Services, they were required before and not after they got into this mess, and surely they should be able to determine now within the government service, and without the additional expense of outside consultants, what should be done. The Department of Supply and Services should be setting an example for other departments in examining and solving problems rather than shifting the onus to agencies outside the government to solve problems that should not have been allowed to develop with such severity and dislocation in the first place.
The minister must know that his explanation is far from satisfactory with regard to the inability of his department to deal with the situation that developed. Certainly the 185,000 employees know this to be the case.
Because of the inability of the government to anticipate the problems that would ensue the taxpayers of this nation have been burdened with the expense of an additional 75 employees and payment for 3,000 hours of overtime. This, Mr. Speaker, is just not good enough and indicates the inability of this government to cope with the problems of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of Supply and Services for providing us two or three hours ago with a copy of this statement and I thank him for making it in the House this morning.
DEBATES	3019
Public Service Retroactive Pay Cheques
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
Whether or not the delays and difficulties which have been experienced recently have been resolved will be established, I imagine, within hours. If it is true, we will not hear anything about the matter but if it is not true we will continue to hear from those who have not got their retroactive pay cheques.
Other than that initial comment, there are three brief remarks I should like to make. First, I join with the Minister of Supply and Services in criticizing the other areas of government that have been far too slow with respect to the matter of pay increases. As the minister has said on two or three occasions, he is only at the end of the pipeline. It is somewhere downstream, or upstream, that the delay has taken place. I earnestly hope that the business of getting collective bargaining going and pay increases put into effect will be speeded up and that the Minister of Supply and Services will not have to level this criticism against other areas of government.
The second of my three comments I suppose has been made for me by the preceding speaker. I, too, am afraid that this firm of management consultants will get in the way. We shall have to have more of them. In the end a white paper will have to be put out and, eventually, we shall have to have a reference to a committee. It seems to me that there ought to be a simpler way of straightening out this problem.
My third comment is that the paragraph I like best in the statement is the penultimate one which says:
It is my hope that representatives of the staff associations will be actively involved in this examination to express the point of view of their members.
I trust that the minister will turn that hope into an assertion. I have noted with interest the comments on this question which have been made, notably by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. They have made it clear that the main trouble is not with those who are working in the Central Pay Office but with the system, and they have ideas as to how the system can be improved. Their approach to this question is much more practical than that of management consultants. I hope the minister will not just hope that these people can get involved but will bring them in very actively and obtain their assistance in straightening out this situation so that these delays may be a thing of the past.
Public Accounts

January 30, 1970


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister lor sending us the French version of the statement he has just made.
We are pleased with the improvement mentioned by the minister and with the fact that the Treasury Board has always performed his task well. In his statement, the minister points out that the complaints by hon. members were given careful consideration. It is to the credit of the minister and for us encouragement to keep on asking for justice in Parliament.
We must, however, deplore the delay in payment of the 7 per cent premium to all bilingual employees. This delay, to my mind unjustified, does not further the cause of good understanding in Canada. I therefore urge the minister to give this problem special attention, particularly in the case of members of the House of Commons Protective Service who receive no recognition for being bilingual. It is so satisfying to French-speaking visitors to be welcomed in French in the parliament buildings that I feel special attention should be given to these guards who have long been deprived of something to which they are entitled.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the representatives of the parties with respect to a possible order of the House which would permit the Public Accounts Committee to complete the work it had under way during the previous session. I think there might be found to be general agreement for an order of the House in the following terms:
That a copy of the Minutes of the Proceedings and Evidence of, and all papers produced before, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts during the first session of the twenty-eighth Parliament in relation to the committee's inquiry into paragraph 101 of the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1967, be laid before the House and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
If there is agreement, Mr. Speaker, perhaps that could be made an order of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have also been discussions among representatives of the parties in respect of the work of the Maritime Forces Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I think there might also be agreement to the following order:
That the members who comprise the Subcommittee on Maritime Forces of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be granted leave to travel outside Canada between February 15 and February 17, 1970, namely to Norfolk, Virginia, for the purpose of visiting the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, and Washington, D.C., and that the necessary supporting staff accompany them.
Perhaps that could also be made an order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to the order in the terms proposed by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights and privileges of every member of the House.
At nine o'clock this morning the Minister of Fisheries held a press conference outside this House, and at that time he made a statement on the Atlantic coast seal fishery and the outcome of discussions he has held on this important matter with the Norwegian Minister of Fisheries. I contend that the Minister of Fisheries, in following this course, has been discourteous to the elected representatives of the people of Atlantic Canada and to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We are thereby prevented from replying to his statement. By making the statement outside the House the Minister of Fisheries has held Parliament in contempt. This is not the first time the minister has acted in an arbitrary manner with regard to announcing regulations of concern to the sealing industry. In fact, he completely ignored a
January 30, 1970

unanimous recommendation by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in respect of this industry which is of vital importance to the economy of Atlantic Canada.
In our opinion, if the Minister of Fisheries had any respect for Parliament he would have waited two hours more and made his statement in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising more on a question of privilege than in response to what one might call the substance of that charge. The hon. member has said that I have completely disregarded a recommendation of a committee of this House. Nothing could be farther from the truth. That committee recommended that the sealing hunt continue and it is continuing.


Mr. McGrath:: You have destroyed the industry.


John (Jack) Davis: It recommended protection by certain conservation measures. These precautions have also been incorporated in the arrangements we have made in recent months. We have followed the recommendations of the committee of this House to the letter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: A misleading and false statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for South Shore has raised a matter by way of a question of privilege. I think he will recognize that there is not a question of privilege. In any event there has been no motion proposed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In connection with the hon. member's purported question of privilege I would make the ruling that it is not a question of privilege and I should not think the matter should be pursued further.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order in reference to statements made on motions. In doing so I would refer to page 9 of the Standing Orders where the kind of statements that can be made is outlined. It is my personal view as a member
Inquiries of the Ministry of the House that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration yesterday and the Minister of Supply and Services today did not follow the rules of the House in respect of making brief and succinct statements of government policy. Nor did the members of the opposition follow the rules in commenting upon those statements. I believe it is most important that regulations affecting sealing on the east coast and salmon on the west coast are not dealt with at all times in the House. We have other things to deal with that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether that is a point of order. It is my impression that the hon. member is seeking to initiate a debate on a substantive question, and I feel that cannot be done either by way of a question of privilege or a point of order.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor West. It relates to the promised paper to supplement the white paper on tax reform. This supplementary paper, which it was promised would be issued before the end of January, has not arrived. Can the minister indicate to the House when the supplementary paper will be available to the House and to the people of Canada? I ask this question because of the obvious absurdity of the people of Canada having to consider the question of tax reform without knowing what the government's proposals are.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of the minister's words before the committee is that the paper in question could be expected probably by the end of January. Work is proceeding on it. I am sure it will be presented at the earliest possible date. I recall the minister saying that the paper was to set out various factors to be taken into account in considering one particular aspect of the white paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am disappointed that the minister cannot give us any idea when it will
3022	COMMONS DEBATES	January 30. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry be received. May I ask the minister also whether it is the intention to present a supplementary paper relating to modifications in the white paper consequent upon discussions with the provinces, it having been indicated that this might happen? Can the minister give us any information concerning when we may expect such a supplementary paper?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would think it would be more appropriate to hear evidence before the committee before proceeding along the lines my hon. friend is suggesting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder whether the minister could say whether it would be proper for us, until we receive these supplementary papers, to pretend that the white paper does not really exist or, indeed, whether the minister would encourage us to believe that eventually the government might withdraw the white paper and start all over again?



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the urgent and important matter of housing. The Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing has not been in the House for three days. I suppose I should address my question to the Prime Minister, or to any other minister who can answer a question on housing. When the minister makes his promised statement on public housing shortly, will he include a statement on the government's reaction to the proposal of the Ontario Housing Corporation for a study of revision and reduction of rentals for public housing?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to inform the House that when the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing is not present during this question period it is my responsibility to appear on his behalf, and I have been here on occasions earlier this week when he has been away on government business. I will certainly be pleased to draw the hon. member's question to the minister's attention. I am sure his question will be given consideration along with other important matters pertaining to this area of policy.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does the minister propose to make a statement to the House on Monday dealing with an increase in funds available for low-cost public housing?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to check with my colleague concerning the exact date of an announcement in this area. I believe it will come forward very shortly and I think will indicate the government's intention to give emphasis to this area of housing need.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Can he tell us whether the agreement with the Province of Quebec concerning the transfer of land for developing a national park in the Gaspe Peninsula is final, and whether work on the project is to start as planned?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement is final. However the Quebec government has not yet transferred that land to us and we can only start work if and when we are in possession of such land.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the minister advise the House whether or not he has met with members of the Quebec government with a view to arriving at an agreement concerning the mining rights inside the park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that problem was settled at the time of the agreement. In a national park, no mining or oil operations are allowed. That point should not have been raised recently for the agreement had provided for that.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whose remarks on strategy I listened to with interest this morning over the CBC. Is action being taken or has action been taken by the government of Canada to protect the interests of its wards, the Eskimo-Canadians at Fort Chimo, in respect of the transferring of authority over them to the
January 30, 1970

provincial government, particularly in respect of their right to the language of their choice in the schools and, generally, to what degree are these people being given the opportunity as Canadians to determine their course rather than being placed in the position of being pushed around like chattels?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the right hon. member that negotiations are under way and that the first condition we make, with regard to any transfer, is that the people who live in the New Quebec territories be free to worship as they please and to speak the language of their choice.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say with whom the negotiations are taking place, and will he also answer the question concerning why it is that decisions of this kind are being made without the consent of these Canadians of the Eskimo race who are entitled to be consulted and not to be pushed around?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is not true that decisions have been taken. Discussions are presently in progress and I am pleased to inform the right hon. member that a team comprised of one provincial and one federal official is now travelling through Canada. This team will visit New Quebec in order to consider what formulas could be adopted to ensure that the Eskimos will participate fully in Quebec and Canadian life.


John George Diefenbaker: Have these Eskimo people at Fort Chimo consented to being pushed around in this way?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: If they are not being pushed around, then why are they going up north to the Northwest Territories?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the right hon. gentleman knows the situation very well.


John George Diefenbaker: I have all the facts here. [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A few years ago we concluded an agreement to the effect that no
Inquiries oj the Ministry change of jurisdiction would take place unless the Eskimos participated in the discussions. That is exactly what we are doing now, by sending two officials to that region.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Unless they agree.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi. [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he received representations from parents in other New Quebec communities expressing their fear about the language in which their children will receive their education and can he assure us that Eskimos are kept well informed by Quebec authorities?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the hon. member that last summer, I visited four Eskimo and Indian villages in New Quebec. I heard the grievances of those citizens and I assured them there would be no jurisdictional transfer unless the protection of their language and religion was guaranteed.
We have undertaken other action to keep them better informed. We have invited Eskimos to meetings held in Quebec city, where federal and provincial officials were present. The proceedings have been translated in Eskimo, English and French, and have been sent to Eskimos for study. Discussions are going on at the moment, with the participation of one federal and one provincial official.


John George Diefenbaker: Why are they leaving there in such numbers?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister have his department make inquiries as to why a relatively large number of Eskimos have moved from Fort Chimo in view of the assurances given by the minister to the Eskimos that they would not be forced to change the language of their education?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the exact number of Eskimos who have emigrated from Fort Chimo to the Northwest Territories, but I shall try to get it. I know
Inquiries of the Ministry that two or three families left Suglic last winter, and all of them, except one, returned to Suglic last summer, to start living again in their community and with their fellow-citizens.



STONY CREEK-FORCED ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT PUBLIC SCHOOL

['I may indeed have opportunities to discuss the very important question of agricultural policy in England, Mr. Speaker, and the access to that market for Canadian wheat under a variety of circumstances in the future. I thank the hon. member for making the suggestion.']
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: I have a supplementary question to the minister regarding the rights of individuals to determine their own course of action. Is it still the intention of the government to force Indian children in Stony Creek, British Columbia, to attend the public school rather than the Roman Catholic school they have been attending for a number of years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker. By the way, an official from my department stated yesterday before the committee, that the Indians had the right to attend the school of their choice. Of course, a particular situation will soon develop there because of the increasing number of school-age children. Since there may be a shortage of school rooms next year, department officials have given to understand that it might be desirable that some pupils attend public school, but I can assure the hon. member that no family will be forced to have their children attend this school.



George Harris Hees: I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would he take the first opportunity on motions to advise the House of the results of the foreign policy review which he initiated nearly two years ago, in addition, of course, to the government's policy on NATO which was announced some time ago?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minisier):: Thus far the results are evident in the great deal of work done by the Department of External Affairs and by the ministers who are members of the cabinet committee that is studying the recommendations and reports.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister expect to take the House into his confidence in the

January 30. 1970
near future as to what the actual results are, and is he confident that the policy which members of the government are studying at the present time will be equally successful in antagonizing our principal allies and trading partners as our policy of withdrawing troops from NATO has been?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board arising from the press release issued by the minister's office yesterday in which the minister stated:
I am going to England next week to consult with our principal buyers there, not as a grain salesman, mind you.
My question is: What is the purpose of the minister's trip, or is he just going as a tourist?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question arises out of the question asked by the hon. member for Marquette. During the minister's stay in Britain, will he take the opportunity to discuss with that government the concern of Canadian farmers about the possible loss of markets, and will he report back on the stance the British government will take during negotiations for their entry into the European Common Market?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minisier without Portfolio):: I may indeed have opportunities to discuss the very important question of agricultural policy in England, Mr. Speaker, and the access to that market for Canadian wheat under a variety of circumstances in the future. I thank the hon. member for making the suggestion.



SCIENCE COUNCIL


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that Dr. Solandt has obviously come to the decision that he intends to remain as chairman of the Science Council of Canada, has the minister had any indication that Dr. Solandt is currently considering divesting himself of his

January 30, 1970

interests in the Electric Reduction Company of Canada as an alternative means of freeing himself from conflict-of-interest charges?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: No, I have had no such
indication.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are members of this House to conclude that Canada is so poverty-stricken in the field of science that Dr. Solandt is the only competent and capable scientist available to occupy this very sensitive post?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that her question is argumentative.



STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Is it the intention of the government to move shortly to implement the very important proposals and recommendations of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have had the proposals under consideration, and a draft proposal is now being completed which I hope will be available to the House before the end of the session.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister use what influence he has with the President of the Privy Council to speed up the process, and would he take into account the very alarming and dangerous increase in executive dictatorial powers contained in recent government legislation and the need to provide countervailing supervisory powers to Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish to inform the hon. member that I do not have that much leverage with the House Leader. He is always threatening to resign if I make him do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN PANARCTIC OILS LIMITED

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: have a question for the Minister of Indian
Inquiries of the Ministry Affairs and Northern Development. Can the Minister advise the House if and when he will be making a statement regarding the government's participation or non-participation, as the case may be, in the Panarctic Oil consortium?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I am unable to say when I shall make a statement, but the government is ready to make public its opinion on the matter. I hope to be in a position to make such a statement in the House next week.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether the government has had any firm offers for its share of Panarctic Oils Limited?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I replied a moment ago in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo that I would have a statement to make next week in this connection.



