1975-05-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the deplorable situation presently prevailing in the forest industry in Quebec and in view of the very high unemployment rate which affects the Canadian society and economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House consider the opportunity to provide immediate assistance to the forest industry in order to revive the economy of our area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion that is self-explanatory. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That in view of the Washington announcement that a swimming pool will be constructed in the White House and that the President of the United States is prohibiting donations from business corporations and labour unions, that no donation over $1,000 will be accepted, that the total cost of the pool will be approximately $52,400, the House calls upon the Prime Minister to immediately follow this example of full disclosure by announcing forthwith all details surrounding construction of a $200,000 swimming pool at his official residence at 24 Sussex Drive with the names of all donors and the amounts donated being
made public immediately in order to clearly establish whether or not improprieties or conflict of interest factors exist.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that educational institutions, government departments and Crown corporations are involved in what appears to be a deliberate scheme to identify a society with the government of Canada by the use of stationery and other devices, and in view of the fact that neither the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) nor the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) appear to know the background or to be knowledgeable enough to inform the House as to how this deplorable situation was allowed to develop, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That an immediate investigation take place pursuant to the Inquiries Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime

May 15, 1975
Oral Questions
Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Finance said, and I quote:
The suggestions advanced in the working papers did not constitute a firm set of proposals by the federal government-
That was with regard to the consensus program. Now that the meeting and discussions have taken place, is it the government's intention to put a firm set of comprehensive restraint proposals before the provinces, labour and business?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the proposals that were put forward for discussion purposes only are being followed up by discussions with the labour unions, the business organizations and possibly other groups. If out of these discussions emerge a more definitive set of proposals, of course they would be made. However, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, in a process of this kind we can only make progress if there is in advance some indication of the kind of support there would be for the proposals.


INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF MORE MEETINGS WITH PROVINCES, BUSINESS AND LABOUR SEEKING CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Are there in fact more meetings scheduled with the representatives of labour or business before the government makes this assessment as to the propects of a consensus program and the presentation of a budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the ministers who have had the most recent discussions have been discussing those meetings with their colleagues. We have not yet had a thorough appraisal and until that is completed I cannot answer the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The whole thing seems to be in an even greater state of confusion than I dared anticipate. Could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister, since the Minister of Finance has said that a good deal is expected of the provinces if a consensus is to be really comprehensive, to canvass the provincial premiers to assess their reactions, even to the fragmentary and informal suggestions that they have received from the Minister of Finance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it would be our intentions to have discussions with the provincial governments since, of course, in many areas the provincial authorities do have jurisdiction and authority. Whether it would be at the prime ministerial level or otherwise has not yet been decided.


INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF MEETINGS WITH WOMEN'S GROUPS IN SEEKING CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Acting Minister of Finance. As the government during their consensus discussions have met with various groups, hopeful-

ly from all sectors of our population, including, for example, the CLC and certain business representatives, would the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether any similar meetings have been held with women's groups, such as the National Council of Women, with a view to arriving at a meaningful consensus, and if not, why not?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the government believes that one should not discriminate against women. If one is talking to the business community, one should not try to sort out the male side of the business community from the female side. Consequently, in looking at the large groups, government, business and labour, there has been no attempt to make special arrangements to meet the female side of any of those institutions.


INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER MEETINGS WITH CONSUMER GROUPS SEEKING CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Acting Minister of Finance. As the representatives of the government have recently met during the inflation talks with certain labour union leaders and only yesterday with representatives of business, would the Acting Minister of Finance indicate whether, subsequent to the one hastily called meeting in Ottawa in early April, he has held any further meetings with consumer or social worker groups, such as the Canadian Council on Social Development?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge no further meetings have been held at the ministerial level with the groups mentioned. There have, however, been what are known as consultations at the technical level, which are meetings between officials rather than ministers.


INFLATION-REASON FOR REJECTION OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS FOR RESTRAINT BY BUSINESS-POSSIBILITY OF COUNTERPROPOSALS BY BUSINESS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the representatives of Canadian business with whom the minister met yesterday seemed to have rejected the government's proposals for wage and price control, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether he has been informed of the reasons for that rejection, and can he say whether the business community has given the government a shopping list of proposals, as the Canadian Labour Congress has?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question, perhaps inadvertently, has conveyed the wrong impression. We did not put a proposal to the businessmen for wage and price controls. They may have expressed opinions on that, but according to the report that I had of the meeting, they were prepared to discuss constructively further with the minister and other ministers the whole question of seeking a consensus and exercising restraint in the economy.
May 15, 1975


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question. In connection with the meeting, can the minister indicate what was the nature of the reservations expressed yesterday, and what was the response of the government to those reservations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the businessmen themselves have not reached any kind of unanimous position, that some were very much in support of the government proposals, others were doubtful of them and others proposed other means. We have agreed to continue discussions with them.


INFLATION-SUGGESTION ONLY RECOURSE OF GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL IS RESTRICTIVE FISCAL POLICY
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the three options posed by the Minister of Finance in the last several weeks for solving the alleged problems of inflation, namely compulsory wage and price controls, which has been rejected by the minister himself, and voluntary controls, which seems to have been rejected by those with whom the minister has been consulting, is it the Prime Minister's view that he has no choice now except to bring in restrictive fiscal and monetary policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. Nor would I agree with the premise that voluntary restraint has ceased to be a possible alternative. What I did note is that the hon. member was not talking about inflation but about alleged inflation, which is very interesting to hear.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Solicitor General.
In view of the fact that no legislation has empowered Canada to become a member of Interpol, would the hon. minister tell whether there is any document empowering Canada to become a member of that international organization? If so, would the minister be willing to table that document?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there is correspondence setting out the methods by which Canada became a member of Interpol after the war. No legislation was necessary, but I will look into the possibility of whether these letters and correspondence can be filed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a
supplementary.
In view of the fact that communist countries such as Roumania, Yugoslavia and Cuba are already members of Interpol and are thus in a position to secure information concerning Canadian citizens through that organization and then pass such information along to other communist
Oral Questions
countries, members of Interpol or not, does the hon. Solicitor General foresee in view of that situation, any potential danger for Canada's security?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. Interpol is used simply as a means of exchanging information on criminals activity. It is not used for security or intelligence matters in any other way, and the fact that Roumania, Yugoslavia and Cuba are members of Interpol does not constitute any threat as far as we can see to Canada or its citizens.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, and I direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has announced he is ready to proceed with his price justification legislation, and since this would obviously form an important part of the government's anti-inflationary measures, will the Prime Minister explain to the House why the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was not present yesterday at a meeting of the business community in order to explain this legislation and perhaps put it forward as a means of getting them to agree to voluntary restraints?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in this government one minister relies on all his colleagues as he knows they will represent him in a very forthright way.


INFLATION-INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT WITH REGARD TO PRICE JUSTIFICATION LEGISLATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the government to proceed with the so-called price restraint or anti-profiteering legislation before the end of this session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Theat is certainly a distinct possibility, Mr. Speaker, but it would depend on when this session is intended to end. As the hon. member knows, between now and the end of June, the normal time for adjourning for the summer break, there are more or less 15 government days. If the hon. member glances at the order paper, to which there will be an addition as we will most likely have a budget which will require several days debate, he will realize that we cannot possibly pass all the legislation this government finds desirable, and on which the opposition has been dragging its feet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Why do you not provide some leadership.

May 15, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West.


BANKRUPTCY
Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the minister if he is able to tell the House and the country why an apparent massive fraud by the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, which aligned itself so closely with the Secretary of State's office in terms of grants, deceptive wording and stationery, was allowed to operate without the apparent knowledge of the minister or monitoring by him or his department?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Well, Mr. Speaker, without accepting the language of the question, what I have done in response to the question raised by his colleague yesterday was to pull together the material and I would be pleased to share it when it is together which should be tomorrow or the next day.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


AIR CANADA
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would the Minister of Transport advise the House to what extent the society is involved with Air Canada and the Canadian Transportation Commission and why it is that the practice of Air Canada seems to be to issue both first-class and economy passes to the employees of private companies engaged in the travel industry. Is this a practice of Air Canada, and why is it being allowed to continue?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I have great difficulty relating that question to a supplementary by the hon. member.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. I should like the minister to tell the House whether in his attempt to seek a consensus on restraint he is communicating with

the representatives of the primary agricultural producers of this country who have been hit the hardest by inflation. We want to make sure that the new program put forward will not give them the short end of the stick, once again, as has been the case in the past.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, at an earlier stage there were meetings with representatives of the agricultural industry across Canada. They were quite extensive meetings. There have been continuing consultations by the Minister of Agriculture with these groups.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Acting Minister of Finance would agree to make a statement in the House concerning what plans there are for agriculture in the restraint program proposed by the government.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to look into that question before giving an answer.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister would confirm or deny to the House that one of the factors in the intolerable delay and stalling in respect of setting up a public inquiry into the SIU is that a number of the ministers of his cabinet including, I am lead to believe, the Prime Minister himself received some type of assistance during the election campaign.


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


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on a point of order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Is that question out of order, Mr. Speaker, and if so, why?


Mr. Speaker:: There is no obligation on any minister to answer any question. If there is no answer forthcoming, there is no need to pursue it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I believe he is ready to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the forecast
May 15, 1975

threat of a grasshopper infestation in the prairies as serious or more serious than last year, can the minister assure the House that there will be adequate supplies of chemical to combat the threat.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that in order to make sure that the supplies are available, because of shipping conditions, aircraft are being used to bring in supplies of the chemical. I have been given assurance that everything will be done to make sure there is a proper supply on hand. I am waiting for an updated report which I should have tomorrow but which I do not have today.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, in view of the high cost of the chemical, is it the minister's intention to institute a program to give assistance to the farmers to help them in their part of the cost?


Eugene Whelan: Not at the present time, Mr. Speaker.


HARBOURS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I hope that today he will be able to shed some light on the degree to which the government must now be asked to or must participate in the honouring of certain guarantees on loans made by the Maritime Employers' Association.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is known that loans have been made to the Maritime Employers' Association. I believe that in May of last year a loan of $7.2 million was made to MEA, through the banks, in order to finance the buy-out and the operational deficits of the organization. I know that in a week the MEA will probably have to refinance its organization because otherwise they might not be in a position to keep it going and to meet their obligations. What we are doing now is to look at the structure of MEA and the kind of relationship they have with the union. The first priority now is to maintain payments to the workers up to the end of June, and after that we will have to move one way or the other.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a supplementary question for clarification, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister telling us that at this point in time the government is not prepared to accept its responsibility with respect to guarantees in default of loans? Is the minister indicating that at present the government will not underwrite those loans in the event that MEA is not able to meet its requirements to the banks because of the relationship generally of one port to another in eastern Canada?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. Last year when we lent this money there was an understanding that it would be repaid with a surcharge of 20 cents or 40 cents. I believe it was 40 cents, and 20 cents was supposed to be
Oral Questions
paid back to the government, ten cents to each of the two banks involved in the deal.


Mr. Fairweather:: Yes, the way I pay my loans.


Jean Marchand: Of course, we want the banks to stick to the agreement because we have to maintain payments to the workers. I cannot give a clear answer. They are now negotiating about how they will proceed to the end of June when we will consider a new scheme in order to maintain the port of Montreal in operation.


GOVERNMENT INTENTION WITH REGARD TO DEFICIT OF MARITIME EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether or not it is the intention of the government to underwrite the deficit of the Maritime Employers' Association with respect to the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. This is a fairly straightforward question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has been dealing with this very subject. I have nothing to add to what he said.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it arises out of the recent tragic rash of apparently racially motivated violence in Toronto, culminating in the death of a youth in my riding last week and of a five year old girl this week. I am sure the government is concerned that the immigration green paper process, in focusing attention on immigrants and their effects on Canadian society-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -not excite, racism, as some fear it is already doing. Will the Prime Minister consult with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the minister in charge of multiculturalism and the Secretary of State responsible for citizenship and national unity, to ensure that there is an intensive program in conjunction with the immigration green paper process to acquaint the public with the positive contributions to Canada which immigrants have made and are making to Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -economically as well as socially, and to promote a greater sense of community and understanding in our multicultural society?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is making a very valid

May 15, 1975
Oral Questions
suggestion on a matter of great concern to this government, and I will certainly follow it up in discussions with the ministers, as he suggests.
In the meantime I want to repeat to this House what I have said before, both inside and outside of Canada, that the green paper is not a policy paper. It is one meant for discussion. But in any and all events, the federal government is committed, and will remain committed, to a policy which is non-discriminatory as between races, ethnic origins, language groups, countries of origin or religions; and second, that it will continue to rely heavily on an immigration policy which lends emphasis to the necessity and desirability of reuniting families; and third, we will always keep in mind Canada's desire to make exceptions in the case of refugees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Was the Hon. Paul Martin, Canada's High Commissioner to Britain, stating government policy when he said in a speech to the Canadian-United Kingdom Chamber of Commerce, as reported in this morning's press, that the Foreign Investment Review Act is not intended as a barrier to foreign investment in Canada and that, and I quote, "Canada today is one of the least restrictive of industrialized countries with respect to foreign investment"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously that is a statement of opinion by the High Commissioner. I am glad it came out so clearly and in such forthright language. It will put an end to the innuendos about Paul Martin.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT VIEW OF EFFECTIVENESS OF ACT
Reginald Cyril Symes: Once again the Prime Minister has demonstrated his ability to not answer questions. I will try a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that at latest count 55 foreign takeovers have been approved out of a total of 66 applications processed, a rate of approval which is running at almost 85 per cent, does the minister consider the act to be operating successfully and in a way which will reduce the domination of our economy by foreign, and particularly United States, corporations.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think the act is working very well, and if there were more interest on the part of the hon. member's party, he would be able to receive answers by putting questions to me when I appear before the standing committee. I have appeared before that

standing committee on two previous occasions for two hours each time, and there has not been one question from his party.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The government is batting 200 here. Neither the Prime Minister nor the minister has answered the question. I will try once again and ask the minister, who is responsible for these questions in the House, with respect to the particular takeover on February 25 of this year by Pacific Petroleum of oil and gas properties owned by Wizard Oils Limited and two other Canadian firms, can the minister explain to the House why he considers it of significant benefit to Canada to increase the foreign control of Canada's petroleum industry beyond the level it has already reached, which is 99 per cent foreign-owned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that despite the minister's previous comment, the hon. member is not following that; this is precisely the kind of question that ought to be asked in the committee and not here in the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government decided to extend diplomatic recognition to the new government in South Viet Nam?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, on my instructions, yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Department of External Affairs sent a telegram to the foreign ministry of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet Nam. The telegram informed the foreign ministry that the government of Canada thereby recognized the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet Nam as the sole legal government of South Viet Nam. The telegram also expressed the proposal of the Canadian government that discussions be entered into as soon as it is convenient to both sides with a view to establishing diplomatic relations.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question because this is very interesting. Has the government agreed to recognize the new government in Cambodia in light of events now taking place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that was done some time ago.
May 15, 1975


HOUSING
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and it is further to his reply to me on May 2 that he would have to find ways to get housing programs moving faster. Given the critical situation in the housing sector, I would like to ask the minister if, in connection with the consensus program, he plans to meet with his provincial counterparts prior to the presentation of the budget, and if he will be proposing shelter guidelines at any such meetings.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to my colleagues the ministers of housing in all the provinces in the last several days. I also have met with them during the consultation process. We continue a very amicable, constructive, and co-operative relationship.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Could the minister say if there will be any formal meeting with the provincial ministers of housing prior to the presentation of the budget?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Formally or informally, I will be in touch with them, and we will be discussing all matters of mutual interest.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Finance correctly enunciating government policy when he categorically rejected involuntary wage and price restraints as one of the options open to the government to deal with the present problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is the first news I have heard of this. I wonder if the hon. member is not being misinformed when he quotes the Minister of Finance as having said that.


Gerald William Baldwin: I ask the Prime Minister directly whether the government has rejected involuntary wage and price restraints as one of the options open to deal with the present economic situation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad the hon. member got round to asking the question directly. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


LABOUR DISPUTES IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CONTROL VIOLENCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. With regard to the escalation of labour disputes, and the considerable violence attached thereto, which has been such that the premier of Quebec has likened it almost to a form of war, what measures has the federal government considered to help deal with this situation and to limit the disputes within the confines of law and order?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the disputes are now arising as a result of a provincial inquiry into the construction unions in Quebec, and the whole area remains within provincial jurisdiction. We stand ready to hold discussions with the province, if it wants to turn to us for advice, but we do not feel that it is desirable for us to intervene into one of their areas of constitutional jurisdiction.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister sent, or will he be sending, a message of commendation to the United States government for the decisive and necessary action taken to curb acts of international piracy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I have received one or two messages from the United States government explaining the reasons for their action and the outcome of the action, but I have not yet replied.


Robert Muir: When the hon. gentleman has an opportunity to go over the whole matter, will he be replying along the lines I have mentioned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to think about that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the recent policy statement of the minister of industry of Quebec indicating that his province now agrees that new foreign investment projects should be allowed to proceed only if they meet conditions which appear to be those required under the Foreign Investment

May 15, 1975
Oral Questions
Review Act, can the minister now say exactly when the government will proclaim in force Part II of that act dealing with new foreign investments?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be discussing this matter with my colleagues in the very near future.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Labour.
In view of the fact that the compulsory return to work was not welcomed by longshoremen and that several basic areas of conflict have yet to be settled to the satisfaction of the parties concerned, has the hon. minister considered the possibility of settling the matter in a satisfactory way, so as to avoid work stoppages for any minor reason?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been watching the situation closely. I think one of the principal elements still remaining, and a subject of controversy, is the question of overtime. My advice is that the employer organization, the MEA, and the union are endeavouring to work this matter out, but in the meantime the men have returned to work and are working the normal hours.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Several months prior to the election of 1974 the then minister of fisheries advised fishermen that there would be a transfer of fishing wharves from the Department of Transport to the authority of the minister of fisheries, that policy in respect to wharfage would be reconsidered and the new policy enunciated. Would the Minister of Transport advise the House if these wharves have indeed been transferred to the Minister of State (Fisheries), and if so, why are wharfage fees still being assessed and fishermen being charged in court for non-payment of these while the new policy is pending?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, actually they have been transferred to the Department of Fisheries. Indeed, after we talked together yesterday, I sent that note to the department. I hope to get the answer on the fees they have to pay, and for which I have no explanation at all.


Fred Alward McCain: Will the minister instruct his staff to resist from attempts to collect wharfage fees until such time as the policy is clear and equitable for all rather than pointed at a few small fishermen?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I have the answer, I will see what I can do about it.


CONSERVATION PROGRAM-DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATIONS ON TRANSPORTATION AND TAX POLICIES AIMED AT SAVING FUEL-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On February 6 the minister announced the adoption of a conservation program for the use of energy in Canada. Can he tell us today whether he has had consultations with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance about a comprehensive transportation policy and tax policy geared at saving fuel?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there have been interdepartmental consultations involving those two as well as other departments.


James McPhail Gillies: Can the minister advise when he will be making a report to the House on the effectiveness of this program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will be glad to consider that, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. According to a recent press report, a new native housing program is being proposed, one which would build some
20,000	units over the next five years. On March 10, in committee, one of the minister's officials, Mr. Teron, said of the native housing program, "We are still committed to the 50,000 units for five years." Why the drastic reduction in the number of starts planned when we are facing such a serious housing shortage?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there is no reduction in planned starts. I believe Mr. Teron was referring to those which come under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for Metis and non-status Indians whereas I believe the other reference made related to those under my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for natives on reserves and status Indians off reserves.
May 15, 1975


Walter (Wally) Firth: Is the minister's goal for housing production under the native housing program for 20,000 or 50,000 units? Given the high unemployment rates and extreme poverty on reserves across this country as well as the incredibly low income levels, how does the minister intend to supplement incomes so that native people can afford a one per cent mortgage interest rate, let alone eight per cent or ten per cent?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, without going into great detail on all the programs the intention of my ministry is not to supplement income. In this case, we made housing available and we are doing it in concert with the native people. The programs have an initial objective of 50,000 units. We are working with Metis and non-status Indian organizations across the country to try to improve the delivery system. The gains are slower than either of us would wish, but there are gains to be made and they are building on those. This is the type of thing which native people are doing themselves and are doing exceedingly well.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yesterday the minister outlined to the House the activities that he and his department have been engaged in during the past year which have allowed the economy to drift into the most serious industrial and trade situation which this country has faced since the depression of the thirties. Will the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what plans he has, if any, to introduce policies which will make our industrial products more competitive with those of foreign countries which are stealing our markets in Canada as well as the export market in increasing quantities every day and which is the cause for our unemployment being well over 7 per cent.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to come to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs this afternoon. My main estimates are there. I would very much look forward to discussing this important question with him.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows the committee meetings, as far as he is concerned, are a loss because he takes up the ten minutes allowed by saying absolutely nothing. I would ask him this. In view of the fact that the program which he proudly outlined yesterday has been so weak and badly directed that it has allowed our economy to slip into the most serious situation we have faced in 40 years, does he not believe that it is time for him to either ship up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: Shape up. It is very simple, no matter which the minister would do, he would do it weakly and poorly. Is it not time that he either did the job as he is supposed to do or got out and let somebody else do it better?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, given the new enthusiasm on the government side for attendance in committee, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, if I can bring him from the back benches. My question concerns the consideration of estimates of the Privy Council office by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, which has so far been refused the presence of the relevant deputy minister, Mr. Michael Pitfield. I wonder if the Prime Minister himself, as the responsible minister, is prepared to face that standing committee, to defend the estimates and explain the activities of the Privy Council office and the Prime Minister's office.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for wanting to see a little more of me. Let me say that I am in the House every day and am prepared to answer whatever questions are recognized as being in order. So far as the committee's proceedings are concerned, the Acting Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council, will be there at the next meeting of the committee and I am sure he will handle himself with his usual ability.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we are at last to have a responsible minister attending that committee. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the relevant deputy ministers, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Pitfield, will also be in attendance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may have been here the other day and heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert say that when he was Prime Minister of the country he certainly followed the tradition of never having the secretary of the cabinet appear before the parliamentary committee. I think he was dead right.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, is it the position of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Charles Joseph Clark: -that the powers of the Privy Council office are now the same as they were ten
years ago?

