1976-03-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Proceedings under Standing Order 43. Before we proceed with the oral question period, may I say that hon. members probably are aware that I have received a notification from the Minister of Justice of his intention and desire to table a letter that I think has been referred to previously. In addition, in respect thereto I have received notices of intention by three ministers to raise a question of privilege. In all four instances there is an indication, with the letter that has come to the Chair, that because of the importance of the subject matter it would likely be in the best interests of relevant proceedings that these events take place prior to the question period. Of course, that would set aside the procedure which we have followed since last Easter.
May I first, therefore, indicate that I think it would be the desire of the House to accommodate that point of view in order to make for a more relevant question period. It would seem that the question period, if it were concerned with these events, would become somewhat of an anti-climax.
Therefore may I ask, before considering that request, whether or not the House gives its unanimous consent to allow the tabling of the document by the Minister of Justice and the proposed questions of privilege by these three ministers.
May I say to the House, before asking the House for its consent, however, that rather than attempt to follow each proposed question of privilege with a discussion by the House in respect of the question of privilege on its merits, it would seem to me that a more orderly procedure would be to Jake all three statements in respect of the notices of privilege given by the ministers, and then the Chair would have to decide, in order to accommodate the opposition in respect of the right it might ordinarily enjoy in those circumstances, either on a question of privilege or whatever content may develop, whether the Chair ought to extend its discretion at least in a question period which would run until, in my opinion, the matter had been thoroughly explored.
[DOT] (mo)
Possibly, depending upon the content of the declarations made by the minister in respect of the proposed questions of privilege, all the declarations might be followed by a statement by one spokesman for each party. But that is a
decision which will have to be made only after the House has heard the content of the statements. If the House is agreed on that general procedure, may I ask that hon. members give their unanimous consent to proceeding in that manner. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent just given, I wish to seek leave of the House to table, in both official languages, a letter from me to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec dated March 4, 1976, and the reply from the Chief Justice of the Superior Court to me in its original form, dated March 10. I will make available, if I may table in the same motion in a few moments, two additional texts of the same letter, one in the English language and one in the French language in that the original letter of the Chief Justice is in both languages. I would ask that these two letters be appended to today's Hansard, if that is the wish of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing one of the ministers, may I ask whether copies of the correspondence have been made available to opposition parties.


Mr. Clark:: Just now, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: For correspondence referred to, see Appendices "A" and "B".]


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to tell the House that this morning the Globe and Mail published an article containing an apology.

The Globe and Mail regrets any embarrassment caused to Mr. Chretien by publication of the allegations made by Mr. Justice Mackay.

I thank the Globe and Mail for publishing that retraction.
Mr. Speaker, last week I tabled in the House a letter I sent to the right hon. Prime Minister in which I established the facts. Later the House also allowed me to table a letter from Mr. Justice Mackay in which he withdrew his previous statements. This morning I would like to complete the record by reading to the House a letter I am

March 12, 1976
Administration of Justice
sending immediately to Mr. Justice Aronovitch, which reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Justice Aronovitch:
Needless to say, I was very upset when I heard last week of the allegations to be published in the Globe and Mail that I had once interfered improperly in a case before you.
I am writing to express my appreciation to you for having acted quickly last week. As you know, once the facts were made known, the allegations about me were withdrawn by Mr. Justice Mackay.
When I called you originally, I did so as a member of parliament on behalf of the unemployed of my constituency. In your report to Chief Justice Deschenes of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, you recognize this fact, and I am pleased that you "did not consider it to be interference or intervention calling for formal protest". On the other hand, you did not consider my call to be "proper practice"; and therefore I regret any embarrassment this episode might have caused you.
Sincerely yours,
Jean Chretien.
I did explain myself in the House last Wednesday. If I annoyed Mr. Justice Aronovitch, I am sorry. As the member of parliament for the riding of Saint-Maurice who was confronted with a very difficult situation, and because I acted in good faith, I am sorry if I annoyed Mr. Aronovitch, but I did that for the purpose I explained to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have read Mr. Justice Mackay's report to Chief Justice Deschenes on the circumstances of my visit to him, on March 8, 1970. I should like to make one or two observations.
First, I did not tell the judge that a telegram had been received by the Prime Minister from Prime Minister Williams, but that the Department of External Affairs had received a telegram from the Canadian High Commissioner, on Friday, March 6, transmitting a request from Prime Minister Williams that he be informed when the verdict could be expected. The Prime Minister of Trinidad stated that he made this request in view of his grave concern that riots and bloodshed would break out at that time.
Second, during my visit to Mr. Justice Mackay, I repeated to him the information available to us about the situation in Trinidad. I informed him of the request by Prime Minister Williams. In the course of our conversation, I also indicated to him that our High Commissioner had reported that the Governor General of Trinidad had called him to his office to inform him that he was most seriously worried about the situation. The Governor General of Trinidad expressed the hope that tempers would have time to cool down before the verdict.
Third my visit followed urgent representations made to the Prime Minister's Office by the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, late on Friday, March 6, informing us of those facts and requesting our assistance in order to determine the time at which the trial would be concluded. The Prime Minister was then on an official visit in the Arctic and was in the region of Igloolik and Spence Bay.
Fourth, my visit had no other purpose than to determine the approximate time when a verdict would be rendered

and I deeply regret that Mr. Justice Mackay may have interpreted my visit as aiming to delay the conclusion of the trial. I wish to state, without any reservation, that such was not my intention.
Fifth, I sincerely regret any embarrassment I may have caused Mr. Justice Mackay.
Sixth, I am grateful to Mr. Justice Mackay for stating his view that my visit "was clearly inspired by (a) great concern for the nation's interests and not by personal reasons".


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -I stated in the House on March 3 that in the matter of my communicating with the Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court in Montreal I did not attempt to influence the decision. I have read the report by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec to the Minister of Justice, and in particular Mr. Justice Hugess-en's account of this event. I was pleased to note that the Associate Chief Justice expressed the view that he did not think I, and I quote, "was attempting to influence his judgment."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have long respected and endeavoured to the best of my ability to protect the independence of the judiciary, and with the remarks of the Chief Justice on the necessity of this I am also in full agreement. I very much regret taking the action which I did and which the Associate Chief Justice has characterized as improper, and for this I sincerely and deeply apologize to all those affected.
I have, accordingly, tendered to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) my resignation from the ministry.


Mr. Speaker:: Having indicated earlier that some decision would have to be made as to whether opposition comments should be made before the question period begins, I might first of all say that in order to keep things in an orderly proceeding, three notices of privilege were received by the Chair and the three ministers involved, or hon. members involved, who gave the Chair notice of the intention to raise a question of privilege have done so.

It would have to be without any further discussion that the Chair ought to find that there is no prima facie question of privilege that ought to be put, under that heading, to a decision of the House. However, I think it might be appropriate that each of the opposition parties be now given an opportunity to make a brief comment on those three questions of privilege before we proceed. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my comments in response to the three questions of privilege just raised will be brief. I want to begin by making it clear that as far as members of my party are concerned, we believe that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) has
March 12, 1976

taken an honourable course in offering his resignation from the cabinet. I think there can be no cause in this House or anywhere else in the country for any pleasure at that decision. I think all of us recognize that the action he has taken is entirely consistent with the very high standard of public service and dedication to public service which have marked his distinguished career in Canada through the years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleagues and I, and, I am sure, the whole House, are pleased to have now received the apology of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) relative to his involvement in this matter, and the expression of regret of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) relative to actions in which he was involved prior to his election to the House and during the period when he was on the staff of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau).
I think that without expanding upon the comment any further, it is entirely appropriate for us to say that the events here today indicate the very clear need to establish firm, unequivocal standards relative to the absolute independence of the judiciary in Canada and absolute restraint from any kind of involvement or intervention by ministers of the Crown with any court anywhere in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should also say that we remain interested in determining the exact nature of the involvement in any of these events of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), and we intend over the next days in this parliament to follow every course we can to ensure there is placed upon the full public record an indication of any activities by that minister which were involved in this affair.
I want to deal very quickly with the report of Chief Justice Deschenes, which I appreciate having. I have to say, however, without wanting to enter a serious complaint, that I regret this was made available to me and to representatives of other parties only moments before proceedings began in this House of Commons. I think there are some matters of particular import in that report which I should like to put on the record of the House of Commons. I should like particularly to quote from the report of Chief Justice Deschenes, page 4 of the English version, as follows:
I was not appointed to conduct a commission of inquiry and of course it is obviously not one of my functions to set myself up as a semi-official investigator on behalf of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is an entirely appropriate position by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. In my view, it served to underline the point that has been made frequently in this House, that it is not sufficient to limit an inquiry into this question which involves the conduct of ministers and the propriety of that conduct to a judge of the Supreme Court of Quebec. That inquiry is not one for the Superior Court of Quebec but is, rather, one for the highest court in this land, the Parliament of Canada.
Administration of Justice
We expect, and we will certainly request, that there be now established a full public inquiry whose terms of reference will be determined not simply by the government but also by representatives of other parties in this parliament. It will be a public inquiry to look into all aspects of this case which has led to the regrettable resignation of the Minister of Public Works and statements of apology and regret by other ministers of the Crown.
I want to bring to the attention of the House the concluding paragraph in the report of Chief Justice Deschenes in which he explicitly requested that the report be made public. He said:
Indeed I would see some advantage in doing so, so that the public may be reassured of the integrity of the judiciary, in view of the negative results of the approaches of which my colleagues were the object.
I draw to the attention of the House that Chief Justice Deschenes referred to "approaches," in the plural, and was concerned that more than one approach of the three under this consideration raised questions relative to the reputation and integrity of the courts of Canada.
Sir, I will not go on further. I repeat, on behalf of my party and, I think, all members of the House, our appreciation of the action that has been taken by the Minister of Public Works.


An hon. Member:: And your pleasure.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is not at all our pleasure. We think it is a matter of great regret that events should have forced a man of his reputation and deserved respect in the land to come to this point.
We of the official opposition are not satisfied that the matter has ended here. The report of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court indicates that he recognizes that he was to undertake a limited inquiry. The report also indicates that actions were undertaken by ministers of the Crown which put in jeopardy the independence of the courts of Canada. We in this parliament want to know what kinds of conversations led to these interventions. We in this parliament want to know what kind of standard will be established in future to ensure that this kind of attack, this kind of intervention which may affect the integrity of our courts, will not recur. We intend to insist with all our vigour upon a full and open public inquiry into all the aspects, including the participation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, concerning the events which led to the statements of privilege which we heard today.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by congratulating the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) for taking an honourable position in the matter, one which is in the highest traditions of parliamentary democracy as practised in our country and abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The minister in question, after a distinguished career in the service of the people of Canada, recognizes the distinction to be made between matters of a strictly legal nature and those involving a minister's moral responsibility. That distinction is evident, but unstated, throughout the report submitted by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. The Chief Justice recog-

March 12, 1976
Administration of Justice
nized the limited nature of his inquiry and saw, as I understand from a brief reading of the report, that he has one set of responsibilities and ministers of the Crown, including particularly the Prime Minister, have a different set of responsibilities.
In my view, the Minister of Public Works drew the full, logical and traditional conclusion from the facts as presented in the Chief Justice's report and submitted his resignation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I note that the Chief Justice said in the report that Mr. Justice Hugessen does not consider himself to have been influenced by the intervention of the Minister of Public Works. That having been said, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec said!
I have little doubt that the facts related by Mr. Justice Hugessen are grave, considering the stature of the person making the call and the circumstances in which the call was made to him.
In other words, he is saying-not directly but implying it and leaving it to our wisdom-that we, as politicians, and ministers of the Crown should make the correct inference that such behaviour by a politician or a minister of the Crown is inappropriate. I repeat, in commendation of the minister, that he has taken the honourable course in submitting his resignation.
I want to say, also, that we accept the conclusion in the report concerning the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). We have some reservations about the position taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in which the principal element of moderating circumstances is that his intervention, which is also a grave one, took place some six years ago. I think the minister is required to explain earlier statements in which it was said by him, if I recall correctly, that he was simply trying to ascertain the date of commencement of the proceedings. That is flatly contradicted in this report that we have today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The serious implication in the report of the Chief Justice and the course of action taken by the Minister of Public Works in relation thereto flatly contradicts the whole line of argument made by the Prime Minister of Canada during the past ten days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I say this most seriously, because my party is maintaining a call for the need of a public inquiry into this situation in order to get firmly established, publicly-known general principles about the division of responsibility between the executive branch of government and the judicial branch. The line of reasoning of the Prime Minister during the past ten days has been that no interference or no involvement by a minister of the Crown can be deemed to be inappropriate unless it has been perceived to have been such by the judges involved. That has been his consistent case. I submit, in that case, that he has been consistently wrong, and the evidence for it is the resignation of the Minister of Public Works.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The report of the Chief Justice, including the quotation from Mr. Justice Hugessen, states that he did not perceive an interference to have taken place. The wording is:
-I did not think that he was attempting to influence my judgment.
However, the conclusion drawn by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, and by the minister himself, is that the kind of action he did take, even if it did not influence the final outcome of the judge, was inappropriate action-and the minister resigned on that basis. I submit that the logic of the minister's course of action is that the Prime Minister's position for the past ten days has been incorrect and that there is a certain line of behaviour that is inappropriate for a minister to take, whether or not a judge on the case reports that he has been influenced. To push the Prime Minister's argument to its logical conclusion, to the point of absurdity-and I do so because it is a grave point the Prime Minister has made and this is why we want a public inquiry-is to say that if a judge of the courts of Canada accepts a bribe, he is not likely to say he has been interfered with. Does that mean that no wrong has been done?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The point at issue is not the subjective interpretation of members of the Bench of Canada, but what is or is not appropriate behaviour by ministers of the Crown. That is the issue, and that is the issue the Prime Minister has refused to recognize. I conclude by saying we will continue to insist upon a public inquiry into the broader aspects of this question. We will have particular questions for other ministers, notably the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I think the event which concerns us this morning must be a landmark in the judicial history of our country. And I hope that after all the events of the last few days, today's discussions and actions will result in a warranty of the integrity of our judicial system all over Canada.
This morning, we heard excuses from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and also from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) and we consider that these statements are made by responsible people, and I hope they did not go further than they said in their excuses.
This morning, we accept, not lightheartedly, the resignation of a minister. He is one of the ministers I admired most in the House for his honesty and integrity. This probably shows that we the people-I want to be the people's voice-see that the function of minister is not always a sinecure, that this function brings some responsibilities. Above all, the ministers being surrounded as they are by people who constantly clamour for more, I can understand that they, or hon. members, might be tempted to try and give more help to those around them who exert pressures ceaselessly. That is how I see the work the minister did with the judge, and I congratulate him for his action this morning; it is a guarantee for Canada that, among parliamentarians, there are still people who can
March 12, 1976

recognize that they may have gone too far, who can go back and bow before the requirements of public interest.
I do not wish to blame anyone this morning but I do blame our judicial system. That is where the evil lies. As long as it is not reformed, as long as appointments are political in nature, more specifically those of judges, they as well as ministers will at times be forced to act as some ministers are being accused of having done this morning.
I will say no more. But I do hope sincerely that the Judges Act will be amended in such a way that a judicial reform will be undertaken so that, at long last, we will have independent judges in a judicial system that is free of all political influence. In politics, there are games, and ministers do make promises as everyone does in times of elections-promises that are never lived up to-but the judiciary should never be mixed up with politics. In closing, I express the wish that a bill will be introduced to free judges from political influence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have now heard comments from representatives of all parties in the House. I would think the decision as to the length of the question period ought to rest with the Chair. It will be determined, basically, by a consideration of whether, in terms of our Standing Orders, opposition members have a reasonable opportunity of exploring these issues without giving rise to a further question period today. In any event, the subject will not be fully dealt with today. I feel I ought to exercise discretion in determining the length of the question period, while giving hon. members a reasonable opportunity to put questions to the ministers concerned with these problems and other problems today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Since the report of Chief Justice Deschenes emphasizes that his inquiry was limited to the question whether the court was aggrieved and could not consider the question of the conduct of ministers, will the right hon. gentleman now meet with representatives of other parties in this parliament to determine the terms of reference of a full public inquiry into all aspects of this matter, including the conduct of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the standards which will be established with regard to the future conduct of ministers in their relations with the courts of the land?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: As to the
question of standards, I feel it will be my duty now to
Oral Questions
make a statement on that aspect and I intend to do so later in the day if the House gives me an opportunity. I wanted to hear the remarks of the leaders of the different parties on that matter and reflect on them, then speak later in the day if I have permission. I would suggest four o'clock, Mr. Speaker. On that occasion I would expect the opposition parties to agree or disagree with the standards I propose to initiate, and then we can consider further if consultation or inquiries are needed at this point. I do not, for my part, see at this time that an inquiry would be helpful in setting standards. It might be that the opposition would wish to have an inquiry for other purposes. I will reflect on that.


Charles Joseph Clark: I would say, just in passing, that if the Prime Minister intends to take time to prepare his code of standards for his ministers I hope he will give representatives of opposition parties equal time in which to consider that newly developed code to which we shall be expected to respond.
I take it that the Prime Minister is not at this stage ruling out the possibility of a full public inquiry. I would ask him whether, if he is given the permission of the House to make a statement this afternoon, he intends to say that a full public inquiry will be held, not simply-though including this purpose-an inquiry for the purpose of establishing future standards but also for the purpose of determining precisely what went on prior to the call by the Minister of Public Works to Mr. Justice Hugessen and other matters referred to in the report submitted by Mr. Justice Deschenes, including any conduct by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which is germane to the subject. Will he give us a firm answer today relative to this question concerning a full public inquiry into these areas of past conduct which have not been investigated and about which the parliament and public of Canada have a right to be informed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand the Prime Minister said, yes. He is nodding agreement. I wish to refer to page 11613 of Hansard at which the Prime Minister is reported to have said: "I listened to their version and feel that their explanations indicated clearly that they were not attempting to influence in any way the judgment of the courts." That indicates the conclusion of the Prime Minister on the basis of what he refers to as the version offered to him by his colleagues. Will the Prime Minister tell us, either immediately or later today, all the details of any information on this whole matter conveyed to the Prime Minister by the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or any other minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition referred to my statement in the House because I think it was the most relevant issue to be determined. I think we have it clearly now from Chief Justice Deschenes and the court that ther^was no attempt to influence any judgment in a case which was before the court.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is stated quite clearly and unequivocally. What does remain is what some hon. members have referred to-the appearance, and the fact the judges feel

Oral Questions
this was not proper. The lack of propriety, I repeat, had nothing to do with any criminal action or any action improper in the sense that it was an attempt to influence a judgment. But it is the appearance of ministers phoning judges which is found improper by the judges, and it is this matter on which I shall have to state some code of ethics.


