1971-09-24

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF VICTOR BODSON,   PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FRENCH-SPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS

Mr. Speaker:: Order, May I call the attention of the House to the presence, in the Speaker's gallery, of a distinguished visitor, Mr. Victor Bodson, President of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians.
Mr. Bodson has come to Canada, upon an invitation from the Canadian Parliament, in order to chair the General Assembly of the Association which, this year, is taking place in Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa. Mr. Bod-son's presence here is an honour for us. On behalf of all hon. members, I extend to him and to Mrs. Bodson a most cordial welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRIVILEGE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would like to draw your attention to Hansard, page 8127, the righthand column, where the hon. member for Mackenzie is reported as having said while I had the floor: "You are a damn liar and a crook." I did not hear the hon. member say that or I would have raised the matter immediately. However, the remark is reported in Hansard. I am not sure of the procedure, but perhaps I should give notice that I wish to raise this question and ask the hon. member to withdraw those words when he is in the House. He is not here now.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is, of course, doing the right thing in raising the matter at this time. I am sure that the hon. member concerned would want to withdraw the remarks which unfortunately got on the record in Hansard. I am sure that all hon. members will agree that words of this kind are unparliamentary and no hon. member, even in the heat of debate, would want to be reported as having said them. For the moment, however, the matter will not be pursued further.



MR. CAFIK-STATEMENT MADE BY MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice to you under Standing Order 17(2) of my
intention to raise a question of privilege today arising from a statement made by the hon. member for York South yesterday. In view of the fact that the hon. member for York South is not present in the chamber this morning-I found out he would not be here after I had given notice of my intention to raise this matter today-I should like to ask your permission to defer this question of privilege until such time as the hon. member is present.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
September 10, 1971-Mr. Howe:
That the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House, Wednesday, April 7, 1971, be concurred in.
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that discussions are continuing with regard to this motion, I would ask that it be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



FINANCE


Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 in a case of urgent necessity.
The latest reports concerning small business loans and fisheries improvement loans reflect a dereliction of the duty of Canadian banks to support the government by injecting impetus into the small business sector of the Canadian economy. In spite of the extra effort required of Canadian banks to increase this support, the figures disclosed indicate a reduction in the number of loans granted and in the amounts granted. Further indications are that Canadian banks are steering applicants away from government guaranteed loans at preferred rates of interest in order to take advantage of the higher conventional bank rates.

September 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government investigate these bank practices, demand an accountability of loans under government guarantee, and report to the House at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. Under the terms of the Standing Order this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not. The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In referring last evening to the economic program instituted by President Nixon and its effects on Canada the Prime Minister said that "I would certainly want to make sure that President Nixon is aware of the dilemma that he is creating for Canada in terms of our future orientation in this North American continent". In view of that statement, will the Prime Minister now undertake a personal meeting with the President of the United States, indeed perhaps an ongoing series of meetings if necessary, to bring such awareness home directly to the President from whom the thrust of United States policy obviously is emanating?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made that suggestion before and my answer is the same as previously. If it is necessary to meet the President to make sure, as the quotation says, that he is aware, then I will, of course, envisage doing so. But the statement means exactly what it says, that I want to make sure that he is aware. There are divers methods of ensuring this.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my previous suggestion related particularly to the surtax and this much broader question that the Prime Minister has opened up. Was the Prime Minister expressing doubt as to how the United States administration itself sees the future of U.S.-Canada trade relations, and this being the period during which United States policy toward Canada may jell and become firmly set, is this not the time for discussions with the President rather than after the event?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that the supplementary asked by the Leader of the Opposition is perhaps

more in the form of an argument. However, the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply if he wishes to do so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect, Your Honour, it was not an argument; my question was not phrased in those terms. I simply directed a question to the Prime Minister, a very important question at this time, asking whether, this being the period during which United States policy may be set, this is not the appropriate time for the Prime Minister to see and discuss these matters with the President of the United States rather than after that policy becomes set. I think that is a serious question that deserves a serious answer from the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the observation is correct that it would be important to make sure that the President is aware before, as the Leader of the Opposition said, his policies are set and have jelled. But I repeat that this only leads one to the conclusion that it is important that the President be made aware, and there are many ways of making him aware of our position. It can be done by a phone call, it can be done by correspondence, it can be done by meeting, it can be done by representations to his ministers, it can be done by diplomatic exchange. There is a whole series of ways of making representations, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the emphasis the Prime Minister himself has placed upon the serious consequences and high cost for Canada should the United States adopt, hypothetically at least, certain attitudes about which the Prime Minister has expressed concern, is there anything more important as far as Canada is concerned at this particular juncture than for the Prime Minister, as head of the government of Canada, to leave no stone unturned in making certain that the President understands these concerns?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether in his educated opinion the increase in unemployment as reported the other day by Statistics Canada is caused by United States protectionist policies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is inviting the Prime Minister to express an opinion and I would not think the question in those terms is in order.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister either telephoned or written the President of the United States to make sure he understands how Canada feels about the economic policy announced by President Nixon on August 15, and has he learned from the President the United States attitude in regard to the Canadian employment support bill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is no to both questions, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Would the Prime Minister then screw up his courage and either telephone or write to the President to make known Canada's views on this very important matter?

September 24, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Watch your language, George.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course that supplementary question is not in order.



UNITED STATES ECONOMIC DECISIONS-STRUCTURE FOR PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH CANADA

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister which relates to a supplementary question I asked a week or two ago concerning the likelihood of the United States taking more decisions that would have a detrimental effect on our economy. Given the close interrelationship that exists between the economies of our two countries, will he indicate to the House today whether he, the Minister of Finance or any other minister has had conversations with representatives of the United States government in respect of establishing some kind of consultative machinery with the United States government allowing us some opportunity to discuss any decisions that might be taken which would have a detrimental effect on our economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, such consultative machinery does exist, as I am sure the House is aware. We have a continuing committee at the ministerial level with United States and Canadian representatives which studies various matters. They meet to look at the over-all concerns of both governments in respect of immediate and less immediate affairs. The fact that there is machinery in existence does not mean we do not require special ad hoc meetings, as we had in August and in September, at the ministerial and official level to discuss specific events such as those which occurred after the President's announcement. Therefore we are using both standing and ad hoc committees.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister did indicate that the usual machinery we have used has not been sufficient to indicate to the United States government the extent of the impact these decisions will have on our economy, I am wondering whether there has been formulated and hopefully proposed some further structure for ongoing consultations which might remove the possibility of further very bad decisions being taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have had all manner of delegations and representations, and speeches have been made in the United States on this matter by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Woolliams:: That speech should do a lot of good.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite on the one hand want us to make representations, but when we do they jeer at them and say they do not do any good. They must make up their minds. Do they want us to talk to the Americans or not?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment.

Does the hon. member for Compton wish to put a supplementary question?


Mr. Latulippe:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Compton, which I shall do in a moment-

I will recognize the hon. member for Egmont who is rising on a point of order.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the Prime Minister heard my question. In addition to the normal procedures that have been used, has he not taken the time and the trouble to formulate new approaches which might have some success, considering the impasse we are presently facing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suppose new approaches become old the day after one has used them, but we have been using what the hon. member would call new approaches for the past month. Apart from the ministerial and official meetings I have talked about, there was a meeting this week between the United States commerce minister, Mr. Stans, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
There is present now in Canada a NATO delegation which will be listening to a very important speech by the member for Calgary-where is he from-Calgary South. So, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the day after any new and special measure has been taken to communicate with the Americans the member opposite will say, but what new thing have you done since this morning?



SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF NEW STABILIZATION PROGRAMS

Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the decrease in international trade and the lagging of Canadian exports, would he tell the House whether this government intends to implement different programs so as to ensure a certain stability to the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes.



ESTABLISHMENT OF MONITORING AGENCY TO ENSURE


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of statements by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for

September 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
External Affairs expressing concern that if the United States surtax remained in effect for a lengthy period it would result in the export of jobs from Canada to the United States, and in light of the statement by the President of the United States that it would remain in effect for longer than the initial 90 days, is the government considering the establishment of a monitoring agency similar to that suggested to the government by the Standing Committee on External Affairs to ensure that branch plants of United States corporations operating in Canada operate in the best interests of our economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not that particular recommendation in mind, but I can answer generally that the government is considering all manner of possible responses to the United States surtax and other measures if and when they are brought in.



IMPLICATIONS OF ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night the Prime Minister stated that all our economic indicators indicate a significant expansion of the economy. Was the Prime Minister aware of such indicators as the July figures on real domestic production that revealed a 0.3 per cent decline, that manufacturing output off one-tenth of 1 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is perhaps a statement more than a question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: I trust it will not be a supplementary statement. The hon. member might indicate if he has a question to ask the Prime Minister.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Prime Minister's optimism about the economic growth, can he say in just what month his views on "Encounter" were taped?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
I recently told the Minister of Agriculture about the enormous difficulties encountered by potato growers in Quebec as well as throughout the country and I want to ask him if he is now in a position to make a statement ensuring potato growers that they will get help since their products are sold at extremely low prices at the present time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the details of the program to the House

today, but I can advise the hon. member that some relief for this particular commodity is under active and urgent consideration.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the question sought by the hon. member for Malpeque is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Joliette. I must say that when I recognized him I was under the impression that he was going to ask a supplementary to the previous line of questioning. Maybe we should now pursue the line of questioning initiated by the hon. member for Joliette. I recognize the hon. member for Malpeque on a supplementary.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture at an early date make a statement on motions with regard to government policy in an attempt to relieve the unsatisfactory financial situation in which the potato growers and small fruit growers find themselves so that the growers and the provincial governments can be fully aware of the proposed government policy at the earliest possible moment?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to do that. I should advise the hon. member and the House, however, that yesterday afternoon and even this morning we were attempting to arrange a meeting with Mr. MacDonald, the Minister of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island, and Mr. Stairs, the Minister of Agriculture for New Brunswick, to discuss this matter. I think it would not be wise for me to try to make a statement until some time after that meeting.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary.
I notice that the Minister of Agriculture seems to have had contacts with two provincial ministers surely concerned with this problem. Will he invite his counterpart from Quebec to the meetings?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should say that my senior officials have had contacts with some senior officials in Quebec, but I have not had a request from the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec. This has come from the other two provinces earlier this morning and yesterday afternoon.



DUMPING OF POTATOES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-EFFECT ON ALBERTA PRICES

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: My supplementary question has to do with the dumping of potatoes in British Columbia, which is having a very depressing effect on the price of potatoes in Alberta. Would the minister also look into that problem?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, we have been looking at it for quite a long time. I understand that the situation has deteriorated-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister should do something more than look.
September 24, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, there was a significant improvement in that market during the latter days of August and we were hopeful, as I am sure the producers were too, that the situation would correct itself. It is apparent now that it has not. The hon. member used the word "dump". If any potatoes are being dumped in British Columbia there is immediate action we can take.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar on the last supplementary question on this subject.



COMMODITY STUDY OF EFFECT OF UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: In view of the statement to the House by the Minister of Agriculture that the effect of the surcharge on agriculture would be handled commodity by commodity, is there under way a study commodity by commodity of how the surcharge is affecting Canadian agricultural production, and may we be advised very soon in the House of what the policy will be and how these specific instances will be taken care of?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes to the
first part of the question, and as soon as possible to the second part.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he is reported as having said last night on "Encounter" that unemployment should be lower this year, does the Prime Minister expect unemployment this winter to fall below 6 per cent and, if so, what steps is he taking to achieve that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would be able to give a specific statistic. In the program last night I was talking about trends. I repeat what I said: I think it will be lower. As to the specific steps, I have nothing to announce for the time being.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the Prime Minister tell the House on what he bases his prediction that unemployment will be lower this winter? Also, what in the view of the government would be a tolerable level of unemployment this winter? Would it be 6 per cent, 5 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In answer to the first part of the question, I based it on the general economic indicators-the rate of growth of the gross national product in the first half of the year, the number of housing starts in the first half of the year, which was the greatest ever in our history, the fall of inventories, the increase in consumer demand. I did not go into every detailed indicator, but I used the broad ones which showed that the trend was in that direction. I am sure the hon. member on the backbenches would say that his waistline has not gone down, and probably this is an indicator in a certain direction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair, of course, will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary but I hope that very soon we will provide an opportunity to other hon. members so they may ask different questions.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise really to remind the Prime Minister that he did not reply to the second part of my question. What does the government consider to be a tolerable level of unemployment for the country this winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Slightly better than the opposition would be able to manage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest that we should try to give other hon. members an opportunity to ask their questions and return to this matter later.



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he indicate whether he, the government, or any of its ministers are giving consideration to the feasibility of initiating what might be called an opportunities for aged program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think those words can mean many things. We are considering programs which will help all age groups in the economy.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the Prime Minister indicated last night that those who would be unemployed-there is no question about the gravity of the situation-could resort to unemployment insurance, and in light of the fact that under the new legislation one million odd will not be able to take advantage of the Unemployment Insurance Act until January 1, 1972, is the government going to bring in an amendment covering these people so that they will be able to take advantage of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act earlier than January 1, 1972?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.

September 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT-PROGRAM TO SUPPORT TRAINING AND RETRAINING WITHIN INDUSTRY

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that most of the government's money is geared to institutionalized training and that only 5 per cent is devoted to in-industry training compared with 80 per cent in the United States, is the government going to introduce a further program to support in-industry training and retraining in order that more jobs will be available?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will study that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, although I understand it is something that is already under consideration by the government.



UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS AND HOUSING PROGRAMS RECOMMENDED BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the government has had an opportunity to review the report of the Economic Council of Canada, can the Prime Minister say whether the government agrees in principle with the recommendation that such programs as municipal winter works and winter housing should be considered in manpower strategy this winter and, if so, will a statement be made this month or at least before the premiers' conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If a statement has to be made, Mr. Speaker, it will be made as soon as possible.



UNEMPLOYMENT-DEVELOPMENT OF WINTER WORKS PROJECTS BY MANPOWER DEPARTMENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister developing or co-ordinating within the government a program of projects related to additional winter works, either within the government of Canada's field or in co-operation with the provinces or municipalities?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, considering the breadth of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, that I can give any very simple answer. Of course, as is well known, we are looking very intensively at the whole problem of employment in Canada, and when decisions are made about government policy announcements will be made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be very busy looking at a lot of things. I would like to ask the minister a very simple question. Is he developing himself or co-ordinating the development of such a program at this time? That is a very simple question.


Otto Emil Lang: My problem, Mr. Speaker, is that I am doing a great number of things, some of which come close to that kind of description and some of which do not. I am not sure to what the hon. member refers, but perhaps I could

have a discussion with him about my duties on some occasion.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell us whether the Textile and Clothing Board report is completed and, if so, will it be made public soon?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the report is completed. I have received it and we are now winding up intergovernmental discussions on the subject. If all goes well, I hope to be able to announce the government's decision as a result of the Board's recommendation around the middle of next month.



PULP AND PAPER-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING WITH BOWATERS' REPRESENTATIVES-INITIATIVES TO REVIVE MARKETS

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister advise if he can report on meetings held between his trade mission people in London and representatives of Bowaters Pulp and Paper Mills regarding the partial shutdown of their mill at Corner Brook, Newfoundland?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The meeting took place, Mr. Speaker. It was purely informational, and I understand that nothing of practical application came out of it. I am sorry about that.


Jack Marshall: In view of the critical situation in the pulp and paper industry, would the minister advise what recent new initiatives are being taken by his department and by other departments to revive markets and to prevent a continuing deterioration of this industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned we are doing all we can to develop markets. The provinces-Quebec in particular-now seem to be willing to do a number of things that could be useful to the industry at this time. I read in the Financial Post that some plans were being developed for the creation of marketing consortiums. There is plenty of activity and I am very keen to contribute to it in the coming weeks.