May 15, 1975
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


REQUEST THAT FEMALE CADETS BE PAID ON THE SAME BASIS AS MALES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the concern of the national cadet organizations of Canada, and as cadets will soon be leaving for summer camp, will the minister indicate what action has been taken to apply the rule contained in Bill C-16, namely, that females will be able to qualify for payment for their service on the same basis as males?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe on an earlier occasion the House leader indicated that Bill C-16 has been given high priority. I can say, further, that it is our intention to provide, through other means, pay and allowances for girl cadets when they attend camp, on the same basis as for boy cadets.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In case this does not happen, will the minister consider a reasonable suggestion and remove clause 21 from Bill C-16? If he were to bring the bill before the House it would pass within one hour and everybody would be happy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When Canada made haste to recognize Saigon as the capital of the new regime, was the minister given some assurance that there would not be a union in the near future of North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam and that South Viet Nam would not be governed from Hanoi?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not admit the premise of the question, and the answer to the second part is, no.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one supplementary question? In view of the answer to the second part of my question, am I to gather that the minister received no assurance whatsoever that such a union will not take place in the near future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I sought no such assurance; neither did I receive one.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then, why all the haste in recognizing the provisional government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, quite a number of other countries have already taken that action. It seemed to Canada that it was an appropriate time to recognize the reality of the situation and to put itself in a position to

deal with concerns affecting Canadians and others in South Viet Nam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Now that the minister has announced his decision to decentralize his department's data processing work by establishing five regional centres outside Ottawa, will he inform the House when the Atlantic region office will be established and what will be the criteria for choosing a location in the Atlantic region?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the decentralization program, which has commenced in Winnipeg, will be phased in over the next three or four years. The criteria will depend on the number of tax returns filed with the Atlantic region, the availability of part-time and full-time workers, the availability of space and availability of communication links.


Andrew Hogan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the heavy concentration of provincial population and unemployment in the Sydney industrial area, would the minister meet with the minister responsible for DREE and with the Secretary of State for External Affairs before taking his decision?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly meet with my two colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who carries at the front of his mind and the top of his heart the affairs of Cape Breton.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the House if the new policy, details of which were apparently either given or leaked to the press yesterday, will include the principle of more responsibility and authority to be vested in the minister for all modes of transportation, or will there again be some diffusion of his control? Is the minister himself to assume more responsibility in the Department of Transport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a story that was published in the Globe and Mail. Newspapermen get information from many sources; some of the information is right, some of it is wrong, so I do not think I should comment on this.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say if the policy paper he is to bring
May 15, 1975

down, and which we discussed in the past few days in our debates will include statements of obvious principles, or is a method for bringing the principles into a concrete and viable form also included in the policy statement? I ask this because so far a great deal of time has been spent on statements of the obvious.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, some, of course, think everything is obvious; for others, it is somewhat more complicated. Everybody cannot be a genius in this world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: No doubt, if we want to have a national policy, it should include some principles. But I do not think we should restrict our policy to statements of principle or to general policies that will have no bearing on the system as it exists now. Without doubt, while we are working on a philosophy or a policy, we are working on projects which will be related to this philosophy.


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in order to reduce a little of the confusion about government policy, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he intended to indicate that there might not be a budget between now and the end of June when he said that in all probability there would be one. I ask this because of the firm statement the Minister of Finance made several times, to the effect that there would be, hopefully, a budget before the end of May?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. When I said in all probability, I merely indicated that we are all in the hands of God in this matter.


An hon. Member:: So, there is a higher authority.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has finally found a higher authority than his own on which to blame things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would ask, who is giving the House correct information, the Acting Prime Minister, who said before the Prime Minister arrived that no decision has yet been made by his colleagues as to whether there will be future meetings on the subject of consensus, or the Prime Minis-
Privilege-Mr. Andre
ter, who assured the House after he arrived that there would be future meetings?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I was answering a member of the NDP, I believe, relative to meetings with businessmen was that, according to my understanding of the meetings, they did not consider the matter closed and that although opinions were divided, we expect there will be further meetings with them.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader tell us what the business will be for the rest of this week and for next week? I sympathize with him in his attempts to arrange the time of the House efficiently in light of the indecisive approach taken by the Prime Minister to economic issues and in light of the discussion which has just gone on. Can he also tell us whether we shall be debating the budget in the first two weeks of June?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if there was as much unity on the other side of the House as there is on this side, we would have far less difficulty in arranging the program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Today we shall proceed with Bill C-47. When that is concluded, I have in mind calling Bills C-24, C-58 and C-20. I should like to have some latitude for rearranging the order, but those are the bills which are next on the list.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) raised a question of privilege. Despite its intricacies, I think, after a day's reflection, that it still boils down to a suggestion that in some way the Chair ought to sit in appeal on decisions taken or procedures followed in a standing committee. I need only refer hon. members to the decision reached by my predecessor in December, 1973, which is appropriately reported in the Journals. He ruled, then, that no practice of the House exists under which the Chair sits in appeal of decisions taken in the standing committees.
The procedures for discussing points of order in a standing committee are well known to hon. members. I refer to the procedure of the steering committee there. The reports

May 15, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Andre
of the steering committee are considered by the committee and, in turn, so are appeals from the ruling of the chairman of the committee. The process of discussing procedure in committees on matters which are reported to the House by way of a motion for concurrence is also well known to hon. members.
In relation to estimates, the use of allotted days is provided for in Standing Orders. In addition, there is recourse to a substantive motion by an hon. member in the private members' hour and, finally, there is recourse to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization if it is felt that existing procedures are not satisfactory.
Unless steps are taken to change the existing practices which are well established and well known, and which, frankly, have good reasons behind them, I cannot in any way depart from the reasoning of my predecessor or the long established practice that this House will not entertain appeals in relation to the procedures of the standing committees.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise most reluctantly on a point of order to seek clarification of your ruling during the question just before I thought I was going to get an answer from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It is my belief, and if I am wrong I hope you will correct me, that out of frustration on this side of the House it is within our responsibility here to try, if necessary, to goad certain cabinet ministers, and in some cases the Prime Minister himself, into making some sort of sensible reply instead of the usual evasions.
I am not sure whether the question I directed to the Prime Minister today was ruled out of order by you, or whether you were under the impression the Prime Minister was not going to reply. It was my impression that he half rose in his seat and was ready to reply when you moved on to recognize another member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) raises a proper question concerning my recognition of another member immediately following him at the time he asked a question. There were two difficulties. First, the hon. member put a question which seemed to me to have very argumentative connotations; that is to say, that the reason for holding an investigation had to do with political patronage or political donations. This will surely be recognized by all hon. members as having a clear argumentative connotation attached to it.
In any case, the question was not about to be answered: at least, that was my impression. For both reasons, then, I decided to move on to the recognition of another hon. member. Whether it was clearly for the one or the other reason, I can only console the hon. member by saying that the presence of two difficulties at the same time led me to my decision to go on to another hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing

this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-33, an act respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,253, 1,463, 1,701, 1,751, 1,762, 1,768, 1,776, 1,837, 2,042, 2,055, 2,100, 2,140, 2,206, 2,313, 2,329 and 2,335.
If questions Nos. 1,200, 1,460, 1,685 and 1,743 could be made orders for returns these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What impact does the policy of regional rates for government employees have in terms of reducing the levels of regional disparity?
2.	What is the attitude of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion on the issue of regional rates for government employees?
3.	What would be the total annual cost of regional rate elimination for all government employees expressed as a percentage of the 1974-75 budget for the Department?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Treasury Board Secretariat as follows:
1.	There is no known method of accurately measuring the impact.
2.	The policy regarding scales of pay and regional rate is decided by the government, and followed by the department.
3.	Elimination of regional rates would cost the government an additional $79,300,000. (Salaries and benefit expenditures) Dree departmental program budget for 1974-75 is $513,033,000. Cost of $79,300,000 represents 15.5 per cent of $513,033,000. Source for DREE Budget: Canada Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975. (Blue Book of Estimates).


Mr. Howie: Are there any plans to attempt to develop any deep-water ports in the Atlantic Provinces and, if so, which ports will be developed?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: An offer has been made to the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for the development in each province of one deep water port at a site to be proposed by the province. Provincial authorities have this offer under consideration. In so far as the Ministry of Transport is concerned: Ever since the trend to deeper draft vessels, particularly in the bulk crude oil and refined petroleum products trades, became noticeable some ten years ago, the ministry has devoted considerable attention and research to the port requirements that might reasonably be expected to arise in eastern Canada as a result of this technological breakthrough. Private industry also has shown itself to be well aware of this challenge and thus there have been, during the last few years, several plans to attempt to develop deepwater oil ports, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. To date, the following deepwater oil terminals have been developed: Mispec Point (east of Saint John, N.B.), Point Tupper (Strait of Canso); and Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland. In addition to these existing facilities, new proposals are currently under consideration by various interested agencies at Lorneville (west of Saint John); Melford Point (Strait of Canso); and Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland. It is not possible to say definitely which projects will be implemented in the near future.


Mr. Holmes: 1.	Did the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board jointly announce a new $40 million storage programme as part of the new Feed Grains Policy on July 26, 1974 and, if so, how much of this $40 million has been allocated for storage facilities?
2.	(a) What is the number of storage facilities (b) where are their locations (c) who are the owners (d) what are the sums of money allocated for each facility?
3.	Has representation for funds been received from Southwestern Ontario and what percentage of the $40 million will be allocated to that area?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Canadian Wheat Board and Agriculture Canada as follow: 1. Yes. The details of a new program have not been fully developed. A part of the funding is to be used to improve storage facilities but the actual amount will depend on the needs for additional storage that are identified. No facilities have been funded under the program to date. The government has assumed the carrying costs of domestic feed grain reserve stocks up to a maximum of 10 million bushels to be located in Thunder Bay (and a small quantity at Halifax). The annual cost of this part of the program is estimated at $4.2 millions.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Storage project proposals which have been received are confidential. Assistance which may be provided will
Order Paper Questions
be based on the merits of each application to local and national storage requirements.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, did Canadian Pacific hotels advertise by means of a coloured centrefold in the February issue of Travel and Leisure?
2.	Does the magazine have a circulation in Canada?
3.	Is the cost of such advertising a deductible expense before corporation taxes under existing legislation?
4.	Did Canadian National also advertise in the same edition of the magazine?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Canadian National Railways and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1 and 2. See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 171 dd.
3.	Section 19 of the Income Tax Act provides that advertising costs are not allowable as deductible expenses before taxes if the advertisement is included in a nonCanadian publication and is directed primarily to a market in Canada. The C.P. hotel advertisement clearly is directed to the American market and thus the cost would be an admissible expense.
4.	A 1/6 page black and white advertisement was placed in the February issue of Travel and Leisure Magazine.


Mr. Herbert: By department, other than the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Manpower and Immigration, External Affairs and National Defence for the month of April 1975, what is the budgeted number of public servants who would be assigned to positions other than in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Agriculture Canada, 11; Communications, 1; Consumer and Corporate Affairs, 0; Energy, Mines and Resources, 0; Environment, 0; Finance, 0; Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 0; Insurance, 0; Justice, 0; Labour, 3; National Health and Welfare 32; National Revenue 20; Post Office 0; Prime Minister and Privy Council 0; Public Works, 3; Regional Economic Expansion, 0; Science and Technology, 0; Secretary of State, 6; Solicitor General, 0; Supply and Services, 7; Transport, 3; Treasury Board, 0; Urban Affairs, 0; Veterans Affairs, 2.


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 1.	How many loan applications were submitted by the Quebec farmers in 1974, under the Farm Improvement Loans Act?
2.	What criteria does the Unemployment Insurance Commission use to establish that a person is a farmer?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Man-

May 15, 1975
Order Paper Questions
power and Immigration as follows: 1. Applications for loans under guaranteed loans plans are made directly to chartered banks and other designated lenders. Records are maintained centrally by the government only in respect of loans granted under the guarantee and no data is available on the number of applications submitted to lenders.
2. As a general rule, persons engaged in the growing of agricultural products or livestock are considered to be farmers for the purpose of the applicable unemployment insurance legislation. Some examples are: (a) the growing of grain, fruit or vegetables, (b) livestock farming or dairying, (c) operation of a chicken farm, (d) the raising of pigs. Self-employment as a farmer is not insurable employment under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Consequently, in order for a farmer to qualify for unemployment insurance benefit he must have been employed in insurable employment for a minimum of 8 weeks in the qualifying period, generally in the 52 weeks prior to filing his claim. If a farmer files a claim and fulfils this qualifying condition, his entitlement to benefit is then dependent on the extent of his farming activities. If a person is engaged in farming to a major extent, that is, where it is shown to be his principal means of livelihood, he generally fails to prove that he is unemployed under the Unemployment Insurance Act and Regulations, and therefore is not entitled to benefit. However, even if a person is engaged in farming as his principal means of livelihood, such a person may be entitled to benefit during the off-season (October 1 to March 31) if he proves that he does not work on his farm during the off-season or that the work he performs is so minor in extent that it would not prevent him from accepting full-time employment. Concerning a person employed in agriculture in a capacity other than selfemployment as a farmer, such a person, on becoming unemployed, is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits under the same conditions as claimants generally. However, he is regarded as having worked a full working week and consequently is not entitled to any benefit during any week in which he works at least five days, and an aggregate of forty hours.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With growing immigration affecting learning processes in the schools, particularly in British Columbia, is the government contemplating any financial assistance to those immigrants so that they may keep abreast of children already using the language of instruction?
2.	Will the government consider increasing the assistance in those areas receiving large numbers of new immigrants into the school system who do not speak the English language?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, the following is the reply: 1 and 2. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is aware that the number of children in primary and secondary schools whose first language is not English or French has increased. The Department of Manpower and Immigration funds various voluntary agencies who are involved in direct settlement assistance to newly arrived immigrants. Funding of these agencies is based on the known community needs and as such, where greater needs are identified

by a voluntary agency, the department is prepared to consider additional support. However, it must be remembered that, since education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the provinces have the main responsibility for assisting school boards and students in this regard.
In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1 and 2. The federal government has for many years had agreements with all provincial governments covering assistance for language instruction for adult immigrants, and agreements with all the provinces except British Columbia covering the costs of textbooks for such instruction. Informal enquiries have been received from SOT; i provinces as to whether these agreements could be reviewed and possibly extended. This matter is under study.


Mr. Herbert: What is the approximate average cost to prepare replies to questions on the Order Paper in each grouping (a) policy (b) statistical (c) concerning public service employees (d) requesting information about contracts (e) requesting information concerning ministerial staffs?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Information not available. We have undertaken an experiment on the cost of answering questions placed on the order paper (from questions No. 1,857 to 2,395 inclusive). The cost of answering these questions will be available at a later date.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: There is no Parliamentary Returns Office as such in the department.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of National Revenue?


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is no Parliamentary Returns Office, as such, in this department. Parliamentary returns are handled as a part of the regular duties of the staff in the office of the deputy minister in each of the two components of the department. Therefore, it is not possible to isolate the cost of this activity from the others which comprise the total program of these offices.
May 15, 1975


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did CIDA award to Sintec the contract for construction of a telecommunication network in Zaire?
2.	Was the contract awarded within the framework of public tenders?
3.	What other corporations tendered for the contract and at what cost?
4.	Who was responsible for making the decision concerning the contract?
5.	Who were the signatories of the contract?
6.	What researches, analyses or investigations were made in order to ascertain the skill of the corporation and its members before awarding them the contract?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No contract was ever granted by CIDA to SINTEC Corporation for a telecommunications project in Zaire entered directly into a contract for a telecommunications network project-financed by a Canadian loan-with Cartier Engineering of Montreal, which set up a consortium for the purpose with two other companies Sintec Limited of Montreal, and Hoyles Niblock International of Vancouver.
2.	Yes-the contract was awarded within the framework of normal proposals.
3.	The three consortia of consultants who submitted proposals were as follows: Demers, Gordon, Baby Ltd. and SNC Ltd., both of Montreal associated with Intel Consultants Ltd. of Ottawa; Brunelle, Lambert and Associates Ltd. of Montreal associated with Lamarre, Valois International Ltd. of Montreal; Cartier Ltd., Montreal; Hoyles Niblock International, Vancouver Sintec Ltd., Montreal; The last group which included Sintec submitted the best proposal and was awarded the contract for $6 million.
4.	The proposals were evaluated independently on behalf of the government of Zaire by the Department of Communications of Canada and a CIDA team which included a representative engineer from Zaire.
5.	The signatories to the contract were the government of Zaire and Cartier Ltd. as Manager of the consortium.
6.	All three members of tne consortium had registered with CIDA and provided details, brochures, and curriculum vitae of their companies and personnel. Both Cartier Ltd. and Hoyles Niblock International had performed satisfactorily on previous contracts in CIDA's programs. Hoyles Niblock had also worked abroad commercially with very satisfactory results.


Mr. Herbert: For the past ten years, what has been the annual percentage change in the number of pieces of mail handled by the Post Office Department?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: The following percentage change has been based on originating mail volume data as published in the Postmaster General Annual Reports. Fiscal year 1964-65, 12 per cent; 1965-66, 5 per cent; 1966-67, 7 per cent; 1967-68, 2 per cent; 1968-69, 1 per cent; 1969-70, 3 per cent;
Order Paper Questions
1970-71, 5 per cent; 1971-72, 4 per cent; 1972-73, 1 per cent; 1973-74, 7 per cent.


Mr. Marshall: L In regard to loans and grants for construction of sewage collection and treatment systems, what is the breakdown, by province, of the (a) 294 loans and the amount of $159,854,000 for 1974 (b) 309 loans and the amount of $170,670,000 for 1974?
2. In the Province of Newfoundland, by municipality, what is the breakdown of such amounts?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
Table 1
1. Loans Approved for Municipal Sewage Treatment Projects!'!, by Province, 1973 and 1974
1973	1974
Province	Projects	$000	Projects	$000Newfoundland	5	237	7	2,365Prince Edw'ard Island	4	1,469	7	1,771Nova Scotia	28	8,052	25	5,187New Brunswick	12	3,476	17	7,248Quebec	35	10,126	98	74,260Ontario	115	90,961	119	87,082Manitoba	10	1,855	25	7,962Saskatchewan	15	1,839	15	2,066Alberta	47	14,561	46	8,452British Columbia	21	27,159	32	21,367Northwest Territories	2	119	-	-6'Yukon	-	-	-	-Canada Data are net.	294	159,854	391	217,754
!") Reduction in a loan initially approved in an earlier year.
Table 2
2. Loans Approved for Municipal Sew age Treatment Projects!') Newfoundland, 1973-1974
1973	1974
Locality	Projects	$000	Projects	1000Newfoundland	5	299	7	2,135Metropolitan Area	St. John's	1	55	1	1,340Census Agglomerations	Carbonear	-	-	-	-Grand Falls	-	-	-Happy Valley	-	-	-	-Labrador	-	-	-	-Urban Centres (Population 5,000 +)	Channel-Port-aux-Basques	-	-	-	-Corner Brook	-	-	-	-Gander	' 	-	1	382Step.dinville	-	-	-	-Wabana	-	-	-	-
5828

May 15, 1975
Order Paver Questions
1973	1974
Locality	Projects	$000	Projects	$000
Other Localities				
Burin	-	-	1	100Lumsden	1	53	-	-Marystown	-	-	1	54Spaniards Bay	2	153	-	-Springdale	-	-	1	39St. Albans	-	-	1	182St. George	-	-	1	32Wareham	1	38	-	-
(') Data are gross, excluding cancellations and changes in loans initially approved in an earlier year.