Charles Joseph Clark: Do I understand, then, that the Prime Minister, if he is contemplating a public inquiry, intends to limit any such inquiry to the narrow question of the appearance of impropriety on the part of his ministers? What the House wants and what I am asking for now is a full public inquiry into all aspects of this case, including any conversations between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Public Works or any other minister relative to questions brought before the courts of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Leader of the Opposition wants, and it was in order to hear his remarks and those of other leaders that I waited before saying I would make my statement later today. I will then say if I believe an inquiry is warranted and, if not, what other measures I propose to take.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER HAS UPDATED THE PEARSON CODE OF ETHICS FOR MINISTERS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Prime Minister. The late Prime Minister Pearson, on November 30, 1964, by letter outlined a very admirable code of ethics for ministers of the Crown and employees of government. Has the Prime Minister ever taken any action up to this point to update or make formal these guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that statement was referred to at considerable length when we tabled in this House the rules relating to conflict of interest in the case of ministers, officials, members of the civil service and other sectors of the Public Service. We did not at that time consider the question of the relationship between the ministry and the judges.


KNOWLEDGE OF PRIME MINISTER OF REQUEST BY CONSUMER MINISTER FOR A MINISTER TO APPROACH JUDGE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: May I thank the Prime Minister for his answer and ask him a more specific question. To his knowledge did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at any time-I repeat, to the knowledge of the Prime Minister-request or even suggest any intervention or approach by a cabinet minister or anybody else directly to a judge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not make any such request of me; I do not know that he made any request of any other minister. I repeat that the case was discussed with me by the minister, and no doubt with other ministers, just as I am sure the hon. member for Central Nova would discuss with some of his colleagues the matter of Sky Shops which he has

pursued. I suspect that the hon. member would expect conversations with his colleagues, whether in or out of the House, not to be revealed unless ordered to be revealed by an order of the court.


KNOWLEDGE OF PRIME MINISTER OF APPROACHES TO JUDGES BY MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Keeping in mind the apparently activist role played by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare when he was principal secretary to the Prime Minister, can the Prime Minister say whether to his knowledge any of the successors to the present Minister of National Health and Welfare in the office which he once held contacted judges for any reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY WHETHER CONSUMER MINISTER REQUESTED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to indicate my party's agreement with the Prime Minister's suggestion that he make a statement at four o'clock on the issue of the public inquiry, and whether or not he plans to go ahead with the public inquiry. I wish simply to reassert our own strong plea that such is desirable.
Putting that to one side, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question. Following the decision of the Minister of Public Works to resign as a result of action that he took subsequent to a conversation with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I should like now to ask the minister whether he would show the same sense of propriety in telling the House the nature of the conversation that he had with the Minister of Public Works, and specifically did he in any way request that the Minister of Public Works intervene with the judge on his behalf?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members know that my case is on appeal. Therefore I have nothing to add at this time to what I already said to the House in that respect.


John Edward Broadbent: There is no such tradition, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons of Canada or of Great Britain for that kind of position. If it is not improper to pass judgment on a judge, I consider that this has been a very sound approach taken by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec in separating his comments on judicial matters from those on political matters. I should now like to ask the minister to do the same thing and assume his political responsibilities. Is he saying that until the judicial proceedings and difficulties in which he is involved outside this House are concluded, he will not make any statement in the House concerning his political responsibilities, particularly following the resignation of one of his colleagues?

:
March 12, 1976


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member approaches the issue not as a lawyer who respects the rights of a defendant before the court, but as a simple political maneuverer.


ACCEPTANCE BY PRIME MINISTER OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINISTERS TOWARDS JUDICIARY AND TOWARDS PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister accept the distinction made in the report submitted by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, namely that the responsibilities of ministers vis-a-vis the judiciary are different responsibilities from ministers of the Crown? If so, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he thinks it is a responsibility of his ministers to answer questions in the House at this stage, following a report on this important matter concerning their political responsibilities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do accept the distinction. Three ministers stood up in the House this morning to make a statement and they indicated that they did see that distinction. The question of a conversation between ministers, or indeed between any two ministers or members of this House or for that matter members of the public, relating to advice that one is seeking from the other is, by its very nature, something that people do not reveal unless there is some order to reveal it. A conversation between any gentlemen talking together, one asking another about advice on a difficult matter-


John Edward Broadbent: But was it advice? That is the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or about a case before the courts, of for that matter any financial problem that one of them is having, I would not expect to be reveajed. It is not a question of judicial privilege but of gentlemanly conduct, and I am sure it would apply to members on the other side of the House as well.
I think the issue is as stated earlier by the Leader of the Opposition and by me last week, namely: Was there an attempt to influence the judiciary? We have the judiciary's opinion on that and the answer is negative. There was, in their words, improper conduct and that gives rise to an appearance that is not good and on which I intend to make a statement later today. But what two gentlemen or ladies state to each other, whether under their oath as Privy Councillors or without that oath and simply as members of the House, to me is not a proper matter for inquiry. I do not say that privilege is absolute. I admit it could be dispensed with by order of the court in some criminal proceeding. But I do not think it is relevant to this line of inquiry.


John Edward Broadbent: May I put a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. While accepting his general point about privacy of conversations, do we not have a very important exception to that general rule now? The Prime Minister presumably having accepted the resignation of the Minister of Public Works, does he not
Oral Questions
think it very germane to the case whether or not the Minister of Public Works was requested by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-I am not talking about seeking advice but requesting him-to intervene in this case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter for the two gentleman to discuss between themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, in the conversations I had I have no knowledge of wrongdoing of any kind or any attempt to influence indirectly. I do know of conversations between two members of my cabinet. Unless I have cause to believe there was something illegal or improper about those conversations I think that ends the matter.


POSSIBILITY PRIME MINISTER WOULD REQUEST CONSUMER
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister who obviously must assume, in respect of the conduct of his cabinet, the same role and responsibility the associate Chief Justice of Quebec had to accept with regard to the conduct of the judges in his jurisdiction. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister, bearing in mind that the Chief Justice of Quebec has ruled that the conduct of the three ministers was in fact improper, and bearing in mind the fact that the Minister of Public Works only approached the Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec after a conversation with his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to submit his resignation in light of his improper conduct.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with the premise stated by the hon. gentleman. It is certainly very misleading. The Chief Justice did not use the word "improper" as regards the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the President of the Treasury Board. In one case, the case of a now minister, he said it was unusual, "insolite," and in the case of the President of the Treasury Board he said he considered the matter closed.


INQUIRY WHETHER CONSUMER MINISTER REQUESTED A MEMBER OF CABINET TO APPROACH JUDGE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whose petulant and irresponsible outburst touched off this whole unhappy affair in the first instance. I should like to ask the minister, bearing in mind that Your Honour will have the responsibility to rule whether or not this is sub judicie, whether during the course of the conversation the minister had with the Minister of Public Works he had requested the Minister of

March 12, 1976
Oral Questions
Public Works or any other of his cabinet colleagues to intervene with the Superior Court of Quebec on his behalf.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want to recall to the hon. member that the statements I made before Christmas were from a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs defending the Canadian consumers, and he was deeply disappointed by the judgment rendered in the sugar case. As to the remainder of the question, I have no other comments.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if during the course of his conversation with the Prime Minister he had in fact informed the Prime Minister that he had requested the Minister of Public Works to intervene on his behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBILITY CROWN AND DEFENCE NOTIFIED OF VISIT TO JUDGE BY MR. LALONDE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Were the Crown, and most especially the defence, notified of the extraordinary visit to Mr. Justice Mackay.


Marc Lalonde: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moncton.


PRIME MINISTER'S VIEW ON PROTECTION OF JUDICIARY FROM INTERVENTION BY MINISTERS
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The report of the Chief Justice on page two reads in part:
More particularly, it-
Meaning the judiciary.
-must remain protected from interventions from members of the cabinet, whatever may be the quality of the intentions that inspire them.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether this statement conforms with the present view of the Prime Minister or his previous view, and will it he considered in his preparation of a so-called code of ethics for cabinet members?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is the matter to which I will address myself this afternoon.


SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF BILL C-2 TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Inasmuch as

the minister has asked the Supreme Court to give an opinion on the constitutionality of the anti-inflation legislation, is the minister now considering, or will he consider, referring Bill C-2 dealing with amendments to the Combines Investigation Act to the Supreme Court of Canada as a very detailed study which was done on the constitutional aspects of Bill C-2 for the C. D. Howe Research Institute by a very senior legal counsel, who is now an Ontario Supreme Court judge, raised serious doubts about this legislation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker; it is not the intention to refer Bill C-2 to the Supreme Court of Canada.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs was overruled in respect of the hearing of witnesses on the constitutional aspects of Bill C-2, and inasmuch as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs refused to table the legal opinion of the Department of Justice on this aspect of Bill C-2, and inasmuch as our amendment for reference to the Supreme Court was turned aside, will the minister examine the matter in depth before we find this legislation tied up in lower court litigation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Obviously and naturally, those questions were examined very carefully indeed in preparation of the legislation.


KNOWLEDGE OF CONSUMER MINISTER OF POSSIBILITY MR. DRURY WOULD APPROACH JUDGE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Accepting for the moment his proposition that he cannot tell the House about the communications he had, I wish to ask him a question. Did he have evidence that the former minister of public works was going to communicate with the judge who was dealing with the contempt proceedings and if he did know this did he, as a lawyer and one concerned with this matter, suggest that he should not approach the judge?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, this is a repetition of questions which have already been put to me indirectly and I do not see why I should answer them now.


Some hon. Members:: That's not true!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Perhaps I did not put the question as clearly as I should have to the minister. I will put it again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has now been put and the suggestion has been put forward that it is a repetition. I have listened carefully. I do not think it is repetition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 12, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: But I certainly do not want to invite the hon. member to now repeat it because if he is about to do what he said it will be a repetition.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat it. I will just ask the minister to answer a question which Mr. Speaker said is relevant.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Toronto Davenport.


THE MINISTRY
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister give consideration, as the majority of the members of this House hope he would, to not accepting the resignation offered by the Minister of Public Works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We will accept an exchange.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a matter to which I am giving consideration, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. On March 9, as recorded at page 11613 of Hansard, the minister indicated that once he received the report of Chief Justice Deschenes he would then be making recommendations on the basis of that report. I wonder if the minister could tell us what his recommendations are now that he has received the report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think, as the Chief Justice points out, my duty is to see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law. Accordingly, I have had the letter of the Chief Justice reviewed by the law officers of the Crown to determine whether it discloses any conduct constituting a wilful intent to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice within the meaning of the Criminal Code or is conduct interfering with the course of justice amounting in law to contempt. I am advised there is nothing disclosed in the letter of the Chief Justice which dictates further action by me in accordance with my duties under the law and I have so advised the Prime Minister. However, I also have responsibilities with regard to the independence of the judiciary. In this respect, the Chief Justice does say:
It is of the utmost importance that this independence of the judiciary, achieved through great effort during the course of the last three centuries, be jealously guarded against all attacks.
Oral Questions
More particularly, it must remain protected from interventions by members of the cabinet, whatever may be the quality of the intentions that inspire them.
He also added, and I add that-
-in the light of recent events, that it must also be protected from interventions from parliament.
That is a statement which I, as Minister of Justice, in terms of protecting the judiciary fully support and concur with. In line with that, I have been conferring with the Prime Minister with regard to the statement he will be making in due course.


KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE JUDGES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Because this whole matter would never have even seen the light of day if we had not had a disgruntled lawyer in Montreal asking for his fees to be paid-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -I wonder if the Minister of Justice, either himself or through his ministry, knows of any other attempt by ministers of the Crown, or anyone else for that matter, to speak to members of the judiciary when they have been seized of a case with the very obvious attempt to at least influence the judge if not the judgment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The answer to that is no. I made it clear in the House the other day that in the course of my duties I have had occasion, since I have been minister, to confer with chief justices on a regular basis about a whole range of proper matters, and at no time since I have been Minister of Justice has any of them indicated to me their awareness of any improper approaches to them by ministers. Last week the deputy attorney general of Canada was out of the country, and I checked with him via long distance to ask him whether during his conversations with judges in the course of duty any such complaint had been made to him, and the answer was no.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Could the Minister of Justice then please ascertain and report back to the House whether any complaint of a similar nature has ever been made to the Canadian Judicial Council.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as the chief justice properly stated in his letter, that would not be a matter before the Canadian Judicial Council. The Canadian Judicial Council is in that regard not seized with the conduct of ministers, it is seized with the conduct of judges. Therefore, I am not sure that it is even appropriate for me to ask the Canadian Judicial Council the question put to me by the hon. member.
11750

March 12, 1976
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE REVISION OF CODE OF ETHICS FOR MINISTERS DEALING WITH JUDICIARY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the letter from the chief justice indicates that the three judges concerned-and this is either said expressly or by very strong implication-who were approached were concerned or disturbed by the nature of the communication made to them and the character of the person who made it to them, has the Prime Minister now revised the standards of conduct of ministers in dealing with the judiciary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister has already indicated-we might now usefully for the benefit of members formalize this-his intention to return to the House at the suggested hour of 4 p.m. for the purpose of making a statement. If that is a definite undertaking, it would affect the question put by the hon. member for Peace River. Perhaps we might clarify that to see whether the order is now being sought. If so, will the House give its consent that later this day, specifically at 4 p.m. to revert to statements by ministers for the purpose of receiving a statement by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the subject standards formerly outlined?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


Charles Joseph Clark: I would simply like to say that while we are very much in agreement with that procedure, I should like to repeat my request, on behalf of all parties I think, that we receive a copy of the Prime Minister's statement well in advance of its delivery in the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As soon as it is ready I will send a copy to all hon. members, but I cannot promise it will be ready much before 4 o'clock. I realize the inconvenience of the weekend and that is why I am making it as late as possible before the weekend, but I will certainly do my best. If hon. members do not want to hear it, they can wait until Monday or they can read it in the press meanwhile.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will do my best. If the opposition wants to take more time, I think we on this side would certainly agree to them making their response to my statement on Monday. We would have no objection to that. I do not want to catch them by surprise and I realize that the approaching weekend is causing difficulty.


Mr. Stanfield:: Don't be so unfair.


John Edward Broadbent: As I said earlier, I would agree with the procedure, but I should like to get one point understood by the Prime Minister. I understand him to wish to make a general statement at 4 o'clock not, for example, to announce at that time the formation of a public inquiry, because if he does that it would mean that he alone would presumably determine, without some consultation with others in the House, what the terms of reference should be. So, I should like to have the undertaking of the Prime Minister that he would just be announcing the general intention at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that either we give consent to the order that the House will revert to statements at that time or we do not. If we begin to attach conditions to it, there could be as many conditions as there are members. Indeed, under our Standing Order-the provisional orders under which we have been operating since Easter-there is a certain discretion as to what follows statements. After the Prime Minister has made his statement it is left to the discretion of the Chair to limit the time for further questions. Those decisions can only be made after the content of the statements is known. The order has now been made that the House will revert to statements at 4 p.m.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-BASIS ON WHICH PRIME MINISTER DECIDED MINISTERS' EXPLANATIONS SATISFACTORY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: My
supplementay question is for the Prime Minister and it refers to his statement on page 11660 of Hansard in which he said:
Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House that I had raised this matter with the ministers and that they had given me an answer which I found satisfactory.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would now be prepared to tell the House, given the report of Mr. Justice Deschenes which includes such words as "gravely disturbed" and "improper", on what basis he considered these answers from the ministers satisfactory?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the
same basis as the judges themselves, who made it quite clear that there was no attempt to influence the course of justice. The question of propriety is another one, and that is the one that I intend to speak about this afternoon.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to expand on that explanation this afternoon at 4 o'clock and undertake to tell the House what he found satisfactory about the discussions he had with his cabinet ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will expand on it right now and I will repeat what I just said, that in my judgment, which is now confirmed by the three judges who were spoken to, and in their judgment there was no attempt to do anything which would be either illegal or considered to be contempt of court or which would in any way attempt to influence their judgment.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That isn't satisfactory.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is satisfactory to the issue that I raised with them. The question of appearance is another one.


Charles Joseph Clark: The question of propriety is another.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question of propriety is another, which is very much the same as the question of appearances.


Some hon. Members:: 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is my thinking, and members of the opposition will have a chance to disagree if they wish this afternoon.


KNOWLEDGE OF CONSUMER MINISTER OF POSSIBILITY MR. DRURY WOULD APPROACH JUDGE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If my question sounds a bit like the question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, I hope Your Honour will extend me a bit of latitude. I should just like to be sure the minister understands the question we are trying to put to him.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works has now resigned because of something he did for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, can the minister tell us whether he knew what his colleague was going to do and whether he made any effort to persuade him not to do it?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member who is asking me if I have anything to say, I have already indicated to the House that I would not make any comments since my case is before the Court of Appeal.