Jack Marshall: Would the minister look into the fact that the Canadian government is continuing to give loans to other countries to build pulp and paper mills which are destroying our markets, and would he put a stop to this type of thing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is a popular line, Mr. Speaker, but everybody knows that if the government of Canada had
September 24, 1971

not contributed directly in most cases in the building of these newsprint plants somebody else would have, and Canada would have lost the industrial advantages in supplying equipment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of his persistent statements in the House and on television recently that the present high unemployment is caused solely by unemployed younger people and that the rate of their entry into the labour force could not have been predicted and was unknown to him, can the Prime Minister tell us if he is aware that these young people were born many years ago and that their presence today should not come as any surprise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that a question asked in those terms is not in order.


Frank Howard: I will try something else, Mr. Speaker. With respect to younger people who are unemployed-this phenomenon-and with respect to the unplanned Opportunities for Youth program last summer and its relative disaster-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: -has the Prime Minister any plans or projects specifically designed and selected so that younger people can be employed on particular projects, taking into account their concern about the environment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, both questions were completely wrong in their premises and therefore I do not feel obliged to answer the conclusions.


Frank Howard: May I ask one further supplementary. Why, when the Prime Minister is on the defensive about something, does he have to be so insulting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There cannot be a supplementary to the question we have just had. I suggest to hon. members that the question was not in order. From the procedural standpoint, a supplementary to a question which is not in order cannot be asked. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Abitibi.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since Canadians living in rural areas pay the same price for postal services as city dwellers, would he tell the House whether he will take steps to improve rural mail delivery in the near future?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: New measures have been taken to improve this service, Mr. Speaker, and from the latest accounts I have received, the service has greatly improved.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grey-Simcoe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ACTION TO FULFIL COAL CONTRACTS WITH JAPAN

['By whom?']
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I do not know what that applause is for, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is on account of my patience and persistence as I have been trying to get the floor for about four days. I direct this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact contracts with Japan call for the annual shipment of nine and a half million tons of coal and we are falling short by about three million tons per year, is the government taking any action to encourage the fulfilment of these annual contracts, especially in view of the unemployment situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not taken a personal interest in these particular difficulties. My understanding is that this industry has grown very rapidly in a very few years. It has these contracts and it is now experiencing teething problems. If I can make a contribution I will gladly do so.


Percy Verner Noble: In view of the fact Canadian mining companies are forced to look outside the country for experienced miners, will the government take the necessary action to ensure that Canadians will be trained to fill these positions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I shall pass this question on to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who has more to do with this than I have.



Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In the course of his talks this week with the French Foreign Minister, can the Prime Minister tell the House if he or any of his ministers raised the matter of a bilateral agreement affecting the traditional offshore rights of France off our east coast with particular emphasis on the status of St. Pierre and Miquelon?

September 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not raise this question but I am informed that it was raised by our ministers and officials.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport who participated in the talks with the French Foreign Minister. Has an agreement been worked out with the French government with respect to our pollution laws off the south coast of Newfoundland with regard to the jurisdiction of France over the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and adjacent waters?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I do
not think it would be appropriate to outline in detail the content of the discussions, Mr. Speaker, as I believe it is traditional that this not be done. However, I do not think it is disclosing any confidence to say that progress is being made on the matter of negotiating an arrangement not only with the government of France but with most of the Atlantic countries along the lines that the hon. member has mentioned. I would hope that some bilateral arrangement, particularly relating to St. Pierre and Miquelon, would be possible in the immediate future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister in connection with the visit yesterday of the Foreign Minister of France and the discussions that took place. Was there any discussion concerning the possibility of any kind of special relationship between Canada and the European Common Market?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, here again I did not discuss this subject with the Foreign Minister of France but I do know that the subject of the Common Market and commercial relations with Europe and France were very much discussed by some of our ministers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: By whom?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Has the Quebec Minister of Justice or some other authority requested help from the Armed forces should the Quebec police force go on strike over the weekend?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, personally I have received no

request from the Quebec Minister of Justice, but I can state that officers of the Quebec police force have contacted their counterparts at general headquarters for mobile forces with regard to the possibility of a strike.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the Solicitor General an important question which deals somewhat with security. Did the Canadian government have any knowledge that the CIA had infiltrated the FLQ last fall or is still infiltrating that organization in the province of Quebec, and was this done with the Canadian government's acquiescence?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am totally unaware of the allegations contained in that question but I will certainly ask for information.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary. I wonder if the minister would take a look at the matter over the weekend and make a full report because of the statements that are now being made and the knowledge that appears possessed by the media and others as far as this infiltration is concerned?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, if the reply is no the report will not be very long.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a further supplementary?


Mrs. Maclnnis:: My question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North later.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Winona Grace MacInnis: My question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister inform us if officials of his department are meeting with provincial officials in order to determine the best method of providing day-care centres as recommended in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and by the Canadian conference on day-care?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is an examination of the
September 24, 1971

whole question of day-care centres, some within, as the hon. member described it, my department, some within CMHC and some within the secretariat that is examining the whole question of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In the course of this examination, many consultations are taking place, but in any formal sense consultation with the provinces has not started.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask the minister when we may expect the initial report of this secretariat which is inquiring into the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women?


Mr. Andreis:: As soon as I get time to digest the very voluminous reports that are flowing in and get some structure into it, I will be delighted to try to convey the information.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North on a supplementary to a previous question.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the Solicitor General's answer which was not clear and in view of the sensitivity of relations with the United States at this time, as has been discussed earlier, would the Prime Minister as the head of the government make a statement with reference to this alleged infiltration indicating whether there was knowledge on the part of the government and whether government acquiesced in the action of the CIA and is still acquiescing and handing over the security of our nation to another country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Like the Solicitor General, I made some preliminary inquiries and like him I repeat that it would be important to make further inquiries. The preliminary inquiries, in which I have confidence, are to the effect that there are no CIA agents in Canada. Certainly if there are some they are not here with Canada's knowledge and acquiescence.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take the liberty of reminding hon. members that we will very soon run short of time. The hon. member will be allowed one supplementary.
WHEREABOUTS OF PIERRE VALLI&RES


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House of the whereabouts of Pierre Vallieres?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of question which I think it is not in the public interest to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to be facetious. I know that the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: You just can't help it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: -is full of information and I am told that he is a fountain of wisdom, but maybe this kook is working in the east block and maybe the Prime Minister is going to appoint him to the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who writes your stuff?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might be given an opportunity to ask his question.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Robert Muir: My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by Mr. Tom Kent at his first press conference as the new president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation that funds made available to that corporation for industrial development and other purposes are almost wholly depleted, can the Prime Minister assure the House that more funds will be made available as soon as possible to carry out the job assigned to the corporation which, as the Prime Minister knows, is to create jobs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker, and refer it to the minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation.



MANPOWER


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Prime Minister. As recommended by the Economic Council of Canada's latest report, is the government going to lower the three-year eligibility requirement for training allowances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this report was only made public yesterday and I have not had time to read it yet.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Is the government now going to table the government's studies of alternative eligibility requirements that are referred to in the Economic Council of Canada's report?

September 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here again I do not know to what the report referred. I have not read it yet.



RAPESEED-DECISION ON PAYMENT OF PART OF COST OF FIGHTING ARMY WORM OUTBREAK

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister inform the House whether the government has yet made a decision to pay a portion of the lanate costs for fighting the army worm outbreak in Saskatchewan this past summer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, a decision has not yet been made.



POLLUTION


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that ships using the Great Lakes are still getting away with dumping bilge water and other waste, particularly in Lake Huron, will the minister agree to meet with municipal, provincial and Michigan state officials to hear their views on establishing a better method of surveillance of these ships?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do that. To my way of thinking we have been improving our methods and our American counterparts also feel that this is so. If there are additional improvements or suggestions from people on the spot that we can implement, we will be more than pleased to do so. If the hon. member or any other member wishes to arrange such a meeting, I will be pleased to attend.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a recommendation by the senate of Queen's University that there be no continuance of permanently authorized members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the campus and that under no circumstances should the RCMP be encouraged to place undisclosed agents in the university? Also, is the government prepared to accept these recommendations for all campuses?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received these recommendations or if I

have, they have not come to my knowledge. As soon as I will be acquainted with them, I will certainly be able to give a reply.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I wish to ask the
Prime Minister if he has made personal contact by wire, telephone or letter with the President of the United States conveying the view of our country and this House on the proposed Amchitka nuclear test?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Does the Prime Minister not consider there might be some value in making such a representation to the President of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the government House leader I want to record that I have had certain consultations with members opposite. It is the government's intention to call Bill C-244 now and continue the debate from last night and to call at two o'clock, instead of 2:30, the report stage of Bill C-243, An Act to Amend the Judges Act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are agreeable to this. However, I want to remind the Minister of Justice and other ministers that we were not discussing yesterday the bill that is going to be discussed today. We were discussing the refusal of the government to comply with the laws of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, September 22, consideration of Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of
September 24, 1971
[Stage Direction]
prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and motions Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. Gleave (page 7252).
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, when the debate concluded the other evening, I just had a brief moment or two to make a few preliminary comments and to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), an amendment to the amendment. Because this is a fresh day, it might be worthwhile for me to read the amendment. It is as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after "deduction" and substituting therefor the following "of the amount by which the costs of production for the crop year within which a levy under section 9 is deducted exceeds the costs of production for the crop year ending on July 31, 1970."
In debating this particular subamendment, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recall that when he gave notice of his intention to move the amendment, the Chair expressed some doubt about the procedural acceptability of the amendment. Before the hon. member proceeds to debate the substance of the motion, I wish to point out that the Chair still has a reservation about whether it can accept the amendment. If the hon. member and other members can assist the Chair, it might be the consensus of members of the chamber that we now hear argument on that point. I might indicate the Chair's concern. I am just making a preliminary comment and I will certainly listen to argument with an open mind.
It seems that in his proposed amendment the hon. member is substituting another method of determining the particular matter dealt with in the section; in other words, he is substituting one thing for another. At this stage, where there are amendments to motions at the report stage, the Chair must be very sure that the amendment does not go beyond the four corners of the motion it is purported to amend. With those preliminary observations, I will appreciate any assistance hon. members can give to the Chair.


Frank Howard: I did not, as has been suggested, give notice the other evening of moving a subamendment. I, in fact, moved it. I have reiterated it today because this is a fresh day. I wanted it to be clear in the minds of hon. members.
With regard to the point of order raised by Your Honour, it is not a substitution of a different method, but a question of amending the amendment to put in a particular floor from which certain things are measured. If we look at what clause (c) of subclause (1) says and then proceed to the amendment and subamendment, I think Your Honour will find they are all connected and relevant. Subclause (c) interprets and defines grains sales proceeds. I quote:
"grain sale proceeds" means the amount of the purchase price of grain produced on land described in a permit book and sold by a producer to a licensee,-
Boiled down, I think the meaning of this clause is that grain sales proceeds are the purchase price of the grain after the deduction of certain charges. The amendment
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) sought to add, after the definition in the bill, the phrase "and after the deduction of the increased costs of production and including stabilization payments, if any." That amendment was in order. It was accepted and it has been under debate for a while. That amendment sought to add another item which would be deductible from the purchase price of the grain. There would be, then, the purchase price of the grain from which would be deducted certain lawful charges as mentioned in the bill itself and, additionally, the increased cost of production. The amendment being in order, the purpose of my sub-amendment, which has been read, is as follows-perhaps I should read it again because it does make an alteration in the words of the amendment by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Its intention is to deal with the words after the word "deduction" in the amendment by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, and then to rephrase certain other parts to clarify what is meant by increased costs of production.
The amendment would provide that those increased costs of production shall be the difference between costs in the crop year in question and in the crop year which ended on July 31, 1970. In other words, the sub-amendment is connected with the amendment and with the original clause, proceeding as follows: There is the purchase price of the grain, less lawful charges as set out in the bill, less increased costs of productions, as set out in the amendment by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar; and this is clarified to say that these increased costs of production shall be measured on the basis of the crop year ending on July 31, 1970. The whole thing is a matter of clarification and being more precise than the wording originally proposed.
In the light of what Your Honour said the other evening when I moved the sub-amendment originally, and the thought which was expressed about its admissibility, I took occasion to read the references in Beauchesne to amendments and sub-amendments. As Your Honour knows, they are voluminous and many of them are not applicable in this case because they deal with matters which are not dealt with here. I should like to refer to two citations. One is Citation 203(1). I believe my sub-amendment meets the requirements set out here. The citation reads:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
I submit my amendment meets the test of relevance. It simply identifies the base year from which costs of production are to be measured. I wish to read the whole of Citation 203(1) because sometimes it is possible for hon. members to select only parts which are favourable to the position they are taking.
Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the House the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I submit that if this sub-amendment of mine is accepted, and if the amendment is accepted and the bill is amended accordingly, it would be intelligible and consistent with itself. It would be intelligible because it defines and inserts a base year upon which increased costs of production shall be measured. I submit that without such a base

September 24, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
year being defined the increased costs of production which might have to be taken into account in any subsequent crop year could not be calculated accurately because there would be no base upon which they could be measured. The purpose is to establish a time from which increased costs of production can be measured in order to make the amendment intelligible and consistent with itself.
Another paragraph in Beauchesne reads:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject as the original motion they are admissible.
That is the law on the relevancy of amendments. I submit that this sub-amendment is on the same subject matter as the amendment. It talks about increased costs of production, which is a fundamental part of the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar, and it talks about a point in time from which those increased costs of production are measured. It is not, to use a phrase which Beauchesne uses a little later on, foreign to the amendment of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. We read that exceptions to this rule are amendments going into supply or ways and means. This is not applicable now.
Further, in Citation 202(3), we read as follows:
Since the purpose of a sub-amendment is to alter the amendment-
Which is what the sub-amendment seeks to do,
-it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment.
I submit it does not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment. It merely specifies a point in time from which certain things should be measured. The citation continues:
-but it should deal with matters which are not covered by the amendment.
The amendment of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar does not deal with the matter of establishing a point in time. It deals with costs of production, yes, but it does not deal with the question of a base period. I submit my sub-amendment meets that requirement, too, in that it deals with a matter which is not covered by the amendment itself. Beauchesne adds:
If it is intended to bring up questions foreign to the amendment, the hon. member should wait until the amendment has been disposed of and move a new amendment.
This is not germane to the particular question before us.
Let me sum up my reasons for believing Your Honour should accept the sub-amendment. First, the bill itself states that grain sales proceeds shall be the purchase price of the grain less certain lawful charges. The amendment which was accepted by the Chair and debated at some length the other day says an additional factor which should be deducted from the purchase price relates to the increased costs of production. My sub-amendment simply says that in order to determine what those increased costs of production might be, a point in time shall be established, namely, the crop year ending July 31, 1970. It says that upon this basis increases in costs of production shall be measured. I submit that without the amendment proposed there could be arguments in another direction. But in view of what Beauchesne has to say about relevancy when dealing with the subject matter of an amendment,

and bearing in mind the other points to which I have referred in the citations from Beauchesne, I submit I have proceeded logically, sensibly and intelligibly from the bill, to the amendment, to the sub-amendment. I hope Your Honour will be persuaded by that process of argument and reason that the sub-amendment is in order.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has proposed the amendment has raised arguments about its relevancy and as to whether it logically follows the motion that has been put forward. I do not think there is much doubt about either of those questions. There is no doubt about the relationship of the amendment that has been put forward to the motion under discussion. Similarly, there is no doubt about its relevancy to the original clause and to the motion itself. It follows logically, and presumably in the opinion of the hon. member who put it forward qualifies as intelligible, to use his expression. I am sure he feels that it does or he would not have put it forward.
I submit that the reason that this amendment is not in order and is not procedurally acceptable has nothing to do with either of those questions. I should say at the outset that in these technical arguments in which we become involved in dealing with procedure there are times when the charge is levelled that we are being picayune, and so forth. There are times when the government seems to brush aside or to ignore obvious technical difficulties in clauses of bills in order to incur the goodwill of the House and get on with the debate of the subject matter at hand.
I do not think that anyone interested in this subject would seriously question that that is exactly what has taken place respecting the motion which is under discussion and which the hon. member proposes to amend. Whatever the motivation was in ignoring the obvious procedural shortcomings of the amendment itself-which I think will come to light in Your Honour's discussion of the matter-I think it can be seen that when the House relaxes its guard procedurally with respect to one particular step, the all too frequent result is that it invites further relaxations of our procedure, to the correctness of which we should adhere in this chamber if no other place.
Certainly, it is not a sensible step further to encourage that relaxation or aberration from the rules by introducing to a regular motion what I submit is an irregular amendment. In this respect I believe there are two very clear arguments against the procedural acceptability of this amendment, and they are as follows:
The first is that it relates to the interpretation clause. It is evident from the precedents on this point that the interpretation clause of any bill enjoys a special sanctity as far as amendments or sub-amendments are concerned. In this regard I would refer Your Honour to two rulings of the Chair. The first is reported in the Journals of the House for 1969-70 at page 835, under date May 21, 1970. There, in ruling on a number of proposed amendments to Bill C-144, the Canada Water Act, the Speaker said as follows:
-in the opinion of the Chair amendments of a substantive or declaratory nature should not be proposed to an interpretation
September 24, 1971