THE MINISTRY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the appointment of persons holding positions at the so-called regional desks in the Prime Minister's office to positions in departments in spite of the freeze on personnel hiring, will the Prime Minister advise whether the regional desk positions will remain vacant or does he contemplate making new appointments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that this question is urgent or that it should be asked at this time. I wonder if the hon. member might not consider the advisability of placing his question on the Order Paper.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
LISTING OF INGREDIENTS ON FOOD PRODUCTS Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of
January 30, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in view of his absence perhaps I can direct it to the Acting Minister, the Solicitor General. How soon may the Canadian people expect ingredient listing on food products?
George James McIlraith: 1 will be very glad to take the question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is for the able and cooperative Minister of Transport.


John George Diefenbaker: He must feel lost over there.


Robert Muir: In
view of the fact that only one icebreaker, the Wolfe is at present on the east coast where ice conditions, I am informed, are very hazardous, whereas the bulk of the icebreaker fleet is at present located on the St. Lawrence, will the minister investigate the situation and have it remedied in view of its urgency?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: We are reassessing ice conditions on a daily basis, and if it should prove necessary to put some vessels into the area in question we will be glad to do it. In the meantime, let me assure the hon. member that I will be delighted to keep the "Wolfe" at his door.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of reports following yesterday's meeting between the minister and the Ontario Minister of Energy and Resources Management, does the minister propose, in addressing the Standing Committee on National Resources on Monday, to announce amendments with respect to the Canada Water Act and particularly the payment of effluent fees?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I will be glad to bring the hon. member's

representation to the attention of the minister so that he can make an announcement on Monday if he so desires.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


George James McIlraith: On
Monday last the hon. member for Cape Bret-on-The Sydneys asked a question about the marine services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and I undertook to bring forward further information. The situation is that the method of control of these services both as to personnel and the responsibility for the use of the boats is being re-examined. The services will now report through the divisional command in the region in which the boats are being used. I might add that in addition two of the boats will be taken out of service this spring because they are obsolescent and not suitable for the purpose for which they are being used.


Robert Muir: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he would go further and assure the House that the mounties will be able to get their man on sea as well as on land?



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of reports that practically all of the wheat for the port of Churchill shipping season has been sold, will he consider making representations to his colleague the Minister of Transport to immediately extend the Churchill shipping season from its present short length of time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has this matter in hand for consideration. Certainly on our part we are always concerned to see that the port of Churchill is used to the maximum extent possible for the shipment of wheat.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of this and other indications that the port of Churchill will be used more extensively than was suggested in the recent report tabled by the minister, will he consider
January 30, 1970	COMMONS
using his good offices, particularly as a cabinet minister from the province of Saskatchewan, to urge that the development plan for the port of Churchill be speeded up from what is proposed in the report?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation; it is hardly a question.



POSSIBLE BRITISH ENTRY INTO ECM-REPRESENTATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER WILSON

John George Diefenbaker: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. During his discussions with the Prime Minister of Great Britain did he bring to the attention of Prime Minister Wilson the serious effects on Canadian agriculture that are bound to follow if the United Kingdom enters the European Common Market unless similar provisions are made to those agreed to by Prime Minister McMillan during my administration as Prime Minister to protect Canadian agriculture as well as that of Australia and New Zealand?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we did raise this general subject with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and I was greatly assisted in this endeavour by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The subject was discussed at some length and during the discussions the Prime Minister of Great Britain said that there had been no guarantees of that type given at the time of previous negotiations with the Common Market.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I say there were. They are fully set out and express rights were protected.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested to find out where they were set out. If they were not verbal, perhaps they were in documented form and if so I would like to have the reference.


John George Diefenbaker: All you have to do is look it up. So Canadian agriculture is to be sacrificed.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor
DEBATES	3027
Inquiries of the Ministry West whether he is in a position to answer the question I asked earlier in the week following a question addressed to the Minister of Finance a week ago on the attitude of the government toward the increase in Quebec-Ontario trucking rates and whether the government proposes to take any initiative at all in this regard?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to apologize to my hon. friend for not having the information here for him at this time but I will have the answer for him on Monday.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the genial Minister of Transport. The minister's Parliamentary Secretary took notice of this question on Tuesday during his absence. In view of current reports from the United States that the tremendous grain boxcar shortage in that country may result in legislation to rectify the situation, would the minister indicate if he is taking any steps to make sure that Canadian boxcars in use in the United States are being returned to Canada within the prescribed time limit?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of figures on the boxcar situation at the moment and I would be glad to make them available to the hon. member. I would also inform him at this time that the continuing discussions with the presidents of the two railways will go on. I should like to emphasize, as has my colleague the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt, the importance of getting as many cars back as possible.


Richard Russell Southam: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider a materially increased daily rental or demurrage charge on Canadian boxcars being used in the United States to ensure the speedy return of our rolling stock?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for the railways in the first instance, but I shall be very glad to discuss it with them at my next meeting which should be Monday or Tuesday.
3028	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



MOVEMENT OF GRAIN-FULFILLING BY RAILWAYS OF WHEAT BOARD ORDERS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: A supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious shortage of boxcars at many points in Saskatchewan and the serious lack of diesel units available to haul boxcars, could the minister now state whether there are any orders on hand issued by the Canadian Wheat Board that the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways have not been able to fulfil at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question does not permit a simple answer. First of all, the area is divided into two parts, the part fully within the block system and the part that is not. Within the block system orders are met on schedule according to the program laid out from week to week. In the case of the nonblock system, orders may be outstanding for some time before cars are spotted. The block system will be fully in effect, I think, by the end of February and at that time there should be complete order in the way in which cars arrive to pick up the orders.
The question of motive power available to the railways is one of very serious concern to us. We have had discussions with the railways to ensure that they will take steps to bring their motive power into position to handle the very large number of carload orders which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Could he advise the House if an agreement has been reached with the Quebec government respecting the international airport at St. Scholastique?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the airport is entirely within the competence of the federal government there is no necessity for such an official agreement. In

DEBATES	January 30, 1970
terms of our working agreements and relationships and in terms of the development of various parts of the land that has been acquired, I can say that negotiations are going forward amiably and, I think, profitably, and I would hope to be able to make a full statement on the matter on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question could have been supplementary to that asked previously by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and the answer provided by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the possible lack of accommodation for Indian children. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the Canadian government is providing funds for the building of a military college in Tanzania or any other foreign country?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Now that the minister by his arbitrary decision has effectively destroyed the Canadian seal industry contrary to the unanimous wishes of the Fisheries Committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not make a statement, he should ask a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I consider it to be a very serious question and not at all frivolous as some members across the way may think. My question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is: what steps will the government of Canada take to compensate the fishermen of the Magdalen Islands and Newfoundland who will suffer economic hardship as a consequence of the minister's arbitrary decision to ban the harvesting of white coat seals?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, after a record
January 30, 1970

number of ships have returned from the seal hunt this spring, we will see how they made out.



EXTENT OF SEAL HERD-CONSERVATION MEASURES

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a couple of supplementary questions. First, can the minister indicate the extent of the seal herd in the North Atlantic, especially since he has indicated that an increase of one million seals will reduce the incomes of Newfoundland fishermen by about 25 per cent? Also, could he indicate what will be the result of the conservation measures on the increase in the seal herd?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, scientists tell us that the present seal population is of the order of 2.5 million. If there were no harvesting of seals it would increase by 1.5 million. That increase would seriously affect our other fishery activities in the North Atlantic.


John Howard Lundrigan: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister make a statement on motions to indicate what measures will be taken either to increase or control the size of the seal herd, in view of the detrimental effect on other fisheries? Will he also indicate what negotiations have taken place with the Soviet Union in order that we may be assured that benefits to be gained from conservation measures will not end up in the pockets of the Russians, since its fishing fleet could conceivably prosecute the North Atlantic fishery?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the continuation of the seal hunt, and because only older seals will be taken, there will not be any difficulty in maintaining the herd at its present level. There will therefore, be no detrimental effect as a result of any recent steps taken. The Soviet Union participated, as late as 1964, in this fishery but we do not expect that it will in future.



ROYAL VISIT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. He was here a moment ago. Perhaps if I ask my question slowly he will return to his seat in time to answer it. In view of the forthcoming visit of Her Majesty to Canada this year, will any arrangements be made to grant a special amnesty to inmates in federal prisons? Will their time be reduced as a result of the exercise of the royal prerogative?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):
Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to consider the hon. member's suggestion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence, however, may I direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister?
Since Canada has received an invitation from Mauritania to attend the forthcoming conference on education, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has decided to send a delegation and, if so, what its make-up will be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the House in that respect. Federal officials, in co-operation with the provinces concerned, are now considering the make-up of a Canadian delegation.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether provinces other than Quebec have hinted that they would send some of their own representatives to that conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could not tell. There were representatives from two or three provinces in the previous Canadian delegations. That is likely to be the case this time, but I cannot give any assurance to the House. That will of course depend on the provinces themselves.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister look into a rather rare coincidence involving officials of his department? It seems that certain taxpayers recently visited by his tax officials were people who, just previous to the visits, had criticized the white paper on tax reform.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps that will explain why our western farmers have not been left free from the same course.
January 30. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster. If all those who have criticized the white paper on tax reform are being investigated by officials of the Department of National Revenue, I wonder if the minister would consider asking the Minister of National Defence for troops to cover the whole job?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Is the hon. gentleman in a position to table the decision of the CTC on improved air service for the prairies which he indicated last night would be available at ten o'clock this morning?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have both the judgment and the press release here and, if it is so wished, I will be glad to table them. Other copies will be available. However, if the hon. member wishes me to I will be glad to table a copy of the judgment.



LOWER PARES WITHIN CANADA

George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the President of Air Canada made it known publicly a couple of days ago that Air Canada is pressing very hard for lower transatlantic fares for the ordinary travelling public, is the government pressing Air Canada to make lower fares available to Canadians travelling in this country as well?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed this matter with the chairman of the board of Air Canada, but I am sure this is something that will come up in the near future. Of course, we must also make sure that the fares do not descend to the point where they become a drain on the general public. We must not reduce fares to the point where we have a deficit.



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, a little earlier during the ques-

tion period the Minister of Transport was receiving too much flattery for his own good. May I ask this procrastinating minister if he will make a statement with regard to changes in small vessel harbour administration on the British Columbia coast? He has been toying with this idea for many weeks, months-even years.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have been toying with it because it is a very complex problem. It has reached the point where we have designated certain harbours in British Columbia as being commercial harbours, others as being fishing harbours and still others as being pleasure harbours. I have handed the list over to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister of Public Works. If they agree with my assignment of categories, I am suggesting that these harbours be transferred from the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport to the jurisdiction of other related departments. This would be, from my point of view, good riddance.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be prepared to table in the House a list of the proposed designations he has referred to, so that the rest of us in the House may have a chance of looking at them?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member a map and let him make up his own list. I would also be glad to give him this list.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Do I understand from the minister's answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that the harbours referred to in British Columbia will now be transferred to three different federal departments, each of which will be responsible for a certain number of them? Will there not be some coordination in the application of harbour policy in British Columbia?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, what I said was, and I repeat, that there are harbours in British Columbia which I should like to come under the responsibility of various departments. Some are used only as fishing harbours, and it appears to me that they could be transferred from the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport to that of the Department of Fisheries. That is a matter we are now discussing.
January 30, 1970	COMMONS



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Waller C. Carter (SI. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister? Has he asked the law officers of the Crown to investigate whether there was an invasion of his personal privacy by news reporters stationed outside his home last night, at whom the Prime Minister threw snowballs? Also, is the Prime Minister providing snowmobiles for these newsmen this weekend so they may be able to keep up with his fast pace in private life?



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he advise the House if his department's officials have yet completed their investigation into the air crash near Wabush, Labrador, last year which claimed the lives of a number of officials of Churchill Falls Power Corporation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. The detailed study has not been completed. When it has been and has been handed to me, I will in due course release it in the customary fashion.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Will the minister undertake to have an investigation begun immediately into an accident that occurred recently near St. John's involving Canadian National snow clearing equipment?
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that such investigation is undertaken as a matter of course. If it has not been, I will see that the investigation is speeded up.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but
DEBATES	3031
Inquiries of the Ministry as the minister is absent perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary could answer it. Would the minister advise the House whether the Canadian government intends to make a similar recommendation to the International Joint Commission as that made by the United States government two months ago when it recommended that a moratorium be imposed on oil drilling in Lake Erie because of dangerous pollution possibilities?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, the minister is meeting today with the National Advisory Committee on Petroleum. This may be one of the subjects discussed at this meeting, and I will bring the hon. member's point to the attention of the minister.


Randolph Harding: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This very question was raised exactly two months ago. You asked me to put it on the ten o'clock show, which I did. I raised it the other night but neither the minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary were here to answer, even after arrangements had been made. Surely, a better answer than this should be forthcoming from the department.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, purely in the interests of trying to facilitate the business of this House by shortcircuiting numerous questions to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the coming week. I ask the minister to make a statement on motions at the earliest convenient opportunity, indicating what effect the conservation measures respecting seals will have on the fisheries resources in the Atlantic region. As members from Atlantic Canada, we are entitled to some assurance that this conservation measure will not in fact reduce our fisheries income-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because this is not a point of order. He has asked the minister whether a statement will be made. That is the type of question which might normally be asked during the question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: I did ask it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says he did not have time to ask-


John Howard Lundrigan: I did ask the question.