Mr. Halliday: Of the first 280 applications for the federal grant of $500 to new home buyers that were received in the London Office of CMHC, how many (a) were approved (b) were rejected (c) are pending?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: Of the first 280 applications for the federal grant of $500 to new home buyers, received by the London office of CMHC, (a) 263 were approved, (b) 17 were rejected, and (c) none were pending.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the approximate cost to compile the answer to Question No. 317 and Question No. 320?
2.	How many months were required, in each case, to prepare the answer?
3.	How many man months of time were required to answer the questions?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1, 2 and 3. Information not available. We have undertaken an experiment on the cost of answering questions placed on the order paper (from questions Nos. 1,857 to 2,395 inclusive). The cost of answering these questions will be available at a later date.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	What plans have been made, or are being made, to handle increased traffic through customs services in connection with the Olympic Games in 1978?
2.	Will additional facilities be set up at international ports and, if so (a) what will they consist of (b) how many will there be (c) where will they be located (d) how many persons will man them in each case?
3.	What is the projected cost of (a) additional facilities (b) additional manpower in each case?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1.
Customs is working in close co-operation with the federal security co-ordinator (R.C.M. Police), Immigration officials, the Ministry of Transport, the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Welfare, and C.O.J.O. (The

Organizing Committee for the 1976 Olympic Games), towards an overall plan to accommodate the anticipated heavy influx of visitors.
2.	No additional physical facilities will be required as those at existing ports are sufficient to handle the anticipated traffic. Mirabel Airport will also be in operation to take care of additional traffic. However, there will be a requirement for additional manpower resources, (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable; (d) Not applicable.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) A total of $444,000.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Korchinski: In the Province of Saskatchewan (a) how many railway stations were closed by CN and CP Railroads which showed profits on their operations (b) how many in the same category are pending (c) what are the locations of each?
Return tabled.



PLANS TO PROMOTE AND MARKET AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS FROM ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. Howie: 1.	Do any plans exist to establish a programme to promote and market agricultural products from the Atlantic Provinces and, if so, what is the estimated cost of this programme?
2.	Are there any plans (a) to provide a special loan and grant programme to assist and encourage family farm operators to modernize and improve their farm operations (b) to improve existing credit programmes to assist young farmers to enter the business of farming (c) to increase the amount of farm loans to meet current needs?
Return tabled.



HERBERT BRUNE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Mr. Cossitt: Has any work been performed for the government since April 20, 1968 by Herbert Brune Construction Limited, 141-A Bentley Avenue, Ottawa and, if so (a) what is a full and detailed description of all work performed along with the amount of public money involved in each case (b) were tenders called by public advertisement in each case and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, what were the names of those tendering and the amounts of tenders?
Return tabled.



CONTRACTS GIVEN BY DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION (1951) LIMITED

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): From 1969-70 to the present, what was the complete amount of contracts given by Defence Construction (1951) Limited to corporations and companies which receive a single contract of at least
$250,000?
May 15, 1975

Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw attention to five questions on the order paper, which have been outstanding for some time, concerning construction of a swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive. I refer in particular to question 1,233 which has been almost four months on the order paper and which in its various parts asks for details of construction, details of costs, names of donors and whether investigations, and so on, were conducted into the identity of the donors, and the purposes or motives for giving the donations. No answers have been forthcoming. I have raised this matter before, I think quite legitimately, and I have received no guarantee that this question will be answered. If anything, I have received exactly the opposite-flippancy and arrogance.
Although I realize that a minister is not obliged to answer a question, I think he has a moral duty to answer a legitimate question in this House that seeks legitimate information. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is negligent in his duty to the Canadian people and to the Canadian parliament when he does not follow the example of President Ford of the United States who has announced that in building his swimming pool there will be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a grievance about the answering of a question, he may raise it now; but surely comparison with examples in other governments is not apt at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-47, to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said; Mr. Speaker, before discussing the content of Bill C-47, an act to amend the Judges Act, I think it is appropriate to review the broader context within which its provisions must be considered. It is important that we keep constantly in view the role of our judiciary in our constitutional system and the duties, responsibilities and limitations upon individual judges. As a starting point, I would like to recall the words of Winston Churchill when he said;
The essential aspects of democracy are the freedom of the individual within the framework of laws to order his life as he pleases, and the uniform enforcement of tribunals independent of the executive.
Judges Act
The significance of our judiciary in Canada was acknowledged from the start. A number of sections in the British North America Act provide specifically for the method of appointment of certain judges. Section 99 specifically recognizes the importance of the principle of the independence of the judiciary by providing for a retirement age of 75 and for tenure during good behaviour and removal only on address of both Houses.

Maybe it would be appropriate, to say a few words about this especially for the laymen, who are not very familiar with our judiciary. At the provincial level, the judges appointed and paid by the federal government are the county and district court judges as well as the judges for the superior courts, which include, in most provinces, a first instance division and an appellate division. The names of these courts vary for each province, but, in general, these are the three main categories.
Since Section 92.14 of the British North America Act has made the provinces responsible for "the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization" of these courts, they are sometimes called provincial courts. Nevertheless, their judges are appointed by the Governor in Council and they are paid and reimbursed for their expenses according to the Judges Act to which they are also subjected. The judges of the territorial superior courts also come under this act, even if these courts are established by order.
Judges appointed by the federal government must therefore be distinguished from provincial magistrates or, as they are called in certain provinces, "provincial court judges". The latter judges are not only members of courts established by the provinces, but their appointment and status come under provincial laws and regulations. Therefore, they are not concerned by the federal Judges Act; the same is true of the territorial court judges, who are appointed by order.
However, in addition to the county or district court judges and judges of provincial and territorial superior courts, two other categories are also covered by the Judges Act. These are judges of the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. There are also "superior courts", created by the federal government, under Section 101 of the British North America Act.

When we talk about the judges who are appointed by us and who are subject to the provisions of the Judges Act, we are speaking only of approximately 500 judges throughout Canada. The magnitude of the trust and responsibility borne by these men and women is out of all proportion to their number.
In general terms, the judiciary maintains the rule of law by providing redress between citizens, but even more where authorities would seek arbitrarily to interfere with the lives of citizens. No matter what office an official of the state may hold, he or she is only entitled to act where, and only to the extent that, authority is specifically granted in or by virtue of laws which are directly passed by the duly elected representatives of our people, in parliament or in the legislatures or, in a few situations, which are recognized as well established custom. In other words, the judiciary is essential to the maintenance of the relatively certain, predictable and public rule of law, in contrast to
29561-25V4

May 15, 1975
Judges Act
some potentially capricious rule by the unlimited discretion of persons.
Our Canadian judiciary has served us well. We have been blessed with judges of integrity and dedication. Examples of corruption or even of indiscretion are few and far between. We have been particularly fortunate, however, because of the strength and dignity by which our judiciary has maintained its independence of the legislative and executive branches of government. We need only examine the experience of some other countries to realize the significance of maintaining a judiciary which can neither be bribed with riches nor intimidated by the offices of the state. It seems so often to be the case that the weakening of the judiciary is a large step on a short path to dictatorial forms of government.
The judiciary is of particular importance to us as legislators. It would do us little good conscientiously and strenuously to analyse and debate legislation being created for the benefit of our citizens if that legislation could be frustrated in its application. It is essential to our task that our judges be intelligent, industrious and experienced lawyers. They must not only be able to apply a law reasonably to achieve a result in a particular case, but they must also avoid losing sight of the significance of that result in similar and related situations in future.
The performance of judges is also of tremendous importance to the particular persons who appear before them. Judges hear cases, day after day, for years. Often these cases involve painstaking and boring details. Yet all judges must constantly bear in mind that for the individual litigant, his or her "day in court" will often be one of the most important days of his or her life. In particular cases, judges can act as catalysts to accelerate the machinery of justice so that litigants are not frustrated by delay. Judges can also, within limits, temper the strict letter of the law with compassion and common sense.
It is true that even with our increasingly crowded court lists today, only a very small proportion of our citizens will ever come before these 500 or so judges in our courtrooms. However, the performance of judges in particular cases has an impact far beyond the courtroom itself. A judicial decision will often result in thousands of lawyers advising tens of thousands of clients to order their affairs-sell their property, draw their wills, enter into agreements-in a particular way. The point is illustrated in a passage from an article written by the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Mr. Stuart Thom, Q.C., and published in the December, 1974, issue of the Law Society of Upper Canada Gazette:
The lawyer going about his mundane solicitor's daily round does not and cannot possibly see each phrase that he tosses off to his secretary or each clause that he scribbles out on the margin of a document after tiresome hours of negotiation in the context of a Supreme Court appeal. The lawyer must have some inner feeling, however, that what he has just said or done will meet the test of the judicial process, if it is ever exposed to it. In that sense, I say that everything a lawyer does is part of the judicial process in some manner.
The impact in this sense is very broad indeed. The ramifications of judicial decision-making can also be considered with reference to the nature of the issues which must be determined. There is an increasing number of

complexity of cases generated through changes in our attitudes, economics and technology. Judicial decisions can profoundly affect society. One need only mention cases such as those affecting rights of our native population, matrimonial property, the rights of women, offshore rights and other constitutional questions involving the relationship between the Government of Canada and the provinces. In the resolution of these and other serious problems, the appointed judges must have the trust and confidence of the Canadian people to void the growth of the pressures of anarchy.
There is another important dimension of the influence of these judges beyond their courtrooms. This is related to their appellate and supervisory functions in relation to other courts and administrative tribunals. Many statutes contain provisions for appeals from provincially-appoint-ed courts and from both federal and provincial administrative tribunals to courts consisting of these federally-appointed judges. Even where no appeal is expressly provided, there is a general supervisory jurisdiction which permits the quashing of the decisions of these bodies where they have acted without jurisdiction. This has been interpreted to include the denial of a fair hearing through bias or the non-compliance with the minimal procedures necessary to a fair hearing for the parties.
Thus, protections are available to the thousands who are directly affected by the myriad of federal and provincial administrative tribunals which daily determine the rights of our citizens. Once again, decisions in particular appeals and on particular applications will often affect the manner in which many of these diverse bodies will carry out their responsibilities. The existence of an able, conscientious and hard working judiciary is important for all of these reasons. It is also important in a general way if our citizens are to have confidence in our democratic institutions generally.
I view the appointment of judges to be one of the most important of my responsibilities as Minister of Justice. I believe that it is vital that our judicial positions be filled by the most qualified lawyers available for these important tasks. I have made special efforts to broaden my information base, as Minister of Justice, for locating and selecting the best qualified lawyers for judicial appointments. A special adviser was appointed almost two years ago to work in this area of gathering names of and information about prospective appointees. Broad consultations have occurred amongst representatives of bar associations and law societies, members of the Bench itself, prominent lawyers in government, legal aid organizations, lay persons and others.
I have not only sought information about the legal experience and ability of prospective appointees: in addition, I have been concerned about human qualities-qualities of sympathy, generosity, charity, an ability to listen, integrity and a willingness to work and desire to do a job well. Often, these qualities are demonstrated in a variety of ways: general reputation of a practitioner, public service through charitable or service organizations, service to the profession and political involvement at any level.
In my three years as Minister of Justice there have been in excess of 150 appointments under the Judges Act. This unusually high number is in part due to the expansion of a
May 15, 1975

number of courts and in part attributable to the election of a number of judges for supernumerary status. I am delighted by the calibre of the lawyers who have accepted our call to the Bench during this period, sometimes at considerable personal sacrifice.
In the course of these three years I have also had the privilege of working with the judiciary committee of the Canadian Bar Association, whose present chairman is Mr. Marcel Cinq-Mars, Q.C., of Montreal. Following a practice established by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he was justice minister, the names of persons under active consideration for judicial appointment are submitted to this committee for assessment as to qualifications for judicial appointment.
I should emphasize that the committee does not submit names, but comments on names which I submit to them. The committee is composed of lawyers from across Canada who, conscientiously and with little in the way of recognition or expressed gratitude, devote a considerable amount of time and effort to their task. In the end, of course, the responsibility for the quality of appointments must rest with the government, but the committee performs a valuable service and in my view has been of great assistance in maintaining in Canada a strong judiciary.
The Judges Act provides that a barrister or advocate must have at least ten years standing at the bar in order to be eligible for appointment. Judges are seldom appointed who have less then 15 years at the bar, and very often lawyers with 20, 25 or 30 years in practice are appointed. As a result, a lawyer is most often at the peak, or very much on the way to the peak of his or her career both in terms of effectiveness and earning capacity, at the time the judicial appointment is offered.
It is common for lawyers to take very substantial reductions in income by accepting appointments to the Bench. It is true that there are other attractions to the Bench. There is the aspect of security, which is a necessary incident to judicial independence, and a more regular, although in most cases not less arduous or demanding, work schedule. There must also be a certain attraction to finding that ones' colleagues, including both friends and foes, suddenly begin to treat him or her with respect and deference, at least in the courtroom.
However, there is also a tradition in the legal profession that when called upon to serve as a judge, a lawyer should not decline except for very good reasons. It has disappointed me on occasion since I have been Minister of Justice to encounter examples of lawyers with excellent qualifications for judicial appointment who were not prepared to let their names stand. While I would not like to see financial reward as the incentive to judicial appointment, lawyers should not be put in the position of having to sacrifice too much for themselves and their families in the way of a standard of living in order to give of their talents in a more public way as a member of the judiciary.
There are a number of specific factors related to income which should also be kept in mind. The Judges Act requires that judges devote themselves exclusively to their judicial duties, unlike other citizens who are permitted to supplement their incomes. Once appointed, a judge cannot easily return to the courtroom as a barrister, and in some provinces this is expressly prohibited. The recent
Judges Act
final report of the CBA special committee on legal ethics also contains such a prohibition which is applicable to chambers' work and appearances before administrative boards and tribunals as well as court litigation. Since most judges are recruited from the ranks of barristers, a return to practice is usually effectively foreclosed.
I have considered it desirable, very often, to see younger judges appointed. The addition of vigorous, young lawyers to a court can often infuse newer ideas and approaches. However, this means that many of them will not have had the number of good earning years of a lawyer who is appointed much later in life. Finally, we must compete with the provinces for lawyers for appointment to the Bench.
It is a fact that in some provinces, persons appointed as magistrates or provincial court judges now receive salaries which are greater than those of country court judges by 25 per cent and more. In the past three years, the salaries of federally-appointed judges have fallen substantially behind those of persons in other comparable categories. This problem is compounded by the rapid increase in the cost of living experienced in recent times, and in the earnings of members of the legal profession from whose ranks new appointments of judges must be made.
Furthermore, the rate of annuities payable to widowed spouses of judges has remained fixed, since 1944, at two-ninths of salary, which by today's standards is below the norm of many, if not most, other such pensions. It is essential that both salaries and pensions be raised to levels which will attract to the Bench the best qualified members of the legal profession. While this does not mean that judicial salaries as well as retirement and death benefits should be fully competitive with the incomes that can be earned by the more successful members of the bar, it is important that they be substantial enough to attract adequate numbers of the very best class of practitioners. They must also be commensurate with the position of the judge in society, recognizing his or her importance as a member of one of the principal and key elements in our governmental system. Finally, they must be sufficient to ensure the judge's independence, providing him or her with a measure of real economic security.
The provisions with respect to annuities for the widowed spouses of judges and retired judges is of even greater importance to many judges than the salary provisions. At the present time, the Judges Act provides for a non-contributory annuity payable to a spouse upon the death of a judge of two-ninths of the salary of the judge at the time of death. If the judge was retired and in receipt of a pension at the time of death, the annuity is set at one-third of the judge's pension. This rate of annuity for a judge's spouse has remained unchanged for 30 years, with the result that it is now generally below the norm of the rate for most other pensions for surviving spouses, which is close to 50 per cent of the basic pension payable.
There are a number of sad examples of widows of judges who suffer considerable hardship because of the inadequacy of annuities which they receive. The provision to adjust the rate for spouses' annuities from two-ninths to one-third of salary, or from one-third to one-half of pension,

May 15, 1975
Judges Act
applying equally to existing pensions, will provide some relief. At the same time, the non-contributory nature of these annuities has been considered and provisions for a small contribution from existing judges and a more substantial one from future appointees have now been introduced.
The question of what salary levels are required to meet these criteria is one that cannot be answered with scientific precision. The question is one of judgment more than of science. One might start with an estimate of the range of income of lawyers of a calibre generally sought for appointment to the Bench. If the lowest general level is reduced by $10,000 or $15,000, one would reach a minimum basic salary of roughly $50,000 for superior court judges as a starting point. Another approach, by which essentially the same result emerges, is to look first to the level of salary that ought to be paid to the chief justice of a superior court. There is solid historical precedent in Canada for fixing this salary as high as, or in the same general range as, the salaries currently being paid to the most senior deputy ministers in the federal public service. It is only in relatively recent years that the most senior deputy ministers have overtaken those of the chief justices. This approach would lead to a basic salary level of $55,000 for the chief justice of a superior court.
In fixing the salaries for other judges, we have taken into account the increasing role and responsibilities of chief justices and chief judges, as well as the increased jurisdiction of county and district court judges in most provinces. In employing the retroactive provisions, we have had in mind the postponement of the introduction of the bill last spring, which we originally intended to introduce, which postponement was occasioned by the election.
I should remind hon. members, as well, that when the last review was made of judges' salaries effective in 1971, the then minister of justice indicated his view that salaries of judges should be reviewed at least every three years. In that regard, the retroactive date is fixed at three years after the last salary increase.
Of course, it is possible to do a considerable amount of "creative" analysis with figures and percentages. When this bill was introduced, some newspapers reported that the salary increase for county and district court judges amounted to 72 per cent. This figure is inaccurate. The Toronto Globe and Mail, which used the 72 per cent figure in an editorial on December 20, 1974, and criticized the increases, pointed out in a subsequent editorial on February 3 that when additional facts are taken into account, the more accurate figure for these judges is 48.2 per cent over three years. In fact, the increase is spread over three years plus another three years since the last change. But even that percentage does not tell the entire story. For one thing, a limit has now been placed upon the remuneration which judges may receive from the provinces. In other words, it will no longer be possible for the provinces to adjust these salaries beyond the $3,000 limit proposed in the bill, as has been done in the recent past particularly with respect to county and district court judges.
Furthermore, the bill provides for the elimination of the extra remuneration which many county and district court judges now receive for providing specific extrajudicial

services such as serving on police commissions. I might add that we have received representations to the effect that the latter provision should only come into effect at the time of the final salary increase, that is, on April 1, 1976. While the bill provides for the provision coming into effect immediately, I see the logic of that suggestion and will be discussing the question with members in the committee. Finally, it must be kept in mind that the salary provisions for county and district court judges represent not only a regular salary increase but also a readjustment in the level of salaries they should receive in relation to the other judges in Canada.
The civil jurisdiction of county and district court judges is concurrent with that of the superior trial courts in some provinces, and the county and district courts now probably do more criminal jury work than the superior courts in those provinces where they sit with juries. Some provinces are consolidating their county and district courts, and some have created the position of chief judge to assist in the allocation of judicial resources and in administration generally. We have made special efforts to attract men and women to these courts who are of equal calibre to those being appointed to the superior courts.
For all of these reasons, the narrowing of the salary differential between the county and district court judges and those of the superior courts is not only justified but is highly desirable. I might point out that in this very bill one province is moving in the direction of consolidation of these courts and is in the process of transferring judges from the county court to the superior court. This leads to a salary revision outside of any analysis in percentage terms. It is that kind of an adjustment of work, an adjustment in the capacity, as it were, of judges that must be taken into account in this regard.
My reference to the termination of some part of the extra earnings of county and district court judges in particular has real relevance to the large number of county and district court judges who have been receiving more than $3,000 in further remuneration from the province or for extra judicial duties. It is our view that the federal government ought to be the main source and, in the end, the only source of income for the judges who constitutionally are appointed by it, and this bill makes a move in that direction in limiting this amount of extra money. It really should be subtracted from the apparent increase we are giving this particular category of judges.
The bill before us provides, for the first time, for the payment of certain expenses incurred by judges. For example, it is often the case that a lawyer practising in one location will be appointed to another location hundreds of miles away. The bill now provides, for the first time, for the reimbursement of reasonable removal expenses. There is also provision for the payment of limited expenses incurred in judicial education and other judicial activities which do not involve the exercise of the judicial function as such. Chief justices and chief judges have a number of functions and obligations which they are required to perform in a representative role on behalf of their courts. A limited sum is also provided for expenses of this nature.
It will be surprising, perhaps, to hon. members that these forms of reimbursement were not included some
May 15, 1975

time before this. At the present time, most of these expenses must be borne by the individual judge who has incurred them, or be reimbursed on the basis of an executive decision by the Minister of Justice. Such a situation has obviously undesirable implications.
Before leaving the subject of remuneration for judges, I would like to remind hon. members of the serious obligation imposed upon us by section 100 of the British North America Act. By virtue of this section, our constitution provides, in the interests of a judiciary independent of the executive, that "the salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges of the superior, district and county courts .. . shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada". It is, therefore, very much the responsibility of parliament to ensure that remuneration is adequate to maintain a judiciary of a competence and integrity which will continue to carry out its judicial role in a manner of complete independence from the executive.
Members of parliament also have a responsibility to ensure that the money of the people whom they represent is well spent. Bearing in mind the broad influence of our judiciary in Canadian society, as well as the services it renders to individual litigants, expenditures which will assist in maintaining a sensitive, intelligent, diligent judiciary of integrity will bear manifold ultimate returns.
Bill C-47 also authorizes salaries for a number of new judicial positions. In the course of committee action I propose to indicate to hon. members some additional positions which I have been requested to fill by various provinces and upon which we may be able to take action by appropriate recommendation and amendment during third reading of the bill. These provisions directly reflect steps taken by some provincial governments to expand the courts in order to cope with increased workloads. They also reflect the reorganization of court structures in some provinces. Prince Edward Island is reconstituting a court of appeal. Four additional positions on the Ontario court of appeal have enabled that court to carry out an internal reorganization. Alberta has now legislated to consolidate that province's district courts as a single district court of Alberta with one chief judge.
Bill C-47 contains additional provisions which will be of assistance to provinces with respect to the administration of justice and, particularly, the administration of the courts. The bill extends the supernumerary option to county and district court judges. It also creates an option for a chief justice to step down from that position after having served as such for ten years but to continue as a puisne justice of the same court. Enabling provincial legislation would be required for each of these options to become available in a particular province.
I am personally very pleased by the increased attention being paid by many of the provinces to the administration of the courts. We are anxious to assist and co-operate in every reasonable way. It is essential that our judicial system and our entire legal system operate in such a manner that the foremost goal is always service to the public for whom, after all, these systems have been created. It is with this foremost goal, of service to the people of
Judges Act
Canada, in view that the government seeks approval in principle and reference of Bill C-47 to committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) for the able way in which he explained the bill now before the House. I agree with him, of course, that the BNA Act sets out that parliament shall fix and provide salaries for federally-appointed judges. Canadian judges of all levels are federally-appointed except for magistrates, now called provincial judges. County court judges, superior court judges-who may be of the supreme court trial division, Queen's Bench, in some jurisdictions- judges of the courts of appeal, the appellate division of the supreme court in some provinces, which is the provincial appeal court, chief justices of the provinces who are the heads of the courts of appeal, judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Chief Justice of Canada are all under the jurisdiction of the federal government which appoints them. Under our constitution, parliament must take the responsibility of fixing and providing their salaries.
I am not sure that it would not be possible for parliament to pass a statute whereby the fixing and providing of judges' salaries could be done by executive order in council. With parliament sitting 10 or 11 months of the year because of the heavy legislative load before it, this might be the answer. The matter could be reviewed and debated in the House. A one-day term could be inserted in the bill, so that if someone wanted to set out certain facts with reference to the increases, it could be done in that fashion.
From what I have read, it seems that not even the best constitutional minds would argue that it could not be done in that fashion. I would ask the Minister of Justice to consider this proposal because I believe that the long delay, through no fault of the minister or of the government, between the time of one increase and the next makes it look as if increases in judges' salaries are out of line with other salary increases.
We in our party believe that the 500 or so judges mentioned by the Minister should receive an increase. We believe that the matter should go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and that any amendments to the amounts suggested in the bill should be made in the committee, as well as amendments with regard to retroactivity or the percentages of increases. I want to emphasize at this point that all too often it is mentioned that on second reading we debate the principle of a bill. Under the old rules we would be debating the principle of the increase, but the mechanics of it are debated in committee. If any hon. member believes that an increase is justified, whether it is 5 per cent or 40 per cent, then the bill should go to the committee where the exact amount would be debated, as I understand the procedure, and I think I know something about it. Any changes in the bill can be discussed at the committee level. Any motions moved here with regard to the bill would be merely to kill the bill entirely or to delay it.
As I said at the outset, we believe that an increase in the salaries of judges at all levels is justified and we believe that the bill should go to the committee for study. We believe that at the committee level, members of the Canadian Bar Association, and members of provincial bars if they are interested, should appear before the committee

