1971-06-14

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
THIRD SESSION-TWENTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT 20 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 14, 1971


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, returning to the House after two weeks of meetings in Lisbon, Paris, Washington and New York I have a number of important matters to report.
On Friday at the United Nations in New York I had a meeting with the Secretary General and Mr. Kittani, Assistant Secretary General for Interagency Affairs who has been co-ordinating the United Nations relief efforts in East Pakistan and West Bengal. This afternoon I will be seeing the Indian Foreign Minister, Mr. Swaran Singh. These conversations will enable the government to assess the present needs in East Pakistan and West Bengal and the machinery needed to provide relief. This will help us to provide further assistance in the most effective way.
My colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has reported to you on the joint ministerial meeting on Great Lakes pollution in Washington last Thursday, at which I led the Canadian delegation. The Canada-United States Agreement that we will be negotiating in the next few months calls for intergovernmental co-operation on an unprecedented scale, involving as it does the governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec on our side of the border, of the United States and five Great Lakes states on the other.
I must say that I was impressed in Washington by the way all interested parties accepted their responsibilities for the reversal of the degradation of the Great Lakes, by the shared determination to get on with the job and particularly by the sense of urgency expressed by speaker after speaker.
We are already at work on the problem, on both sides of the border. The agreement, when it comes into effect, will establish specific goals, speed up the work and provide powers to the International Joint Commission to carry out the necessary surveillance to ensure that quality standards are met and maintained.
While in Washington, as I indicated to the House earlier, my colleague the Minister of the Environment and I had a meeting with Secretary Rogers on the proposed movement of oil from Prudhoe Bay to Seattle through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia. I
made clear to Secretary Rogers that my purpose was not, as some have suggested, to promote the so-called "Mackenzie Route", but rather to impress upon the United States government its common interest with Canada in the avoidance of a major pollution threat to what my colleague the Minister of the Environment described as "essentially an inland sea around which are population concentrations and substantial economic interests as well as features of great natural beauty and recreational value".
I impressed upon Secretary Rogers that the movement of oil through these waters offered no economic benefit whatever to Canada, while imposing upon Canada almost all the risks of oil pollution. We cannot prevent it legally. We can expect the United States to share our concern and to join in doing everything possible to avoid catastrophe.
Mr. Rogers undertook to let me know very shortly about arrangements for special joint studies into this environmental problem. In return, I agree with him that such joint studies could include oil pollution problems on the Atlantic seaboard where the movement of tankers to Canadian ports could threaten their environment. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that our views are being made known in a way as to have a bearing on United States consideration of the matter before final decisions are taken.
At the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Lisbon the alliance concentrated on the very real movement toward detente between east and west that was foreseen at the December meeting in Brussels. This return upon many years' careful planning, and probing of Soviet intentions, is bringing a new sense of direction to the alliance, away from confrontation and toward negotiation. As in Washington later, I had the sense of participation in an historic event.
Progress in the four-power talks on Berlin enabled ministers to express their hope that before their next meeting in December those negotiations might have reached a stage where multilateral conversations leading toward a security conference could begin. This confirms the importance the alliance attaches to a satisfactory outcome of the Berlin talks, to create the necessary climate for the resolution of wider European problems.
The principal issue at the meeting was the alliance's proposal for mutual balanced force reductions. After some years of silence, recently there have been strong indications of Soviet interest. Mr. Brezhnev's speech in Tiflis in May, the conversations the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had with Soviet leaders in Moscow and Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 14, 1971
Report on NATO and OECD Meeting
Brezhnev's speech of last Friday strongly suggest that the Soviet Union is adopting a more forthcoming stance on force reductions.
The ministers agreed that further clarification is needed to establish if enough ground exists for negotiations to start. Ministers agreed that their governments would continue to intensify explorations with the nations of Eastern Europe on a bilateral basis. If I may say so, incidentally this is one of the things our Prime Minister was doing when he was in Moscow. They also agreed that deputy foreign ministers or other senior officials should meet in Brussels at an early date to review the results of the exploratory contacts and to consult on the substantive and procedural approaches to mutual balanced force reductions. Canada supported these moves and called for more direct action. In response to a Canadian proposal, ministers expressed their willingness to appoint at the appropriate time a representative or representatives to conduct further exploratory talks with the Soviet Union and other interested governments. Let us hope that the response from the Soviet Union and its allies will show an intention to negotiate actively and without delay on this issue of vital importance to security and stability in Europe.
I took advantage of my presence at the meeting to have bilateral talks with some of my colleagues from member nations. Of special interest to the House will be the frank and forthright talk I had with Mr. Patricio, Foreign Minister of Portugal. I made clear to him the firm attitude of the Canadian people to Portuguese colonial policy in Africa. I gave him a report of the conversations I had with black African leaders in March. I urged Portugal, as I have done on previous occasions, to move toward self-government for its African territories in its own interest as well as in the interest of humanity as a whole.
From the NATO meeting in Lisbon I went to the OECD ministerial meeting in Paris, at which I was accompanied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The meeting concentrated upon the economic outlook, the establishment of a high-level group on problems of trade liberalization, and development assistance. On the economic outlook the mood was one of restrained optimism. A better rate of increase in GNP for member nations was foreseen, particularly in North America. I was struck by the extent to which member nations share common preoccupations and problems, unemployment, inflation and threats to the physical environment. These will continue to plague us and the meeting found no easy solutions. Ministers agreed without dissent that full employment cannot be bought at the price of inflation. The need to break the inflation psychology was stressed, and I urged the organization, as a body above domestic politics, to continue and intensify both its studies of the problem and its efforts to increase public understanding of the insidious dangers of inflation.
There was a full discussion of the Secretary General's proposals for the creation of a high-level group to assess
current problems in international trade, to consider how these problems might be met, and to set out various options for their solution. The Secretary General's initiative was also aimed at maintaining the high degree of liberalization achieved in international trade and the prevention of backsliding. The initiative received very wide support and ministers agreed to the creation of the group. I made clear our intention to contribute to the work of the group and our expectation that it will pave the way for further progress in multilateral trade without infringing on the responsibilities and prerogatives of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This last point was developed by most other speakers and is reflected in the communique.
I would now like to table copies in English and French of the communiques issued after the NATO and OECD ministerial meetings.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to begin by welcoming back the minister after his long and interesting sojourn at very important gatherings in many parts of the world. I thank him for sending me a copy of his statement. I would have thanked him more heartily had I received it a few minutes before he began.
That the first item in his report should have been, as it was, a reference to Pakistan was most appropriate. It may be that this is not the most important problem in the world but it is the most immediate and could, indeed, become the most important. So I approve of the emphasis he placed on this matter by dealing with it first. I note that he has had conversations in New York. I note too that he will be discussing this very important matter with the very distinguished foreign minister of India. I say to him that I hope the government will not be too tentative, too tepid and too timid in looking upon this problem as one of the great human tragedies and that it will not get itself ensnared in excessive international legalism.
An appalling human tragedy is taking place in India today, and I hope we will not content ourselves with assistance of a financial nature for the immediate problem. We cannot look upon as a permanent situation the present circumstances where one country is required to look after millions of people from another. In other words, while the immediate need is humanitarian, a long-range political solution must not be pushed so low in priority that the countries of the world will see another displaced band of refugees living forever in someone else's domain.
I hope the Canadian people will receive further evidence that the government is assisting powerfully and with feeling the efforts to abate the human suffering that is going on in India today. I hope the government will speak frankly to both India and Pakistan, as friendly nations should, and make it clear that this terrible problem must be given the very best attention and the greatest earnestness that it can be given. I hope the Canadian people will do all they can. I think it was John Keats who referred to the civilized man as one for whom the

June 14, 1971

mysteries of the world are misery. Surely that should be our approach to this gripping human problem.
I am happy that the minister has mentioned the TAPS route. His colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), did not refer to it the other day, and when I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about it on the preceding day he did not think it was going to be discussed at the June 10 meeting at all. It would now appear that it was the subject of some inferential or incidental conversation at least, and I am glad that the minister has placed some things on record with reference to it.
I note that he suggests we have no legal position in this regard. This surprises me a bit considering the legal position we established in reference to pollution in another part of the world, namely, in our northern areas. I hope the minister is not cutting down his chances to present a strong case by so quickly caving in on the question of legality.
I am glad too, if I detect correctly, that the government does have a point of view on the Mackenzie as well as on the TAPS route. That means a coalescence of opinion within the cabinet, which is all to the good. I congratulate the minister on indicating that the problems of the Atlantic seaboard are part of the whole package and must be considered by both governments at the highest levels.
I was very pleased that the minister reported as he did on the NATO consultations. I agree with him that NATO is moving away from confrontation and toward negotiation. I think this is wholesome, it is to the good, it is to the benefit both of NATO and of all other peoples. I am glad that in consultation one with another the alliance is making efforts to diminish tensions and to establish detente. These things should be done in concert and consultation with one's allies. This is how they should be done.
1 quite agree with the emphasis placed on the situation in Berlin. For a quarter of a century this has been one of the great focal points of tension, and one of the possible tinder boxes of explosion. If the NATO ministers, the NATO countries, are exploring this problem and looking for some settlement with the Soviet Union, this is all to the good. One would hope that some day Berlin, although the problem is much greater, might move from its present status to one something like that which, with diplomacy and good will, was obtained by that great city of Vienna which was also under occupation for a long, long time.
I am also impressed with the reference to the striving for mutual balanced force reductions. All of these words are important in that program, and I wish every success to our leaders in the NATO group in their efforts to bring this about. The world will applaud them if it does come about.
I will not take the time of the House to deal with all the phases of the minister's report. I notice that Portugal received another lecture. Portugal deserves a lecture, but
Report on NATO and OECD Meeting the Canadian government might be lectured too for a great deal of inconsistency in this important area. I think a more useful thing in this field would be to open a mission in Zambia, which we have apparently decided we are not going to do, although we found the time and money to open one in Algeria.
I say again that I welcome the minister back. I never thought there was much humour in the Department of External Affairs, but in the final section of his statement there is something that is hilarious. Reporting on the OECD he said: "Ministers agreed without dissent that full employment cannot be bought at the price of inflation.'' The minister, representing this country and knowing this country and the shape it is in, must have found that a bit humorous to take.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister covers such a wide field that it not easy to make adequate comment on it within the time prescribed by the rules. I too am glad that the first reference was to the situation in East Pakistan, and that the minister did have a meeting with the Secretary General of the United Nations and Mr. Kittani who is co-ordinating United Nations relief in East Pakistan and West Bengal.
In my view this is the No. 1 crisis threatening world peace and, as has already been said today, one of the most tragic circumstances that the world has ever witnessed. After the minister has had discussions with the Indian foreign minister I invite him to say in detail to this House, perhaps on motions tomorrow if that is suitable, what Canada is doing and what Canada's political initiatives or efforts in this field may be-because there is no solution without a political solution-and what Canada is doing with respect to development aid which is now going to one section only of Pakistan.
I also welcome that the meeting in Washington, according to the minister's statement, evidenced a far more determined international and interstate effort to clean up pollution in the Great Lakes. Action in this field has been promised since 1908, I believe, at the time of the Boundary Waters Treaty, but little has been done and the situation has been allowed to deteriorate. I am glad that at last real determination to deal with this problem is being shown.
I am glad too that there appears to have been some frank talking with Secretary of State Rogers as to the proposed oil movement from Prudhoe Bay. This is a grave problem and has to be dealt with frankly and forcefully.
The minister's statement with respect to NATO was optimistic, and perhaps justifiably so. The massive confrontation of military arms in Central Europe, where tactical nuclear weapons alone, if used, could wipe out the whole of Europe, is a matter of great concern. This has long been one of the world's greatest danger spots. We in this party have long advocated the holding of a European security conference and a forward-looking atti-

June 14, 1971
Report on NATO and OECD Meeting tude toward that end. We have long believed that mutual balanced reduction of forces in that area is essential to world peace. We accept the minister's statement that Berlin is the key to detente. In this connection I should like to pay tribute to the Chancellor of West Germany, Willy Brandt, for his statesmanlike attitude.
I shall conclude by saying I am glad that the minister also seems to have spoken frankly to the foreign minister of Portugal. I cannot refrain from regretting the fact that NATO met in that country. The preamble to the NATO treaty says that its main purpose is to protect fundamental human rights and freedoms; yet the minister speaks of the colonial record of Portugal. It is not only its colonial record to which we object but also the fact that internally Portugal denies even basic fundamental rights to its own citizens. We think that NATO cannot be credible as long as it tolerates within its midst nations which deny the basic rights of human beings.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has just made a statement on international meetings. Indeed, during his two-week tour around the world he has discussed at least four of those matters on which international attention is focused.
At the United Nations, the Secretary of State discussed a very important and extremely urgent problem, that of Pakistan. We know that events there, present and past, have shocked the whole world. The country has been in the throes of an unjustifiable revolution resulting in the loss of thousands of lives, and is now suffering an epidemic which has not, to date, been brought under control.
I hope Canada will be able to help alleviate hardship caused in that region to a population which I believe did not deserve such a fate.
The minister then discussed in Washington another matter which is becoming increasingly important, namely pollution. For financial reasons, our southern neighbours do not seem to be too concerned about the danger of pollution deriving from the movement of oil. In my opinion, Canada must take a firm stand in this connection and have its rights acknowledged, even if it cannot do so from a legal point of view, since international law is rather complicated.
The minister discussed in Paris a matter which I feel is quite important, since problems of the member countries of the OECD, that is inflation and unemployment, were especially dealt with. Apparently, those problems have arisen everywhere.
What conclusions can be drawn from the minister's conversations in Paris? In this connection, we read in the minister's statement:
Thesenamely inflation and unemployment
-will continue to plague us and the meeting found no easy solution.
Mr. Speaker, we have known for a long time that leaders in Canada as well as in other member states of the OECD have no easy solution. Everywhere they want to curb inflation, but the only solution which they seem to have found is to allow an increase in unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that if they want to fight inflation without increasing the rate of unemployment or making consumers pay for it, they must innovate and put in practice the formula suggested by the Creditistes. It has been laughed at and will be made fun of yet, but as long as it is laughed at, we will be facing the same difficulties.
Everywhere people, especially the workers, are requesting wage hikes so as to offset the increase in prices. However, what everybody needs is not necessarily wage increases, but an increase in purchasing power which would be taken off production costs so that people could secure what they need without prices being increased.
It seems that such a solution was not considered at Paris, but until the solutions or ideas that have prevailed for the last 25 or 30 years are discarded, I do not think it will be possible to achieve worthwhile results.
At Lisbon, the meetings dealt with the problems between two blocs-the Warsaw bloc and the NATO bloc-and a relaxation would seem to be possible between the two.
We fervently hope for a relaxation between those two blocs and I find it peculiar that the Soviet side should have waited many years before initiating negotiations The USSR waited until it had as many arms as the United States before seeking a relaxation between the two blocs.
In view of the fact that shipyards are still operating in the USSR, especially in the field of nuclear submarine construction, I am somewhat concerned about these negotiations, and I wonder whether this is not a case of the spider luring the flies into its web.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to be careful in these negotiations and in all kinds of discussions, and I wish that all this may lead to peace, which is so much desired everywhere.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Carter: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated to the Newfoundland government during 1970 for (a) provision of trade and technical school facilities (b) manpower retraining, upgrading and other related programs?

June 14, 1971

2.	Have all moneys allocated to the Newfoundland government under these headings been availed of by the province and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: 1. (a) $1,466,000; (b) Nil.
2.	No, because the money was allocated for use in the period 1970-72.
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: 1. (a) $3,224,000 for the 1970-71 fiscal year, (b) No funds were allocated to the Newfoundland government for the purposes indicated. Under the Canada Manpower Training Program, the federal government purchases training from provincial governments and private institutions. Provinces are reimbursed their actual costs incurred in providing the training purchased, and, in addition, the federal government pays training allowances to the trainees. From April to December, 1970 Canada paid $3,946,087 to the province of Newfoundland for the purchase of training and $3,874,226 in training allowances to trainees in Newfoundland.
2.	No. To obtain the funds allocated for capital facilities the province must submit claims for actual expenditures made. The province of Newfoundland has not submitted claims for the full amount available.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DAIRY PRODUCTS GRANTS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How much money did the Department of Agriculture actually spend during the fiscal year 1970-71 for dairy products grants?
2.	Is this amount greater than that allocated in the 1970-71 estimates and, if so (a) by how much (b) from what source was the excess obtained?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer, in so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, is as follows to part 1: The Department of Agriculture through the Agricultural Stabilization Board transferred to the Canadian Dairy Commission $125 million for direct and indirect assistance to dairy producers.
The answer to the second part of the question is: No, $115 million provided in Main Estimates and $10 million provided in Supplementary Estimates (C), 1970-71.


PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION-STUDY OF GASOLINE AND OIL PRICES
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Has the Prices and Incomes Commission begun a study of the recent increase of gasoline and oil prices east of the Ottawa River and, if so, when is it expected that the results of the study will be announced?
2 What is the number and extent of gasoline and oil prices in Eastern Canada in the past 10 years?


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this ques-
Questions
tion is somewhat lengthy. I wonder if I might have unanimous consent to have it printed in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above follows.]
In so far as the Prices and Incomes Commission and Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) are concerned: 1. The Prices and Incomes Commission is looking into the recent price increases for gasoline and oil products east of the Ottawa River. No decision has yet been taken as to whether to undertake a full-scale review of these increases.
2.	The number of price increases for gasoline and oil prices in Eastern Canada in the past 10 years has not been recorded. The extent of price changes in these items in urban centres is calculated monthly in the Consumer Price Indexes for regional cities. The component indexes for gasoline and motor oil are based on prices collected monthly from samples of retail stations in each city and are presented below, annually since 1961, for the six cities in Eastern Canada for which such indexes are available. The annual index is the average of the twelve monthly indexes. Price changes include changes in the price of the product and changes in indirect taxes, thus the price movement is a combination of the effect of these factors on the items included in the indexes. The indexes measure the movements of prices within each city since 1961. They do not indicate the comparative levels of prices between cities.


STEPS TAKEN TO CURTAIL THE USE OF HALLUCINOGENIC DRUGS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What steps are being taken to curtail the distribution ol hallucinogenic drugs in high schools and post secondary schools?
2.	Is there evidence of an increase in the non-medical use of drugs among young people?
3.	Which hallucinogenic drugs are (a) on the increase (b) on the decrease?
4.	For each of the past five years, has there been an increase in the number of law enforcement officers on the narcotic squads of the RCMP and, if so, to what extent?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as follows: 1. (a) The programs on the non-medical use of drugs is developing a national information program to collect and deliver factual information to key groups, including school children, educators, health professionals, lawyers, the news media, etc. Consultation and co-ordination with provincial departments and agencies are maintained both formally and informally. (b) The provinces carry out education trips in schools and have other various educational programs, (c) In some areas, the police conduct educational programs. (d) In schools, the local schoolboards and the law enforcement personnel deal with the distribution of drugs within their jurisdiction.
6654

June 14, 1971
Questions
2.	The following evidence suggests an increase in the non-medical use of drugs among young people:-there is an increase in the number of arrests, larger quantities of drugs are available "on the street" and the price of drugs "on the street" is decreasing.
3.	(a) Amphetamines and heroin use are on the increase.* Increasing numbers of adults are using marijuana and hashish, (b) The use of LSD is decreasing, so also for STP. A number of hallucinogenic drugs are in limited supply but are very popular with drug users when available-mescaline, psilocybin and peyoe.
4.	Yes, as under 1966/67, 82; 1967/68, 86; 1968/69, 89; 1969/70, 151; 1970/71, 164; 1971, 190 (Apr. 1). These figures represent the actual squads engaged in narcotic investigations on the national and international levels. They are supported by literally thousands of field personnel who enforce the statutes concerned at the local levels.
* Amphetamines and heroin are not hallucinogens. Use by young people prompted their inclusion in this answer.


ALASKA-VISITS BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO GATHER INFORMATION ON ECOLOGICAL STUDIES
Mr. Harding: Have any government officials visited Alaska to gather information on the studies being conducted there on the ecological effects of pipelines and related studies and, if so (a) which ones (b) what were the dates of their visits (c) are reports of their visits and the studies they examined available for publication?
ing the week of February 15, 1971. (c) Studies are not available for publication.


ASSISTANCE TO PROJECTS BY ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many projects were assisted in whole or in part by the Atlantic Development Board during the period it existed and what was the total amount of the assistance provided by the Board?
2.	Of the total amount of assistance provided to projects in the Atlantic Provinces, how much assistance was made available to each of the four Atlantic Provinces?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. 118 projects, $142,894,047.
Newfoundland Nova Scotia New Brunswick Prince Edward Island No provincial breakdown
$	48,556,664
39,630,136 44,609,511 9,894,731 203,005


$ 142,894,047 PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER ASSIGNMENT PROGRAM-NUMBER OF CANDIDATES SINCE 1968
James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the National Energy Board as follows: (a) and (b). Mr. T. S. Shwed, Senior Engineer, visited Fairbanks, Prudhoe Bay and Point Barrow in Alaska during the week of August 25, 1969. Mr. W. Rutherford, Assistant Chief Engineer and Mr. T. S. Shwed, Senior Engineer, visited Fairbanks, Alaska during the week of August 17, 1970. Mr. T. S. Shwed, Senior Engineer, visited Anchorage, Alaska dur-


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	By department, how many (a) men (b) women were selected as candidates for the Career Assignment Program of the Public Service since 1968?
2.	How many of these candidates were fluent in (a) English (b) French (c) English and French?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. (a) & (b)

:
Career Assignment Program
Department	Since 1968	Since 1968
1.	Agriculture
2.	Canadian International Development Agency
3.	Communications
4.	Canadian Penitentiary Service
5.	Consumer & Corporate Affairs
6.	Dominion Bureau of Statistics
7.	Energy, Mines and Resources
8.	External Affairs
9.	Finance
10.	Fisheries & Forestry
11.	Indian Affairs and Northern Development
12.	Industry, Trade and Commerce
13.	Labour
Male	Female	
5		
1		
3		
0		
3	1	
1	1	
10		
2	1	
6	1	
10		
11	1	
15		
1		

June 14, 1971

Department
Questions
Career Assignment Program
Since 1968 Male
Since 1968 Female
14.	Manpower and Immigration	915.	National Defence	1016.	National Revenue	817.	National Health and Welfare	818.	National Capital Commission	319.	Post Office	420.	Privy Council Office	121.	Public Service Commission	1122.	Public Works	423.	Public Service Staff Relations Board	224.	Regional Economic Expansion	325.	Supply and Services	2026.	Solicitor General	327.	Secretary of State	328.	Department of Transport	1529.	Tariff Board	230.	Treasury Board	1131.	Unemployment Insurance Commission	332.	Veterans Affairs	633.	Outside Organizations	10
2. (a) 249; (b) 40; (c) 78.


POST OFFICE SITE-OXFORD, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Coates: From whom was the site for the present post office at Oxford, Nova Scotia, purchased and what was the amount of payment for the site?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: The site for the present post office at Oxford, Nova Scotia, was acquired from Gordon E. and Margaret G. Etter at a cost of $7,500.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BILINGUALISM IN EDUCATION
Mr. Serre: Under the federal-provincial program for the development of bilingualism in education (a) what amount was granted to date to the Province of Ontario (b) what amount was granted to date to the regional school board in Sudbury and which schools and institutions benefited from this program and what amount was granted to each?