REQUEST PRIME MINISTER STATE CRITERIA FOR PROPER INTERVENTIONS BY MINISTERS WITH JUDICIARY
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and it follows on some comments made by the Prime Minister on March 4 as recorded in Hansard when he stated that it is possible that Justice Mackay found it to be an improper intervention. If so, it was surprising to the Prime Minister, to say the least. The implication was that there might be some intervention the Prime Minister assumes proper. That implication was also in yesterday's question period, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will take the opportunity at four o'clock to state whether he does consider some interventions proper, and if so, for those which he may consider proper, what would be the criteria of a proper intervention to a court?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not like to interfere with the right to ask questions, but that is precisely what the Prime Minister indicated would be the nature of a statement this afternoon. I just do not want to duplicate questions unnecessarily.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if the minister has heard a report on the loss of the
Oral Questions
Cape Freels fishing patrol vessel, and if he has, would he advise the House whether the life boat has been located?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a report on the fire on board the Cape Freels, its sighting, apparently with no one on board, and the absence from it of a life craft large enough to hold the persons who were on board. There has been no report yet of a sighting of that craft. There are some vessels en route, including three coastguard and a number of foreign vessels, one of which is a German vessel which may be the first to reach the vessel which is on fire.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder if the minister has that report, and has he taken any action to direct action by the air-sea rescue unit?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the rescue centre was alerted at one o'clock this morning, and a tracker was dispatched immediately. It was the tracker aircraft which discovered the Cape Freels. The position of the lifeboat is not known, and our search at the present time is to try to find the lifeboat. There are at least eight ships in the area. We are putting other aircraft into the search, and I think the rescue centre is doing everything possible.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. According to the latest CPI figures housing costs are up 0.8 per cent for the past month of February. There has been an 11.5 per cent increase in the past 12 months, and a 13.8 per cent increase in the cost of home ownership. My question is, what does the minister contemplate doing about these continued increases in order that housing starts will not be decreased because of the tremendously high cost?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have already taken action along these lines, and indeed, the recent amendments to the National Housing Act which were passed by this House should go a long way toward increasing production and creating more efficiency in the building and lending institutions as well as the supply industries. Still, of course, building, like anything else, is subject to inflation, but the initiatives already taken by this government should go a long way toward increasing efficiency and keeping down costs.


Stan Darling: They are still going up.
21419-51Vi

March 12, 1976
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


CONTRACT WITH LOCKHEED-ALLEGATION COMPANY MISLED DEPARTMENT ON FINANCING-PROVISION OF INTERIM FINANCING
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The Minister has stated that Lockheed Aircraft Corporation misled his negotiators concerning all the major initial financing of the LRPA. Could the minister inform the House when it became apparent to him that Lockheed had misled his negotiators?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the word misled was used by the press. It was not used directly by me. There was a misunderstanding. There have been difficulties in achieving the bridge financing, that is, the financing during the production phase. More recently there have also been difficulties concerning the Lockheed company's financial viability. What we have been seeking is an assurance that the company can in fact manufacture and deliver these aircraft. I may say that in recent conversations with officials of the United States government-and from other sources-we have been receiving the assurances that we believe are necessary in that respect.
I have also been preparing a presentation to cabinet to solve the other difficulty with regard to the financing. In other words, we are moving ahead to complete that contract because we believe it is absolutely essential that we acquire those aircraft for the Canadian armed forces.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The minister referred to it as a misunderstanding, but the managing director of Lockheed says that the payment schedule in its proposed contract with the Canadian government has not changed significantly since last August. Could the minister inform the House who is now going to provide the interim financing in this deal, if it is consummated, and to whom is his department going to pay the $111 million in interest on interim financing, which the minister referred to at page 11402 of Hansard?


James Armstrong Richardson: It is obvious that the interest payments would be made to whoever we borrow the money from, but I have options going forward to cabinet, as I said a moment ago, which will provide an answer to this problem of interim financing. When cabinet has reached a decision, I hope to be able to announce a successful conclusion to these difficulties.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will he advise the House whether he has received a lot of correspondence from the authorities and associations of Roberval constituency concerning unemployment insurance offices? Second, when will the minis-

ter be able to complete the organization of the Dolbeau and Roberval unemployment insurance offices according to plans in order to make them more functional?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received the communications to which the hon. member refers, unless they have appeared in my office within the last 10 days, during which time I have been away, but I will look into the matter and try to obtain the information he seeks.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REGULATIONS FOR CONTROLLING PROFESSIONAL FEES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask him whether he is aware of the statement made in the last day or two by a senior official of the prices division of the Anti-Inflation Board to the effect that professionals like doctors and lawyers, of whom there are some 75,000, will simply have to certify through a declaration to the board that their fee schedules and billing practices are unchanged and will not be required to produce detailed documentation. Has this been approved by the government?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in general terms the purpose would not be to require, but really to give professionals the option of figuring it two ways. The board, of course, would be scrutinizing, through a spot check of individual cases, to make sure that professional income is indeed within the limits set by the person's certificate.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. Is the minister suggesting that this spot check, which is obviously nothing more than self-regulation by professionals, is in any way comparable and fair in comparison with the very specific and tough limits put on wage and salary earners by the board which would be further aggravated by the long delay in making decisions in many cases by the board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says it is self-regulating but it is no more selfregulating than making out the income tax is.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. As Dr. Jerry Haas who was doing a considerable amount of research work on white beans at the research station at Harrow has now left for Israel, can the minister advise whether he has engaged a pathologist to carry on this
March 12, 1976

research work as producers have requested and if so, could he give us the name of the replacement?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that a replacement has been appointed, but I shall check and let the hon. member know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Bearing in mind the number of members who waited through the rather extended proceedings today, and now seek the floor to ask questions on subjects not related to the subject matter of the statements made by ministers today, I thought it would be fair to now give some definition to the procedure to conclude the question period by recognizing the following members: the hon. member for Dauphin, (Mr. Ritchie) the hon. member for York-Sunbury, (Mr. Howie), the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay, (Mr. Johnston) the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie) and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes).


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the determination of the Bank of Canada to squeeze the money supply still further by raising the bank rate and with the continued escalation of government spending, is the minister contemplating further increases in taxes, especially personal income tax, in his next budget in order to raise money for the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am contemplating presenting a budget.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicates that work in respect of the Fundy Tidal Power project study has commenced, will the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion take steps to see that the industrial development potential associated with this great project is studied and developed at the same time?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think this work is really started now. It is obvious that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will follow carefully the analysis and studies required and more than probably actively take part in them to help bring in greater benefits to the economy of the province of New Brunswick as well as that of the whole Atlantic area.
Oral Questions


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As at the present any municipality planning an effluent disposal system must be involved not only with the Department of Urban Affairs but also with the Department of the Environment, the Department of Agriculture and possibly with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and very likely with the Department of Science and Technology as well as the Department of Natioal Health and Welfare, may I ask if the minister has given any consideration to designating one person in his department as an interdepartmental co-ordinator whose task would be one of assisting municipalities planning spray projects?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not given any special consideration to that but I shall.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question. Would the minister endeavour in every way to hasten the reprinting of the brochure on the present sewage aid and assistance program which seems to be out of print and still in demand?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, I shall, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister sets up a public inquiry will he undertake that it will be done only after consultation with the leaders of the other parties as to the terms of reference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have concluded questions related to this subject.


HOUSING
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State responsible for Urban Affairs.
Since inflation is a major problem in this country and in particular in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, and knowing that renovation entails totally destroying the interior of buildings before estimating what costs will be involved in the structure, can the minister tell the House whether he

March 12, 1976
Oral Questions
expects to increase subsidies agreed to in the National Housing Act, to make sure that rents will really be low and allow greater access to suitable housing for low income people?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the response we have had to the housing starts this year and new programs which were introduced in the recent amendments to the National Housing Act. That is indicated by the extraordinary success we are having in housing starts so far. Because this housing funding will come mainly from the private sector which we are encouraging, we should have sufficient funds to look after the rehabilitation needs of constituencies such as that of the hon. member. Indeed, we have an arrangement with the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal for major rehabilitation programs. I hope this will help alleviate the situation in his constituency but I am not sure of the boundaries of the improvement program in so far as it involves specific constituencies.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. In light of the fact that the Department of Communications has publicly stated as late as December, 1975 that the cost of the new experimental satellite known as CTS is $60 million and bearing in mind this estimate has escalated from the 1972 evaluation of $20 million, would the minister please inform the House whether that January, 1976 cost analysis by the Department of Communications placed the actual cost of the satellite at $100 million?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the cost of that satellite is $60 million. The next thing I know is that we got a lot for our money out of that satellite. This is one of the most advanced technologies in that type of satellite in the world. It is now performing to the satisfaction of all those who have participated in the experiment. As to the cost escalation, I cannot answer the hon. member's question on that specific point. If the cost has escalated as he says-and I am not sure that he is right-from $20 million to $60 million then I can find out what happened in between. At this point, however, I cannot answer that specific question. The hon. member should bear in mind that the launching of this satellite is the result of a science policy which was enunciated by this government in the area of space and it has been extremely successful. The hon. member should be the last one to complain.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister inform the House whether the communications technology satellite has been withdrawn from service as of this month until September 1976 due to technical difficulties and that in fact, given the two year use-life of this satellite with the cost, from my source of $100 million,
' 
this suspension will mean a loss of $25 million to the Canadian government?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, we have had some battery troubles with the satellite in that period of time when it was not facing the sun. To find out the cause of the difficulty the satellite has been set aside in a sort of parking space we have up there. Our technicians and those of NASA are looking at ways and means of remedying this. The satellite is capable of functioning, however, and there is no suggestion that the two year lifespan of that satellite is in question at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which has nothing to do with the matters that have been under discussion this morning. Yesterday at about six o'clock when Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the chair he announced, and I noticed it particularly, that another objection under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act had been filed, and he gave the names of about ten or twelve hon. members who signed it. He asked if the House would agree to the usual practice of entering it as an appendix to yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. On checking Hansard today I find that the total reference is missing and that there is nothing in Votes and Proceedings about this matter. I do not recall any questions later in the day about any changes needing to be made in Hansard. Would Your Honour look into this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is familiar with the circumstances. The refiling of a previous objection in its original form was my error. Since the previous objection was correctly filed and correctly appended to Votes and Proceedings on the day of original filing and since the second filing was in error, the hon. member who was responsible for the filing of both objections, or for putting forward both notices, was informed that in the circumstances, if he was agreeable, since the matter had already been filed and since the rights of all hon. members to participate in the discussion on the objection were protected, and the proper notation having been made on March 8 in Votes and Proceedings, it ought not to be repeated.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-427, to amend the House of Commons Act and the Canada Elections Act (by-elections).


An hon. Member:: Explain.
March 12, 1976


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I introduce this bill because of the procrastination of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in calling by-elections. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the basic democratic right of representation of electors in a constituency in the House of Commons by duly elected representatives is maintained as fully as possible and that a minimum of time is allowed to elapse without proper democratic representation should a vacancy occur.
By these amendments, a maximum of 120 days shall pass between the time of receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of the warrant for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member of the House of Commons to fill a vacancy therein and the polling date of the by-election to fill such a vacancy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill S-32 (from the Senate) to implement conventions for the avoidance of double-taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium and Canada and Israel.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On March 9, 1976, as reported on page 11632 of Hansard, a personal attack was launched on me by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). My initial reaction was one of anger. The first day I arrived in the House, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member refers to an occurrence reported in Hansard on a date some time removed from today. The hon. member was good enough to send the Chair notice of his intention to raise this question of privilege. I am not certain his notice is in time. In any event, the hon. member should explain, since the matter relates to a previous occurrence in the House and comes under the established practices of the House, why the matter was not raised at the first opportunity available to the hon. member. Perhaps the hon. member can explain.


Mike Landers: Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the House on the day the attack was made on me. It was a Tuesday. On Wednesday I was in my riding with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). I arrived back on Thursday, my brother was with me and I did not have the opportunity to raise a question of privilege; also, I needed time to cool down.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances, I may want to hear from the hon. member on the question of privilege.
Order Paper Questions


Mike Landers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On my first day in this House, the right hon. member for Prince Albert extended to me the courtesy of congratulating me upon my election to this esteemed House. Since then I have had the opportunity to congratulate the new leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Clark) upon his recent election.
I thought that when a member on either side of the House accomplishes some personal achievement, other hon. members, according to tradition, wish him well. That should be the tradition. Instead, I discovered that not all hon. members follow this time honoured tradition. Having been angered by the hon. member's actions, I inquired of people who know him why he would act in so reprehensible a manner. Having discovered the reason for his bizarre behavior, I wish to put on record the fact that I forgive him.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,500, 3,834, 3,852, 4,034, 4,057, 4,070, 4,110 and 4,445.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government intend to make a full revision of the Crown Liability Act and, if so, on what date?
2.	For the past year (a) how many legal actions have been taken against the government (b) what is the total amount of the claims?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. The Attorney General of Canada indicated at the federal-provincial conference of the attorneys general which was held in Halifax on the October 23 and 24, 1975, that he was considering amendments to the Crown Liability Act. That consideration is continuing but at this time no decision has been made as to when any amendments could be introduced.
2. According to information which has been obtained from the registry of the federal court, it would appear that: (a) from the January 1, 1974 until the December 31, 1974, 210 legal actions seeking damages pursuant to the provisions of the Crown Liability Act were instituted against the government of Canada, (b) the total amount of damages as disclosed in the statements of claim or declarations was $14,060,205.00.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, have measures been taken since the Plan's inception to develop an offshore fishing fleet based in PEI which

March 12, 1976
Order Paper Questions
has the flexibility to operate both in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off the Atlantic Coast and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: No.


Mr. Marshall: Is it the intention of the Anti-Inflation Board to establish an office in the Province of Newfoundland as a result of a request made by the responsible provincial minister and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, have specific measures been implemented to restrict the entry of new persons who wish to engage in fishing as a livelihood and, if so (a) on what dates (b) at what costs (c) with what effectiveness?
2.	Have the measures been evaluated and, if so (a) on what date (b) by whom (c) with what specific implications for Phase 2 sectoral programme?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is it the intention of the government to give consideration to station RCMP officers in towns of over 600 population, as outlined in the resolution passed at the recent Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association Convention?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: No. The attorney general for the province of Saskatchewan is responsible for law enforcement and, under the Provincial Policing Agreement, he is also responsible for the location of Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachments.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: I have been advised by the AntiInflation Board as follows: the Anti-Inflation Board has not determined its policy with respect to the opening of additional regional offices. The regional offices now established are located in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister or any member of the Prime Minister's family use any government aircraft on or about February 13, 1976 and, if so (a) what is a complete description of the aircraft (b) what flights did it make including places of origin and destination (c) what are the names and addresses of all persons that were on board?
2.	What was the total cost to the taxpayer of the use of such aircraft including flying time, waiting time, salaries of crew etc.?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Yes-the
Prime Minister, (a) MOT Jetstar CF-DTF. (b) Vancouver to Kamloops, (c) Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau, Prime Minister; Mr. R. W. Murdoch, PMO; Mr. T. Axworthy, PMO; Mr. I. MacDonald, PMO; Mr. J. G. Moore, PMO.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the Minister of Justice announced the 1974-75 appointments to the Federal Court of Canada and, if so, how many?
2.	In each case (a) what is the name of the judge (b) the province from which he was appointed?
2. $970 per hour (includes flight crew salaries travelling expenses, fuel, operations overhead, supervisory overhead, etc ). See reply to question 69 answered February 3, 1976.


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Yes, seven.
2.	(a)
Appointee
Hon. W. F. Ryan Hon. R. Kerr(i)
Hon. J.-E. Dube Hon. G. E. LeDain
Hon. D. V. Heald(i) Hon. A. L. Thur-low<il>
Hon. L. Marceau
(b)
Province
Bar Membership
New Brunswick Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Saskatchewan Nova Scotia
Residence at Time of Appointment
Ontario
Ontario
New Brunswick Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Quebec
Quebec
(i>
Appointed from Trial to Appeal Division
(ii) Appointed Associate Chief Justice from Appeal
Division
|Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).|