May 15, 1975
Judges Act
and give evidence on what they consider to be a fair and equitable increase in the salaries of judges.
Therefore, we believe that there should be no delay in sending this bill to the committee. However, it is our belief that the committee must seriously examine the bill. I will deal with that matter in some detail in a moment. As I have said, witnesses should be called before the committee, in particular representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, the group upon which the minister now relies to give him advice on appointments made to the judiciary. Therefore, let us approve the bill on second reading for study only, and hon. members can then make submissions and, if necessary, substantial amendments after the bill has been through committee stage.
I want to make very clear the three points I mentioned at the outset. Our party believes that judges should receive an increase in their salaries and that at this stage we should send the bill to the committee. We believe that the calibre of judges in all courts and at all levels is very high. It is true that our method of appointing judges is different from that of the United States. Once a judge is appointed, the subject cannot be debated in this House: the appointment is done at cabinet level. I believe that is a superior method because, as we know, in politics the question of personalities can come into debate. For example, in debate in Congress a judge is often destroyed before he rises to the proposition of responsibility. I think that over the years our method has worked well.
I believe I have said before that, like some other hon. members, I have appeared in all levels of courts in Canada. Therefore I can say, without reservations-although there are always a few exceptions-that the appointments made by the various governments of Canada over the years, in my experience as a member of the bar, have been excellent. I have been a member since 1944 of the bar of Saskatchewan; 1951, Alberta; and the calibre of judges we have appointed has been very high. They have distinguished themselves on the Bench and have kept the judiciary separate and apart from other institutions of our democratic process.
We believe that the judiciary in Canada must always maintain its independence, not only independence from political institutions but independence from any influence, conflict of interest or suggestion which might interfere in any way with a clear, honest and forthright judicial decision. That is why, in looking at judges' salaries, one should realize that in this regard they represent a unique profession: they must be independent and they must be economically secure; otherwise we would have problems, which we have not encountered in the past.
I know the minister will agree when I say we must stress the independence of judges. It guarantees security of the weak against the strong; it protects the individual against the community and the all-powerful state; it presents a shield against tyranny of power and arrogance and against the irresponsibility and irrationality of popular action, whether of opinion or of violence.
Often there are crimes committed in society where, once the facts get into the media-and I am not criticizing the media-there is an emotional and social stimulus and

people are often convicted before they reach the court of justice where they are to be tried by a judge and jury. I will tell the House about the last experience I had in this regard. There were 13 men charged with murder. Some of them were younger than 21, but most of them were around 21 years of age. They went to trial in my city. They belonged to a motor-cycle gang. No one in society really likes motor-cycle gangs: they go about with loud motorcycles, chains and various other weapons, and make threats.
There were two motor-cycle gangs and they agreed to meet at a place called Little Rock, near Calgary. They got into a fight and their leader was killed. Thirteen of the Grim Reapers gang were charged with murder and all were found guilty by a judge and jury. The trial judge refused to separate the trials. One or two of the people who belonged to the motor-cycle gangs went out in a car that night and merely went into a house; they did not know the plan; they went along only for the ride-yet they were all found guilty of murder. I was not counsel at the trial, but it fell on me, as senior counsel, to argue the case in the Alberta Court of Appeal. The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Twelve of the 13 received a new trial. At the second trial, five were acquitted; the others were found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 2'/2 years' imprisonment.
Judges must realize the temper and the emotion of society in regard to such crimes, and when society is ready to do what has been done in the deep south at times. Every level of society is faced with the same emotional, psychological problems when these things happen, so we must have men who completely understand this kind of psychology. The independence of judges enables the voice of sanity to rise above the turbulence of passion. It has to be preserved inviolate.
But what does independence of judges imply? It 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. In other words, if a minister of justice committed a crime-something like the problems which were experienced in the United States-a judge must be so independent and so secure in his position that he is able to deal with the matter with the degree of independence that we expect of the judiciary.


Mr. Benjamin:: He did commit a crime-operation LIFT.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The public acceptability of character for such a function is that which exhibits itself in action as being beyond influences which tend to taint its discharge with alien factors. Vital damage to the 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.
May 15, 1975

I will deal with the longshoremen. I do not know all the facts and I am not going to get into that, but parliament passed a law and apparently the men did not go back to work. Once they saw that a judge had passed an injunction against their conduct and the fact of their breaking the law, they went back to work. I hope that is always true in this nation when we are dealing with so important a subject. I hope that will happen again in the province of Quebec. I hope it will happen all over Canada whenever we find that there is violation of the law. In my opinion, nothing justifies violation of the law. But that does not mean we cannot protest. It does not mean we cannot take action to change unjust laws. Some of my good friends might say that sometimes extreme methods have to be used to change unjust laws, but to break the law itself would lead to anarchy.
Impartiality must mark judgment to the extent possible to men and women. Our court system is the result of thousands of years' experience, and so far as it may be imperfect the answer is that man is imperfect. But it bears 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 in that condition is the acceptability of the mind so influenced, the confirmation of which exhibits a moral sense incompatible with the judicial essence. Nothing short of that would suffice.
I might repeat that we have that kind of judiciary in Canada and that the main reason judges must be paid sufficient money is not only to attract the best men and women from the legal profession to the Bench, but to assure them the kind of security necessary to perform to the highest degree their job of human excellence. When choosing a judge you must consider, above all, his character and his personality. In my opinion, judges should display patience, compassion, integrity, sincerity and, above all, gentleness. We need gentle lady judges and gentlemen judges, and I use "lady" and "gentleman" in the traditional sense. Of course, it helps if the appointee knows a little law and a little psychology.
When I began practising law, I knew a Liberal member lawyer who used to represent a Saskatchewan riding. I am referring to Mr. Justice McNiven who was a supporter of the Mackenzie King Liberal government before being appointed to the Bench. Others may have possessed more brilliant academic minds; that is not for me to say. I can say this about him, however: he was a gentleman, helpful to young lawyers and good to litigants. He left the impression with all who saw him preside over a court that litigants were given their full day in court. I suggest that his experience in parliament gave him greater insight into human nature than he would have gained merely from practising law. After all, if a judge understands human beings, understands human nature, one can be certain he will be fair. One can be certain that such a judge, when he charges a jury, will charge it fairly. As we know, judges sometimes tell the jury what they feel about a case. They are supposed to tell the jury the law. If the judge who charges the jury shows understanding, sympathy and tolerance, one may be sure the jury will do the right thing.
Judges Act
Let me now examine some of the recommendations in the bill. I have listened carefully to this debate, and I will be interested to hear what my friends of the NDP will say. Although in this second reading debate we are approving the increases in principle, that does not mean, necessarily, we approve all salaries set out in the schedule or that those salaries should not be examined in committee. On the other hand, we do not reject the idea of increases. I must sound almost like Mackenzie King.


Mr. Nowlan:: Increases if necessary, but not necessarily increases.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We, in my party, do not engage in political hanky-panky. Some suggest that we cannot change the schedule; that if we do we shall kill the bill. I do not want to do that. On the other hand, I think we should examine it carefully. I disagree with some members of my party. Some people are shocked at this. They say, "But the people in your party do not agree." It has always been that way. It would be a dull party, a dull caucus if every member of it were to agree on everything all the time. What's more, I think the whip would faint.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: So would the leader.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We must always be critical; that is what democracy is all about. In Germany, you either agreed with Hitler or you did not live. We are different. Naturally, lawyers see things in a different light. Those who are not lawyers may not share their viewpoint. That is why this bill must be referred to committee for further examination. We must consider this bill in light of the government's call for restraint: it is asking business and labour leaders to restrain their demands. Our economy is in a most sensitive period, and I hope the members of this House will not take advantage of the sensitivity of the times to turn this into a partisan, political debate.
I want to examine the schedules. The salary of the Chief Justice of Canada, that most important head of our judicial process, is to increase from $50,000 to $68,000. That represents an increase of 36 per cent. Remember, the Chief Justice carries out some of the functions of the Governor General. I think something should be said about the general rise in the cost of living. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that judges are not like union members who renegotiate contracts every two years or so. Their increases come less frequently. Since October, 1971, when the judges last were granted an increase, the cost of living has increased by 32.8 per cent. To be more accurate, the cost of living rose by that amount between September 1, 1971, and March 1, 1975.
I have dealt with the Chief Justice. Let me now deal with the other judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. Now they are paid $45,000. Their salary is to rise to $63,000, or by approximately 40 per cent. The Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court are paid $44,000. Their salary is to increase to $58,000, or by 32 per cent. Their salary is somewhat lower than that of supreme court judges, but this is a new court. I will say no more about it. The chief justices and associate chief justices of provincial and superior courts, and in this category one must include the chief justice of the appeal court and chief justice of the trial division, are presently paid $42,000. Their salary is to increase to $58,000, or by 38 per cent. I
2956 ! -26

May 15, 1975
Judges Act
am referring to a table of figures which was kindly supplied to me by the department.
The other judges of provincial superior courts are presently paid $38,000. Their pay is to rise to $53,000, or by 38 per cent. The chief judges of county and district courts are paid $30,000. They will receive, once the bill is passed, $44,000, or an increase of 46 per cent. The salaries of other judges of county and district courts will rise from $28,000 to $40,000, or by 43 per cent. In the third phase, the salaries of chief judges of county and district courts will rise to $51,000, or by 70 per cent over-all; and the salaries of county and district court judges will rise to $46,000, or by 64 per cent over-all. I think the committee should look at these figures.
The Minister of Justice suggested today that in accordance with suggestions of bar associations-this has already happened in some provinces-the former differences in jurisdiction between county and superior courts are being phased out. As the responsibilities of the judges will be similar, I think it is fair to give them the same salaries. Unfortunately, such arguments are as full of holes as the watering can you use for sprinkling flowers. Again, this is an area the committee should examine. We must also remember that district court judges are now handling divorces which at one time were the sole prerogative of the supreme court division. They are hearing jury cases and all sorts of criminal cases. They are hearing cases involving larger sums of money than ever and we must consider whether they should be paid less than other judges.
There is to be another change in connection with surrogate court work and other cases coming before county courts. Certain provisions of the act are to be phased out. The federal government is to be responsible for certain financial aspects connected with surrogate courts. As we are dealing with salary increases, I think I ought to read one paragraph from "Proposals for the first year of consensus." It reads:
The fourth element in the wages and salaries guidelines tries to introduce an element of equity. At the upper end of the scale, it is proposed that no group, no matter what the change in income over the last two years, should be allowed to get more than $2,400 increase in the first year. This represents 8 per cent, the target rate of price change in the first year, of a salary of $30,000. At the lower end, it is proposed that increases of $600 should be allowed in the first year regardless of the size of the increases received in the past two years. The $600 figure represents a 12 per cent increase for those earning $5,000 a year, about the minimum wage.
The committee must consider some of these things. Remember, the principle being applied to judges is the principle which was applied to members of parliament. The last salary increase took place in 1971, and it would not be fair to apply guidelines to judges which apply to some others. On the other hand, the public is entitled to an explanation from the government concerning these increases. After all, they are being asked to restrain their demands. This is a time of great sensitivity and, as I say, I hope debate on this bill will not degenerate to an exchange of partisan opinions. It is necessary to put some of these things on record so that judges, if they read the record of this debate, will understand the pressures at work behind the scenes.
While we are on the subject of lawyers, may I read into the record some proposals concerning professional fees:
It is proposed that increases in fees for professional services, such as the services of doctors, lawyers, accountants and consultants, should be governed by the same general principles as apply to other prices and incomes. Specifically, it is proposed that professional fees should only be increased by the amounts required to cover the increased costs of providing the services and to improve the net income of the selfemployed professional person the same amount as would be available to the salaried professional person. Thus the $2,400 maximum increase would apply in the determination of professional fees. The technical questions which might arise in the application of these principles have not yet been fully explored. Provincial representatives have been requested to consider their application to professional fees falling within their areas of jurisdiction, and it is expected that this question will be considered further at the next meeting with provincial officials.
I do not know when that will be because, after today, I do not know whether they will meet or not. How do you control professional fees? A lawyer practising law may get up at six o'clock in the morning and work until midnight preparing his case. He may have another group working on mortgages and leases. This lawyer may earn $10,000 or $15,000 more, but he is not like those who have secure positions in the government. They check in at nine and when the bell goes at 4.30 there is a cloud of dust. That situation is entirely different from free enterprise.
I say to the government that there is no chance of their controlling professional fees. When I was practising law I sometimes worked all night. As I said to somebody, I work hard here, but when you are in a profession such as the law and you make your living from practising law-and I do not mean with the government or an oil company-and you have to pay your rent, the salaries of secretaries, and take some food home for the baby, you really have to hustle. I do not know whether the minister practised law. He is a Rhodes scholar and because of his great academic ability became a professor and dean of a university. I have one of his students in my office. I did have two. If this one is of the same high calibre as the other, he should be proud. I hope he reads this: I did not intend to say it.
I want to deal now with a very interesting viewpoint. There is one thing I like on television, the program "Viewpoint". I listened to a fellow talk about members' salaries. If all the facts presented to a court were like the facts presented on that show, it would be awful: there would have to be a new trial on the evidence. I listened to a fellow named Ben Marcus. He was a good performer. He looked right into the CBC camera. Whether he was reading from a prop or not, I do not know.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: He is an Ottawa
lawyer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to thank the CBC for giving me a copy of the script. This show was televised from Toronto. He said:
Tonight I am going to urge you to consider the absurd proposition that 400 salaried public servants are highly deserving of substantial pay increases. One group earns $33,000 per year and ought to earn $46,000. The other earns $41,000 and ought to earn $55,000.
Only a small percentage of Canadians will have personal experience with our court system, and too few Canadians appreciate the protection they receive from the law and those who administer it on a day to day basis. The common concept of our courts comes from sensational

May 15, 1975

and dramatic movies, television programs and novels whose relationship to reality is, to say the least, remote.
I give him 100 per cent marks for that. When I see programs where a fellow runs up and whispers to the judge, I become nauseated. If I tried that in a courtroom, I would be worse than nauseated. He went on to say:
Our county and superior court judges who are federally appointed are dedicated people who devote their lives to the adjudication of disputes arising between individuals, corporations and government.
He then said what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and I say:
They judge with impartiality, without passion or prejudice on all of the possible matters of dispute both civil and criminal that arise in our complex society. They apply the law as passed by our legislators.
They do more than that. A great volume of law has never been passed by our legislatures or parliament. There is the common law which is really traditions which have been crystallized. There are many volumes of common law in our law libraries.


Mr. Mazankowski:: The law of the jungle.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It may be the law of the jungle. I am not sure of that. Sometimes it is very difficult to know what is law. Mr. Marcus went on to say:
Well, then, what sort of treatment do these judges receive at the hands of the lawmakers and the Canadian public? What sort of justice is meted out to them? They have not had a pay increase in over four years.
That was true of members of parliament, but there was a different fellow on "Viewpoint".
We treat our street cleaners and garbage collectors better than that.
This is the line that got me:
Unlike members of parliament or senators, judges are prohibited from earning any extra income over and above their salaries.
That is correct. They are not to earn any extra income. In most cases, they do not.
They cannot retain active business interests; they cannot sit on the boards of directors of companies-
There may be some senators who do, but I do not know that many members of parliament sit on boards of directors.
-and they are prohibited from practising law if they should resign-
I might point out that that is not quite accurate. I know a lot of men who have quit the Bench. One who quit the Supreme Court of Canada is practising law. I do not think it is looked upon with great favour when they appear in court, but they may give advice to their firms.
-and unlike our parliamentarians, all of their salary is subject to tax-
I would say that all of our salary is subject to tax. There is an expense allowance, as in any other business. The problem is, it is not always equal because of the different regions from which we come. I will read one other section of this interview:
But what will happen if we do not pay judges more is this; fewer and fewer qualified people from the legal profession will be willing to take appointments to the Bench.
That is the point the Minister of Justice made.
The difference between what they could make in private practice and the salary of a judge is just too great.
Judges Act
I agree with that. However, I will also say this: I know the ability, before the bar, of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I forget his salary when he became prime minister. It could have been $25,000-no more. He could have been making $100,000 a year as a lawyer. In fact, he was offered a partnership in Toronto. I also know that junior partners in law firms in my city would not work for the salary we receive in this place. I know of high calibre men in top positions who have turned down judgeships. I will name two: there is Mr. Chambers, a very distinguished counsel. My leader would know Mr. Chambers because be comes from Nova Scotia.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He came from New Brunswick.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I knew he was from the maritimes. He was in the former R. B. Bennett's firm. He was offered the chief justiceship of our province by the Diefenbaker government, and he turned it down. He did not feel he could do it, with the family responsibilities he had at that time. I know another very distinguished man, Mr. J. J. Robinette, Q.C., of Toronto, who turned down an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. He has one of the best legal minds in Canada.
So we must analyse what the Minister of Justice says very carefully. The appropriate place to do this is in the committee, because we do want the best people on the Bench. There are some failures among those who practice law, as there are some failures in the medical profession and in business. But surely we do not want to pick up the failures at $25,000 a year and put them on the Bench interpreting the laws of Canada. That is the question we should ask ourselves when we are dealing with the judiciary. Let us make sure we get men of the best possible calibre. I emphasize this. It is something we must do at the committee level.
Mr. Marcus said what we should be doing right now is urging members of parliament, no matter what their political persuasion, to give immediate passage to this bill. I don't need to be sold on that; I agreed with it when I started. There was a call last year for an independent commission with authority to carry out a regular review of the judges. I will not quote any more from that interview except to review just one thing that I believe under the constitution: we pass an act and we assign that responsibility to the executive by order in council in the same way as many other things are done. We may want to add some checks and balances by referring the question for a one-day debate in the House to test public opinion.
Having made our position very clear, there are very few things left to say. I have a couple of things that might add something to the committee. One judge said-I hope nobody will ask me who it is-what he thought about these things:
It is certainly desirable that the differential between the county and district courts and the supreme court should be reduced. Hence, an increase in the district court salaries of a higher percentage is justified at this time. Another thing this concept will bring into being is elimination of what I think to be a bad practice, that of federally-appointed judges receiving additional salary from provincial or other sources.
As you know, there are no county court or district court judges in the
29561-26'/.