clause. If such amendments were accepted the clause would not then be an interpretation clause.
I am sure hon. members realize the difficulty of accepting substantive amendments or proposals under the general classification of interpretation.
I suggest to hon. members with respect that it is not the place to make proposed amendments or motions which are of a substantive nature.
Clearly, therefore, this amendment, which really proposes not just to alter the motion that has been put forward but to replace it entirely with a totally different formula, thereby getting at the definition clause itself, is out of order.
As a further example of the strength of that ruling, on October 28, 1970, when the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) had put forward a proposed amendment which is to be found at page 660 of Hansard for that date and which sought to change the definition of "federal court" in the federal court bill so as to include the Supreme Court in each province, Mr. Speaker cited the ruling to which I have just referred and ruled the amendment out of order because it sought to effect a substantive change in a definition clause. I submit there is the clearest example before us here of an attempt to do just that kind of thing without giving the notice required, thus attempting to amend the bill itself. However, I will come to that point in a moment. Therefore, the first argument against this proposed amendment is that it proposes to effect a material change in a definition clause, and there is clear precedent for holding that this cannot be done.
The second argument that I have against it is this. In view of the provisions of Standing Order 75 pertaining to notice which must be given at report stage of any motion, it is clear that any amendment to that motion for which notice is required under that Standing Order must not in itself seek to amend the bill but must simply be an amendment to the motion itself for which notice has been given. In this regard, even the most cursory examination of the proposed amendment indicates that what it seeks to do is entirely to replace the motion by deleting everything after the word "deduction", replacing what follows with a different formula, thereby getting at the bill itself by way of amendment, the appropriate notice under Standing Order 75 not having been given.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit on both those grounds that procedurally the amendment is unacceptable. By way of reference to the latter argument, the remarks of Mr. Deputy Speaker on April 29, 1969, as reported at pages 8146 and 8147 of Hansard, in connection with amendments proposed to Bill C-150 at that time, are pertinent. I should like particularly to quote the Speaker's remarks at page 8147, the right-hand column:
I must point out to the hon. member for Shefford, as I said earlier, that his proposed subamendment is not in order for at least one reason.
I suggest to the hon. member that this amendment is of the kind which could have been proposed under standing order 75, that is to say by giving notice of it before the motions are considered in the house. Once the motions have been proposed-there are 43 or 44 of them I think-the house must consider particular amendments or specific motions proposed by the members and only such motions can be the subject of a subamendment under standing order 75(8).
What the hon. members can do now is to propose a subamendment to the motion of the hon. member for Gatineau, because they
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
cannot introduce an amendment to change section 18 of the bill under consideration. I suggest to the member for Abitibi and to the other members that the motion of the member for Abitibi is in fact intended to amend clause 18 of Bill C-150 and not the motion of the hon. member for Gatineau.
In fact, the motion of the hon. member for Gatineau is so simple that it would be difficult I think to imagine an amendment which could be in order. Therefore under the circumstances, I find it impossible, even if I wanted to be as tolerant as the rules allow me, to accept the subamendment proposed by the member for Abitibi.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the amendment is out of order for two reasons. First, it attacks the definition clause of the bill very directly and the Standing Orders indicate that this cannot be done at this time. Second, it goes entirely beyond the scope of the motion and attacks the bill itself, which again is against the clear precedents of this House. Consequently, I submit argument should not proceed on the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) very interesting. He started out to explain why he thought the amendment was relevant and intelligent but the premise of his whole argument was based mostly on the fact that he felt the amendment, as tabled and put before the House, was out of order. That is a very weak case, because surely the main purpose of tabling a motion 24 hours before the subject matter comes up for debate in the House is to give Your Honour and your staff time to look over the motions and contact the mover, if necessary, to suggest that it should be altered or changed. One can only assume that these motions were looked over. It might have been considered at the time that the motions were weak or should have been made more clear, but one can only assume that they have passed the acid test and received your approval, because that is why we find ourselves in a debate on these motions.
These motions were brought forward on Wednesday, September 22, and it is regrettable we have not yet had a ruling. I am inclined to believe this fact supports the suggestion that the amendment is clear and has merit. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) suggested that we cannot move an amendment to a definition clause. This is the interpretation part of the bill. If an amendment to the interpretation clause is in order, then a subamendment which clarifies the original amendment and sets out a base year should be in order and welcomed by hon. members.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) suggests that after the word "producer" the following words should be added: and after the deduction of the increased costs of production, and including stabilization payments, if any;
Clause 2(c) reads in part:
-after the deduction from the purchase price of the grain of the lawful charges that are applicable to the grain on its sale to the licensee by the producer;
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is including another deduction he believes should be added, that is the deduction of the cost of production. Many hours have been spent during agriculture debates in this House in an attempt to determine the cost of production and on what
8150

September 24, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
it should be based. If one looks at the debates of the United States legislature, he will find that they have for years debated the matter of parity and the year on which it should be based.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar may be very difficult to implement. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has moved an amendment, which I think should be welcomed by the House because it goes a long way to clarify the situation. The words of the amendment to some extent, deal with the cost of production. It reads:
of the amount by which the costs of production for the crop year within which a levy under section 9 is deducted exceeds the cost of production for the crop year ending on July 31, 1970.
It is quite obvious what the hon. member for Skeena is attempting to do. He is trying to set July 31, 1970 as the base year. Many farmers will not be very happy with that date because the cost of production based on the year 1970 would be low as profits that year were low. They would like a year which would be more favourable. In any event, this is a concrete suggestion that clarifies the interpretation part of the act. How can we have good legislation unless the intent outlined in the interpretation clause is clear?
In my opinion this amendment is in order and should be welcomed by the House because it clears up any doubt there may be in the minds of people reading the original motion, and I would urge Your Honour to rule that it is in order. The debate during the past two days has convinced me that in Your Honour's wisdom you feel there is merit to this motion. If you did not believe that, I should think you would have ruled it out of order automatically. I should think we could have a ruling on this matter now and get on with the debate. The House of Commons spends too much time on procedural issues. I should like to see more time spent debating conditions of agriculture rather than procedure.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of the original motion, I find the amendment very acceptable. It clarifies or brings into sharper perspective the manner by which these production costs are to be arrived at. There has been some question raised as to whether the original motion is in order. Of course, that matter was decided after the motion was debated for some time. I must say I feel the original motion was in order. The essence of the bill before us is that there is to be a relationship established between the gross proceeds of the sale of grain over a five-year period and the individual income of a farmer in a particular year in which certain payments are to be made. Therefore, the manner in which we arrive at the basis of income of an individual farmer in that particular year is relevant to the discussion we have had.
Various clauses of the bill go to some length to set this out quite clearly. The bill sets out the lawful charges which may be taken into account by those administering the measure. I have put before this House one of the factors which is to be considered as part of the calculation in arriving at the farmer's income in a particular year relative to the five-year period set out in respect of gross income on the six grains. The amendment simply goes a little further for the purposes of clarification. It says that

such and such a year shall be the base year for which we arrive at the cost of production. That is the objective of the amendment. I suggest to you that the amendment simply clarifies the motion and brings it into sharper focus. It does not substantially change the motion, because the essence of the motion we have been discussing is that the cost of production should be a part of those factors used in arriving at an individual farmer's claims. Indeed, it affects his right to claim against the stabilization fund as and when it is set up. This is what the original motion does. The amendment as offered simply says that in the mechanics of arriving at this those responsible shall take a certain year as a basis for making their calculations.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the points raised by hon. members. I think these, involve additional problems for you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the rules we are now using are relatively new and the procedures we are using are relatively new. Certainly, the amount of reference material to guide Your Honour is rather out of date or of very limited use because of the changes in the rules. Part of the difficulty is illustrated in the motion and the amendment. I sat on the Agricultural Committee, as did the mover of the motion. We were well aware of the discussion that had taken place over a long period of time in very great detail. When we moved the motion and presented it to the Chair in the way we did, we did so with knowledge of the discussions which had taken place and the knowledge we had of the subject. We were well aware of the deductions, for instance, that take place in connection with the movement of grain. We were also aware of what was meant by the inclusion of stabilization payments.
All Members of Parliament have the right to make a decision on every piece of legislation before us. They also, it seems to me, have the right to suggest changes in the wording or motions so that what the mover and seconder mean to say is said in a manner which is acceptable and understood. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked me what the costs of production were and how we arrived at what we considered to be a net return rather than a gross as is mentioned in clause 9 of this bill. I was able to tell him from my knowledge what the costs were that were involved in establishing the difference between the gross and the net. After we had discussed it for some time he gave his interpretation of it and asked if that was what I meant. I agreed that that was what it meant, although it was said in a different way.
I think the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) is wrong if he believes the system we use can be successful if we are willing to waive the time limits that are necessary for the Chair to make the decision. I think he is wrong if he believes that, under those circumstances, the Chair will be very successful for long in making a decision concerning whether or not the motions that are presented from the committee by individual members are acceptable in the form in which they are presented. It may well be that the Speaker will have to confer with members of the House who move the motions, particularly where language and interpretation is involved, because there
September 24, 1971

may be a difference of opinion about what is being said by the motion. Unless the member is to have some way of clarifying what he says, and of putting it in better language so that it is made intelligible to other members who are involved, then it seems to me this system will not succeed. Previously, when a member wanted to move an amendment to a bill, he moved the amendment as the bill was being discussed clause by clause, and the clauses which were acceptable and which members considered to be amendable were amended. They were amended in the House as each clause was called. However, we changed the system. I do not think we should use the old precedents or follow Beauchesne and the decisions made by previous Speakers under a previous system and apply them to the system we are using now. We should forget about the old system and find other ways to do this.
A member who moves an amendment may not say in the amendment what he intended to say or he may not put it in the best language. Certainly, I have heard the suggestion that two heads are better than one. If you use 264 heads you probably are adding something to what any member or any two members had in mind in respect of these amendments. From my point of view, the amendment is a clarification of the original motion moved. It is not inconsistent with what we were trying to do. It does not add anything to what we were attempting to do with the exception of the base period. In the act that is to be repealed by this legislation there is exactly the same dateline and we have this in mind. I am sure that anyone looking at this act would agree that there must be a starting and closing point in the crop year and that when you talk about the cost of production you take it from one point to another point. In most cases it has not been a calendar year which has been used, but rather it has based on the crop year. Under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the date of July 31 was the ending of the crop year and I see nothing inconsistent in this, although it was not in the original motion.
Obviously, this was in the mind of the mover and seconder. If not exactly that date, certainly a calendar date would have to be implemented. I suggest if the new rules are to succeed, now that we are using a report stage to replace the committee stage, we will have to supply machinery to enable a member to develop an amendment which will say exactly what he wants it to say in language which is acceptable to the Chair, and to enable the Chair to assist in the development of that amendment. The government cannot complain about the original motion and cannot blame the Chair for accepting the original motion, whether or not it stands on all fours on the basis of the previous rules. The minister responsible for this bill on a number of occasions attempted to obtain the co-operation of the House to move this bill forward. If he is asking for immediate attention to this bill, then the Parliamentary Secretary will have to waive to some extent his right to argue that the decision of the Chair to allow the motion was made on the condition that the Chair was not giving it endorsement. But obviously when the minister rose in his place and spoke on the motion without questioning more than the number of motions, he was giving his endorsement to that motion, so I suggest that we are going to be in a procedural hassle.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but what I have to say may be of assistance to the chamber. I can advise the hon. member that I am in accord with his argument and the argument put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I do not accept the argument of the parliamentary secretary on that point. I think the motion is properly before the House, and I mention this so that the hon. member need not take longer in his speech to convince me. I am convinced.


William Arnold Peters: The point that I really wanted to bring to Your Honour's attention was that, in moving the amendment, consideration should be given to the changes that we have made in the rules and to what is really the purpose of allowing an amendment. I suggest that when the purpose of an amendment is the clarification of an original motion-there may be other amendments which achieve other purposes-and when it is worded in language which is somewhat more easy to understand by those who will be administering the law so that the amendment is really a refinement of the original motion, we should be fairly lax in the fine interpretation of the application of the amendment to the motion if, in the opinion of the majority of members it is acceptable. I make the suggestion only in the light of the rule changes that we have made and our inability, which has become obvious, to find time to develop proper amendments under the report system that we are now using.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself in the main to the question that Your Honour raised and to the portions of the argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) which still stand after your interjection of a moment ago. The interjection that you have made does make it unnecessary to argue that the amendment is properly before us, but perhaps I might be permitted to put on the record standing order 75(8) which reads:
When the Order of the Day for the consideration of the report stage is called, any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
That of course is the situation. The motion moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) was properly before the House under subparagraph (5) of Standing Order 75 and therefore under subparagraph (8) it is under debate and it is open to a member to move an amendment thereto. Although 24 hours notice is required in the case of an original motion, no notice is required in the case of an amendment moved under subparagraph (8). However, one concedes without argument that the mere right to present an amendment does not mean that any amendment that one presents is necessarily in order. There are other rules that have to be met, most of which have been placed on the record by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in his initial presentation.
However, it seems to me that the main question which Your Honour feels you must cope with is whether this amendment is a substitution for something that is already before us, or whether it is new material, something that is so different from what is already before us that it should
24319-27}