Gérard Pelletier: (a) To date, the province of Ontario has received $14,262,326.59 under the federal-provincial programme for the development of bilingualism in education, (b) Under this programme funds are paid directly to the provincial governments who, in turn, assume the responsibility for allocating these moneys to their educational institutions and school boards. Requests for information as to the allocation of funds to a specific institution or local school board should
therefore be directed to the provincial Department of Education concerned.


APPLICATIONS FOR INCENTIVE GRANTS RECEIVED FROM KOOTENAY WEST
Mr. Harding: 1.	To date, how many applications for incentive grants have been received from Kootenay West?
2.	How many of the applications (a) have been approved (b) have been rejected (c) are still under study?
3.	(a) What is the name and location of each project accepted (b) what is the amount of each incentive grant (c) how many new jobs are involved in each project?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. 30.
2. (a) eight; (b) 14 (rejected by drawn by applicant); (c) eight.	department or	with-3. (a)	(b)	(c)J. H. Huscroft Ltd., Erickson Wynndel Box & Lumber Co.,	$27,800	10Wynndel Carty, Boren & Fowler Co.	31,240	8Ltd., Salmo	24,500	30Atco Lumber Ltd., Fruitvale Kalesnikoff Lumbering Co. Ltd.,	14,062	7Tarry's Flats (Near Castlegar) Kootenay Forest Products (Div.	84,172	3Eddy Match Co.), Nelson	175,600	109Verigin Construction Ltd., Trail	22,200	9Glenmerry Sawmills Ltd., Trail	16,080	3
24171-2J

June 14, 1971
Questions


CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION-MR. J. J. HARRIS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What position did Mr. J. J. Harris hold with CNR before he was appointed by the Canadian Grain Commission to undertake a special two year study of terminal grain elevators?
2.	What experience has Mr. Harris had in the handling, movement or storage of grain?
3.	What are the terms of reference for the study?
4.	Does such a study include any reference to the country elevator system of storage?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. General Superintendent of Equipment, Great Lakes Region, Toronto. Was responsible for 12 repair depots for maintenance of rail cars and locomotives.
2.	Mr. Harris was Research Planning Officer-Grain Handling, with the CNR from October 1967 to February 1969. He was also a member of the Grain Transportation Technical Group and was involved in setting up the block system for distribution of grain cars.
3.	To undertake a complete and detailed review of the Canadian Grain Commission Weighing Division's responsibilities, organization and operations, with particular reference to changes in grain weighing procedures necessitated by conversion of scales from manual to automated operation at terminal elevators. To advise the commission on organization and staffing of the Weighing Division.
4.	No.


CALCULATION OF EXCISE TAX ON IMPORTS AT RETAIL VALUE
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of calculating the excise tax on imports at the retail value of the commodity and not the import value, in the same manner as Canadian made goods are taxed?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisler of Finance):: No. The federal government does not tax Canadian made goods on the retail value.
S{J	S&



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Under Capital Expenditure Agreements between the Government of Canada and each province (a) how much money has been paid to each province for (i) building and equipment facilities (ii) occupational training, retraining and upgrading (b) how much is the financial commitment of the federal government to these projects in each province?
2.	How has the money been spent to date and, how will the balance of committed funds be utilized?
Return tabled.


GRANTS MADE THROUGH THE CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 1965-71
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	By year, for the period 1965 to 1971, and by country, what were the conditions of the grants made to other countries through the Canadian International Development Agency?
2.	Did any country accept as a condition of such loan, the importation of certain goods from Canada, for a given period of time or in given amounts and, if so (a) in what amount or amounts and during what period of time must each country import from Canada (b) what is the nature of the products they must import?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question in reference to TAPS. In view of the serious pollution problem TAPS presents to Canada and the complex economic ramifications entailed for us in this method of moving crude petroleum from Alaska to the midwestern United States, what was the formal position taken by Canada as to the TAPS route? Was the alternative route discussed with the United States and, if so, what route was Canada's choice?
Hon. Miichell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I dealt briefly in my statement with my conversation with Mr. Rogers. We did not express any choice that Canada favoured. Our purpose is to make the United States government aware of the very serious dangers that would be involved, in particular if big tankers moved regularly and frequently in the narrow waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia, because there the dangers of pollution are probably at their maximum.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, that answer, with the greatest of respect to the minister, was similar to the minister's statement. Has Canada chosen an alternative route, has it ever expressed that choice to the United States, and on what studies was that choice based?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is raising a different issue altogether. The question of whether the United States companies wish to move oil down the Mackenzie is a question to be considered on its own merits and the question of whether they wish to move oil by tanker from the TAPS line to California is a different question. What we are concerned about and what the people of the west coast are concerned about is
June 14, 1971

the possibility of pollution of Canadian and American shorelines, particularly in the narrow waters where those tankers would move.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one more supplementary question. It seems to me the government has accepted as a fait accompli that the route to be followed is to be the TAPS route and has failed to make Canada's position clear to the United States government. Did you make your position clear to the United States as to the best method, from the point of view of the ecology and pollution, of moving this oil? Did you take that into consideration or did you say that we have a choice and set it out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will assume that this question was directed to the Chair and the minister should be allowed to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I expressed our very strong opposition to the movement of tankers into the narrow waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I gather from the minister that a decision has not yet been made. Before a decision is made, is the minister prepared to make the position of the Canadian government clear as to what method and what route the Canadian government would choose in view of the fact that one of the ministers in the United States said that they did not know the Canadian position?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is not because of any lack of clarity on my part, Mr. Speaker.



PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Did Canada press for and did the United States agree to any further discussions on the proposed oil tanker route?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We asked for reconsideration of any decision that-I should not say reconsideration as the decision has not been taken. Perhaps 1 could amend that. We asked that the very serious risks of pollution be taken into account before any decision is made to route tankers into the narrow waters of what my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, called Canada's inland sea. At that time the United States Secretary of State replied that there were other waters where petroleum was moving to Canadian ports with possible risks of pollution to the American environment and asked whether we would be prepared to consider a study involving not only the narrow waters off the western coast but also the narrow waters on the Atlantic coast and I said yes.


Randolph Harding: In view of the fact that the Americans will possibly be making a very early decision on the oil tanker route down the west coast, can the minister inform the House if any date has been set for the talks he has just mentioned?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Secretary Rogers promised to let me have an answer within about a week.



POSSIBLE USE OF UNIT TRAINS TO MOVE OIL FROM ALASKA-DISCUSSION WITH UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingfon-Grey-Dufferin-Waierloo):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Canadian National Railways is inaugurating the first unit oil train between Montreal and Douglas Point, Ontario, and as there are studies being made with regard to the possibility of moving oil from Alaska by unit oil trains, was there any discussion with his American counterpart as to the possibility of using this process to move oil from Alaska?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not during my discussions with Mr. Rogers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.



POLLUTION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: When reporting on the talks held in Washington the Minister of the Environment outlined on Friday a number of very important tasks given by the United States and Canadian governments to the International Joint Commission so that the two government's can start eliminating pollution in the Great Lakes. Has the International Joint Commission been assured that the costs of carrying out these important tasks will be adequately and readily met by both governments so that it can start now to carry out the tasks that have been given to it?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the record of the Canadian government's support of the International Joint Commission is beyond question. I have assured the chairman that if new responsibilities are assigned to the commission the government will put before Parliament recommendations for appropriations for the purpose of meeting the costs. We also urged upon the United States, which has not been supporting the International Joint Commission as strongly as Canada, that they should do likewise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member might not agree that we might move on to another subject and perhaps return to this subject later. I will return to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings in a moment.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

June 14, 1971



EAST PAKISTAN REFUGEES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CANADIAN PLANS TO PROVIDE RELIEF AND INITIATIVES TO ACHIEVE POLITICAL SETTLEMENT

Francis Andrew Brewin: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As suggested earlier today, will the minister undertake to make a statement on motions with regard to Canada's detailed plans to contribute to humanitarian aid in East Pakistan and West Bengal after he has had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Indian foreign minister? Also, will the minister include in the statement the political initiatives that the world community, of which Canada is a part, is taking or can take to put an end to this tragic situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will undertake to make a statement as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. I doubt very much if it would be useful to make a statement within the next day or two because there are a number of developments taking place that will have an effect on our policy. I will undertake to make a statement just as soon as we have the necessary information and have made decisions.



EAST PAKISTAN-ACHIEVEMENT OF PEACE TO SAVE POPULATION

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
Does the minister know whether an equitable peace can be achieved in that country before cholera exterminates all of its inhabitants?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I certainly join with my hon. friend in hoping that there will be peace in that part of the world. I agree with what has been said in the House, that we may face one of the great human tragedies and we should be doing everything possible to avoid it.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. As Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures released today show that the cost of living in Canada has been rising since the first of the year at an annual rate of 5.5 per cent, is the government planning to try to control this sharp and serious increase by instituting price and wage guidelines or by some other method?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have noted that the increase in the cost of living in the month of May was .4 per cent compared with .7 per cent
for the previous month. Also, the increase for December and the first five months of this year was 1.9 per cent.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. As the minister did not make any attempt to answer my question and the figures I cited are correct and show that the cost of living has been rising at an annual rate of 5.5 per cent since the first of the year, which is the important period we are dealing with, not last year, I ask the minister to answer my question with a yes or no. Is the government planning to move to control this situation by the implementation of price and wage guidelines or not?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Is the government planning to continue the jurisdiction of the Prices and Incomes Commission past the end of the present year when it is due to expire?


Edgar John Benson: This is a matter for decision by the government which has not been made at this time.


George Harris Hees: As usual.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. Baldwin:: In the absence of the Secretary of State I wanted to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. I am sure he has a large number of documents, and I will defer my question until he reappears.



USE OF LATEST INFORMATION ON COST OF LIVING AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN BUDGET

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. Can the minister inform the House whether his budget is geared to receiving such information as was disclosed this morning with regard to the cost of living and also information with regard to the unemployment figures which will appear on Thursday? Is the main objective of the budget to be the restoration of a sound economy in Canada in place of the present dragging economy?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the aim of the budget will be to make sure that the expansion which is taking place in the Canadian economy continues.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In the aftermath of his discussions with Mr. Kittani, is the minister now satisfied that the movement of food within the area of the refugees is satisfactory, or is there some problem, as outlined by the director of the Food and Agriculture Organization, which is clogging the movement?

June 14, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with the Secretary General of the United Nations and Mr. Kittani it was reported that the government of Pakistan is willing to have United Nations supervision over the distribution of relief supplies. This seemed to me to mark a step forward and is one of the questions I should like to have clarified before 1 make a statement about our future intentions. It is my hope-indeed, I think it is everyone's hope-that the intentions of the Pakistan government to permit adequate surveillance will be confirmed.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether gestures such as that made by the government of Saskatchewan in offering wheat are, in light of the minister's present information, the kind of thing that Canadians should be doing and encouraging?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did hear through Mr. Kittani that one of the major needs of East Pakistan is going to be grain in very large quantities.


EAST PAKISTAN REFUGEES-PROVISION OF CANADIAN GRAIN
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Canadian government is planning to contribute substantial amounts of grain and also to meet the cost of transportation as a food aid measure in this situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, decisions are being made to contribute some oilseeds to the refugees from Pakistan who are now in India. As I say, it already appears clear that grain is going to be one of the needs of East Pakistan, and the Secretary General will within the next few days probably be issuing an appeal to countries of the world to meet this deficit.


EAST PAKISTAN-ASSISTANCE TO REFUGEES-CO-OPERATION OF PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us if the Canadian government, in spite of its willingness to help the people of East Pakistan and West Bengal, has the co-operation of the Pakistani authorities?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far, of course, we have contributed only to the needs of the refugees in India and we are receiving every co-operation from the Indian government. We are now trying to work out means whereby relief can be supplied to the people of East Pakistan through the medium of the Pakistan government.
Inquiries of the Ministry YOUTH


ALLEGED MISHANDLING OF FUNDS IN ADMINISTRATION OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM, TORONTO
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State yet received a report from the parliamentary secretary who went to Toronto to meet Alderman Crombie to discuss with the alderman his charges of mismanagement under the Opportunities for Youth program?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary did speak to Alderman Crombie. Furthermore, a number of officials from the Department of the Secretary of State were also in discussion with him. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the major criticism that was first raised was one of mismanagement of funds. That has not taken place, for the reasons I put forward on Thursday last. In terms of projects that the alderman may not have been pleased with, he has made no public statement as to which of the projects he is calling into question. From our conversations we have concluded that the only project one can pinpoint-and this would be open to his public correction

is the project called Neighbourhood Youth Corps.
In terms of this particular project, officials in the Ontario premier's office were consulted, the Social Planning Council of Toronto was consulted, and the Toronto citizenship liaison officers were consulted. Apparently there was general agreement on the matter, and we see no reason yet for any change in our support for that project.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DISTRIBUTION OF GRANTS AND CRITERIA
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary ask the Secretary of State when the minister will make the statement he has promised for some considerable time now regarding the distribution and allocation of grants under the Opportunities for Youth program? Would he also say when he will reveal the specific criteria that are used for approval of these projects? I am thinking specifically of a project in British Columbia that was approved and under which several Americans were apparently busy growing marijuana.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, there are several parts to that question. In reply to the first part of the question, which was when the Secretary of State will be making a statement, I can tell the House that he will be making a statement on Friday on motions. If I might have your permission, Mr. Speaker, I might deal with the appendage to the question, or perhaps I could wait for a direct question on that matter.

June 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-GRANT TO PROJECT WHERE MARIJUANA ALLEGED TO BE GROWN
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, now that the parliamentary secretary has opened this up I can ask my question with more validity. Did the Opportunities for Youth program provide a substantial grant to a youth hostel or youth farm in the vicinity of Prince George, British Columbia, which has been found to be involved in the growing of marijuana, and for which two Americans were convicted in Prince George on Friday last?


James Hugh Faulkner: Again, Mr. Speaker, it would be important to pinpoint this instance. The project that I suspect the hon. member is referring to is the Northern Wilderness project. It is very important to be specific because there are something like 2,400 projects. But assuming that we are talking about the same project-


Gerald William Baldwin: I think we are.


James Hugh Faulkner: -I might go further and say that no funds have reached this project. The land in question is leased to the Salmon Valley youth program for camp purposes. Because of the questions that have been raised this project has been suspended and no funds will be advanced until it has received further study.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary specifically whether any money was provided and paid over to the particular project near Prince George. Related to that question or as part of the same question, may I ask about the suggestion made by Mr. Ellis, the co-ordinator of programs in that area, that the whole business was arranged by mail without any opportunity for a review of the details?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I think I did answer the first part of the question when I said no funds have yet reached that project and that the project is now suspended pending further investigation. As to the charges made by Mr. Ellis, I shall have to take the question as notice and look into the matter.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ALLEGED GRANT TO ROCHDALE GROUP TO CONSTRUCT ORGANIC FARM
Mr. Mac T. McCufcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. Is the Opportunities for Youth program going to provide $26,000 to a Rochdale-based youth project to construct an organic farm? If so, will the farm be in the hallways and corridors of the building?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary may wish to reply to the question asked, though I doubt whether it was put in such a way that it should be replied to. I hope there will not be a suggestion that all of these 2,400, or whatever the number is, projects which

have apparently been approved or are being approved under the program will be questioned one after the other, because we would certainly have to extend the question period in that case.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said the Secretary of State would not be making a statement in the House until Friday. Is the reason he is waiting till Friday, and has chosen that particular day, that everyone knows that any other statement made on budget day will be submerged and never come to light?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It might be more interesting than the budget.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUMMARY OF PROJECTS NOT APPROVED WITH REASONS THEREFOR
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to publish a summary of the projects that have not been approved, with a brief statement as to why that is the case? Are the applicants whose projects have not been approved being advised as to the reasons for non-approval of their applications?


James Hugh Faulkner: I will have a look into this, Mr. Speaker. One of the obvious difficulties is that there were something like 13,000 projects and to reply to each one individually with an explanation as to why it was not approved does pose some logistical problems. I am not sure what the minister's intentions are but he might very well reveal them on Friday.


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
At a recent meeting of the Canadian Bankers Association the ex-president of that Association stated that the net income of chartered banks in Canada, in 1970, totalled $543 million, as compared to $450 million the previous year. In view of such a situation, would the Minister of Finance advise the House if he would be willing to demand a reduction of interest rates and service charges which were increased within the last months, so as to help the government fight inflation and solve the unemployment problem?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated question. What I can say is that short-term rates over the past year have come down substantially in Canada to a point where they are somewhat below United States rates.
June 14, 1971


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Is the government considering the creation of a single ministry responsible for unemployment as suggested by the President of the Treasury Board?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, is the government considering giving an existing ministry a new department to be known as Unemployment Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, if the government is contemplating setting up this new department to deal with unemployment, will the Acting Prime Minister consider asking the House for unanimous consent as I am sure we would waive our right to debate this new department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Ht H:	*



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Have there been any hopeful developments in respect of the strike at Flin Flon and Snow Lake which is now rapidly approaching its fifth month?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a result of efforts of the officials of my department in the latter part of last week in private conversations with both management and labour, I am pleased to announce that negotiations will resume this morning either in Winnipeg or Flin Flon, and the mediation team of the department will consist of Mr. Gunn and Mr. Kelly.



LABOUR COURTS PROPOSED BY SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENT

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Labour. In so far as it affects Canadian labour policies and regulations, is the minister in agreement with the principle of provincial labour courts as outlined personally by the premier of Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to indicate whether he is in agreement with a principle enunciated outside the House by a provincial leader. In those terms I would not think the question is procedurally acceptable.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



POSSIBLE DISCONTINUANCE OF PROGRAM &quot;RADIO NOON&quot;

Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Perlh-Wilmol):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State may I direct my question to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that many Canadians, both rural and urban, are greatly fearful that "Radio Noon" may suffer a similar fate to that of "Country Calendar", will he inquire whether the CBC is contemplating changing or cancelling the program "Radio Noon", which is heard daily at 12.10 p.m., and report to the House?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look into that.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the proceedings the hon. member for Perth raised a question concerning whether the CBC intends to carry the program "Radio Noon". I can inform the House that the CBC does intend to carry the program.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact there is a desperate need for food in Pakistan and India, is his department making a canvass of surplus agricultural foods now available in eastern Canada in order to ascertain whether some of these supplies might be moved to the area, or will supplies be confined only to western feed and other grain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, our department co-operates with the Department of External Affairs and agencies including CIDA, FAO and the world food program on a continuing basis to advise them of what we are capable of supplying. What we normally do is respond to the requests of each recipient country.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether there has been any request for the utilization of some of the eastern surpluses of poultry, dairy products and grain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, a few days ago I announced a program to buy surplus eggs, have them dried at the drying plants and make the egg powder available to the world food program.


DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMCHITKA NUCLEAR TESTS AT WASHINGTON MEETING
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the minister raise the question of further nuclear tests on Amchitka Island during his recent discussions in Washington, and did he make Canada's position clear on the matter?

June 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not think it necessary to amplify what I had said previously to the government of the United States in opposition to these tests.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Will there by any further discussions on this matter before the date that has been set?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am expecting that I will have further information from the United States about their intentions. We have made very strong representations and we do not feel there is very much more we can do from our side. We hope, however, we will have some response from the United States.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Barber Commission on farm machinery suggested that Canadian farmers were subsidizing lower prices for farm machinery in other countries. Following his discussions with the farm machinery manufacturers, can the minister now tell us for sure that definite action is being taken to rectify this situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the assurance that the farm machinery companies have accepted that assertion and are taking corrective action based on whether or not it is valid. I have had a number of meetings with senior officers of the farm machinery companies and there have been, I think, some useful actions taken in respect of some of the recommendations of the Barber Commission Report.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise what useful actions have been taken in this regard?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I would be repeating answers I have made in the House on a number of occasions.


FARM MACHINERY-GOVERNMENT PLANS RESPECTING BARBER COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Rod Thomson (Batileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions as to what the government plans to do in toto in respect of the Barber Commission Report so that we will not have to put these questions to him continually day by day? We would like to have a total information package if he can give it to us.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As hon. members will be aware, there were several hundred recommendations, and it does not seem to me there could be any specific point in time when the government or, indeed, the industry could lay out in detail what they intend to do with these several hundred recommendations.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he inform the House whether it is the intention of the government during this session to officially designate a Minister of State for Urban Affairs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that unemployment is becoming such big business in Canada, will the minister advise how many new unemployment insurance branch offices are contemplated throughout Canada to accommodate the demands of the new UIC legislation and the vastly increased number of clients?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there will be many new offices, not because there are more clients but because of the insistence on serving better the working force in this country. I would anticipate we will be opening about 100 claim service offices across Canada. A complete list of these offices will be mailed to each and every Member of Parliament over the next 10 days.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Will the minister say whether these new offices to be opened will perform all the same functions as the existing offices?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the relationship with the public is concerned, because of the fact that one of the functions now carried out by the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been transferred to the Department of Revenue, that is, collections and audits, this will free more employees to deal directly with the public and therefore the main thrust of the new offices will be the better servicing of the public.




Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the minister make any effort in his discussions last week with the United States Secretary of State to have the terms of reference of the International Joint Commission inquiry into the Skagit Valley situation


[Mrs. Maclnnis.)
June 14, 1971______________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________6663
changed so that the IJC would not be bound by the 1942 and 1967 agreements?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary refers to my original question in respect of the Skagit Valley. Does the government plan on any further discussions of the Skagit with the United States authorities?


REQUEST BY INDIA THAT CANADA APPROACH PAKISTAN RESPECTING POLITICAL SETTLEMENT AND RELIEF FOR REFUGEES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, may I take advantage of being on my feet on a question of privilege-to clarify an answer given by the Prime Minister on Friday. On Friday the hon. member for Greenwood asked the Prime Minister whether he had received a communication from Prime Minister Gandhi of India requesting him to approach personally the government of Pakistan with a view to promoting a political settlement and, if possible, mounting a massive and co-ordinated relief operation in East Pakistan as well as in West Bengal, to which the Prime Minister replied:
I have received no recent communication on this subject, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to clarify this answer. The Prime Minister has received a letter from Mrs. Gandhi but not on this particular subject. I wish to make this clear so that it would not be thought that the letter has not been received, so that Mrs. Gandhi would not think the letter has not been received and so that no one would think that the Prime Minister was trying to mislead the House.

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Appearing before the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance, a visionary economist from the University of Montreal, Mr. Andre Raynauld, suggested the creation of a regional stabilization fund.
Has the minister asked his officials to study this proposal seriously?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not familiar with the particular proposal mentioned by Mr. Raynauld but a proposal was made by the Prime Minister of Quebec last year and was studied by the government. We did, as you know, in the December budget set up $160 million which was loaned to the various provinces based on the rate of unemployment in those provinces.
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS


REPEAL OF 1968 DEADLINE RESPECTING HOUSING
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that many war veterans are still in serious need of housing and since the present housing programs under CHMC are not reaching them, is the minister prepared to consider the repeal of the October, 1968 deadline for war veterans so they might be given the opportunity to apply where the need is great?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this deadline was made law in 1962. In view of the fact that it was meant to assist veterans upon returning after the war and since more than 27 years have elapsed since that time, it is not felt that this would help the situation.