Mr. Matte: 1.	Did the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs allocate grants to private and agencies for the (a) acquisition (b) restoration (c) reconstruction of historic monuments in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, in what amount?
2.	What is the (a) site name (b) municipality involved (c) work performed (d) amount allocated (e) year each grant was made?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.
March 12, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jack Marshall: That in the opinion of this House the government must unilaterally proclaim its exclusive jurisdiction over a-200 mile coastal fisheries zone to stop critical depletion of Canada's fisheries resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to focus attention of the House on the serious problems confronting the fishery on both coasts of Canada. Although the motion speaks of a 200-mile coastal fisheries zone to stop critical depletion of Canada's fisheries resources, we support the extension of jurisdiction to the edge of the continental shelf and my party supports the government's stand on that matter. That position does not preclude our supporting a 200-mile coastal economic zone, or fisheries zone, in order to protect our depleting fisheries stocks. Other countries have realized the need to extend their fisheries limits. Most recently, the United States introduced legislation in the House of Representatives and the Senate to extend its fisheries limits. I feel that this is the right time for Canada to follow suit because our two great nations face common problems. Negotiations are going on between our two countries.
Incidentally, it is not my purpose today to criticize for the sake of criticizing. Hopefully, we shall make the government realize that time is of the essence, that the fishery is in a state of bankruptcy and that we cannot afford to wait longer. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) will put forward Canada's position at the Law of the Sea Conference to ensure that Canada will extend its fisheries zones in order to protect fish stocks which provide the livelihood of many thousands of Canadians.
The Minister of State for Fisheries is not present in the House. Yesterday he explained to me that he could not change his commitments. I accept that. I know his interest in the fisheries of Canada, and we do not hold him responsible for his absence from the House. I wish to first read from a booklet put out by the Department of External Affairs, entitled "The Future of the Oceans". It reads in part:
For the coastal fisherman, dependent on the stocks that in turn depend upon his home waters, overfishing by others can spell the end of his livelihood. This is where fisheries management comes in. The whole point of management is (ideally) to harvest the greatest yield that the complex of fish stocks in an area can replace annually. Only by applying management controls, such as quotas and seasonal limits (for example, during spawning), can the maximum yield be available each year to coastal fishermen and long-range ships alike.
I quote from the conclusions in the booklet:
The priority interests of the coastal state in all marine activities adjacent to its shores must be appropriately recognized and reflected in international law;
Fisheries
Much of the administration of the law of the future must be based on resource and environmental management concepts;
For any agreement to endure, there must be a better balance between the rights of individual states, whether flag or coastal, and the responsibilities which these rights carry with them regarding vital community interests in the uses of the sea.
The problem of extending our limits has been recurring each year. Everyone in Canada, with the exception of the federal government, agrees that we must take action to extend our limits in order to protect our fish stocks. The government is going a different route by having bilateral agreements with many nations. While we hope this will come about, they are taking the back route. The government should have extended the limits and then made bilateral agreements with other nations for economic and other purposes. To give some indication of the decrease in catches of fish stocks, I wish to quote from the Fisheries Prices Support Board 1974-75 annual report:
Preliminary figures indicate total Canadian landings of fish and shellfish, including freshwater fish, amounted to 1.9 billion pounds in 1974, a decrease of 14 per cent as against 1973. The landed value of $293 million represented a decrease of 9 per cent from the 1973 landed value of $320 million.
On the Atlantic coast landings were 1,532 million pounds in 1974, a decline of 14 per cent in weight and 1 per cent in value as compared with 1973. The decrease in landings was attributable to several factors including the over-exploited state of certain species, severe ice conditions late into the spring of 1974 and a six-week strike by the Newfoundland trawler fishermen during the summer of 1974. Groundfish accounted for 55 per cent of the total Atlantic Coast catch by weight and 45 per cent in terms of landed value.
Fish landings on the Pacific coast also dropped in 1974. The total landed catch on the west coast was 298 million pounds, a decline of 23 per cent by weight and 22 per cent by value as compared with 1973. Salmon landings amounted to 134 million pounds, a drop of 28 per cent in weight and 36 per cent in landed value as compared with 1973.
Government agency figures show that with regard to fisheries we are almost in a state of bankruptcy. Our fisheries' management is not at the level where we should brag about the fact that we are the best catchers and managers of fish in the world. It is surprising to note that in 1973 we imported $111 million worth of fish, and in 1974 $120 million. This is our own fish. It is fish we sell to other nations because we do not have proper management and processing facilities. We send it out of the country and buy it back at three or four times the price. That is not good, and must be corrected. However, we must first protect, conserve and control our resources which are vital to the livelihood of those in the eastern and western regions of Canada and, indeed, right across this country. I hope that when the minister replies-if there is time with all that is going on-he will give the House some indication of the direction that Canada intends to follow at the Law of the Sea Conference which begins next week.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
11758

March 12, 1976
Fisheries


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Jack Marshall: When I called it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to discuss the effect of the continued restrictions and the need for placing quotas on many species of fish in Canada. It is a wonder to me that on the one hand-and I must give credit to the Minister of State for Fisheries because he is trying his best to give the infrastructure support to fishermen by way of small craft harbours and vessel subsidies-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: We are providing the subsidies and the infrastructure support, we are providing the vessels and the small craft harbours for the fishermen, but that at the same time, because of the depletion and deterioration of our stocks, we have on the other hand to give subsidies because there are no fish left. One course is certainly working against the other. For example, the minister announced the other day a $44 million temporary assistance program for Canada's troubled fishing industry. He is to be given credit for that. But I have to emphasize the point that on one hand we are giving bigger quotas through ICNAF to foreign nations which are taking away fish which rightfully belong to eastern Canada; then, when there are no fish, we have to pay the fishermen subsidies, and so on.
The other effect of the restrictions on fishermen is the destructive impact it is having on the morale of the fishermen, particularly in the Atlantic region. Every year another species of fish is added to those under quota. Every year-almost every few months-more regulations are established. Recently, one which caused great confusion right across the country was that which dealt with the lobster fishing rf;gulation. Then there is the restriction of the salmon catch and the provision for the licensing of boats. It is getting to the point at which the industry is fast becoming a police state fishery, and this is really having a harmful effect on the morale of the fishermen.
The incidents which arose just before the seal hunt are a perfect example of the fact that for the first time the peaceful fishermen of Newfoundland reacted, and about 200 appeared at a meeting designed to stop the "Greenpeace" organization interfering with their livelihood from the seal hunt. As the need for restrictions, licensing regulations and stricter regulations keeps coming forward, the fishermen are getting exasperated, disappointed, discouraged and will also react to the great deterioration and rape of our inshore and offshore fisheries and our banks fisheries. We go to ICNAF like a big brother and we allow them bigger quotas than we have ourselves. Our own fishermen are left without fish, without a livelihood, and they have to go on welfare.
The most recent problem which arises concerns the restrictions on the catching of red fish or ocean perch. I am sure my hon. friend from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) will elaborate on this aspect because it concerns him in Nova Scotia as much as it does me. But to show the reaction of Newfoundland, when it became necessary to restrict the catch of red fish to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, this is the

content of a telegram sent to the minister, of which I had a copy yesterday:
Restrictions on red fish fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the balance of 1976 will have a most damaging effect not only on the fish processors, plant workers and fishermen, but on the province's entire fishing industry.
It is obvious that officials of your department have been aware of the need for a reduction in gulf red fish landings from 1975 levels for some time and it is difficult to understand why this crucial factor was not taken into account in establishing 1976 ICNAF quotas last June at which time some 100,000 metric tons outside the Gulf were allocated to other nations with less than 20 per cent going to Canadian fishermen and requesting that any reduced red fish catch in excess of inshore requirements should be divided among all vessels fishing red fish on a pro rata base according to past fishing practices.
My hon. friend recommends that the federal government take steps to call a special session of ICNAF to raise the quotas established, especially outside the Gulf, to prevent the deterioration of the red fish section of the industry, and that Canada should withdraw from ICNAF because we are being locked into the present arrangement. I was sure, Mr. Speaker, that in the last few months the government was going to take the unilateral action which was so necessary.
It might be of interest to put on record some of the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of State for Fisheries, as well as some of the experts in the Department of Fisheries and those who attend the Law of the Sea Conferences. I was very surprised at the ocean colloquium in Halifax to find our expert on the Law of the Sea, Mr. Beazley, so concerned and disappointed, and to hear him say that we would be continuing with Law of the Sea Conferences since we had come to no final conclusion. This was the first time I had seen him so disappointed and discouraged. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, speaking in Halifax, had this to say:
-an international solution is by far preferable to unilateral or even regional action. But time is of the essence ...
Should the Law of the Sea Conference fail or procrastinate, we will reassess all options ...
Unilateral action is one of the options open to the government of Canada-
That is what the minister said in February, 1975. Then the Minister of State for Fisheries, speaking in Geneva on April 29 of last year, had this to say:
Fishermen cannot eat negotiating texts.
Then on April 30, 1975, in announcing in Geneva that Canada would press for a 40 per cent cutback in foreign fishing efforts at the June meeting of ICNAF, he said:
I would find it difficult to ask fishermen to wait beyond the end of another conference ... It would be a question of determining what would be an unacceptable delay.
Then Mr. Lucas, one of our experts, speaking in Halifax had this to say:
The bottom line is that we cannot wait forever.
Then, again, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on May 8 last in Geneva said:
Unilateral action is a more lively option today than it was after the Caracas session in 1974.
March 12, 1976

I would be less than candid ... if I were to leave you with the implication that we are entirely satisfied with the results of the conference.
Dr. Needier, head of Canada's delegation at the ICNAF meeting in Edinburgh on June 20, 1975 told reporters at the end of the session that in his opinion Canada might declare a 200-mile limit unilaterally within 12 months if no international agreement is reached. Then on July 22, 1975, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in this House:
I just want to remind the House that half of the European nations and others have exercised historic rights over what has been known for many hundreds of years as the high seas and a unilateral declaration of law as we see it would withdraw from these nations rights which they have been exercising, I repeat for hundreds of years.
They have rights, Mr. Speaker, but the Newfoundland fishermen also have traditional rights going back 600 or 700 years, and they are wondering what has happened to those rights. I am asking the minister to take this factor into consideration. Morale is worsening day by day and I cannot guarantee what is going to happen when the fishing season opens and foreign nations start fishing off our shores. I realize the minister has a problem, but we must extend our fishing limits at least for the time being, just as the United States has. Then we can have bilateral discussions on economic matters and on the continental slope.
When we do extend our limits-as I hope we will after the conference-we must also take measures to protect our fishermen. This is a matter I know the minister is concerned about, just as is the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and the Minister of State for Fisheries.
The capability of Canada's air and sea rescue and lifeboat service and patrol aircraft is much less than desired. I should like to give the House an example of just what goes on in the Atlantic region. We have eight lifeboat bases in Newfoundland whose duty it is to protect and help save lost fishermen, as the name implies. On May 16, 1975, four new lifeboat bases were established, namely, in Shippegan, New Brunswick, Souris, Prince Edward Island, and Louis-bourg and Sambro, Nova Scotia. On the west coast of Newfoundland there is not one single lifeboat base. I should like to refer to a letter that I received from the executive assistant to the then minister of transport:
I am writing on behalf of Mr. Marchand in reply to your letter of May 21, 1975 in which you request that the Ministry reconsider its plan for basing 44 ft search and rescue lifeboats with a view to basing two of these lifeboats on the west coast of Newfoundland.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, two fishermen were lost out of Moreton's harbour. There is a lifeboat base at Twillin-gate, and I asked the minister what action that base had taken. I do not have the exact answer before me, but if I may paraphrase it, the answer was that unfortunately their 44-foot boat could not even go out because it is only capable of cutting through about two inches of ice. There are eight lifeboat bases, yet their boats can only cut through two inches of ice. I hope the minister will take these matters into consideration and discuss them with his responsible colleagues; and when he does extend the limit, as I know he will, I remind him that the fishermen must be protected and our air and sea rescue capability must be improved.
In view of the fact that time is short, Mr. Speaker, I will leave the rest of the wise advice that we are going to give the minister to my other colleagues.
Fisheries



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order. Before I recognize the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), perhaps I may be allowed to put the following on record. It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas), Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin), York East (Mr. Col-lenette), York South (Mrs. Appolloni), Lincoln (Mr. Andres), Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley), Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), Welland (Mr. Railton), York West (Mr. Fleming) and Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.
If the House is agreeable, I suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marshall:
That in the opinion of this House the government must unilaterally proclaim its exclusive jurisdiction over a 200-mile coastal fisheries zone to stop critical depletion of Canada's fisheries resources.
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion on the extension of Canada's fisheries jurisdiction. In a sense, I have no complaint with the motion itself; basically it suggests unilateral action as an option open to Canada in extending our fisheries' jurisdiction. In the motion itself there is no reference to the timing or the preparations that are necessary in order to undertake such unilateral extension. Indeed, there is no recognition or analysis in the motion or in the speech as to what the immediate effect would be for Canada and for Canada's fisheries if today the government accepted the invitation of the hon. member and extended, unilaterally, Canada's fisheries' jurisdiction. But I want to tell the hon. member, as I have said before, that unilateral action is one of the possibilities we have had under consideration and that it may be exercised at a time when it will achieve real advantages for Canada.
21419 -52V1

March 12, 1976
Fisheries
The hon. member, in his speech, said we ought to do it right away. I think that was more of an encouragement of the government to continue its efforts than a clear decision on his part that action ought to be taken at this time. The Law of the Sea Conference is opening on Monday. It is a crucial conference for Canada. The hon. member probably will be present, as I will be present, at the conference next week. We will make every effort to make progress on all the issues affecting Canada, but particularly on the fisheries issue because we know, as the hon. member has pointed out, that the fisheries need protection on the east coast and on the west coast. On the east coast, stocks of fish that are vital to the future of Canadian fisheries are seriously depleted. That is the underlying concern behind the energetic efforts that are being undertaken by my colleague, the Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), by his officials and by my officials in a variety of ways.
On the west coast, the new emerging regime of extended jurisdiction is also necessary and any future regime must take into account the special problem of the salmon fishery which is of importance to the west coast of Canada. We have not been idle. As the hon. member knows, there has been action over the years-action which the government of Canada has taken sometimes unilaterally and sometimes ahead of other countries. First, in 1964 the government unilaterally extended Canada's fishing limits to 12 miles. That is taken for granted today, but at that time it was a very important step ahead. We found that countries which has opposed us in taking that unilateral step quickly followed in adopting the 12-mile limit. Second, in 1974 we went a step forward and closed the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Queen Charlotte Sound, Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait as exclusive Canadian fishing zones. These waters are so extensive that they would exceed the 200-mile area of many countries.
In taking that action, we negotiated a phasing-out of the operations of fishing fleets of other countries and today they are almost at the end of their participation in these waters. Last year, as a third point of our emphasis on the importance of the fisheries, we took very strong action in closing the Atlantic ports to the Soviet fishery fleet, with beneficial results in terms of the acknowledgement by the Soviet Union and other countries of the serious overruns that had been taking place in the catch of fish.
Of course, at ICNAF as well we were able to secure a 40 per cent reduction in foreign fishing efforts in respect of ground fish, as well as a reduction in the total allowable catch of depleted stocks and higher quotas for Canadian fishermen in respect of particular stocks which are important to them. These have been important actions. We do not, however, regard them as a substitute for extended Canadian fisheries which we still have as a primary objective of Canadian policy. In my opinion, Canada will soon have a fisheries zone of 200 miles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member overlooked mentioning my most recent quote on this subject which was made last weekend: I said it was not a question of "if", but a question of "when". We want to take action at a time when it will be effective and at a time when it will be timely.

There is no doubt that we have made progress at the Law of the Sea Conference. Unfortunately, we have not made progress rapidly enough to wrap up an over-all treaty including a definition of the jurisdiction of coastal states over their extended jurisdictions. But the single negotiating text that came forward at the conclusion of the last Law of the Sea Conference included most of the concerns Canada has had in respect of the fisheries, and met most of our fisheries' objectives.
At this particular conference we propose to build upon that text and to make further progress where possible in order to solidify, in the text and in the understandings, the position of the Canadian government. I have always said it is the preference of the government of Canada to have its extended jurisdiction, the 200-mile economic zone, accepted as part of an over-all, multilateral settlement engaging in and involving all the countries of the world. In addition to the question of the 200-mile economic zone, there are other various interests involved, including the proper role of salmon and also a host of interests affecting Canada. At the present time, at the Law of the Sea Conference all these issues are treated as a package. Up to the present time, few countries have been ready to settle on the fisheries alone until they know how their interests will be treated in all the other aspects of the conference.
So far as Canada is concerned, we would be prepared, if it were possible, to settle on a treaty at an early date that would include provisions that we find acceptable with regard to the fisheries, provided it would not at the same time prejudice other important Canadian interests. We would be prepared to do that. I am doubtful, however, whether it will happen at this particular Law of the Sea Conference.
In addition to the conference which is beginning in New York next week, it is our expectation-and indeed our firm desire-that the conference in New York be succeeded by a further conference in the summer to carry forward the work that has been accomplished in New York. At the end of that conference, although we know progress will be made, we are not quite certain, at this point, of the extent of the progress but we will be working with other delegations to bring off the greatest possible success. Hon. members who have attended these conferences know that the Canadian delegation has continually played an innovative and responsible role at the conference, and it will be working actively at the upcoming conference to ensure that the provisions that emerge are equitable, effective and responsive to current needs and realities. That is one aspect of the situation and it is an important one. We will be watching results there to determine what course of action we might take.
At the same time, we have been negotiating bilateral agreements with distant fishing countries exploiting the waters which at some future time will be under Canadian jurisdiction. Just yesterday we initialled a further agreement with Portugal, an agreement which of course is initialled ad referendum but which deals with Portuguese fishing in our 200-mile zone.


An hon. Member:: What did you give up for it?
March 12, 1976


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the fourth bilateral agreement that we have succeeded in negotiating, at least ad referendum in the case of Portugal. Previously we had achieved similar results with Norway, Poland and Spain, and negotiations are under way with the Soviet Union. I hope they can be completed successfully in the near future. We have had discussions with the Soviet Union, and we hope that we will have a further round of meetings with them in May. If we succeed in getting a bilateral agreement with the Soviet Union, it will be quite dramatic progress because, having concluded and initialled an agreement with other countries and now with the Soviet Union, we will have covered a substantial portion of the fishing catch of foreign countries in an extended 200-mile zone. I will come back to that in a moment.
What do these bilateral agreements contain? They are all based on the elements of the emerging consensus of the Law of the Sea Conference. Under these agreements, when Canada extends its 200-miles it will be Canada that decides the total allowable catch from each stock; it will be Canada that determines the stocks that may be surplus to Canadian requirements; and it will be Canada that decides the allotments for the foreign fleets from these surpluses. These are the provisions in these agreements.
The four countries that I have mentioned-namely, Norway, Poland, Spain and Portugal-include 30 per cent of the fishing catch of foreign fleets in this extended zone. When we conclude the agreement, as I hope we will, with the Soviet Union, 88 per cent of the fishing catch in these waters by foreign fleets will have been covered by bilateral agreement. That is a major achievement and it is very much related to the question of unilateral jurisdiction, or the extension of unilateral jurisdiction, because if and when we extend our jurisdiction we will have in place, with the major countries now fishing in these waters, agreements that will recognize Canadian extended jurisdiction and the ability of Canada to decide the total allowable catch, to decide what Canada would take, what is surplus to Canada's requirements and how that surplus will be allotted among foreign fishing fleets. It seems to me that it is a very good thing to have these agreements in place before Canada takes a unilateral action and is faced with the problem, for example, that Iceland is presently facing in implementing its unilateral extension of the 200-mile limit.