January 30, 1970
Canada Shipping Act Mr. Speaker: In any event, other questions cannot be asked now as the question period expired a few moments ago. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question on Monday and the minister might reflect on the matter between now and then.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I did ask the question but the minister gave us no indication of what the position is. Therefore I am trying to facilitate the business of the House. I should like a response to the question.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-10, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Bill C-10 deals, in the main, with amendments to the existing legislation provided in Part V of the Canada Shipping Act and includes an amendment to Part IV of the Canada Shipping Act.
The concept of a prepaid medical insurance and hospital insurance plan for ill or injured seafarers from vessels of foreign registry entering Canadian ports originated in the last century, in fact before Confederation, in the province of New Brunswick. The purpose of this plan was to set up a fund to defray the cost of medical and surgical treatment and hospitalization provided to a sick mariner and to prevent these costs becoming a charge on the community where such were incurred when the vessel set sail and left ill seamen behind.
At confederation, the responsibility for administration of this service was transferred to the federal government and was expanded to include other maritime provinces. This service was later extended, on an optional basis, to provide sick mariners benefits to crew members of Canadian registered fishing vessels. The fund to provide these services was accrued by the collection of dues, that is, a levy or a duty, calculated on the basis of the

tonnage of the vessel. Existing legislation provides for the collection of two cents per ton on the occasion of the first three entries in a Canadian port in the calendar year. It is obligatory for certain vessels, including foreign vessels, and optional to Canadian vessels engaged in the fishing industry.
Until the early 1940's, the revenues collected closely approximated the expenditures. During the 1940's costs spiralled; revenues remained fixed by statute and could not be adjusted to meet the increased costs. This disparity developed chiefly in respect of government vessels, fishing vessels of Canadian registry and vessels operating exclusively in Canadian waters. The government departments were requested to withdraw from the plan, which they did in 1956. In recent years, the revenue collected from foreign vessels has closely approximated the costs and, in fact, in some years has exceeded the expenditures. The over-all deficit incurred in operating the service has resulted from the provision of the services to crews of Canadian fishing vessels and vessels operating exclusively in Canadian waters.
Many changes in respect of medical care and hospital insurance have occurred since this legislation was enacted. A number of schemes for medical care insurance have been available to Canadians. With the advent of prepaid medical care insurance in some provinces, a considerable number of Canadian fishermen and mariners are adequately protected. In certain provinces, they may be protected by the provisions of the workmen's compensation board and in all provinces the provisions of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act are applicable.
Many changes in respect of the shipping industry have occurred as well. The small vessel with a large crew complement has been replaced by the large mechanized vessel with a small crew complement. In addition, medical care insurance plans are available to the owner of a vessel and many foreign shipping companies have taken advantage of these schemes to provide protection for their crews. As Canada is one of the few nations, if not the only nation, that provides sick mariners benefits, many shipping companies have appreciated the need to cover their crew with an insurance plan applicable in any port in the world. It is apparent that the obligation to pay dues in order to enter a Canadian port results in a duplication of these particular costs to the owner or agent of a foreign shipping company which, no doubt, contributes to increased transportation costs to Canadians.
January 30, 1970

The minister's decision to amend Part V of the Canada Shipping Act has followed deliberations within the department as a result of consultation with concerned colleagues in the Departments of Transport, Fisheries and Forestry, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Manpower and Immigration and Justice.
The amendments presented as Bill C-10 effect repeal of the provision to collect dues and to provide medical treatment without charge to ill or injured crew members from vessels of foreign registry but retain, on an optional basis, provision for the collection of dues and medical care to ill or injured seamen from a Canadian vessel engaged in the fishing industry, providing these services are not available by reason of a federal-provincial cost sharing agreement under the Medical Care Act. The plan has never operated in either of the two northern territories nor in the inland waters of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta.
In the event a sick mariner from a foreign registered vessel is not covered by a medical care insurance plan, it is deemed necessary to amend Part IV of the act by the addition of a clause requiring ship owners to take responsibility for costs of health care to crews.
To summarize, we have legislation which was enacted, in the main, for two reasons. One of these reasons is now almost non-existent, the other is now thwarted. It is proposed to continue to provide medical care insurance but not hospitalization for crew members of Canadian fishing vessels, the masters of which elect to pay sick mariners dues before the first fishing voyage in the calendar year, in those provinces which do not have an operating medical care insurance scheme, provided Part V of the Canada Shipping Act formerly operated in that province. This results in the proposals of Bill C-10 operating in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, until such time as these provinces implement a medical care insurance program.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this subject. This, however, is a matter which has concerned me, for some period of time particularly in respect of Part V of the Canada Shipping Act. I hope that I, perhaps, had something to do with instigating the introduction of this legislation. Over a period of time, I have been corresponding with the minister and his officials on this subject. In fact, last summer I specifically asked how long Part V of the Canada Ship-
Canada Shipping Act
ping Act had been in existence and whether it had ever been reviewed. I asked why it had not been made to conform to modern conditions. There are many matters which I hope will be resolved by this bill. However, I shall raise them again in case I have not properly understood the remarks of the parliamentary secretary.
I understand that one reason for the service provided under this Act is the provision of free drugs to sick mariners. I now understand that under this legislation medical services will be provided similar to those provided to any other citizen who has access to services under a medical care insurance plan. I note that new Section 318(1) in clause 3 of the bill reads:
The master of a Canadian ship described in section 316 in respect of which the duty prescribed in that section has been paid may apply in writing to the Customs Officer at any port to have any sick mariner on his ship provided, without charge, with the services of a designated medical practitioner that are medically required by that sick mariner.
Again, we have a situation where the master of a ship must apply in writing. I expect there is a standard form for this. He must apply to the customs officer at the port where the ship lands to have the sick mariner provided with medical help. But again, the sick mariner can be provided with help only by the designated medical practitioner of that port. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that this does not change the existing legislation in the sense that there is still a provision that a sick mariner can be treated only by the medical practitioner of that port. If I am wrong, I hope the parliamentary secretary will correct me, but it would seem to me that this provision would not apply in a province where there is a medical care plan. In a province where there is no medical care plan, the mariner would still be treated by the medical practitioner designated by the customs officer at that particular port. I also wonder whether the latter provision applies only to fishing vessels or whether it applies to other vessels as well. I think, for instance, of ferries such as, the motor vessel Bluenose which operates in my constituency between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour. I am wondering whether sick mariners from such a vessel can be treated only by the designated medical practitioner at a particular port.
Under the new provisions, particularly in Nova Scotia, I believe crew members will be treated the same as any other citizens of Nova Scotia under the medical care plan of that province. However, I should like some

January 30, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
clarification on this point. To my mind, new section 318 still provides that a sick mariner can be treated only by the port physician. It would seem, in cases where there is no medical care plan, the sick mariner cannot go to any physician other than the physician designated by the port officer. In other words, he can be treated only in that port. For instance, if he should reside perhaps 40 miles away from that port, he cannot be treated by his local doctor. This concerns me a little. There may be cases where a sick crew member would wish to go home to be treated. It is natural, I suppose, for a sick person to want to be with his family. However, it would seem that he can be treated only by the port physician. I understand there are cases where this would not apply, but in provinces like New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, these mariners will still be able to receive medical help only from the medical practitioner designated by the customs officer. I do not like this provision.
If my interpretation is correct I would hope the bill would be amended so that a sick mariner may be treated by any physician. I should like to know whether this provision applies to ferries or simply to fishing vessels. I think the situation is clear in respect of the province of Nova Scotia, where there is a medical care plan, but I believe it should also be clear in respect of the care of crew members of ferries, particularly any ferry operating between provinces.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
My big complaint is against clause 3, section 318, which still provides for an application in writing for the designation of a medical practitioner. The Parliamentary Secretary said this Provision was in the old act, and he gave several reasons for changing it. However, I do not see that it is being changed in the bill before us, particularly in respect of provinces which do not have medicare. I think that, like appointments to the Senate, this was a good way of satisfying some of the medical practitioners who were in support of the government cause. I hope that this clause can be changed.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will wait to see if my questions are answered before I put forward any amendments.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is asking us to put another patch on the already patched-up and hoary Canada Shipping Act. Whether or not this is a step in the right direction is
[Mr. Comeau.l
something on which we in this party intend to reserve our judgment until we are able to ask our questions in the committee. By saying that, I am making it clear that, while we are prepared to agree to the passage of this bill at second reading, we do not want that to be an indication of our support of the principle of the bill, if indeed it has any principle. It is merely an indication that we are prepared to agree that this proposal has to be discussed in a standing committee in order that its real purport can be properly understood.
I think the speech that was made by the hon. member on behalf of the official opposition bears out my contention in this regard because he did raise a number of questions. I should like to say, as has been made clear by the remarks of the parliamentary secretary in introducing the bill on second reading, that this bill has a very definite impact on Canadian seamen who are involved in the fishing industry. It is a matter of concern to some of us as to just what is to be accomplished. In listening to the parliamentary secretary, it appeared to me that what he was telling us was that the Department of National Health and Welfare was trying to back out of its responsibilities under the Canada Shipping Act. Whether or not this is something that they should be doing certainly should be subject to question, particularly by members who are concerned with the well-being of our people who are involved in the fishing industry. We all know that they are having a good many difficulties in many ways, and I think this applies to both the east and west coasts of Canada. Therefore, I feel that this bill should receive a searching scrutiny in the committee.
I know that a number of fishermen on the west coast have expressed their concern over the fact that the enactment of this piece of legislation will remove from them some of the benefits of health care that they have hitherto enjoyed. I do not profess to be familiar with all the details of the operation of the sick mariners' provisions, but I should like to tell the House that one of the concerns that has been expressed to me is that the result of this bill will be the loss of protection to Canadian fishing seamen who may, for one reason or another, wish to receive medical care in ports outside of Canada. In the case of the west coast, this involves landings in the ports of the United States.
Certainly, this is one of the questions that I would want to have clarified in the committee. I would like to know just what impact, if any, the bill has on this arrangement and just
January 30, 1970

what this arrangement is. In effect, the argument advanced by the parliamentary secretary was that because of the enactment of medicare, the earlier provisions are not necessary in some respects. May I say again that the details of this will have to be carefully examined. If I heard him correctly, he made reference to the fact that it is proposed-and I noted this when I read the bill and compared it with the former sections of the act which will be repealed-to eliminate coverage for hospitalization which hitherto had been in effect under the sick mariners provisions. Here again, I think the onus will be on the department to justify the changes they are proposing before we can agree to them.
I have given some indication that we are prepared to have a fair look at this bill in committee, but I want to make it clear that this is not to be taken as meaning that we will not be proposing amendments at the report stage or that we will necessarily support the bill when it comes back to the House.
Having said that, I will resume my seat because I have indicated that this matter can better be dealt with in detail in the committee when the referral is made.


Mr. Grant Dsachman (Vancouver Quadra):: There is a point which I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could clarify. It is of interest to the people in the port and city of Vancouver. Can he tell us how the present amendment would affect the case of the Pacific and Orient liner Oronsay which recently came into Vancouver harbour with typhoid cases aboard. In this particular case, a classic case in marine history in British Columbia, a giant passenger liner was found to have typhoid aboard and all the medical services of Vancouver had to be put to work to control this small outbreak. I wonder how the present act would affect this particular case.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is not
my intention to make any extended remarks on Bill C-10, but I would like to have one matter clarified if possible by the minister. It deals with the proposal in the bill which states that the owner of every ship that is not Canadian is liable for the cost of all medical treatment and hospital care provided in Canada to a person employed by him on that ship. This puts the onus on the owners of any foreign ship to look after their crew members. I think that it is only right and proper that they should be responsible. As has been stated, formerly under the act indigent seamen were cared for by the port physician.
Canada Shipping Act
At the present time, if the port physician looks after indigent seamen he is reimbursed by the owners of the foreign ships.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The question that comes to mind is, in what manner will the Canadian government be asked to ascertain whether foreign ships are adequately insured so that the Canadian government will be recompensed for any outlay made on behalf of indigent seamen who may need hospitalization in Canada?
I hope it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary who has presented this bill to give some indication later as to the manner in which this question will be handled.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask some questions, but there would be no opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply except upon closing the debate, which precludes the possibility of following up the reply. I have an interest in getting some information about the effect of the bill on those sections of the Canada Shipping Act which, to say the least, are obsolete and archaic and which raise all sorts of questions about the possibility of a continuing colonial status for Canada.
One question I have is whether this bill would apply as equally to denizens as it does to fishermen or seamen. I was rather struck by the oddness of that word and by the fact that apparently there is an opportunity for the government, exercising the royal prerogative I suppose, to grant to some people letters of denization. There is no other indication in the bill as to just what this means. How does one go about getting them? Are there any forms? Have such letters ever been issued? Are there any denizens in Canada?
The parliamentary secretary chuckles, and I do not blame him because this seems such a weird reference to have in the law of Canada. Yet there it is in the section of the Canada Shipping Act relating to the registering of ships. Apart from that section relating to the registering of ships, there is no reference to Canadian citizens. The only reference is to natural-born British subjects or persons recognized by law throughout Her Majesty's dominions as having the status of natural-born British subjects, who can register or own ships liable for registration within Canada. Also of course, the provision applies to persons who are made denizens by letters of denization.
I looked up the word in the dictionary, but even that did not help very much. I knew

January 30, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
that denizens were habitues of a certain area, for instance, we know that a rabbit is a denizen of the forest because he happens to live there, and there are denizens of the deep. These are supposed to be supernatural monsters of some sort and were described in imaginative terms in the early days of sailing ships. But to see this word in a statute of Canada does make valid the argument that the government is not really concerned about updating the laws of the nation but is engaged in a program of patching British law which existed before the turn of the century.
All we have done, Mr. Speaker, has been to carry that law forward, making some slight alterations as time went on but maintaining the basis of a document with colonial or imperialistic flavour. We have no Canada Shipping Act as such; it is subservient to British law.
Had the government really wanted to do something effective, it might have dealt with the Canada Shipping Act in total instead of only with a minor, insignificant part such as we are dealing with at the moment. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has pointed out, this particular part is fraught with difficulty and misunderstanding. Members of the Official Opposition have indicated their doubts as to the real value of the bill itself.
If the government is only concerned with stacking-up a record of getting bills through Parliament, it could spend its whole time running insignificant pieces of legislation through the House and then point to a record of accomplishment in the passage of legislation. Of course, in reality it would not have accomplished much.
Referring to the Earl Jowitt dictionary of English law, I find the following definition of denizen:
A denizen in the primary but obsolete sense of the word is a natural-born subject of a country, or a native or inhabitant of a city or liberty.
Then, there is a quotation which reads:
If the King and his subjects should conquer another kingdom or dominion [they] are all citizens of the kingdom or dominion conquered.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about a president?


Frank Howard: Well, a president, I don't know. I don't know whether someone in Canada, who either thinks of himself as a president or conceives that he someday might be a president, would be considered a denizen. I gather from the preamble to the act that he would have to get a letter of deniza-

tion from somebody. Now, if by the very act of becoming president he removed himself from the position of privy councillor, presumably then he would not be in a position to give himself a letter of denization-unless he did that before, and accomplished everything at the same time!
Going back to Jowitt's dictionary of English law, with regard to denizen he says "denizen in its modern sense denotes a person who is alien born." Whether that applies to the gentleman who might be president, I do not know. Certainly, some people in the province from which he comes think in those terms. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has regularly referred to English-Canadians in a hyphenated sense. That probably indicates that he, himself, feels he has come from an alien country. I am sure that citizens of Irish descent, for instance, or people in the House who are of Irish descent, would not like to be looked upon as English-Canadians. People who are of English descent do not like to be looked on as English-Canadians. I hope I have made my point clear.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
In any event, denizen, in its modern sense denotes a person who is an alien born, who has obtained, ex donatione regis letters patent called letters of denization to make him either permanently or for a time a British subject. The granting of such letters patent is a branch of the royal prerogative and is subject to no restrictions whatever. The denizen might hold lands by purchase or devise, which an alien might not, but could not take by inheritance before the Naturalization Act of 1870. All of this, of course, refers to the English law.
Replying to the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River with regard to presidents, it is clear-and perhaps I am not answering his question directly-that a denizen cannot become a member of the House of Commons, because as Lord Jowitt says, a denizen cannot be a member of the Privy Council or of either of the Houses of Parliament.


Gerald William Baldwin: That provision is pretty tough on the cabinet.