May 15, 1975
Judges Act
province of Quebec. All of the federally-appointed judges are appointed to the supreme court. I know that in Ontario, and to an extent in other provinces, the district or county court judges have received considerable outside funds, in some instances exceeding $6,000. I am satisfied the Department of Justice is very wisely working toward the elimination of these outside emoluments.
I am sure the main reason the Department of Justice is thinking of making part of our increase retroactive is that there was somewhat of a gentlemen's understanding with John Turner that judicial salaries would be reviewed every four years, and making the increase partially retroactive to the spring of 1971 is in line with this concept. I don't know that the minister's understanding with us at the judicial council is generally known.
I think that is correct; I am so advised, and I remember discussing this with the former minister of justice and I think he would agree with it.


An hon. Member:: The last page!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, it is an important matter and I have taken a little time on it. I see by the clock that I have been speaking for 30 minutes; maybe that is a little long, but it is an important subject.


An hon. Member:: Keep going.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Against this, however, if judicial salaries compared to those of the legal profession are as low as they currently are, I would think it would become more and more difficult from simply an economic point of view to attract the best lawyers to the Bench. It will be a sad day for the administration of justice in Canada if it is generally regarded in the legal profession that anyone taking a judicial appointment must be doing so because he cannot make it in the profession. A judge said that to me. This could be the result if salaries remain as they are, with the cost of living rising as it is.
I want to deal for a moment with the limitation on provincial remuneration. This is from the working papers that I think the Minister of Justice was talking about. In connection with the proposed salary increases, it should be noted that this bill will authorize an amendment to section 38(2) of the Judges Act to limit the remuneration a judge may receive under provincial law to a maximum of $3,000 per year. I think that is a move in the right direction.
One last point that I have to make before concluding is this: the widows of judges, as the Minister of Justice said, have suffered over the years. I recall a man-imagine the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will remember him-Manley Edwards, who was a member of the Liberal Party here, a member of parliament who served in one or two parliaments and was appointed to the district court. I think the pension his wife received when he died was less than $200, and she had to go out and take various jobs in the city. I do not want to go into that; it was a personal thing. There are many of them getting a pension of $5,000 or less. What I am saying is that amendments to increase the amount that widows of judges get should be supported, because a judge, as the Minister of Justice said, is at the peak of his earning power when he is appointed to the Bench. I think that is a move in the right direction and I hope it applies now to judges' widows.
I know there are members of parliament who served in this House for 20 or 30 years and who left with about $250 in pension. When anything has been done in this House

with reference to ourselves, I think of the men who have served here. I know one in particular; he not only served many years in the army but many years in parliament. Some of you may know who I am talking about-a very distinguished gentleman. He left this House with that kind of income. The man I defeated in Bow River had to get the farmers of the area to help him move his furniture when he left this institution. That is not good enough.
One last thought. I know the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is going to deal with it, so I will only say this. I want the Minister of Justice to think about it. There is no reason in the world why the Minister of Justice and this government should not appoint the judge in Newfoundland. The minister says he doesn't know who to find. Well, I will tell the Minister of Justice to stop this hanky-panky nonsense. If he cannot find a Liberal, let him appoint a Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say that with all sincerity.


An hon. Member:: What's the difference?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: An hon. member to my left says, "What's the difference?" On the Bench there is no difference. That's a good question; the best the hon. member has asked since coming to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, a very intelligent question. But the big problem in Newfoundland and some other provinces- I believe Prince Edward Island operates like that; I forget now because I have not checked into it: I know New Brunswick does it-is that the trial division sits on appeals, so that if you are one judge short you cannot hear any appeals. That is not good enough. If we are going to get this bill through, some of the members, particular from Newfoundland, will be asking the minister to get cracking and make that appointment without further delay.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, it was my intention to begin my remarks by expressing agreement with some of the important statements made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), but I have decided instead to do that a little later on because I want at the outset to say that this is one of those occasions when, although I cannot agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I feel I must commend him on the speech he has made. I do so because I feel he has addressed himself to the issues which are involved in the bill before us. There are a number of important instances where, in addressing myself to the issues, I come down with a conclusion directly opposite to his. But even though we may disagree, I think it is good debate when we are talking about the same things.
May I now return to the Minister of Justice, and in this respect, of course, I am commenting on something said by him and also by the hon. member for Calgary North. I express my complete agreement with the view that the
May 15, 1975

judiciary is a very important aspect of any democracy, certainly a very important aspect of Canadian democracy.
I want also to join with both of those who have spoken thus far in this debate in saying that we are well served by our judiciary. There have been some decisions made at various court levels with which I have disagreed. There are one or two that are current with which I may disagree. Likewise, there are times when I may disagree with the decisions of the Chair, but I still respect the Chair and all the occupants of it for their fairness and impartiality. The fact is, however, that an independent judiciary is something without which our democracy would not be secure. It is the place where the rights of individuals are protected. It is the place where decisions on the matters that affect individuals, or the principles that determine the whole nature of our society, are made. It is terribly important that we hold the highest respect for the judiciary and that we do everything we can to strengthen it.
I suppose there are members who are already saying to themselves, "How long is the member for Winnipeg North Centre going to talk that way before he tells us where he and his colleagues stand on this bill?" I just want to make it clear that what I have said by way of preamble is not just said for the purpose of being on the side of the angels so far as the judiciary is concerned, but because it is something about which we in this party and in our movement feel very strongly.
Even so, Madam Speaker, we think that some of the issues to which the hon. member for Calgary North addressed himself are serious and important issues, and we in this party have a view respecting those issues that differs radically from the views expressed by the Minister of Justice and by the hon. member for Calgary North.
We agree that one of the ways in which to provide for the independence of the judiciary is to make sure that individual judges are free from economic concern and anxiety. In other words, we agree that the salaries paid by Canada to her judges should be generous. I believe the hon. member for Calgary North would have a difficult time trying to get any court to reinterpret section 100 of the British North America Act to permit the salaries of judges to be established by the federal government through an order in council rather than by parliament itself. I think it is good that our constitution requires us to deal with the question of the salaries of judges here on the floor of the House of Commons rather than leaving it to the cabinet to be dealt with by order in council.
Even after saying quite clearly that we feel parliament must grapple with this responsibility, and that parliament must be generous so there will be dignity attached to being a judge and there will be freedom from anxiety and concern for our judges, we think there is such a thing as overdoing it. We look at the salary schedules provided in Bill C-47 and say quite frankly that we think the government is going too far. We say that, Madam Speaker, with particular conviction at this time in our economic history. The issue in this bill is awfully close to the issue that was before us in Bill C-44.


James McPhail Gillies: No, it is different.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) says it is different. There is
Judges Act
the difference in that I was opposed to any increases being provided under Bill C-44. I am prepared to support reasonable increases for judges, but I still think that we have to consider what the salary increases that this House is prepared to give to judges will do to the efforts being made to get our economy on the track.
In Bill C-44 we were dealing with the salaries or incomes of 264 members of this House and 102 members of the other place, a total of 366 individuals when the seats are all filled. I think that the action of parliament in providing for the boost that was contained in Bill C-44, even though it applied to only 366 persons, had a serious effect on the economy of this country. The proposal for that increase has been around since December, and I think some of the spiralling inflation that we are now experiencing has been triggered by what was done with respect to these 366 persons.
The Minister of Justice says that the number of judges in Canada is just over 500. That is even more than the total number of members of the House of Commons and the Senate. I submit that if we propose, in percentage terms or in absolute terms, massive increases in the incomes of another 500 persons because we owe them a particular respect, because we put them at the top of the ladder in terms of what is important in this country, this cannot but add to the inflationary effects that we have already fed to the economy by passing Bill C-44, even though some of us opposed that bill all the way.
I listened with particular interest to what was said by the hon. member for Calgary North. As I said earlier, I disagree with his conclusion, but I commend him on picking up and reading from the working paper distributed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) the exact restraint limits that are suggested in that working paper.
Everyone knows that a major issue now before the country is: what do we do about inflation? The government takes the view that somehow there must be restraint. The government view is that restraint should express itself in the precise terms quoted by the hon. member for Calgary North, namely, that no increase should be more than 12 per cent per year, or particularly in the case of higher salaried professionals and executives, more than $2,400 per year, whichever is the lesser. I suggest that for the government to be talking restraint proposals of that kind-a limit of 12 per cent or $2,400 per year-and then to break those proposals, pierce them if you will, for members of parliament and now for judges, and who knows next, just knocks the stuffing out of any possibility the government might have to sell its restraint program.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Madam Speaker, I have already pointed this out, but I would like the hon. member to be fair, and I think he will be when I make the point again. In this context we are dealing with a situation in respect of salary increases which are reviewable every two years. These judges, like members of parliament-and I do not want to mix the two together-have not had an increase for four years. So the situation is somewhat different. I am not saying the formula should be entirely different, but we are mixing apples and oranges.

May 15, 1975
Judges Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member say that in his speech once or twice, and he has said it again now exactly as he said it before. Of course, I was going to deal with it although I had planned to do so a little later. However, I do not mind shifting my speech a bit and dealing with it now. The hon. member makes the point that there have been no increases for our judges since 1971. The amending bill was passed in the fall of 1971 and it was made effective, I think, in July 1, 1971, so let us say it is four years.
If the guidelines of the Minister of Finance are to apply to those four years, even at $2,400 a year it amounts to only $9,600. Even if you apply that line, they would get only $9,600. There is no judge on the list whose increase is only $9,600: they are all more than that. Giving them full credit for the four years at the maximum figure suggested by the Minister of Finance, it would be-


James McPhail Gillies: When was the last increase for judges?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In 1971. I would prefer to agree to an increase of just $2,400 a year starting now; that is enough. But I would be prepared to accept the government's guidelines, so that four years times $2,400 is $9,600, yet the increases that judges are going to get are $18,000, $16,000, $15,000, $22,000 and $18,000. Those are the amounts the judges are going to get, having waited four years, but that is greatly in excess of the restraint proposals set out by the Minister of Finance. I submit that the Minister of Finance might as well leave us.


James McPhail Gillies: I could agree with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance got an answer from the Canadian Labour Congress which was to the effect that labour would not buy his proposal unless he did certain other things. He got an answer yesterday from the business community which was to the effect that they did not like his proposal either. He got a pretty effective "No" from the opposition side of the House in a couple of votes that took place yesterday. Now, after all that, if he is prepared to be part of a government that is willing to forget all about these restraint proposals because the judges are a particular group, then the consensus or restraint program is over.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Everybody is in a particular group.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), has taken the very words out of my head which I was about to give out of my mouth. Judges are not the only people who are special persons in this Canada of ours. The people for whom the judges have to make decisions are also important. The pensioners, the workers, the mothers in the home, and the persons going into the supermarkets trying to get enough food for the money they have, are all important-they are all Canadians. They are told they must settle for an increase of not more than 12 per cent a year, or $2,400 a year, whichever is the lesser. But for ourselves in the House of Commons and for those persons over in the other place, the restraints do not apply. Now we are back again this week with another series of increases.

When we were dealing with Bill C-44, the working papers had not leaked out. Now we have these working papers in public, and here is the government back again with these proposals which I suggest are so far beyond the guidelines in the working papers they just do not make sense at all and cannot be expected to be swallowed by anyone who tries to be reasonable or responsible.
I have already expressed my appreciation for the way in which the hon. member for Calgary North put his speech together, even if I disagree with it. I have to say again that the figures I have on the salaries vary slightly from his. He said he got a table from the Department of Justice. I did not do that, but I have taken the bill and the statute as it is and we seem to vary by about $3,000. I suspect that the salaries he has been given, both now and what they will be after the bill goes through, are about $3,000 higher than mine because he has included some representational allowances or some other allowances of that sort that they will get. The figures I have are along these lines: at the present time, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is receiving $47,000 a year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a small question of privilege. We are not engaged in any big argument. The hon. member is absolutely right, but to his figures should be added $3,000 because that is the amount payable for extrajudicial duties. The chart I read from has the exact figures which are the same as the hon. member's, to which $3,000 has been added except in the case of the Federal Court, and I think there it comes to $4,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine. That reconciles our figures, but I wanted to be clear that I am taking my figures from the act as it stands and the bill now before us. The chief justice will go from $47,000 to $65,000. That is an increase of $18,000, which in anybody's arithmetic is 38 per cent. The other judges of the Supreme Court of Canada will go from $42,000 to $60,000, which is an increase of $18,000, and that is 42 per cent.
Then the chief justice of the Federal Court and the chief justice of each of the provincial superior courts, the court of appeal and trial division, go from $39,000 to $55,000. In both cases the increase is $16,000, or 41 per cent. The other judges of the Federal Court, and likewise the other judges of the superior courts of the provinces, go from $35,000 to $50,000. That is an increase of $15,000, or 42 per cent.
Let us now look at the judges of the county or district courts, of whom there are a lot more. I appreciate the fact that in percentage terms they are to get more than those in the provincial superior courts, the Federal Court and the Supreme Court, but look at these figures: the judges of the county and district courts are now getting $19,000. The chief judges of those courts will go to $41,000. Somebody is going to say I am being unfair. I do not see how I can be, but that is an increase of $22,000, or 110 per cent.
In the case of the other judges of the county and district courts who are now getting $19,000, the same as the chief judges, they will go to something less than the chief judges, namely, $37,000. That is an increase of $18,000, or 94 per cent. Explain this away as you will, by saying there are some sources of income they will not be entitled to get, against which there are some new allowances that they have not been getting before, but the fact is that those are
May 15, 1975

the kinds of increases this bill is providing-all the way from a low of 38 per cent to a high of 110 per cent.
In the case of county and district court judges, and it applies to them only and not to judges of the Supreme Court, the Federal Court or provincial superior courts, there is a further provision for another increase a year from now. The chief judges of the county and district courts, who are getting now an increase of 110 per cent, have built into this measure another 17 per cent increase, that is, another $7,000, in April 1976. The other judges of those courts will have another $6,000 added on to their $37,000, bringing them to $43,000 a year, and that is 16 per cent on top of their present 94 per cent.
I do not take back one word of what I said in my opening remarks about respect for judges and the importance of the judiciary, but I do not see how the Parliament of Canada can be talking about a restraint program of 12 per cent, or $2,400, as a maximum for Canadians and deal with a bill that provides increases as high as 110 per cent now, plus another 17 per cent a year from now, or 94 per cent now and another 16 per cent a year from now. The minister may tell me this is aimed at doing something we want to do, namely, narrow the gap and that it will provide a higher percentage for the lowest paid judges than for those at the top. That is a principle we support. But I discover at the present time the dollar gap between the lowest and the highest paid judge is $28,000, that is, between $19,000 and $47,000; and under the bill-when it is all said and done, the gap will still be $28,000: there is no change at all in the gap. There is a difference in percentage terms, but the highest paid judge in Canada will still be receiving $28,000 more than the lowest paid judge under federal legislation.
I do not think what I am saying contains any element of disrespect for judges or disrespect for their needs. They are Canadians as we are. They are living today in 1975 when there is an economic problem in this country. I think they, along with us, should be giving leadership to the people of this country, and it is not leadership to be making a case for very much more than we are prepared to give the ordinary people of this country.
Earlier I referred to the judiciary of this country as serving us well. My friends in the legal profession, and I refer not only to those in our party, tell me that the calibre of judges on the Bench today is particularly high. Some of them feel it is higher than it was. It has not been a problem to get good men or women on the Bench because of the salaries paid. I suggest there are other things involved besides salaries. There is the security of the job itself; there is the security of the pension provisions; there is the prestige and the satisfaction of knowing that one is part of a very important process in Canadian democracy. I think it is a bit of an insult to say that the only way we will get people to do that sort of thing is by paying these salaries that are so much more than is needed in order for them to keep up with the cost of living, and so much more than we are prepared to let others have.
I had occasion a few days ago, I believe it was when we were dealing with the estimates of Treasury Board, to make the point that I think, as do my colleagues, that a
Judges Act
cost of living increase should be for that portion of one's income that one spends in order to meet the cost of living. This myth of a percentage across the board for the person receiving $5,000 and the same percentage for the person receiving $50,000 just does not wash. I do not think there is a case for giving those at the top level the same percentage we give to those at the lower levels, but in this case we are throwing the restraint proposals out the window and saying that while others are entitled to only 12 per cent or $2,400 a year, the judges are entitled after four years to 38 per cent, 41 per cent, 42 per cent or even higher.
As I say, if we turn this percentage into absolute dollars and take the figure of the Minister of Finance of $2,400 for four years, that is $9,600, and not one of those salary changes is anywhere near $9,600; they run at $15,000, $16,000 and $18,000. I think $15,000 is the lowest I have in front of me in my notes in respect of any of the increases; yet the Minister of Finance says it should not be more than $2,400 a year, which is $9,600 in four years.
I believe we are back to the philosophy some of us have, that we should not be building in Canada a society of an elite at the top and ordinary mortals down below. I do not take away from my readiness to provide judges with complete freedom from economic anxiety or economic concern, but I feel very strongly that we should treat them as part of the Canadian populace. I think they should be concerned about inflation and what is happening, and I think the restraints that some of us thought should apply to us as members of parliament and which the government proposes for others should apply to them.
It had been my hope to finish my speech before five o'clock, but I see I will have to take a few minutes this evening.


An hon. Member:: That is nice to look forward to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can I be sure that my friends will all be back at eight o'clock?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I do not need to give notice of the amendment I will move tonight, because my friends will all be here.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is it in order?


An hon. Member:: Let's hear it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, do you see the kind of friends I have? They say they will be here at eight o'clock, but when I suggest I have an amendment they are not so sure; they would like to hear it now. I shall read out the amendment, Mr. Speaker. This will also be a courtesy to you so that you can look it over during the dinner hour, and then I shall move it at the end of my remarks. May I say that it is a reasoned amendment.


Mr. Peters:: And reasonable, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and I well know, that it is a little difficult to draft a reasoned amendment and get it past the rules. There has been only one reasoned amendment accepted so far in this

May 15, 1975
CBC Programming
parliament. It was one moved on February 6 by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). I might think a reasoned amendment should take some other form, but I am smart enough to know that if I want it to be in order, I should follow the form of the one that was in order. It appears at page 2977 of Hansard for Thursday, February 6. The amendment I shall move will follow that amendment and it will be in these terms:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out, and that the following be substituted therefore:
"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-47 because it fails to limit the salary increases contained therein to the restraint limits proposed by the government, namely that executive and professional salaries should not be increased by more than 12 per cent or $2,400 per year, whichever is the lesser."
As I say, I shall move that amendment at the end of my speech tonight, but I am sending a copy to you now, Mr. Speaker, so that you can look it over during the dinner hour, so that hon. members opposite can decide that this is the time to vote for their government's restraint proposals, and so that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) can give it his best thought as well.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise)-Agriculture-Fertilizer- Justification of price increases; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-Housing-Native housing program-Reason for reduction in number of starts-Ability of native people to afford mortgage interest rates; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)-Bankruptcy-Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada-Reason for permitting close alignment with office of Secretary of State.
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 for the production of papers.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


CORRESPONDENCE WITH CBC PERTAINING TO PROGRAM &quot;BAPTIZING&quot;
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday April 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dinsdale:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence with CBC pertaining to the program "Baptizing", presented on the CBC TV network on Sunday evening, January 19, 1975.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I take this opportunity to commend the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for his concern and interest in this very important matter, a matter which I believe all hon. members have at one time or another mentioned or about which they have expressed some concern. I am referring to the quality and standard of drama presentations by and through our national network, the CBC.
I can say that while the hon. member and I share a number of opinions on transportation and its importance in the outlying areas of this great country, his request at this time for the production by the CBC of all the correspondence received by the corporation pertaining to the drama production entitled "Baptizing" presented on the CBC TV network on Sunday, January 19, 1975, is one which, I am afraid, I do not support. I do not doubt for a moment the hon. member's sincerity in his approach to the subject, but I have serious doubts and reservations about the outcome were such a practice allowed at this time.