James Aloysius McGrath: Iceland has no problem. She demonstrated she can take on Her Majesty's fleet.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not want to get into a discussion on Iceland's position and the British position, but it is a fact that the Icelandic government has taken action to extend its jurisdiction to 200-miles. They say, now, that we should control these waters in so far as fisheries are concerned, and the British government has stated that these are international waters and they do not recognize Icelandic jurisdiction and intend to continue fishing there. Now both countries are involved in an effort to negotiate an agreement which will accommodate the interests of both countries in an extended Icelandic jurisdiction.
What we have been doing is to arrive at these agreements before the extension is undertaken, rather than afterwards, in an effort to avoid the futile, sterile and
Fisheries
dangerous confrontation that might take place if we proceeded unilaterally without having in place this kind of agreement. I believe that if in May we succeed as I hope we will in negotiating this agreement with the Soviet Union, we will have put in place a groundwork and a foundation that will make an extension of our jurisdiction effective when it does take place. I believe hon. members will recognize that as being an extremely important aspect of Canadian fisheries' policy.
The hon. member has properly referred to the effect on Canada if other countries extend their jurisdiction prior to Canada doing so. Obviously, we are watching the probable timing of extension by other countries. It is expected that the Mexican 200-mile economic zone, including not only fisheries but minerals, marine pollution and marine scientific research, will come into effect in June. A number of developing countries have enabling legislation so that they will be able to extend their 200-mile fishing zones at a relatively early date. Of course, we are all watching what is happening in the United States where it is expected there will emerge soon, from the congressional conference committee, which is now reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill, a final version which will probably establish an effective date of enforcement of United States jurisdiction early in 1977.
We do not know what the date will be. One bill called for January 1, 1977, another the middle of the year, and the effort is to reconcile them. We do not know what will happen, but probably it will be an effective date of early 1977. We are taking steps to ensure that any U.S. extension will not affect the continuing right of Canadian and U.S. fishermen to enjoy reciprocal fishing privileges in each other's zones, and that our position on unsettled Canada-United States maritime boundary questions will not be prejudiced by any such action. These include such unsettled questions as the Gulf of Maine area, off Juan de Fuca Strait and off Dixon Entrance. So it is obviously realized by hon. members that negotiations with the United States on fisheries are a crucial part of our preparations for the extension of fisheries jurisdiction, and as a neighbouring coastal state there are special concerns to be taken into account. Canadian fishermen fish off the United States coast, and vice versa, and their interests are important. Some fish stocks migrate up and down the coast, and these must be properly managed. We must also try to ensure that there will be no problems of enforcement in the new zone, both as between our two countries and vis-a-vis third countries.
There is also the special problem of salmon fishing by both countries. All these problems are complex and difficult which exist and which must be resolved between Canada and the United States. Consultations have begun and I am sure solutions will be found. A great deal of attention has been focused on the legislation in the United States. It should not be forgotten that in Canada no new enabling legislation is required. We are ready to move on very short notice, because under the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act our extension of fisheries jurisdiction can be accomplished after giving 60 days' notice by order in council. So we do have legislative authority from parliament. It requires executive action and after 60 days' notice

March 12, 1976
Fisheries
an effective date of enforcement can come into play. So we are prepared legislatively. We have been preparing, through our discussions with the distant fishing states, for the eventual extension of our jurisdiction.
I have already stated that extended Canadian jurisdiction is a certainty. It is not in the distant future. I regret that I cannot give a precise date, but it is a certainty and it is not in the distant future. It will depend upon a number of factors, including the progress made at the Law of the Sea Conference, the further success made in our bilateral negotiations with other countries, and also the steps taken by other countries, especially our friend and neighbour the United States.
I want to assure the hon. member that the government is quite alive to the urgency of the seriously depleted stock situation on the east coast. It is quite alive to the concerns of west coast fishermen. A firm and stated objective of our policy is to achieve extended fisheries jurisdiction at the earliest possible date, and we have placed ourselves in a position to bring it off in a timely and effective way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the debate today seems to be more a case of agreement than of confrontation. As the Secretary of State for External (Mr. MacEachen) has pointed out, the question is not "if," but "when" Canada is to extend its control over the fishing areas off our coasts. I regret that the experts in this field in our party, the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Leggatt), the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) are all away this afternoon, leaving it to me to speak briefly on our behalf. I may say that I had also hoped that the leader of our party, who was in Newfoundland a few days ago dealing with these very matters, might be able to take part, but he, too, is tied up.
I want to indicate our support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), and I am glad to note that the Secretary of State for External Affairs regards it as a motion of encouragement rather than argument.
I must point out to the hon. member that last June, I believe it was, we had a debate on a similar subject when a motion was put down by the then member for St. John's West. He called for the extension of our control out to the end of the continental shelf and we had to point out that he forgot to mention the 200-mile zone. Today, my good friend, the hon. member for Humber-St. St. Barbe has put on a motion calling for control out to the 200-mile limit and he forgot to mention in his motion the continental shelf. However, in his speech he made it clear that he means both, and we are supporting his intention, not just the words of the motion.
I also welcome the statement which has been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in which he quite properly referred to the bilateral agreements which have been achieved and to the fact that if Canada is able to achieve one with the Soviet Union, we will be awfully close to having a 200-mile zone so far as Canada is concerned. One has to say that the minister is doing a good job in that regard, and I want also to join the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe in paying tribute to the

good job being done in this field by the Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In fact, I hope it will not hurt him if I suggest he is doing such a good job that he should not be a minister on half pay. He should be a full minister because of the efforts he is making on behalf of the fisheries industry of this country.
I think we are all aware of the fact that the reason something has to be done about the fishing areas off our coasts, both east and west, is because at the present time, when we only have a 12-mile limit, fleets of foreign vessels are engaged in massive fishing operations to such a degree that they are fish mining rather than just fish harvesting. They are treating fish not as a renewable resource but as an ore to be removed and processed, and let that be the end of it. The result of this, of course, is that there has been a tremendous decline in fish harvesting by our Canadian fishermen, a tremendous decline in the landings and, what is even more serious, a decline in the stocks. The situation has reached the point where something has to be done about it very soon. I think the most serious problem is on the east coast, as has been indicated by both previous speakers, but there is also a special problem on the west coast, particularly in respect of the salmon fishery.
We are aware of the fact that the Law of the Sea Conference will resume this coming week in New York city. I had hoped that the minister might be able to express his confidence that out of that conference would come an agreement on a 200-mile zone or a continental shelf. At least he is keeping his options open in that respect. It is still our view, along with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, that if agreement on that is not reached, Canada should still assert its intention, even if we have to do it unilaterally, of going for a 200-mile zone or a zone out to the end of the continental shelf.
When the day comes that we do get control over the waters on our coast, we want to emphasize, of course, that in addition to the control of fishing in those waters which would give Canada the right to say how much we would take and how much would be available for other nations, the day must also come when we should have control over pollution in those waters, control over the right of passage, control over scientific research. In other words, there are a number of other matters in relation to the actual fisheries that are of concern to us in the areas off our coasts whether 200 miles or out to the end of the continental shelf.
So, Mr. Speaker, we express our pleasure that this motion has been put down today. We express our pleasure that there is agreement amongst us that the principle proposed in the motion is one that has to be implemented in one way or another. We hope the seriousness of the matter, in terms of not letting time go by, will impress itself upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of State for Fisheries and that action in this area will be taken with the least possible delay.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on
March 12, 1976

Canadian fisheries. Much of the constituency that I represent in this House depends in whole or in part on the economic future of this important primary industry. Throughout Atlantic Canada it is estimated that some 20,000 fishermen and 12,000 plant workers depend on the fishing industry for their livelihood. Naturally, when this industry suffers economic hardship or sets sail on the wrong course, members of parliament representing Atlantic Canada are soon made aware of the fact. It is our responsibility to try to assist those who look to us for guidance and leadership.
With each passing day I begin to have a clearer realization of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) meant when he said that when members of parliament get 50 feet from Parliament Hill, they are nobodies. It would appear that not only the Prime Minister subscribes to that belief, but it is also held by ministers of the cabinet and other ministers of the Crown as well as the Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). Let us consider, for example, the announcements that have been made outside this House by the Minister of Fisheries when he is, in effect, by ministerial decree, altering the lives and livelihood of thousands of Canadians in Atlantic Canada.
On December 30, for example, the minister issued a news release announcing tighter controls on the east coast lobster fishery. This announcement could well have been made prior to the adjournment of the House for the Christmas recess, when the representatives of the people would have had an opportunity to respond to these arbitrary new measures which have caused heartache and hardship to hundreds of lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada this year. Heaven knows how many will be affected next year.
The minister's opening line of, "New measures coming into effect today to exclude from the lobster fishery those who earn their living elsewhere", was enough to cause consternation among all lobster fishermen, for each and every one of them earn part of their living doing some other work besides lobster fishing. I submit it is desirable to get the doctors, the dentists, the lawyers and the professional people out of the lobster fishery, and almost everyone agrees with this. The minister obviously failed to realize, however, that in our mixed economy it is necessary for many men and women to work at different trades in order to provide for the financial needs of their families. For example, here is a typical letter from a constituent residing in Lockport, Shelbourne county, which I should like to put on the record. It is dated January 1, 1976, and he writes:
I received a letter saying my lobster fishing licence would not be renewed in 1976, as I don't make my living at fishing, that I have a full-time job. I don't think working at a fish plant can be called a full-time job. I have to work all hours of the day or night in order to make between $5,000 and $6,000 (before deductions) at a fish plant. Therefore, I depend on lobster fishing for part of my income. I don't think any fisherman makes this small income for a year. It seems very odd to me that a Canadian can't make a living for himself yet foreign vessels are allowed to come into Canadian waters and take whatever kind of fish they want and destroy the fishing grounds.
He finishes by saying:
I would like to know why my lobster licence will not be renewed in 1976. What crime have I done? If it's a crime to try and make a living, then I am guilty.
Fisheries
I am withholding the writer's name, but this is indicative of many letters I have received concerning this matter. Even bona fide fishermen were concerned with the wording of the minister's letter. In addition to lobstering, many of the fishermen, if not all of them, haul and paint their own boats, thereby infringing on the shipyards which depend upon refitting ships for part of their livelihood. Others paint their own homes or maintain market gardens, thereby earning part of their living from moonlighting as farmers or housepainters. Under this government it is apparently acceptable for Canadians to moonlight in some fields, but is not acceptable to moonlight in others. This double standard has not been lost among all lobster fishermen, those who have their licences this year and those whose licence has been denied.
As far as I can determine, most lobstermen were opposed to the procedure being followed: they were not opposed to the end to be obtained. It would have been more humane and just, in my view, to let attrition within the industry take its course. If licensed fishermen stopped fishing for more than one year, other than those who could not fish due to illness, then the licence should not be renewed.
I submit there are other steps that should be taken, Mr. Speaker. Steps should be taken to restock lobster fishing areas. This could be done by the fisheries department offering to pay a premium for seed or berried lobsters landed by our offshore or inshore lobster fishing fleets. These seeded lobsters could be returned to the sea by our fisheries officers, thereby helping to build up depleted stocks. Money spent in this manner would be a positive step toward rebuilding this very important segment of the industry.
Parliament was in session on February 11 when the Minister of State for Fisheries announced outside this House a modified fisheries assistance program. The House was also sitting on March 3 when he announced the closure of the Gulf of St. Lawrence red fish fishery. The continued refusal by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), ministers of the Crown and the Minister of State for Fisheries to appear before the peoples' representatives to explain what they are doing and to make statements which gravely affect the livelihood of Canadians is, at best, arrogant and, at worst, unmitigated gall. When this course is followed we, in the official opposition, who are elected to parliament, have no opportunity to comment, to amend, to suggest or to improve the minister's dictatorial statement.
I accept that the minister cannot be here today. The minister may say we are debating the statement today; but now it is fait accompli. The gulf closure is in effect, as of March 6. Those affected by this decree must suffer the economic hardship emanating from this action. One thing is certain. The Minister of State for Fisheries will go down in the history of Atlantic Canada as one who closed more fisheries industries than any previous minister in our history.


An hon. Member:: Baloney.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) says baloney. If he wants to speak, let him stand. Why does he comment sitting down? What does the

March 12, 1976
Fisheries
hon. member think about the fishing industry and processing plants formerly active in Port Beckerton, Canso, Petit de Grat and Lockeport going bankrupt? What would the hon. member call that kind of operation? It all happened within the last six months, and under this particular government. Can the hon. member call that baloney? Does the hon. member not want to protect fishermen? He should be ashamed to claim his seat in this House.


An hon. Member:: Holy mackerel!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As one of my seafaring constituents said to me, "When policies are required to help Canadian fishermen, the minister sure has a hole in his seabag." Many of my constituents also ask when we are to see the appointment of a full-time minister of fisheries, as promised by the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada during the 1974 election campaign. I can only answer that obviously the Prime Minister does not give high priority to the fishing industry or to his promises once the election campaign is over.
Anyone who compares Liberal promises made to Atlantic fishermen during the 1974 campaign with the record of the government to date will gain some idea of the deceit and deception practised on our people by the government. I say this to the government: you promised, for example, to expand the area within Canada's jurisdiction for fisheries to the edge of the continental edge and slope, or 200 miles, whichever is greater; you said this will be achieved through action at the international conference on the Law of the Sea at Caracas. The Caracas conference concluded without action being taken. We witnessed the Geneva conference of last March. There was no international agreement. We now know that another conference will open on Monday in New York.
According to a report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Wednesday, March 10, the Canadian government does not expect the next Law of the Sea conference, which opens in New York on March 15, to succeed in producing any international agreement. Realistically we do not expect that any over-all law of the sea treaty will be completed at New York. That was the opinion of External Affairs officials. The minister endorsed that statement today in his speech made to the House. So we have promises but no action. While we are jawing other nations are warring on our fisheries resources and depleting them below sustainable yield levels. That is the reason for our motion today. We are simply asking you, the government, to take the action you promised more than two years ago.
The Minister of State for Fisheries said at last year's conference in Geneva that time is running out on this issue, that fishermen cannot eat negotiating texts, and that fish stocks cannot be rebuilt on negotiating texts. He made the headlines, and I supported him in his views. But I point out to the minister that we require action, not words, to bring about a solution to our problems. We need only look at the decline in total fish landings in the Maritimes for 1975 to realize the severe effects of massive over-fishing by foreign fleets on our fish stocks during the last ten years.
Total fish landings were down to 889 million pounds from 905 million pounds in 1974. Obviously, unless the Minister of State for Fisheries and the government move quickly to declare a 200 mile fishing zone on our continen-
tal shelf, the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada is doomed to economic collapse. The wreckage of its destruction must be placed squarely on the backs of the present federal government. The government alone has the responsibility, the obligation, and the power to act. By refusing to act the government stands indicted not only by the people of Atlantic Canada but indeed by all Canadians. It is responsible for allowing the collapse of this industry which is the mainstay, literally, of thousands of Canadians in an area with few alternative forms of employment.
You promised to provide means for proper offshore surveillance. You would do this by increasing the number and size of our fisheries patrol vessels. This has not been done. Only yesterday we learned in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, from the Minister of State for Fisheries, that in order to carry out fisheries surveillance the department was forced to employ oceanographic and fisheries research vessels at a cost of $360,000. While this was going on the normal work of these ships was not being done, which accounts for the spotty oceanographic work and the lack of research carried out by the department prior to making decisions which have a detrimental effect on the economy of Atlantic Canada.
You promised in the 1974 campaign that our fisheries resources, to the maximum extent possible, would be harvested, processed, and marketed by Canadians. The truth is that foreigners are still harvesting the largest percentage of the stocks taken from our waters.
You promised to provide additional financial support for the construction, conversion, and modification of fishing vessels. Yet in actual cases some fishermen have built new boats and are still waiting for subsidy payments.
You promised to provide improved marine facilities, such as wharves, breakwaters and haul-outs, under your small craft harbour policy, and pledged a budget of $30 million for the fiscal year 1974-75. It was to be maintained for four years. What happened? The very first year, when cuts had to be made, you did not cut down on the CBC, or on the National Art Centre, or on CIDA aid to Cuba; but you did cut from $30 million to $20 million your program of assistance-


Mr. Faulkner:: Philistine.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) said something like "horse nonsense."


James Hugh Faulkner: I said, Philistine.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish the minister would stand instead of making these remarks from his seat. He said it is horse nonsense. It certainly is horse nonsense to give money to Cuba, yet to deny that type of assistance to Canadian fishermen. The government has cut $10 million from funds much needed for the construction of wharves, skidways, breakwaters, etc. Our people are losing their ships. Just consider the damage done to the Nova Scotia fishery a few weeks ago by high winds; there was lack of protection, responsibility for which must be laid at the feet of this government, and in fact of the Secretary of State. And the Secretary of State says, "horseradish."


James Hugh Faulkner: I did not say horseradish.
March 12, 1976


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Why does the minister not stand up and tell the House what he said?