Frank Howard: Yes, it might create difficulties for our cabinet. The point is that this type of thinking prevails in our laws relating to shipping. Our shipping act is a most archaic, dinosaur type, piece of legislation. It really was conceived in England when
January 30, 1970

Britannia ruled the waves during a time when Lord Nelson and his like were in the fore. At that time sea power gave Britain economic power and imperial power. Unfortunately, we still carry those concepts and those ideas forward into the modern day and see them reflected in our shipping legislation. We see outdated ideas relating to ships, seamen, to one ownership, to registration and to a host of other factors relating to shipping. We are still a century behind the times when it comes to the laws on our statute books that relate to shipping.
If the parliamentary secretary imagines that there is anything in this legislation that is of real value in terms of trying to do something for our own good, then he is sadly mistaken. I thought he looked rather apologetic as he introduced the legislation. I wish he were able to go before his cabinet colleagues and tell them-but perhaps this is impossible-that for many years this nation has had an archaic shipping act and it is time that we had a real Canada Shipping Act in fact as well as title.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, since I come from that great inland port of Peace River-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It was a port before Mr. Bennett built the dam.


Gerald William Baldwin: -I wish to make a few comments. I must say that it will be somewhat difficult to repeat the interesting performance that we witnessed in the delightful remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). However, I shall not find it too difficult to observe the ordinary rules of relevancy. There are two questions I wish to ask the parliamentary secretary, and perhaps he can answer them. The first is this: If this bill becomes law, if it is to be an effective amendment to our shipping legislation, then I submit some important issues involved ought to be examined. Clearly, there will no longer be available to seamen of coastal vessels in Canada the same protection that was afforded them heretofore. A provision in the amending bill indicates that there will be a measure of protection for, seamen on vessels engaged in fishing, but not for seamen on coastal vessels.
When one examines the figures, it becomes obvious that by far the smallest number of people involved in this matter are those who are seamen on coastal vessels which are not
Canada Shipping Act
fishing vessels. There was some protection for these seamen. However, from my reading of the change in the legislation, it seems that that protection afforded to those seamen will be lost. Secondly, it seems to me that there will be lost to seamen, whether of foreign-going, coastal or fishing vessels, the benefits of certain programs. Those programs included hospital care and provision of drugs where drugs were required in hospital or for medical treatment. Clearly, the government intends to make use of the facilities of the various medicare programs. As hon. members know, the provision of drugs is not included under those programs. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might take note of this part of my remarks. I think I am correct in assuming that, as a result of this amendment, there will be no provision of drugs for seamen, such as was the case before.
Finally, if Your Honour would undertake not to see the clock for about a minute, I shall be able to complete the latter part of my remarks. The program involved in this legislation is something that was discussed by the Glassco Commission a number of years ago, and we see here a number of very real problems. For instance, the federal government had been heretofore wholly responsible for the cost of these programs, and an inspection of figures will indicate that very substantial sums of money were involved. These were all the responsibility of the federal government. Clearly, under the alternative proposals, these programs will not be the responsibility of the federal government inasmuch as medicare will become wholly the responsibility of provincial governments. The federal government was to have assumed half of the cost involved in the medicare program but now, because the federal government wishes to opt out, the provincial governments will be taking over the whole responsibility.
I think it should be made plain by the minister that in this area the federal government is shedding certain of its financial responsibility. Secondly, in doing so, the federal government will impose on the provinces many problems. It indicated that, after a period of time, it will slide out from its responsibilities under the original medicare program. The provinces, after a period of time, will have to assume their full responsibilities under the program, and hence the provincial governments of those provinces bordering our coastlines will be faced with an increased burden when they have to pay their share of moneys that this amendment, in effect, says they must make available. I
3038

January 30, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
merely point this out. I hope, too, that we shall hear, from time to time, statements on this matter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who seems to be exceedingly critical of provincial governments. I hope he will remember that by employing means such as the introduction of this amendment, the federal government is attempting to crawl out from responsibilities it assumed in the first place. The federal government proposed the changes in the medicare financial provisions which has been, in the first instance, introduced by the federal government.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. parliamentary secretary, in view of the remarks of the hon. member of Skeena (Mr. Howard) before lunch. I should like to ask him to consider consulting with the law officers of the Crown to determine whether or not the mayor of Toronto is a denizen within the definition of that hon. member of the House of Lords in England.
More seriously, I have a question in respect of clause 2 of the bill regarding section 315(c). The hon. parliamentary secretary will note that this section limits the definition of a port. Why are existing ports, as well as those likely to be constructed in the Arctic islands and along the whole North Arctic coast of Canada, except Hudson's Bay and James Bay, excluded from this definition? I am particularly interested in this in view of the government's announced determination to develop our north in a better fashion than we have in the past.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question in respect of his very reasonable suggestion regarding inquiries to be made by law officers of the Crown. Would the hon. member be prepared to extend that to cover the present position of the former mayor of Toronto?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier but I should like to suggest that a number of hon. members have posed questions in anticipation of the parliamentary secretary dealing with them in his closing remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might point out that if the parliamentary secretary speaks at this point he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to thank hon. members for raising some interesting points. I hope, at least in a general way, to give them an interim answer. Other details can be obtained by questioning the officials when they appear before the committee studying this bill.
Before I answer some of these questions, I should like to state that on August 14 of last year the deputy minister of national health received a statement from the general manager of the Canadian Chamber of Shipping which read as follows:
The Canadian Chamber of Shipping, which represents most of the deep-sea shipping interests in Canada through the Shipping Federation of Canada, the British Columbia Employers Association, the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, the B.C. Towboat Owners' Association, advocates repeal of Part V of the Canada Shipping Act.
As far as the questions are concerned, I will answer the hon. member for Skeena's (Mr. Howard) very interesting discourse about the obsolescence and antiquity of the Canada Shipping Act. I should like to say, however, that the shipping Act was amended in 1953, 1956, 1957, 1960, 1961 and again today we are proposing to amend it to bring it up to date as soon as possible.
The shipping act itself contains approximately 735 clauses with many schedules. I have been told that the officials of the Department of Transport are working to bring the Canada Shipping Act up to date, and I can perhaps state that we should be getting extensive amendments or perhaps a new Canada Shipping Act. I do not know personally, but I know second hand it is being revised and that the officials are very busy studying it in an attempt to bring it up to date.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) raised a question about coasting vessels, as did other hon. members of this House. As the proposals in this bill C-10, indicate, coasting vessels will no longer come under the new act. So far as drugs are concerned, this matter was raised both by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and the hon. member for Peace

January 30, 1970



River. It is true that under the new section, the cost of drugs is the only major benefit that will not be provided to sick mariners. By the amendment to Part V, this benefit will not be provided except in respect of drugs administered by the examining physician.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) asked a question about the Oronsay and its relationship to the present bill. The only way it relates to the Canada Shipping Act is in respect of the provision of medical services to sick crew members on the Oronsay. So far as the public health aspect is concerned, that comes under the Quarantine Act. There is a provision in the regulations dealing with contagious diseases which covers the outbreak of typhoid fever on a ship.
The hon. member for South Western Nova also raised a question in respect of sick mariners obtaining medical attention. In answer to him, I must say that the customs officer determines simply the eligibility of the sick mariner. In other words, he determines whether or not he is eligible for medical care. After the customs officer establishes the fact, in an ordinary case which is not an emergency, that this crew member needs medical care and is eligible, he then refers the sick mariner to a physician or hospital designated not by him but by the Department of National Health and Welfare. Apparently it has been found desirable for administrative purposes to provide some checks in order to prevent certain abuses. That is the reason this regulation is again in the bill.
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) raised a point in respect of clause 2 of the bill concerning designated ports in the Northwest Territories and along the Arctic shores. So far, the information available to me indicates that at the present time, in respect of Part V, there has been no necessity to include any provision such as that suggested by the hon. member for Spadina. I would not be surprised if, during the recasting of the Canada Shipping Act which I have been told is under way, there should be a good deal of consideration given to the hon. member's suggestion.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the parliamentary secretary one final question? What happens in a case where a crew member becomes sick and does not live in the area of the port of call? A distance of 30 or 40 miles might be involved. He might be at home, require medical attention and find that the doctor at the port cannot come to his home. I have reference to a situation in a 21611-531
Quarantine Act
province which does not have a medical care plan. Would this sick crew member be allowed to engage the services of another medical practitioner?


Stanley Haidasz: In the case of an emergency, when there is not sufficient time to follow the procedures established by the act and its regulations, a sick mariner or member of a fishing crew would have to be taken to the emergency department of a hospital or to a physician. As soon as possible, he should communicate with the master of his ship who would get in touch with the Customs officer so that the Customs officer would be in a position to fill out the necessary papers.


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


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: that Bill S-12, to prevent the introduction into Canada of infectious or contagious diseases be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the Minister of National Defence is to explain the bill on second reading?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House for its consideration Bill S-12 a new act to prevent the introduction into Canada of infectious or contagious diseases. The short title may be cited as the Quarantine Act. This bill was given first reading in the Senate on November 18, 1969. Two days later, debate on second reading commenced during which many informative and valuable remarks were made. After study before the Senate Health, Welfare and Science Committee, the committee report was presented on December 10, 1969 which contained a few amendments clarifying some questions that had been raised. The bill was then read a third time and passed on December 16, 1969.
The Quarantine Act is now contained in chapter 231 of the Revised Statutes of Canada and was first made the subject of Canadian

January 30, 1970
Quarantine Act
legislation in 1868. Except for two amendments made at the end of World War I, the legislation has remained the same in substance and in context since first enacted more than 100 years ago.
As was reasonable at the time of its enactment, and even at the time of the amendments in 1918 and 1919, the text of the act was considered adequate to deal with inward traffic by ship to Canada, the language of the act speaking throughout of "masters of vessels", of quarantine stations at maritime ports of entry, of coasting traffic and so forth. Nowhere does the act recognize by any reference the immense degree to which inward passenger and cargo traffic entails air travel, the use of numerous international airports or the frequency with which international air traffic must be received and admitted into Canada. Other developments and changes in the area of transportation and communications have similarly rendered obsolete certain other matters of substance, as well as the language of the Quarantine Act and, for this reason also, early revision is imperative. The urgency arises out of the degree to which the obsolescence referred to is increasing in significance and the difficulty of effecting useful quarantine measures becoming more marked.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The quarantine service of Canada has a very interesting historical record which I will review only briefly. Attempts to control the introduction of communicable diseases by visiting travellers predates confederation and, indeed, most other forms of community public health services. The word "quarantine" dates back to the 14th century at least and is usually ascribed to the 40 days of isolation imposed by the local government on travellers arriving in certain Italian ports in an attempt to prevent them from infecting the local inhabitants. There were quarantine regulations in force at all major North American ports in colonial times. In Canada, the first Quarantine Act was passed by the first session of the first Dominion Parliament, and it was probably one of its first items of business. This act made the minister of agriculture responsible for administering the regulations. The first regulations made under the Canadian Quarantine Act were signed by the Governor in Council on May 23, 1868.
The original regulations make reference to only three quarantine stations located at Grosse Isle-an island in the St. Lawrence below Quebec city-at Halifax, and at Saint John, N.B. The stations at the latter two

points were situated at Lawlor's Island and Partridge Island respectively. All three stations predated confederation, having been established by the cities concerned in the early 1830's. The graves which may still be seen on these islands are mute evidence of the epidemics of smallpox, cholera and typhus which raged at that time. Additional stations were opened from time to time on the east coast as increased maritime traffic required, and in 1884 the first station was established on the west coast at Victoria, or more precisely at Albert Head and subsequently removed to William Head. By 1896, additional stations had been opened on the west coast and a medical superintendent of quarantine for British Columbia appointed.
During these early years cholera and typhus from Europe, yellow fever from South and Central America and the West Indies, cholera from the Far East, and smallpox from everywhere were the most feared. The last quarantine at Grosse Isle was in 1928-29 for smallpox; at Halifax in 1937-38 for smallpox, and in 1944-45 for typhus; at Saint John in 1920-21 for smallpox, and at William Head in 1938-39 for smallpox and in 1945-46 for typhus.
Quarantine stations at Grosse Isle, Halifax, Saint John and William Head, with their full facilities for large numbers of passengers, hospitals for treatment and large staffs with disinfecting equipment became unnecessary owing to the identification of the organisms of the diseases, methods of prevention by immunisation and vaccination, new medicines and treatments and improvement of world sanitation and international travel regulations. The quarantine station at Grosse Isle was closed in 1937, and subsequently the stations at Lawlor's and Partridge Islands were closed, and in 1959 William Head was closed. Canada now has five organized quarantine stations at Quebec, Halifax, Saint John, New Brunswick, St. John's, Newfoundland, and Victoria, B.C., with their substations. In addition, there are unorganized inland and maritime quarantine stations where customs officers act as quarantine officers.
The responsibility for the quarantine service was transferred from the department of agriculture to the department of immigration and colonization for one year, then to the department of health in 1919 which in 1928 became the department of pensions and national health. In 1944, responsibility was transferred to the Department of National Health and Welfare with the passing of the National Health and Welfare Act.
January 30, 1970

The general pattern of quarantine operations remained substantially the same until after World War II, although these decades were marked by a gradual diminution of the major quarantinable diseases. During the 1940's, increased attention was given to health problems on an international scale, and on October 1, 1952 the international sanitary regulations of the World Health Organization to which Canada subscribed without reservation from the outset, came into effect. Prior to World War II the quarantine service was concerned with marine traffic only. Commercial aircraft capable of carrying passengers to Canada from outside North America did not exist.
Soon after World War II the situation began to change rapidly and the establishment of quarantine offices at airports became necessary. In the succeeding two decades, the rate of growth of commercial aviation outstripped almost all other forms of transport, and now the number of persons arriving by air cleared through quarantine each year exceeds one million. The number continues to increase by about 15 per cent annually. This development has significantly changed the entire pattern of quarantine problems.
The reduction of quarantinable diseases throughout large areas of the world, as well as the greatly improved rapid methods of reporting incidence of disease which have been developed by the World Health Organization, have substantially reduced the danger of importation of major quarantinable disease by maritime traffic as infected areas are, for the most part, located sufficiently far away from Canada and it is impossible for vessels to complete the journey within the incubation period of the disease. Aircraft, however, readily transport passengers from highly infected areas to Canadian airports within a single day.
While vigilance must be maintained in respect of marine traffic and especially to guard against the importation of plague by rodents, air traffic has become of primary concern. This is further aggravated by the natural tendency of the passenger and the carrier not to lose the advantage of speed inherent in air travel by time consuming inspection procedures on arrival, and pressures for expeditious clearance of passengers continually increase. A new age is imminent. High capacity aircraft carrying up to 500 persons will begin operating this year. Supersonic aircraft capable of crossing the Atlantic in approximately three hours will be in opera-
Quarantine Act
tion later in the decade. Both will bring with them their particular problems.
Bill S-12, a recasting of the quarantine act, is designed to minimize the risk of importation into Canada of the major quarantinable diseases which, fortunately, have been eradicated in Canada but which, if imported, could be the cause of serious morbidity and, indeed, mortality. Our major concern is in respect of smallpox, cholera and plague, and this is reflected in the clauses of Bill S-12. We are aware of the improvement in global health conditions resulting from preventive health measures applied in other states which, in certain areas, were undertaken with the assistance of the World Health Organization. However, until the major quarantinable diseases are eradicated from the world, legislation which provides authority to inspect and examine international passengers and international carriers entering Canada for the purpose of determining the risk presented to public health, is necessary.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think
there are several interesting conclusions to be drawn from this bill, but first I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for giving us a full and concise statement of the basic reasons behind the introduction of the legislation and for explaining to us what is involved. I was very interested to hear his comment that this is the first full scale amendment of the act in over 100 years. I would point out to my good friend, the hon. gentleman who is the leader on the government side of the house the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), that what this House should be interested in is good legislation, even if it takes a little longer to pass. I am not suggesting that because this act has not been amended substantially for 100 years it need not have been. Obviously, there could have been some amendments. However, measures which have been conceived in haste and often disguised for political purposes so as to get a number of measures through the House, will not replace good measures which will stand the test of time.
[DOT] (2:30 p.ra.)
Obviously there was a need for amendment here, a need for change. The recent experience of passengers aboard the liner which was held up off the west coast is an indication of the difficult situations which can arise in the modern world and which give rise to a need for change. The use of aircraft was not in the contemplation of those who occupied