Jack Marshall: Because of the fact that there are more younger veterans coming out of the army now, would the minister direct that the district offices across the country determine by survey how many veterans there are who would like to apply for such housing so that they might be helped?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to give consideration to this proposition.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and
Immigration. Does the minister's department require that contractors on federal projects go through the manpower offices when hiring employees?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the department does not have the power to do exactly what the hon. member suggests, but it is common, in respect of certain contracts entered into by the government, to include in them a clause as a term of the contract requiring contractors, wherever it is convenient or feasible-I do not know the exact words-to use the manpower services.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that contractors are
ignoring this stipulation-and the minister has evidence in his office of this fact-what steps is he taking to ensure that the regulations are enforced so that the manpower offices can perform this useful function?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of the particular case to which the hon. member refers but when the contractual term exists the government takes an interest in seeing that it is honoured and takes whatever measures are appropriate in the particular case. In this instance I would have to look at the particular case before making any further comment.

June 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, will the minister check his mail to see whether in the last few weeks an investigation was requested in respect of violation of a contract, which has been supported at the federal level by various Members of Parliament and since no response has been received to the request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ELECTION EXPENSES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the government be indicating to the House at an early date its position with respect to the recommendations contained in the report of the Special Committee on Election Expenses which was tabled on June 4?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not our intention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation along those lines so that it might be in effect before the next election, that is if the next election is not until 1972?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under discussion in cabinet.




Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that there were frank and fruitful discussions at Washington, and having in mind that the United States Congress has passed a law authorizing the United States government to negotiate with the Canadian government concerning the cost of paving the Alaska Highway, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether any discussions were held in Washington about this matter and whether the United States government has indicated the extent to which it is prepared to defray the cost of paving the Alaska Highway?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The discussions in Washington were limited to two matters. The first was the conference we had on questions of the environment and pollution. Of course the paving of the Alaska Highway we hope would have nothing to do with that. The other matter was the west coast situation which I described to the House.
[Mr. Lang.f


EFFECT OF WALKOUT OF WORKERS AT THUNDER BAY ON AVAILABILITY
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. As a result of the walkout over the weekend which affected the unloading of grain at the Lakehead, what is the present situation in respect of the availability of grain and what is the possibility of resolving the dispute so there will not be a tie-up?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I understand the dispute at Thunder Bay did cause some delay in unloadings just prior to the weekend, but the men are now back at work.


Stanley James Korchinski: Is there no possibility they will walk out again prior to the completion of any contract?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am in close contact with my colleague the Minister of Labour in respect of this whole matter, and perhaps this question might be better directed to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-243, to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring into effect measures that will encourage the continuing improvement of the judicial services provided across Canada by the federally appointed judiciary. The provisions of Bill C-243 will bring about salary and resulting pension increases and in addition will give judges more acceptable options with respect to retirement age and the judicial workload that they will have to carry between the ages of 70 and 75.
The salary provisions of Bill C-243 will bring about the first review and increase of the remuneration provided to federally appointed judges since 1967. The salary increases will be made in two stages, the first increase having an effective date of January 1, 1971, and the second increase becoming applicable on January 1, 1972.
In every case the total salaries that would be payable to federally appointed judges are within or below the

June 14, 1971

salary ranges suggested by the Canadian Bar Association Committee on Judges Salaries and Pensions. The work carried out by that committee was of considerable help to the government, and the committee and its chairman, Mr. Douglas Brown, deserve the appreciation of the legal profession and the public at large-the ultimate beneficiary of an informed, capable but independent judiciary.
The committee pointed out in its report to the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Halifax in September of last year that the very position of esteem and independence held by the judiciary in Canada precludes its members from stating its own worthy case, and in no sense of the term can there be bilateral bargaining between members of the bench and the government. Recognizing this to be so, the Canadian Bar Association is to be commended for commissioning and supporting a committee to investigate the facts and present them for the consideration of the government.
Based upon available statistics, the Committee on Judges Salaries and Pensions came to the conclusion that increases granted in 1967 have been overtaken by the decrease in the spending power of the dollar.
Perhaps at no other time in our history has an informed and forward looking judiciary been of more importance to Canadians. This country faces many issues that in terms of their complexity and their relevance to the everyday affairs of our citizens are without equal in our past. Our courts share the burden of providing innovative and result-oriented solutions to these problems. We must strive constantly to maintain a creative and contemporary judiciary.
Canadians have come to recognize that law reform is not the sole preserve of the legislator; just as we here have the duty and the responsibility to bring the statutes of Canada into accord with contemporary thought, so must the courts strive to link the jurisprudence of the past with the cultural norms and social context that are Canada today and will be Canada tomorrow. If the courts are unable or unwilling to heed the words of those who would advance our legal traditions, if the courtroom door is barred to those who would reform through advocating the public interest, then we have only weak arguments to oppose those who find themselves in the streets advocating change by force or violence.
If participation is to be a meaningful word in Canada, we must provide ready access to the decision-making processes, and I would do the courts a disservice if I did not include the judiciary as a part of that process in Canada. We do not disparage or undermine the law when we consider change. Indeed, change is the very essence, the very heart, of our common legal heritage.

The Criminal Code has undergone significant amendment in the last few years and the bail reform bill now before Parliament brings about major changes in the law of arrest and pretrial detention. The courts are being called upon to be familiar with and speak knowledgeably about a criminal law that, because of the nature of our society, must be flexible enough to deal with crime in the broad spectrum-criminal activity that forms a continu-
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
um from petty theft to highly organized crime and street violence.
New issues are to be dealt with in the field of civil justice as well. Cases calling for the interpretation of provincial, as well as federal statutes are becoming more common. Problems involving landlord and tenant disputes, securities marketing, immigration, divorce and matrimonial proceedings all raise intricate jurisprudential questions.
To solve these questions, new concepts of exactly what a court is will be required. The new Federal Court Act, just recently proclaimed, is an example of the evolution of an older institution, a necessary evolution to keep our judicial system in step with the changes in our society and the changing role of law in that society.
Our courts must not only deal with matters of substance, but also be prepared to meet and thwart those that would bring about the orderly perversion of justice by using the criminal trial as a political platform. We cannot allow Canadian courtroms to be degraded with a "Chicago 8" trial; judicial proceedings are the visible manifestation of the rule of law and no disrespect should be afforded to a concept that is so much a part of our democratic order.
We hope to establish a tradition within the Bar of Canada that the practicing lawyer will feel morally bound to accept a judicial appointment when it is offered even if this decision will result in a substantial decrease in income or in the disruption of family life. If this tradition is to be nurtured-if we are to attract the men and women with the talent and vigour that we require- then we must be prepared to go some distance in making the holding of judicial office a viable career for those persons who still are relatively young and who are experiencing the peak expenditures of their lives because of family responsibilities.
In this regard, the bill will result in increased pensions to widows or widowers of judges with dependent children and brings such pensions into better accord with the financial responsibilities of judges with young families.
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women has stated:
"We believe that women are needed at all levels of the law to build up faith in the law and the courts as a neutral force that treats all people equally."
In anticipation of the appointment of more women to the Bench, the bill will amend the Judges Act so as to permit the government to provide pensions to the dependents of women judges on the same basis as to wives and children of male members of the Bench.

I have mentioned the challenges that the courts must meet in the future. I am convinced that there will continue to be an increase in the number of cases to be heard by the courts and, of course, without additional appointments the backload of cases would continue to expand. The bill now provides for the appointment of 12 additional judges, 11 of whom are for the provincial superior courts of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. It is

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
anticipated that amendments will be made at the report stage of the bill that will provide salaries for further increases in the number of judicial positions being created. However, these amendments will be contingent upon the passage of the necessary complementary provincial legislation.
Also, the bill contemplates the establishment of the offices of supernumerary judges in the provincial superior courts. The clause in the bill is an enabling power only and requires the enactment of provincial legislation before a judge may elect to become a supernumerary judge.
When the provinces proceed with the necessary amendment of their own legislation, provincial superior court judges who have reached the age of 70 years, and who have had ten years judicial experience, may elect to become supernumerary judges. In so doing, a regular judicial office will become vacant, with the result that an experienced group of judges will be available to assist in special cases of long duration and to meet the peak workloads of the court.
A supernumerary judge will be available to carry out, at the direction of the Chief Justice of his court, any and all of the judicial functions on the same basis as an ordinary member of the court. As I have said, the supernumerary judges of a court will form a pool of judicial talent that can be used as required to decrease the backload of cases, to bring valuable experience to a particularly complex case, and generally to provide the courts with the flexibility that is required to meet variable case loads. Unlike American judges who can serve in a similar capacity for life, provincial superior court judges will remain subject to compulsory retirement at age 75.
However, the bill provides for compulsory retirement at age 70 for county and district court judges. This clause will be applicable only to those judges appointed after the coming into force of the amendment. Those presently serving could remain in office until age 75. There is also a general provision that any judge who has attained the age of 65 years and who has held judicial office for 15 years may voluntarily retire from office.
It is important to the system of government and justice that we enjoy in Canada that our judges remain independent, and that principle admits of no limitations. Upon the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary rests the principle of freedom under law that is the keystone of democracy.
This bill provides for the establishment of a new council to be called the Canadian Judicial Council. The council will be composed of the Chief Justices of the various superior courts in Canada. The council will provide a national forum for the judiciary in Canada, and its dominant purpose will be to strive to bring about greater efficiency and uniformity in judicial services and to improve their quality.
While I have stressed the importance of increasing the number of judges that are available to hear the growing number of cases, that is only a partial solution to the
problem. Our courts must be prepared to consider modern management techniques and be aware of the new methods of systems analysis and the modern equipment that is now commonplace in many government agencies and in successful business operations. To this end, the Canadian Judicial Council will be empowered to take a position of leadership and, through conferences and seminars, provide for the continuing education of judges.

While the administration of justice in the provinces is a provincial responsibility, the Canadian Judicial Council will be able to consider many of the problems involved in it on a national rather than on a provincial basis. Certainly, the courts of one province will benefit from investigations and studies done in other provinces.
In this regard, I commend the initiative of the former Minister of Justice of Ontario and the Ontario Law Reform Commission in instituting a study and review of the administration of the Ontario courts. The findings of this study should provide valuable guidance to the authorities in other provinces as well as to the federal government.
Consistent with its underlying concept, the Canadian Judicial Council will have power to carry out investigations of any complaint made regarding the conduct of members of the bench.
In addition to the right to initiate an investigation on its own, the Council may also be directed by the Minister of Justice to commence an inquiry as to whether a federally appointed judge should be removed from office. The governor in council now has this power under the Inquiries Act, but the enabling powers conferred by the bill are restricted and made appropriate to inquiries respecting the judiciary.
Because the independence of the judiciary is an integral part of the Canadian democratic process, it is important that the judiciary become, to some extent, a self-disciplining body. The executive or legislative branches of government should not ordinarily intervene in the management or control of the judiciary. To do so might result in an abuse of the executive power of government and would diminish the respect and independence now held by the bench, and destroy the delicate balance of powers that Canadian democracy has enjoyed since Confederation.
The bill of course contemplates that the Council will report the findings of any inquiry to the Minister of Justice. There would continue to be the requirement for an Address by both Chambers to the Governor General requesting the removal of a superior court judge from office as required by section 99(1) of the BNA Act. At present, the governor in council may remove a county or district court judge from office after an inquiry has been made. This power is being retained in the proposed new version of the Judges Act. An inquiry would be carried out by the Canadian Judicial Council and its report would be forwarded to the Minister of Justice. Should the situation so warrant, the Minister of Justice can recommend to the governor in council that the judge be removed from office.

June 14, 1971

I am convinced that Canadians generally are genuinely concerned about justice and its administration in Canada. The provisions in Bill C-243 represent legitimate and proper increases in remuneration for our judges and should provide an incentive that will assist in attracting the best legal minds into the judicial system.

A recent survey has shown that 41 per cent of Canadians believe that "you cannot get justice in the courts today." Without accepting the validity of that statistic, it is probably true that too many people in this country believe that the administration of justice is not all that it should be and that the time has come to take effective steps toward its improvement. The government believes that the provisions of this bill embrace principles that will work to this end and that they are deserving of early enactment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, today I am in a happy position. As the justice critic for my party I often have to take positions different from those put forward by the government. Today I wish to say at the outset of my remarks that I endorse this bill in principle. I support the government in seeking its reference to committee for study. On the whole I feel that the proposed provisions are good and were needed.
The first matter I wish to discuss is the division of powers, and I do so because a council is being set up with reference to some new kind of discipline to be exercised over judges. I need not repeat the fact that in a democratic state we have three divisions of power. First we have Parliament made up of the House of Commons, the Senate and, of course, the Crown. Then we have the judiciary which is independent of Parliament, and then we have the executive, the cabinet. Each one of these divisions is important. Each has its place and function in society.
This brings me to my first point in reference to the bill, dealing with the increase in judges' salaries. It is well to point out what we propose to do from a money point of view. The principle behind paying judges well is that a judge must have no worries that could affect the independence that he must always exercise in discharging his duties or, to put the matter in a colloquial way, in calling the shots as he sees them. Through the provisions of this bill the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is our highest court, will get $47,000 annually, an increase from $43,500. The other judges of that court will get $42,000, an increase from $38,500.
It has been the prerogative of the federal government for some time to appoint judges of the superior court. In all provinces they will now receive $39,000, an increase from $34,500; the other judges will receive $35,000, an increase from $30,500. In county court the chief judge, who is like the chief justice of the superior court, will receive $27,000, an increase from $23,000, and judges of the county and district courts throughout Canada will receive $25,000, an increase from $22,000.
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
The first point I should like to make is that in Ontario superior court judges receive another allowance from the province. I do not know whether I am correct but I believe it might be another $6,000. Some other provinces also pay an allowance. Looking at the scale of salaries I agree that it is not too much; the job merits it.
I should like to make a comparison of these salaries with the increase in salaries for Members of Parliament. I am sure Your Honour will agree, being a lawyer yourself, as is the distinguished parliamentary secretary, that the calibre of judges is important. At one time a lawyer merely articled with a law firm, then was called to the bar for five years, and wrote certain examinations. Today with our educational facilities and law schools and academic standards he first gets his Bachelor of Arts degree, specializing in economics or political science or English, then, after taking four or five years in arts, goes on to law school and spends three or four years there to get his Bachelor of Laws degree, and finally spends at least one year articling with a law firm before being called to the bar. He must then spend at least ten years in practice before he can become a Queen's Counsel-wearing the silk as we say-or be appointed to the bench. When that academic standard is compared with what is required for the House of Commons it makes one pause. A member of Parliament may not necessarily have attended university but usually brings a wealth of experience to this place. I see one member sitting here today who has had years of experience in municipal affairs which has eminently fitted him to come to this chamber and do his job. When one considers what we are paid, the increases proposed for judges are not out of line.
We hear a great deal about free office space for Members of Parliament. But a judge's chambers or office are supplied by the provincial government. My office here in the west block does not belong to Eldon Woolliams; it belongs to the people of Canada. The people come there to see me as the representative of Calgary North or, basically, a representative of the House of Commons representing the people of Canada. That should be my first concern, representing the nation as a whole. The office of a judge or a Member of Parliament should be provided by the state and belong to the state.
Judges are entitled to expenses if it is necessary for them to travel from one city to another. In Alberta, our Court of Appeal sits in both Calgary and in Edmonton. Expenses incurred for accommodation and meals are legitimate.
The three levels of government are important, that is, Parliament-and this House of Commons is part of Parliament-, the judiciary and the cabinet. Each plays its part and each is skilled to that end. No one man has it all; each is needed by the others, and that should be emphasized.
Considering the responsibility of the office and the high taxes incurred, the salary and expense allowances are by no means too high. As we all know, anyone who earns more than $25,000 a year pays taxes of 50 cents on every dollar over the $25,000, and I know something about that. There is not too much left of the $47,000, a little more than half, the remainder returning to the treasury. It

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
becomes a circle, though I am not being critical of the economics. As in industry, Members of Parliament, judges and cabinet ministers incur legitimate expenses which are part of their service to the state and which they must incur if they are to do a good job. Mr. Speaker, I support that part of the bill.
I said at the outset that I support the bill but I now wish to say something about the functions of a judge and why this increased salary is deserved. In 1966 a royal commission was formed under the Honourable I. C. Rand, Q.C., to inquire into the conduct of a certain judge whom I shall not name. At page 95 of his report Mr. Rand refers to the submissions of that distinguished counsel, Mr. J. J. Robinette of Toronto. The report reads:
Mr. Robinette properly stressed the independence of judges and, rightly conceived, that principle admits of no limitations.
Here they were dealing with a problem that had arisen with reference to the conduct of a certain judge which is dealt with by counsel in this report and this is what makes it relevant at this time. The report continues:
It enables the guarantee of security to the weak against the strong and to the individual against the community; it presents a shield against the tyranny of power and arrogance and against the irresponsibility and irrationality of popular action, whether of opinion or of violence; it enables the voice of sanity to rise above the turbulence of passion; and it is to be preserved inviolate.
Just recently I appeared before the court of appeal on a case where a jury had convicted 13 men of murder. Now that the trial is over I may say there is no doubt in my mind that the jury were influenced somewhat by passion because of the community. However, the judges of the court of appeal rose above that kind of emotionalism and passion and faced their responsibility by directing a new trial for 12 of the men. To return to the report:
But what does the independence of judges imply? That can be nothing short of this: that the minister to whom such an authority is committed shall himself be the first to respect what has been entrusted to him, the administration of the rule of justice under law, including loyalty to its institutions. The public acceptability of character for such a function is of that which exhibits itself in action as beyond influences that tend to taint its discharge with alien factors.
Vital damage to a state would be the impairment of that independence;
The judiciary must remain independent at all times to the point that if a member of a government which approved the appointment of a certain judge later found himself before that judge at the bar of justice, he would be fairly and impartially tried and the proper adjudication made. That is how important it is. To continue: its constitutional character is essential to the public acceptance of our mode of resolving conflicts. Judgments may be criticized: they may call for legislative amendment; but the underlying basic assumption is the intellectual and moral integrity of the judicial officer in the execution of his office. Only under a regime of law can societies today be maintained in peace and freedom.
May I pause there to emphasize that our great freedom in this country does not flow from any one person or group of persons; it flows from the rule of law. Our children can arrive at the door of their school safe and
sound and their mothers and fathers can assemble at night in the communities; this freedom comes from the rule of law and not from the prime minister, the premiers or any group of Members of Parliament or the cabinet, or even from the judiciary. This is what distinguishes our system of which we are so proud. We must always guard the impartiality of our laws and those who administer them and make sure that we are not overtaken by a dictatorship. That happened in Europe in the 1930's. Mr. Speaker, the rule of law must be distinguished from, the rule of people; the rule of people is the rule of barbarism. May I continue quoting and repeat briefly:
Only under a regime of law can societies today be maintained in peace and freedom: its administration must carry the respect and acceptance of the public as being of the character postulated. Impartiality must mark judgment to the extent possible to men; our court system is the result of a thousand years of experience-
If our judges are to judge men, it is necessary for them to be impartial. As has been pointed out, our court system has evolved from thousands of years of experience. Our common law, as implemented by the judiciary, is the crystalization of the experiences and traditions of mankind. It is the result and the cream of man's experience. In our common law are embodied our civil rights which guard us against the infringement of the all-powerful state.
It is true that the system may not be perfect, but then we must remember that men are imperfect. There is no perfect system, as some ideologists forget when they try to devise a perfect system that flies against the tenets of human behaviour. Unfortunately, there are no perfect individuals. Not one of us is perfect; we all have our frailties. Shakespeare suggested that only one of the sexes was frail; I think he made a mistake in that regard. May I continue quoting. The author has suggested that our system of law is not perfect and he goes on to say:
But it stands favorable comparison with any other system of mankind; and the preservation of the essential quality of freedom in its ministers from influences foreign to its processes, conscious or unconscious, is a supreme necessity. The governing fact in that condition is the susceptibility of the mind so influenced, the confirmation of which exhibits a moral sense incompatible with the judicial essence.
I could go on quoting, but I will not take up the time of the House. The point I make, Mr. Speaker, is that judges must be paid a reasonable salary because they must always remain independent and free from pressures. They must interpret impartially the common law as well as laws passed in this Parliament and in the legislatures of this nation. They must be impartial to the extent that human beings are capable of being impartial. It is to that end that they are given free offices, free telephones, letterheads with their names printed on them, envelopes and various other services which are paid for by the government. Members of Parliament, too, are paid a reasonable salary and allowed reasonable expenses because it is recognized that they have a function to fulfil. Naturally, in this life there is not perfect equity. For instance, a member who normally lives in Ottawa enjoys certain

June 14, 1971

advantages over the member who comes from Calgary, especially in such matters as entertaining the school children of his constituency. Not many Calgary school children come down here to see me, but that is by the way. Nevertheless, it is necessary for members of the judiciary as well as for Members of Parliament to be paid a reasonable salary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to raise one more point before one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to the parliamentary secretary about this. I must say that if ever a man had the happy knack of winning people over, the parliamentary secretary is that man. Actually, he and the minister are both alike in that way; they are lovable characters and from that point of view both of them are difficult to handle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Look out.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are lovable characters and it is difficult to get into an argument with them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, my lord.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think it will be conceded, even by judges themselves, that there must be some discipline with respect to judges. In my 27 years at the bar-and I am talking about the legal bar-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -I have talked to quite a few judges about this subject. Although I cannot break confidences any more than the parliamentary secretary can, I can say that on the whole judges favour discipline. One chief justice has said that, yes, there must be more discipline with respect to judges. Some judges take a long time to hand down their judgments. Sometimes judges never hand down their judgments, leaving that task to those who come after them. Their own opinions are interred with their bones. As I have said, some judges favour discipline in this regard.
My next point has to do with what happens when it is sought to remove judges from the bench. Luckily, only two or three such cases have occurred in Canada and only a few have come up in Britain. Judges are removed only after the Minister of Justice has made a recommendation to Parliament and only after a resolution regarding the dismissal has passed through both Houses. The disciplinary council has been set up to make recommendations in this field. Of course, before a judge is removed a resolution will	still have	to be passed by this House
and by the Senate. Clause	33(2) of the bill says:
Where, in the opinion of the Council, the judge in respect of whom an inquiry or investigation has been made, has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office by reason of
(a)	age or infirmity,
(b)	having been guilty of misconduct,
(c)	having failed	in the due	execution of his office, or(d)	having been	placed, by	his conduct or otherwise	in	a
position incompatible with the due execution of his office-
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
The council may recommend the dismissal of that judge. The Minister of Justice still must bring a resolution before the House of Commons. The point I wish to raise is that whether or not parliament turns down the recommendation, the salary of that judge is to be cut off until a decision has been taken one way or another.
I see that it is just about one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a few more remarks after lunch. I will take only about five minutes. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was just completing my remarks when the House rose at one o'clock. I will just be another few moments. I was dealing with a special council that is being set up for the first time, the Canadian Judicial Council, which will be composed of the Chief Justice of Canada, who shall be the chairman, other judges and barristers who might be appointed by that council.
In his address, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) assured us that in order to remove a superior court judge from office, it will still require a resolution to the two Houses. I refer to clause 33, realizing and appreciating that this is second reading. We are dealing, although somewhat differently under the new rules, with the principle of the bill to decide whether it should go to committee. Clause 33(2) gives the council the right to question:
(a)	age or infirmity
(b)	having been guilty of misconduct,
(c) having failed in the due execution of his office, or
(d) having been placed, by his conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of his office.
On this basis, the council can make a recommendation to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that the judge be removed from office. If they do that, the Minister of Justice must come to the House with a resolution by which a superior court judge may be removed in the normal way, according to the terms and conditions of the British North America Act.
It is interesting to note that there is a little bite put in here, namely, disentitlement to salary. Subsection (3) reads:
A judge who is found by the Governor in Council, upon report made to the Minister of Justice of Canada by the Council to have become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, cease to be paid or to receive or to be entitled to receive any further salary-