May 15, 1975

If there is one area of life today about which I am deeply concerned it is the individual freedom that we enjoy in this country and the protection of our freedom of speech, of thought, of action, of movement and of worship. I am deeply concerned that if this motion is adopted, it might prove to be an invasion of the privacy of the common citizen, an action that we might regret in the future.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that had the hon. member for Brandon-Souris been seeking the tabling of a summary of the opinions that have been expressed to the CBC by all of its viewers and contained in all the correspondence received by the corporation, then I would have had no hesitation in supporting him in that demand. However, tabling in the House of all correspondence received, without the permission of the people who originated that correspondence is, to my way of thinking, an invasion of their privacy which would tend to suppress the free flow of opinion between the citizens of Canada and the corporation.
I should like to raise, also, the question of whether such a move would indeed be advisable from the standpoint of the private broadcasters who are part of the national network as affiliates of the CBC. I know for a fact that in our own area in western Ontario-and I know this from first-hand knowledge-a great deal of communication takes place between the viewer and the network affiliates. In other words, private stations at the end of the CBC network provide the closest link between private citizens and the corporation.
I am sure that if members of the House were working in any of these establishments on programs of a varying nature, they would know by the telephone calls that are received, not only at the station but in numerous control rooms of the various affiliate stations, that the viewing public across Canada is taking this opportunity to let its views be known to the affiliate. It would seem to me that if we are going to take a serious look at the situation, in other words get all the facts as to what the people thought of the program in question, we would have to go right down to the affiliate stations and get the full story from them.
I believe, also, that the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) made an extremely important observation, to be found at page 5177 of Hansard of April 24, 1975, when he pointed out the criteria to be applied for exemption from production of papers. He gave the following reasons: first, the papers are voluminous and, second, they would require inordinate length of time and cost to prepare. It seems to me that this reason alone is sufficient for Mr. Speaker to deny the request for correspondence to be placed before the House. Having worked in one of the network private affiliates, I can assure the House that literally volumes of correspondence are received at the private end of the corporate network on the subject of a controversial program such as the one we are discussing now.
However, my chief objection relates to the harmful effects that such action might have in the future. Where do we stop? I know that this motion is to apply to one instance only, but to my way of thinking it would be the thin edge of the wedge and once the precedent is set, the door can easily be opened not only in the case of the
CBC Programming
network but, I submit, in the case of private stations as well. I believe that this could get us into great difficulties. While I certainly do not condone immoral or indecent presentations no matter where they take place, I believe that the House has a responsibility to make sure that its views are made known to the corporation through the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts as well as right here in this chamber. I do not believe that its authority should necessarily extend into areas of private communications between the corporation and its individual viewers.
Let me illustrate, if I may. If I were investing money in a company-and that is what we are doing in support of the CBC when we invest money of the people of Canada in one of the largest companies in the world-and if I did not have adequate expertise to run it myself, I would hire the most expert people I could find and let them get on with the job. If I were not happy with the job they were doing, I would let them know about it, which is the case in this particular instance when the displeasure of many members of the House is expressed, and also at the meetings of the broadcasting committee when it is voiced forcefully. But I do not think I would place any restrictions on a company that I owned which would burden it with regulations and demands that would not have to be met by its competitors, which I feel is what this motion would do to the corporation because there is no way in which the House could demand that the CTV network or Global television produce correspondence from their viewers.
I would also like to point out that in this instance we are dealing with a matter which requires flexibility. In reality the quality of a program is a matter of opinion, a question of cultural taste and morality which is an individual personal matter. I am sure we can agree that it is almost impossible to find two people in agreement on a subject such as this. I am sure that a great number of negative opinions were expressed to the CBC on the subject of this particular program. I am equally sure that a great number of opinions were not expressed, whether they were positive opinions or negative opinions. I am sure that hon. members realize that possibly only one person in ten will take the time, pick up a pen and take the effort necessary to make his opinions known, whether it be to the CBC, Eaton's, Simpson's or any other corporate body.
Even if we did have all these communications tabled, we might or might not have a precise over-all view of what the national opinion would be on that particular program. As hon. members know, the CBC-and other members of this House have put forth supporting views-has said that it was the largest audience ever assembled for a program of that kind. It was also submitted to this House that the rating for the program ran about 70 per cent, or perhaps 50 per cent or better in its favour. We can all argue that that is what the CBC says, but the fact remains that those statistics are available and I do not see that even tabling all the correspondence would give us exactly what we are looking for.
I have a great deal of affection and admiration for our democratic representation formula. I honestly believe that the best outlook for public opinion in the world today is

May 15, 1975
CBC Programming
provided each day right here in the House of Commons by the representatives who sit in this green chamber from all parts of our nation. I am certain that the CBC has been made fully aware of the concern expressed by the people of Canada to us as their elected representives. To my way of thinking, the most effective letter any Canadian can write is not to the CBC, the CTV or any other corporate or business enterprise, but to Ottawa to his elected member.
I am sure that if the hon. member for Brandon-Souris would reflect for just a moment, he would find that it does not take much stretching of the imagination to believe that there could appear in this House in the future a motion which would request the tabling of all private members' correspondence, that which each of us receives every day from the citizens we represent. It is not inconceivable that such a thing could happen, and I would like to assure the hon. member that I would oppose such a motion then for the same reasons that I oppose this motion now. It would be then, as it is now, an intrusion into a person's privacy.


Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I would not like you or the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) to think that during my remarks I would say anything disrespectful of him or attack his sincerity or conviction in bringing this matter before the House. He is one of its most distinguished members. All of us, on all sides, admire his enthusiasm, devotion and integrity. It was impossible not to sympathize with him as he recounted his distress at watching this program "Baptizing". It was obviously an anguishing, agonizing and almost traumatic experience for him. It was impossible not to sympathize. But I was puzzled. It seems to me that some fancy, smooth-talker from Sam Slick territory must have arrived in Brandon and sold a whole parcel of television sets which had no "off" button, because there should have been a handy remedy available for him to avoid this distressing experience. He could have placed his hands firmly on the arms of his chair, stood up, taken a few paces, pushed the button and turned the program off.


Walter David Baker: Who would turn the CBC off?


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member did not turn it off. He could have read a book or perhaps watched alternative programming. It conjures up a rather strange picture in one's mind to visualize the hon. member for Brandon-Souris turning on the set with that tingling anticipation he usually has when he is about to see a CBC program. He watches the program for a while and says to himself that he is not sure he will like it. Does he turn it off? No, he keeps on watching. He watches a little longer and concludes that he really does not like it. Does he get up and turn it off? No, he keeps on watching. He watches a little longer and thinks that it is very distressing and unpleasant and that he dislikes it intensely. Does he turn it off? No, he keeps watching. Finally, he thinks that the program he is watching is revolting and disgusting. He wonders what to do. Does he turn if off? No, he decides to complain to the House of Commons.
The remedy was in his hands. No one forced him, and no one forces people who feel as he does, to watch this kind of program. So what is he complaining about? He is not

complaining that this program was imposed upon him. He wants to make sure that his values and standards are imposed upon other people. If one reads his remarks, this is his intention. He says that it is wrong to communicate this "distortion of the essential nature of human behaviour" to the Canadian public, which implies that he knows what is the essential nature of human behaviour, a subject which has been speculated upon without conclusion for well over 2,500 years. He knows what essential human nature is, and he doesn't think what he considers to be a distortion of it should be seen on television. He does not feel that what he calls the disintegration of society should be seen on television. One man's disintegration is another man's reformation, a renewal if you like. He does not think the program should include what he believes to be "blasphemy, obscenities, violence and situations at odds with traditional values of Canadian society."
I should not complain that a Conservative believes in protecting the traditional values of Canadian society, but I do suggest that not simply and only the traditional values of Canadian society should be expressed through television programming in this country. It is not a question of values the hon. member does not like being imposed on him; he is concerned with imposing a set of values upon others who may or may not share them. In the case of the particular program he is complaining about, it appears that from the letter and telephone response a very great majority of listeners felt differently about the program than he did.
I object to this kind of splendid assurance that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris or, for that matter me, or any member of this House, is competent to decide what values and moral standards the Canadian public should watch on television. Once we start down that slope, where do we stop? What are we to judge out of court? What sacred cow are we going to establish? Can we watch Elmer Gantry which some people may consider ridicules certain aspects of religion? Shall we rule out Mary, Queen of Scots because we do not like the portrayal of John Knox? Shall we rule out Tartuffe because we do not like attacks on sanctimony? Shall we rule out the Devils of Loudon because it holds the inquisition up to disrepute? Shall we rule out the Merchant of Venice because people do not like the characterization of Jews? Where do we stop once we decide that television programming in Canada should represent the views of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, or of me, or of any particular member in this House?


Gerald William Baldwin: How about Reader's Digest and Time?


John (Moody) Roberts: is very different from the kind of nickel and dime involvement in specific details of programming which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris obviously favours. What should govern the basic principle behind programming policy is not, I suggest, just the taste of the mass, is not just the taste of the minority, is not the taste of the avant garde, and is certainly not the taste of the righteous. It seems to me that the CBC should attempt to present a variety of programming so that a variety of Canadians can find something on the CBC which is of interest to them.
The cost may be that once in a while a member of the House of Commons, or some of his friends, may be outraged at one or another program. On occasion even I may be outraged about a program. But there is a greater benefit in making sure that programming gives a choice to a large number of Canadians, whatever their disposition, so that most can find something which will interest, stimulate and entertain them.
The role of the CBC is exactly that characterized by the hon. member in a felicitous phrase. Its role is that of "chartered liberty". I point out that it was parliament which, in its wisdom, decided to establish the CBC not as a department completely under the responsibility of parliament but as a public corporation to some extent separated from the probings of parliament so that parliament would not delve into day to day details of programming and administration. It was thought-wisely, it seems to me-that a radio and television communications system should not be subject to the kind of influence or control which politicians might wish to bring to bear in the consideration of specific details. If we interfere in artistic policy, if we interfere in the details of program content, what is to stop our interfering with programs which present news, commentary or other aspects?
It is the House of Commons which decided that the CBC should have chartered liberty and that there are areas in which the House would not interfere. We were to keep our hands off the day to day administration of the corporation, the over-all direction of programming, but we could attempt to give advice and counsel. That principle is dangerously contravened by the kind of approach represented by the motion presented by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. He would attempt to delve into administrative details which surround the presentation of the specific program about which he is concerned. That is an attempt which this House should resist.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I am glad hon. members opposite approve of brevity on my side of the House. Unfortunately, brevity of remarks on the other side is somewhat rare. To comment on this matter, this morning, as a member of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, I met at a general meeting the president of the CBC who appeared as a witness before the committee, and I took that opportunity to question him about this matter. I thought, since I wanted to participate in the
CBC Programming
present debate before the House, that he might shed some light on the matter.
I find, when dealing with complaints of constituents and other kinds of problems, that it is best sometimes to take some of the earlier letters, block out or erase names and addresses and forward these letters when answering later letters of inquiry. I asked the president of the CBC this morning just why is he not willing to provide the information asked for now. He insisted that the problem really boiled down to a matter of principle, that people who had written in and signed their letters, had written in complete confidence, and that they have the right and the privilege to have their correspondence kept confidential; further, you could only turn over those letters to members of parliament or make them public if you had the permission of the persons who had written in and criticized.
I asked if it would not be possible to block out the name and address and particulars of the person who sent the letter because some people are afraid of reprisals if their names are connected with criticisms of radio or television programs. Revealing the names of these people might hurt their ability to earn a living or might harm their wellbeing or particular situation in a community. This is quite possible. For instance, people employed by a large corporation might suffer if it became known that they are critical of certain aspects of programming. If a letter is read in the House of Commons, it becomes public. I wonder how my constituents would feel if I were to say to them, "Everything you write to me with your signature on it I will circulate publicly." So I do not scoff at Mr. Picard's position.
On the other hand, I think members of parliament have the right to know what kind of criticism is being levelled at the CBC on any particular program. The president of the CBC indicated this morning that he is entirely willing to present, in summary form, the different points made and how many times they were made. I think he would go so far as to give some idea of how many complaints come from each region. I think that would answer a major part of the demand made by the hon. member's motion.
I think we all respect the way in which the CBC ought to be dealt with. It is indirectly responsible to parliament. The fact remains that if, after each drama, after each presentation, we call the producer of the show before us, if we want to find out about every phone call, about every discussion, about what every person said to the cameraman, to the co-producer and to his friends, we shall be intimidating. That is the kind of intimidation we do not want if the state-owned facility is to remain independent in thinking and express itself. We have the power to legislate. If someone is not doing is job, that person can be replaced. If someone is not carrying out his responsibilities properly then we, since we control the CBC, can see to it that the person is replaced. We can make changes short of passing legislation.
That is all I want to say, except this: this morning the president of the CBC indicated that if the hon. member wants general information, wants to know how many criticisms of each type were levelled at the corporation, that information is available. It is the names of the individuals which the president wishes to withhold. The

May 15, 1975
CBC Programming
privilege of privacy is a privilege and right which all Canadians and members of this House ought to revere.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I draw to the attention of hon. members that if the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), speaks at this time, he will close the debate. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I think most of us have heard it said that all politicians have in them some thing of the ham actor. Certainly, as I listened to some contributions in this debate I concluded that in this House there is evidence of a great deal of frustrated dramatic artistry. It will be interesting to see, when the TV camera invades this chamber, how we shall be portrayed in glorious technicolour.
I am afraid the debate has digressed from the subject matter before the House. What precipitated the debate was the notice of motion asking that an order of the House do issue for all correspondence with the CBC pertaining to the program "Baptizing." We then heard learned dissertations on the subject of freedom. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts) embarked on this theme at some length this afternoon. Incidentally, I notice that the phrase "chartered libertine" which I used, was printed in Hansard as "chartered liberty". The actual phrase I used, and which should be corrected in the revised version of Hansard, is "chartered libertine". The definition of libertine is one who is licentious or allowed to do as he pleases.
While we are discussing the invasion of privacy, individual, personal rights and the tabling of correspondence, I suggest that one of the more popular types of program on radio, and this is being heard increasingly in Canada, is known as the open line program. Many open line programs depend almost exclusively on correspondence. The expressions of opinion on topics of the day are read over the air freely and openly. If we are going to get into the area of placing a special restriction on this sort of correspondence, it will severely restrict the operations of the electronic media, which for hour after hour, expose public opinion. I certainly would not expect the CBC to table letters marked personal and confidential. I think the argument put forward by several members is quite a spurious argument in this regard.
It has been suggested that I, as a free citizen, have a right to turn off the program. I must say that is exactly what I did. There had been a considerable amount of publicity preceding the presentation of the performances. I believe "Baptizing" was the first program in the series.
In light of the considerable publicity put out by the CBC, I waited with some anticipation for the first presentation. I am interested in good drama. Unfortunately, I was considerably disappointed and I turned it off. A group of young people came to me and suggested that I make a protest. I thought that was fascinating indeed. They described what had actually gone on.
Most of us in this House of Commons are middle aged. Recently, Frank Capra, a distinguished Hollywood producer, was interviewed by Vernon Scott. The interview was headed "Middle-aged get jollies from violence". I quote from this interview:
Frank Capra, winner of three Oscars for nonviolent movies, said today it is middle-aged people who get their jollies from sex and violence, not young folk.
If we were really catering to the needs of young folk through the electronic media today, we would be programming at a far different level.
I notice Your Honour is about to flag me down. May X just make one more point. The CBC is funded by very generous amounts of money from the taxpayers of Canada. In many respects it does an outstanding job. However, I contend it is not the responsibility and function of the CBC to experiment at the taxpayers' expense with off-beat, off-Broadway types of productions you would see in the sleazy parts of New York and expose this sort of production, according to the statistics given to us, to three million people. That is certainly not a function of the CBC.
I hope the House will give its approval to the tabling of these letters so we can actually see how the people of Canada feel about these matters. I took this to the president of the CBC in a personal letter. He replied that he had received all these wonderful letters in support of the program. If that is true I would like to see how the evidence shapes up in the actual tabling of these letters.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Call in the members. The House divided on the motion (Mr. Dinsdale) which was negatived on the following division?

May 15, 1975

Allard	(Division No. 50)
 YEAS Messrs. Halliday	Marshall
Andres	Hamilton	Masniuk(Lincoln)	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MazankowskiBaker	Mountain)	McCain(Grenville- Carleton)	Hamilton	McGrathBaldwin	(Swift Current-	McKenzieBenjamin	Maple Creek)	McKinleyBrisco	Hargrave	MuirCadieu	Hnatyshyn	O'SullivanClark	Horner	Patterson(Rocky Mountain)	Hurlburt	PetersClarke	Jarvis	Roche(Vancouver Quadra)	Johnston	RondeauCossitt	Kempling	SaltsmanCrouse	Knowles	SchellenbergerDarling	(Winnipeg	SchumacherDinsdale	North Centre)	ScottDionne	Lawrence	Stanfield(Kamouraska)	MacDonald (Miss)	StevensDouglas	(Kingston and the	Stewart(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	Islands)	(Marquette)The Islands)	MacKay	TowersForrestall	MacLean	WiseFortin	Malone	Woolliams-56.Abbott	NAYS Messrs. Dupras	MarchandAllmand	Ethier	(Kamloops-Cariboo)Anderson	Faulkner	MartinAppolloni (Mrs.)	Fleming	MclsaacBaker	Flynn	McRae(Gander-Twillingate)	Francis	MilneBasford	Gauthier	Morin (Mrs.)B&chard	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MunroBlais	Gendron	(Hamilton East)Blaker	Gillespie	PearsallBoulanger	Goodale	PelletierBreau	Gray	(Hochelaga)Bussieres	Guay (Levis)	PennerCaccia	PhilbrookCafik	Herbert	PinardCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Isabelle	PortelanceCampbell (Miss)	Jamieson	Raines(South Western Nova)	Kaplan	ReidCampbell	Lachance	Richardson(LaSalle-femard-Cote	Lajoie	RobertsSaint-Paul)	Lang	RobinsonCaron	Langlois	RodriguezChretien	Lapointe	RooneyCollenette	Leblanc	RoyComtois	(Laurier)	(Laval)Cullen	Lessard	SharpCyr	Loiselle	SmithDanson	(Chambly)	(Saint-Jean)De Bane	Lumley	StanburyDemers	MacDonald	StewartDionne	(Cardigan)	(Cochrane)(Northumberland-	MacEachen	SymesMiramichi)	MacFarlane	TessierDouglas	MacGuigan	Turner(Bruce-Grey)	Marceau	(London East)Drury	Marchand	WatsonDuclos	(Langelier)	WhelanDupont	Yanakis
Young-94.


Mr. Speaker:: The time allotted for private members' hour having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.06 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

Judges Act


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-47, to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have to do this, but I find that I made an error-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -in my
remarks this afternoon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Incredible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the interjections but I am glad I am able to make the correction in the same Hansard in which I made the error. I also apologize for having made the error. In giving the amounts of the salaries that the various judges now receive I made a mistake with regard to the present salaries of the county court judges. When I checked back into the record I found that my eye had caught the wrong column for the county court judges. I said that their present salary is $19,000. Actually the present salary for the chief judge of a county or district court is $27,000, and the salary for the other judges in district and county courts is $25,000.
The result of this error is that I made another one. I said therefore that the salaries they would get under this bill would represent an increase of 110 per cent in the case of the chief of the county court judges and 94 per cent in the case of the others. I am really surprised that no one picked me up on those scandalous figures, but I am happy to correct them. The fact is that the chief judge of a county court would go from $27,000 to $41,000, which is an increase of $14,000, or 51 per cent. The other judges of the county or district courts would go from $25,000 to $37,000, an increase of $12,000, or 48 per cent. One result of this is that instead of the spread between the lowest and highest paid judge remaining as it was, I find that the spread has grown from $22,000 to $28,000
To summarize these figures then, in looking at the various groups of judges to which I referred this afternoon, the situation in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada, the superior courts of the provinces, both appeal and trial divisions, and the county and district courts adds up to this:
The House resumed at 8 p.m.

May 15, 1975
Judges Act
their percentage increases are 38 per cent, 41 per cent, 42 per cent, 48 per cent and 51 per cent. In actual dollars their increases are $12,000, $14,000, $15,000, $16,000 and $18,000. In the case of the two sets of judges who get the highest percentage increases of 48 per cent and 51 per cent, there is built into the bill in one case another 16 per cent and in the other another 17 per cent increase in 1976.
The point of all this is that for all that I was prepared to agree about the respect we owe judges and the things we must do to make sure they are free from economic concern, I think this bill goes too far, and in particular I think it is an insult to the country as a whole for the government to be discussing wage restraints of 12 per cent per year, or $2,400, whichever is the lesser, and at the same time to provide these kinds of increases for the judges of the various courts of this country. I believe I was completely fair when I pointed out that I was not asking for an increase of only $2,400 because there has been no increase for the judges for four years, but even four years at $2,400 is $9,600 and yet the lowest increase in terms of dollars any of the judges would get would be $12,000, and it goes on up to $18,000. I submit that in light of the economic problems we face and the appeal being made to Canadians to get together in some kind of a program that will lick inflation, this is hardly an appropriate course to follow.
I hope I made it clear this afternoon that we regard very highly the judiciary of this country. We respect those who are on the Bench in the various courts of Canada, but we feel they should be part of the rest of us in trying to cope with our economic problems today, and that they, just as some of us felt we in this House should also not do, should not seek to go beyond the kinds of restraints being suggested by the federal government at this time.
I suspect that my 40 minutes must be just about over and I shall not try to develop any further arguments at this time. There are things in the bill on which I would like to have commented favourably. Let me pick out just one. If I read the bill correctly -having made a mistake this afternoon, I suppose I had better put in that qualification-I believe that some of the pension provisions for widows are being made retroactive, that there are cases of widows of judges who are now on pensions of a certain amount who will get an increase under the provisions of this bill. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) nodding his head vertically-


Mr. Rodriguez:: I have also seen him nodding
horizontally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to know I am correct in that. I just hope this is a precedent that will be copied in other legislation.
If I may speak of some who may be known to members of this House, there are widows of former members of parliament who have no pension at all because their husbands left the House before there was a widows' provision.
I can also think of widows in other categories, such as widows of retired civil servants, and I hope that the principle of retroactive pension increases for certain widows will be carried forward into other legislation.

I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, just before five o'clock, of an amendment that I wish to move. I indicated at that time that I copied an expert in this field, my friend and neighbour of only a seat or two away, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).