January 30, 1970
Quarantine Act
this chamber at the time this act was passed. This circumstance in itself is reason enough for considering changes in the regulations. It is likely that the bill will receive close examination in committee; there are many technical aspects involved which obviously are not susceptible of being dealt with adequately here.
There is one point I should like to make at this time. This bill, like so many others this session, provides that the usual wide discretionary powers be given to the Governor in Council to act by order in council, by regulation or by decree. I call this to the attention of the House as I have done in the case of so many bills in the past.
This morning I raised this particular issue by addressing questions to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which I referred particularly to the report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments which goes right to the heart of the question raised by clause 19 of the bill before us. The very widest powers are given by that clause to the Governor in Council to enact various regulations, including the power to require persons arriving in Canada to produce to a quarantine officer evidence of immunization to any infectious or contagious disease.
There was an interesting discussion on this subject in the other place. One hon. Senator proposed there should be included in the regulatory power a right to provide for exemptions, and he gave certain reasons in support of his view that this power ought to be included. As I read from the proceedings of the Committee on Health, Welfare and Science in the other place, he suggested:
That persons with eczema or diseases such as leukemia, lymphoma, or generalized malignancy or those who may have lowered resistance such as from therapy with steroids, alkylating drugs, antimetabolites or radiation, or during pregnancy in which immunization is deemed to be contra-indicated, be exempted from this section at the discretion of the quarantine officer.
This was opposed by hon. Senators who were supporters of the government. I notice that one Senator from Calgary, speaking of the need for exemption in the case of a pregnant woman, asked: "How are we going to know whether a woman is pregnant or not when a lot of them do not know themselves?" I consider this to be a very weak answer to the suggestion made by the Senator who proposed the amendment. Nevertheless, it illustrates the point I tried to make this morning, one which was evaded by the Presi-

dent of the Privy Council and passed off by the Prime Minister in a rather humorous way.
If we give to this government or to any government the right to legislate by order in council, as we are being asked to do in clause 19, it is imperative that Parliament be provided with the means of checking these regulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: The committee report to which I referred was a report from an allparty committee which held a series of useful and valuable meetings characterized by a lack of partisanship highly enlightening to those who think the House of Commons is a continuous battleground. It was proposed there, for example-and I relate my remarks to this particular clause-that all these regulations should first be vetted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Tinner) to make sure they contained a measure of certainty, legality and reason. It was suggested that before regulations were made, the widest possible notice should be given so that persons interested might have an opportunity to make representations. When we are asked to pass a measure of this kind, and are aware of its implications, we must see to it that safeguards are available to the people of this country.
Someone said: Let no man stand between me and my liberty. Well, day after day, year after year, we continue, while legislating on behalf of the people of Canada, to give away rights which are theirs and which they have given us no mandate to destroy as we are now doing. It is becoming an accepted fact that in any legislative program the first thing to be prepared is the section having to do with regulations; all the rest is then built around it. It is the case here. It is the case with regard to any number of bills with which we have recently been dealing-the rules of relevancy will not permit me to give examples in detail.
There can be no doubt we are slowly eroding the rights of the people of Canada by giving to the government, in the form of a clause such as this, the power to make regulations far more detailed and far more threatening to the lives and rights of the ordinary people of Canada than any of the legislative clauses which surrounds the regulatory section.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I realize the President of the Privy Council told us that some time before the end of the
January 30, 1970

session the government proposed to bring in what it thought was the proper means of checking these regulatory powers. His answer was along these lines: A committee has brought in a report which the government is considering, and in due course measures which the government feels to be appropriate will be laid before the House. I am quite prepared to listen to the views of the government, but I would point out that I am referring now to the report of an all-party committee of the House. I think it contemptuous for the President of the Privy Council to take this position. What we are doing is building up a sort of collective tinpot dictatorship in this country. Those of us who stand idly by and let this happen without protest are not justified in accepting the position we have in this House. I especially say this to hon. members on the other side who have a greater responsibility in many ways than we to ensure that this government is called to account, and is not allowed freedom to pass these sections without some of the safeguards and protections contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Special Instruments.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: listened, Mr. Speaker, with interest to the review of the quarantine legislation which was given by the parliamentary secretary. I did not hear him go into the question of whether there were or had been any denizens in quarantine stations during the operations of the legislation. However, I agree that the legislation as it stands in chapter 231 of the Revised Statutes, which is proposed to be repealed by this bill, is outmoded in some of its wording. Perhaps in parenthesis I might say that I hope some of the anachronisms in the Canada Shipping Act illustrated by the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), will be eliminated with more dispatch than has been the case in the past. The Canada Shipping Act has been under consideration for quite a long time, but I am not sure whether we are any closer to revisions now than we were five years ago, judging from the remarks made earlier.
The bill under consideration is not directly related to the one discussed earlier, except in so far as it also deals with a very hoary piece of legislation. Anyone could see that the changing pattern of entry into Canada makes the updating of this legislation an immediate requirement and, after examination by the committee, all members of this House would probably consent to the basic idea of this bill.
Criminal Records
I listened with some interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and as a general proposition I find myself in agreement with his ideas concerning legislation by regulation. However, it behooves us to look at the clauses of this bill which give to the Governor in Council the power to legislate of which the hon. member speaks. I find myself somewhat puzzled that he should have picked upon this particular piece of legislation to raise the question and my reaction to a comparison of this bill with the Quarantine Act is that the powers of the Governor in Council are somewhat more restricted under the proposed legislation than under the existing act.
I might make reference in particular to the definition of an infectious or contagious disease which, under the proposed act applies to the particular diseases listed in the schedule. I think the committee should have some explanation from medically competent people why it is proposed to specifically restrict the definition of contagious or infectious diseases to those set out in the schedule. Most of them are familiar to me, Mr. Speaker, but I have not encountered anybody with relapsing fever (louse borne).
In an informal discussion with the hon. member for Skeena this morning, we were speculating whether this might be some kind of political disease to which members of this House were subject, particularly those who currently sit on the government side. Upon reflection however, I decided not to push the point-at least at the second reading stage of this debate.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude that, since this is basically just a piece of housekeeping legislation and generally speaking does update the provisions of our Quarantine Act, it is, to that extent at least, a bill which merits support. It may be, since it has been considered in the other place, that the bill could be reported back to this chamber without amendment. This will have to be determined when it is considered by the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services.


George James McIlraith: that Bill C-5, to provide for relief of persons who have been convicted of offences

January 30, 1970
Criminal Records
and subsequently rehabilitated themselves, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill represents an attempt on the part of the government to bring forward legislation that will deal with one aspect of the field of corrections that has been causing concern to all those working in the field and to public figures who have thought about the subject. The area I speak about is the apparently unjust consequences that still attach to a person who has been convicted of an offence but who has long since rehabilitated himself and become integrated into society in a wholly satisfactory way.
The consequences, in those circumstances, of having a conviction can work many injustices as well as leaving a stigma on the character of the person. This, it would seem clear, should be removed to the extent it is possible to do so. The great interest and concern in this subject was well evidenced by the private bill brought forward in the last Parliament in 1966 and dealt with in a committee of this House in the next year, as well as subsequent bills that have been brought forward in this Parliament.
The approach in this bill is quite different from that in the bill brought forward by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie). His private bill sought to deal with the matter differently; I think the term used was "expunging the records of the courts". This bill approaches the problem in a different way. It is an attempt to remove the consequences of the conviction and we believe will be more effective in achieving the desired objectives. The objectives, of course, in any of the legislation submitted for consideration by the House were never in question. It is a matter of working out the best method of achieving the objectives and, unfortunately, there is no background of statistics on this subject that is of much help. There is very little, other than the actual experience of the workers in this field.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The bill itself approaches the problem in this way: It provides that the person concerned make application and the National Parole Board, which we believe to be the body best equipped to examine into these kinds of problems and with the most experience in this field, examine into the particular case and make the recommendation for the grant of a pardon if the facts warrant it.

The grant of a pardon, in itself, does not necessarily solve all problems but it seems to be the closest approach we know towards solving some of the problems that arise in these cases. It will be seen when the bill is examined in committee that it provides for the procedures of the board and makes significant provisions relating to the grant of a pardon. Clause 5 of the bill reads as follows:
5. The grant of a pardon (a) is evidence of the fact that the Board, after making proper inquiries, was satisfied that an applicant was of good behaviour and that the conviction in respect of which the pardon is granted should no longer reflect adversely on his character; and (b) vacates the conviction in respect of which it is granted, unless the pardon is subsequently revoked.
Thus, the pardon is evidence of rehabilitation of good character and it vacates the conviction. It does these three things.
There is a subsequent provision in the bill that deals with the withdrawal of records. The approach to this aspect, which we believe to be the best approach we can work out, is the following: It is not accurate to say that a record that has been made many years ago can be physically obliterated, because there are records in the memories of other persons, there are newspaper reports and there is all sorts of documentation in many places. What we have sought to do here, and we think this will prevent the improper use of old records, is to have them withdrawn to the central authority in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police where they then can be sealed and only brought out under the limited conditions, set out in the act, when it is apparent that their use would be necessary. That is the approach to that problem.
As hon. members know, there has always been a right to grant a pardon under the royal prerogative of mercy. It is interesting to know that in the whole period of 40 years from 1910 to 1959 inclusive, there were only 32 ordinary pardons granted under the royal prerogative of mercy. Perhaps I should give some more recent figures. In 1966, the year the Department of the Solicitor General was created, 21 ordinary pardons were granted. In 1967, there were 36 ordinary pardons granted; in 1968, there were 75 ordinary pardons granted and in 1969, and I shall speak about the pardons of 1969 in a particular way in a moment, some 131 pardons were recommended by the National Parole Board under the existing procedure.
So, hon. members can see the increase in the use of this prerogative. That increase in use stems from the fact that, in an effort to
January 30, 1970

find some kind of solution or get started towards a solution to this problem, we began to use the royal prerogative of mercy as a method of granting pardons. This in large measure, although not quite, is what will be achieved under the legislation. By itself, the present procedure is rather cumbersome. Actually, until this bill is passed, there is only authority for the minister to request the parole board to look into each individual case and then, in each individual case, sign a recommendation to His Excellency, the Governor General and have the individual's pardon granted by His Excellency, the Governor General.
It will be seen that that procedure is not adequate at all to deal with the problem but it was very useful in giving the parole board and those authorities concerned in the field of correction a lot of administrative experience. In addition, the procedure helped in finding out what would best meet the problems that arise with those persons who have been unfortunate enough to have a conviction registered against them but have long since rehabilitated themselves and re-established themselves. This experience, which has been sharply accelerating throughout the latter part of the year, has indeed been very useful and has confirmed us in the belief that the approach evidenced in this bill is the best approach in trying to deal with the problem.
There will be, of course, sharply increased numbers of these applications once the bill is passed. The very limited experience so far indicates or appears to indicate that it would be very useful in meeting these problems. There is a lot of detail about the bill that can best be discussed in committee when the appropriate officers who deal with these problems are available. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to have the bill before committee so that all hon. members who are interested and concerned in this subject can ask the questions they wish, obtain all the information that is available and make suggestions that may be helpful in improving the bill.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I for one do not view the bill as the final answer. I hope it will get quick passage through the House and then be re-examined at the end of two or three years experience when we will be in a better position to know what improvements can be made in the administrative procedure and what changes and other improvements should be made to its provisions.
Criminal Records
Already we have found, since embarking on this course, that we have been able to do a great many things of a beneficial nature, particularly in the employment field. This has been the result of co-operation on the part of personnel officers and management in a great many large firms. The response and attitude in that regard have been rather good. The available information in this regard can be given to hon. members at the committee stage. One of the things we had not anticipated, which seems to have been very effective, is that we grant a pardon as distinct from trying to deny that there ever was a record. That approach seems to have been very well received.
Already there have been changes made in what we might now regard as rather offensively worded questions on this subject which appear on many applications for employment. That whole aspect of the subject should be examined in committee. It is possible that we will require further legislation on that aspect after a review of the administrative practices and some experience with the measure. I hope we will not prematurely introduce compulsory legislation forcing people to do certain things, at least at this stage. As a result of our limited experience so far, I hope we do not make the granting of a pardon an automatic process. That does not seem to create a situation most beneficial to the one who has a record but has successfully rehabilitated himself.
I do not think there is much more 1 can usefully add on this subject. I welcome the opportunity of putting the bill before the House and I am sorry we were not able to put it forward earlier. I welcome the opportunity of discussing this matter with hon. members at the committee stage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I ask this question now because I may not get the opportunity to speak on the bill before our time expires. My question relates to the last point made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith). I have in mind questions on application forms for Canadian citizenship, for employment in the public service and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and for visas to go to other countries.
Does the minister envisage that the effect of a pardon will be to allow a person who has

January 30, 1970
Criminal Records
been convicted of other than a minor traffic offence to answer "No" to the question: Have you ever been convicted of an offence other than a minor traffic offence?