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
That deals with one phase of subsection (2) which can be gone into when we get into committee in order to determine what it really means.
I do not think I could put this question of judicial fitness any better than it is put in an editorial in the May 3, 1971 edition of the Globe and Mail, entitled "Assessing Judicial Fitness". The editor asks questions, and this is something about which the committee must be concerned:
Why can't the Government give a better indication in the bill before the Commons of how broad the power of review should be? With a sprinkling of legislative examples it could demonstrate the kind of thing it is worried about. And with a few brief words it could describe the sort of thing that would have no place in a review.	,
It can't be all that difficult. After all, Ivan Rand, the former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who headed the Royal Commission inquiry in the Landreville affair, was able to define fairly explicitly what he thought the duties of a judge should be and what should be the subject of scrutiny.
I placed that on the record this morning1.
In considering this bill members of Parliament would do well to recall the words of Mr. Rand in his Royal Commission report. The independence of judges admits of no limitations, he said. "It enables the guarantee of security to the weak against the strong and to the individual against the community; it presents a shield against the tyranny of power and arrogance and against the irresponsibility and irrationality of popular action, whether of opinion or of violence; it enables the voice of sanity to rise above the turbulence of passion and to be presented inviolate.''
In summary, I endorse this bill. I think that the judges need this increase. I have already pointed out in my address that under the present tax structure judges, who are paid between $25,000 and $47,000 depending on rank and position, in some cases pay almost 50 per cent of their income in income tax, and viewed in that light the increase is not so large. I also re-emphasize the division that exists. On the one hand we have the executive, the cabinet; on the other hand, we have parliament, which comprises this institution and the Senate; and then lastly we have the judiciary. Those three divisions must at all times be kept responsible and independent.
I have also analysed the scale of salaries that was recently increased by the passage of a government bill. Members of Parliament are skilled men, some of whom have the same training and experience that judges have. Those who do not, have a different kind of experience; they are experienced in municipal affairs, for example, or in a practical sense that particularly enables them to do their job. I remember when I first came to this institution one member told me that he had grade six education. When the Hon. Davie Fulton brought in a bill to amend the Code it was this man who, among all the lawyers present in the House, was able to put his finger on the key point in the change to the act. This is an illustration of the fact that it is not always academic standing that gives a man the ability to come to this institution. In weighing the salaries of Members of Parliament against those of the judiciary, each must have his training and the salaries should be equated in that light. I make no apology for such statement. I have been here for some
time and have seen members come and go, but on the whole, members measure up to their responsibilities, just as is the case with members of the judiciary.
In conclusion, I support this government bill. When the bill reaches committee, we will give great scrutiny to the subject of the council. Judges realize that there should be independence. On the other hand, there must be some control over members of the judiciary; but this control must be exercised with the refinement that always assures the independence of that division from parliament and the executive, and makes them free from all other pressures. I appreciate the good hearing that the House has given me this afternoon and I am sorry to have taken as long as I have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are two or three things in this bill that I like very much, and I shall refer to them first. Then, I will deal with the sections of the bill with regard to which I have reservations.
Among the items that I welcome is the acceptance in this legislation of one of the principles recommended in the report of the royal commission on the status of women. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) pointed out this morning, there is a clause in the bill that provides that if a woman judge dies either in receipt of a judge's salary or in receipt of a pension, her surviving widower or dependent children will receive the same pension treatment that would be accorded to the widow or surviving dependent children of a male judge. That provision is an improvement; we welcome it and we hope that the principle will be carried forward in other pieces of legislation.
I also welcome the provision in the bill-even though it might be said to have nothing to do with judges-that establishes a formula for the fixing of the salary of the Auditor General of Canada. As hon. members know, the bill includes an amendment to the Financial Administration Act which does just that. In other words, from here on it will not be necessary to bring in any special legislation respecting the salary of the Auditor General of Canada; his salary will be adjusted along with any adjustments made to the salary of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada.
A third item in the bill that I find welcome is the provision to establish a Canadian Judicial Council. I agree with the arguments that have been advanced that everything must be done to maintain the fullest respect for the judges of our courts. Yet, there are times when criticisms are levelled. When those criticisms are made I think it is desirable to have machinery for dealing with those criticisms. As the law now stands, this question is entirely in the hands of the government; and there can be charges made, of course, of political bias and partisanship if a certain judge is dismissed from the bench as a result of such criticisms.
This legislation proposes that there be established a Canadian Judicial Council, to consist of the Chief Justice of Canada plus the Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice of each of the superior courts of the various

June 14, 1971

provinces of Canada. As I understand it, that council will have the authority to set up appropriate committees to handle any complaint made against a judge who is an appointee of the federal authority. It seems to me that this is a good proposal and that it should deserve the support of the entire House.
I noted the comment made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) when he said that he thought there was a bite in this legislation in the use of the word "shall" in subclause (3) of clause 33. This clause provides that, under certain circumstances, a juge shall cease to be paid or receive, or be entitled to receive, any further salary. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I thought the hon. member was complaining that this was the kind of bite that the federal government would still be in a position to make, and that in doing so it might reflect political bias and partisanship. I would point out, however, that the rest of the clause is quite clear. A salary can be cut off, but only, to quote the words of subclause (3), "if the council so recommends". It is also clear in the earlier part of subclause (3) that what is being discussed here is a judge who is being removed from the bench on the basis of a recommendation from the Canadian Judicial Council. It is the Canadian Judicial Council which has the authority to recommend that a salary be discontinued, and because the whole question as to whether a salary should be discontinued is therefore a subject on the which the Canadian Judicial Council recommends, it seems to me that the so-called bite is not substantial or real.
However, it is not my intention to speak at length and I think I have dealt with the three aspects of the bill which to me at least are quite acceptable. However, the main purpose of this bill, and this is pretty clear to everyone, is to increase the salaries of the judges of all the courts which come under federal authority. I am prepared to go all the way with those who say our judges should be put in such a financial position and given such security both while they are on the bench and in their retirement years, that they can be expected to perform their duties with complete impartiality. In other words, I accept the proposition, and I do not suggest this is a reflection on their integrity, that a pretty fair measure of security, both during their terms of office and in their years of retirement, is reasonable and something we should support. However, it surely becomes a matter of judgment as to what is the point of security and as to what is a little too much and perhaps even an element of special privilege.
I suggest when we are talking salaries of $25,000 for county court judges up to $47,000 for the Chief Justice of Canada we have carried the principle to the extreme, and we have really provided very substantial security. In fact, this goes too far. As I read the act, it looks to me as well as though just about every one of these judges will really be getting $3,000 more than the figures we are talking about because there is a clause which will provide, for every judge who gets a salary under the Judges Act, $3,000 more for such duties as he performs on
Judges and Financial Administration Acts commissions and so on and for incidental expenses. It seems to me that throughout this whole bill instead of reading $47,000 we should read $50,000; instead of $42,000 we should read $45,000 and instead of reading $39,000 we should read $42,000. I do not see why that $3,000, if it is going to be paid to all of them, needs to be put in a separate clause unless this is to show a little modesty about the salary. If we are going to pass a bill providing a salary of $42,000 plus $3,000 we might as well call it $45,000, and if we are going to approve a salary of $47,000 plus $3,000 we might as well call it $50,000.
I do not withdraw one iota from my acceptance of the principle that judges should have security, but I am also prepared to be a judge myself and offer the judgement that these salaries are beyond what we should be providing at this time. I know the argument that it takes a lot of money to attract good lawyers to the bench. There is the argument, of course, that lawyers are making all kinds of money these days and if you want them on the bench you have to give them a pretty good salary.


Mr. Murphy:: The ones outside Parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, the ones outside Parliament, and that proves my point. Money is not everything. There are some very good lawyers who are quite happy to be in this House, and I am looking at a couple right now.


Mr. Gilbert:: Look behind you, Stanley.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How about you, Stan? What bar have you been called to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not spent 27 years at the bar, as my hon. friend suggested this morning, and you can interpret that as you will. When we talk about high salaries the defendants, such as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), try to make the point that income tax eats into them pretty heavily. He spoke about this before lunch and referred to it again after. I hope he was not trying to give a wrong impression when he used the phrase, almost 50 per cent will be taken back in income tax. Surely, he knows that this 50 per cent bite comes along only at a very high level and only on a top increment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would you answer a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We will see how much you know about income tax. What do you think the tax would be on a salary of $42,000 to a man with a wife and two children, including his exemptions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it might be pretty high.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is it in dollars? You are making the statement.

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might be $10,000 or $15,000.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order to tell the hon. member that it is close to $20,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I question that, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is $18,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But my hon. friend said 50 per cent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I said almost.


An hon. Member:: You are splitting hairs, fellows.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member suggests $18,000 and I question that. In any event, by the time these people get their various exemptions they will not be paying 50 per cent or anything that is almost 50 per cent of their salary, and they still have a lot left as take-home pay.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You better do a little bit of research and homework.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can do the
research now and you can do it again after Friday night, because no doubt there will be some changes in taxes announced then, but I submit there is no special taxation law for judges. Lawyers who make this kind of money pay taxes according to the same tax law, but I suggest it is hardly appropriate to say that these increases are all right because of the large amount these judges will pay in income tax.
There is another point about this I think should be mentioned, and that is that in relation to the high salaries judges get they also have a pretty good pension provision. I complained pretty vigorously about the generosity of pension provisions made for us! a year and a half ago, and I complained this year about salary increases made for us, but it could be said that we are pikers compared to what we are doing for these learned gentlemen. They get a pension equal to two-thirds of the salary they were getting at the point of retirement, if they meet the conditions. The conditions are 15 years of service at age 65 or 10 years of service under certain circumstances. The significant fact is that this is non-contributory. They may have to pay income tax but they do not pay one cent toward their pensions. That is the element of special privilege that does not jibe with the whole idea that we should have special respect for the judges in this country. When people have been on salaries of $47,000 and can go out on pensions of $31,000 a year for which they did not pay a cent, or have been on salaries of $42,000 giving them a pension of $28,000, or salaries of $35,000 with a pension of $23,000, we are not doing too badly for these gentlemen for whom we say the country should have great respect.
This House, by an overwhelming majority, increased the salaries of Members of Parliament, and I will not get out of order by discussing that bill as I thought my
[Mr. Woolliams.)
friend was about to do before the luncheon break, but having done that members are going to support this bill. I want to express, at least on my own behalf, a very serious reservation about the extent to which we are raising these salaries. I do not think it is necessary to go as high as we have gone to get good MP's, and I voted against the increase for ourselves. Likewise, I do not think it is necessary to go this high to get good men to perform the duties of judges in this country.
Underneath all this, of course, is the view I expressed when we were on the bill that raised our own pay. I think one of the things basically wrong with our society today is that we still think it is all right to work on a percentage principle, giving more to those who have already and less to those who have not. We still think it is all right to make substantial increases in salaries at the top of the economic scale, while those at the bottom have to settle for a mere pittance, such as $1.75 an hour minimum wage or a 42 cent increase in the basic amount of the old age pension. These things are offensive to some hon. members. I know. Do not groan about that, because that is what is wrong with our society. We forever widen the gap. We ask the people down at the bottom of the ladder to show respect for those at the top, and it does not work that way. The same thing happens in our world. We greatly enlarge the opportunities for affluent living in the western world while the gap between us and the underdeveloped world grows even greater. I suggest that some day we will have to move in a different direction. Those of us who are at or near the top will have to stand by for a while so that those who are down below can catch up. I know the great popularity of the view I am expressing, although so far I have heard only groans, so I do not need to develop it any further. I simply say I accept the principle that judges should be independent while on the bench and during their period of retirement, but I think the increases by which the government seeks to do this go too far, and I am therefore opposed to that part of this bill.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have only one point to discuss at this stage. It concerns those judges-there are only two to my knowledge and I hope the parliamentary secretary or the minister will clarify the point if there should be others-who within the last few months have had to retire before the ten-year period. I hope the government will take this opportunity to suggest an amendment to the act so that those former judges, who have served well and who because of the law have been forced to retire before they became eligible for pension, could at least have a pro-rated pension.
I should like to speak particularly about an individual who I am sure would personally be embarrassed to have his name mentioned and perhaps even the incident. He served within a very few months of the ten-year period. He was a county court judge in New Brunswick with a very long and distinguished service with the judiciary and a shorter service in the legislative assembly. A technique was suggested to him-fortunately not by the min-
June 14, 1971

ister and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you believe not by me- whereby he might obtain a medical certificate within a few months of having reached age 75. I presume it would be rather easy, within a few months of reaching age 75, to have a doctor with no dishonesty whatever say that an individual ought to slow down a bit. Had such a certificate been provided, this particular gentleman could have received a pension. Because he exemplified the attitude of integrity and the other qualities which we seek, and which I know the minister seeks in appointing judges, he of course would not agree to any such suggestion. The consequence is that he retired a month or two ago without the benefit of a pension. I would think the humane, sensible and reasonable thing the government should do would be to pro-rate his pension. I happen to know that the former Chief Justice of Manitoba retired recently without a pension. 1 also happen to know the county court judge of the counties of Kings and Albert in New Brunswick also retired a few months ago without pension, and if one wishes to guess he is the particular gentleman to whom I refer.
I know the minister is sympathetic. It would be particularly easy, when the Judges Act is being amended, for a formula to be worked out whereby the pension eligibility could be pro-rated in respect of the time of service. I make this plea and suggest it would be the right thing for the government to do. If the government is not prepared to do it, I would wish to do it myself. However, I would rather support a government amendment because, after all, the government has the ultimate responsibility and this would be a money matter. That is my only comment, and I earnestly solicit the government's support for what can be described only as a reasonable and humane way in which to provide a reward to those who have given-in one case nine years-distinguished service. Also, because of vacancies in the judicial roster in New Brunswick, the one judge on many occasions doubled and even tripled his circuit. The equity of the case, as I say, is apparent. I support the bill because of the other measures contained in it, but I hope a formula will be incorporated in the form of a government amendment.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, if I were to use a Biblical quotation in respect of this particular bill I would say judge not lest ye be judged for the judgment you give shall be the judgment you get. Being a lawyer and probably looking forward to the day I might have to return to practice, if the constituents of Broadview decide they can replace me with a better man, I have a certain hesitation in respect of dealing deeply with this bill. However, I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) set forth very correctly our position when he said the members of the New Democratic Party agree in principle to the increases in the salaries of members of the judiciary but that some of our colleagues disagree with the quantum. He said this appears to be a day when the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, so the gap is ever widening. We, as socialists in the New Democratic Party, believe in the egalitarian society where the spread is not too great. Having said that, and having said I support the views of
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
many of my colleagues, I support the increases to judges because from my experience in the practice of law I realize the necessity to appoint men of ability, integrity and honesty.
I think the salary must be made attractive enough to bring forth such men to perform their duties without fear of insecurity and so on. I am rather proud of our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) because of the appointments they have made to the bench. They have attempted to make appointments on a non-political basis. This is a step in the right direction. I would hope we would continue to do this because political favour with regard to appointments in the past has cast a shadow on the appointment of certain judges. I believe I am fair in saying the present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Justice have used as their criteria the ability, integrity and honesty of members of the bar in making these appointments and have rated any political persuasion in a very low category.
The provision with respect to the retirement of judges is also a step in the right direction, and I commend the government for taking this action. Recently in Ontario the chief justices have said that they will be making a change in the calendar with regard to the cases to be heard during the summer vacation. Experience has shown that many men have languished in jail during the summer months of July and August. There has been a long term vacation for judges. This imposed a hardship on men charged with criminal offences who wanted to proceed before the county or supreme court, and the Ontario chief justices have taken the right step in adjusting the calendar so that men who are in prison or who are waiting to have their cases heard will have an opportunity to have them heard during the summer months. I hope that when the Canadian Judicial Council is appointed, the chief justices will attempt to achieve some uniformity across the country with regard to this matter.
The establishment of the Canadian Judicial Council is probably the important part of the bill, and it is a step in the right direction when we cast our minds back to the period when it took such a long time to determine whether a judge should be ousted from the bench. I think that all of us welcome the appointment of the Canadian Judicial Council which will be not only studying the conduct and complaints of judges, but will also establish from time to time a conference of chief justices as well as seminars for the continuing education of judges. I recall that about a year or two ago a seminar was conducted for judges. I have not heard the result of it but I think that they did get together to study subjects of common concern, probably not only substantive law but also procedure. I hope that when the Canadian Judicial Council is set up this will be a part of their study.
In England judges are appointed who have had experience in special branches, be it at Queen's Bench or Admiralty or Divorce or Chancery. It may be that when seminars for judges are set up we may be able to approach the English system by setting up specialized

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
courts with specialized judges hearing the cases because any lawyer who has been appointed to the bench has a difficult time at first familiarizing himself with all branches of the law. If he specialized in civil litigation and then is faced with criminal cases, he finds himself in a difficult position, not being familiar with criminal procedure. So, I welcome the seminars that will be set up for judges so that they can become more familiar with the special branches of the law.
It has been said that the Canadian Judicial Council, more especially with regard to the investigating of complaints about judges, should be composed not only of judges but also laymen. It may be that we can discuss at the committee state the propriety and wisdom of having laymen sitting on the council to deal with complaints against judges because our experience in the professions may not have been a good one. I am thinking of the medical profession and other professions where the discipline comes from the profession itself. The results are sometimes not as good as they should be. When a member of the profession is brought before a commission meeting to determine his conduct, perhaps all segments or parts of the community should be making the judgment. This is what we do in criminal cases with the jury system. We bring forth different members of the community to judge the case. With regard to the professions, I do not think that members of that profession should be the only ones to make these decisions. I am looking forward to hearing the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) set forth the reason for not having laymen on the Canadian Judicial Council.
The broad framework of the legislation has been ably presented by the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), so there is no need for me to continue other than to say that I hope that when the judges have their seminars for continuing education they will incorporate in them visits to the jails and penitentiaries. It is a very sobering experience for any lawyer to visit a jail to interview his client. It is far more sobering when he goes to a penitentiary and speaks to an inmate there. It seems to me that judges should have the same experience. If they are to render judgments on criminal cases, they should be familiar with the place to which they are sending the person whom they sentence. I hope that judges at all levels will attend the local jails and reformatories or penitentiaries. This will broaden their experience and probably increase their compassion when sentencing because, Lord knows, when it comes to sentencing in criminal cases there has been a great difference in the sentences imposed. Perhaps we could develop some uniformity in the sentencing procedure.
In summing up, may I say that we in this party support the principle of the bill with regard to the increase in salaries. There is some doubt, however, with regard to the quantum that has been proposed. We certainly support the establishment of the Canadian Judicial Council and we hope that it will be widened to ensure more continuing education. On that basis, we support the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish to comment on a number of aspects of this bill. A number of facets of this bill are very commendable. I believe that some provisions have come about as a result of pressure from members of the bar as well as recommendations from judges, and perhaps from the public, over the past few years with regard to some of those who are named from time to time to the various levels of the judiciary in the country, at least to the Supreme Court and the Federal Court, which was formerly the exchequer court, the supreme courts of the provinces and, where applicable, the district or county courts. I am not referring at all to the appointment of provincial judges, but this is something the provinces will have to examine and something over which the provinces should exercise far greater control on a co-operative basis. After all, one must remember that the administration of criminal law, law which the Parliament of Canada creates, is in the hands of the provinces. Sentences are usually imposed by provincial judges following trials without a jury, since juries do not form a part of those courts. I am not one to point a finger in this matter. In any event, my practice of law was not directed toward criminal law, but I think a cursory examination of sentences imposed from one end of the country to another will show great disparities. We also know something about the quality of the judges on those benches, but that is just one comment aside.
I would hope that the creation of the Canadian Judicial Council, although it is to be composed entirely of judges of the Superior Court level, and not of provincial nomination, will exercise a benevolent influence, particularly on the educative side, with their seminars open to attendance by provincial judges as observers. They cannot be present as members, but certainly it should be possible for some of them to attend as observers because, after all, the appellate divisions of the Superior Courts, the Supreme Courts of the provinces, sit in appeal from the provincial judges in criminal matters. There is no doubt in my mind that a good deal of improvement in the administration of justice would come about through the example first set by the Canadian Judicial Council and the proper conduct of its seminars.
I admit that at present there are already some conferences of Chief Justices held at intervals, and naturally judges and the council in effect will have to feel their own way in determining the efficacy of the seminars. I make the earnest plea that provincial administrations should move on a parallel course with regard to provincial judges, and should establish close liaison with the Canadian Judicial Council. In fact I would go so far as to say that at the earliest possible date, with the co-operation of the attorneys general of the provinces, provincial judges should be invited to attend some of these first seminars at least as observers, since they cannot be asked to join as full-time members. I just throw this out as a suggestion which I think offers an avenue of improvement.
June 14, 1971

The creation of a new class of judges known as supernumerary judges is a good step forward. Following years of service, a judge may have reached or gone beyond his peak. We know that at present in the district courts, a judge may serve until the age of 75, but supernumerary judges will not be drawn from the district and county court benches. But certainly at the Supreme and Appellate Division levels in the provinces, it seems to me that there are a number of judges who, through the effluxion of time have gone over their peak, but who may still desire to perform on a part-time basis. I believe they should be appointed as supernumerary judges so as to do away with the constant pressure on the provinces, which compels them to come back time and time again to the government of Canada seeking the creation of additional puisne judges, particularly to deal with criminal lists as well as civil case lists that get clogged up at certain times of the year. I know there are a number of cases where judges would welcome a change to the supernumerary position. Supernumerary judges could also be designated to undertake particular investigations usually carried out by a judge of the puisne or appellate division. When such a judge is removed from the regular roster of trial work, this places an undue burden on his fellow judges. To become a supernumerary judge, a judge must be 70 years of age and have at least ten years' service. Presumably this has something to do with his pension. I do not know what the arrangements are, but presumably there would be a deferment of pension entitlement to full retirement.
There are some other aspects that deserve detailed comment. One is the level of salaries of the various categories of judges. I think public attention should be directed to these amounts because they are, shall we say, generous in the total. They are comparable to those of senior public servants in their effect, except that the period of service does not have to be as long before retirement, and secondly the pension of course is as always non-contributory. I wish to draw this fact particularly to the attention of those media writers, and particularly editorial writers, who like to use Members of Parliament as whipping boys with respect to the size of their salaries, whether in the past or those to come, and with respect to their pension scheme. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has some reservations about present levels, may agree with me on this. I have seen the pension scheme that we as members had in 1963 described in newspaper editorials as the most generous and liberal in the country. Of course, that was a lot of tripe. It was utter nonsense, and merely showed the level of ignorance of the particular editorial writer.
The salary levels outlined in this bill generally follow what was recommended by the Canadian bar, although perhaps not quite as generous as some members of the har would like to have seen them. But it must be remembered in this day and age that the question of security, the building up of pension, and the building up of the necessary funds to look after one's dependents loom very large in the minds of all concerned. I would hope that in the future we will see a movement to the appointment of younger men, but still men who have had a good deal of experience at the bar. I am talking of men who have
Judges and Financial Administration Acts their best productive years ahead of them, able to give good service to their country. I have talked to judges who were appointed between the ages of 40 and 45 who said they had exhausted the cash reserves generated from their practice. If this were to happen within two or three years, they would find themselves in a very difficult position compared to older men who had had an opportunity to build up a private pension scheme to supplement their earnings as a judge.
We want our judges to be above any temptation. If there is any area in which the country expects people to be above temptation it is at the judicial level. Many judges have told me that if they had it to do again they would not accept an appointment to the bench because it has placed them in debt. These are primarily the men between the ages of 40 and 45 who have the expensive years ahead of them when they must provide postsecondary education for their children. We are competing for judges against the revenue derived from a legal practice. There are many men who would make excellent judges but it is out of the question for them until they are over 50 or 55 and have taken care of their family obligations.
After January, the salary for a Superior Court judge will be $38,000, but in view of what we expect or fear from the budget next Friday night we must consider the high rate of income tax. Judges fall into the category that is likely to be hit hard. There is no point in telling a man that he is going to be paid $60,000 or $75,000 a year and then taking 75 per cent of it from him. This is an exercise in futulity and a grave deception. I have always considered that the so-called progressive nature of our income tax is a snare and a delusion, a breeder of inflation and one of those things that causes some of our difficulties today. The government does not worry about granting a pay increase of this nature because it gets most of it back, yet the individual receiving it stands under public scrutiny at the level of salary called for by the office. I do not think this is quite right.
The effect of what I have said almost neutralizes the special allowance given to judges of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Years ago, I contended that $2,000 was inadequate. I have just returned from a trip through the Northwest Territories and I can tell the government House leader that what has been done there is insufficient. The salaries of the two judges have been increased, which pushes them into a much higher tax bracket. A northern allowance on top of that means an extra slice is taken out of the northern allowance. The further effect is to reduce the allowance to say $1,800 and this is not doing any kindness at all to the two judges involved. I would invite hon. members of the cabinet concerned with this problem to go and live in Yellowknife or Whitehorse or travel around the areas and pay the prices prevalent there. I am sure if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or his parliamentary secretary had done that, this particular item would have been increased.
Under this pay scale, the Minister of Justice would be further ahead on a pecuniary basis by appointing himself