September 24, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
itself have been a motion by notice as provided under Standing Order 75 (5).
I should like to support those who have already taken the position that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena far from being a substitution, far from being something new, is simply a clarification of what the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar asked for in his motion. In fact, I might say that all the hon. member for Skeena has done has been to respond to a request made by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board when he spoke on the motion on June 22 as reported at page 7259 of Hansard for that day. He asked his supporters to vote against the motion that was before us, because, he said:
-there is no possibility of an accurate determination.
I do not quarrel with that suggestion of the minister. That, in fact, is what he had said about the motion moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, that as it was worded it did not provide the possibility of an accurate determination. The hon. member for Skeena has responded to the plea of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and has offered an amendment that makes possible an accurate determination of what it was that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar was requesting.
Therefore, I submit to Your Honour that what is before us now is not a new motion; it is not something that is a substitution for what the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar asked for, but is simply a clarification of the request made in the original amendment. I hope that Your Honour has had time to think about that phase of the matter and to study both the original motion and the amendment so that you can come to the realization that, as I say, it is not something new but just a point of clarification.
Now, may I address myself to one or two other remarks that were made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. We need not spend any time on his questioning whether the motion was properly before us because Your Honour has indicated that you are satisfied on that point. I do think that Your Honour should take into consideration the fact that much of the argument advanced by the parliamentary secretary was argument against the validity of main motion, not argument against the amendment. He contended that the amendment is to a definition section, that there are rulings that say that one cannot, by amending the definition section, import new ideas of substance into a bill and that on that ground the whole attempt should now be ruled out of order. I think that if the matter were open for argument, we could argue that the original motion was not making substantial law but was itself a clarification of a definition in that section. But in any case, the motion is before the House. It was put forward on June 22 of this year, was debated on that day, and has been debated since. Although Mr. Speaker said there were some doubts about some of the other motions that were on the order paper, nevertheless this one has been put and has been under debate. To suggest now that it is out of order is hardly in keeping with the ruling that in effect the Chair has already made by putting this motion to the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) goes on to say that what the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is seeking to do is to get around the amendment and back to the bill, that he is trying to bring in an amendment to the bill itself. It seems to me that in that situation one is up against the same point that I was trying to answer when I dealt with Your Honour's questioning. Surely, if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena is simply clarifying what is already before us, then it is pretty hard to argue that it is an amendment to the bill itself.
The bill itself has a definition clause as to what the phrase "grain sale proceeds" means. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar sought to amend that definition of the phrase "grain sale proceeds." The hon. member for Skeena is not trying to go back to the bill. He is not trying to amend anything in clause 2(l)(c). He is simply trying to clarify the definition as the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has tried to suggest it to the House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council fall to the ground and all of those precedents he read had to do with the validity of the main motion. The Chair having put the main motion and having allowed it to be debated, I do not think it can now be called into question.
If the main motion is in order, then I submit that it is in order to try to clarify it. I quite agree with the statement that the parliamentary secretary made that it is improper to use this device to get around an amendment back to the bill, but I do not think that this is what this amendment does, and I hope Your Honour so finds. In other words on both points the answer, I suggest, is one that has been made by everyone who has been on his feet on this side, that the amendment before us is simply an attempt to clarify the main motion. Therefore, I hope Your Honour will accept it as being in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) is seeking the floor on a question of privilege and I will recognize him in a moment. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) also seeks the floor. It occurred to the Chair that if there are other hon. members who want to argue the procedural aspect of the point of order, then I might recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie on his question of privilege first, but I would like an indication from the groups in the House on whether they would want the Chair to make a decision, at this point, on the procedural argument. I would be prepared to do so, but it would mean an extension of time. Could I have an indication on this point?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, because of the desire of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and of yourself to proceed on another matter I will not do it at this point, but I do think there is a necessity to expand further on the point of order in trying to deal with the arguments raised by the parliamentary secretary, and in particular his reference to the Journals of May 24. I think there was a great deal left out of that that should be brought before the House, that would show it in a different context, and I wish to bring it out.
September 24, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House for giving me an opportunity to say with respect to the comments that I made yesterday, whether within the chamber or from behind the curtain, that they were not meant personally in so far as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was concerned. I apologize to him if in any way I inconvenienced him, or if in any way I inconvenienced the government, or if in any way I inconvenienced any member or supporter of the government.
I hold strong sentiments, Mr. Speaker. I think all of those who have been associated with me must realize that I express my attitudes forcefully, and sometimes I am carried away. I think that yesterday I was carried away, and I apologize very sincerely to the Minister of Agriculture. I know that he can be a very good minister.
I find myself in a very difficult position. I am as sincere as possible in pushing my convictions, just as sincere as I am in opposing some of the convictions held by the government. But if there was anything personal in what I said yesterday, I apologize. I do this humbly and with sincerity. I do not mean any malice towards the minister.
I repeat that I am sincere in my convictions in opposing government policies and that sometimes I can be carried away. But as humbly as I can on this particular occasion, I apologize if I expressed any attitude that personally affected a member of the House. That is not my intention here. I believe that I attempted to support the viewpoint of my constituents. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to convey my apologies to the Minister of Agriculture because I, personally, do not have any malice towards him.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I accept the apology and I hope it will be noted that the reference was to those comments which appear on page 8127 of Hansard and which are now withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If it is the unanimous wish of hon. members I am prepared to make a ruling now. With respect to the hon. member for Skeena seeking the floor, I would point out that he did argue the point of order well and forcefully, and at some length. I would think he has no right, unless there is unanimous consent for him to do so, to speak further on that point of order. Is there unanimous consent that the Chair make a ruling at this point?


William Arnold Peters: No. One o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. Pursuant to the arrangements made earlier today this debate is now interrupted. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Judges Act and Financial Act


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-243, to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. For the purpose of considering the study of report stage of Bill C-243, I should like to make the following comment as to the procedure of debate. It is suggested by the Chair that motions Nos. 1 and 5 be grouped together for deabte but each would be voted upon separately afterwards if necessary. It is also suggested that motions Nos. 2 and 3 be grouped for debate, and again they would be voted upon separately, and finally, that motion No. 4 be disposed of separately. If the House agrees, we could follow this procedure and the Chair would accept any comments or suggestions from hon. members.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we can agree to that. I might just say on that point that motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 come as unanimous recommendations from the committee. The reason that the committee could not dispose of those amendments was that they involve the balance of ways and means and needed the recommendation and the approval of this House. Motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr, Peters) was not considered in committee and should be dealt with by the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just before we start, I wonder if I could speak for a moment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Skeena and will then come back to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is a point of order with reference to what you are saying and should be made now to keep chronological order. I think your recommendation or suggestion is an excellent one. These are short amendments; there is not a lot to them in the sense of changing the details of the measure. You are either for them or against them. I would hope that we would be able to finish this bill today because it was held up last June.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that obviously was not a point of order that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) had but just a device to get the floor.
The grouping suggested by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is acceptable and if he would just say that motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are acceptable to the government, perhaps they could be disposed of without a great deal of lengthy debate.

September 24, 1971
Judges Act and Financial Act


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, all motions except No. 4 are acceptable to the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Following the remarks just made by the hon. member, the Chair at this time will put motions Nos. 1 and 5 and call upon members interested to participate in the debate. The minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) moves motion No. 1 as follows:
-That Bill C-243, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act, be amended
(a)	by striking out line 1 on page 3 and substituting therefor the following:
"(e) Ninety puisne"
(b)	by striking out line 30 on page 3 and substituting therefor the following:
"(d) Six other judges of"
(c)	by striking out line 26 on page 5 and substituting therefor the following:
"(d) Thirteen Justices of the"
(d)	by striking out line 9 on page 6 and substituting therefor the following:
"(b) Ninety-seven judges"
(e)	by striking out lines 17 and 18 on page 6 and substituting therefor the following:
"(d) One chief judge of the County Court-27,000.00
(e) Five County Court judges, each-25,000.00" and relettering paragraphs (e) to (fc) as paragraphs (J) to (1), respectively.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) moves motion No. 5 as follows:
Motion No. 5:
-That Bill C-243, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act, be amended
(a)	by striking out paragraph (e) of section 9 in Schedule A and substituting therefor the following:
"(e) Ninety puisne judges of the Superior Court, each- 30,500.00"
(b)	by striking out paragraph (d) of section 11 in Schedule A and substituting therefor the following:
"(d) Six other judges of the Queen's Bench Division, each- 30,500.00"
(c)	by striking out paragraph (d) of section 16 in Schedule A and substituting therefor the following:
"(d) Thirteen Justices of the Supreme Court of Alberta, each- 30,500.00"
(d)	by striking out paragraph (b) of section 19 in Schedule A and substituting therefor the following:
"(b) Ninety-seven judges and junior judges of the County and District Courts, each-22,000.00
(e)	by striking out paragraph (d) of section 19 in Schedule A and substituting therefor the following:
"(d) One chief judge of the County Court-23,000.00
(e) Five County Court judges, each-22,000.00" and relettering paragraphs (e) to (fc).


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, these two amendments were approved in committee, but the committee was unable to deal with them because they dealt with the balance of ways and means. The amendments are made necessary by requests from various attor-
(Mr. Howard (Skeena).]
neys general for additional judges after the bill had received first reading in the House of Commons. The attorney general of Quebec is applying for extra judges of the Superior Court and Court of Queen's bench in the province of Quebec; the attorney general for Alberta is asking for additional judges for the Supreme Court of Alberta; the attorney general of Ontario is asking for additional county court judges for Ontario and the attorney general of New Brunswick is asking for the designation of one of six county court judges as chief judge of the county courts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I endorse what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said in this regard. At the time this matter came before the committee, he properly suggested we could move a recommendation but we could not move an amendment to the act because the changes dealt with ways and means. At the time these changes came before the committee, the Minister of Justice was in Vancouver dealing with constitutional changes, and we had to wait until he returned. The recommendation by the committee was then made. We agreed at the committee level that we would agree to these amendments in the House. I do so now.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity to express some views, as has been done on earlier occasions, about the judiciary, members of it, the court structure and attitudes of the court. Right after this Parliament began, we had a bill to amend the Judges Act to allow for additional appointments and so on. At that time we had a discussion about the method of appointment, the criteria to be followed and the like. I do not wish to go into that aspect at this time.
At that time we also discussed other matters. From the facial expressions and nodding of the minister, I understood that he was generally in agreement with what we were saying about judges and dispensing of justice by the courts. I thought because the minister had at least indicated superficial agreement although no verbal commitment, we would be moving in a different direction as far as the judges and the bench were concerned. I would like to go over that ground again because it is even more valid today than three years ago as a result of the additional judges that are being sought.
The courts have a tremendous amount of additional business to conduct in cases before them. This makes us wonder what is taking place in our judicial system, the operation of courts and the so-called justice they are supposed to be dispensing to the citizens of this country. We must realize that we do not necessarily get justice or truth from a court. The court is not primarily seeking the truth in cases before it, but seeking to accept that which might be credible. Credibility of witnesses and credibility of cases do not always marry completely with truth and justice. With that attitude toward our court system and criminal law, people do not always obtain justice in the courts of this land.
The matter of money is also involved. It has been mentioned in this House by gentlemen who are learned in the law and have appeared before the courts that a rich person appearing before the court receives one type of consideration. A poor person will likely receive another type of justice. In other words, the amount of money
September 24, 1971

which the individual has bears directly on the action that the court is likely to take on a particular case.
I wish to point out something which exists in my province. If a person charged with an indictable offence is found guilty in the lower courts and wishes to appeal the decision, his appeal must go to the appeal court of British Columbia. The case will not go to the supreme or county court. This may be all right if the individual lives in Vancouver where the court of appeal sits. If an individual from my part of the province, the interior or the far north has been found guilty of an indictable offence and desires to appeal, he will have to spend a minimum of $1,000 to appeal. He and his lawyer will have to go to Vancouver. It will also be necessary to bring witnesses, if any are involved, to Vancouver. This structure denies individuals in the lower income groups the opportunity of proper and full access to the courts of appeal. I am only reciting what lawyers in my area have told to me. I am not a lawyer. I have not been involved in cases of any sort.
On many occasions people from the working class, people who do not have a lot of money, just sufficient to live, are found guilty by the courts. They may feel they are not guilty or, in fact, are not guilty. Because they do not have $1,000, $2,000 or whatever is involved, they throw up their hands and say they cannot appeal. Such a person will have a criminal record the rest of his life as well as having to meet the punishment set out by the court, either a fine or a jail sentence. That sort of structure does not lend itself to dispensing justice. It denies the full availability of the courts and the court system to individuals because of their economic situation.
By contrast, if a person is fairly well off, has friends and is able to raise the necessary money, he has access to the appeal court in such a situation. I do not know the extent to which this is duplicated in other provinces, but this is what I have been told happens in most cases in my province. This certainly requires correction. It may be necessary to have the appeal court sit in different parts of the province. That would be better than the existing situation. Possibly there could be an extension of the appeal court. Technically, I do not know how this would have to be done. Somehow or other individuals must have the opportunity to go to the appeal courts or the appeal court must go to the individual so that he will not be disadvantaged by the mere fact that he is not able to raise sufficient funds to launch an appeal.
To a large extent, our courts are involved with the criminal law. I do not know the division of the courts between civil and criminal, but the courts are involved in dealing with the criminal law, alleged infractions of it and meting out sentences where individuals are found guilty or discharging those found not guilty. On a number of occasions, judges are ignorant of the full force of what may happen to an individual if he is found guilty and sentenced. Judges, to a large extent, and this is borne out by newspaper accounts and by conversations I have had with individuals currently lodged in our penitentiaries, will sentence an individual to a term in a penitentiary because he needs psychiatric help. The judge who does this is completely ignorant of the situation in penitentiaries. In fact, they are the last place in which a person can find psychiatric help. There are psychiatrists attached to the penal system and if an inmate is lucky he might be
Judges Act and Financial Act
able to get a ten-minute interview with a psychiatrist once a month, but that is a pretty hopeless situation as anyone acquainted with this subject knows.
Likewise, judges often sentence an individual to a federal penitentiary, as distinct from a gaol, on the grounds that he will be able to learn a trade while he is there. That is a fallacy. It expresses a lack of knowledge on the part of the judge as to what takes place in our penitentiaries. It is true there are some types of semi-trades which an individual can learn there. He can learn, I imagine, how to make licence plates in some places, but once he gets out, the opportunity he has to earn a living in that field is minimal. In some institutions he can learn to stitch, repair and sew up mailbags for the Postmaster General. But once out of prison his chance of finding employment as a mailbag sewer is pretty limited-about the only place in which he will find such an opportunity is back in a penitentiary.
There are similar types of employment available in penitentiaries but they are not geared to teaching an individual any trade or skill which he might be able to employ outside; they revolve around the penitentiary itself and are designed to keep it operating. There are, of course, some skills which people learn in gaol such as cooking, for example, which have application outside. But for a judge to say he is sending an individual to a penitentiary so that he can learn a trade there and become a more useful citizen exhibits a lack of comprehension of what is involved. In those cases where an individual might be able to learn some skill or technique he can apply once outside, there is not one iota of training given in gaol as to how to get a job, how to fit into society, how to adjust, how to co-operate. What I am getting at is that, to put it mildly, there is a lack of understanding as to what is involved when sentencing a person to gaol.
The other aspect, one which is much more complex and much broader in scope, has to do with the orientation of the court in terms of sentencing, in terms of criminal activities, in terms of finding people guilty of offences against the law. What does the court generally think about? What the court thinks about is predicated generally by the criminal law, the whole of which is oriented toward sending a person to gaol if he is found guilty. The channel runs into gaol and this is what is in the minds of judges whether it is for punishment reasons or whether it is for the theoretical deterrent reason, which in 80 per cent of all cases has been found wanting. The general concept of the court, which, I think, is carrying out the social orientation of government, is to take a chap and put him into gaol. This has to be completely altered. Penitentiaries, we have found over the years, have failed miserably in a social sense and in a rehabilitative sense. They have succeeded in a punishment sense, they have succeeded in a security sense to the extent that they keep an individual out of society's way for a stated period of time. But they have failed in a social sense and in a humanitarian sense.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is purported to be progressive although many times one would not know it from the legislation he introduces. Certainly, no one would reach that conclusion on the basis of the kind of advice he gives to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) in connection with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Generally, though, he is considered

September 24, 1971
Judges Act and Financial Act
to be progressive. We cannot tell by the company he keeps, either, but he has no choice about that; it is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who chooses who he has to work and live with. I should like the progressive attitude the minister exhibits to be reflected in some concrete approach so that the force and direction of the courts would be toward keeping people out of gaol and trying, as far as possible, to involve communities, private families, organizations such as the Excel Foundation, which operates out of Vancouver and, more recently, out of Winnipeg, in an arrangement whereby the authority of the court would not always fall upon an individual by way of sending him to gaol. The conscience of the government should be directed to involving the community so that individual families would be prepared to accept for a probationary period individuals who had broken the law, in order that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Unless he obtains unanimous consent he will not be able to complete his remarks.


John Napier Turner: Finish.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair apologizes. I have just realized that the hon. member still has five minutes left to him and, of course, he may continue his remarks if he wishes.