George James McIlraith: This question has been dropped from some of the forms to which the hon. member has referred. That has already been done by administrative action. In respect of some of the other matters under discussion, it has been thought that the question might be: Has the applicant ever been convicted of any offence for which a pardon has not been granted? There would then be no need to disclose an offence for which a pardon had been granted. Quite a bit of detailed information can be given to the committee on this point.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to be a member of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during the last Parliament. This committee spent part of two sessions on the subject of the destruction of criminal records, and it considered several private bills submitted by hon. members of this House. The evidence was not completed during the first session of the 27th Parliament and the meetings carried through into the second session. Finally, a report dated December 19, 1967, was made to the House.
In the first place, I commend the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) for making a move on this subject. There was a very great divergence of opinion in the committee as to how this matter should be approached. The committee was not prepared to make an absolute and final recommendation, although it did make a report. The report recommended that legislation be enacted incorporating the principle of expunging criminal records on the basis of several considerations. I do not want to read the five or six considerations in full, because obviously they have been considered by the Solicitor General who adopted a completely different approach from that recommended by the committee.
At this stage I think we should take a brief look at this principle before it goes to the committee for further consideration. A question just raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) concerning the effect a pardon would have on a person who has been convicted of one criminal offence, with no further record for a period of five years, who had led a normal and reformed life and then applies for one of the special things for which many people apply. The individual

may apply for an immigration visa to go to another country, either for a short term or to work; he may apply for a bond in connection with employment he is about to take; he may apply for employment in an agency which requires a form to be filled out.
One question almost always asked on these forms is: Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence? The wording of the bill as presented is a little vague. I should like to ask the Solicitor General, a couple of questions if I can get his attention, which perhaps he will answer when closing the debate.
The first question relates to the type of question already asked. Clause 5(a), which is the effective clause, says that the granting of a pardon vacates the conviction in respect of which it is granted. The word "vacates" is one I cannot recall having been used in legal terminology except in respect of certain actions which have been taken in the courts. Does the Solicitor General feel that if a pardon vacates the conviction, the person involved is entitled to say, "I do not have a criminal record" or, "I have not been convicted"? If the conviction is vacated, what does it mean? It certainly does not go as far as the meaning of the word "expunge," which is the word that kept coming up during the discussions in the committee.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I believe we are left pretty much in the dark in respect of the real effect of this legislation. If the granting of a pardon vacates a conviction, may we assume that the conviction has been wiped out? A question was asked of the minister concerning the forms being changed so that the question would be: Have you ever been convicted of an offence for which a pardon was not granted? If a provision were included in the legislation to require application forms to contain a question of this type, I think 99 out of every 100 doubts members of the committee had would be answered.
I hope the minister will say that in respect of a criminal offence for which a person could be subsequently pardoned, nobody may include in an application form of any kind a question other than the one set out in the act. I believe this is the meat of the whole problem. Such a clause, however, is not in the bill. I do not know whether it was considered and abandoned, or whether it was not considered.


George James McIlraith: It was considered at great length.
January 30. 1970

Criminal Records


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister advises that it was considered, so presumably it was abandoned. I would like this matter to be reconsidered, because I think such a provision would eliminate the concern of many people. What is the use of having a procedure whereby a conviction is wiped out and it is established that a person is of good character, if that person then became involved in filling out a form which asked if he was ever convicted of a criminal offence, to which he would have to answer "Yes"? This person would then find himself in further difficulties. However, if the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which you have not been granted a pardon" were asked, he could answer "No" and that would be the end of the matter. I firmly believe the committee should take a very serious look at this matter when the bill comes before the committee. This is a point that everyone is concerned about.
A second point I should like to raise concerns offences for which a person was convicted in the past maybe once or maybe twice, which now have been made legal. Recently amendments to the Criminal Code were passed. I know of a number of cases in the past involving doctors who were convicted of performing abortions. I thought the convictions, as a matter of humanity, were outrageous. I agreed with some portions of the Criminal code bill, because many of these doctors were performing a service to humanity which if performed now would not involve a criminal offence.
The same argument applies to certain sexual offences which were under the Criminal Code. They were illegal one day, and on the following day they were legal. Should not a pardon be issued as a matter of course in such situations? I suggest this is another matter which the committee should examine, because in these cases the law has changed and such a person would not now be regarded as having a criminal record.
The third matter which concerns me a little is that of the one-time offender convicted some years ago perhaps of a minor offence; then years go by and he never applies for a pardon, perhaps on the ground that he does not think there is any record of the conviction or because he thinks this bill would wipe it out after five years. This is one of the dangers which arises in connection with the bill. Such a person may not apply for a pardon because he might think that because there was only one conviction of a minor
21611-54*
nature, all he would do by applying for a pardon would be to stir up things again. This would mean that the Parole Board would have to institute an investigation, and he would fear its officers visiting his home or people inquiring whether he was still, as the act states, a person of good character.
There may be many situations in which the person whom we are really trying to protect would be discriminated against because he made such application, whereas a person who did not would not be in the same position. It might sound as if I am splitting hairs, but I do not think I am.
A number of these people probably would be very hesitant about applying for a pardon because they might think they would rather let sleeping dogs lie until the day they have a chance to obtain a better job, move to another country or provide a bond for a friend. When this day comes, they suddenly find that the record which they thought was long dead is still there. As the minister has admitted, this bill does not cover such a situation.
Also, this bill does not cover the situation in respect of the record of juveniles. A lot of time was spent on this matter during the sittings of the standing committee. I have very strong views in respect of the records of juvenile offenders. According to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, these records are not to be used. A person under age 16 in Ontario, and under age 18 in some other provinces, is deemed not to be a criminal but rather a person in need of aid and assistance. The Juvenile Delinquents Act is so framed that such a person does not have a criminal record. But the police consider that there is a criminal record in respect of such a person.
The records in some juvenille courts are made available, improperly, to the police. I think that in respect of the very few cases where there is no further record of the offence, the record in the juvenile court should die there. I believe this bill should contain a clause amending the Juvenile Delinquents Act which would make specifically clear that all records of juvenile delinquents, after these persons have reached age 16, should be expunged, sealed and not reopened. One cannot say they were never there, but one can say they will never be referred to.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
A person convicted of a criminal offence may answer "No" to the question on the application form. But there is much misuse of

January 30, 1970
Criminal Records
juvenile court records. They are misused because nowhere is it provided clearly what should be done with them. Many bills that we pass in this House contain clauses amending acts, to make them conform. I would like the juvenile delinquents problem cleared up once and for all. Amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act have been kicking around for a long time; they go back to long before the Liberal Party came into power in 1963. I remember that a former minister of justice, Mr. Fulton, set up a committee to deal with the matter. The whole question of juvenile delinquency seems to have died.


George James McIlraith: No, it is still very much alive.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is just as alive as it has been for a number of years.


George James McIlraith: But it is much more vigorous now.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is in a drugged state, in a state of torpor. I am glad to hear the minister say that he is considering some amendments to the act, and if he will bring in a bill shortly I will go on to another subject. There is no reason why, when we are dealing with expunging the record or getting rid of the record of past convictions, we should not touch on that subject.
This bill does not make any provision in regard to juvenile delinquents. I think that is a very serious shortcoming because so long as this situation continues the police and agencies connected with them will continue to consider juvenile delinquency records as relating to criminal offences, and this is not right. I make no exception even for a person who gets into trouble later in life; in these cases their past record should also be wiped out.
There is one other point I would like to make. It was stated during the hearings of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that the police in fact have two records; the official record which we are trying to expunge- or vacate, in the wording of the bill-and an unofficial record which is sometimes called a police blotter type of record, which they keep separately.
This evidence was given by Chief Mackey, chief of the Toronto police, as recorded at page 59 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee meeting of November 2, 1967. Chief Mackey said very clearly that these records are all in special files, not in the ordinary police files, so the

argument of the police that they need them to catch up with known criminals is a fallacy. They do not need them, because they have the record in another file-a record which will never be expunged. In fact, there is no suggestion that police records will ever be expunged. They have their modus operandi files from which they catch up with people. They also have them in respect of juveniles.
We can never get rid of these records, and perhaps we should not. However, these records are not the ones I am talking about. I am referring to the public records which I believe should be dealt with in such a way that a one-time offender is assured that after a reasonable period of time someone will not come along and blackmail him because at one time he committed an offence about which no one has ever heard.
I would like to make one more point regarding the revocation of a pardon. Clause 7 provides that if it is established to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that the person to whom a pardon was granted is no longer of good character, his pardon may be revoked. I think this is one of the most difficult clauses to accept. What is a person of good character, and who is to decide about it? We have always held that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In this country we do not draw a distinction between good people and bad people. They are all people, but they may have been convicted of an offence. Whether they are of good character is a matter of opinion in every case.
I think it will be very difficult to establish that a person is no longer of good character. If it were the other way round, I might not be so concerned. In other words, if the bill provided that a pardon would not be granted if a person was not of good character, perhaps there would be some argument for it. In that case it could be established to the satisfaction of the Parole Board that, in addition to being convicted of an offence, the person in question consorted with other persons who had been convicted and had engaged in activities that verge on criminal. Perhaps such a person had been found in the company of persons whose backgrounds made it obvious that he was leading a life of crime.
However, this clause is different-it relates to the revocation of a pardon. The man has been pardoned and his offence has been expunged from the record, then someone says that he is not of good character any more and his pardon will be revoked. This is a danger-
January 30, 1970

ous clause, because under these provisions a man can be convicted without trial, which is contrary to our understanding of the law.
I find acceptable that part of the clause which provides that if a person has made deceptive statements in his application, his pardon can be revoked. There is a perfectly valid ground for revoking his pardon if he has made incorrect statements, failed to disclose evidence, or information comes to light that was not revealed previously. However, the fact that a person is no longer of good character is, in my opinion, not sufficient ground for revoking his pardon.
I think that the principle of granting a pardon will be acceptable provided there are enough applications. There must be thousands and thousands of people in this country in the category of those whom this legislation is trying to help, and in favour of whom the committee made recommendations. How many of these people will apply for a pardon? If the number is small, the legislation will be a failure because it will not be achieving the effect that is desired.
I was glad to hear the minister say that the matter will be reviewed, because the number of convictions and pardons will eventually reveal the effectiveness of the statute. I agree that we must take some action. I would like these few matters to be reconsidered in the committee; therefore, I support the recommendation that the bill be referred to the committee. I hope the minister will be prepared to reconsider some of these points which do not go against the principle of the bill but which, if accepted, will make the legislation much more effective.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to pay tribute to my hon. friend from Vancouver-East (Mr. Winch) for the interest he has shown throughout his life in penology and matters such as this. His activities in this connection began long before most hon. members took their seats in Parliament.
As Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the British Columbia legislature in the forties, he pioneered in an area which was delicate and not very acceptable socially, as did his father. I refer to institutions for mental care, penitentiaries, provincial jails and the like. He took an active interest in problems of rehabilitation, recidivism, parole and related questions. As I say, my hon. friend has shown a lifelong interest in such
Criminal Records
matters, and having known him personally for some time, I think he deserves commendation on this occasion.
While I am sure the bill is acceptable to everyone in a general sense, it is really not a pace-setter. If anything, it is a bit behind the public conscience in these matters. For some time now the ice has been broken in terms of greater industrial and social acceptance of persons who have been convicted of criminal offences. In addition, we know that the Department of the Solicitor General, through the Parole Board service, has been operating in this field, developing a certain expertise and sophistication in its approach to persons convicted of criminal offences, the expunging of records and the process of pardon which is being used.
I notice that the bill is all-inclusive. It refers to persons who might have been convicted under the Criminal Code or any other federal statute, but the wording in clause 3 indicates that application might be made by a corporate structure as well. In this regard we are aware that a number of companies and corporations in Canada have been convicted of criminal offences, of criminal conspiracy, and have been sentenced in the courts and fined under the Combines Investigation Act.
Technically speaking, these organizations, these companies, would be eligible to make application for pardon. Even the Electric Reduction Company, which we have heard mentioned recently, would be able to apply for a pardon and, presumably, receive one if it applied five years from the time it was convicted of contravening the criminal law of Canada. The difficulty is that there is an element of friendliness involved in the structure of a company, because it is not a company itself which engages in these criminal activities; it is the officials of the company. It is not the Electric Reduction Company which was guilty of criminal offences; it is people like Dr. Solandt who engaged in criminal activity. But he will not have to worry about applying for a pardon. In fact, he has already received one inasmuch as he is being maintained as chairman of the Science Council of Canada, and an endorsement of that kind precludes the necessity of involving himself in the procedure of applying for a pardon.
We are really dealing with persons-with human beings who have fallen foul of the law-and we Eire hoping to establish machinery sanctioned by legislation which will give them an opportunity to apply for the removal of the stigma attached to the commission of a

January 30, 1970
Criminal Records
criminal offence. The idea is that persons will apply, and thus set the process in motion. An investigation will be carried out by officers of the National Parole Board, as is done in practice at the present time.
I suggest that under the provisions of clause 4 there are two items which have been omitted. One concerns persons who are sentenced or dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. This aspect has been eloquently discussed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and does not need further elaboration.
The other omission relates to suspended sentences. The board can cause inquiries to be made when five years has elapsed since a sentence of imprisonment has been served, a period of probation ended or a fine paid. But in the case of a person who received a suspended sentence-and such sentences are often passed when young people are concerned, though not exclusively-I believe we are bound to recognize an area of omission.
In some ways a person who receives a suspended sentence finds himself in a situation which can last forever.' Presumably; at any time in the future a court could impose two sentences, should a further offence be committed-one for the current offence and one in respect of the original offence. It seems to me there should be some mechanism by means of which a suspended sentence could be regarded as though it had been imposed and served at the time of conviction. An opportunity should be provided for an individual in those circumstances to apply for removal of the right to impose a sentence after a period of time.
What concerns us in large measure is that an individual affected shall have the right or the opportunity to obtain gainful employment. There is an added psychological element involved-the relief which enters into the person's mind, the sense of well-being he experiences on receiving a pardon. In the few cases known to me in which individuals have applied for and received pardons under the procedure which exists at the present time, this sense of relief was present, as if a shadow had been wiped out and was no longer there to haunt the memory.
The federal government undertook a while ago to remove from all its application forms in connection with employment the question relating to criminal offences. I do not know whether Canadian National Railways still has a question of this kind on its application forms, but it did until not long ago. I know

there are individuals working for the CNR, as well as persons in the government service, who lied when they answered that because they wished to obtain employment and thought that if they answered the question honestly and admitted a criminal record, they probably would not obtain work. They are still employed. In some cases the employer knows about the misinformation which was supplied but has decided against taking any action; he has wiped it out and has not taken it as a reason for discontinuing the fellow's employment, which is a helpful and enlightened approach.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In some types of employment there is not any great concern on the part of the employer whether the fellow has a criminal record or not. I worked as a logger on the west coast at one time. The primary desire of logging companies is to get production going, get the logs in the water and on their way to the mills. They do not really care whether a chap has a criminal record as long as he puts in a day's work and keeps up production.
However, companies involved in handling money and valuables are quite concerned about a criminal record, not so much because of the record itself but because it will probably prohibit bonding. This is an area that the government should become involved in; it should establish a substitute bonding arrangement. This is a kind of extension of the concept, but a logical one, and I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) feels as strongly about it as anybody.
Perhaps it is not possible to set up this mechanism for bonding through the federal government, but at least we can explore the possibilities in committee and maybe use this bill as a prelude to some other legislative arrangement. In this way individuals who fall into difficulty about bonding would be helped to find meaningful employment in fields which would otherwise be closed to them.
I think there is a failure in the bill with respect to the question that might be asked by prospective employers about a criminal record. This has already been touched upon by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka and by the minister. Whilst on the subject, I would say that I do not agree with the proposition made a couple of years ago that we change history by expunging criminal records-in effect saying that an individual did not commit a criminal offence.
January 30, 1970