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
to the Superior Court. He would earn much more money. Then, there is the question of the non-contributory pension which is quite an advantage. After a period of only 15 years, a judge is entitled to a pension amounting to two-thirds of his retirement salary. This is quite generous, but bearing in mind the calibre of men who have to be drawn to the bench I do not think there is anything wrong with it. However, compared to the entitlement of the Minister of Justice it is generous; the arrangements made in this House are niggardly by comparison.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They are painful enough.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) says they are painful enough. There is a 7J per cent deduction on his total salary which at the present time allows a cabinet minister to reach his maximum pension in less time than a judge. However, there is a ceiling of $13,500 on a cabinet minister's pension, whereas for a Superior Court judge the entitlement would be about $25,000 or $26,000, noncontributory, after 15 years of service. The pay and emoluments for a judge have to compete with what can be earned in practice. The criticisms about the recent salary and pension increases for Members of Parliament are nothing but a lot of tripe and eyewash when the parliamentary pay scale is compared with the pay scale of the judiciary.
A third point concerns me and I spoke about it during debate on the Senate and House of Commons Act. I refer to the absolute-I was going to say stupidity-I have to say stupidity-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Go ahead!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) would like me to use a much harsher and possibly more colourful term. This is the stupidity of denying to the Member of Parliament who happens to be a lawyer, who may have served 15 or 20 years in this House and therefore has an entitlement to a pension, the right to take it with him if he accepts an appointment to the bench. Up to the present time he could only get back what he had contributed. That is utter nonsense. But recently in contrast we have seen some cases where a member has accepted an appointment as a provincial judge and the salary, together with his pension from this House, has put him at an income level higher than that of a county court judge.
What is this nonsense that one cannot draw two pensions or a salary and pension from the Crown in the name of Canada. Concessions have been made in this field. The invalidity of the principle is demonstrated by the fact that if you are a member of the armed services or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, you can take your pension up to the entitlement level of a warrant officer class 1, which is a little over $5,000 now. Therefore, the principle no longer has application, because a breach has been made in it. Actually, all members of the
armed services, from generals down to W.O. l's, are entitled to deduct the pension payable to a W.O. 1. The rest, if there is any, is considered surplus, and there are varying restrictions applying to that particular surplus. It is therefore nonsense to say that it is impossible for a Member of Parliament to take the pension that he has earned and to which he has contributed on an equal basis. After all, a Member of Parliament who has been a lawyer has had to abandon his practice because of his duties here.
There is nothing quite so personal as the practice of a lawyer or of a doctor, and if you are not there 100 per cent of the time, out of the window your practice goes. People just will not come back. As a result, the capital that a man has built up in his practice evaporates most rapidly. If he has built up a retirement fund through a pension scheme or if he were to take the same amount of money and put it into a government annuity or an insurance company plan, he would be entitled to take the pension with him when he leaves and enjoy it when he is a judge. But, no, we say that this cannot be. At present we merely make the concession that there shall be either a refund, or that the pension entitlement shall "fall to the estate of". In other words, if a lawyer here were called to the bench, the only beneficiaries at the present time would be his widow or dependent children, as provided for in the act. That is all. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. It does not apply anywhere else and should have been changed. There was an opportunity here to do that.
Why is it that lawyers like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) can take an appointment as a provincial judge in Quebec, where there are no county court judges and where provincial judges exercise the jurisdiction of county court judges and are paid commensurately-actually, I think provincial judges in Quebec were being paid $28,000 per annum-and take his pension from the House of Commons from the day of his retirement, whereas the parliamentary secretary's counterpart from Ontario may be treated differently. We need not look too far for examples. The previous hon. member for Brant retired from the House and went to the county court of Ontario. After serving in this House for 12 or 13 years, the hon. member had returned to him his contributions under his pension scheme. They were taxed in his hands as income in that year. Now, how ridiculous can you get and how long can this ludicrous situation continue. However, if you go to my province or the province of Ontario again, and get an appointment as a provincial judge-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And you avoid that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -you avoid that restriction. The salary of a senior provincial judge in Ontario is at least $25,000 or $26,000, and when you get an appointment to that position you take your pension along. It is incongruous that that situation should continue. So far as the public is concerned, no harm is done if you take your pension along, because we have income tax on a rapidly rising scale. Actually, a provincial judge of the province of Ontario who takes his pension with

June 14, 1971

him will probably pay almost 50 per cent of that pension in income tax, because it will figure as income over and above a probable taxable income of $25,000. Actually, the fisc gets half of it back. The fisc, as I say, gets back half of its contributions on that pension, because the hon. member will have contributed equally with the Crown in the setting up of that pension fund. So, the Crown and the public lose nothing. But, Mr. Speaker, try to explain that to some people; they just fail to understand. That the situation is unfair has not entered their mind. Actually, some editorial writers do not even know of the existence of the act. They take it for granted that members of this House have some sort of pipeline to the consolidated revenue fund and are able to load their bank accounts from it at will. This is not so.
I have spoken about this before and I regret that 1 must raise this again in the context of the discussion on this act. I am interested in the position of hon. members of this House. In drawing these comparisons I find it ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, that two ministers of the previous administration who are now serving on government boards would have entitlement to pension; yet, because of their appointment, those pensions either stand differed or the individuals concerned have merely been paid back the difference between the total of their own personal contributions and what they may have drawn on those pensions in the period between their retirement from this House and their appointment to those boards. Yet, if such an individual had a vested interest in a pension paid by a firm or if he had a government annuity, or anything like that, he would be entitled to those funds and to that income.
Why should a Member of Parliament offer his services to the Government of Canada? It would be far better for him to work for a provincial government in the same sort of job. And what is a province but Her Majesty in Council in the right of a particular province instead of in the right of Canada. The same people of Canada are paying; yet in the one case there is entitlement and in the other there is no entitlement. The illogic of that I am sure baffles all members of the House, and I suggest to the government that this is something that perhaps the minister should consider while the bill is in committee. An approprate recommendation should be made, and it would require a recommendation, once and for all to do away with this anomaly. We are not going to open up the Judges Act in this regard or the act applying to members or the Senate and House of Commons Act in this regard for a considerable period of time; yet every hon. member of this House who on retirement or on defeat takes employment with the Government of Canada will suffer from these disabilities.
I join the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) in saying that I am happy to see that the Canadian Judicial Council will have some restrictions placed on its disciplinary powers. There will have to be certain steps taken, so we will not get merely a recommendation from a judge who is possibly partisan. We must not forget that
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
all judges do not shed their political views, whatever they may have been.
I am not dissatisfied with the appointments that have been made. Some appointments were made after consultation with the law societies and the provinces. When the former member for Kamloops was Minister of Justice, he started that practice. Some of the recommendations made by the various law societies and provinces turned out to be the poorer nominations. This is no criterion. Those who bitterly criticize the system of appointing judges often do so through motives of jealousy, and I would even go as far as to say ignorance. Certainly we can always improve the system, but there is no guarantee of the quality of those who are appointed. Although a person may have a list of recommendations as long as his arm, until he is on the bench and exercising his function, there is no way of telling how good or bad a judge he may be.
I pointed out that from the educational point of view I hope that the work of the judicial council will be followed and emulated by the provinces. I hope they will co-operate. I commend the bill to the House so that it may be studied in committee, subject to my plea to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the government to bring in a recommendation amending the status of members of this House with regard to appointments to the bench and to quasi or administrative tribunals under the federal government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege. I did not want to interrupt the last speaker. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will not mind me correcting one matter. On one occasion last week there was a little difference with regard to facts. At that time I resumed my seat and allowed him to make the correction. This is a question of privilege with regard to the veracity of my statement. I said that the income tax on some of these salaries would be approximately 50 per cent. I was dealing with the amount of $47,000 which is to be paid to the Chief Justice of Canada. The income tax, excluding the other deductions will amount to $18,820. I stated that in some cases the deductions would be almost 50 per cent. I have checked my notes in that regard. I am sure the hon. member would want to be fair. I used the word "almost". I point out that I said that on the last $7,000 of this increase, the tax will be 55 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the qualifying statement which the hon. member has just made. I accept the fact that he said that they would pay almost 50 per cent. I point out that the figures he has now given show that even in the highest case the tax is still quite a bit less than 50 per cent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Forty to 50 per cent. Why quibble. It is better than-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members know that the rules of this House permit mem-
6678

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts bers to correct statements or explain speeches. This has been properly done by the hon. member. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would have some remarks to make in connection with that legislation.
I wish first to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard). He made an excellent presentation of the bill. I was deeply moved when he insisted on the necessity of providing women with the same opportunities as men to become judges, according to the recommendation of the Koyal Commission on the Status of Women and to be entitled to the same financial advantages as male judges. I am sure that the department will accede to some representations of Canadian women to enable the Commission and the women at large to regain confidence.
I was also pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice insist on the necessity of introducing new concepts in the legislation and in the courts. The time has now come to note that even in the legal profession conditions have entirely altered. More and more, groups of citizens are in a position to make representations, even to the higher courts of the country. Therefore, I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his statement.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with a few reservations which I have. I must do this because there are many people in my constituency who feel much the same as I do. I do not think that this point of view receives enough attention. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has expressed the viewpoint about which I feel very strongly, but I want to express this in my own words.
When dealing with the salary increases for Members of Parliament, I was not picking out one class of people to be pilloried because they happened to be Members of Parliament. I was not particularly interested in wearing a hair shirt because I am a Member of Parliament. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre realizes that today women are not addicted to shirts of any kind. I am speaking metaphorically. I was not interested in singling out members and pillorying them. I was trying to express a point of view. We seem to exercise the most tender concern for people in brackets higher than the average income brackets. We do not seem to worry about what happens to those in the lower income brackets except to keep those in this bracket down to the minimum income for fear of making the taxpayers uncomfortable.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) quoted from the Bible "Judge not that ye be not judged". I also wish to quote from the Bible to show my familiarity with it. I think it is apropos. "To him who hath shall be given, but from him who hath not shall be taken away even
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
that which he hath." Parliament is too addicted to that these days. When we were increasing our indemnities and expense accounts, we were not prepared to do the same for other people who were suffering even more because of the rising costs of living and that sort of thing. I do not want anyone to say to me if you do that, you are just interfering and undermining justice in this country. I was greatly impressed with the statement by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that according to a recent poll, 41 per cent of the people said that they felt they could not get justice in the courts of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was the parliamentary secretary.


Albert Béchard: I quoted that.


Winona Grace MacInnis: order to keep them honest, would it not be a good thing to pay poor people enough to live so they might have a better chance to remain honest and law abiding as well? I think we have to approach this problem in that light. If we had a little more social justice of this sort with increased incomes and pensions at the lower end of the scale, we would probably not find the same need for more and more legal apparatus.
There was an argument a few minutes ago between my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) with regard to how much income tax would be payable on the proposed increases in judges salaries. I do not know which hon. member was right and I really could not care less at this moment. I do not think the important thing is what you pay by way of taxes. It is not the amount of tax paid that is important but rather what you have left to live on after taxes are paid.
I have hundreds of people in my riding who receive only a fraction of the salaries paid to our judges, and I am quite sure we would have better law and order in this country if we saw to it that this income gap was narrowed. I know it is necessary to increase the salaries of judges, civil servants and everyone else. But I have very serious reservations about such a measure at this time of hardship, unemployment and inflation. With all the ills plaguing us today this is a queer and topsy-turvy measure to introduce since it benefits those who are already the most sheltered and insulated against such economic ills.
It has been said that lawyers and judges should visit the homes of people who are sentenced to penitentiary. I think it would be good thing if lawyers and judges were encouraged to go to the homes of the ordinary people to see the conditions in which our young people and their families live. They might then understand the reasons for increasing the incomes of such people, and this in turn might result in less work for judges at the top of the income scale.
These are my feelings on this legislation, Mr. Speaker. In many ways it is an improvement. I like the idea of the Judicial Council. But as I say, I have very grave reservations about these increases at this time in view of the fact that our judges are already very well paid by the standards that apply to the majority of the people in my riding.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all say I was delighted to hear the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I concur thoroughly with what she said about more women on the bench. If I ever reach the stage where I practise law again I would be delighted to appear before a woman judge. I am sure I would get justice and common sense from her, and I would appear before her whether she wore a shirt or whether she did not. I am just quoting the hon. member who made a comment about wearing a shirt.
However, I do want to challenge the last point that she made. If I understood her correctly, she said that a
Judges and Financial Administration Acts person who sits in judgment over his or her fellow citizens should know something of the conditions of the person he or she is judging. The judge should know something about poverty and social injustice. However, I think you could carry that too far. It might well be that a judge trying a case under the criminal law would have to serve a term in the penitentiary in order to know the kind of life to which he would be sentencing the person who was appearing before him.
Quite seriously, there is an important point here. Hon. members from all parties in the House have been dealing with this issue every time it has come up during the last 12 or 13 years. Members from the NDP have consistently opposed some of the salary increases given to the judiciary. If we have to wait until all social injustice has been removed-and I do not know when that will be; that is what we are here for, to try, if not to remove it, at least to narrow the gap-before we can deal with the remuneration of those in some form of authority, then we might well be embarking upon a course that would defeat our own ends.
I well understand the point the hon. member is making, having practised in the courts for some 40 years or more. I think it is incumbent upon those who are authorized to appoint judges to see they get the best possible men and women on the bench and to keep them there, but this is not as easy as the hon. lady would presume. I have seen many instances in recent years where problems have arisen concerning the courts and judges. In my opinion, we are going to see more and more violence in democratic countries. The judiciary, both as trial judges and as courts of appeal, will have to cope with this violence within the framework of our laws and at the same time still dispense justice.
What we saw in Chicago in the trial of the seven, and what we saw in Montreal-I am not going to go into that because cases are still before the courts there-to some extent suggests to me that the problems faced by the judiciary will become increasingly difficult and complex. There is an obligation upon the government and those who hold responsibility for selecting those who sit in judgment to obtain the best possible people. The process of selection is not an easy one. The demands made by our political system have created difficulties in the past. I am glad to say that I have seen indications in recent years that the people who have had the responsibility for making these appointments have done so with as little regard as possible for the demands of the political party structure. There is nothing wrong in appointing people who held political office or an elective political position. As a matter of fact, I think they sometimes make better judges. Certainly, those of us who sit in the opposition watching the wily manoeuvrings of the government are better judges of human nature and better able to provide those qualities essential for a judicial office.
Having said that, I will end my comment on that aspect of the bill by indicating my general concurrence in the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Edmonton West
6680

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
(Mr. Lambert). To prove what they suggested, they referred to two biblical quotations. I should like to quote from Omar Khayyam, remembering how final a judgment sometimes is.
Your Honour will remember this quotation:
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel hall a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
That is the kind of thing a judge has to remember when he sits in judgment, either in civil or criminal matters. I should like to refer to one other matter to which I have made earlier reference. I will not make a proposal or amendment, but I have always felt that the distinction between superior, county and district court judges is an illusory one. Because a supreme court judge gets a much higher salary than a district or county court judge does not mean he has a more responsible position. I suggest this is a fictitious distinction. I can remember as a practising lawyer feeling at times that on the one side you had the five, ten to a dollar store-type justice and on the other you had the posh mink trade justice. That is not the case, but it is the impression which is frequently created.
When you have two appointments, in each case the government should use the same criteria. Surely, it cannot be said that an appointment will be made to a district or county court of a person of lower legal capacity whose qualifications for that position are less than those of one appointed to the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division or the Supreme Court of Canada. In each case the two judges from different spheres of activity are dealing judicially with the same thing, the liberty or property of a person. A trial involving $500 is just as important to the litigant, sometimes even more so, than a trial involving $20,000 is to a corporation. I
I am not suggesting for one moment that in actual fact you get a lower type of justice administered in the lower courts, or that it is inferior, but that impression is often created in the minds of the public. I compliment the parliamentary secretary on his presentation and would ask that he take this suggestion to his minister and urge that something be done to eliminate this distinction. I can remember making this suggestion 25 years ago as a bencher of the Law Society of Alberta. The matter was discussed before the courts at the time. The late Mr. Justice Sissons, who became the first and one of the great judges of the Northwest Territories, was at one time a judge of the district court in southern Alberta, and later the Chief Justice of that court. His judgments in the district court were first rate, and when he had the opportunity in the higher sphere of activities in the Northwest Territories, in some of the cases over which he presided, he showed a great feeling and understanding for the Eskimo and Indian people in his judicial activities. It has always seemed to me that there should be no distinction at all. When an appointment is made to a federal court in a province, without regard as to whether a man goes to a county or a district court, jurisdiction should be exercised uniformly.
I had some anxiety about the Judicial Council, but I note there is no attempt in the bill to remove the effect of section 99 of the British North America Act which still leaves the ultimate responsibility upon the Senate and the House of Commons regarding the removal of judges. In other words, as I understand the legislation with which we are dealing, the government sets in motion the machinery leading to an inquiry where someone has made a complaint in respect of a judge. The Judicial Council then makes the inquiry and reports back. I assume that at least part, if not all, of that report would be presented to Parliament.
As I understand the British North America Act, a condition precedent to the removal of a judge must be an address of the Senate and the House of Commons. If there is no such address a judge cannot be removed. I may be wrong in that assumption and possibly the parliamentary secretary could refer to it when he replies. I have known of cases when I had some doubts about judges. I suppose they also had some doubts about my clients, but I always tried to defend only the innocent. I can recall, in the very early days as a law student in the north, a judge whose liking for the bottle was well known. The more bottles he had the more lucid and clear were his judgments, at least up to a certain point. At this time he always knew enough to remove himself from the bench. Hon. members will recall the story of the policeman who was giving evidence before the Supreme Court judge. The question at issue was the degree of intoxication of the accused. The policeman kept saying that this man was as drunk as a judge. After the third such statement the judge suggested to the constable the expression was wrong, that it was as sober as a judge and as drunk as a lord. As quickly as a flash the policeman replied, "Yes, My Lord".
While I am dealing with the point about judges let me make one more suggestion. My friends to the left in the NDP are ambitious for office, but let me suggest with great sorrow that in my opinion they will never hold office. If such an eventuality did come about, having in mind the proclivity of members of that party to pass legislation involving a great measure of control and regulation, it would be singularly unfortunate for this country if it put on the bench members of the judiciary who were incapable of dealing with these intrusions upon our rights. As I say, it is very unlikely this will ever happen, but I do point this out.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with one other aspect of the bill which has not been dealt with. I refer to the question of the Auditor General. While I am glad to see the government has given some recognition to the Auditor General, and the need to increase his salary, I point out that there is a rather unfair comparison in connection with this particular officer and his relationship to other officers of the Crown. Forty-seven years ago the Auditor General's salary of $15,000 was the equivalent of the salary of the Chief Justice of Canada and was 50 per cent higher than the salary of the highest paid deputy min-

June 14, 1971

ister. Sixteen years ago the salary of the highest paid deputy minister, which was $20,000, caught up with the salary of the Auditor General. Six years ago the salary of the Auditor General was $30,000 and the salary of the highest paid deputy minister was $29,160. The salaries were almost identical. At the present time, the government has succeeded in hiding many figures with relation to the salaries of deputy ministers and it is very difficut to secure this information.
Since 1967, the government has failed to initiate a salary adjustment for the Auditor General, although the salaries of senior deputy ministers have been increased by $2,000 effective January 1, 1967, $7,000 effective January 1, 1969 and $2,000 effective January 1, 1970. Apparently these salaries are to be increased by $5,000 effective January 1, 1971 and $5,000 effective January 1, 1972 to a maximum of $50,000 per annum.
There are two aspects of this which concern me. I think the limiting of the salary of the Auditor General to the amount fixed by the bill is an indication that there is still, with regard to the present holder of that office, the feeling of dislike which we have seen so evident here in the past. I do not wish to go into that. I hope it will not be necessary to do so. However, I am sure that is a conclusion one is entitled to draw from the facts. I must also point out that the obvious decrease in the importance of the office of the Auditor General in the mind of the government compared to the premium it places upon the offices of various senior deputy ministers give me cause for concern. This is certainly indicated by these salary adjustments.
The Auditor General, who at one time received a salary higher than Canada's senior deputy ministers, will now be substantially below them. He must meet them in his operations on even terms. Certainly, the question of salary does not prohibit the present incumbent of the office doing this. I do not think there would be any problem in this regard. However, I wonder what might happen when, after a year or two, there is a new Auditor General. We might consider what will be the nature of his office, the terms of his employment and his approach to the duties which have been attached to the office under our Financial Administration Act, which permit him to act as one of the great buffers between the taxpayers of this country and the spending proclivities of this goverment. I call this to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary.
Secondly, there will be a very substantial effect on the pension of the present incumbent because on April 26, 1971, as recorded at page 5211 of Hansard, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave notice of the government's intention to introduce legislation to increase the salary of the Auditor General by equating his salary to that of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada. However, on retirement judges may be granted pensions of up to two-thirds of their final salary, whereas the provision with regard to the pension of the Auditor General, based as it is in respect of other civil servants on the last six years of service, would not be an equation of pension and would certainly create a substantial distinction between
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
the pension of the Auditor General and of the judicial officers concerned. It would be possible for the government to go a step further and equate the salary and pension of the Auditor General with that of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada. I simply leave it at that. I hope that what at one time appeared to be a very serious vendetta in this regard on the part of the government has now been dissipated, and that the government will indicate this by examining the proposal I have made before this bill comes back to the House.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I can be exceedingly brief in my discussion, particularly since the previous speaker indicated we probably will not have too much to do with the making of regulations.