Frank Howard: I had almost concluded, anyway. These thoughts have been expressed to the minister before. I believe they are valid both from a practical and humanitarian point of view. I hope we can develop a situation in this land where we shall not be spending $30,000 or $40,000 a year on keeping one individual in gaol, counting the police costs, the staffing of penitentiaries, the cost of the supplies and materials required, the cost of operation of the social welfare agencies with respect to families whose father or husband is in gaol, and the like. We have heard it estimated that it costs between $30,000 and $40,000 a year to keep one person in gaol. And we fail, too, in 80 per cent of the cases because there is a recidivism rate of about 80 per cent. In other words, out of every five who are currently in our penitentiaries, four have been in gaol before. This is a sad commentary, remembering that we are paying, say, $35,000 a year with respect to each of the 6,000 or 7,000 inmates of penitentiaries at the present time.
So, there is a strong case for reform on practical grounds. In addition, of course, there is the humanitarian aspect. We tend to lose an individual once he is sentenced to gaol. It is an apprenticeship course he is on, no doubt about that, and little attempt is made to save the individual concerned. I would prefer to see the courts operating in the area of probation. If we look for them, we shall find families who will say: Yes, we will take a chance with this young person, with this young man, with this young girl, we will take them into the home and try to work out within a family structure, through affection, love and understanding, a means of saving this individual from the agony of prison life, from a system under which he will end up serving a life sentence by bits and pieces. If we had that sort of orientation and attitude we would, I think,

have less trouble in the nation and would certainly save ourselves a great deal of money that is otherwise wasted.
There are other jurisdictions in the world where this concept applies. I am not one of those who says that because a certain thing works in one country it will necessarily work here. But we should look at the experiences of other countries and see what is being attempted, and we should be able to adapt certain aspects to our way of life.
However, it takes a conscious, deliberate approach on the part of government to set the tone for this sort of activity, to establish an idea and push it toward fulfilment. I think part of this calls for the involvement of judges, courts and the criminal law. I exclude the penitentiaries services because it is the objective of that service to keep people in gaol once they get there. We reserve our gaols and penitentiaries for cases where there is failure at the start. But let us not give up on any individual at his first, second or even third offence. Let us continue to try, in what I hope is a socially acceptable sense, to involve the community, individuals and families in corrective work, in probationary work and in humanitarian work. Let us put offenders on the road where their ideas are compatible with those of society so they will not cause themselves and other people grief and trouble. But first, the government must consciously adopt an attitude. I hope the minister will be able to respond favourably to these thoughts.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard some rather interesting comments from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) concerning his theory of criminal punishment. I would have hoped to have that sort of debate in its proper setting. At the moment, we have before us an amendment to appoint extra judges at a certain pay level. It is somewhat inhibiting to get into a discussion with the hon. member; all I shall say is that he advanced one theory that society is not at the present time prepared to accept. It is a theory that seemed to dwell upon one side of crime only. Society also looks to the victim of crime. I think you will find at the present time that there is a very strong reluctance on the part of society to step into this other world of handling criminals without also concentrating upon the victims of criminal acts. All too often this point is lost by those people who seem to have a predeliction to concentrate upon the individual who has committed a transgression against the rules of society. Society will not put up with it.
So far as judges are concerned, they are bound by the law that is before them. They are also bound by the views of society regarding these matters. Undoubtedly, there may be judges who share some of the views of the hon. member for Skeena, but they are powerless to act in any way in that direction because society is not prepared or equipped to accept his particular theory of criminal punishment.
The matters I want to talk about are two in number. First of all, it seems to me that I heard it noised about this summer that this bill had been deferred as a result of action by the opposition. Let me put the record straight once and for all: this bill comes before us now because the government had certain priorities in June and this bill lost out to Bill C-176. That is all too clear. I think everyone
September 24, 1971

should know that Bill C-176 had higher priority at the crucial time in late June. However, I am directed to say on behalf of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) that this party at that time did give an undertaking that this bill would be considered and passed within a certain time, as there is today, and we are adhering to that undertaking.
The other matter I wish to talk about is this. Unfortunately, I have to hang my remarks on this particular clause rather than on clause 14 of the bill since that clause is not before us on report stage. I want again to make a plea to the government to remove forever from the members of this House, members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the disadvantage they suffer and have suffered since anno domini, it seems, regarding any pension they might have arising out of service to the public.
For example, if these people go to another position in the public service, they cannot carry their pensions with them. As far as Members of Parliament are concerned, we recently have had the cases of the hon. member for Brant and prior to that of the then Solicitor General. I know of two former colleagues of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) who are presently in the public service of Canada. One of them has had many years' service in this House, but unfortunately he has not been entitled in any way to enjoy that which he had earned and to which he had contributed.
If he had been in private industry, then he would have been able to contribute to a pension or retirement plan of his own, take up his position with the public service of Canada, and thus benefit from his own contributions to and participation in a pension plan. But we have this anachronistic and hoary rule that says that a Member of Parliament cannot enjoy or take with him his pension entitlement should he take a position in the public service of Canada, whether as judge or to an appointment on a government commission. The exception is service with a provincial administration.
This is where the whole thing breaks down. He has a pension from the Crown in the right of Canada, and if he becomes a provincial judge or, say, head of the civil service commission, or even an ombudsman, as the former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did in the province of Alberta, he can draw his full pension to which he is fully entitled on his retirement from the federal service. He can then take up this other position because he is qualified to do so and discharges the duties of his office with efficiency and competence.
The point I want to make is this. Some of the members of this House will in the future be appointed to the bench, and it is for these people that I make this plea. As I understand it, any member of the House who is a lawyer and is appointed to the bench-there have been many instances of this in the past and these members have made extremely competent and good judges-receives the return of his contributions to the pension plan. In this bill there is some slight relief. Although they personally will not enjoy this relief, it is possible that there might be a residuary passing to their estate after these members die, and this certainly is a halfway step. I have talked to a great number of members on both sides of the House as
Judges Act and Financial Act
well as to the minister's colleagues, and they share this opinion.
I have spoken to the minister but I am not going to suggest what he thinks. I will tell him what some of his colleagues think. The point I am trying to make is absolutely justified. We must wipe away this rule. A man in the armed services who has put in his full time and retires with the rank of Warrant Officer first class is entitled to keep his full pension should he go into the Public Service of Canada. The man who has been in for the same length of time and retires with the rank of Major or Lieutenant-Colonel can avail himself of the allowance up to the category of Warrant Officer first class. The difference between the W.O. l's pension and the pension of a Lieutenant-Colonel is subject to reduction under that formula should he accept civilian employment with the government of Canada. I think out of sheer enlightened selfinterest, it would be more than worth while for the government of Canada to employ these men who have been trained at great expense. Many of these senior officers have taken extensive staff courses and have valuable administrative experience and capability. They should be placed in the Public Service of Canada. They will not build up any additional pension during the next 12 or 18 years.
Provincial administrations are getting the entire benefit of these trained men at this time. It seems the whole purpose of this rule is out of keeping with the situation today. Let me conclude by saying very briefly that if a man is going to go to the Bench he should be allowed to keep whatever pension he has earned. If we want top men on the Bench we must increase the pay scale. A judge is not allowed to participate in business and will have to sacrifice a higher income. Some people ask how that can be the case, but that is a fact of life. Many men in this country who are competent in their fields, including lawyers, engineers, architects and others who are not professionals can make much more money than is now offered judges. Many lawyers who are prudent make certain investments. Judges can enjoy the results of such investments while they are judges. A lawyer who has become a Member of Parliament and serves for a long time must sacrifice a legal practice. That is the situation in at least nine cases out of ten. His capital disappears. Surely, they should be compensated in some way. If a man has served for some time in this House and is appointed to the Bench, he should be entitled to receive as a judge any pension he has earned or is entitled to.
The law says that after a man has served a certain length of time as a Member of Parliament he has an entitlement, just as though he had purchased an investment policy, and he should be entitled to receive that while he is a judge, just as a man who is appointed to the Bench right from a legal practice is entitled to receive the benefits of any investment he has made. It seems to me the positions have to be equated. We must do away with this nonsense rule. We have people appointed to the Immigration Appeal Board. They have had to put aside their business dealings, and that is wrong.
8158

September 24, 1971
Judges Act and Financial Act
That is all I want to say on this particular point, but let me reiterate this plea to the government to make the necessary changes.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, breathes there a lawyer whose soul is so dead he does not aspire to a judgeship? I think a judgeship is as important to some as a home or nationalism is to others. We can almost use citation No. 11 of the Standing Orders to object to too many people participating in this debate. However, that is not the reason I am rising today.
The minister has asked for 90 puisne judges, 13 more judges, six more judges, 97 judges, one chief judge of the county court and five more county court judges. Do we really need all these extra judges?


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member in stating those numbers should recognize he is speaking globally rather than additionally, because the 90 judges really means an addition of five judges over the 85 now already in office.


William Arnold Peters: I appreciate that correction because, quite frankly, I did not realize we were not getting 90 more judges, and I would not have been surprised had that been the case.


Mr. Hogarth:: He is unencumbered by the facts.


William Arnold Peters: Every time I get caught speeding in any part of the country there is always a judge immediately available. I have never noticed any lack of judges.
The previous speaker indicated that we must appoint these judges now to clear up the great backlog. I understand the province of Alberta requires more judges. It is interesting to note that when the minister asked for first reading of this measure, at least three provinces made application for an increase in their judiciary.
The reason I refer to a relationship between Members of Parliament and lawyers, and lawyers and judges, is that we really are not in a position of deciding whether we have enough judges in Alberta or in any other province. Perhaps the lawyers can make such a judgment, but they have a very close interest.
I do not begrudge paying judges more money. If money keeps them honest we should increase the amount. Many good lawyers in this country have turned down a judgeship because the money offered is not sufficient to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed. In order to maintain this standard as judges, they would have to engage in outside practice and that may be detrimental. I am not opposed to increasing the salaries, but I should like the minister to tell us whether increasing the number is really necessary. He has listened to the attorneys general of the provinces who have asked for more judges. The minister must go along with such a request, because he is the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, and he has a responsibility. It seems to me that we, as Members of Parliament, are not in a position to decide whether the requested increase in the number of judges is valid. Will the minister indicate what machinery he contemplates to ensure that the increase is necessary?

I would be surprised if one judge I know works more than a 10-hour week. He has lots of time for everything and anything, and this extra time is not doing him any good physically or any other way. It seems to me that a little more work in this case would be beneficial. No one really supervises these judges. They do not punch clocks or turn in time cards.
We had an interesting case in my area not long ago involving a young fellow who had to appear before a judge, even though he had elected trial before a judge and jury, simply because there were so few cases to be heard before a jury that the jury was not called. They talked him out of having a jury trial. He appeared before a judge and received a sentence of two years, whereas the other two young fellows who were involved appeared before a jury and got off. I do not know how justice works, but if this person had elected to be tried by a judge and jury perhaps the trial should have been proceeded with in that way. I think in many cases judges do put in very long hours. In many instances when they hear a case it takes so long for a judgment to be delivered that the person has served the time involved in his sentence even before the judge gets around to deciding what the sentence should be. It may be that we do not need more judges but need more clerical help. The time lapse in obtaining court records sometimes is so great that the judge probably has forgotten what the case was all about.
The point I am trying to make in respect of this bill is we are not really being informed what the need is. We do not know whether the Attorney General of Canada is to exercise some kind of control over the requests which come from the provinces or, for example, if the province of Alberta asks for five judges does it get five judges and is that the end of his responsibility. Do we just vote this money year after year as a matter of course? I am interested not only in this initial instance but also in how we exercise control over this problem in each year's estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing two report stage motions at the present time, No. 1 and No. 5. I gather that No. 1 deals mainly with increasing the number of judges to be provided under this legislation and that No. 5 deals mainly with the proposed new salary levels. Like the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) I feel I must say that we have to take it on the word of the minister that the increased number of judges is really necessary. That message has been put through to us from most of the lawyers in this House during recent weeks. As I say we have no direct evidence, but I suppose we must believe it is necessary and therefore I shall not object to report stage motion No. 1.
Although I have said things in this House which were more popular than this, it is still my view that we are raising the salary levels too high and, Mr. Speaker, when you put report stage motion No. 5 I shall record my objection by saying "on division". It seems to me the pleas that are made for these higher salaries just do not jibe with the pleas that are also made for people to hold their desires in check, to put off their demands for higher wages and so on.
September 24, 1971

There is mounting unemployment in this country. There are many people who must live on unemployment insurance or on low levels of welfare and we have the problems of our pensioners trying to make both ends meet. We are told that these people must wait and wait and wait. The process grinds very slowly for them. In this bill, however, there is one increase in the salaries of judges which is to be retroactive to January 1, 1971, and there is another increase which is to come into effect on January 1, 1972. This is not a bill which is picayune in character. When it is all through, as I understand it, the salary range will be from $22,000 to $50,000. The highest salary specified is $47,000 but the $47,000 judge receives an extra $3,000 for things he might be called upon to do. I know that lawyers are not the highest paid people in the country according to taxation statistics made public a few days ago. They are second. Doctors come at the top. I still suggest that in this Parliament, where we have to do something about people who are unemployed, who are in poverty, who are on pensions and so on, we are going a little too far and too fast in respect of salary levels in the upper brackets. I know the mood in this House and the arguments we have had before, but just as I objected to the increases we made earlier in this session in respect of our own salary levels I object to these increases.
The other word I intended to say I could have held for the next debate, namely on motions No. 2 and No. 3, but perhaps since reference has been made to the matter I might do it now and not have to do it again. One of the perquisites, of course of being a judge is the pension arrangement. This pension is being increased by virtue of this bill and let it never be forgotten that these are noncontributory pensions. The judges receive them without putting one nickel into them. They are very good pensions. They are not the kind we vote for other people. I think one must consider this in light of the salaries. For these reasons, I feel I must indicate my objection.
I want to say at the same time, as one who has long been concerned-and I think that concern has been amply demonstrated-about the pension arrangements which apply to public servants generally, that, there are a number of improvements which need to be made in the pension arrangements particularly for widows and dependants. The minister knows, or at least I assume he knows, that in some cases widows of judges long since deceased have been appealing to him as strongly as they can to do something about the level of their pensions. These are widows of judges who served the courts years ago. Therefore, the pensions these widows have are still very low because they were fixed a long time ago. When we reach report stage motions No. 2 and No. 3, we will be providing for a certain amount of retroactivity. This I suppose is mainly because of the fact that it has taken so long to get this bill through. This retroactivity, however, dates back only to January 1, 1971, and therefore does not affect the widows of judges whose pensions date back before that time. I feel the minister should still give some consideration to these people and do something for them at this time.
While I am on my feet perhaps I should say a word about the point raised by my friend the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). As I have already said, I believe there are vast improvements which still have to be
Judges Act and Financial Act
made in public service pensions generally and that others need to be made with regard to judges, but I must say I cannot go along with the hon. member in his request that a certain principle be abandoned, namely the principle that when a person goes from one public service job to another, from being a Member of Parliament to being a judge, or from being a Member of Parliament to being a Senator or a member of the Immigration Appeal Board or what have you, that that person should not receive both the pension he had earned up until that point and the salary he would get in the new job. Generally speaking, that principle is a valid one. We have provisions which take care of public servants up to certain levels, where they move from one area of service to another, but I think the notion that one can stand up in this House and say that a person has earned a pension according to law and should get it even though he receives a salary from the federal treasury, does not follow.
This pension that Members of Parliament earn according to the law is just that. The law that sets up our pension provides that if a retired Member of Parliament goes to the Senate or goes to some job to which there is attached a salary from the federal treasury, that pension is suspended. One of the reasons that our pensions can be as generous as they are is that we have that kind of arrangement.
This is no day to go into all of this in great detail, but my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and I often have these differences. We disagree, and we not only disagree in our seats but we put our disagreements on the record. Even so, I think that not so much for judges but particularly for judges' widows and their dependants there are improvements that could be made, and I hope that even yet the minister will respond to some of the strong pleas that were made to him in that connection. As for these new, higher salaries for judges, I believe we should say no.