James Hugh Faulkner: I said, Philistine.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Or, let the minister be quiet and make his contribution at the proper time.
The government promised to develop our recreational fisheries through the rebuilding of fisheries stocks. It was to build hatcheries and spawning channels. So far all that the government has done is close down the fish hatchery at Kedgemakooge. I could go on and on. The list of broken promises is endless.
Frankly, the statement of the Minister of State for Fisheries establishing a quota of 30,000 tons of redfish for the 1976 Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery is totally unacceptable to the members of the official opposition. I say it is unacceptable because it is unjust, divisive, and indefensible. It is an unjust policy. The basis on which these quotas is established is false and deceitful.
To date the large trawlers owned and operated by Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders landed approximately one half of all the redfish processed by plants in Prince Edward Island, Georgetown and Shippegan. The tonnage landed at these points came from only part of the fleet operating and based in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By using the landings of the entire Canadian Atlantic fleet as a basis the government is setting up arbitrary quotas for the catching of redfish which apply only to those ships based in St. Lawrence River ports.
I say this closure is unjust because Nova Scotia, for example, has already landed most of its allowable quotas during the months of January and February. This, really, is a retroactive ruling. It does not permit the Canadian companies affected any time to plan or reorganize their operations. It is unjust because it works its greatest hardship among Canadians, ashore and afloat, in an area of Canada which cannot stand this further blow to its economy.
This is a divisive regulation. It divides one Canadian against another. If federalism is to mean anything, if we in Atlantic Canada are to be considered part of the Dominion of Canada, then the Gulf of St. Lawrence is owned as much by Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians as it is by anyone else. Either we are all Canadians and all share equally, or federalism as we know it no longer interests. However, this regulation would imply that Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders do not have the same fishing rights in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as other Canadians. It seeks to imply that we are little more than second class citizens, a title which we do not, will not and cannot accept.
I say this regulation is indefensible because the government gave no notice of its plans to the Canadian fishing industry. It is indefensible because the government is robbing Canadians of a fishing right which it is not prepared to take away from foreign trawlers fishing in these same Canadian waters. For example, let us look at the agreement signed between Canada and France on March 27, 1972. Article 3 reads:
Fisheries
-fishing vessels registered in metropolitan France may continue to fish from January 15 to May 15 each year, up to May 15, 1986, on an equal footing with Canadian vessels in the Canadian fishing zone within the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Foreign fleets are phased out, but Canadian fleets are ordered out by this cabinet and by this government. How in the name of reason can this be called a conservation measure when foreign fleets, fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence primarily for cod, will throw back into the sea hundreds of thousands of pounds of dead fish; flounder, redfish, yellowtail, or any other kind of fish caught in their trawls?
In my opinion this action is indefensible because the government has gone ahead with regulations without conducting an impact analysis of the effects of its actions on the economy of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. How many more fish plants must close down in Nova Scotia besides the four I already placed on record before the government wakes up and stops its nonsensical approach to this important primary industry?
The government's actions are indefensible because it announced control regulations before establishing a management plan for the fisheries on the Canadian continental shelf, a management plan which should project our fisheries objectives for no less than five and at least ten years ahead. We desperately need this plan for it was only in 1973 that government fisheries scientists were saying that redfish in the gulf were dying of old age.
The industry was told to modernize its trawlers and take advantage of these fish stocks. The industry did modernize. New ships and plants were built. New equipment was purchased. However, the government is now saying, "Sorry, gentlemen, you must cut back. You must shut down operations."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, there was no time allotment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Twenty
minutes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: There was no 20 minute allotment arrangement made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the rule.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I do not have the Standing Order before me, but the time limit is 20 minutes. It is Standing Order 58(13).


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I have sufficient time to finish my remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I am in the hands of hon. members. Does the House agree to allow the hon. member more time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am grateful to the House for allowing me to finish. I shall not burden hon. members for more than three minutes.

March 12, 1976
Fisheries


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A minute or two.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister says a minute or two.
The industry did modernize. It improved its operations. I say to this House that you cannot treat the fishing industry like a light switch. It does not turn on and off that easily. It is too big and its ancilliary industries are so massive that it is time the government recognized its importance by appointing a full time minister to look after its problems.
The Minister of State (Fisheries) has not provided this House or the industry with one shred of evidence to prove that the stocks of redfish have declined below the sustainable yield level. How many tests were made, and what scientists carried out the studies? How much intermingling is there of stocks of redfish inside and outside the gulf? How big are the schools of redfish that surge into the gulf from St. Pierre banks, when do those migrations occur, and how long do they last?
There are questions the minister will not or cannot answer because his regulations are based on conclusions reached by bureaucrats in the ivory towers of Ottawa. The government moved the mint to Winnipeg. In my opinion the fisheries department should have great presence in Atlantic Canada as well as on the west coast. Civil servants should get out of the city, go to where the action is, and work with the industry. They would quickly learn that the big need of this industry is not marketing, which seems to occupy so much time of the minister's staff, but rather the big requirement is resource management.
Instead of carrying out isolated resource management on one or two species, as is being done on haddock and redfish in the gulf, the government should, in fact must concentrate its efforts on managing all the stocks on our continental shelf. You simply cannot manage fish stocks by selecting one or two species in isolation from the rest.
Finally, 1976 must be the year of action on the management of fish stocks by Canada. We must give notice by June, 1976, of any change of intent to withdraw from ICNAF, six months' notice, before we can act to set up our own management for our 200 mile economic zone.
Unfortunately at this time the government has no management plan and no stock assessment. In fact, this government is in a panic on this issue. It is signing away phasing-out rights to other countries without actually knowing the quantity of the remaining resource. Treaties are being made with foreign countries on a ten year basis, but Canadians are not being given ten days' consultation.
The government's information from its scientists is limited, garbled, hazy and, in many cases, incorrect. Not one scientist accompanied the winter fleet into the gulf this year. Why not make a start today on a resource management analysis? Get the scientists out of Ottawa, contact the industry and place at least six men on six different boats in the deep sea fleet for six months. Let them make soundings, age tests of fish caught, size and quantity of fish caught in every two hour tow, and the species landed.
In conclusion, this industry deserves better treatment than being put out of business by the wrong decisions being made by the wrong people living in the wrong places.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I think that after the speech of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) it is appropriate for me to read Standing Order 58(13).
(13) During proceedings on any item of business under the provisions of this Standing Order except when the House is in a committee of the whole, no Member may speak more than once or longer than twenty minutes, except that both the mover of a debatable motion and the Member speaking immediately in reply thereto may speak for thirty minutes.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: Look at the great fisherman.


James Aloysius McGrath: There are no fish in the Humber.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, when I have risen to speak on this subject in the past there has been a similar elitist attitude on the part of maritime members on the opposite side which I do not think serves well the interests of their constituents. If they should take the same attitude as a former member from Toronto did, that matters of particular interest to other parts of Canada were of no interest to him, this would be a lesser country and a lesser parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Do you know where the fish market is, Bob? The fish market is at Lapointe's.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Perhaps unsuccessful leadership candidates on the other side can draw a lesson from the success of their winning candidate who took a highly national view and thereby won national support at their leadership convention.
The fact is that the resources of the sea are not solely the concern of maritime members, but the concern of all Canadians, indeed of all the people of the world. The sooner we appreciate this the more importance these resources will be accorded in terms of public policy, and the greater recognition there will be by government that they must be managed with care.
As the Law of the Sea Conference resumes in New York next week I am sure all hon. members will wish to express support for our negotiating team, our representatives at that conference who have conducted themselves so well on behalf of Canada in the past and who will be doing so over the next few weeks as well. I believe we have a first class negotiating team, headed on the professional side by one of our outstanding public servants. It has had the leadership of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), and the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, the present President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).
We have not been followers in this matter. We have been leaders, and I think we should be proud of the performance of our ministers and our public servants in the leadership
March 12, 1976

they have given to the world in the field of the rule of law in all matters pertaining to the sea.
I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs acknowledged, as I would like to do, that the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) is motivated by a desire to support the negotiators at the conference. I am sure this is his desire. However, in dealing with the motion itself we must recognize that it is sadly deficient.
One needs only to listen to the spokesmen for the opposition to realize that the wording of the motion demonstrates as well as anything the difference between the approach of the government and of the opposition to Canada's foreign relations. The opposition seeks confrontation. The government seeks co-operation. It is surely apparent now, if it has never been in the past, that solutions to the interlocking world crises will not come about through expressions of self-interest on the part of each of us, but rather through a lot of hard work in co-operating among peoples and in improving respect for international law.
I admire the patience and the persistence which the government has shown in pursuing the establishment of the rule of law in matters pertaining to the sea and I believe all members, including the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, wish our negotiators success as they continue this very important work on behalf of Canada.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) emphasized the importance of having a strong voice speak for the fisheries of Canada. I believe we have that strong voice in the person of the Minister of State for Fisheries. We do need a full time Minister of Fisheries and we have a full time minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On half pay!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Well, if he is as effective and as hard working as he is at the pay he is getting I do not know that it would be fair to him to increase his pay, because he would feel he should work that much harder, and I don't think that is possible. He has been a most effective champion of Canadian fishermen, but beyond this he has been a most effective champion of the importance of the resources of the sea to all of us. This is something of which we must all become more conscious.
The motion before us says the government must unilaterally proclaim its exclusive jurisdication over a 200-mile coastal fisheries zone. This is the kind of gauntlet-throwing which does not contribute to progress in negotiations. It represents the ultimate option we may have to exercise, and the government has made it clear that we shall unilaterally proclaim a coastal fishing zone if necessary. But the motion says very little on close examination, and I suggest that to adopt it would achieve even less. To paraphrase the Minister of State for Fisheries who said in Geneva, "Fishermen cannot eat negotiating texts and fish stocks cannot be rebuilt with negotiating texts", I would suggest that fish stocks cannot be built on motions, nor can fishermen eat such motions.
Opposition spokesmen are ignoring what the government has already done and is doing for Canadian fishermen. This work is not about to start next week, Mr. Fisheries
Speaker. It began years ago. The Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned that in 1964 the government did take unilateral action to extend Canada's fishing limit to 12 miles. It did so as a last resort, only after all possibility of agreement had been exhausted. In 1970 the government went further and closed certain areas, reserving them as exclusive Canadian fishing zones, and negotiated phaseout agreements with countries affected. As a result very substantial foreign operations off our coasts are already coming to an end. I believe this demonstrates the kind of effective action the government is prepared to take without leading to a "cod war" or a challenge before the International Court of Justice. Those are very real dangers which the motion before us ignores.
Canada has taken a back seat to no nation in the law of the sea discussions. The reason we have succeeded as well as we have is that we have always gone that extra mile toward seeking international agreement before striking out on our own. We have done this not because we are Boy Scouts, though some of us may have been, but because we are realists. Canada is and continues to be in the vanguard of countries pressing for a further extension of fisheries jurisdiction. We have already gained overwhelming recognition for the concept of the 200-mile limit.
The Geneva session of the Law of the Sea Conference last spring did not result in a Law of the Sea Convention, but it did produce a single negotiating text which represents a very significant step forward in these proceedings. The fisheries articles of the text are deficient in some points in terms of our objectives, but they reflect our interests in most respects and offer a sound basis for further negotiations which are now under way in New York.
We hope that the Law of the Sea Conference can succeed this year, but in any event the Secretary of State for External Affairs has reiterated today the firm commitment of the government to a timely and effective extension of Canada's fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles. While the government would prefer to extend jurisdiction on the basis of a new Law of the Sea Convention, it has not awaited the conclusion of that convention to take action.
The House will recall that last July the government closed Canada's Atlantic ports to the Soviet fishing fleet in response to evidence of overruns of quotas agreed in ICNAF. At the same time Spain and Portugal were warned that the same action would be taken against them if their adherence to the ICNAF regulations did not improve. The response was quite satisfactory; within two months arrangements had been negotiated with the USSR to establish procedures which should guarantee compliance with ICNAF arrangements in the future. Appropriate arrangements have also been worked out with Spain and Portugal.
For the 1976 fishing season the government recently obtained through ICNAF a 40 per cent reduction in foreign fishing efforts for groundfish as well as a reduction in the total allowable catches for depleted stocks and higher quotas for Canadian fishermen on stocks of particular importance to them. These measures are not a substitute for the 200-mile limit but they will help provide for a smooth transition to extended jurisdiction.

March 12, 1976
Fisheries
To prepare further the way for extension of jurisdiction, Canadian officials have begun discussions with a number of governments whose fishing operations will be affected by Canada's adoption of the 200-mile limit. These negotiations anticipate the results of the Law of the Sea Conference and are intended to fix the terms and conditions under which foreign vessels would be permitted to fish in Canada's extended fishing zones, under Canadian authority and control, for resources surplus to Canadian requirements as determined by Canada.
We are informed that bilateral agreements along these lines have already been negotiated with Norway, Poland, Spain, and only yesterday with Portugal. In other words we have in place agreements that cover some 30 per cent of the total foreign catch in the ICNAF area off the Canadian coast, and an agreement with the USSR would bring this figure up to 88 per cent.
Surely it is important, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's extension of jurisdiction be achieved in such a way as to avoid "cod war" confrontations and keep enforcement costs to a manageable level. We do not want the kind of confrontation with other countries that has been cited with approval by members opposite.
I believe the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) interjected, while the minister was speaking, that Iceland has demonstrated she can take on Britain. Does the opposition really want Canada to have to demonstrate that she can take on Britain, or any other country? Surely not! This is a time when the rule of law should be improved in the world and extended, not a time for the rule of force.
At least for the present, negotiations offer many advantages and no disadvantages. The timing of the actual extension of jurisdiction will be important, but the government is now doing everything that could be done after extension of jurisdiction to make this extension truly effective. Whatever may happen in coming months the steps now being taken will contribute to the early attainment of Canadian objectives.
A so-called unilateral declaration is an option which could be exercised at very short notice in view of the fact that the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act empowers the government to extend further Canada's fisheries jurisdiction by simple order in council. Thus, unlike such countries as the U.S.A., Mexico and Norway, Canada has long had in place the necessary enabling legislation for adoption of the 200-mile limit.
We must continue our efforts to reach international agreement on fisheries problems at the Law of the Sea Conference, through ICNAF and other international fisheries commissions as well as through bilateral negotiations. I suggest that these efforts are not incompatible with other forms of action that may prove necessary. Indeed they would prepare the way for such forms of action. There is a limit not only to our patience but to the ability of stocks and our fishing industry to survive under present conditions.
Unilateral action is one of the options open to us. However, even unilateral action requires negotiation if it is to be effective and successful, as it was when Canada moved unilaterally in 1964 and 1970. It is always tempting to take

unilateral action, but unilateral action is not particularly rewarding unless it can be made to work. No government in this country or in any other country has demonstrated greater concern for the fisheries and fishermen and the resources of the sea than has the present Government of Canada. No government has done more than ours in the way of both national and international action to protect coastal fisheries and coastal fishermen.
We know that the future of our coastal communities is inseparably linked with the future of our fisheries, and I might go so far as to say with the future of all Canadian communities, and indeed of mankind. We intend not only to protect that future but to make it better than ever. We will take the measures that are necessary, but we will always act, I hope, in a responsible, reasonable, and realistic manner. We owe it to ourselves and to our fishermen to proceed in this way.
We are almost home, Mr. Speaker, and it would be folly at this point, simply for the sake of a dramatic entrance, to break down the door that is already opening.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who just spoke before me stated, we have almost made it home. History tells me we have known for many years that Jack did make it down the beanstalk with the golden goose, but I am not quite so sure our minister is as nimble, and I think, having heard him today, he may be caught in his own bear trap which he set at the bottom of the stalk.
Canada has set forward two thrusts in international negotiations in the past few years. We have been engaged in bilateral negotiations and in a unilateral declaration of the 200-mile limit. Although I do not predict this I wonder whether history will show that in our enthusiasm we have been too hasty and aggressive on the one count, and too slow on the other. It is not too many years ago that in British Columbia we climbed out of the hills after having gotten on a ladder, and having arrived at the top we found we had given away 50 per cent of the salmon run on a great river.
As the Canadian negotiators climbed that ladder I imagine they felt quite enthusiastic, smug, and self-satisfied that Canada was getting a good deal. I am sure they must have felt that way in respect of the negotiations on the Columbia River Treaty and the Skagit River Treaty. I am concerned, however, about that attitude.
The minister tells us we have in some way almost won the battle; that we have signed spectacular agreements with Norway, Portugal, Poland, and Spain and that he is pretty sure Russia will get to her knees and give us a tremendous deal. Personally I have some question about that. I would be suspicious under any circumstances, but having heard the minister today I am even more suspicious. While I agree in principle with the philosophy of dealing with cod wars and this type of thing through negotiated settlements, I wonder whether by taking that course of action we might well be sealing our heritage in vested sovereign rights unnecessarily and prematurely.
Any negotiation indicates a give and take. I ask the minister what we are giving up? What are they taking for these agreements? As I looked at the agreement with
March 12, 1976

Norway I thought it looked a progressive step because it stated very simply that Norwegian vessels would be permitted to fish in the area concerned under Canadian authority and control for resources surplus to Canadian requirements. That is pretty easy to agree to but today we have started to find out what really is behind the agreement. We have started to find out not only that we are talking about a surplus of Canadian fisheries requirements but are dividing that surplus up in given percentages. We have already given away percentages.
The minister made some sort of statement - at least I thought he did and I would ask him if he made the statement - that Norway, Poland, Portugal, and Spain have agreements, and that at the time we finish with Russia we will have given away the right to 88 per cent of our surplus. He shakes his head. I will be interested in hearing his explanation of that. At any rate he is giving away a guaranteed percentage of our fishing surplus.
That statement requires clarification because if we give away 88 per cent that leaves 12 per cent. Is that 12 per cent for East Germany, for the Koreas, and for the Third World? Is this not a dangerous and greedy precedent? That is certainly an area which the minister will have to clarify, and I will try to finish my speech as quickly as I can so that he will have that opportunity. I suggest that well might be the bear trap. If you give away 88 per cent here and 12 per cent there, you still have not mentioned the requirement of the Third World countries, the Koreas, East Germany or other areas.
I suggest that perhaps in his negotiations the minister should include some kind of a Third World option so that if these percentages are to be determined there will be a way out of them. Again, so far as I can see, he was talking about a surplus. I want to know, if he is referring to a surplus beyond Canadian requirements, where the requirements, of the United States come into the picture. Does he include the requirements of the United States and Canada as one and the same? Then I question, if he is already talking about giving away a majority or the greater part of our surplus, who it is being given to and how it is being given to them.
The rationale seems to be to ensure that our 200-mile limit will be respected. I am not sure I like to have it respected in that order of precedence. I think I might have preferred to see the precedence first through bilateral negotiations with the United States, our traditional friend and supporter. At any rate I am sure the minister will have some clarification in this regard. If he is walking into this trap, I urge caution. I urge him not to be too hasty in further negotiations with Russia. I urge him to be cautious in this area.
The time to be aggressive is in the declaration of the 200-mile limit. That is where he is moving cautiously. I ask him to move in that direction. This in effect is what this motion talks about. I do not in any way underrate not only the important implication of this 200-mile limit but also the effect it will have on the Canadian body of law and Canadian fishermen. Of course I support it. I do not underestimate its significance as a step forward in enlarging, and focusing on, the direction of international law. The implications for international law here surely are as great as the implications for fishing or for Canada itself.
Fisheries
But as I see Canada and our minister participating in this great international arena, and as I see him floundering when he says we have much planning to do in Canada before we are ready to make a declaration, I say that if we wait for the planning in Canada we will wait forever because there is so much that needs to be done at home. We might look at one absurd example. We talk in terms of international agreement and of us being a dominant factor in showing leadership and innovation. Yet this is a country which cannot even decide who has jurisdiction for the safety of our fishermen. I point out this is an absurdity, and question the ability of the minister in the broader and much more difficult problems which cannot be solved this simply.
In essence the problem stems from the fact that the federal and provincial governments have neglected to institute safety programs for the fishing fleets to prevent further loss of life on the coast of British Columbia. The situation is drastic and the outcome inevitable if the federal government insists on delaying safety provisions any longer. Last year some 14 lives were lost during the herring season alone, and some 13 vessels either capsized or went down. I think those 14 lives have some value and warrant the minister's time, concern, and energy. Those are the important values. So far this season one life has been lost and six vessels have either capsized or gone down. This was in the herring season alone and we can cite statistics in other areas.
This concern is recognized, but Ottawa is so busy playing little games that the provincial government tries to step in by bringing in Workmen's Compensation Board regulations overlapping and intruding on federal jurisdiction, with hundreds of pages of regulations which cannot possibly be met and might do more harm to individual fishermen than protect them as workers. Certainly that problem needs to be straightened out. Federal inspection has long been the responsibility of MOT and is clearly and historically a matter of federal jurisdiction. Any change in the regulations should be made through these channels. A separate and unrelated government department also inspecting fishing vessels is certainly not required.
There is no need for this loss of life and property which I have mentioned, and which goes on while we negotiate elsewhere. Fishermen, and more specifically the fishermen's union on the west coast, have urged the federal government for some years now to give this matter its immediate attention. The fishermen's proposals are most acceptable and quite logical. They are simply asking for a more effective air-sea rescue squad. This squad, which already exists, could be supplemented by the use of all available vessels, helicopters, and fixed-wing aircraft in the immediate vicinity. These other vessels exist in the form of RCMP boats, naval vessels, and naval helicopters. Certainly it would seem that in times of tragedy or possible death using these available vessels in an organized, effective, and efficient way is the only recourse and logical step of action.
Canadian fishermen are too often forced to rely on their U.S. counterparts for air-sea rescue. Their forces are well equipped, they are efficient, and Canada could learn much from them. Perhaps on his next international foray the