Mr. Whicher:: Neither one of you-


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) says that neither one of us will have many opportunities in this regard. Let me say to the hon. member for Bruce that this is a subject which comes up annually, and sometimes two and three times in one year. The judges are being very well looked after by the present government. I was about to say I have no interest in this matter from the point of view of the appointments. I do not have any particular interest in who is appointed. Over the years, however, I have found that the fact we pay the money does not necessarily mean we get the type of judges this country deserves or wants. There is still prevalent in this country an attitude on the part of the judiciary that property is more important than people. For this reason, I can probably support the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) that the amount of money will not ensure the type of judiciary we all desire.
I am not sure the reverse would be true either. I am not sure it would be true that we could have a qualified judiciary that was based on a very low standard of income. When a lawyer is well aware of the fact that he could earn $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year as a lawyer, there would be no reason for him to take an appointment to the bench at $30,000. So, there is a great responsibility on the government in the appointment of the judiciary to ensure that there is a high degree of quality in those who sit on the bench for the benefit of all those who appear in court. For this reason, I am in favour of seeing that the judges have a very reasonable salary and that they do not have to do the things judges in the past sometimes have had to do, such as taking on outside work, thereby finding themselves in the position of making decisions which eventually come back to haunt them in their judicial practice.
From reading the bill, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to tell whether the Chief Justice of Canada will receive $47,000 or $50,000 because Clause 20 indicates that there will be an increase of from $2,000 to $3,000. I presume this will be in salary. It is to repay the judge for doing some things not normally in the judicial field. I have been pleased to see over the past few years that the government has shown some concern and has made some

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
changes in the responsibilities of judges whereby they are no longer able to take on outside work which paid a premium and kept them out of their courts. This practice meant that thousands and thousands of cases across the country were delayed because the judge was out making a few extra bucks for himself. Surely, this should not be allowed. If a judge were appointed as a very young man, his pension could be justified. We have not necessarily justified it, but we have provided senators and others appointed by the government with pensions to which they have not made any contribution themselves. The pensions that we are providing for judges are very generous, and let us make no mistake about that. They can be justified simply on the basis that out of the salary that a judge makes he would not be able to accumulate a sufficient amount of money to provide for his retirement or to provide for his family.
* (4:00 p.m.)
If you read the bill, you will see that there are a number of ways in which a judge can take his retirement. He can retire at the age of 65 if he has had 15 years of service. In other jurisdictions he has to retire at the age of 70, and will then receive a full pension if he has had 10 years service. I presume there have been a number of judges who have been appointed at a late age who have put in less than 10 years on the bench and who have been able to draw a judge's salary well beyond 70 years of age.
One of the reasons some of us who are not connected in any way with the legal profession or the judiciary are interested in this legislation is the complaints that we receive almost daily about the delays that take place in the judicial process. We have recently heard that one of the prime reasons for the revolutionary action finally taken by the FLQ was the fact that a number of their members had been charged, but not tried, over a long period of time. I think that probably had political connotations. It certainly had connotations that were not in keeping with my understanding of justice, because I have always agreed with those in the legal profession who say that justice delayed is, in fact, justice denied.
I believe that we have to provide, and we are providing, for the appointment of additional judges. But we should organize our judicial process in such a way that no one has to stay in jail for an extended period of time simply because the judiciary cannot arrange for a trial date. That kind of penalty only affects the poor. If a person is wealthy, obviously he can be out on bail. Many times these people who are not in a sufficiently good financial situation to take maximum advantage of the legal system in Canada find themselves paying a much higher penalty before the trial than after the trail. Any system that operates in that manner is disgraceful, and does not improve the image of the judiciary itself.
We all know, as the previous speaker mentioned, of judges who drink too much, of judges who fix their parking tickets, fix their fines for speeding and for other offences. But it has always been impossible to complain about them because nothing could be done about them. To date, there has not been any way of doing anything
about such a judge, unless one were willing to do as we did with Judge Landreville, that is to set up a Royal Commission, have a public hearing, and come to some conclusion. One of the reasons that this is not easy to do is simply that if you are willing to bring a judge to trial, whether or not there is a basis to the complaint and regardless of whether a judgment is in favour or against the person in the judiciary, his usefulness on the bench is terminated. For this reason, and also for the reason that until recently the appointment of judges has been political and they have paid a political price to a political party for their appointment, there is the inevitable inability under this system to deal with the misconduct of a judge.
Also, the judiciary has failed in keeping up to date with cases. I should like to refer to a case that is now before the Supreme Court. As you are no doubt aware, other systems, particularly the American system, operate on a three tier level. They operate with the House of Representatives elected by the people, a Senate, elected by the people on a different basis, and the Supreme Court of that nation which operates as a part of the legislative and governmental process. We in Canada, who operate under the parliamentary system of Britain, have depended on the interpretation of our constitution by our judges to protect the rights of the provinces within our federation. We have operated on the basis that certain matters can be referred to our highest court for an interpretation of either a statute of this Parliament or a statute of Westminster. Their interpretation of those statutes can be sought by the federal government, and I think it is generally understood that it could also be sought by provincial governments. This becomes a very important role and one that our Supreme Court has attempted to exercise on a number of occasions.
However, in the latter years they have been reluctant to take any kind of reference from anyone but the Minister of Justice. In the last few years the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has, on one or two occasions, referred matters to the Supreme Court for a judgment. I think this is a role that is in the interests of the nation. It is certainly in the interest of the federal government, and in many cases it is in the interest of parties that are not directly involved in the outcome of that reference. Of course, I am aware that companies such as oil companies and others that wish to question a statute of the federal government may do so through reference to the Supreme Court in due process of law.
Recently the government of Saskatchewan asked the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on legislation which it anticipated would affect interprovincial trade. The Supreme Court refused to accept the reference. Subsequently, Saskatchewan passed a law identical to the one it had originally sought to have referred, expecting it to be declared ultra vires, and the provincial supreme court ruled that it was ultra vires of provincial jurisdiction. That decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard the appeal a few weeks

June 14, 1971

ago. The legislation deals with what is commonly known as the chicken and egg war.
This piece of legislation is much more important to many Canadian citizens than a lot of the talk about the constitution taking place between the federal government and the provinces, because if that legislation is upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada there will be no Canada. There may be some kind of republican government operating on the basis of a number of independent states. The flow of trade between provinces would be jeopardized. Instead of the Supreme Court of Canada making its decisions known within a few days of the hearing, it postponed doing so. I had expected a postponement, but now I am informed that instead of a decision being rendered at the end of June this will not be done until some time in October. If this is so, it is certainly a disservice to Canada. The Supreme Court is not providing a service that provincial governments need and want. This case affects the incomes and lives of thousands and thousands of farmers, and an early decision is essential. I mention this as one of the things that a Supreme Court of Canada should do, but which the present Supreme Court of Canada appears to be reluctant to do. It is delaying a decision to a point that is detrimental to many Canadians.
I could also mention the number of cases that come before the courts arising out of new social problems. The judiciary has not been able to set a new pattern or to establish precendents in labour matters. In fact, it has appeared that the judiciary, where it has some leeway in making decisions that affect large numbers of people in the social sense, time and again falls back on the precedent of people's property rights that were in vogue some 400 years ago. The judiciary has not been able to adjust to present day social conditions. One could agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) that if we reduced the salaries of judges to the salary level of the poorest people in this country, and I am not suggesting that we do this-


Winona Grace MacInnis: Nor did I.


William Arnold Peters: Nor did the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway-but if we did this, then judges would understand and could sympathize with these people with respect to the conditions under which they have to exist.
What does a judge know about a young person aged 13 or 14 years in high school? What does he know of the society in which that child lives? What does he know of the things in that child's environment which encourage him to take marijuana, to take LSD, and to experiment with other drugs? I hear judges talking about pushers. They rule that this or that person is a pusher. I know of one case where the person charged with being a narcotics pusher was nine years of age. Sure, he was pushing them in the old sense, but he was not procuring drugs for the purpose of initiating others into their use, so as to develop a business. He was not making money out of it. But he was becoming popular in his school. In some cases he was using his own allowance to buy drugs, distributing them at cost to his fellow students. I am not suggesting it
Judges and Financial Administration Acts was right but how is a judge, particularly one getting $50,000 a year, going to relate to that type of element? How is he going to relate to many thousands of today's young people?
Young people wear different hair styles. In the main, they wear a hair style that has been in vogue throughout most of man's history. It is only within a relatively short period of time that men have worn short hair. How is a judge going to relate to a young person who has a different attitude toward society? Where does a judge getting $50,000 a year fit in? He fits in with the business community. He fits in with the phony society that exists at that level. He fits in with the country club life style. I am sure that if his salary were that of the average Canadian, he would have a much better understanding of the general public.
In saying this, I am well aware that these remarks may also be applied to Members of Parliament. But in the case of a Member of Parliament some of the problem is eliminated. When a Member of Parliament receives an increase in his allowance he is expected to do more things, mainly involving his constituency. He is expected to donate more money for needy causes. But a judge does not have that type of expense. He fits into an environment where I am sure he has no difficulty in getting a reduction on almost everything he buys. He is in that social structure.
I always had difficulty at the bank until I got into the position where I had money on deposit in the bank. Now, I don't have any difficulty there at all. I am sure that if I went to borrow money from the bank I would be welcomed with open arms. The bank manager calls me by my first name, but I am not in the least bit in need of that kind of friendliness. When I had to go to Household Finance I was not on speaking terms with the manager of Household Finance. This is one of the weaknesses in our judicial system.
We have an Interpretation Act, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure any competent judge would be able to administer it, but the people drafting those laws are not as competent. There are loopholes in our laws that even the layman can find, but a judge must be able to interpret them in a social sense. Many of the laws are archaic and are interpreted without regard to the society in which we live. It may be that a good judge, and there are many, leads a very lonely life. I am not too familiar with the Bible but there is a saying that one must be like Lot's wife, above reproach-it may be somebody else's wife but I believe it was Lot's.


Albert Béchard: Caesar's wife.


William Arnold Peters: Maybe it was not the Bible-maybe it was Caesar's wife. In any case, the judge must stand apart from much of society. He may get all kinds of advice, but finally he must make the decision, and an onerous task it is.

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
A section of this bill provides for the establishment of the Canadian Judicial Council. This may go a long way toward providing uniform sentences, something which has not been possible up to now. Mr. Speaker, most of us have had the experience of appearing before a crochety judge who lets it be known that things are going to be done his way. I can remember appearing before a judge a few years ago when I was acquitted of the charge. However, the judge made a highly inflammatory statement to the effect that the work I had been engaged in was nefarious and a disgrace to the nation, and that if he had his own way he would sentence me to many years in penitentiary. The activity I had been engaged in, Mr. Speaker, was running in the election campaign for the CCF. Two days before the trial I had been defeated by about 500 votes. Because of his Conservative politics, the judge felt so strongly that he would quite willingly have sent me to jail because of mine. Mind you, I think this may be an exception. However, it is interesting that there was also a labour dispute in progress at the same time and this particular magistrate who, by a change in the law later became a judge, had been a senior official of the gold mine involved. He had been treasurer of that mine for some time, so he was neither politically nor economically impartial.
Just recently an article dealing with this bill appeared in the Globe and Mail. It pointed out the advantages of this council and mentioned a couple of points that I think the government should consider. There was a reference to the fact that Ivan Rand, who conducted the Royal Commission inquiry into the Landreville case, drew up a list of qualifications for a competent and impartial judge acceptable to the public, and these are available. I am sure that some of our outstanding Supreme Court judges would be able to draw up a code and make it available to judges and to the community. The little guy who continually appears before the judge on a drunk charge or an offence of a minor nature is not in a good position to say whether that judge is impartial and follows a code of ethics. He is either going to say, "Judge Joe is a good fellow and I like appearing before him because he only sends me to dry out for a few days for my own good," or, "Judge Joe is a no good so and so because he is always picking on me".
The people who should make the decision about this judicial council are the people and the organizations in the community. I know of some cases where organizations in a community have been violently opposed to a particular judge-some have been called hanging judges. I know of a judge who comes close to being an alcoholic, but if any young feUow appears before him on a drunk charge he gets the book thrown at him. I cannot see the reasoning here. I know of another judge whose ulcer governed his attitude. If it didn't bother him, he was pretty easy on the accused, but if it was acting up it was likely that the accused would spend the next three or four years in penitentiary.
It seems to me that a lot of lay people should be appointed to this committee, as well as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the chief judge of the
provincial courts. I would like to see people like Arthur Martin, Arthur Maloney and Ian Cartwright, some of the most eminent lawyers in the country, on the council. I think at least two well known criminal lawyers should be appointed. Perhaps some people from our educational institutions who are in contact with new thoughts and new opinions would be an asset as well. I do not expect the government to accept these recommendations, because it will take some time to think about them and decide whether it would be politically wise to accept them. In any event, they will probably want to hear representations from outside, interested organizations which are concerned about the operation of our judicial system before making these changes.
I suggest that we should strive as a nation to appoint judges who are as impartial as it is possible to obtain
them.	The Judicial Council to be set up should develop a code of ethics for judges to follow so that sentences handed down in one area of the country bear some relationship to sentences handed down in another. Sentencing procedures across the nation should be made more uniform so that people convicted of similar offences under similar circumstances in various regions of the country may be sentenced in a similar way. There is a wide divergence in this country in sentences. In one part of the country a man may be convicted of a certain sentence and be put on probation. In other areas of the country, a man sentenced for a similar offence under similar circumstances may be sent to a penitentiary for a long time. These differences in sentences are unsatisfactory. People are not satisfied with our judicial process. People are confused and made angry by the differences of sentences for crimes committed under similar circumstances.
The Judicial Council should consider precedents and set up a code of ethics that will enable communities and other interested parties to help in keeping judges of this country honest. Our judges are mostly honest, although there are some who are not quite as honest as others. I think it would be worth while to have certain judges referred to a committee so that certain allegations may be investigated. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that those hearings into the conduct of such judges be held in the main in camera. I should like to see many, many judges brought before the Judicial Council, not for disciplinary purpose, but for the purpose of convincing those judges that they must modify the way they operate in court and the sort of sentences they hand out for specific offences.
If a judge were brought before his peers, and in this case they would be at a higher level than he, he could adapt his judicial decisions to accord with the suggestions of this council. If the hearings were to be held in public, the council would not want to hear those cases for the simple reason that they would be afraid that what happened in the Landreville case might repeat itself. It did not matter whether Mr. Justice Landreville, as he was
then,	was guilty as alleged or not. The mere fact that he was suspected made him guilty in the eyes of the com-

June 14. 1971

munity; and even if he had not been guilty, and he was guilty, his usefulness as a judge was over. No matter whether the allegations against the judge are correct or not, the mere fact that they have been brought forward would make that judge suspect in the eyes of the public. Unless these hearings were in camera old grievances involving, perhaps lawyers and clients contending they had been unsatisfactorily treated could be brought up, thus impairing the usefulness of that judge. Such a judge would be tried by the newspapers in advance of the hearing, and because of our shortcomings as human beings we would tend to prejudge the man, so, his value as an impartial judge would be over. I say that because we know that some men are more impartial than others.


Mr. McCleave:: You cannot have degrees of impartiality. Nothing is more impartial than impartial.


William Arnold Peters: I am not sure whether anything can be more impartial than impartial. I suspect that there are differences in so-called impartiality. I think that there are degrees of beauty, although at school we were told that a person is either beautiful or not beautiful. You cannot be more beautiful or most beautiful. It is true that if you are impartial you are impartial, but I suggest that our judges are not to be painted all black or all white.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, there are three or four things I would like to say about these changes to the Judges Act. First of all, since the appointment of an extra county judge in Nova Scotia will affect most of my constituency, may I say that this is a welcome move. The county judge has been the hardest working judge at the higher levels in the province of Nova Scotia. I am talking about the county judge who sits in the metropolitan district court for Halifax County. That burden should be shared. I do not think members of the bar of Nova Scotia will argue that this is not a forward step.
In looking at the salaries of the large number of judges appointed from one end of Canada to the other-I say large numbers in the layman's sense-one is entitled to ask whether it is not possible to introduce substantial reforms that could save the taxpayers money. I should like to suggest two simple steps which, if taken, would reduce by more than 50 per cent the necessity for judges, thus cutting down on the cost of the administration of justice in this country.
The first step is one that the Parliament of Canada could take. I suggest that divorce procedure ought to be simplified. I am talking of the conduct of divorce cases. Since most such actions are uncontested and do not involve such important questions as the award of custody and the like, the procedure could be simplified and important savings could be made in that area if people in this House could find it in their hearts and minds to make certain changes. I realize that it has taken us more than ten years to bring about even a modicum of divorce
Judges and Financial Administration Acts
reform. Nevertheless, I suggest that this is an area in which we could cut down the cost of the judiciary.
The other step which involves the provinces and which I will mention quickly in passing, is this: We should do away with the necessity for judges deciding which automobile broke more laws in an automobile accident. Instead, the whole question should be taken before a Workman's Compensation Board type of hearing which would grant compensation for the injury, depending on the extent of injury or damage suffered, without going into the niceties of who was to blame. After all, we as a society generally operate at more than 60 miles an hour. I do not think the niceties of allocating fault and blame within that context should be determined by our judicial system.
The Landreville case, which occupied a period of four and a half years at various levels, finally reached Parliament. It could have continued for a few more days at that time if that former judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario had not finally sensed that the members here were going to follow the advice of Mr. Justice Rand of the Supreme Court of Canada and get rid of him. He got out just before the axe fell on his head.
The minister suggests a Canadian Judicial Council to remove that particular problem. It will go even further, in that the Canadian Judicial Council will have responsibilities to establish seminars for the continuing education of judges, holding a conference of chief justices, and from time to time making inquiries and investigating complaints or allegations. It is also provided that the council shall, at the request of the Minister of Justice of Canada or any provincial attorney general, commence an inquiry. It might investigate any complaint coming from other sources.
These are pretty forward looking steps. They should not be treated lightly because in the past we have always been very staunch in upholding the independence of the judiciary. When upholding 100 per cent of anything, such as the independence as a group of people, you have to allow that judges may in fact commit wrongs. In the past, except where the behaviour was of the flagrant Landreville variety, because of the over-all principle, one would pass it by rather than do anything that would upset the feeling of a judge that once on the bench, he was secure.
We are now to have this council. Some pretty wide powers are set forth in clause 33. Many questions will have to be asked about them in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The wording in part of the clause is very strange. It reads:
Where, in the opinion of the Council, the judge in respect of whom an inquiry or investigation has been made, has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office by reason of
(a)	age or infirmity,
I think that should be age and infirmity. Surely, the fact he has reached the ripe old age of 48, to use my own age, should not be the reason he is being impeached by this process. He is being impeached because he has
6686

June 14, 1971
Judges and Financial Administration Acts reached an age where senility has set in. This amounts to an infirmity and prevents him from rendering proper justice from his high place. There is that about it. The second reason is:
(b)	having been guilty of misconduct,
I think that could probably be given a good interpretation. The third reason is:
(c)	having failed in due execution of his office,
There are many famous stories about the conduct of trials. I do not want to add to them this afternoon, although I have many priceless memories of my days in court. When a counsel appeared before a certain judge, the judge indicated that he would set down the case for Friday, the 13th. The lawyer said "My Lord, that is an unlucky day." The judge replied "It is generally found that in these cases one side wins and one side loses. Fifty per cent win and 50 per cent lose. Some are lucky and some are unlucky." The case was set down for the 13th. Does the fellow who loses in that case say that the judge failed in the due execution of his office? The final reason is:
(d)	having been placed, by his conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of his office.
It is difficult to decide what that means. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will have to defend that Paragraph when the bill is studied in committee. The matter of having a remedy might have been useful in the Lan-dreville case, but it may be a weapon that will in some way hang over courts and inhibit some people from seeking a judicial office. Subclause (3) reads:
A judge who is found by the Governor in Council, upon report made to the Minister of Justice of Canada by the Council to have become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office shall... cease to be paid or to receive or to be entitled to receive any further salary-
In short, the council makes its decision and bang, there goes the judge. Subclause (6) reads:
The Governor in Council may grant to any judge found, pursuant to subsection (3), to be incapacitated-
That would be justice. A man may reach senility and not realize it. If he is found to be senile by the Canadian Judicial Council, he would be out of a job, even though he has worked long and hard on the bench. There was one case in the province of Nova Scotia. During the last few years of the particular judge's career on the bench, he could only say that he agreed with one of his brethren on the bench. He would either agree with one judge or another. At that stage, he could no longer write opinions. He was perhaps the best trial judge we had in Nova Scotia, certainly within the past 30 years. It would have been just if that man had retired under the saving provision of subclause (4) whereby money could have been paid to him. He had been a good and faithful servant to the province of Nova Scotia for a very long period of time.
I have some qualms about the over-reaching effects of this particular part of the bill which deals with the Canadian Judicial Council, and what change it will have on the judiciary. Perhaps it goes too far. It all seems to
be sensible, but maybe the Canadian Judicial Council has not been given as much examination as one would like. There is no right of appeal. A judge cannot appeal to Parliament, the highest court in the land. They cannot come to Parliament which must by resolution, uphold the council's decision and dismiss the judge. The council will dismiss the judge.
If a judge is wrongly treated, there is no remedy. This seems a very strange provision to have in a system of law which pays so much attention to the right of any person to be declared innocent unless everything is so clear that there can be no other interpretation except to find him guilty. There is every safeguard by the right to appeal, so that the whole matter can again be considered by dispassionate and different people each time. There is no such safeguard in this legislation. I will be asking the minister why this legislation does not have this extra safeguard.
I realize the problems. For example, a supreme court judge could become enmeshed in a problem. He would not want to take the whole bloody business to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of an appeal because other judges would be sitting in judgment on him. There has to be some sort of appeal, even if it involves setting up some procedure in Parliament. This is important to protect the integrity and the independence of judges.
Perhaps in this regard I might quote from the report of Mr. Justice Rand who dealt with the Landreville case. He
said:
But what does the independence of judges imply? That can be nothing short of this: that the minister to whom such an authority is committed shall himself be the first to respect what has been entrusted to him, the administration of the rule of Justice under Law, including loyalty to its institutions. The public acceptability of character for such a function is of that which exhibits itself in action as beyond influences that tend to taint its discharge with alien factors.
Vital damage to a state would be the impairment of that independence; its constitutional character is essential to the public acceptance of our mode of resolving conflicts. Judgments may be criticized: they may call for legislative amendment; but the underlying basic assumption is the intellectual and moral integrity of the judicial officer in the execution of his office. Only under a regime of Law can societies today be maintained in peace and freedom: its administration must carry the respect and acceptance of the public as being of the character postulated. Impartiality must mark judgment to the extent possible to men; our court system is the result of a thousand years of experience; and so far as it may be imperfect the answer is that man is imperfect. But it stands favourable comparison with any other system of mankind; and the preservation of the essential quality of freedom in its ministers from influences foreign to its processes, conscious or unconscious, is a supreme necessity. The governing fact is thax condition is the susceptibility of the mind so influenced, the confirmation of which exhibits a moral sense incompatible with the judicial essence.
Before the 13th century, in the administration of our Common Law, men were looked upon as untrustworthy for passing judgment upon fellow men, and the Ordeal the acceptable test of guilt or innocence, right or wrong. We know now that men can reach and continue in disinterested and acceptable objectivity in adjudication but only on the assumption of fidelity and integrity; the independence and tenure of Judges, necessary to their function, have a specific test of the violation of duty: the justified forfeiture of public and professional moral confidence.