John Napier Turner: I have never known whether the rules under 75-


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is finding out now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It seems that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is seeking the floor at this time. The interpretation of the Chair of Standing Order 75(9), to which the minister was just about to refer, does not allow him to speak again. The mere fact that he put the motion in his name, even if he only spoke a few words and even if he had not spoken at all, prevents him from speaking a second time unless he obtains unanimous consent of the House, and I imagine that this is what the minister was about to ask.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I expected more men of law to deal with this question in the current debate but the contrary seems to be happening. I am not a lawyer, but I feel I can interpret quite accurately the
24319-28i

September 24, 1971
Judges Act and Financial Act
general public whose opinion men who have a degree in law are called upon to judge. It is common knowledge that all judges have made a thorough study of all the laws in Canada as well as their application.
The amendment and the bill now before us provide for an increase both in the number of judges and in their remuneration.
Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the public and of some judges with whom we have had an opportunity to converse from time to time, it is not so much the possibility of applying the law that is lacking as the possibility of preventing infractions.
Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with an act on juvenile delinquency, and will do so again. There also, judges are able to punish juvenile delinquents. The same situation prevails in all courts of justice. However, it would seem that ways and means of preventing crime and ensuring rehabilitation of former inmates are lacking and apparently there is not enough concern with this problem. In fact, as a thorough study of their cases reveals, they are not fully responsible for their misdeeds. They have been rejected one way or another by a society that does not openly give them the opportunity of adapting themselves to it. They are rejected through laws whose administration requires too much time or laws that do not now fit in the social climate, the development of our society.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the gaol we must pursue is not so much to award judges higher salaries or appoint a greater number of them, although I believe they have to deal with too many cases, since the crime rate is rising continually. I do not object too much to the salary increase but I feel that selected candidates should be more competent. I don't think that salary increases will bring that about.
As for the increase in judges' salaries, some objective will have to be reached. Some high officials are paid as much as $75,000 per year; soon increases will have to be granted to them as they are granted to all the others, but where will this end? Is the one receiving $75,000 annually more competent than the one who gets $25,000 or $30,000? I do not think so.
So, considering that the government does not appear to be interested in anything else but the payment of higher salaries to those who are responsible for the administration of the law, we must oppose this amendment.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I cannot let this motion go without saying a few words in connection with the bill. It is an important bill but one which is moving in a direction which I think is leading us deeper and deeper into trouble in this country because it is widening the gap between the people who have a great deal of income and those who have very little. When we have in Canada a situation where about 20 per cent of the people have 40 per cent of the income and 7 per cent of the people at the bottom have about 20 per cent of the income, we find therein the cause of a great deal of our difficulty. To single out groups of people and give them higher incomes at this time, particularly groups in the upper echelons with a high income, is in my view to compound our difficulties. I said so on an
[Mr. Laprise.)
earlier occasion concerning Members of Parliament. I believe that the same thing is true for the judges.
I know that this is regarded as a highly treacherous thing to say because you are supposed to pay judges well to keep them on the straight and narrow track, and apparently they have to be paid more now than ever before so as to ensure that they do not go off the track under the pressure of circumstances. I just want to point out that if judges have to be paid to keep them on the straight and narrow, it might be a good idea, instead of raising judges salaries at this time, to consider using some money to help the people who make the clients for so many of the judges, people without incomes or with very low incomes. They are the ones whom I think we should be helping to keep down the need for so many judges whose numbers we are being asked to increase at this time.
I do not know why we have to have this large increase in the number of judges. I think we should be told a little more about the reasons for the increase. But I do think it is a great mistake to have people who are very comfortably insulated dealing with the lives of others who are not so well situated. Since the pressures on those not comfortably insulated are partly responsible for the crimes they commit, I think it is a bad thing to increase the disparity in income between those who have, namely, the judges, and those who appear before the judges.
From the standpoint of people on low incomes, this sort of measure will not raise the judiciary in their estimation. It will not give them more confidence in the judiciary. It will make them feel that if they infringe the law they will be brought before people who do not know what it is like to live under the tremendous pressure of tough economic circumstances.
I do not think we should be doing this sort of thing in this Parliament. If we feel it necessary to increase the income of people in higher brackets, people like judges, I say let us wait until we have provided the necessary increases to people in the lower income brackets. There is no need to enumerate the latter; we all know who they are. Why should they always have to take a back seat and wait and wait for necessary increases to meet the rise in the cost of living?
I wish to place myself on record as being opposed to this measure at this time. I believe it should wait until we have shown that we know where the real priorities are. We should see that all people have bread and butter before some people are given cake and champagne. This bill does not meet that situation. Consequently, I wish to register myself as opposing this increase in judges' salaries at this time.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I usually admire the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), but her rhetoric on this occasion does not meet the issue. It is not a matter of priorities or that anyone, including the minister, is not anxious to look after those who comprise that large segment of our population who find themselves in difficult circumstances. After all, the state has an obligation to those who serve it. The judiciary is in this category. Members of the judiciary are servants of the state. Leaving aside any
September 24, 1971

philosophy regarding their independence, which is not the subject of this debate, they are the servants of the state in the very broadest use of that expression.
I share the hon. lady's aspiration for a narrowing of the gap, as she said, between those who have cake and champagne and those who seek bread and butter and, hopefully, this Parliament will deal with with that matter. The government has a responsibility to provide adequately for those who seek bread and butter, but that is not the issue before the House in this bill.
The minister will not be surprised if I take just a minute on a cause that is not very popular, because here I speak for only two people-not a very large pressure group- who were in the category of servants of the state. They are judges who have retired since January 1, 1971, and because they did not have 120 months, or ten years', service they find themselves without a pension at age 75.1 am not going to belabour the point but I want it on the public record because I was unable to get the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to accept what I thought was a rather fair and straightforward amendment that would cover the case of the former Chief Justice of Manitoba, Rhode Smith, who has a very long record of public service both in the legislature of Manitoba and on the Manitoba bench. The problem that Rhode Smith faces is that none of his periods of service was long enough to give him an adequate pension, if, in fact, any pension at all is payable to him.
In another, more modest judicial capacity was H. N. Jonah, of Sussex, New Brunswick, who retired after serving about nine years on the county court bench. The formula I evolved-I evolved it because this bill is retroactive in its payment provisions to last January-was such that these two gentlemen would be able to get a pension prorated according to their years of service as against a ten-year period, in other words, nine-tenths of a pension in one case and a little over nine-tenths in the other. I regret to say that this was not acceptable to the government. I hope that the other place, where I have had some discussions with people who are interested, in particular in the case of Rhode Smith, will find some way to correct this clear unfairness. They are two gentlemen who have served this country well and to whom a very simple amendment of the bill could have been applied.
I had the record searched by the minister's own departmental officials and was assured that only two people were involved in this particular aspect of the bill, and apparently because they are without power and do not have many people to speak for them their cases have not been sympathetically received by the government. That is all I will say about the matter now.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) touched a rather personal nerve with me when he spoke of the widows of judges. I know something of what they have had to put up with through long years of neglect under succeeding governments within recent times. As a matter of fact, before this issue was faced by Parliament the technique used to be for widows of judges, including, if I am correct, the widow of the Chief Justice of Canada, to work in one or other department of government, in the parliamentary library or somewhere of that sort, so that they could have, not cake and champagne but bread and butter.
Judges Act and Financial Act
I will conclude my remarks by saying that I hope the minister, when he presents the philosophy behind this bill to the Senate, might be moved to consider the cases of Rhode Smith and Harry Jonah. A very simple amendment, requiring very little change in philosophy because of the retroactive provisions of the bill, could meet these cases in the way I have suggested both before the committee and, in a very peripheral way, before this House.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I know that the House is anxious to pass this bill this afternoon. However, I wish to take a moment to reply to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). One of the things I want to state is that the demand for the increase in the number of judges in British Columbia is coming directly from the court itself and not from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or from members of this side of the House because they want to become judges.
The fact is that on July 2, 1971, Chief Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia wrote to the president of the Bar Association in my riding and advised him that a bill had been introduced to provide for three much needed judges to be appointed to his court. He said that the bill went as far as second reading and then became bogged down in the summer recess, making it necessary to plan the rota-that is to say, the trial list-for this fall and that many cases would not be heard and many people, as he put it, would go without the obligations of the bar and the bench to the public. This is exactly what happened. It is all very well to talk about problems such as lawyers wanting to become judges, and all this nonsense that seems to be so popular among many lay people. The fact is that modern society has become increasingly complex, our population has increased and therefore we need good members of the judiciary to handle the litigation coming before the courts.
When we were in law school there was an old adage that the brilliant law student makes a good judge and the stupid law student makes good money. Now the brilliant law students are realizing that they can make good money too. If we are to have good judges capable of carrying out their duties and feeling that they are properly recompensed for the tremendous responsibility involved, we have to pay them well.
It is not a popular thing among members of the bar to seek a judgeship. Many lawyers have been approached by the Minister of Justice. I am well aware that there are good lawyers who do not want to sit on the bench, not because of the money but because of the work involved. You have no idea what it is like for a trial judge to sit for two months on assizes. You have no idea what it is like redirecting a jury at half past four in the morning after they have come back for further direction. You have no idea what it is like to be concerned with the poor people that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) was discussing, or what it is like to be concerned about clearing the jails so that trials can be held and people put back on the street or into suitable institutions. The hours are extensive and the responsibilities tremendous.

September 24, 1971
Judges Act and Financial Act
It appears to me that we had better start looking at ourselves. Only three judges are requested for British Columbia, with modest increases in pay and some other changes. We have been debating this bill over six or seven months. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves whether it is the judges who are not serving the public, or the Members of Parliament. I think we should get going on this bill and the other legislation before the House.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a question if the hon. member who has the floor will allow it.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: I did not refer to British Columbia because I am not too familiar with conditions there. The hon. member is very learned in the law. He obviously knows the law, the operations of the bar in British Columbia and the requests that go to the Attorney General. He has an obligation, I have an obligation and all hon. members have an obligation in respect of the appointment of judges and the salaries they are to be paid. I should like to ask the hon. member how the Attorney General of Canada protects us. How are we to know if a request for three judges in that area is reasonable? In other words, as I understand it the request has to be honoured by the Attorney General, and my complaint is that we really have no knowledge of whether it is a reasonable request.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Read the committee reports.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, the question should really be directed to the Attorney General. It would appear that he would take into consideration complaints from people concerned; he would look at the trial rota, find out how much time is being taken and then make a decision on how many judges are required. If he is wrong, complaints such as those of the hon. member will be heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 1?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 5?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand it has been agreed that motions Nos. 2 and 3 should be grouped for debate. Again, the motions called separately. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) moves motion No. 2 as follows:
That Bill C-243, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act, be amended by
(Mr. Hogarth.]
(a)	adding to clause 5 on page 7, immediately after subsection (2) thereof, the following subsection:
"(3) Where a judge resigned, ceased to hold office or died while holding office after December 31, 1970 and before the coming into force of this act and the Governor in Council granted to him or to his widow an annuity under the Judges Act, the Governor in Council may increase that annuity, effective as of the day it was granted, by an amount not exceeding the difference between the amount of the annuity so granted and the amount of the annuity that could have been granted to that judge or his widow under the Judges Act if this act had been in force at the time he resigned, ceased to hold office or died." ; and
(b)	renumbering subsection (3) of clause 5 as subsection (4).
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) moves motion No. 3 as follows:
That Bill C-243, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act, be amended by
(a)	striking out subsections (1) and (2) of clause 10 on page 11 and substituting the following:
"10. (1) Section 27 of the said act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after subsection (1) thereof, the following subsections:
"(la) Subject to subsection (lb) where, after the coming into force of this subsection,
(a)	a judge dies while holding office, or
(b)	a judge who was granted an annuity after the coming into force of this subsection dies,
the Governor in Council may grant to each child of such judge an annuity equal to one-fifth of the annuity granted to the widow of that judge pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), as the case may be, or if the judge died without leaving a widow or such widow is dead, two-fifths of the annuity that otherwise could have been granted to the widow of the judge.
(lb)	The total amount of the annuities paid under subsection (la) to the children of a judge described in that subsection shall not exceed four-fifths of the annuity granted to the widow of that judge pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), as the case may be, or if the judge died without leaving a widow or the widow is dead, eight-fifths of that annuity.
(lc)	For the purposes of subsection (la) and (lb), "child" means a child of a judge who
(a)	is less than eighteen years of age; or
(b)	is eighteen or more years of age but less than twenty-five years of age, is unmarried, and is in full-time attendance at a school or university having been in such attendance substantially without interruption since he reached eighteen years of age or the judge died, whichever occurred later." ; and
(b)	renumbering subsection (3) of clause 10 on page 12 as subsection (2).


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, these two amendments were adopted by the committee but came before the House at the report stage because they again dealt with an imbalance of ways and means. Amendment No. 2 is made necessary because it readjusts pensions granted to either retired judges or widows since the beginning of the year because of increases in salary. It was felt that because the salary increase was retroactive to January 1, the pension should also be retroactive. This amendment was made because I feared someone might say that the rights were crystalized by the granting of the original pension and could not, therefore, be adjusted.
Amendment No. 3 will correct a deficiency in the bill because as presently drafted it would enable pensions to be given to judges' children only if the judge died while holding office. It became obvious that we would have to take care of the case where a judge retired because he
September 24, 1971

was striken by a calamity, or retired and then died. It is a technicality, and the committee dealt with it on that basis.
I think there may be some agreement if in speaking to these two amendments I address myself briefly to some of the remarks made on the two earlier amendments. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said that it might be useful if the courts of appeal of the provinces were to go on circuit so that it would not be necessary for people from smaller communities to go to the larger centres. I am in substantial agreement with that, except that it really lies within provincial jurisdiction because they determine how the circuits of their courts of appeal will be set up.
The federal court of appeal is a circuit court; it goes anywhere in the country, to the major centres, to meet the wishes of litigants. The court of appeal in the Northwest Territories now goes to Yellowknife. It did not go there before. The court of appeal for the Yukon goes to Whitehorse and it is substantially made up of the courts of appeal of Alberta and British Columbia with an interlocking of the two judges between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. There is a great deal of merit in the idea, but Parliament does not have jurisdiction in the matter.
With regard to sentencing, we are reviewing the guidelines in this respect in the same way as for arrest and bail. There will be some statutory content in regard to sentencing, for guidance and for limiting the control of magistrates, judges and others connected with that phase of the administration of justice. I might say also that the subject of sentencing has been considered by the Canadian judicial conference which was set up three years ago and is conducting continuing education courses for judges. I believe that the whole process of the administration of justice is one continuum, and what is done from the bench should be done in contemplation of what may happen after custody is assumed by others. On the question of what penalties should be applied under criminal law, that matter will be referred to the law reform commission and considered in their review of criminal law. A year ago we had a meeting with all Attorneys General and as a result a uniform statute has been drafted by the uniformity commission. I hope that will open the way to some sort of federal participation.
With respect to the comments of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), the administration of justice in the courts is a provincial responsibility under the British North America Act. Strictly speaking, it is up to the Attorney General of a province to advise Parliament, and he has to fulfil that responsibility under the British North America Act. Strictly speaking, I would not have any discretionary power nor, if I might say, would Parliament.
I made it a practice to ask the Attorneys General to give to me statistics of the rolls, the number of judges currently sitting, and so on, in order that I could justify to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, as I attempted to do province by province, that they are necessary.
The comments of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) were pertinent. I agree that the number of judges is only part of the problem. There are also the matters of better administration of the courts, postponement arrangements by lawyers, and certain types of cases
Judges Act and Financial Act
that might be taken away from the courts and subject to arbitration such as the automobile cases which now take up to approximately 70 per cent of the courts' time. The hon. member has a point.
The remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) were answered to some extent by the hon. member for New Westminster with regard to the payments to widows of judges who died prior to enactment of the statute. I agree. The hon. member will recall that three years ago we raised this to a maximum of 40 per cent, the same as in the case of a retired civil servant. Widows of judges are treated in the same way. There is no way they can be covered by this bill without a review of the entire situation of the public service.
I cannot say anything more to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) than I said in committee. I stated it very fully then. I understand his concern.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What can you do about it?