John R. Rodriguez: An expert?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is an expert in that he is the only member of this thirtieth parliament who has moved a reasoned amendment that has been accepted. I hope the House will treat this amendment with the seriousness with which we put it forward. We present it in the context of the economic problems facing Canada today.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out, and that the following be substituted therefor:
"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-47 because it fails to limit the salary increases contained therein to the restraint limits proposed by the government, namely that executive and professional salaries should not be increased by more than 12 per cent or $2,400 per year, whichever is the lesser".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Some mention has been made of the difficulty in putting forward reasoned amendments at the second reading stage. Are there any hon. members who would wish to assist the Chair before we come to a decision on this?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make two specific points about this. In the first place I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this motion indicates that some restraint limits are proposed by the government. My understanding is that the government has not proposed any direct restrictions on salaries and wages. What the government has done is to make a proposal that is open to negotiation, and those negotiations are still going on. The second part of the argument based on that is that these increases are designed to cover a number of years, not just one year.
The second point I wish to make is that if one reads the amendment carefully I believe it can be interpreted as a direct negative against the whole principle of the bill, which is to provide increases for the members of the Canadian judicial system, increases which they have not had over a substantial span of years. Therefore if the hon. member wishes to make that point, it seems to me that the best way he can make it is for him and those who support that point of view to vote against the bill on second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) may I refer first to one argument which he used, but which I think he would admit was in terms of substance rather than procedure. He argued that the increase being proposed for the judges is one that covers several years, not just one year. I asserted that in the substantial part of my speech, and pointed out that I was asking for a comparison to be made for four years at $2,400 and the amounts that are in the bill.
May 15, 1975

However, in terms of procedure I think that it is perhaps important that I read the amendment that was moved on February 6 by the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence) before I read it, may I point out that two days prior to that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had moved an amendment which sought to express an opinion both ways. It said that the House was not opposed to the bill in its entirety but it did not want to vote for it because it did not have certain cuts in it. It was ruled out of order on the grounds that one could not have it both ways.
My friend, the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham, therefore came back on February 6, as recorded in Hansard at page 2977, and moved, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-49 because it fails to provide for a further 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in 1975 and subsequent taxation years despite unprecedented government revenues and the resulting overtaxation by the government."
I point out that that was a case of the House being asked to decline to proceed with the bill. In my amendment I propose precisely the same thing. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) suggests that I could achieve my object by voting against the bill on second reading. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham could have achieved his object by voting against the bill on second reading. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River suggests that there are no government proposals. Well, that is a debatable point, but I suggest that no exception was taken to the references made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to unprecedented government revenues and resulting overtaxation by the government. The fact that the government did not agree that it is indulging in overtaxation was not advanced as a procedural argument.
When one puts this in the context of the citations on reasoned amendments, notably citation 382 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition, which most of us involved in procedural affairs know by heart, which speaks of a resolution declaratory of some principle opposed to a bill, one finds that this amendment states opposition to the bill-it does not ask for it both ways-and it gives reasons for that opposition, our reason being that it fails to limit the salary increases provided therein to a specific set of principles, namely, that the increases should not be more than 12 per cent a year or $2,400 a year, whichever is the lesser. Because my amendment is in accordance with citation 382, because it is in the same form as the only reasoned amendment that has been accepted in this parliament, I hope that it will also be accepted by Your Honour.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the very thing which is sought in the amendment could be attempted in the committee and that it is in fact a specific item in relation to a specific matter. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that he did not even argue against the proposition or the principle that some increases for judges were required, and I would have said that that was the principle involved at this point. The bill
Judges Act
includes many other issues and elements, and I take it again that the hon. member who has moved this amendment himself approves a good number of them. He said so in regard to some of them, if not in regard to all of them.
Since this matter could very specifically be dealt with in the committee, it really follows exactly along the lines which the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) discussed earlier in suggesting that he saw this exact distinction of favouring the principle of increases but not necessarily the specifics. It strikes me that we would be, in second reading, dealing clause by clause with every item if we allowed amendments of this sort, because clearly there could be amendments of this sort in regard to every single element and detail of every single clause, and that in itself should be good reason for falling back upon the long standing precedent that reasoned amendments are indeed very difficult to make.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As a non expert in this matter, Mr. Speaker, may I urge that you make your decision in terms of this being a reasoned amendment and not in terms of what I choose to believe are spurious points raised by my two colleagues on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has gone to extra lengths and effort to meet decisions of the Chair in arriving at both the wording and content of a reasoned amendment, and it seems to me that is the area upon which Your Honour has to make a decision, and not any other area of the contents of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no others who wish to make a contribution to this very interesting procedural point, I am afraid that I will have to give the matter some thought. I suppose it would be difficult to receive guidance from hon. members at this time as to whether this stage of this bill is likely to conclude this evening.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, it will.


Mr. Speaker:: It is likely to conclude this evening, in which case it is certainly desirable, if not absolutely essential, that the period of reservation of the decision not be very long. In any case I would like some time to think about it. I will return to the chair perhaps right after the next speaker, in the hope that I can give a decision.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to enter into arguments regarding the principle of the bill. These arguments have been very clearly, concisely, and learnedly put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). There is a part of this bill which has obviously escaped the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and that deals with the provision of salaries which would provide for the appointment of judges for the newly created appellate courts of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. For that reason I do hope that Your Honour will take that matter into consideration before the ruling of the Chair is made.
On April 30 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) a question-it can be found at page 5332 of Hansard-with respect to the vacancy in the Supreme Court of Newfound-

May 15, 1975
Judges Act
land which was created by the death of a distinguished member of that court in October of last year. My question to the minister was when would that vacancy be filled, and of course the minister replied soon. He went on to explain the reason for the delay, and I quote from Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, part of the delay relates to the reorganization of the courts and the impact this might have upon appointments. However, as usual the search for well qualified persons to receive these appointments is a significant matter and not one taken lightly and adds to the over-all delay.
I understand, although I am not a member of the bar, that the judicial year begins in October and ends in June. Certainly that applies in my province. Consequently, this means that the vacancy in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland has now existed for a full year, certainly for a full judicial year, and probably for a full calendar year when we consider that whenever the minister does get around to making this appointment, it will take the newly appointed judge at least a month or two months to readjust his life in order to be able to accept the position on the Bench. That may not seem like a very serious matter on the surface, but it is a very serious matter, and that is why I feel constrained to intervene in this debate.
Indeed I feel it my solemn duty to intervene in this debate because the seriousness of this matter results from this vacancy. The Newfoundland supreme court, by virtue of the fact that there is no court of appeal, cannot hear appeals. There are only three members left of the four member court, and consequently they cannot hear appeals against the judgment of one of its members, and also, because of the vacancy the court is overworked, and judgments are delayed significantly. We consider that to be a very serious matter.
I understand, and this is a matter of public record, that the law society of Newfoundland has communicated its feelings on this matter to the minister, but now we are being asked to vote for a bill to create a new appellate court for the province of Newfoundland before an appointment is made to fill a vacancy which has existed in the presently constituted court for almost eight months. In this bill we are being asked to provide for salaries for the three new judges who comprise the appellate court while the vacancy in the trial court, which also serves now as the appellate court, still exists.
As one of the representatives of the province of Newfoundland in this House I deem it to be an insult to the prestige of the Law Society of Newfoundland for the Minister of Justice to suggest in this House that he is having difficulty finding a suitable person to fill that vacancy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Shame, shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: I would like to hear the minister's definition of suitable.


Otto Emil Lang: The best.


James Aloysius McGrath: I listened very carefully when in his opening statement the minister said that he considers the appointment of judges to be his most important responsibility, and I agree that it is a tremendous responsibility. That is why I find it regrettable that the minister, by his

failure to act in filling this vacancy, leaves himself open to the charge that the delay in filling this vacancy is because the minister has confined his choice to members of the bar who are well known supporters of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: That, I submit, makes a total farce of this whole so-called consultative process, which the minister went to great pains to tell us about this afternoon.
I would ask the minister, and I will be repeating these questions when the bill gets to committee, has he within the interim of the past seven months or so sought the advice of the attorney general of the province of Newfoundland, the minister of justice of Newfoundland? Has the minister sought the advice of the Law Society of Newfoundland? Did he ask the benchers of the Law Society of Newfoundland to submit names? Did the minister seek the advice of the three remaining judges of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland? Did he ask them to submit names? Did the minister bother to consult with senior members of the bar of Newfoundland on an individual basis to get their advice and recommendations? Or did he, as I suspect and have already submitted, confine his consultations to the Liberal Party of Newfoundland? This is not the first time that has happened in the province.
This is not the first time the government has dragged its heels in filling a vacancy in Newfoundland. The last vacancy lasted for almost seven months. There was a seventh-month delay in filling the last vacancy which occurred when a judge retired. The delay was that long, even though the judge who retired gave the minister three month's notice of his intention to retire so that the minister would have ample time to find a replacement. That judge knew how difficult is the work of the judges, how overworked judges are, and how great is the case load of the court. Having consulted with distinguished members of the Newfoundland bar, I know that judges are overworked. They are so overworked that they hardly have time to research the law to write their judgments. This, of course, is intolerable. It is a situation which no member of the House representing a Newfoundland constituency should tolerate.
Where are the Newfoundland members who support the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)? Where is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson)? Surely he has a responsibility here. Where is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Rompkey)? What does he have to say about this? What do the other government supporters from Newfoundland have to say? How can they tolerate this situation? It is not as if they did not know about it. It has been referred to in editorials in St. John's daily papers. It has been referred to in news stories. It has been referred in correspondence between the minister and the Law Society of Newfoundland. This is a most serious situation, yet we are called on to support a bill which will create additional judgeships by virtue of creating extra salaries while this vacancy in Newfoundland is allowed to exist. I submit
May 15, 1975

that this is unfair. The minister is being grossly unfair to Newfoundland.
Let me tell the House about one case I know of concerning the premier of the province. He launched a libel action against an individual and television station in the province. The case has gone to appeal on a point of law and the Premier of Newfoundland has been waiting since March, 1974, for a judgment. Of course, he will not obtain the judgment until the minister appoints a successor judge to fill the existing vacancy.
I am not a member of the bar, but I suggest to the minister that the administration of justice is the responsibility of all members of this House. I further say that justice delayed is justice denied, and justice is being denied to the people of Newfoundland because there are delays in the hearing of appeals and in the handing down of judgments.
I submit the minister has an obligation to tell at least the Newfoundland members of this House when he will fill this vacancy. I hope we will hear an undertaking from the minister before this bill is passed. I, for one, intend to press him for such an undertaking before we allow this bill to leave committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems that the House is ready for the question. Mr. Speaker, who is to consider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has not returned to the House.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps since Mr. Speaker has not yet returned with his decision and the present debate seems to have concluded, we could hear the opening speech on the next item of business. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) is in the House. Perhaps if he has finished speaking and Mr. Speaker comes back, we could interrupt the proceedings, hear his decision, and conclude consideration of the present item of business.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a few comments on this bill which is to affect the reorganization of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island. I understand that the proposal in this bill which applies to Prince Edward Island meets with the general approval of the law society and legal profession of my province. The arrangement contemplated will be an improvement because, as I understand it, it is an effort to spread the work load between judges of the provincial supreme court and judges of the county court. The net effect will be that the total number of judges in Prince Edward Island will stay the same, but they will all sit in one court, which is an improvement over the present arrangement.
At present there is a vacancy in Prince Edward Island. We need an additional judge. Although the existing vacancy is in the county court, I hope once this bill passes that the effect will be that the provincial supreme court will be immediately brought up to full strength and that we shall see no more vacancies left unfilled for a long time. I presume that the judges now sitting in the county court will be transferred to the newly constituted supreme court, but I have no assurance that that is the case. If it is,
Judges Act
some of our judges will be placed in a higher position than they now occupy and, as well, they will feel the benefit of the increase in their general rates of pay.
I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) will act promptly to fill the vacancy which exists in our county court, and which will exist in the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island once this bill passes.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this bill. However, having been here since 1972, I cannot help observing that there seems to be some difference in the way this parliament sets about determining wages. For example, I saw how this House settled the recent railroad strike. I saw the kind of settlement that was meted out to our working class people, so that our railroad workers would go back on the rails in what was called an essential service. I heard members on the government and on the Conservative sides say that parliament is not a bargaining group, that we do not bargain, do not negotiate, and that we have to get workers back to work, period. I saw the niggardly amounts handed out in order to get the workers back on the job. I saw how much was awarded when we legislated them back to the rails. I think we gave them something like 12 per cent, and we considered ourselves pretty generous in awarding them that much. We wanted them to go back to work in an essential service.
I have also seen how the members of parliament deal with their own wages. There was certainly nothing niggardly about the way they dealt with their own wages.
We again see this parliament setting a wage for an elitist group in the Canadian society. I should say to my friends that with the number of lawyers in this House there may be some kind of conflict of interest. They are setting the wages so that when they are defeated in the House, they can get appointed to the Bench. There seems to be a bit of featherbedding. When we deal with our own kind, we are pretty generous. There is suddenly no talk about restraint or wage freezes. During the last election the Conservatives ran around the country talking about wage freezes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. One of the most intellectual governments of all time, and no doubt it is intellectual, allegedly anyway, is the government of British Columbia. I would like to ask the hon. member how much it increased salaries for the members of the legislature and for what we called magistrates and it now calls provincial judges? The provincial judges under the government of British Columbia are the highest paid in Canada. They make more money than some of the judges the hon. member is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I do not belong to the provincial legislature of British Columbia.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Too bad.

May 15, 1975
Judges Act


John R. Rodriguez: I was elected to the Parliament of Canada. However, Dave Barrett, the premier of British Columiba, did not run around the country during his election campaign talking about wage freezes. The New Democratic Party did not talk about wage freezes in the last election. I heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) put the Conservative members in their place. Boy, did he ever!
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is a pretty elitist lawyer. He represents one element in this country, the elitist establishment class. He is building a little nest egg for the future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Rather than let hon. members engage in dialogue, we should stay on the track of the bill and carry it on to completion.


John R. Rodriguez: When this House decides wages for its own, it throws restraint out the window. There is no talk about wage controls. One of the arguments put forward is that lawyers in private practice make $100,000 or $150,000 a year. That is only because they are skinning the public.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Nationalize them.


John R. Rodriguez: It is only because they have been taking the Canadian public to the cleaners. I have seen the bills that have gone to the finance committee. They guarantee lawyers a job for the rest of their lives. This bill gives them a guaranteed annual income for their retirement years.
The wage proposals in this bill for judges are absolutely inflationary. When the trade unions ask for 16 per cent of 20 per cent, they are told their demands are inflationary. There is nothing more inflationary than the proposals in Bill C-47. It is a travesty on the system.
Hon. members should put their heads in the sand when they talk about wage restraints. Wage restraints start with the leaders, not the followers. It is about time we started restraining spending. The Tories are great ones to talk about restraining spending. When they talk about spending on themselves, or on those in their class, there is no restraint. However, when it comes to the workers on this Hill who do the most menial jobs, they receive poverty wages. I am opposed to this.
I will support the amendment presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is a very reasonable proposal. It is certainly in line with the kind of role the government is trying to play with regard to the economic situation in this country. I appreciate having had the opportunity to make these remarks this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has proposed an amendment which, as he said in his argument on the procedural point, must, in order to qualify as a reasoned amendment at this stage, add in opposition to the progress of the bill a declaration of some principle contrary to the provisions of the bill or to the principle of the bill.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made reference to a previous ruling by the Chair. I would refer him as well to a ruling quoted by the Chair on the same subject, both by the Speaker of the day and reported in the same volume of Votes and Proceedings, that he cited in referring to the ruling of the Deputy Speaker. There is an extensive discussion about the practice in the British parliament which has been taken on here of allowing at the second reading stage, on an amendment at second reading, a declaration to be added to the motion. It discusses the limits that should be put upon such a declaration.
That declaration must clearly have two conditions. First, it must be a declaration of principle. Second, it must be a declaration of principle opposed to the principle of the bill.
Since it would appear at first examination that talking in terms of a certain specific percentage or certain specific dollar increase for judges in a year would scarcely be regarded as a matter of principle, but rather what is a matter of degree, application, or extent of the increase which is contained in the bill, one would have to determine how that becomes a principle as opposed to a specific figure.
It is suggested in the argument that it has become a principle because it is enshrined in some guidelines or proposals put forward by the government. It is not for the Chair to question whether in fact such guidelines or proposals have indeed been put forward. Even if they had, would that make the figures change from being simply figures into being a principle or statement of principle? I rather think it would be most difficult to accept that proposition. I therefore have the greatest difficulty and reservation in finding that the figures of 12 per cent or $2,400 a year have changed from being simply figures, or degrees of increases, into becoming principle.
Second, even if I were to accept the fact, which I do not, that that was a statement of principle of some sort, I would have the greatest difficulty in finding that as being a principle which is totally opposed to the principle of the bill if I should accept, as I think I should, that the basic principle or the primary principle of the bill is that of increasing judges' salaries. In other words, aside entirely from the difficulty of accepting 12 per cent or $2,400 as a statement of principle as opposed to figures, what that says is that the principle of the bill is satisfactory if it were to go only to 12 per cent or $2,400, but the principle of the bill is not satisfactory if it goes beyond that figure.
I would have to find it is not a statement of opposition but of a principle if it is a principle opposed to the principle of the bill, but only opposing the bill conditionally or up to a certain point.
Accordingly, with the deepest of regret, I cannot enlarge or swell the ranks of the members who have had success in the acceptance, at least until this moment, of reasoned second reading amendments and I have to refect the amendment as not being procedurally acceptable.
Is the House ready for the question?
May 15, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Salaries Act

Messrs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour, please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed, please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Benjamin
Dionne
(Kamouraska)
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Firth Fortin Hogan Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Peters Rodriguez Saltsman-10.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Bill read the second time and referred to Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


SALARIES ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-24, to amend the Salaries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Mitchell William Sharp: -the purpose of this bill is to recognize the continuing importance in our constitutional system of the functions discharged by lieutenant governors of the provinces by raising their salaries to a more appropriate level and at the same time to remove the differences that now prevail.
One of the legacies of history in connection with this ancient and honourable institution is that salaries were permitted to vary from province to province in accordance with such factors as population differences and the burdens of office arising therefrom.
In fact all provinces are equal in a constitutional sense and the functions of a lieutenant governor in one province are, for constitutional purposes, as important as those in any other province; the differences in burdens of office arising from such factors as variations in population should be recognized in other ways.
Lieutenant governors' salaries now range from a high of $20,000 in Ontario and Quebec to a low of $16,000 in Prince Edward Island.
This bill proposes that lieutenant governors' salaries in each of the ten provinces be fixed at $35,000, which appears, in the light of other responsible public functions and the salaries attached to them, to constitute reasonable remuneration, and at the same time applies the principle of uniformity to which I have already referred.

May 15, 1975
Salaries Act
There are also federal grants and allowances provided annually in the estimates under the vote for the Governor General and lieutenant governors. For 1974-75, nonaccountable allowances varying from $10,000 to $18,000 are provided for hospitality and travelling expenses within the provincial capital. There is also a fund for travelling by lieutenant governors outside the provincial capitals.
The argument for uniformity does not apply to the same degree to grants and non-accountable allowances. The salaries should be uniform because the salaries are paid in respect of the position, its functions, and the dignity of the office. The grants and allowances can reflect the differing conditions to be found in the various provinces.
Various kinds of support is also provided to lieutenant governors by the provinces. Some provinces provide a residence for the lieutenant governor; others pay the cost of rented accommodation. Lieutenant governors' staffs are provided through the provincial budgets.
While it is not my intention to engage in a dissertation on the constitution, hon. members will be aware that, within the limitations of the constitutional framework, lieutenant governors perform the same functions at the provincial level as the Governor General does at the federal level. The lieutenant governor is the Queen's representative in the province and possesses the same power with regard to provincial legislation as does the Governor General with respect to federal legislation.
In the table of precedence, lieutenant governors of the provinces rank immediately after the federal cabinet. There may be some who in a contemporary political sense might not regard this as a recommendation, but it indicates the importance of the office in our system, an importance that continues undiminished and which, in fact, the government by this bill is supporting by providing more adequate remuneration and widening the area of choice for future appointees.
Hon. members will have noted that another bill, Bill C-23 on the Order Paper, proposes a plan for superannuation of lieutenant governors which is another move in the same direction, making it possible for those of moderate means to accept appointment as lieutenant governor.
It is my hope and that of the government that parliament will give prompt approval to this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, if I-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are recognizing your seniority tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I seem stunned and speechless for the moment, it is because I am aware of the rule which provides that the first member of the opposition replying to a minister moving a government order is not limited to 40 minutes. Since no member of the official opposition chose to take the floor, that gives me unlimited time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We felt you needed it.