March 12, 1976
Fisheries
minister could take some time to find out about the simple problem of the safety of our fishermen and inquire of his U.S. counterparts how they can be so much more efficient and competent in this area.
It is no secret that these fishermen-


An hon. Member:: The minister is not here to listen.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I suggested a trip to the United States where he can meet with the delegates and obtain some information for our fishermen.
It is no secret that these fishermen who have a great deal of overhead are not well off by today's standards. These same fishermen on the west coast have asked for federal assistance grants to supplement their income. These grants are not for frills or lavish accessories for their vessels. These grants would be used for better equipping and reinforcing their boats and communications equipment. Constant communication is an absolute necessity in times of disaster. It is their only link to life.
These same fishermen, represented by their union, were quite prepared to sit down with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), and whatever power the cabinet can muster to look at this problem. Their intention was to meet with these ministers jointly with the minister of labour from British Columbia and representatives from the ministry of transport in British Columbia. Their plans were scuttled in every instance. I think those ministers responsible should plan to solve this problem expeditiously. It is not understating the situation to say that the lives of 7,000 people in British Columbia fishermen's union are at stake.
While I encourage aggressiveness in the declaration of the 200 mile, I also encourage caution in bilateral negotiations where a government may well be giving away our heritage. I ask the minister to qualify that. I wish the minister success in these negotiations, and although many say that the minister's efforts will not be fully rewarded and fruitful I am sure that Canada's position will be well expressed by a competent negotiating team. I hope the minister will listen to them and act accordingly.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the speech which I had prepared for today cannot be delivered but I hope in the three minutes I have, to express the concerns of the people on the northwest coast in British Columbia as they relate to the opposition motion of today, which requests that an extension of Canada's territorial waters by 200 miles be undertaken unilaterally by Canada. This brings to mind many reasonable concerns of fishermen and mariners on the north coast of British Columbia because, of course, one of the major enterprises of that part of the world is the anadromous species on which we have heard a great deal of discussion at the Law of the Sea conferences.
When we have salmon which come to life in the waters of our rivers, which go to sea and know no restraints in their travels across the seas-there are also herring and other types of anadromous species-they do not stop at the 200-mile limit, turn around and come back in, but go much farther out to sea than the 200 miles. Therefore it is

essential that in the negotiations that are taking place in New York, and that have taken place in Caracas and Geneva, the anadromous species be absolutely and completely cared for so that management of high seas fisheries by Canada can continue beyond the 200-mile limit.
What we are waiting for until we have negotiated a reasonable status for the high seas salmon and other anadromous species is that we make certain, beyond the 200 mile limit, that they are still under our economic control and that we have an economic zone of influence over these fish. I feel that it would be absolutely foolhardy to make a unilateral attendant upon our seas. What are we going to do about surveillance? Will we have one, single, unified coastguard in this country? Unless we do, I submit it will be impossible for us to declare unilaterally a 200-mile limit.
I cannot understand why the opposition finds it necessary to come up with this disease every once in a while of precipitous unilateralism, the symptoms of which are absolute myopia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made earlier this day the House will now revert to routine proceedings, specifically to statements by ministers.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) tabled a report of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec with regard to allegations that certain ministers of the government had approached judges of the Superior Court of Quebec during the course of the last few years.
In the case five years ago of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) the Chief Justice concurred with the view of the judge concerned that while the approach in question was not proper practice, it did not constitute interference or intervention calling for formal protest and he recommends that the incident should be considered closed.
In the case involving the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) before he was elected to this House and while he was employed in the Prime Minister's Office six years ago, Mr. Justice Mackay decided not to take any formal action because it was clearly inspired by great concern for the nation's interest and not by personal reasons. The Chief Justice describes the approach as unusual-insolite is the word in French-but also believes this file should not be reopened.
In the recent case of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury), while the associate chief justice did not regard the approach as an attempt to influence his judgment and so took no action, he did regard the approach, despite its good
March 12, 1976

intentions, as improper, and the Chief Justice found the facts related grave, given the stature of the person making the call and the circumstances in which the call was made. In the light of this finding the minister last night tendered to me his resignation.
After receiving the report of the Chief Justice, I consulted the Minister of Justice to ascertain if it contained any information which would justify the laying of formal charges of interference in the judicial process. I have been advised by the minister that it is the opinion of the law officers of the Crown that in none of the cases do they find grounds for charges that any of the ministers concerned acted illegally.
To conclude that there has not been illegal action is not, however, to say that there has been no impropriety. Indeed, in the case of the Minister of Public Works the Chief Justice has noted the gravity of the facts which led Mr. Justice Hugessen to regard the call to him as improper, however well motivated it may have been.
Had the associate chief justice felt the matter so serious as to take formal action to have it reported at the time to the Chief Justice, and through him to me or to the Minister of Justice, there is no doubt that I would have taken immediate steps to have an investigation made and, in the light of what was revealed, would if necessary have requested the resignation of the minister. I entirely concur with the view of the Chief Justice that the independence of the judiciary must remain protected from interventions from members of the cabinet, whatever may be the quality of the intentions which inspire them, and I believe the course of action I have described is the appropriate one which should be followed where members of the judiciary perceive that their independence is in any way being affected by members of the executive.
But the associate chief justice clearly was of the view that the call from the Minister of Public Works did not warrant formal protest. I do not excuse the minister's lapse of judgment in this matter. I sympathize with his good intentions, but I do not condone what he did. We have heard his apology this morning, and the way in which hon. members in all parties in this House received his apology and spoke of his distinguished career. After considering his long service to this House and to our country, and his well recognized stature as a man of honour without peer amongst us, I have come to the conclusion that I should not accept his resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nothing further would be gained by my acceptance of it, and much would most assuredly be lost, not only to the government but to parliament and to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As regards the other two cases, though the judges concerned did not feel that any formal action should be taken and the Chief Justice has concluded that these incidents should be considered closed, I believe them to be sufficiently serious to warrant not only the sincere regret which the President of the Treasury Board and the
Ministerial Conduct
Minister of National Health and Welfare, expressed this morning, but also that there should be an immediate clarification of the regime which under this and, I hope, any future government will govern the relationship of members of the cabinet with members of the judiciary.
I agree with the Chief Justice that the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our democratic system and must be jealously guarded against all attacks. Indeed, I would go further and say that we must do what we can to avoid affecting the principle of judicial independence with even the appearance of possible compromise.


An hon. Member:: Gee!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This clearly must not be achieved by saying that ministers may have no contact with judges. That would be ridiculous, not only for its effects on purely social relationships but also because a number of ministers must in the course of their duties discuss matters of government business with members of the judiciary. Indeed, it is clear that the rules on contact with judges vary somewhat not only in what they say, but in how they are customarily applied in the various jurisdictions of this country. Some hon. members of this House may even have different views as to what their duties to their constituents require them to do from time to time in getting in touch with judges.
But, in so far as this government is concerned, I believe that it must be clearly established that in future no member of the cabinet may communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter which they have before them in their judicial capacities, except through the Minister of Justice, his duly authorized officials or counsel acting for him, nor may any member of the cabinet communicate with members of quasi-judicial bodies which are constituted as courts of record concerning any matter which they have before them in their judicial capacities except through the minister responsible, his duly authorized officials, or counsel acting for him.
I turn now to the matter of public inquiry, such as is being requested by the opposition. I continue to hold the view that such inquiries are, by definition, related to inquisitory concepts of justice and should not be resorted to except when the rule of law cannot be relied upon to ensure that justice is done.
In the present case, in so far as relations between certain ministers and judges are concerned, the facts are known since both the ministers and judges have from personal knowledge stated those facts, it is also known that in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown those facts do not give rise to criminal or contempt action.
In so far as relations between ministers themselves are concerned, I stated this morning and I repeat now that, in my view, the privacy of conversations between any two individuals in society should be respected, except when the greater good of society demands otherwise. Since it is not improper to seek counsel and advice from a friend, even be he a minister, in any grave matter of personal concern, and since there is no reason to believe, nor has anyone in this House or outside alleged, that any conversation between ministers has resulted in any crime or conspiracy, there is no prima facie case to demand that secrecy of private communications be broken.

March 12, 1976
Ministerial Conduct
For these reasons, unless allegations or facts are brought to my attention of which I presently know nothing, I conclude that there is no need in this case for a public inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I, like other leaders of parties in this House, respond under a certain difficulty because only moments before the reading of this statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did we receive copies of it. We were denied the opportunity to have those copies delivered in advance. That is at least uncivil behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But that is not the worst of his performance here today or the worst element of what he has just had to say.
It was clear when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) spoke today in the House that there was a feeling that he had acted, in offering his resignation, with the propriety that one would come to expect of a man with his distinguished record of public service in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He indicated, in the act of offering his resignation, a set of high standards and a consciousness of public responsibility; the Prime Minister has just indicated that his standards personally and as leader of the government are not as high.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a great respect as a man for the Minister of Public Works. I think it was entirely appropriate for him to present his resignation and I believe that in the circumstances, having regard to a judgment by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Quebec that the minister had acted in a way which the judge characterized as improper, it is inexcusable for the Prime Minister now not to accept that resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The arrogance of power.


Otto Emil Lang: Except you recognize his honour and his distinction.


An hon. Member:: Not yours, Otto.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the honour and distinction of the Minister of Public Works and I regret it is not shared by his leader and perhaps by some of his colleagues.
I want to turn for a moment to the question of a public inquiry and the Prime Minister's refusal to widen the ambit of an investigation which the Chief Justice in his

report indicated was limited and restricted to very narrow grounds. The Prime Minister has said in his statement that the facts are known.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To whom?


Charles Joseph Clark: To whom? The answer is the facts are not known to the parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: They are not known to the people of Canada, and they are not known to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. If they are known to anyone they are known only to the Prime Minister of Canada and he has indicated to us today that despite the evidence of impropriety, despite actions which the Chief Justice of Quebec has described as improper, his standards do not lead him to accept the resignation which the standard of the Minister of Public Works caused him to offer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: So the facts are not known, Mr. Speaker. Since those facts relate to the ethics of ministers of the Crown, to the relations between ministers of the Crown and the courts of the land, it is important that the facts be known. It is important that the House of Commons know what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) said to the Prime Minister relative to his own involvement in this affair. It is important that we know what other ministers, if any, what other citizens, if any, were involved in any attempt to intervene, to use the words of the Minister of Public Works, in decisions by the courts of the country. These are the facts which the parliament of Canada and the people of Canada have a right to know-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -if there is to be, in fact, a safeguarding of the independence of the judiciary in Canada.
From time to time, Mr. Speaker, Canadians ask about the distinction between major political parties in this country. The distinction is perhaps evident here today. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is satisfied there has been no impropriety; we, Sir, are not satisfied that there has been no impropriety.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We will not be so satisfied until the Prime Minister has come clean with the House of Commons and the people of Canada and laid before us, this highest court in the land, the facts-all of the facts relating to the activities of the ministers of his government and their attempts at intervention in the processes of justice and the activities of the courts of this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to say just one more thing on this matter, Mr. Speaker, that is, that to many of us who are not lawyers, who are innocent of the law, it is well established and well known-


An hon. Member:: Ignorant.
March 12, 1976


Charles Joseph Clark: -that there are certain ethical standards which should apply to individual Canadians, whether they sit in high positions or in low, relative to the independence of the courts and the integrity of the institutions of this country.
We know that any of us who attempted to intervene in court proceedings would be, at the least, acting in an improper way. That same standard should apply to ministers of the Crown much more strongly, if anything, than to ordinary citizens. What we have had indicated to us today by the decision of the Prime Minister, first not to accept the resignation, and second, not to launch an inquiry, is that in the view of his government there is an acceptable double standard which allows one code of conduct for ministers of the Crown-


An hon. Member:: Liberals.


Charles Joseph Clark: -and a more stringent code of conduct for the ordinary people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: That double standard is not good enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is utter nonsense.


Charles Joseph Clark: I trust that the reference to utter nonsense did not come from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) of the land who is responsible-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, it did.


Charles Joseph Clark: It deepens my concern even more if it did. We have not had the four hours to consider this infamous document that the Prime Minister had to prepare it. I can say to the House that we do not accept at all his refusal to accept a resignation which should have been accepted; we do not accept his suggestion that, because he knows facts which he believes it would be inconvenient for the people of Canada to know, he will not establish a full inquiry.
We intend to continue in this House to press with every means at our disposal for a full and complete public inquiry that will cast public light upon the activities and involvement of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and any other minister in this activity. We expect and we hope in light of the gravity of this question, however constrained we are by the rules of the House, however stonewalled we are by the refusal of the Government of Canada to give parliament information that parliament has a right to have, that we will at least enjoy the support of the people of Canada in this conflict.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Ordinary Canadians will not accept a government which insists upon a double standard of law where there is one code for ministers who can get away with intervention and a very different code for the ordinary people of the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Ministerial Conduct


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the profound disservice the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has done to this country's history of parliamentary government. Not only am I disturbed; I am surprised. I thought that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) recognized the important tradition of our system of government, a tradition established in our country and followed elsewhere for hundreds of years, which distinguished between moral conduct of a minister and strict legalisms. He submitted, on the basis of the report tabled earlier today, his resignation to the Prime Minister. Many in this House had kind, indeed honest things to say about the past performance of the minister. We meant what we said.
We thought that the Prime Minister would recognize the seriousness of that resignation. Obviously it was not tendered on the spur of the moment, as some kind of gimmick. The Minister who submitted his resignation knows something of the traditions of parliamentary government and knows that one should comply with those traditions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I am sure the minister submitted his resignation in good faith, and I expected the Prime Minister to accept it in equal good faith. This afternoon he reneged. He did a great disservice to the history of democratic government in our country. When making his statement the Prime Minister said:
Insofar as this government is concerned, I believe that it must be clearly established that in future no member of the cabinet may communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter that they have before them in their judicial capacities, except through the Minister of Justice ...
Members on my side of the House and, I am sure, some on the other side consider that these words the Prime Minister uttered today represent the norm. He said that which is always expected in a parliamentary government. It was unnecessary to refer to future courses of action. We have always understood the rules which must guide a minister's conduct. Because the Minister of Public Works in a brief, temporary, single act violated that code, violated that principle of our system of government, he submitted his resignation this morning. On that basis the Prime Minister ought to have accepted it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: By turning down the minister's resignation the Prime Minister will increase the cynicism of the population of Canada. Some in society-I will not exaggerate their numbers but there are quite a few-believe that there is one law for the rich and powerful and another law for those not so rich or powerful. In my view the Prime Minister is saying that behaviour inappropriate to his own criteria will not be tolerated in future, but that he is going to accept such behaviour for the immediate past on the part of his ministers. The Prime Minister knows the traditions of our system of government and knows that the principle he enunciated in the House this afternoon has always existed.