Frank Howard: Will the minister permit a question? The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) stated that we have spent seven months considering this bill. It has been a long drawn-out affair. Does the minister agree that the prime responsibility for that rests with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who on the last day before the summer recess insisted on bringing forward another bill in spite of the fact we had offered to expedite the judges bill?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member has his own opinion, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: Does the minister not have an opinion?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 3 moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) moves motion No. 4 as follows:
That Bill C-243, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act, be amended by adding to clause 11 the words "and five lay persons to be appointed by the minister" at the end of line 22 at page 12.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the reason for moving this very simple amendment to add lay persons to the Canadian judicial council is very obvious. Members of Parliament should not judge themselves. They do not. It does not seem that any other group should be a law totally unto itself. This is becoming more and more acceptable in a great many circumstances where professional people are involved. The government of Ontario is not satisfied with the medical profession policing itself. It has stated on a number of occasions that an

September 24, 1971
Judges Act and Financial Act
advisory council will be appointed to investigate the rates being charged by doctors.
What judges do affects society to a degree. They do not have the right to decide in their own club what they should do. If an individual felt that he was being put down by a judge, he could appeal to the Minister of Justice who would say, "I will investigate it, but do not count on anything because I cannot do anything about it."
A judge is appointed for life, provided he is of good behaviour. He keeps this appointment unless he does something which constitutes bad behaviour. There is the case of a judge who became mixed up in a situation involving speculating. After a considerable time he was put into a position where he resigned. We did not do anything about it. The attitude he presented to the general public was very distressing to lawyers and all those connected with the judiciary.
I presume that judges, like everyone else, make mistakes. The Canadian judicial council is going to correct those mistakes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have courts of appeal for that.


William Arnold Peters: There are courts of appeal to deal with mistakes made in certain situations. The Canadian judicial council will have a number of objectives, one of which is-
-to promote efficiency and uniformity, and to improve the quality of judicial service-
Another object is-
-the establishing from time to time of a conference of chief justices-
The purpose is to have uniformity of law which is sadly lacking at the present time. A very worthwhile object is as follows:
-the establishing from time to time of seminars for continuing education of judges-
(c)	subject to section 32, the making of the inquiries and the investigating of any complaint or allegation described in that section.
If we are trying to achieve uniformity of sentences, to establish what judges will do and the role they will play in the situation referred to by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the public should be involved. I think the hon. member is perfectly correct in his allegation that judges really do not know what they are doing: they do not have any idea of the results of their sentences.
There is a considerable difference of opinion in Ontario as to the right of a judge to sentence someone to two years and a day, or two years less a day, and the results that flow therefrom. I do not believe they know what the results will be. They may know what the end result will be. I would like to give a couple of examples. I know of a case where a man charged with impaired driving appeared before a judge. Instead of the judge putting this man in jail, he was put on probation. His driver's licence was automatically taken away. The judge knew the man was a truck driver; he said he would not lose his driver's licence but it would be specified that his licence would cover him only when driving a truck on the job.
I found out that the judge had no right to do that. The judge, in passing sentence, made it mandatory for the
[Mr. Peters.)
Department of Highways in Ontario and the Department of Transport to prohibit this man from having any kind of driver's licence for a period of time. The recommendations of the judge, which hinged on whether the man should be in jail or out of jail, involved whether he could work or not, and the fact that he had lost his driver's licence meant he could not work because he could not drive a truck. So the judge was sentencing him to what he considered to be a lenient sentence but the man obviously was not able to meet the conditions because laws otherwise were opposed to him.
I will give another example. I am sure every hon. member has heard of judges being very lenient when they send someone to a penitentiary where they can be treated for drug abuse or alcoholic problems. Part of the sentence is supposed to be spent in an institution for the treatment of these persons, and this includes psychiatric care. Then it is found that the direction the judge gave has absolutely no influence as far as any department of government is concerned. If the recommendation is that a person be sent to an institution for the treatment of alcoholism or for the treatment of drug addiction or a mental condition, the prisoner finds it is not honoured and that the judge has no right to make it. There are a number of fields where the judge is out of touch. He does not really know what is going on.
We have recently encountered a number of problems in penitentiaries. This reflects on judges who have sent people to penitentiaries, not for punishment but for correction. They have sent people to penitentiaries to learn a trade. They have said, "Rather than two years less a day we will give you a stiffer sentence so that you can go through a trade course in a penitentiary." We have found in some cases that these people have been inducted into the penitentiary system and years later they are still involved, and the judges have not done their jobs.
I believe that if people were really concerned about rehabilitation and the operations of institutions, the problems of society, if we were to appoint lay people from various agencies and authorities a good deal could be done to re-educate judges and make them aware of what is going on today as contrasted with the day when they were first appointed or when they quit practising law. This would result in a much better judicial service for Canada.
We have been very impressed by people like Des Morton and Arthur Martin over the years. These people are far superior to most of the judges in Canada. Their moral fibre is probably considerably better than that of most of the judges in Canada. For a number of years they have been dealing not only with the law in the way it affects people but with the relationship between the law and people and the relationship between individuals and society at large. They have had many advantages which have not been afforded to judges. The judge has often been, like Caesar's wife, above reproach and above everything else. He has been totally divorced from society.
Judges have even stayed out of country clubs because they do not want to be influenced. They have sat on a high pedestal. It is a lonely pedestal. Many of them by doing so have been able to retain a terrific impartiality, but they have lost touch with much of reality, a reality which is available to a number of very competent people in this
September 24, 1971

country, including intelligent people in the university service.
I am almost scared to mention this. We have seen one of the deans of the university service, and in no circumstances would I want him advising any judge in any place. He himself does not believe in the law. Most of these people have an ivory tower approach which is usually an idealistic one. Young people also come into the world with an idealistic approach. Some of that will rub off on the judges who will sit around in these seminars and kick around the question whether Parliament has been kind enough to them in this bill or whether it should have done more in its provisions for them or their widows and dependants. After all, these are the subjects which are kicked around in seminars, or at least in many of those I have attended. We are at least as interested in our own welfare as we are in anything else, and I do not think judges are very different.
We are faced in this country with a number of young people who are drug oriented. We are also faced with an adult population which is cocktail oriented. It seems to me that our law does not take into consideration these two new societies. It may well be that every kid under 15 today will be on drugs when he reaches the age of 20, though I hope not. But if we depend upon the judiciary to make it not so, I am afraid we shall be disappointed. It may be that society ten years from now will look on drugs as we look on social alcohol today. Mr. Speaker, you would not be popular if you invited us to have a social afternoon and there was no alcohol-


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


William Arnold Peters: It may be that in future people going to a social gathering will be popping pills of some kind. Whether they do or not, a large portion of our society is involved. It will not be good enough for an old judge who is just getting over a hangover to say to a young guy with long hair, "You will get the maximum sentence. You should be put away. I would hang you if I could; enforce the law to the limit" and believe that will get rid of the problem. There are people in the academic world who have studied this problem and they agree this is not the solution. There may be a solution, but this is not it. There will have to be understanding and uniformity in sentencing. The judge who has a hangover may have something in common with the young fellow before him who has taken a hallucinatory drug the night before.
There are lay people who could give the judiciary some advice. It will be good advice. It will be learned advice, highly educated advice. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Justice should go out and solve the unemployment problem by calling on the Unemployment Insurance Commission and getting four or five people and appointing them to the judiciary. He has available to him the very best people in four or five categories in Canada, a crosssection of the most progressive thought in our communities. These people would be available as an advisory council. I am not sure that the minister is right when he says the judiciary will not allow him to do this. The argument is always used by the judiciary that if they do not get what they want, they will quit. At $35,000 most of them can afford to quit, and someone will take their place.
Judges Act and Financial Act
I believe that this minister is a progressive minister and talks progressively. But he listens to advice from his department which is anything but progressive. Since I have been here I have found this true of justice ministers such as Mr. Favreau and others; their advice has been anything but progressive. I strongly urge the minister seriously to consider this amendment. In my opinion it is not dangerous. He will have control over those he will appoint. If he wishes to amend the motion to appoint them for a period of one year or five years, then I would be quite happy to agree.
I should like to see uniformity of judicial decisions established across Canada. I should like to see the members of this council improve our judicial system. I think that when the council meets there should be available to its members the advice of those who are not directly interested in day to day operations of the legal system and who can put forward ideas for change which can be translated in terms of improving our judicial system.
Although I have 40 minutes, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk the bill out. I am not angry at the members of the judiciary; I merely want to appeal to the minister to give consideration to tempering the decisions that will be taken by this council with the views of those who are representative of modern society, those who work in the fields of parole, social work, women's liberation and in the realm of the public defender. This is important if we are to find a solution to the problems of drugs and alcohol.
In this regard I think we can look to the John Howard Society for a parallel. I suppose John Howard was lucky to have made it. The officials in the gallery who advise the minister, learned though they are, really have not had any new ideas for a long time. John Howard did much to rehabilitate prisoners and this does not seem to have got him into any trouble. He is dead now and he may have died before they set up the John Howard Society; I do not know.
I should like the minister to examine the case of a man who has caused the justice officials a lot of trouble over a number of years, Gaston Nicholas. He lives in the province of Quebec and has set up an organization to handle criminals. He has been thus occupied for a year and a half or two years now and still has not been sent to jail, which I think is in itself an accomplishment. In the province of Quebec they have started a building program for ex-cons. A restaurant has been staffed with ex-cons and a rehabiliation job is being done. But it is something that the department will not support. Although the minister's officials will not take a chance on it, this program has been in existence for several years, a lot longer than other organizations which have been set up to help this kind of person.
There are many avenues of advice the minister can seek, but one of these days he will have to answer a lot of people who consider him to be a progressive minister. I can safely tell him that he has not presented any legislation to date that has been anywhere near as progressive as I am sure most of his generation would like.

September 24, 1971
Judges Act and Financial Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) I think we have to ask ourselves two questions at the outset. Does this bill attempt to exercise some control and discipline over the judiciary and, if so, how does it do that? Under the British North America Act, as all hon. members know-indeed, Mr. Speaker, there was a motion recently before Your Honour on this point, though I say so sadly-it is necessary to get a resolution passed by the two Houses of parliament, the House of Commons and the other place, in order to impeach a judge. That is the term that is used but it refers to the removal of a judge from the bench.
Clause 32 of this bill is designed to give guidance, I assume to the Minister of Justice and the cabinet, when a matter like this comes before the government. This motion seeks to amend proposed section 31 which would establish a Canadian judicial council. This council is to consist of the Chief Justice of Canada, the chief justices of each superior court of the provinces, who will be 10 in number, and judges may be substituted by appointment in the case of illness or vacancy.
This amendment seeks to appoint five laymen to the council and has nothing to do with the appointment of judges. The council will have some control and discipline over the judiciary in line with the terms and conditions of our constitution. What the honourable and distinguished member wants to do is to add five laymen to that body as a whole. At the outset-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member at this point and bring to the attention of hon. members that normally at this time we would be going on with private members' business. I wonder whether there is disposition on the part of hon. members for the Chair not to see the clock for the time being?


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a feeling in the House that we should dispense with private members' hour, the debate to proceed no longer than five o'clock, or earlier if the matter is dealt with.


Frank Howard: And the House then adjourn?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we agree.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad we have agreed to do that, Mr. Speaker, because it is one way of cleaning up this legislation this afternoon. What the hon. member for Timiskaming is doing is asking that laymen be added to this council. What is the function of the council? I would briefly refer to the relevant clause of the bill because I think it must be read to understand the functions of the council and what the hon. member is trying to do. I refer to clause 33(2) which provides in part:
Where, in the opinion of the council, the judge in respect of whom an inquiry or an investigation has been made-
In other words, where there has been a complaint about the judge. The hon. member referred to a criticism in respect of a judge's action regarding a driver's licence. I do not know the facts of that case, but if the charge was one of impaired driving under the Code, or one of a number under the highway traffic acts of the provinces, the judge has no alternative but to take the licence. He has no discretion at all. If he did not take the licence, the court of appeal or somebody else would correct the situation. A judge making that kind of error would be corrected by the court of appeal or by the Supreme Court of Canada, if the case went that far. That type of thing is not something, as I see it, which would be considered by the council. The function of the council is set out in the clause which provides:
Where, in the opinion of the council, the judge .. .has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office by reason of
(a) age or infirmity-
We know there is an age limit in respect of judges, being 70 years of age in some jurisdictions and 75 years of age in others. We all know that a person could have a stroke here in the House or in any vocation and could no longer perform his duties because of infirmity. As the law exists we would have to bring forward a resolution, unless the judge voluntarily resigned. I presume the Minister of Justice is asking for some direction in this regard. Paragraph (i>) states:
having been guilty of misconduct-
This would not be judicial misconduct such as a mistake in interpreting the law or even a mistake in a finding of fact. Such errors are judicial and are corrected in our judicial system by our appeal courts or by the Supreme Court of Canada. This would refer to flagrant misconduct of another type. I could refer to some of the things that would fall within this category but I do not think one has to go beyond what I suggest the words mean. The next paragraph states:
having failed in the due execution of his office-
In other words, perhaps a judge refuses to write any judgments. Having heard the case, he may reserve his judgment and refuses to write such judgment. That is the kind of thing which would be reported to this council made up of the Chief Justice of Canada and the superior judges of the provinces. They would be chief judges. They would then call the judge in and suggest that he get back on the job and write these judgments. We have had judges like that. If a judge did not follow the suggestion, the matter would be reported to the minister who would then take the matter to the cabinet. The cabinet would then bring in a resolution to be considered by the two Houses of Parliament. The law has not been changed in that regard.
The next paragraph states:
having been placed, by his conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of his office-
He may have done something that was not judicious. In our system we have separate democratic institutions, one is Parliament, one is the judiciary and the other is the executive. Each plays a different part. Judges are supposed to be above politics. During the lunch hour I was reading "Law Courts, Lawyers and Litigants," by Frede-