June 14, 1971

Those are ringing words indeed from one of the greatest judges from Atlantic Canada to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada bench.
Finally, two very short observations. I wonder why the department did not accept the request made, as I understand it, by the judges that the pensions of their widows be set at three-ninths instead of two-ninths. It seems to me to be a small proportion even at that, but this is one request the judges made to the department. My second observation concerns the earlier retirement provisions within the act. We have scouted them on other occasions and I think in principle they have merit.
I accept the bill in principle, Mr. Speaker, but with regard to the Canadian Judicial Council, and also the pensions of the widows of judges, I should like the bill to be given some further consideration by the minister and his department when it comes before the committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 must advise the House that if the parliamentary secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, my fear at the thought of piloting the bill on second reading completely vanished when I saw the courtesy and the kindness-somewhat exaggerated at times I might say-extended to me by hon. members in this short debate.
Undoubtedly-and I am most grateful to them-this courtesy is that usually extended by the House to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) when he introduces bills. I am deeply grateful.
Many suggestions have been made and some questions have been raised. I do not intend to reply to all, although each one will be considered by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, but I would like to point out some hon. members' comments now that the increase in judges' salaries has been accepted in principle.
The purpose of the bill under consideration is not only to increase judges' salaries, but having accepted the principle of the bill, some members said that they disagreed with this increase because they thought that this was not the time to introduce it.
Those who are not altogether opposed to it but who object to the timing of this increase should remember, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) put it very well, that if we wait until all social justices are corrected in Canada and throughout the world, of course, we shall have to give up the idea of having justice administered by qualified and dedicated incumbents who will be willing to accept a position as judges.
In any sector of society-whether in industry or elsewhere-if there is nothing to be gained by an employee in doing his very best, in other words, if his employer will not grant him an increase in salary to encourage him to work better, the organization is bound to experience some difficulties.
Since the quality of the judges we should appoint has been mentioned, I feel that we must choose the best
Business of the House
possible candidates, to ensure that in our country justice is above suspicion.
Personally, I feel that Canadian society can afford to pay those judges an adequate salary that will make up for what they have lost in private life.
I thank the members, on behalf of the Minister of Justice, for their courtesy and their suggestions. We will improve the bill in committee, if necessary, for some of the suggestions made, for instance those of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), will be well received by the Minister of Justice. I can may say that some amendments will be made to the bill in committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek the indulgence of the House to revert to motions to put a previously discussed motion affecting the hours of sitting on Wednesday, June 30, 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The effect of the motion is that the House that day will sit from ten o'clock a.m. to two o'clock p.m. continuously, or until hon. members return from royal assent in the other place.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in granting unanimous consent I hope the government House leader will give us consideration sometimes when we ask for privileges. We have been granting a great deal recently without getting much in return.
6688

June 14, 1971
Inquiry on Crown Corporations


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That on Wednesday, June 30, 1971, the hours of sitting shall be from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. or to the time when the House returns that day from attending the royal assent to any bills.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee of inquiry on Crown corporations exercising financial, commercial or industrial activities be established to study the various Acts establishing such Crown corporations, the Crown Corporations Act, sections 76 to 88 of the Financial Administration Act, and all other laws concerning Crown corporations and to recommend to the House the adoption of a law regarding federal public enterprises; the committee should also study the following subjects without restrictions (a) the legal rules pertaining to the employees of such corporations (b) their financial structure (c) the way in which they are financed (d) government control over said corporations (e) fiscal regulations (municipal, school, provincial and federal taxes (f) the status of the administrators (g) the privileges of such corporations resulting from their being "commissioned by Her Majesty" (h) the status of the subsidiaries of these enterprises (i) their purchasing policy (j) the problem of auditing by the Auditor General of Canada or by private auditors (k) the appropriateness of State intervention in the economic field in the form of enterprises; and all other matters concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for presenting such a long motion, which you had to read in full because of its complexity, but you do everything so well that it is always a pleasure to hear you read those private members' motions because one feels that you consider that this hour is important.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today of coming back to a subject of great concern to me, that of Crown corporations. Since my election to this House in 1968, I have noted with astonishment the lack of interest shown by government members, especially those responsible for the Crown corporations, in the study and operation of such corporations.
I have already put on the order paper, as my colleagues well know, hundreds of questions with regard to bilingualism in the Crown corporations. Well, from the documents supplied by the government in reply to my questions. I must say that most Crown companies mock Parliament. Indeed the only link between them and Parliament, which has nevertheless established them by
legislation, is the famous annual report which in the end says nothing but commonplaces.
Mr. Speaker, in practice Crown companies have become some kind of parallel power. Generally they are government tools which act through delegated powers in some particular fields. One only has to look at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to readily realize the total absence of government control over these government agencies.
As for the CBC, all the minister responsible-that is the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier)-can do is to run errands, tell the Crown corporation what goes on in Parliament and repeat here what the Corporation has replied in answer to the complaints that we have expressed. That is all!
We cannot even criticize or discuss a reply coming from a Crown corporation. I feel that parliamentary control must be above this stupendous farce that we are presently witnessing.
That is why, is order to shed light on this matter and others related to it, in short to give details on the administration of these corporations, their usefulness and their operation, their relationships with government and Parliament, I suggest today the appointment of a special committee of inquiry, something that has never been done since the establishment of the first Crown corporation.
In the light of the comments which I would like to make, I would refer my colleagues to several studies made by university experts in that field who are especially interested in parliamentary control over institutions created by the government. My colleagues will note like myself the importance of this problem at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, when reading over the motion introduced today, we realize that I especially insist on subjects which have led me to present that motion. What are they?
I am asking in the first place the passage of a general law regarding federal public enterprises which could be used for the creation of any organization deemed necessary to meet a special need.
Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is total confusion. We cannot compare the status of Crown corporations because some are representatives of Her Majesty while others are not and in several cases there are some overlaps.
It seems to me that in a country like this one, there is no reason for not having a basic law designed to guide parliamentary control over each of those corporations without our having to be experts in their respective fields.
But before we are ready to formulate that basic law, we will naturally have to analyze exhaustively what goes on in those corporations. A special committee of inquiry is needed to that end. I ray "spec al" because I would not like it to be made only of hon. members; they should be associated with specialists and other citizens in order that a serious inquiry be made into the operations in those corporations.

June 14, 1971

That is why I ask that the committee be given terms of reference that would not be limited by legal intricacies, but that would ensure a complete study of the legal status of the employees of those corporations. This is a matter that my colleagues, in particular those who are on the front benches, would have great difficulty in understanding, because even the officials of these corporations are in doubt about it. As a matter of fact they do not understand too well the legal status of their employees. Moreover, the employees themselves find it difficult to limit, establish or defined their own legal status in the corporation.
If we ask: Are they civil servants, the Polymer Corporation will reply: We have no civil servants. Are they Crown employees? Another corporation will answer in the negative. Are they employed by the government or Parliament? Still other corporations answer in a negative way.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the legal status of the people employed by Crown corporations be established and defined once and for all, in order that they may not only serve the public better, but also that they will know what are their status, rights and privileges.
How are Crown corporations funded? Some have shares on the market, others do not. Some issue guaranteed shares, others do not. Why? Some corporations admit the public to participation in their funding and others do not.
Mr. Speaker, this is of particular importance. There is more and more talk of establishing Crown corporations in various fields. For instance there is quite a lengthy study on the possibility of doing away with the present Post Office Department, transforming it into a Crown corporation. What, then, would be that corporation's legal status? What would be the legal status of its employees? How would it be financed? Would the public be able to participate in it? What experiences have been carried out in this field elsewhere? What are the advantages for a Crown corporation of being or of not being an agency of Her Majesty?
Mr. Speaker, there being no parliamentary study in that field members of Parliament have no guidelines in preparing and studying the legislation introduced by the government.
This committee should also study how the government and Parliament could supervise these corporations, and I am particularly interested in that.
The system of taxation is another matter we should study. It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that some Crown corporations own houses and buildings in some municipalities without having to pay any municipal, provincial or federal taxes. It is well known that some Crown corporations which are competing directly with private enterprises do not pay any taxes whereas the private enterprises are penalized, because they have to forgo part of their purchasing power in order to pay the endless number of levies, be they school, municipal, provincial or federal taxes.
Inquiry on Crown Corporations
Mr. Speaker, because the government refuses to indicate what its exact position is in this respect and to reconsider the legal status of these corporations, it unfairly competes with private enterprise. One is lead to wonder to what extent the government is consistent when it invests millions of dollars to develop private enterprise and create employment. The inconsistency is such that it would seem proper that this matter be considered exhaustively.
Another rather important question is the auditing of Crown corporations' accounts by the Auditor General of Canada. This is a vital issue that keeps coming up from time to time in this House.
Each year, in his annual report, the Auditor General complains about not having the opportunity to audit the accounts of all Crown corporations. Why is it so? The answer is very simple. It cannot be concealed. The government prefers to have the accounts of some-I should say most-Crown corporations audited by private firms. This is an undisguised form of patronage which denies Parliament direct supervision over the administration, the bookkeeping and the auditing of creatures of the government, namely, Crown corporations.
The man who represents this Parliament with Crown corporations, with departments, with the public administration is the institution known as the Auditor General of Canada. I suggest that his role should be much more extensive.
It seems to me we need a man who, within the Crown corporations and the departments, could act without restrictions, that is, who would have all the powers needed to make a full report on the bookkeeping, the financing, the working conditions of the employees and the expenditures. The government takes great care not to send the Auditor General of Canada to audit the books of those corporations, under the pretext that he does not have the time to do so. Instead of increasing judges' salaries, and salaries in other fields, we should give the Auditor General the staff required to audit those books.
Doubtless, if a special committee were set up to study the administration, the status, the financing of those corporations and the extent of the waste, we would then unanimously authorize the Auditor general to audit the books.
Every time a high official of a Crown corporation attends a meeting, even for an hour in the day, he is paid $100. I have very interesting figures on that but I do not want to bother the House with them. I would be happy to give a copy to all hon. members who would like to have one. The public does not know anything about such unbelievable waste, nor do hon. members because we do not have enough time to deal with that matter. I have given special attention to this fact and, judging by the replies to the questions I put on the Order Paper, the end result is astounding.
If we consider, for instance, the control Parliament exercises over the implementation of its adopted policy concerning bilingualism within the Public Service, it is apparent that there is none. I have actually put on the

June 14, 1971
Inquiry on Crown Corporations Order Paper question No. 53 which reads in part as follows:
What is the number of senior civil servants earning $17,000 or more a) whose mother tongue is French, b) whose tongue is English,... d) who are bilingual,

-There was nothing particularly brilliant in the following reply:
As a matter of fact, here is the reply I received:
a)	b)	c)	d)Bank of Canada	3	27	-	8Industrial Development Bank	2	20	-	3Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	-	117	3	14Eldorado Nuclear Limited Canadian Overseas	-	8	1	Telecommunication Corporation Central Mortgage and Housing	-	5	1	2Corporation	9	48	3	23
Which for six crown corporations, in the case of senior officials earning $17,000 or more, makes a total of 14 whose mother tongue is French and 225 whose mother tongue is English. That is outrageous, but we cannot do anything about it. The government is getting publicity out of its bilingualism programs and bonuses but the situation is ridiculous.
So much Mr. Speaker, for the great bilingual policy of the government. It is easy for the government to say that it has great achievements to its credit. It should also say that its policy is leading to nothing and is useless.
The Parliament has no means of control except that hon. members can put questions on the Order Paper which is quite a ridiculous method since the government gives only the information it wants to give, and it is quite often incomplete, especially when the questions relate to a Crown corporation and I will prove that later.
This is a typical example of a current and important subject, namely bilingualism, and it demonstrates, first, that the government policy in this connection is no good, difficult to implement and that its results are still to come and, secondly, that Parliament has no control over it. Since we have the information, what supervision can Parliament exercise? None practically.
Here is another example showing how important this matter is. I had put on the Order Paper the following question:
In each of the Proprietary Crown Corporations, what is the number of employees (a) who speak French only (b) who speak English only (c) who are bilingual?
Now, on September 16, 1968, the Department of Defence Production provided me with the following reply, and I quote:
As concerns the Polymer Corporation Limited: The Polymer Corporation states that among its 2,744 employees, no one speaks French only, that, to the best of their knowledge, 2,614 speak English only, whereas about 130 are bilingual.
This is a typical example of an unfortunate situation, but that is the way things are in the Public Service and in the Crown corporations. No control is being exercised. I would even say that the ministers are already overwhelmed by the creatures of which they are supposed to be responsible.
This is true, for instance, of the Secretary of State, who is totally overwhelmed by his creature, the CBC. In fact, he is unable to answer a question being asked by an hon. member, or to set the shop in order. One can see what is going on in the CBC. This is not the first time that this question is raised in the House. But we argue in a circle and get nowhere. Why? Because Parliament has no control and because the minister is not responsible for this corporation. However, under the act, he is supposed to be responsible.
Mr. Speaker, here is another example. This is another question which appeared on the Order Paper, and I
quote:
1. For each of the Proprietary Crown Corporations, what was in 1967 the return on the capital invested?
Are we not entitled, as hon. members, to wonder about such things? What is the return on the capital invested? It is important to know if the capital invested in a Crown corporation yields a profit. And, if so, to what extent?
Here is the second part of the question:
For each of the said Corporations, what was the profit in 1967 and what part of such profit was paid to the government?
What amount did the government receive? Very often Parliament votes supplies to establish such corporations. They operate and Parliament makes up the deficits. The Canadian National is a good example. We seldom hear of the reverse happening.
In any event, here is the answer which the Minister of Defence Production sent me:
With regard to the Polymer Corporation:
1.	The net income of the Corporation in 1967 equalled 5.6 per cent of the capital invested by the shareholders as of the end of the said year.
2.	The net income of the Corporation in 1967 was $5,812,000, of which $3,000,000 were paid to the government as dividends.
That is a typical case of a corporation having shown a profit and having apparently been well administered.
Now, if we compare this reply to the annual report, we find inconsistencies and may conclude that the whole thing makes no sense.
So who should we believe? I am taking a great deal of the time of the House, but I am closing my remarks with an illustration of the wide scope of the question. It is an acknowledged fact that the government owns and operates an important industrial sector...


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired. Unless the House gives its unanimous consent, he cannot continue his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be unanimity to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I also thank my colleagues. I only need two minutes at the most.
It is a recognized fact: the State owns and operates today a large industrial, commercial and financial sector.

June 14, 1971

It operates uranium mines through Eldorado Nuclear Ltd; coal mines through the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It carries out mining exploration through SOQUEM and oil exploration through Panarctic Oils Limited. It operates one of the largest railway in the world through the CNR. It owns many road transport companies controlled by the Canadian National Transportation Limited. It operates the most important hotels in Canada through the Canadian National Hotels Limited. It deals in air transport through Air Canada and Eldorado Aviation Limited and in shipping through the CNR and the Northern Transportation Co. Limited. In short, Mr. Speaker, it is an extensive and important sector.
The state is one of the world's largest rubber producers through its Polymer Corporation. It owns and operates one of the most extensive radio and television networks: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It produces and sells power through the Quebec and Ontario hydroelectric power commissions, and so on and so forth. It grants interest-yielding loans through the Industrial Development Bank, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Farm Credit Bureau and the Deposit and Investment Fund.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, in Canada today there are over a hundred state-owned and state-operated public companies actively engaged in industrial, business and financial activities, the assets of which exceed $20 billion.
Because of the importance of this matter, I have felt justified in introducing this motion aimed at setting up a special study committee, which will shy from party politics and refrain from hustling public servants or the government, while helping to shed light upon this extensive field where over $20 billion are administered and where things are occurring that are more or less questionable or, at any rate, over which we have no control whatsoever.
In my opinion, it is in the interest of each and every member of Parliament to support this motion aimed at establishing such a committee with a view to drafting a basic piece of legislation that will guide us in the administration and management of our Crown corporations.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, I had assumed that the hon. member's notice of motion probably would not be heard until after the summer recess and for that reason I had anticipated having the summer vacation to do some research on this subject because I think it is important, although the hon. member has set forth a rather tall order for a committee of this House.
I have read with considerable interest the questions that the hon. member has placed on the order paper, particularly those in connection with Polymer Corporation and the language aspect of the government's policy on bilingualism. The hon. member has seen fit once again to prove that statistics really do not mean much and that you can use them in any way you see fit. I well remember one of my colleagues talking about statistics in the House. He said that statistics are something like a bikini:
Inquiry on Crown Corporations
what they reveal is interesting, but what they conceal is vital.
The hon. member, in order to prove what he says is the case in respect of return on investment, picked the worst year Polymer has had. He mentioned it had "only" -I put "only" in quotation marks-a return of $5.3 million in profits, and he saw fit to ignore almost 15 or 20 years when profits far exceeded that figure, sometimes by two or three times as much. So the record of Polymer is a pretty splendid one and I take umbrage when the hon. member, in an attempt to prove a case, sees fit to pick out only the particular year that happens to suit his convenience.
The hon. member was speaking from a false premise when he indicated that the government was opposed to having the Auditor General examine the books or be the auditor of certain Crown corporations. That is not the case. I recall, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, that when we were examining the role to be played by the Auditor General one of the points raised was that he should have the right to look at all Crown corporations, that he should be the auditor for all Crown corporations.
We went to the people who should know most about auditing, who should know more about it than even Members of Parliament, namely, chartered accountants and certified public accountants. As a result, I can say the government is not trying to hide anything by not having the Auditor General audit the books of Crown corporations. The corporations themselves indicated that they needed an auditor with a special kind of talent to help them in the competitive phases of their work and said that to spread the responsibilities for auditing this kind of enterprise would be doing a disservice to the Canadian taxpayer-in fact, would be doing a disservice to the people they were trying to serve. But they saw nothing wrong with the Auditor General having an investigatory role or working with auditors who have a special talent or ability to advise companies, particularly those which are involved in competitive types of business.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the government trying to hide anything, of the government trying to conceal anything, of Crown corporations not wanting the Auditor General to participate: they were simply indicating, as did public and chartered accountants, that there are certain degrees of expertise that a particular kind of chartered accountant can bring to a corporation because of the work and study he has done on a specific subject. Therefore I take exception to the hon. member's suggestion that this is an attitude taken by the government in order to hide something. I would agree with the hon. member that there might be a role for the Auditor General to play. Perhaps some area of compromise could be found between a chartered accountant expert in the field of this particular type of corporation and the Auditor General, who has more of a supervisory and investigatory role to play in this area.
When I read the motion of the hon. member much of it seemed to make good sense, the kind of thing that maybe

June 14, 1971
Inquiry on Crown Corporations
we should be concerned with when looking at Crown corporations. I doubt whether anyone here has not had, during the time he has been a member of this House, a complaint about the CBC or a suggestion as to how it might improve its image or programming. I called my local station only last Saturday to complain about a program called "Action Alert," "Canada Alert" or "Canada Action." It seemed as though two men, well beyond the teenage stage, were trying to become Canada's oldest teenagers. One of the features had to do with advice on how to react "when the fuzz puts the finger on you." They conducted an interview with a so-called lawyer who refused to be identified because he feared he might be disbarred-and if I can ever identify him, I hope he will be disbarred

purporting to give legal advice to an individual who might be apprehended by the police.
There is nothing wrong with that kind of advice except that it is dangerous. It is instant legal advice and, Mr. Speaker, it is free legal advice, which is always subject to suspicion. In this particular case the individual made the presumption that the police are always out to get you; that if you are walking along the street smoking a cigarette they will halt you, throw you into the back of their car, haul you off to the station and in the end the judge will always believe the policeman. He made all kinds of sickening suggestions that this is the kind of way in which the police force in Canada operates. That just is not so. I will be blamed for that program by people in my riding who heard it because, first of all, they will suspect that the individual giving the advice was a lawyer. I may say that the advice he gave was pretty pathetic. But the suggestions and opinions that he delivered should not have been carried on a Crown corporation network, paid for in large measure by the taxpayers' dollar.
I think we should criticize that kind of thing, but I point out that we have the CRTC and it is to that body that we should direct our complaints. We have set up the CRTC to look into programming and the conduct of broadcasters over the airwaves. But this program incensed me so much that I called the local station directly and told them what 1 thought of it. However, it is a question of a Member of Parliament not being the final judge as to what kind of material should be carried by a Crown corporation over the airwaves. We have a body with whom we can lodge our complaints. I understand that Mr. Sid Brown, president of the police association, is in this city today and I hope he will ask for the tapes of that program and raise Cain with the CBC programming section responsible for broadcasting it on Saturday morning.
There is a role for Parliament to play in looking at Crown corporations, always being on the alert to see that they are not abusing their rights and privileges. But we !must be careful not to give the idea that there is a constant looking over the shoulders. I am thinking of corporations involved in competitive kinds of enterprises, which have the stress and strain of making business decisions and then have to account not only to shareholders but to Members of Parliament in a public forum. Surely somewhere in between a measure of control could
be exercised. Maybe it would be by studying the estimates in this House, or by raising the particular subject once in a while in this chamber.
I point out that we have the Public Accounts Committee. The Auditor General reports to us on Crown corporations that are not audited by the Auditor General. We have had representatives of four or five of these corporations appear before our committee. We have examined them with respect to the role they play, the kind of money they are spending, the profits they make or do not make and the particular service they perform. As I say, there are all kinds of opportunities available to Members of Parliament and I do not think we need worry too much about what the hon. member who moved the motion called "the parallel power."
The hon. member also dealt with the specific area involving employees of Crown corporations. It is in this area that we might have some input to contribute and on which we should spend some thought and study. Recently we heard that for a long time some people employed by the CBC were treated as civil servants and received an exemption so far as the payment of certain taxes in the United States was concerned. That exemption was subsequently withdrawn, leading to many problems, and ultimately these taxes were paid by the CBC which felt justified in paying them. This matter is still being examined by the Public Accounts Committee and a determination will be made whether in its opinion the decision made by the CBC was correct. This points up the need to look into the area involving employees of Crown corporations.
Another area I know something about is Crown corporation employees' pensions and the portability of those pensions. When an individual works for a Crown corporation and subsequently bids or tenders for a particular job with the Crown, be it in right of the province or in right of the Dominion of Canada, there should be some kind of portability of pension. That is not the case so far as all Crown corporations are concerned. As a result, an individual is not encouraged to move into government or public service when he knows that he will get a certain pension from the Crown corporation and a certain pension from the government but the combined total will be substantially less than he would have obtained had he stayed with the Crown corporation. We should not put that kind of stumbling-block in the way of individuals who want to work in the public service. I would hope something could be done to provide portability of pensions in this area.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not have more time to study the hon. member's motion because he has set before us a rather tall order. When I first read it the motion seemed to indicate that there was something basically wrong here. First, I think his motion is too long and, second, it is too all-encompassing. I would find it extremely difficult to support the motion in its present form.
I take exception to one other comment, Mr. Speaker, but I know other members wish an opportunity to speak.

June 14, 1971

The hon. member said that Crown corporations could not care less about Parliament. I only know about the Crown corporation because it happens to be located in my riding, but the directors invite me to go there three or four times each year, when they fill me in on what is going on. This corporation has a concern for the Member of Parliament, and the directors come here on many occasions to keep the government filled in on the kind of action they wish to take. This approach should be encouraged in all Crown corporations. I do not think it is fair to say that Crown corporations could not care less about Parliament. They are very much aware that we are here. They are created by statute which can be revoked at any time, so they are concerned. I hope the time will never come when Members of Parliament have to make the decision about what should and should not appear on a public network.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamillon-Wenlworlh):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) for his frankness this afternoon. His speech was most interesting.
The hon. member is aware of those problems, but with all due respect to him, I am afraid he does not have an answer for all-


Thomas Miller Bell: Quite true.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go on
in French.