I submit, even though it is argued by the other side that this is not the case, that although a person may receive a pardon, under this legislation a prospective employer would still be in a position to ask the simple question: Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence? If the individual is honest about it, regardless of having received a pardon he would be required in conscience to answer that he had. I think we must follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and confine the type of question on applications for employment to simply: Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon under the criminal records act has not been received? The individual would then, in all honesty, be able to answer "No" and that would prevent any further exploration.
According to our rules, Mr. Speaker, we cannot engage in a detailed discussion of clauses of the bill, but I hope I may be permitted to say a word or two on clause 6(2). This clause speaks of keeping records of people who have received a pardon, in the hands of the RCMP in a separate, locked vault. It also states that the existence of the record or the fact of the conviction shall not be disclosed to any person. I think the fact that in clause 6(2) there is reference to the conviction and the existence of a criminal record indicates that in fact the record still exists, in fact the conviction was imposed, in fact history has not been rewritten, and that though the individual may have received a pardon, he was convicted of a criminal offence. No matter what anybody says, always he will have been convicted of a criminal offence. He may have received a pardon, but he still was convicted.
History cannot be rewritten. Newspapers still exist, memories still exist, and as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said, police forces still have memories. Detectives know which persons have records, and keep an eye on them. Even now, if an individual should receive parole the knowledge of the criminal background is available to the RCMP in his community. I know of two or three instances where individuals have in effect been hounded-not in the direct sense of being awakened every morning at four o'clock, but hounded by being watched and questions being asked about them. S'o memory exists in the police force and cannot possibly be wiped out.
Primarily, however, we are talking about employment. I think we can avoid an employer asking questions in a way that would elicit
Criminal Records
the information that a prospective employee had been convicted of a criminal offence, whether or not he had received a pardon. The bill provides that five years must elapse upon the completion of sentence, probation or payment of a fine, before the individual can apply for and receive a pardon. This leaves open to speculation and comment the period of time between his release from jail and the end of the five-year period. It is difficult enough for anybody to make a go of it upon release from jail at the completion of a sentence, but when employment opportunities are not as good all across the nation as at other times, it is even more difficult.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
For the sake of argument, a person released from jail at this time of year and at this point in our history would have more difficulty finding employment than if released during a period of high employment. Also, after two years in jail unemployment insurance benefits are not carried forward, so there is not that assistance to fall back upon. Many people have difficulty obtaining social welfare assistance and, surprisingly enough, many exconvicts have an element of pride which precludes them from applying for such assistance. Things are even more difficult, of course, in the absence of any real rehabilitation program. Although we talk about it a good deal, there is no rehabilitation program within our prison structure. Lip service is paid to the concept within our penitentiaries, but primarily our penitentiaries are places where you keep people locked up. That is their primary function and every person in authority, from the warden down to the most recently employed guard, thinks: We are here to keep the prisoners locked up, and maintain discipline. Clearly, those who are looking for any rehabilitative activity within our prison structure are butting their heads against a stone wall.
When a person receives parole there may be some hope for him, especially if he is able to obtain employment and if there are friends or individuals outside to assist him in getting off on the right foot. Where there is no such help, where there is no after care so to speak, the outlook for a former prisoner is not promising. The more people in our penitentiary structure look at a man as being a hardened criminal, the greater will be his difficulty in rehabilitating himself, no matter how much he should want that.
If 1 might inject my own thoughts here, it might be helpful if, for political reasons only,

January 30, 1970
Criminal Records
candidates of political parties in elections were to visit penitentiaries. It would be helpful if we gave the inmates of penitentiaries the right to vote in federal elections, because then candidates and members of political parties would pay more than lip service to the idea of rehabilitating prisoners. I am an advocate of giving the inmates of penitentiaries the vote. After all, the federal Parliament deals with their affairs after they have been incarcerated, but they have no real opportunity to communicate with us in this House. Because they do not vote there is no pressure on political parties to consider them, whereas there would be that pressure if inmates had the right to vote.
I have grave reservations about certain parts of clause 7 which relates to the revocation of pardons. If the Parole Board which granted the original pardon feels the individual is no longer of good character, or if the minister finds he is no longer of good character-no matter what that phrase may mean-the man's pardon may be revoked. I think the pertinent words in the clause are far too vague and too difficult to interpret and should not be retained in the legislation. Perhaps they will be removed in committee, or we might substitute other words for them. In any event, I think we should explore the ideas that would govern the revocation of a pardon or the not granting of an application in the first place.
Also, there appears to be no opportunity to appeal the rejection of an application. There is no opportunity to appeal the revocation of a pardon. Here we are granting by legislation a right that individuals enjoy under our common law; we are spelling it out and adding some characteristics that will give it force and effect. Along with our common rights there is a companion right which says that individuals shall be able to appeal to a court of last resort; yet in the construction of this bill it seems that there is no such right. It is true that the man makes his application to a certain authority; someone within the Parole Board will examine that application, will check with the RCMP or the city police, with former employers and the like, and may come to the conclusion that the person should not be granted a pardon. That, then, is the end of it.
It is true that the individual whose application has been rejected may go to the minister and, for argument's sake, say, "I have applied for a pardon and have not received it. Why not?" The minister will not conduct an inqui-

ry himself; instead, he will go back to the Parole Board, back to the same people who conducted the investigation in the first instance, and will receive from that body the grounds and premises upon which the original application was rejected. Since the minister will have no other information, he will have to advise the individual that this is all the information he has, and that will be the end of the matter.
Although the individual may have a right under law to appeal, that right is abrogated because in effect he will be appealing to that group which made the decision in the first place. I think this is not correct and that some counterbalancing factor ought to be introduced. I am sure the minister thought about this matter when preparing the legislation. Perhaps he will explore it further when we get into committee.
There is in society, as I said a while ago, a much stronger desire now to help those who have been convicted of criminal offences. If we could entice prospective employers, say to work directly with individuals who are inmates of penitentiaries and employ them, there is hope of rehabilitating those men who are lucky enough to be so employed. I do not think we should wait until a man gets out of jail and onto the street and then becomes involved in more trouble.
I have almost concluded my remarks, Mr. Speaker; it is almost four o'clock. If there is disposition on the part of hon. members to continue with the bill and proceed to its conclusion today, we will have no objection.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in view of the last remark of the hon. member, I wonder if there is disposition to continue with public business, with the prospect of finishing this legislation this afternoon?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard about it. The bill in my name is due to be considered. Under our Standing Orders, any private members' hour that is given up on Thursdays or Fridays is lost. I am prepared to consider this on any Monday or Tuesday when there is a right of deferral. In the circumstances, since at considerable inconvenience to myself I have been prepared for the last two weeks to debate the bill that stands in my name, and since I will not be here next week, I will not stand down on this occasion and will insist on private members' hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will
January 30, 1970	COMMONS
now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: that Bill C-19, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of again bringing forward this point. It was discussed in November of 1968 during the debate on a motion which went much further than does this bill. If hon. members will look at Bill C-19 they will see that it calls for an amendment to section 2, the definition section of the act. I think it would be instructive to put on the record the explanatory note which appears in this bill. It is as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to require that an Electoral Boundaries Commission for a province, when making its report, support with reasons its recommendations concerning the division of that province into electoral districts, the description of the boundaries of each such district, and the representation and name given to each district. Section 20 of the act requires that a Notice of Motion, made in the House of Commons in objection to recommendations in a commission report, must specify "the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection". Obviously, the rules of debate in the House will be better observed if the recommendations of a Commission are reasoned amendments to which debate can be directed by Mr. Speaker; obviously, too, there is less likelihood that a debate will be initiated or prolonged if the recommendations are reasonably explained.
On November 20, 1968, there was participation on the part of hon. members of this House in respect of the motion I put on the Order Paper at that time. This is to be found commencing at page 2994 of Hansard for that date. As I said, it went much further than this bill. I do not want to repeat the descriptions I then gave of the results of redistribution whether in the province of Alberta or elsewhere. I think I clearly set those out, and I commend to the House what was said by hon. members on that occasion. The hon. member
DEBATES	3053
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not agree with about 10 per cent of what I said-perhaps that is an arbitrary figure-and other hon. members were canvassing the situation or making representations to make sure this question would not come to a vote.
Perhaps I should also propose changes to section 13 of the act as well as section 2, in order to give greater importance to demographic considerations. A number of hon. members .opposite during the last debate took great exception to the considerations of demography by the various commissions. I have in mind such things as community of interest, local employment and schooling of children.
As a result of the boundary changes during the last redistribution, we experienced all sorts of mix-ups. I need not describe the terrible situation which exists in some provinces. In my own constituency there is a large area which has no logical connection with the bulk of that constituency. There has been a tremendous amount of house construction in the area. Very fine people live there. When I identify myself to them as their member, and when I talk to the children in the schools, there is absolute amazement on their part that they should be connected with the constituency of Edmonton West. As a matter of fact, there is a standing joke to the effect that Edmonton West goes further east than does Edmonton East, but that is the fact.
It seems to me that on the last redistribution the various commissions did not start from scratch. The Electoral Boundaries Commissions made changes in constituency boundaries on the basis of information prepared by their staff. They worked from census reports after consulting the staff of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and various other offices across the country. No account was taken of the many features that should be considered in respect of constituencies. Perhaps this was because the people were merely ciphers who thought that so many people should be herded into a particular area.
So far as a democratic country is concerned there should be a desire for participation by the people in government. But when you have constituencies with disparity elements, you have a degree of frustration and confusion in those communities which quite naturally do not belong to a specific constituency. It seems to me it would be much better if these demographic considerations were given some weight by the boundaries commissioner's staff who apparently work in the isolation of the
January 30, 1970
3054	COMMONS DEBATES
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act ivory tower of Ottawa. Apparently they have no conception of what they are doing in many constituencies. They engage in drawing a zigzag pattern including or excluding areas which turn out to be reserved entirely for industrial or commercial development.
This is the sort of thing experienced by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), and myself. These people have engaged in designing a bewildering pattern instead of following natural divisions such as main highways. The area represented by my colleague contains land zoned for warehouse use. As a matter of fact, warehouses have been built there. That may be very nice, but we do not represent people from that area. In other areas the boundaries commission followed a different zigzag pattern, and one has difficulty explaining to people why they do not belong in one constituency or another. After explaining as best one can, they want to know who made such a crazy decision. Surely these people should consult the elected representatives.


An hon. Member:: They invited you.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is so, but speaking to the commission is like speaking to a blank wall. I suggest that the commission should give reasons for the changes it makes. It is axiomatic that anyone desiring to make a change must justify that change, whether or not he is a commissioner appointed under a statute. If changes are to be made, or if we argue against proposed changes, reasons should be provided. The discussion will then have some pertinence. During the previous debate some members made comments which indicated they preferred the old system of members attending a committee which carved up the country. I suggest they only displayed their ignorance of what happened in that situation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It must be remembered nothing is said about changes in the act whereby any report, while it may be debated, can be varied by motion. There is no vote. Members are able to express opinions. If a sufficient number of them wish to object to a particular distribution, limited debate may take place in this House. But no motion can be made. No decision can be made by Members of Parliament concerning the boundaries. However, they have the right to express their opinions concerning how a constituency is redistributed or given new boundaries, because they are the ones who recognize how a constituency 
should be serviced and whether some people would be effectively disenfranchised. Therefore, I have proposed this amendment to section 2. I hope the amendment will commend itself to the House.
In conclusion, I wish to read a paragraph of the remarks I made on the previous occasion. As recorded at page 2996 of Hansard for November 20, 1968, I said:
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say we want to have something better in the composition of commissions. We want to have something better in the way of the principles upon which a redistribution shall take place, and we want to have the reports of commissions so that we can see just why certain constituencies were put together, thus placing the onus for changes upon the commissions. They have to justify the changes. They may want to make a change by saying. "In this district the population has changes." That is perfectly valid. This is a reason; but there are other reasons that must be included.
I commend this bill to hon. members, and since adoption of the bill would refer it to the standing Committee on Privileges and Elections I move that it be adopted and do not merely say that if hon. members cannot vote in favour of the bill, at least vote to send its contents to the committee. That is not the purpose of the motion at the present time; therefore, I ask that the motion be adopted by this House.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member indicated he thought reasons should be given by the commissions, and he said a population change would be a very acceptable reason. Would he go so far as to include an anticipated shift in population as one of the reasofls? So far as the major problem relates to growth, to what extent, in the hon. member's opinion, is it feasible or proper for that kind of reason to be expressed?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I say very simply that I had occasion to point out to the commission that an area in my constituency could be one in which expansion would take place, and that effectively the boundary as drawn prevented any expansion in the constituencies of my colleagues from Edmonton Centre and Edmonton East. This is precisely what has happened since the commission made its report. Land which at that time had been vacant, now contains some 3,000 homes. Two years from now it will perhaps contain 6,000 homes. This land is on the north side of the city of Edmonton. It is an area in which I would say 80 per cent of the non-multiple
January 30, 1970	COMMONS
residential building is taking place. It is an area four miles in breadth and a little over a mile in depth.
In addition, the next step in redevelopment is to be on the western side of my constituency. This was also pointed out to the commission. While they left the land on the west, as I anticipated they would, in effect they prevented any possible expansion by my colleagues in the constituencies represented by them, and the people involved have an affinity with the constituencies of my colleagues rather than with mine, other than the fact that they are residents of the city. For these reasons I think the commissioners should say that they include in a constituency a particular block of land because it is forecast there will be development in the area.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) gives us today the opportunity to discuss a matter of utmost interest to almost all hon. members. It will soon become topic no. 1 because a forthcoming census will give rise to another revision of the electoral boundaries. Thus the debate might be useful on many counts.
I know that all hon. members recognize that all constituencies are to be established in the most logical, fair and equitable manner possible. Boundaries of electoral districts should be determined in such a way as not to leave too much margin, as it should not be harder or more difficult to represent one district rather than another. That situation, unfortunately, still prevails.
On this point, I share many of the views of the hon. member for Edmonton West, sponsor of the bill. As he aptly stated, the first revision, according to the bill adopted in 1964, was not a success, particularly in some of the provinces. The criteria described in section 13 of the act could perhaps be improved upon or altered to good purpose.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
But that was the first time we were using that procedure the purpose of which is to bring about viable political units, taking into account not only population but other criteria as well. To be objective, however, we must admit that it was not an easy task to divide the electoral map because of the vastness of the land, its other geographic characteristics and the number of sparsely populated areas.
DEBATES	3055
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Of course, as was said by the hon. member, this was a marked improvement on the old system. Previously, when a committee of the House met to redistribute the electoral map, members were often influenced by partisan considerations, which led to some illogical boundaries.
And it is quite to the honour of the 1964 Liberal government, under the right hon. Mr. Pearson, to have made adopted the principle of an impartial and independent commission to deal with this important but delicate task of reviewing periodicaly the riding limits. This action had generally been well received since it was a significant improvement on the previous system.
However, the Electoral Boundaries Commission had, in its decisions, to take into account the provisions of the act and particularly the principle under which the division of a province into ridings should be effected on the basis of population, keeping as nearly as possible to the electoral quota for the province, that is the quotient obtained by dividing the total population as ascertained by the census by the number of the House of Commons assigned to the province as calculated by the Representation Commissioner under section 12 of the act, subject and according with section 51 of the British North America Act and rules provided therein.
Now, it is to comply with the provisions of this legislation that chapter 31 of the 19641965 Statutes of Canada was drafted; in particular, section 13(c) stipulates that the Commission may depart from the rule I just mentioned, for geographic considerations or because of the diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province, but the departure from the electoral quota for that province shall not exceed 25 per cent more or 25 per cent less.
Now, I think that at the time of the last redistribution, this exception provision was not used as often as it should have been or as it could be used. In most cases, this difference should have, at least, been taken into account, especially in rural ridings, which sometimes cover such a large area that it is virtually impossible for members to visit them as often as they wish and to get in touch with all their constituents.
I suggest that it is not the same thing to represent a rural district, which may include 50 or 75 rural, semi-urban or urban municipalities, with all the problems that this may imply, and to represent an urban dis-
January 30, 1970
3056	COMMONS DEBATES
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act trict, generally including a large community and sometimes being part of a large urban centre.
In such a case, this 25 per cent margin should have been fully allowed and this, I suggest, was not done at the last census. It might be advisable to amend these sections in order to give more discretionary power to the Commissioner and to take into account not only the population required to justify the establishment of an electoral district, but also the various demographic, geographic and economic factors.
Under the legislation, before drawing up its report, the Commission must hold public hearings in each province, following the publication of a preliminary report and of a map showing the proposed boundaries. During those hearings, any interested individual who has given notice within the required time can make some comments and suggest some changes.
Now, experience has shown rather clearly, I think, that once the map has been drawn up by the Commission, it is not easy to have it altered, to any great extent, because those changes would affect many neighbouring constituencies and as a result, the electoral map would become useless.
That is why, in my opinion, there have been so few changes, following the public hearings of 1965 or even following the subsequent debates in the House of Commons. In fact, the municipalities, the Chambers of Commerce and the intermediate bodies which submitted briefs often at great cost found that out the hard way. I was told many times that petitioners were not always welcomed by the Commission, even when, as was often the case, briefs revealed the existence of disparities or the inopportunity of combining some areas.
That is why it is most important, first of all, to make good appointments, to choose competent commissioners. However, we must not exclude necessarily those who were active in politics or choose only among judges or university professors as is often the case.
Commissioners have to be not only qualified but impartial also.
It has previously been said that they could be influenced by party considerations. I question that. It certainly did not happen during the latest census, at least not in the province of Quebec. Quite the contrary. As for me, the constituency I had been representing since 1963, that of Stanstead, disappeared. Follow-