September 24, 1971

rick Payler. This is what one distinguished judge said as quoted at page 92:
I thank God I am in a position which puts me above politics.
Those were the words of the Earl of Clonmel, an Irish chief justice, nearly a century and a half ago. The judiciary must always be above politics or you will not have an independent judiciary. With the greatest respect, that is why I take a position of opposition to the appointment of laymen, whatever a layman is. Perhaps it means people other than those trained in the law. But I would be concerned if the Minister of Justice appointed five laymen to this council. Any one or all five of those laymen might be members of a political party. As long as I am here as a member, I will oppose that idea. I feel that the judiciary at any level must always be free from the infiltration of politicians.
We will never have puritanism of human behaviour, but I believe we in Canada have one of the finest judiciaries in the world. I have practised in the criminal courts probably to a greater extent than the minister. I am a member of the bar and have practised in two provinces. I now belong to the bar of a third province. I am convinced that our judiciary is as good as any in the world.
I always remember something the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) once said when I was associated with him in a lawsuit. The judge had been a Member of Parliament associated with a different party. The right hon. member said, wasn't it wonderful that the judge had the position, when only a short time ago he and the judge were adversaries on different platforms? He said that under our system the judge had been appointed as an individual, independent of the people who appointed him. He said he was now in the judiciary and would make the kind of decisions the citizens of Canada wanted. That is the kind of experience I have had before the bar. I have always found that when individuals leave this institution or any political party to sit on the bench, they exercise their functions in a judicious and independent manner.
I should like to support the hon. member's motion because I feel he has put it forward in an effort to assist the courts to do a better job, but I must oppose it because it involves the possibility of five laymen being appointed to the council all of whom may belong to the same political party and may not be independent.
Let me say something in reference to the legislation we are amending. As the opposition critic in respect of justice I felt it was my duty to talk with various chief justices to ascertain their feelings about this action. Some are not as keen about it as others, and some view it with a sense of anxiety. They have some doubts about any form of discipline in respect of judges. It is not everyone who can make a decision. Some men appear to have all the characteristics required to make a good judge but still cannot make decisions. One cannot always expect perfection. In my experience, we have a good judiciary but things go wrong once in a while.
In the event of flagrant misconduct on the part of a judge, a complaint can be made to this council which in turn will make a recommendation to the minister. I am concerned about any kind of control over the judiciary, even among the judges themselves. This could be a very
Judges Act and Financial Act
dangerous thing. We seem to be entering an era of little or no discretion. Sometimes mistakes are made. But most of our judges are well acquainted with the common law; they interpret it in such a way that generally proper findings are made. If they make mistakes, the courts of appeal will correct them.
I suggest that judges should be left with some discretion. We should not legislate in respect of everything. We need a little flexibility in our society. Under the principle of stare decisis the rule is apparent, and if a mistake is made it can be corrected. The previous speaker referred to a great trial lawyer in this country. We all hold him in great respect. He is one of very many who in all parts of the country are speaking on behalf of the citizens.
If the courts have made a mistake or if the trial judge makes a mistake, it will probably be corrected by the court of appeal. I come to one last note in reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I raised this matter in the committee and the Minister of Justice was very sympathetic to it because in his position he is well aware of it. The judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are very overworked. However, they bend over backwards, in my experience, to grant leave to appeal where there has been a miscarriage of justice. I saw this demonstrated recently in a case which went to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Thirteen persons, mostly under age 21, were tried for murder and were convicted. The court of appeal granted a new trial to 11, acquitted one and refused one. Leave was granted to appeal one case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Minister of Justice said we are to have supernumerary judges. These, I suppose, would be judges who would have retired perhaps four or five years earlier and who would be available to help clear up the large backlog of cases. Why should we not have the same system for the Supreme Court of Canada? The answer to this question is like the answer of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who found that you cannot break through the bureaucracy. The constitution says you can have nine judges, but there is nothing in the constitution which says that you could not have nine judges sitting full time and three who had retired prior to age 70 taking two-thirds of their salary by way of pension and hearing chamber applications.
If we had three supernumerary judges they could relieve the other nine judges who would be free to clear the backlog of cases. I think this is a reasonable suggestion. I know the suggestion has been made indirectly to the Department of Justice by the Supreme Court of Canada. What is wrong with it? Eigher it was not thought about or it was not accepted by the group. I suppose every minister becomes imprisoned by his own department because of the size of the job, but I am sure the minister would find the legal people in his department very helpful. Over the years they have been most helpful to Members of Parliament. We have had the finest men in the department of Justice. They are always ready to give answers to Members of Parliament. If a member asks about a rule of law they will take the trouble to refer him to an authority. They do an excellent job. I ask the minister to call them in.
Judges Act and Financial Act

September 24, 1971
These judges are overworked. When they are overworked the people of Canada are not served. The only way one can get into the great red chamber is by leave. I think there are certain cases where one should always be able to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. We know that decisions of certain provincial courts are reversed continually. I hear one of my friends nearby laughing. These courts should not always be reversed in this way. We should have the strongest possible courts of appeal in every province. Then I would be prepared to buy this suggestion. But the answer is to get rid of the problem now. We should establish two or three supernumerary judges to relieve the pressure.
On behalf of my clients I always want to be able to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, it is necessary to ask for leave. This is always another step to climb. I have been there. I know the rule of law which governs leave. You do not argue the whole case but just the very cream of it on a question of law. I hope we do not get into the bind where the minister will say a matter goes to that court by leave.
We object to the amendment on the ground that we do not want the judiciary to be subjected to political influence. This is what the amendment would do. I will not vote against this council. I have spoken to certain judges who think it might be an asset. I will look at it over a period of time. I may have to question the minister if it does not work out or if it in any way seems to be interfering with the judiciary, because that body must be independent.
I hope we can complete this legislation because last June it was introduced by the minister. It went before the committee, where there were two or three amendments, and then there was a very short debate. It is the government's business to set up priorities for legislation, and I shall not get into the question of whether it was the fault of the NDP or of the government that the bill did not come up again until now. But this party said to the minister by letter that we wanted the bill brought in because this institution should do something about the problem and only if the judiciary are paid a fair amount of money can we get the degree of independence and the kind of judgments that will assist the citizens of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the minister, but I notice the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) is also on his feet. It might be preferable if I were to recognize the hon. member for Moose Jaw first.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be one of those laymen to whom the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) referred when he wondered who qualified as a layman. I do not plan to wander all around the subject in respect of the amendment introduced by my colleague. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Calgary North can even consider the amendment introduced at this time having anything to do with the control of the judiciary.
The objects of the council are well spelled out in the bill. There is no question, in my humble opinion, that if we were to add five people to this Canadian judicial council we would get a cross-section of opinion that could be of great benefit to the council. I have seen too many cases where young people have been sentenced to indefinite

terms. These young people have been in contact with social workers. This is the type of person, I am sure, to whom my colleague is referring when he talks about lay people being put on this council.
It amazes me to think that anyone would be concerned about having an outside opinion in respect of certain action taken by the council. There should be established from time to time a conference of chief justices and seminars for the continuing education of judges. Surely in today's structured society education should be a continuing process. If an individual or group of individuals within a structured society cannot continue their education in their field, the whole of society will suffer.
I see nothing wrong with the appointment of five laymen by the Minister of Justice. It seems to me that under this permissive type of legislation he would be able to pick out the very people who would know what structured society is all about, who would know the concerns of people of this nation and particularly our younger people to whom consideration must be given. To allow the Canadian judicial council to hold seminars in order to examine themselves, without any outside consultation, I do not believe is the way to fulfil the needs which the minister has in mind.
It seemed very strange to me to hear the hon. member for Calgary North express some doubt with regard to these appointments. He suggested that they may be political appointments. I know of very few law firms which do not have both Liberals and Conservatives on their staffs. This is done for obvious reasons. Situations exist throughout this country where appointments are made in various departments of government which require lawyers, as the hon. member well knows.
I think of the farm improvement loans administration and similar situations. Surely no one in this House would suggest that once a person is appointed to the bench he loses all interest in the politics of this country. If he did this he would cease to be a true Canadian. I think everyone, no matter what his walk of life is, must be concerned with politics. People need not wear it on their shoulders or wear a badge saying what their affiliation is, but deep down they are concerned about the political structure of our nation, otherwise we would not have a democracy as we know it.
It seems to me that even to suggest that a man should set himself apart from the democratic process because he has been appointed a judge is mere speculation. If we were to accept the amendment for the appointment of five laymen to the council we would have a situation where judges could sit down and examine the many areas of our social life. But I suggest that it is not the judges who should be led by exaggerated public opinion but, rather, public opinion should be lead by the judges. I have seen too many editorials appearing in newspapers before a case is dealt with by a court and where it is evident that the editorial has influenced the decision of the court.
I would suggest that if five laymen were to be appointed to the Canadian judicial council, the council would have some meaning. This would be preferable to the judges examining themselves, which would be the case under this bill. We all know that if people who have trust in each
September 24, 1971

other could sit down together and examine the entire structure of Canadian society and the areas of concern to all of us, so that not only the judges would be rendering the decisions and examining that structure, the council would have more credibility among the youth of this nation.
I am concerned about the low credibility of the judicial system among the young people, in fact not only the young people but many of the older people. If there is one thing we in this House should do, it is build up the credibility of our judiciary and not to allow a situation to develop where it could be undermined. The appointment of social workers and such people to the council would be a clear indication that the judges themselves are prepared to allow outside people to be involved in day to day decisions affecting society.
I do not see any reason why the minister should not at least accept a small amendment that would provide for the appointment of laymen to the council. I would hate to think that there has been any type of pressure brought to bear which would prohibit this type of amendment, because I am a firm believer in industrial democracy and I think that people who are affected by the law or any change in conditions throughout the country should have a say in the matter. The people who would be appointed to the council could then express their opinions regarding changes which they believe are necessary. Under those conditions I see no reason why this type of amendment should not be accepted. In fact, this amendment would do much to bring about a saner approach to some of the problems with which we have been confronted.
I am firmly of the opinion that some check of the judiciary is necessary, and with this amendment such a check would be provided. We are all alike. We travel in certain circles, we accumulate friends in the same walk of life, and the same thing applies to judges and lawyers. People in factories move in the same circle and discuss the things that affect them only. All too often we do not accept the experience of people outside our circle which would benefit all of us collectively.
Being a layman, I sincerely hope that favourable consideration will be given to allowing five laymen to be appointed to this council, because I think it would be very strange if an amendment giving the minister discretionary power to appoint these people were not approved. The minister could consult the judiciary in looking for the best people in our country to serve in this capacity and to play a useful part in so far as the social needs of the country are concerned.


John Napier Turner: I want to deal first of all with the last part of the argument of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) relating to the Supreme Court of Canada. He has seen, as have other members of the House, statistics showing that the roll of the Supreme Court is heavily charged. As a matter of fact, some of the effects of the amendment which this House passed a year or so ago have not yet had time to take effect because the new law applies only to those cases that are instituted at their beginning, in the first instance, after the date on which the act received approval by Parliament.
Judges Act and Financial Act
I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member that supernumerary judges of the Supreme Court of Canada would solve that problem. The difficulty is that the Supreme Court of Canada is not only a final court of appellate jurisdiction but is also a constitutional court. As a matter of fact, if further progress is made in the constitutional discussions between the federal government and the provinces, that court will be, under the constitution of Canada, not merely a federal body. Even as the legislation is set up at the moment, it calls for six judges from the common law provinces and three from civil jurisdiction in Quebec, recognizing two systems of law and recognizing the special position of the civil code system in Canada. That is a deliberate balance set by Parliament, and recognized by all the provinces and by the federal government, at Victoria.
Moreover, there is a convention to the effect that among the other six judges-I do not think this is necessarily a fixed convention; it might well change as population trends change-three are ordinarily chosen from Ontario, two from western Canada and one from the Atlantic provinces. As I said, I do not think that is a fixed convention. With the population moving to western Canada I can conceive of more judges coming from western Canada. But in any event, that regional, geographical balance, and also the balance of the two legal systems, is one that the appointment of supernumerary judges from time to time might well upset.
That was the issue that was foremost in my mind and, as the hon. member has suggested, I rejected it for that reason. I want to say that it might seem strange to him that I arrived at that conclusion on my very own. I appreciate his sympathy and that of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) in protecting me against the officers of the Department of Justice, but I have not come up with too many scars these last 31 years.


William Arnold Peters: Because you give in every time.


John Napier Turner: I think I can assure the hon. member and the House that the decisions represented in these bills that are brought forward for the scrutiny of Parliament are, in the final analysis, mine.
When I asked the Canadian Bar Association to strike an ad hoc committee on the Supreme Court the last time that act was before Parliament, they set up a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. J. J. Robinette, Q.C., of Toronto. It was that committee's recommendation that it was inevitable that some day the Supreme Court would have to have control of its roll, which would mean, as in the case of the United States, that the Supreme Court would be reached only by way of leave to appeal. The Committee reporting to me at that time said that they did not think the country or the bar was then ready for that step. I accepted that judgment. Certainly the debate in this House reflected that view. I very well recall the words of the hon. member for Calgary North at that time. But, Mr. Speaker, I have not changed my mind. This is something that Parliament will have to deal with and it is something to which I have been invited to direct my attention.
Returning to the specific issue raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming, the purpose of the Canadian

September 24, 1971
Judges Act and Financial Act
judicial council is not to superimpose itself on the regular court procedures or decisions of the courts. There is a regular appeal procedure to the Supreme Court. The objects of the council are set forth in clause 31(2). They are:
-to promote efficiency and uniformity, and to improve the quality of judicial service, in the superior, district and county courts, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing
the establishing from time to time of a conference of chief justices-
That conference has been in effect for the last two or three years. In fact, the chief justices of all the provinces and of all trial superior courts will be meeting in Regina this coming Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, so the Canadian judicial council would merely be an umbrella over an existing practice. I continue reading the clause:
-the establishing from time to time of seminars for the continuing education of judges-
We now have a Canadian judicial conference that has been meeting every year for the past few years, funded by the federal Department of Justice with money supplied on the authority of Parliament. This seminar lasts ten days. It is going to be extended, so that I hope every judge of every high court will in effect go back to school at least once every five years and perhaps more frequently. I have also arranged that the judges of the Northwest Territories and of the Yukon alternate, because they need a more general association with the bench than their brethern in the south who are in daily association with other judges. There is nothing new in this. In that continuing education process we have set up a faculty. It consists of judges and laymen. In fact its first dean was Allan Leal, chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Beware of law deans!


John Napier Turner: There are many people who contribute to those seminars, and I recognize the fact that some seminars should be conducted by people off the bench. The part of the clause to which I direct my attention is 31(2(c), which provides:
-subject to section 32-
Which is the section under which the Minister of Justice may set up an inquiry and have eventual recourse to both Houses of Parliament for the removal of a judge.
-the making of the inquiries and the investigating of any complaint or allegation described in that section.
I have been searching for some time for a way in which allegations and complaints against the bench can be dealt with in such a manner that one will not bring the bench unduly into ridicule and contempt and yet will not deprive the judiciary of that independence which under the British parliamentary system it is entitled to and which, I believe, has been one of the strongest points of the British, Canadian and Commonwealth judicial systems.
I discussed the terms of the bill, not as a bill but as terms of reference, with all the ten Attorneys General of the provinces in Halifax on July 13, 14 and 15, 1970, a year or so ago. They agreed with me that the best way of obtaining discipline within the judiciary, of ensuring that judges were pulling their weight, of analysing whether judges had become handicapped by age, infirmity or con-

flict of interest was to leave it with the judiciary, and that it was not up to the legislature to have daily supervision over the judiciary and it not was up to the executive and the Attorneys General to impose their will on the judiciary.
Because of the principles so eloquently expounded by the hon. member for Calgary North-the absolute independence of the judiciary free from any threat of public opinion or outside influence-I have to reject the amendment of the hon. member for Timiskaming. These terms of reference bear the approval of all ten provincial Attorneys General. They bear the approval of the conference of chief justices. They have also been discussed by the Canadian Bar Association. I want to say further that under clause 32(4) the Canadian judicial council has the power of a court of record. I felt that a court of record was something that should be limited to members of the bench.
Where is the ultimate control? If the commission, on referral of an allegation by the Minister of Justice, by a provincial Attorney General or by an ordinary citizen, feel that as a result of their inquiry a report should be made to the Minister of Justice, they do that. Then the matter is in the hands of the Attorney General of Canada, subject to his responsibility to Parliament. If the Canadian judicial council were to fail to act, if the situation were of such gravity that Parliament was concerned, then the power of inquiry under the Inquiries Act and the Judges Act would still be retained. The Attorney General still has the duty and the power to refer that matter to an inquiry conducted by a judge or members of the bar, and the ultimate responsibility in serious cases still remains with him for report to Parliament and to the people.
Primarily for the reason of the independence of a system whereby the judiciary is immune from pressure, either from public opinion, short-term public opinion- although I have argued that it should respond to the movement of society and I have spoken openly, even before the Supreme Court, of a creative judiciary responding to social direction-free from the pressures of Attorneys General, free from the pressures of a legislature, in fact free from every type of public pressure, I decided to achieve the type of discipline I wanted by entrusting it to the Canadian judicial council made up of the chief justices of the country, of course subject always to the overriding authority of Parliament.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, apropos the minister's final remarks about conducting inquiries under the Judges Act and the Inquiries Act, may I ask what action was taken with respect to Bernie Isman, a judge in Vancouver who was guilty of gross misconduct? What did his department do about that case?


John Napier Turner: I did not have jurisdiction. That is a provincial judge.


Frank Howard: But you knew about it, and you might know about it with federal judges too.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
September 24, 1971


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Peters) negatived.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-243, to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to delay the final decision on this bill any longer, but before it is passed I should like to say once again that I think in matters of this kind we
Judges Act and Financial Act
are working at the wrong end of the scale. Instead of widening the gap in the incomes of our people we should be narrowing it by being concerned about those at the bottom rather than by increasing the incomes of those at the top. Once again I wish to state my objection to the salary increases provided in this bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is the understanding of the Chair that hon. members are now prepared to call it five o'clock. It being agreed that it is five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m.
At 4.44 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. September 27, 1971