Colin David Gibson: I would be willing but since it would be difficult for other hon. members to understand me I shall continue my remarks in English.

My hon. friend raised seven or eight specific topics which he suggested should be placed before a committee of the House. I feel that the spirit of this motion is good and constructive; however, it does not adequately provide for enhancement of the role of the MP to tackle abuses by Crown corporations, abuses in administrative tenacity, abuses of administrative secrecy or abuses in the nature of power-mad bureaucrats in many cases.
As we look at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation today it is true that we have seen cases of financial excess that should have been curtailed and dealt with properly. I believe Members of Parliament should have the right to investigate these matters and get a speedy response, and that this method should be enforced by the House. This is the direction that my hon. friend for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has projected. The private member should be able to play a greater role in investigating and obtaining a speedy response from these powerful bodies.
I had occasion to ask the Canadian Transport Commission, on behalf of people in my constituency, for an extra railway car for the journey to Quebec for some students. The minister was helpful and referred the matter to an official who sent a courteous letter saying that the matter would be looked into. But it was not dealt with. It is the kind of arrogance and bureaucratic disdain that is dis-
Inquiry on Crown Corporations
tasteful. I say as sincerely as I can, Mr. Speaker, that a Member of Parliament is entitled to more respect from the Canadian Transport Commission.


Thomas Miller Bell: Hear, hear! Down with Pickersgill!


Colin David Gibson: Down with the officials who failed to deal with it.


An hon. Member:: That's Pickersgill.


Colin David Gibson: I think the time has come when members of this House should be given more power to deal with such matters. Some of the problems raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere have been dealt with by the statutory instruments committee which, after detailed research, recommended that a parliamentary committee be established to review Orders in Council and the management of officials who have statutory powers, with a view to curbing their excessive use. The report of the committee recommended the formation of a scrutiny committee, but little has been heard of this.
There is no point presenting a report of that nature, which deals with complex matters, if nothing is done about it. Indeed, the public is not getting full value for some of the work done in this House. The statutory instruments committee suggested that there should be methods of curbing excessive arbitrary powers by checking Orders in Council to see that officials did not obtain more power than Parliament awarded. We could go further and inquire into the spending powers of some of these officials. We should act on this suggestion. It is far too late in the day to shrug our shoulders and say that the task is too big. We can and must do it.
I fail to see why some mode of operation has not been formed that would give to Members of Parliament the power of an ombudsman in this regard. This has been suggested by all parties but we have never come to grips with it. I do not believe in having a parliamentary ombudsman as such. We are all ombudsmen; we all have constituents and they have complaints. In my opinion the government must support us when we seek, on a reasonable basis, answers to problems. I suggest there should be a cabinet minister or an agency of the government, perhaps even the Speaker's office would be best-certainly with the present Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: -available so that when a question is asked there is a right of access to the minister or the responsible people for help and assistance in obtaining action. We should be able to raise the matter in the House of Commons and get action. I think this would add to the mechanism of enforcing a public duty upon crown corporations. With these thoughts, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the statutory instruments provisions will be pursued more vigorously than has been the case in the past few months.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to congratulate the hon. member for Lot-

June 14, 1971
Inquiry on Crown Corporations
biniere (Mr. Fortin) who introduced this motion and gave the House such interesting and necessary explanations.
He also quoted some statistics relating to the francophone elements represented in various Crown corporations. I think he did it all in a very fine spirit: the hon. member did not want to make any discriminatory remarks, but he merely wanted to call the attention of the House to a situation that, unfortunately, has not received enough consideration by Parliament to have been really corrected.
I also listened very carefully to the remarks made by the previous speaker who expressed himself in very good French, and I want to congratulate him. It is a sign of goodwill on the part of the hon. members who want to co-operate to the implementation and especially the practice of bilingualism in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest of the situation which deserves the attention of all members of this House, the motion which has just been very briefly debated, and which should normally call for a more extended debate, is designed to show that, whatever efforts have been made in the past to ensure a fair representation of the French-speaking population of Canada, that objective has not been totally achieved. That is why, in seconding the motion, I endorse the views of the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
I am convinced that members will take the facts set forth into consideration and will co-operate heartily in order that ours may be a model country, so that all Canadians, regardless of their ethnic origin and their idiom, may have the opportunity, according to their qualifications, to fill important functions within Crown corporations.
Moreover, this motion indicates not only that the French-speaking representation leaves much room for improvement, but also that parliamentarians do not have an adequate opportunity of controlling public moneys spent by Crown corporations. A report should be given to the House and not only to committees so that each of the representatives of the people, as the hon. member who spoke before me put so well, be in a position to see how public moneys are spent, and how to attain certain goals. Has it been possible to reach the aims when Parliament decided to establish a Crown corporation?
Under the circumstances, I am very pleased to support the motion and I hope that Parliament, during the few remaining minutes at our disposal, will give its consent so that it may be agreed to.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed that, having jeered at the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) as he was speaking in the other of our official languages, neither the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) nor the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have chosen to enter this debabe and show us what action they would propose to take.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Et vous?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I certainly appreciate the remarks that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth made in the debate in both official languages. The status of Crown corporations is a complex one and is not nearly as simple as the hon. member who proposed the motion may conceive. The built-in difficulty of Crown corporations is, I suppose, inherent in the nature of the creature. You create Crown corporations because you want to create a body that is somewhat removed from political and governmental influence and control. However, sometimes things go wrong as they inevitably do. Hon. members on both sides of the House have cited examples where Crown corporations have not been as responsive as it was felt they should be, nor as accountable as it was thought they should be. They have been criticized for being independent, out of control, beyond the reach of Members of Parliament generally and of the government particularly. That, really, is the other side of the coin. That is what one bargains for when one creates an agency such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I think all of us would agree, on reflection, that it would be totally intolerable if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were amenable to the direct influence of the government or, for that matter, if it were affected by the day to day political whims of Parliament or individual Members of Parliament. So we pay for the independence of these agencies. We pay a certain price, and at times that price seems higher than at other times. Generally, though, I think the price is well worth paying.
Under the Financial Administration Act there are three separate classes of Crown corporations. Some Crown corporations are basically agencies of the various departments of government. They are listed in schedule B of the act and include agencies like the Agricultural Stabilization Board, the directorate of the Veterans Land Act, the Science Council and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Those are salient examples. In schedule C there are commercial-type operations that the Crown has entered into. Under this heading we find Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Film Development Corporation and entities such as the National Capital Commission, National Harbours Board, and so on. Finally, in schedule D we have more prominent Crown corporations such as Air Canada, the CBC and Polymer Corporation that was referred to at considerable length earlier in the debate.
The Financial Administration Act requires that the capital budgets and annual reports of these corporations be laid before Parliament. I think the message of the Financial Administration Act is that the diversity of the activities and differences in the objectives of Crown corporations do not make those corporations amenable to the uniform treatment which the hon. member proposes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired, and I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
June 14, 1971

Division


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 11, consideration of Bill C-229, respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Friday, June 11, 1971, the House will now proceed to the recorded divisions, deferred pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), in respect of the motions to amend Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada.
The question is on motion No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare	: the motion lost. This division
disposes of motions Nos.	5, 7 and 8.
The House divided on	motion No. 6 (Mr. Alexander),
which was negatived on	the following division.
	YEAS
Messrs:	
Alexander	Macquarrie
Alkenbrack	MacRae
Baldwin	McCleave
Bell	McCutcheon
Carter	McKinley
Dinsdale	Marshall
Fairweather	Monteith
Forrestall	Moore
Grills	Muir
Harkness	Murta
Hees	Paproski
Howe	Peddle
Knowles (Norfolk -	Ritchie
Haldimand)	Ryan
Korchinski	Southam
Lundrigan	Stanfield
Maclnnis (Cape	Stewart (Marquette)
Breton-East Richmond)	Thomas (Moncton)
MacLean	Woolliams-36.
	NAYS
Messrs:	
Allmand	Corriveau
Andras	Cote (Longueuil)
Barnett	Cullen
Barrett	Danson
Bechard	Davis
Benson	Deaehman
Borrie	Dube
Boulanger	Dupras
Burton	Ethier
Cafik	Faulkner
Chretien	Forest
Clermont	Forget
Cobbe	Fortin

June 14, 1971
Francis	Division Messrs: McNulty	DansonGauthier	Mahoney	DavisGendron	Marceau	DeachmanGervais	Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)	DubeGibson	Morison	DuprasGilbert	Murphy	EthierGleave	Olson	FaulknerGuay (St. Boniface)	Orange	ForestGuay (Levis)	Orlikow	ForgetGuilbault	Penner	FortinHarding	Pepin	FrancisHopkins	Perrault	GauthierHymmen	Peters	GendronJamieson	Pringle	GervaisJerome	Reid	GibsonKaplan	Rodrigue	GilbertKnowles (Winnipeg	Sharp	GleaveNorth Centre)	Smith	Guay (St. Boniface)Lachance	(Northumberland-	Guay (Levis)Laflamme	Miramichi)	GuilbaultLambert	Smith (Saint-Jean)	Harding(Bellechasse)	Stafford	HopkinsLanglois	Stewart (Cochrane)	HymmenLaniel	St. Pierre	JamiesonLa Salle	Tetrault	JeromeLessard (LaSalle)	Thomson	KaplanLoiselle	(Battleford-Kindersley)	Knowles (WinnipegMacdonald (Rosedale)	Trudel	North Centre)MacEachen	Weatherhead	LachanceMaclnnis (Mrs.)	Whelan	LaflammeMackasey	Whicher-84.	LambertMcllraith	(Bellechasse)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. This division		Langlois Laniel
disposes of motion No.	21 also.	La Salle Lessard (LaSalle)
Loiselle
Messrs:
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacEachen Maclrmis (Mrs.)
Mackasey
Mcllraith
McNulty
Mahoney
Marceau
Marchand
(Kamloops- Cariboo) Morison Murphy Olson Orange Orlikow Penner Pepin Perrault Peters Pringle Reid
Rodrigue
Sharp
Smith
(N orthumberland-Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford
Stewart (Cochrane)
St. Pierre
Tetrault
Thomson
(Battlef ord-Kindersley) Trudel Weatherhead Whelan Whicher-84.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr.	Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We would like to find out just where the hon. member tor	
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stands on that last	
vote. He stood for and against.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion negatived. This
division disposes also of motion No. 13.	
The House divided on motion No. 16 (Mr. Alexander)	
which was negatived on the following division:	
Alexander	YEAS Messrs: Knowles (Norfolk -
Alkenbrack	Haldimand)
Baldwin	Korchinski
Bell	Lundrigan
Carter	Maclnnis (Cape
Dinsdale	Breton-East Richmond)
Fairweather	MacLean
Forrestall	Macquarrie
Grills	MacRae
Harkness	McCleave
Hees	McCutcheon
Howe	McKinley

June 14, 1971
Division
Messrs:
Marshall	Ritchie
Monteith	Ryan
Moore	S out ham
Muir	Stanfield
Murta	Stewart (Marquette)
Paproski	Thomas (Moncton)
Peddle	Woolliams-36.
 NAYS Messrs:
Allmand	Laflamme
Andras	Lambert
Barnett	(Bellechasse)
Barrett	Langlois
Bechard	Laniel
Benson	La Salle
Borrie	Lessard (LaSalle)
Boulanger	Loiselle
Burton	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Cafik	MacEachen
Chretien	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Clermont	Mackasey
Cobbe	Mcllraith
Corriveau	McNulty
Cote (Longueuil)	Mahoney
Cullen	Marceau
Danson	Marchand
Davis	(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Deachman	Morison
Dube	Murphy
Dupras	Olson
Ethier	Orange
Faulkner	Orlikow
Forest	Penner
Forget	Pepin
Fortin	Perrault
Francis	Peters
Gauthier	Pringle
Gendron	Reid
Gervais	Rodrigue
Gibson	Sharp
Gilbert	Smith
Gleave	(Northumberlan d-
Gray	Miramichi)
Guay (St. Boniface)	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Guay (Levis)	Stafford
Guilbault	Stewart (Cochrane)
Harding	St. Pierre
Hopkins	Tetrault
Hymmen	Thomson
Jamieson	(Battleford-Kindersl
Jerome	Trudel
Kaplan	Weatherhead
Knowles (Winnipeg)	Whelan
North Centre)	Whicher-85.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived. In accordance with the order of the House, the vote on motion No. 16 also disposes of motion No. 17.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that Bill C-229, respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, between the consideration that we have given to the white paper which the minister introduced in the last session and the consideration that we have given to Bill C-229 at all of its stages, we have done a pretty thorough job in going over this proposed new Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the floor and it is somewhat difficult for the House to hear the hon. member's remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am grateful to you, Sir, for putting on the record that members are anxious to hear what I have to say.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was saying that we have given a great deal of consideration to this legislation, and I think it is fair to say that although there are still some defects in it so far as some of us are concerned, it is a better bill than it was when it was first presented to us. A number of improvements have been made because of amendments that were moved in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. It must also be said that a number of improvements have been indicated to us because of the representations that have been made to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) by outside bodies interested in this bill. The minister has made it clear that some of the matters that have to be dealt with by regulation under the bill will be dealt with in a manner which will meet at least some of the representations that have been made, and this we warmly welcome.
Because we have given the bill this tremendous amount of consideration it is not our purpose to extend the debate on third reading, but there are a couple of things that some of us feel should be said. Most of the points that we felt very strongly about, which we still wanted to try to change, have been dealt with at the report stage. But there are still two matters that we feel should be looked at by the House and I intend to move a third reading amendment dealing with one of these two points.
The point about which I shall not be moving an amendment, because I do not think it lends itself to such a course, has to do with the definitions that the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be empowered to make under this new legislation. I am thinking in particular of the definition of earnings, which will have a very far reaching effect on the capacity of applicants to claim unemployment insurance benefits and also a far reaching effect on the amount of benefit that they will be able to draw.
In all fairness I must say that the minister and his officials listened very patiently to us on this score when

June 14, 1971

June 14, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just that alone?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. Clause 63 is the one that spells out how the level of premiums is to be determined. There is more in clause 63 than just the one point that I am concerned with but I emphasize subclause 3 which reads as follows:
When the average national rate of unemployment for a year exceeds 4 per cent, the commission shall calculate what portion of the amount paid in that year to pay the benefits described in paragraph (d) of subsection 1, other than benefits to which paragraph (b) of section 25. section 30, and subsection 2 of section 31 apply, is attributable to the excess of such rate over 4 per cent and that portion shall not be included as part of the basic cost of benefit for that year.
It is in particular that portion of clause 63 that I want to be reconsidered because subclause 3 makes it clear that only when unemployment on a national scale is above 4 per cent will the federal government accept its obligation to pay a share of the cost of providing unemployment insurance benefits. That, Mr. Speaker, is what I want changed, and this could be done if my amendment were passed. It is not an amendment that by itself would change the bill, because as a private member I cannot move an amendment that involves an expenditure of money. If my amendment were passed, however, this bill would be sent back to committee for the purpose of reconsidering this one central feature, namely, the financing of the plan, and the committee could then make the change.


An hon. Member:: The minister will agree to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We think we should restate the principle that was accepted when unemployment insurance was first introduced 30 years ago, namely, that the government is at least partially responsible for the unemployment that exists in the country and should help to pay for it from the first dollar.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That Bill C-229 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for the purpose of reconsidering clause 63 thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair has no difficulty in accepting the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I had anticipated that the minister would reply. This has been a contentious issue for many years and I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


An hon. Member:: What did he say?


William Arnold Peters: This matter should be considered. It is the responsibility of the government to help people in areas

which are affected by unemployment. Sometimes a great deal of difficulty has been caused to fishermen and others-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Hurry up, Stan; you need two more members.


William Arnold Peters: -and the government has looked after this situation in part through the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Difficulties experienced by fishermen on the east coast and the west coast have not always been entirely the responsibility of the government but have always been taken care of by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You will need to find two more members and your colleague must keep talking until you find them.


William Arnold Peters: Those men have been added to the unemployment insurance rolls. Because of the nature of their work, but largely as a result of political considerations and the desire of a political party in a particular election to help them, they have been helped. Such help has also been extended to people like bushworkers who have been covered for political purposes, and not necessarily for national purposes, by similar provisions in the act.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Don't lose this one, boys.


William Arnold Peters: However, on numerous occasions the government has shown some responsibility. I remember a certain committee sitting a few years ago. The man who now is the Senator from Windsor, but who then was the leading Liberal spokesman on the committee, said that when unusual difficulties involving unemployment arose, the government was always willing to throw money into the pot. I think he was referring to situations which the government might have created and which were not covered, in an actuarial sense, under any plan.
I did not have the opportunity of being a member of the committee so I am not familiar with the reasons given by the commission why payments under the plan are shared 50-50 between the employer and the employee, with 20 per cent of the contributions being made by the government. I understood that the employer and employee contributed half and that the 20 per cent contribution by the government was reasonable. That 20 per cent payment is the only contribution the government has made to labour. The government gives other politically strong segments of the economy, such as agriculture, large handouts on numerous occasions. There are 15 or 20 bills before the House which involve some kind of compensation to agriculture, yet no compensation has been given to the labour force in Canada other than this small contribution of 20 per cent.
I sometimes argue with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that there is a 50-50 breakdown in contributions, the employer paying 50 per cent and the employee 50 per cent. My experience shows that all the contribution is paid by the employee and none comes from the employer. I think that is why teachers have got into difficulties: they imagine that their employ-
June 14, 1971

ers, the school boards of Canada, will be making half the contribution and that they will be making the other half.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't you think they will?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker, they do not do that. I have negotiated many contracts in the labour field and always the employer refers to the contributions he is making on behalf of the employee as wages paid on behalf of the employee. If those contributions were not paid, they could be considered as a wage factor and would be available for wages.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is sheer nonsense.


William Arnold Peters: I see the hon. member shaking his head. I have sat in on many negotiations where the employer considered his contributions as wages.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That cannot be correct. Half the contribution comes from the employer.


William Arnold Peters: I agree with the hon. member to this extent; half the contribution does come from the employer. I am saying that when the employer makes that contribution, he considers it as wages. If the contribution were not made for unemployment insurance, that money would be available as wages which the employer could pay.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On that reasoning the employer might be able to give money to the employee's widow.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having participated in the committee hearings. I did not know there would be contributions to widows. I did not know that there were to be beneficiary payments included in this bill. I apologize for not being aware of that. That surprises me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It also surprises those who sat on the committee. They do not know any more than the hon. member does about that suggestion.


William Arnold Peters: If you watch patterns developing with regard to any scheme over a long period you will come up with an actuarially sound insurance program. It is also a fact that the insurance you carry on your life can be drastically affected by the actions of government. For instance, let us say young people were said to have a life expectancy of between 50 and 60 years. Some of them were sent to war and consequently their life expectancy was reduced by between 15 and 20 years. The actuarial basis for insurance programs changed radically under those conditions and the amount of money needed to meet certain insurance schemes was also altered radically.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Keep talking. There will soon be some more members sitting by the hon. member's side.


William Arnold Peters: Also, personal insurance schemes were restricted because insurance companies did not cover specific risks. The national government is charged with
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
responsibility in the field of employment and unemployment, and that responsibility must be met.
It has been suggested that we shall attain full employment conditions in this country when only a small percentage of our people are unemployed. It has been explained that it is almost impossible for us to have full employment. I disagree with the concept that 4 per cent unemployment may be considered normal and tantamount to full employment conditions, and that an unemployment rate greater than 4 per cent represents abnormal conditions.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Keep talking. The hon. member must fill in a little more time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I hope this matter will be referred to the committee with the consent of the House. We have had some discussion on the matter tonight and a motion has been moved to send this clause back to committee. I hope the committee will be prepared to take another look at the proposition before us.
I think most members will agree that 4 per cent is not the correct figure. It should be zero per cent. Anything beyond that is the responsibility of the government. That is not likely to happen; it has not been suggested by the Economic Council of Canada or any other bona fide organization. For those who are changing jobs, seeking initial employment and in training positions it would be reasonable to expect between 1 per cent and 2 per cent as the amount that can be expected within reason without taking into consideration government economic policy and major displacements of labour effected by the government's position.
I ask hon. members to support this amendment to send the bill back to committee. Nothing will really be lost. The dates of implementation are written into the bill. If the bill is not passed for another week or two, nothing will be lost. It is very important that we do not accept 4 per cent unemployment as a normal level. I hope that 4 per cent is not written into the Unemployment Insurance Act as our aim and the normal rate of unemployment to be expected, and that anything above 4 per cent should receive special government consideration.
No one who is interested in the labour force of Canada can agree that 4 per cent is a reasonable or desirable figure. I hope that all members will oppose the implementation of the 4 per cent level and that the committee will see if the percentage can be very substantially reduced.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief because we have discussed this point on several occasions-second reading, in committee when we were discussing the white paper and when we were analyzing many of the briefs submitted by various organizations.
I think the hon. member's point is that under the existing unemployment insurance program the financial formula is such that the employer and the employee

June 14, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 share the cost and the government contributes an extra 20 per cent toward the maintenance of the unemployment insurance fund. The new concept for the future varies somewhat from this. For the first time it takes into consideration the moral obligation of the government when the rate of unemployment in this country is higher than any of us like to see. I do not think that any member of this House supports any level of unemployment. We would all like to see an utopian state where it is possible to count the number of unemployed on one hand. This does not even happen in the socialist countries of Sweden, Poland, Russia or anywhere else. It is too much to expect.
What we are in effect doing is evaluating all the opportunities of financing. We shied away from the American concept where unemployment is financed completely by employers because the employers in that country, having accepted this financial burden, have been successfull over the years in preventing any improvements to the plan. They have acted as watchdogs over the plan to the point where the plan now leaves very much to be desired.
In effect, we have developed a formula in such a way that the government will become active in the participation of the plan when the unemployment figures in this country rise above a certain level. Under the existing plan, at the present rate of unemployment the contribution of the government would be $176 million. Under the proposed plan, the contribution of the federal government will be $369 million. Everyone can see what a considerable increase this will be. Almost $200 million will come from the government coffers as the result of a rate of unemployment of 6.5 per cent. This should be, and is, an incentive for the economists of this country to control the rate of unemployment.
Why did we choose 4 per cent and not 3 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent? This is not an indication that the government accepts 4 per cent as an acceptable rate of unemployment. This has happened to be the rate of unemployment over the last decade beginning with 1959 or 1960. This is not desirable. The Economic Council of Canada in their various reports have suggested 3 per cent, 3.5 per cent and 3.8 per cent. This depends on many factors, such as the birth rate and so on, which affect the rate of unemployment in this country.
The figure of 4 per cent happened to be the most practical method to determine the rate of unemployment whereby the government makes its unique contribution to the fund in the form of financial considerations. At 4 per cent the contribution of the government would be approximately what it has been over the past decade. Had 5 per cent been the figure that the contribution over the last decade had been equal to, that is the figure we would have used. Had it been 3 per cent, that is the figure we would have used. It is simply a mechanism or an indication at what level the government should assume the financial burden of the plan. It worked out at 4 per cent. Certainly at 4 per cent or 5 per cent the financial burden of the government will be approximately what it is today.
I think the financing of the plan in this way is a big improvement because it thrusts the whole burden on the
government when the rate of unemployment becomes excessive. For this reason I ask all responsible parties in the House to reject the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we have made great progress and have had a very good debate during which all parties have had an opportunity to state their opposition to certain parts of this bill. I would now hope we could call it ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), agreed to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 9.50 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Tuesday, June 15, 1971