Robert Muir: God forbid, Stanley.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You fellows can all go home.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am waiting for an invitation to use unlimited time, which would give me 17 minutes tonight and then tomorrow morning, but the invitations do not seem to be as forthcoming as I thought, although there is one quiet voice from the other side.
There is no question but that we in this country like our system under which the head of the country and the head of the government in each province is a person above politics. We respect, not only because we are supposed to but from sincerity, the position of the Crown as represented by Her Majesty the Queen, and also the position of those who represent her as Governor General of Canada and as lieutenant governors of the provinces. We share in that respect, and we agree that the lieutenant governors as well as the Governor General should be provided with the means necessary to fulfill their functions with dignity and respect.
I think it can also be argued that the salaries these persons now receive-you will notice, Madam Speaker, that I did not say gentlemen because at least one of them is the distinguished lieutenant governor of Ontario-certainly do not seem excessive. The lieutenant governor of Quebec and the lieutenant governor of Ontario receive $20,000 per year as salary. The lieutenant governors of seven other provinces receive $18,000, and the lieutenant governor of the Province of Prince Edward Island receives $16,000.
Even as one who has been taking a pretty firm stand against increases in this time when we are supposed to be exercising restraint, I certainly could not argue against a modest increase in these salaries. Even so, it does seem to me that those who occupy these important positions should be regarded as Canadians like the rest of us and should be invited to share in the effort to exercise some restraint. When an increase from $20,000 to $35,000 for the lieutenant governors of two provinces is proposed, that is an increase of 75 per cent. I made one mistake this afternoon, but I am not making any mistakes tonight.


Gerald William Baldwin: You've still got 15 minutes, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When an increase for seven lieutenant governors from $18,000 to $35,000 is proposed, that is an increase of 94 per cent. Not bad! In the case of Prince Edward Island, that delightful place we would all like to go to, the increase is from $16,000 to $35,000, an increase of 118 per cent.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: That is where I would like to come from.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), says that is where he would like to come from. Not many have come from there, but those are the facts. These are the
May 15, 1975

percentages involved in this bill. Even though I am not going to move another amendment or divide the House on this bill, it seems to me that it is appropriate for these words to be said. Restraint has been preached all over the place. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has a paper, the paternity of which he sometimes admits but sometimes denies, which says that Canadians should not receive an increase of more than 12 per cent or $2,400.


Mitchell William Sharp: Per year, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Granted, but how many years is it since these people received a raise?


Mitchell William Sharp: It was in 1962 or 1963, 12 years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is true that per year they are entitled to $2,400 but those now in office have been there only a few years, and there are other increases, both in this bill and in the other bill, for expenses, so that their positions are being improved, and all told I think it is a pretty good deal for these ten Canadians. I could wish that they would be making the appeal to be part of the Canadian community generally which is accepting the fact that restraints are necessary, but I have not heard any such appeal from any of these ten persons. So I suppose they want these increases, and apparently this House is prepared to go along.
I just wonder where all this ends. Hon. members raised their own pay substantially, we raised the pay of the Senators substantially, we increased the pay of the cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and we provided for 7 per cent compounded increases starting January, 1976.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It ends when we get to the poor and the pensioners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This House gave the judges a pretty good deal in the bill that was passed a few moments ago. I suppose that before long there will probably be a report from a special committee about the salaries of deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and those who are receiving $40,000 and $50,000, making an appeal that they have to have something to meet the cost of living. In the meantime ordinary Canadians are being told they must get along on an increase of 12 per cent per year. Pensioners are being told that all they can receive is the actual cost of living, always in arrears.
This thing is out of joint, Madam Speaker. I welcome the fact that in the previous bill there are retroactive increases in pensions to widows of judges. I welcome the fact that in this bill there are some improvements in pensions. I hope before we recess at the end of June there will be some improvements for pensioners generally, and the particular appeal I make right now is to the government. I could make it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), but he does not happen to be here tonight. The appeal is that with these improvements we are making for the retirement years of lieutenant governors and the retirement years of their survivors, if they leave any, we ought to do better for ordinary spouses between 60 and 65 and not just grant a pension under a means test.
Salaries Act
We ought to realize that the age provisions in these bills about pensions are much more generous than the age provisions generally, and I would say that in the face of all this if the government brings in a bill amending the Old Age Security Act which provides pensions for spouses between 60 and 65 only where the other spouse is over 65 and only under a means test, that will be an insult.
I confess that it is difficult to make the kind of speech that my hon. friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would probably make if he were not in a committee which I understand will sit to all hours. We are talking about persons for whom we have particular respect because they represent the Crown, because they represent Canada and because they represent a form of government at the head of which is someone who is above partisan politics. But I still feel that it is a strange performance we have gone through in this House in 1975. Despite all the economic trouble we are in, despite all the preaching we hear about restraint, this House seems to find it easy to grant substantial increases in the pay of members of parliament, senators, cabinet ministers, judges and lieutenant governors. I hope that at some point we will start doing something substantial, something meaningful for ordinary Canadians.


Hon.. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I hope, too, that the country will start to do something about inflation. I sat in the House and listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All day.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All day, all year-talk about restraint, but I have yet to hear the hon. gentleman give much support to any comprehensive program of restraint which has been put forward. I find myself in the position of having to deal with particular situations-members of parliament are one, judges another, and lieutenants governor still another-which have resulted from cumulative inflationary pressures bringing about increases in the cost of living in the past several years. I agree that these are particular instances. There are lots of others with which we are not dealing. A great many people of modest circumstance have been robbed, robbed of their savings.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And you voted for more pay for well-off
people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I beg your pardon?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You just finished voting in support of an increase for people who are already well off.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will agree to the judges bill going to committee for consideration.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is a tough deal for those already getting $45,000. Big deal!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the hon. gentleman wants to make a speech, he should make it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will be glad to.

May 15, 1975
Salaries Act


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As far as the bill for lieutenant governors is concerned, I am prepared to see it go to committee. There has not been an increase since 1963. Whether the sum of $35,000 should be contemplated is another matter, but I have no hesitation in supporting sending the bill to committee. By so doing I do not pretend for one moment that we are doing a systematic job, or bringing anything like comprehensive justice to the people of Canada. Frankly I do not see any sign of determination in this House or in the country for bringing about such justice. My hon. friends to my left speak about restraint. I should like to see them support some program of restraint and express to the House what it is. I fought hard for a program of restraint, and I am still prepared to do so.
All kinds of anomalies and injustices are increasing from day to day and from month to month because of what has been going on. The longer we have rates of inflation of 8 per cent, 10 per cent or 12 per cent a year, the more the injustice will increase and the greater will be the disparity between the relatively poor and the relatively well-to-do. If inflation continues, certainly the injustice which will be inflicted on society will increase. But we will not create justice for the relatively poor and hard pressed who are suffering from inflation by taking it out on the judges or the lieutenant governors. Let the committee determine what is appropriate. We can amend the bills when they come back, for that matter.
If we are going to attack inflation, let us attack inflation; let us not just make-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Careful!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -gestures in the House, as my hon. friends are doing.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, when I made a few interjections during the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) he invited me to say a few words. I said I would be glad to.


An hon. Member:: By way of apology?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, they are not by way of apology in any way, shape or form. I find it difficult to accept the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about selecting or picking of judges, or selecting lieutenant governors. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, and all other members, that the ones we are selecting are already paid $19,000, $20,000, $35,000 or $45,000 a year. If we are going to have restraint it would seem to me that the people earning that kind of income should be the first ones to exercise it. They should be the ones we should select first for restraint. I do not intend to be party to raising the incomes of 100 people, 200 people, or even ten people, from $45,000 to $60,000 a year. I suggest that you do pick first on people in such categories-you start with them if you want to bring in restraint.
I do not think any of my colleagues in this House want, any more than I do, to face a $9,000, or $11,000 or $12,000 a year steelworker in Regina, or a $122 a month old age pensioner, and ask him to show restraint and not accept a larger increase than the government is suggesting, assuming he will be offered an increase. You cannot have it both ways, Madam Speaker. The hon. member for Winnipeg

North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not going through some sort of empty exercise. He has voted for restraint a number of times, more often then I have, and more often, I suspect, than any other member. He has shown leadership and set an example.
Surely it is up to members of parliament, judges, lieutenant governors and others in a similar position to set the example and lead the way when the country is in economic difficulty. Surely that is the issue. This has nothing to do with taking it out on judges or lieutenant governors, or even members of parliament. Surely the process of restraint must start somewhere. If you are going to pick on anybody, if you want to limit anybody's income, you should pick on the people who can most afford it. Surely that is where the error of our ways lies. We made a mistake in bringing in Bill C-44, and we are making another one with Bill C-47.
You do not really expect the small businessman, the wage earner or the old age pensioner to pay very much attention to us, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), or to anybody else in the months ahead when we run around talking about restraint and protecting and preserving our economy and our position, costs, and prices in the international market.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the adjournment debate on the matter of inaction on the part of the government to provide a satisfactory answer, or even any explanation as to the drastically increased prices of fertilizer. My colleagues, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) and the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), over the past two weeks have raised questions on the subject, but no reasonable explanation has yet been given.
The minister, when addressing the Canadian Fertilizer Institute in Ottawa on March 6, 1975, took a hard line when levelling certain warnings in the direction of the industry and its activities.
When questioned in the House by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot the following day, March 7, the minister indicated that he would not be making a statement on the matter, but made some reference to the facts and figures prepared by the efficiency experts in the department. He also expressed concern about the future of food production if fertilizer were not cheaply available.
May 15, 1975

Fertilizer prices, in many cases, have doubled during the past two years. In many cases they have increased from 30 to 40 per cent from the spring of 1974 to the spring of 1975. Some examples for the record, Mr. Speaker, of commonly used varieties, f.o.b. the plant are 6-18-24 from $120 to $160, an increase of $40 a ton; 10-10-10 from $100 to $135, an increase of $35 a ton; 15-15-15 from $125 to $175, an increase of $50 a ton; ammonium nitrate from $142 to $185 a ton, an increase of $43, and anhydrous ammonia ranged around $260 a ton.
Why are there these drastic price increases, Mr. Speaker, particularly when shortages do not appear to be any problem? Dealers in my area indicate that supplies are quite adequate.
The minister stated on April 15, 1975, as reported at page 4810 of Hansard, and I quote:
We have contacted all the provincial departments of agriculture and our surveys show, as they have in the past, that there will be adequate supplies. In some areas there may even be an oversupply of some varieties of fertilizer.
On March 20 I asked the minister, in view of the fact that the Canadian Fertilizer Institute would not issue a detailed report justifying the rapid increases in price, what action if any he intended to take. The minister indicated that some action had already been taken, that investigations were being conducted under the Combines Investigation Act.
The following day, March 21, the minister took the position that, in the absence of legislation to hold down or roll back prices, the government would use whatever legislation it presently had, and in co-operation with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would do what could be done. He said that "We are not at all happy with what they are doing."
I want to assure the minister that I am not happy with this situation, nor are the agricultural producers who purchase large volumes of fertilizer to obtain maximum crop yields. In view of other rising production costs, top yields are absolutely essential to meet expenses and to provide even a narrow margin of profit.
If current prices hold, or even worse, escalate, many producers will be forced to cut back and smaller yields will result. It is not only a serious domestic problem, but also an international one.
It is estimated that one billion people, or one quarter of the world's population, already depend on extra crop yields produced by the use of fertilizer for their food requirements. It is reasonable to suggest that the great majority of the extra two billion people to be fed in the next quarter century will depend on the use of this important product.
Most underdeveloped countries found it impossible to purchase their badly needed fertilizer requirements in the past. Thus it is obvious that their present and future difficulties are most serious.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, on May 12 I asked the minister in view of the fact that supplies seemed to be adequate, was he satisfied that price increases were justified. He replied to the effect that, according to his infor-
Adjournment Debate
mation, prices were decreasing. I rechecked with the largest supplier of fertilizer in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, only to find that the prices quoted earlier were still in effect. One other dealer indicated to me that an attempt was to be made to move out his entire inventory if possible and to reduce the price by a whopping 2 per cent. In view of the 30 to 40 per cent increases, I would hope that no one would express any degree of satisfaction about a decrease of 2 per cent.
The producers are concerned, Mr. Speaker. They have every reason to feel apprehensive and they are certainly entitled to an explanation. I trust that the hon. member, in his reply, will have some helpful and useful information. I trust he will offer some worthwhile explanation and not select isolated cases reflecting only marginal price increases or "small decreases on some rarely used varieties."


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), I wish to make one point first of all. Prior to the 1974 election the government introduced into the House of Commons an anti-profiteering bill which would have given it the legislative authority to take action in cases of unwarranted price increases. It is not this party which is responsible for the fact that we have no legislative authority to take the kind of action which the hon. member now seems to think is advisable.
As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stated when replying to the question of the hon. member for Elgin on Monday, there has been some decline in prices of some brands of fertilizer. In general, however, prices have not declined substantially and the minister is far from satisfied with the performance of the industry to date, particularly with regard to price differentials between east and west.
As you are no doubt aware, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture met representatives of the basic fertilizer manufacturers recently and warned them that they could find themselves over supplied as farmers-particularly in eastern Canada-were reluctant to pay the high prices being asked for fertilizer.
The Minister of Agriculture-indeed the whole government-is adamant that unwarranted profits by fertilizer manufacturers will not be tolerated. Legislation is being prepared by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to deal with unjustified price increases when such increases can be clearly identified. With regard to fertilizer, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are co-operating in an on-going investigation of the fertilizer industry.
It should be pointed out in fairness to the industry that fertilizer prices in Canada are still substantially below world prices. Recent information indicates that there is some build up of world supplies of fertilizers and this will no doubt have a depressing effect on prices.
Although the minister has not received the co-operation he had hoped for on prices, he is pleased that the industry kept its promise to ensure adequate supplies for Canadian agriculture. In the face of reluctance on the part of manufacturers of fertilizer and those in the manufacturing area

May 15, 1975
Adjournment Debate
to take seriously the warnings of the Minister of Agriculture, he is attempting to arrange a further meeting with representatives of the industry. This will take place very shortly. At that time we shall fully consider fertilizer pricing policy. The minister is optimistic that this meeting will provide tangible results, as several companies have indicated, since the minister's address to the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, a willingness to discuss this matter.


HOUSING-NATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM-REASON FOR REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF STARTS-ABILITY OF NATIVE PEOPLE TO AFFORD MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Walter (Wally) Firth: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to pursue some questions I directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) today regarding native housing in this country. I hope the minister will take this opportunity to elaborate upon an article that appeared in the Toronto Star of May 14, 1975. The article referred to a confidential document prepared by the federal cabinet.
I have raised this topic in the House before, but once again I should like to put on record the drastic housing situation in this country, and more particularly in the Northwest Territories. As a matter of fact in a speech of mine on January 27, reported in Hansard at pages 2144 to 2146, I described the housing situation in the Northwest Territories as a disaster. There is some kind of program to ship up north prefab houses which are really inadequate, most of which can only be described as death traps and which indeed have been working in that fashion.
I referred in my speech of January 27 to the possibility of implementing a housing program in the Northwest Territories making use of local materials, such as logs, which would help many people there who have no jobs. It would also certainly help alleviate the housing problem. I have received some comments from across the country which were quite favourable to the idea, and I hope that the minister has also received some comments in this regard.
One of the main objects and purposes of a housing program should be-indeed, must be if it is to meet with any measure of success-to find some way of adequately sheltering all families and individuals. This is, indeed, a basic human need. I do not think we can afford to go on much longer without some good programs to alleviate the very bad housing conditions.
The price we are paying for this situation, both socially and with lives, is simply far too high, and the government should give it very high priority. I was pleased to see, according to the article in the Toronto Star of January 14, some points for which I think the government can take credit, such as an admission that the programs that have been tried have failed. In this event I should like to know what has happened to the money that was put into these programs. I think a lot of money was spent. I also hope the government has learned that it should consult the people more, particularly those people the programs are designed to help.

Another point for which I think the government can take some credit is that it is considering spending a realistic amount on the programs referred to in the article. I understand that the government is going to consult with the people the programs will serve.
Other questions I should like to ask the minister in regard to this document is whether it does in fact exist, will it be made public, what is going to happen to it, and does it include a program for the Northwest Territories? This is one area of Canada that is really in desperate need of housing. If the north is not included, then the people of the north are not going to be very happy. Any step to remove poverty in the smaller villages down the Mackenzie valley, in the eastern Arctic, and indeed in the smaller villages and reserves across the country would be a good move indeed.
The article also refers to mortgage rates that people would have to pay, and I think this is something that should receive serious consideration. There are large numbers of people who presently have poor housing and would be unable to pay a mortgage rate of even one per cent.
These are the points that I wanted to make, Madam Speaker. I wish the minister would elaborate a little more on the question I raised earlier today, as well as elaborate on the document referred to in this newspaper article.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) is referring to a document which is alleged to have been leaked from another department. I think he can appreciate, therefore, that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on an alleged leak of an alleged document.
Having said that, I think we are reflecting the very deep concern which the hon. member shares, and I can speak only on behalf of my own area of responsibility, that is, CMHC, which deals with Metis and non-status Indians living off reserves. The matter of non-status Indians and those on the reserves is, of course, quite a different thing. If I can respond in that context I shall be pleased to do so.
I am deeply disturbed to hear prefabs referred to as death traps. I am interested to hear about the interest in local materials such as logs. This is an avenue we are pursuing in the areas of my responsibility. I am rather embarrassed after all these years that we still have to stand and debate these things in the House of Commons of Canada. It is an indication that something is wrong somewhere.
We are trying to correct the situation. In my own ministry for 1975 we have an allocation of $5.7 million to assist associations and many non-status Indians in the field of housing. We have established a cadre within the corporation to train native people in skills, including administrative skills, in order that they will be able to take advantage of the program and to administer housing for themselves. This is still a tortuous process at times, and the need for coordination and for giving assistance to the native people to get them started, often under extremely difficult conditions, is highly appreciated.
In our own CMHC rural and native housing program we still have a target of some 50,000 new and rehabilitated homes in five years. This program is intended to improve
May 15, 1975

housing conditions for a number of non-status Indians living off the reserves and for other residents of rural Canada as well. We expect that the majority of this will be for the native people.


Walter (Wally) Firth: What about the north?


Barnett Jerome Danson: These programs are available throughout the country, and I think that it especially affects the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. This is an area with which my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) is concerned, and in which we are happily involved and support with our facilities. We also include those people in the north as well. They are Canadians and-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


BANKRUPTCY-SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE HERITAGE OF CANADA-REASON FOR PERMITTING CLOSE ALIGNMENT WITH OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, I do not know to whom I am addressing my remarks this evening, apart from the Chair. I should like to elaborate in respect of a Standing Order 43 motion to which I addressed myself this afternoon when I asked for a public inquiry into the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada. I asked why this apparent massive fraud by the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada was allowed to align itself with the Secretary of State's office in regard to grants, by the use of deceptive wording and stationery which would lead to the deception of all Canadians who were the victims of this slick material in that they would believe that what they were reading was in fact information provided by an agency of this government.
I asked why the Secretary of State's office was not doing any monitoring and, finally and most important, why the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) went to this society instead of the society going to the Secretary of State. I consider this highly irregular and highly unusual. It is certainly not the Secretary of State's function to go to a society such as this and suggest that they should go into business, with the department supplying bucks. That smacks to me of something very wrong.
Finally why did the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) reject a grant application for a massive sum of money to bail out this company from bankruptcy last fall and then, as recently as six weeks ago, indicate to the company that they were very seriously considering re-funding them when they were already in a state of insolvency? Not only that, but the Secretary of State knew their financial status at that time. He knew it last fall, and he knew it six weeks ago when they were ready to enter the bankruptcy procedure.
Now I ask, Madam Speaker, where is the protection for the young people who were shoved across Canada by this group? What about the students from Rossland, British Columbia, or the students from Halifax, or the students from Vancouver? What protection have these students,
Adjournment Debate
who put money in and never got it back? Who is responsible for this? What kind of a program, and what kind of a situation are being allowed to continue without an investigation?
It would be fine if it were just the office of the Secretary of State involved, but we have the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) giving this society a tax certificate as a charitable organization. Where did that money go? The Minister of National Revenue handed out the certificates to 35 organizations and I bet he could not be sure of 60 per cent of them.
Why has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) indicated that they have not given $48,000 to the society? I suggest the minister should state where that $48,000 went. I suggest that probably it went to Alberta. It probably went to the Indians and was turned over to the society for its use and subsequent abuse.
Where has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) been through all this charade that has been going on for three or four years? What about the complaints he has received? Has he ignored them?
Someone may think there is no need for a public inquiry because it is just a little thing, such as the department for which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is responsible passing out free passes at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada so that these people can go across the continent and can fly to Europe 20 times a year, as was stated to me during the bankruptcy proceedings. It is not a matter of just one or two, but several of them. They do not go by economy class. Hell no; they have to go first class as often as they can.
Can you indicate to me, Madam Speaker, that there should not be a public inquiry when we wonder where the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was, what answer the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has in respect of the $48,000, what answer the Secretary of State has in respect of his actions, and what answer the Minister of National Revenue has? Do you think this is not a matter of importance to the people of Canada? If so, then I must disagree.
Finally, I say that the Secretary of State is responsible to Carleton University and to Ottawa University which were conned into $50,000 plus of expenses because they thought it was a government agency. If we take a look at the list of the Heritage Society and its advisory board we see that it reads like a Who's Who in Canada. What is going to be done about these fine names? I challenge the government to do something concrete and definite.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I am especially honoured to be able to speak tonight since the hon. member mentioned at least
5860

May 15, 1975
Adjournment Debate
five ministers. Unfortunately I do not have the answers that he is requesting.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) is presently looking into the questions asked in the House yesterday by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and today by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) in relation to his department's contact with the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada. When the most recent information has been gathered these questions will
be answered. As indicated in his response to the hon. member today, the Secretary of State has not obtained sufficient information to date, and will respond to him fully at the first opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Friday, May 16, 1975