ing the electoral redistribution, it was divided in three. I represent Magog where I live. This region was added to the provincial counties of Brome, Missisquoi and Iberville. As for the town of Iberville it became the new federal constituency of Missisquoi.
I can say that electors from the new regions which were added to the former Brome-Mis-sisquoi constituency were quite astonished, especially those residing in the provincial county of Iberville. In fact, following the annexation which followed redistribution, part of the town of Iberville and all the adjoining rural district became the Missisquoi constituency, whereas the remaining part of the town was included in the Saint-Jean constituency.
This is only one instance. The situation should be remedied on the occasion of the next electoral boundaries readjustment. However, I got over the whole thing by getting elected in a new constituency. There, I met active, hard-working and thoroughly Canadian-minded people. In that area, Englishspeaking and French-speaking people work together in harmony to build a better future.
The report of the Commission was finally tabled in the House. The purpose of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Edmonton West is to require the Commission to support with reasons the proposed changes.
As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to the commissioners explaining the changes they propose to make concerning the boundaries, the description or the name of the electoral districts. That might help Canadians to understand some decisions. Perhaps, they would not have had such an easy time of it on the last occasion. As a matter of fact, I had the impression they were concerned only with demography when the time came for redistribution.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
But, as indicated by other members in the debate of November 1968, especially by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), I believe that the publication of the reasons might initiate a debate which, far from being shortened, could drag on considerably. In fact all hon. members are more or less dissatisfied and they would like to discuss the reasons given by the commissioners, because as they know their ridings they are probably very sensitive to that question.
January 30, 1970	COMMONS
I am afraid that this would give rise to lengthy debates with no practical results, because, as pointed out by the hon. member, the House cannot bring in any amendments. To do so, indeed, it is necessary that in the length of time prescribed by the Standing Orders, ten members should register an objection of which they ought to inform the Commission through Hansard or Votes and Proceedings. The Commission is supposed to study it in order to determine the motives advocated by the members.
Generally speaking, the members who know their area better than anybody and who, most of the time, have had talks with the people concerned, are those who can most likely make useful recommendations, without necessarily knowing what motivated the decisions of the commissioners.
I think that nothing prevents hon. members or anyone else from filing an objection with the Commission, or even previously with the Representation Commissioner, preferably before the preliminary report is tabled. It might then be for the members and other people concerned the ideal time to comment on it and to draw the attention of the Commission and of the Representation Commissioner to the blatant cases of discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, it might be advisable under the circumstances to amend the act, particularly Section 13. It is extremely important to appoint to these commissions people who have practical experience and who can draw from this experience in order to arrive at a fair delimitation of electoral constituencies, while keeping in mind the obvious difficulties which the commissioners must face.
I hope that the next revision will be a great improvement on the last one and that we will at least try to reach this aim as is no doubt the wish of all hon. members.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the bill brought before the House by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I express sympathy with the hon. member in connection with the problems he has raised for discussion and consideration.
I am aware that he and other hon. members, together with various interested people in Alberta, experienced difficulties in the most recent redistribution of boundaries because of the terms of the legislation. I have had some contact with the operation of this legislation, although I was not a member of the House
DEBATES	3057
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act when the act was debated in this chamber or when subsequent discussions took place regarding the decisions of the provincial boundary commissions. I was involved to the extent that I took part in making recommendations to the commission in my province of Saskatchewan, in my capacity as research director for the leader of the opposition in that province. I also went with him to present a brief to the commission on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Saskatchewan.
When the original legislation was passed by the House there was a fairly general feeling that hon. members wanted to do away with what had been termed gerrymandering, or the suspicion of gerrymandering. They wanted to do away with the decennial haggling which had taken place with regard to electoral boundaries. In effect, they wanted to take politics out of the process of drawing up electoral boundaries. This was very commendable and to this extent the act has represented a step forward.
Having the benefit of hindsight, however, I suggest that we lost sight of the fact that constituency boundaries are an essential feature of the political process. They cannot be separated from the political process or considered in some apolitical fashion completely apart from it. This was demonstrated when some of the shortcomings of the original act were recognized-when an amendment was introduced which at least provided for debate on the boundaries proposed by the commissions.
This amendment gave the provincial commissions an opportunity to review their proposals, taking into account objections which had been raised in the House of Commons. Final power still rested with the commissions, which were not required to give any reasons or set forth any rationale in support of their decisions.
There was considerable lack of response to some extremely valid points which were made in debate in the House of Commons at that time in objecting to proposals made by the commissions across Canada. Particular objections were raised with respect to the reports of the commissions in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
In some parts of Canada the reports of the commissions were sound and there was little objection to them. But in the three western provinces there were some very real difficulties. I do not think I need remind hon. members of the ghastly mistakes associated with boundaries in Alberta. There was also consid-
3058	COMMONS DEBATES	January 30, 1970
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act erable objection to boundaries in British Columbia. But after strong representations had been made, I believe only one change was brought about, and that was to boundaries affecting the Queen Charlotte Islands. In Saskatchewan, as in Alberta, no change was made in any of the boundaries, in spite of the very reasonable representations which had been put forward though the changes called for could have been implemented without any great difficulty.
I think it became clear during the course of the hearings that the initial report provided by the provincial commissions served as a basis for the final report, and that despite the soundness of any objections made to the commissions' proposals there was little chance of any change being made to the initial plan.
With respect to the commission operating in my own province of Saskatchewan, I wish to make it clear that I have the highest respect for the integrity of its members. It consisted of a well-known political scientist from the University of Saskatchewan, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Saskatchewan and a well-known judge on the bench of that province. In my view these gentlemen gave earnest consideration to the representations which were made. Nevertheless, it seems to me their immediate reaction to a representation was to say, "Well, the trouble is this-" and from there on they would proceed to defend the original proposals they had made public.
It was difficult to get anything by way of a sympathetic response. There was no effective communication between the commission and those who were interested in the boundaries it was establishing. There is no question about the apolitical nature of the commission in my province, or for that matter in any other province to my knowledge. But I think that in the boundaries which were established in some cases, very little consideration was given to the real problems facing people involved in the political and the electoral processes.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I could cite a number of examples in my own province where the boundaries drawn simply did not relate in any way to the natural community structures. One example is the constituency of Moose Jaw, with approximately 70,000 people, one-half of whom live in the city of Moose Jaw which is in the extreme southeast corner of the constituency which then proceeds in a westerly and north-

erly direction to within eight miles of the city of Saskatoon, goes far west to the Saskatchewan River, takes in an area west of the South Saskatchewan dam and the river in that area, which is completely cut off from the rest of the constituency.
Another example is the constituency of Meadow Lake, which comes within a few miles of the city of North Battleford and within a few miles of the city of Prince Albert. For the people living immediately adjacent to these cities, all their activities are linked to them; but for purposes of election and political activities their contact is totally with the constituency of Meadow Lake in the northwestern corner of the province.
With respect to population, terms were written into the federal legislation providing that there should not be a variation of more than 25 per cent above or below the norm for any province. But the fact was that a considerable change in population took place between 1961 and the time the redistribution was carried out. The net effect was that when the final boundaries were settled, the variation in population in constituencies in Saskatchewan was as great as it had been prior to redistribution.
I have already commented on the hearings when a number of representations were made by very interested people, and reasonable proposals were set forth. However, there was very little response from the commission, and in its official report it did not make a single change to the original proposals which had been made public. I think we should learn from this experience and consider alternatives to or changes in the legislation.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that I am speaking on my own behalf and not necessarily on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I think some way should be found to apply the general approach and principles involved in the legislation as originally passed, and to take into account the fact that the drawing of electoral boundaries is part of the political process. Should we not, in fact, give consideration to establishing a commission which could have as chairman a judge appointed by the Chief Justice of the province and a number of representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons as is presently the case?
Provision could also be made to include representatives from each of the recognized political parties within each province. A formula could be devised and used as a guide in deciding which political parties should have
January 30, 1970

representation on the commission and that would take account of the various points of view to be considered.
One other change which might be considered is giving the House of Commons the power to make a change in the report of a commission if the change receives approval of two-thirds or three-quarters of the members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, in my view all members of this House have a responsibility to try and make the process work as it is set out in the legislation approved some years ago. No one will argue with the fact that you cannot make everybody happy with any set of proposals. However, I do not think this should prevent members of the House doing everything that can be done with a very difficult task. I think it is very necessary that we consider this matter in that context, because we do need to take account of these problems if we are to make this process work and ensure its survival.
I hope the proposal placed before us by the hon. member for Edmonton West is either approved, or the subject matter referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Allen B. Sulaiycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate of great interest to me. It has been said of the redistribution that it affected the province of Alberta, and indeed it was the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who raised the subject today. I should like to hear more from other hon. members from Alberta because I for one do not feel that the Electoral Boundaries Commission did a ghastly job.


Mr. Bigg:: Look at the map.


Allen B. Sulatycky: The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) suggests that I have not looked at the map. May I point out to him that I have travelled all over that particular riding, and the map is not as bad as it appears.
Mr. Speaker, the bill proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West suggests that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be amended so that the report of the commission in each province gives the reason for the recommendations made. Basically, I do not object to this except to say that if it were question as to the basis on which the redistribution was made in each province.
If we opened up the discussion as widely as possible, it would not be very long before political considerations began creeping into
DEBATES	3059
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act the system again. My understanding is that the purpose of this act was to eliminate what was called gerrymandering, which we acknowledge to have taken place for the first 100 years of the political history of this country. By and large it has been eliminated with the new act.
It can readily be seen that if changes such as those proposed in Bill C-19 were made, it would not be long before changes such as the one proposed by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), where political parties would become involved in the selection of members of the commission, could lead to a situation similar to the one prevalent for many years after confederation. On that basis I cannot support this bill. If it is supportable at all, it is only in that I believe the provinces should have control to the maximum extent, short of political considerations, over the operations of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions. On my reading of the measure as it stands, I believe it goes as far as it can reasonably and safely go toward allowing political considerations to become significant in this field.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
May I say a few words about allegations that the commission did a poor job in the province of Alberta. I know that for many people in Alberta this has been a matter of contention for the last four or five years. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Edmonton West would agree with my point of view. In any event, in two elections in which I was involved the candidate for the Conservative Party went around the constituency contending that its borders showed a very good example of gerrymandering. I hope the hon. member for Edmonton West does not still adhere to this thinking, because I am sure that most hon. members would agree that the commission in Alberta, as in other provinces, was as impartial as it could be.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member will not convince anybody else.


Allen B. Sulatycky: It is obvious that in talking about the poor job the commission did in Alberta, the hon. member was referring to the constituency of Rocky Mountain in Alberta. On November 20, 1968, the hon. member made these remarks, as reported at page 2995 of Hansard. Clearly the constituency referred to is Rocky Mountain. He said in part:
Ridings made no sense geographically, leading to very difficult election campaigns. Often, no interior roads existed. We have one constituency that
January 30, 1970
3060	COMMONS
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act stretches along the eastern slope of the mountains, running some 450 miles, I would say, from the United States boundary, and 36 miles south of the city of Grande Prairie. There is not a road running directly through that constituency. The people in it have no community of interest.
Those remarks clearly refer to the constituency of Rocky Mountain which I have the honour to represent in Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allen B. Sulatycky: It is perhaps one of the most exciting and interesting ridings in the country. In the last election we had not only three Liberal candidates but two Conservatives as well as one socialist, all trying to win the' seat. So despite what my Conservative friends say, at least two members of their party were interested enough to try and win the seat. I am proud to have won it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You can thank God.


Allen B. Sulatycky: The hon. member for Pembina suggested I should thank God. I invite him to attempt to win the seat for his party during the next election, because then we shall also win Pembina. Having represented this constituency for a year and a half, I am now in a position to say that no constituency in Canada is more challenging or rewarding to represent.


Mr. Perrault:: Other than Burnaby-
Seymour.


Allen B. Sulatycky: In my constituency of Rocky Mountain we have three great national parks of Canada. They stretch from the extreme south to the extreme north of the riding and are very important to the economy of the constituency. The national parks are very important from the point of view of tourism. In addition, we have an economic community of interest throughout the riding.

Our people carry on coal mining. That activity commences in the southern portion or the riding and is carried on throughout the length of the region. We find that activity in the Crowsnest Pass area, the Canmore area, the Coal Valley area and in the Smoky River deposits which had not been developed when the commission was considering electoral boundaries in Alberta. They investigated the potential of the coal deposits in the northern part of the riding and now it is safe to say that we have a community of interest extending from the extreme south to the extreme north of the constituency.
As a result of the farsightedness the commissioners exercised, the constituency of Rocky Mountain may be the only constituency in Alberta which will not need to have its boundaries changed when constituencies are next considered for redistribution. There are at present in the constituency approximately
65,000	people. That is less than the optimum number for Alberta constituencies. But in the north end of the riding we have a rapidly growing population, and it will continue to grow for some time because of resource development taking place there.
It will not be necessary to change the constituency boundaries even after the next census has been taken. It has not, as have many other rural constituencies in western Canada, a great outflow of population which necessitates changes in boundaries; neither has it, as have many urban constituencies, a vast increase in population which requires a contraction of constituency boundaries. I suggest that the constituency of Rocky Mountain will not need to be changed when redistribution is considered again.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 2, 1970