March 12, 1976
Ministerial Conduct
The Prime Minister also knows that if this had taken place in Westminster, not only would the minister's resignation have been accepted today, it would have been forthcoming many days ago. If it had not been offered, a conscientious Prime Minister would have asked for it. I regret having to say this, but I believe it strongly.
The Prime Minister also said that he rejects the need for a public inquiry. What will be the effect of this rejection? Many opposition members have directed questions, serious questions, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), not about the proceedings in which he is involved before the courts but about his involvement with the activities of the Minister of Public Works. So far he has adopted a totally inappropriate attitude in the House and refused to answer questions. Without an inquiry, how is it possible for the House and the people of Canada to know what he said to the Minister of Public Works? Did he persuade that minister to influence, or attempt to influence, the judge? Surely we should know that.
If the minister was innocent, all he needed to do before today was get up, describe the conversation which took place and establish his innocence. He has systematically refused to answer questions in the House. Thus the clear possibility remains that one minister of the Crown directly requested another minister of the Crown to interfere in the judicial process. Without a public inquiry that whole relationship, that whole course of events, will remain obscure. The people of Canada, the people out there, outside the House, who want some ground for respecting our parliamentary government and who support the separation of the judiciary from the executive, will remain cynical. They will say, "This is a cover-up; there they are, those powerful people. They make the law; they implement the law. They even mingle with the judiciary; and they get away with violations." Cab drivers, fishermen, and other working people know in their hearts that they would not get away with such violations.
I repeat, the members of my party are profoundly disturbed with this decision. We think it does a great disservice to our country, to our country's history and will not reflect favourably on the government. We intend in the days ahead to pursue the matter with great determination because we think it is absolutely essential to separate the
judicial from the executive functions of government. We are not going to let a renegade government abuse that principle.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be quite short. I would have liked to give my view on the Prime Minister's statement, but I do not know what happened, I have not yet received the French copy.
I have tried by all possible means to get that famous copy; I do not want to accuse the Prime Minister, he may not be responsible, but I have tried everything but I did not obtain that copy. I should not be told that there was not enough time to make a translation, because the Prime Minister has enough secretaries and bureaucrats in his office to write both statements in French and in English I do not accept that. I will keep my comments for some other time, just as long as it takes to get a French copy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. According to the practice established last Easter, there should now follow a short question period in which brief questions may be directed only to the minister who made the statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, out of sheer disgust, I move;
That the House do now adjourn.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with the Standing Orders of this House it is well established that such a motion, as long as it is in writing and is in good form, is always in order and is not debatable. I have received in the proper form the motion now put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: This House therefore stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday.
On motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) the House adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
March 12, 1976


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
March 4, 1976
The Honourable Jules Deschenes,
Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec,
Quebec District,
Court House,
Montreal, Quebec.
Dear Chief Justice Deschenes:
You will be aware that in his letter to me dated February 20, 1976, Mr. Justice Mackay drew to my attention three incidents which, in his view, constituted unwarranted attempts by Ministers of the Government of Canada to interfere with the judicial process in cases that were before judges of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec.
As I indicated in my remarks in the House of Commons yesterday which are set out in the enclosed copy of the Debates, I feel that this is a matter on which I, as Minister of Justice should communicate with you as Chief Justice of the Court in question. In this regard, you will note that the transcript of the debates makes reference throughout
to the Chief Justice of the Province of Quebec; it should of course refer to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court.
My reason for believing that the communication should be with you is set forth in the Debates. Put simply, I feel that if there is information indicating that anyone is or has been seeking improperly to interfere with the due admini-tration of justice in a court, by approaches to a judge or otherwise, this is a matter of which the Chief Justice of the Court, as the judge principally responsible for the management of the Court and for protecting its independence and integrity, would be made fully aware.
I am therefore writing to you to invite you to draw to my attention, if you deem such action appropriate, information that may be in your possession respecting any unwarranted attempts to interfere with the proper administration of justice in your Court in respect of matters that should be of concern to me.
Yours sincerely,
Ron Basford.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1976

[Stage Direction]
Montreal, March 10, 1976. The Honourable Ron Basford, M.P., Q.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr.   Minister@: By your letter of March 4 last, you forwarded to me an invitation which, in its essential parts, read as follows:
"My reason for believing that the communication should be with you is set forth in the Debates. Put simply, I feel that if there is information indicating tht anyone is or has been seeking improperly to interfere with the due administration of justice in a court, by approaches to a judge or otherwise, this is a matter of which thee Chief Justice of the Court, as the judge principally responsible for the management of the Court and for protecting its independence and integrity, would be made fully aware.
I am therefore writing to you to invite you to draw to my attention, if you deem such action appropriate, information that may be in your possession respecting any unwarranted attempts to interfere with the proper administration of justice in your Court in respect of matters that should be of concern to me."
This invitation was extended against the background of allegations which had recently been made public to the effect that on three occasions Ministers of the Government of Canada had approached judges of the Superior Court of Quebec during the course of the last few years.
At the outset it is important to recall the basic principles which govern the relations between the judiciary and the other two branches of government in our country.
The British North America Act of 1867 deals with the executive branch in chapter III, the legislative branch in chapter IV and the judiciary (Judicature) in chapter VIII.
Sections 96, 99 and 100 of the B.N.A. Act assure the judiciary the guarantees of independence and security which are essential to its impartiality and which have been guaranteed by long tradition
since the Act of Settlement of 1700 (12-13 William III, Chapter 2),
notwithstanding the Constitutional Act of 1791 (31 George III, Chapter 31),
in conformity with the recommendation of Lord Durham in his Report of January 31, 1839 (Lucas, II, page 327)
and by virtue of the two acts enacted under the Union in 1843 (7 Victoria, Chapter 15 and Chapter 65).
It is of the utmost importance that this independence of the judiciary, achieved through great effort during the course of the last three centuries, be jealously guarded against all attacks.
March 12, 1976
More particularly, it must remain protected from interventions from Members of the Cabinet, whatever may be the quality of the intentions that inspire them.
It remains to add, in the light of recent events that it must also be protected from interventions from Parliament. I can do no better than to recall the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the House of Commons on September 15, 1903:
"It is a strange doctrine to preach that the judges are responsible to Parliament. Where is that responsibility? I have always understood that the judges were responsible only to their own conscience, and Parliament has no power over them. True, they can be removed, but only on an address of both Houses of Parliament. That law has been adopted to make them absolutely independent of Parliament, and they are only responsible to Parliament in extreme cases of malfeasance."
(Can. H. of C. Debates, Sept. 15, 1903, p. 11313).
Within this system, certain persons hold the responsibility for ensuring the integrity and the efficacy of the functioning of the judicial system.
From the outset, considering the nature of the events which cause me to write to you and in order to avoid any confusion, it seems to me that we must discard any suggestion that the Canadian Judicial Council has a role to play in this matter, its jurisdiction relates to an examination of complaints relating to the conduct of judges and not to complaints that might concern the conduct of third parties in relation to them. (Judges Act, 1970 R.S.C. chapter J-l, section 30-32).
This having been said, the Department of Justice Act (1970 R.S.C. chapter J-2) provides in section 4 that "The Minister of Justice shall
c) have the superintendence of all matters connected with the administration of justice in Canada, not within the jurisdiction of the governments of the provinces;"
On the other hand, my duties as Chief Justice are described in part in section 21a of the Courts of Justice Act of Quebec (1964 R.S.Q., chapter 20, as amended by 1974 S.Q. chapter 11, section 13):
"21a. The Chief Justice, the Senior Associate Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court shall coordinate and apportion the work of the judges of such court.
The judges of such court shall be under the supervision of the Chief Justice, the Senior Associate Chief Justice and of the Associate Chief Justice and must comply with their orders and directives as regards the carrying out of their work.
March 12, 1976

Such paragraphs apply subject to the provisions which follow."
As everyone knows however, this statutory provision describes but one part of the total duties of the Chief Justice, and that his duties derive even more from unwritten practice and tradition.
One thing is certain, I have a profound concern for the integrity of the Superior Court, the independence of its members and the efficacy of its work.
There exists then a definite point of contact between your obligations and mine, though they may come from different sources: it is for this reason that I consider it my duty to respond to your invitation.
I consider myself however under no obligation in relation to Parliament-save that of good behaviour-nor towards the government and the invitations to undertake an inquiry which have been addressed to me in the House of Commons appear to me to be out of place.
Even more out of place appears to me to be the suggestion, also expressed in the House of Commons, that there would exist a "cosy 'All in the family' arrangement" (H. of C. Deb., March 4, 1976, page 11490).
I can also only dismiss the proposition that I proceed to interview privately one or other Members of the Cabinet whose names were mentioned in the House. I was not appointed to conduct a commission of inquiry and of course it is obviously not one of my functions to set myself up as a semi-official investigator on behalf of the House of Commons.
I have therefore not met with your colleagues nor had the least contact with them, either directly or indirectly.
I have learned through the media, these past few days, the allegations of unwarranted interventions that the Honourable Judge Kenneth C. Mackay forwarded to you by letter of February 20, 1976 concerning the Honourable Marc Lalonde, the Honourable Jean Chretien and the Honourable Charles M. Drury.
These are obviously matters of concern to me, and concerned me as soon as they came to my attention. I must point out however that no one had made the least mention of them to me before the reports of the Globe & Mail of Toronto on March 3. Moreover, the first two incidents arose during the term of my predecessor who, to the best of my knowledge, had not been made aware of them, at least officially.
I therefore do not want to set myself up here as a judge neither of your colleague nor of mine. But in view of the publicity that these incidents have attracted and considering the effect that they are likely to have on the conception that the public holds and should hold concerning the administration of justice, I believe it opportune to forward to you the information that I have so that you may, in respect of your responsibilities, adopt such measures as appear to you to be appropriate. I will do the same, as may be appropriate, within the sphere of my responsibilities.
The three incidents arose in the Province of Quebec and involved three members of the Bar. It therefore appears to be in order to recall certain rules which regulate the conduct of lawyers.
Section 2 of the Bar Act (1967 S.Q. chapter 77) came into force on June 29, 1967 and has not since been amended:
"2. An advocate is an officer of the court and participates in the administration of justice.
2. L'avocat exerce une fonction publique aupres du tribunal et collabore a l'administration de la justice."
Regulation number 1 of the Bar of Quebec was adopted on October 20, 1967 and came into force on February 1, 1968. The sections which follow, taken from this regulation, have not been amended since:
"29. 1. An advocate must serve justice and uphold the authority of the Courts. He must never compromise the honour and dignity of the Bar. He must be faithful to his clients and honest and courteous to other advocates. So he must scrupulously discharge the duties imposed by the rules, traditions and customs of the profession."
"43. 3. In the absence or without the knowledge of the other party or of his advocate, he shall not make, before judgment or decision, on behalf of a party in a contested matter, any verbal or written representations to a judge, a court or the members of a judicial or quasi-judicial body."
"68. An advocate shall not, by fraudulent or illegal acts, try to prevent that justice be done."
I now propose to deal briefly with each one of the incidents in question.
One of them involved the Honourable Jean Chretien and Mr. Justice Harry L. Aronovitch, in the fall of 1971.
Mr. Justice Aronovitch has provided me with the following description of the event which he has authorized me to transmit to you:
"On September 30, 1971, I heard the following matters: 1. Petition to ratify proposal; 2. Opposition to ratification of proposal; 3. Motion to delay ratification of proposal. At the termination of the hearing, it was agreed that written notes were to be submitted within one week, and, then, I was to make all the afore said matters under advisement.
Some time in October 1971, Mr. Jean Chretien, whom I did not (and still do not) know, telephoned to find out when I would render judgment. He identified himself to me, not as a cabinet minister, but as a member of Parliament interested in the people in his riding or constituency where apparently the petitioner was operating.
As occurs on the rare occasion when such a call is received from a lawyer, I told him that I would render judgment when ready, or something to that effect. In any event, as I recall, I made it clear that his telephoning me would have no bearing on the date of the judgment which, again, was the only subject raised in the call.

March 12, 1976
I subsequently conveyed my feelings to some of our colleagues, at lunch, but did not consider the matter serious enough to report it to the Chief Justice; that is, while I consider the telephone call was not proper practice, I did not consider it to be interference or intervention calling for formal protest.
On November 3, 1971, my judgment was drafted, and on November 9, 1971, judgments were signed whereby I ratified the propoasl, as amended, dismissed the opposition, as well as the Motion to delay the ratification."
I share the views of Mr. Justice Aronovitch and, like him, I consider that the incident should be considered closed.
The second incident involved Mr. Marc Lalonde, at that time employed in the Prime Minister's office, and Mr. Justice MacKay.
Mr. Justice MacKay provided me with the version of the facts which he has authorized me to transmit to you:
"On Friday, March 6, 1970, the Crown led by Mr. Fred Kaufman (as he then was), completed its address to the jury sitting in the trial of Regina v. Robinson and eleven other persons accused of several charges of conspiracy arising out of the destruction of a computer at Sir George Williams University in 1969. I dined out that evening and when I arrived at my home at 3275 Cedar Avenue, I found that there was a message to call Mr. Marc Lalonde with whom I was slightly acquainted. The message gave no particulars as to the reasons for the call and I decided to call him in the morning. When I called there was no answer. During the day I worked in the library of my home on the preparation of my address to the jury. When I completed my work for that day-it was about six I would say-I called Mr. Lalonde again. He said he had been skiing with his family that day but would like to .. . drop around and see me the next day, which was Sunday. No reason was given for his wish to see me and both my wife and I were curious as to the purpose of such a visit. I did know of course that he was in charge of the Prime Minister's office, and we conjectured that it might have something to do with the possibility of another appointment.
In any event, late on Sunday morning, while I was working in my library, Mr. Lalonde arrived and I greeted him cordially, gave him a drink and mentioned that he was fortunate to have been able to ski the day before although he must find it awkward to rush down every weekend to be with his family since his many duties must interfere with this. We then exchanged a few more such banalities in French, which was the language in which our entire conversation was conducted.
He then came to the point of his visit: he told me that on Friday a telegram had been sent to the Prime Minister by Prime Minister Williams of Trinidad in which the latter had said that if the accused-who were natives of Trinidad-were found guilty before he
could get control of the local disturbed situation, that there was a very real possibility of a violent uprising in Trinidad. Mr. Lalonde said that when the telegram was received the Prime Minister had already taken off for a skiing holiday in the West, but that he- Lalonde-and others in the Prime Minister's office felt that the situation was so serious that it was decided to see me with a view to delaying the jury's decision. He pointed out that Canada had many interests in Trinidad and that these might well be affected if an uprising occurred in that country. I told him that I was about to charge the jury the next day and that there was nothing I could or would do to delay the jury's decision. I also told him that due to the complexity of the charges it would in my opinion be unlikely that a jury would come to any decision until the end of the week at the earliest. He repeated that the situation was one of grave concern.
As I showed him out we exchanged a few more general comments. The interview lasted for at least thirty minutes and although it continued to be cordial I was, inwardly at least, disturbed by this visit. Not only did I feel that I was being asked to see that the jury's decision was delayed, but that if for any reason the defence attorneys learned of the visit there was a possibility of a mistrial after an arduous and expensive eight week trial. I expressed this concern to my wife and requested that nothing be said about the visit at least until after the case was concluded.
I would add that I also decided not to say anything further about the matter, because Mr. Lalonde's visit was clearly inspired by his great concern for the nation's interests and not by personal reasons.
I subsequently reported this incident to a few of my colleagues including the late Associate Chief Justice Challies. But I did no informally after the case had been disposed of. I also told two or three friends who are members of the Bar.
I enclose my entire file relating to this matter. If some references may cause you offence I regret it, but as I have already assured you, all these letters were sent with the certainty that they would be read only by the recipients. I might also say that my purpose in bringing up the incidents set out in my letter to Mr. Basford, was simply to reply with particulars to the question he put in his letter to me. Although I was shocked to learn that my correspondence had been leaked to the press, nevertheless I believe that the publicity will have at least one beneficial effect. Never again will a member of the executive branch of the Government communicate with a judge about a case which he is trying."
I do not know the Honourable Marc Lalonde's version of the facts and I therefore do not wish to pass judgment on his conduct.
However, considering the particular circumstances surrounding this affair, I understand Mr. Justice Mackay's reaction in face of this unusual approach and I do not believe that it behooves me, six years later, to reopen the file.
March 12, 1976

The last incident involved, approximately two months ago, the Honourable Charles M. Drury and the Associate Chief Justice James K. Hugessen.
I can do no better than to transmit to you, with his authorization, Mr. Justice Hugessen's recital of the events that he provided to me on March 5:
"Mr. Drury telephoned me during the hearing of the contempt proceedings against Andre Ouellet. The call came to my home, in the evening, after dinner, when I was in the basement helping my youngest son to assemble a model train set which he had received for his birthday, a few days before. I took the call where I was and did not make any notes of it. The date was between the first and second days of the hearing, which were respectively January 8 and January 16, 1976. I am almost certain that the actual date of the call was Wednesday, January 14.
I have known Mr. Drury for many years and, while we are not intimate, we are on first-name terms.
The conversation dealt with two aspects of the Ouellet case:
1.	Whether it would be possible for Mr. Ouellet to make a formal apology and thereby bring the proceedings to an end, and
2.	The view which Mr. Drury felt was being expressed in some quarters in Ottawa that the proceedings against Mr. Ouellet were in some way a ganging up of the English speaking Establishment against prominently placed French speaking persons.
With regard to the first point, I simply told Mr. Drury that a person accused of contempt could always attempt to purge his offence by making a full and complete apology and that any such action would undoubtedly be taken into account by the Court in its final disposition of the matter. I also told him that the working out of the terms of the apology and any related matters should be discussed between counsel in the case and that I should not be involved until counsel had reached an agreement and were prepared to see me jointly. In fact, I had had ... a rather similar discussion with both counsel in my chambers immediately before the case started, on January 8. In both cases, the discussion was very short and came to an end when, in the first case, Mr. Ouellet's counsel and, in the second case, Mr. Drury said that Mr. Ouellet denied having spoken the words attributed to him. Since an apology would necessarily involve an admission of the words alleged, any further discussion was futile.
On the second point raised by Mr. Drury, I simply told him that I had never heard of any such thing, that I considered it to be ridiculous, and that, in any event, as a judge these matters were completely beyond my competence and I could not even consider them.
While I felt at the time that the call was improper (and I believe I said so to Mr. Drury), I did not think that he was attempting to influence my judgment. I rather had the impression that he was attempting, if possible, to head off a confrontation between the executive and judicial branches of government. In any event, rightly or wrongly, I did not take any action with regard to the call and dismissed it from my mind. To the extent that one can determine one's own mental processes, I am quite convinced that the call did not influence my decision one way or the other."
In fact, as you know, Mr. Justice Hugessen upheld the request for a citation for contempt of court by judgment dated January 23, 1976, which judgment is now under appeal.
I have little doubt that the facts related by Mr. Justice Hugessen are grave, considering the stature of the person making the call and the circumstances in which the call was made to him.
However, I do not know the Honourable Mr. Drury's version of the facts and I imagine there were no witnesses to the event.
Therefore, I abstain from passing judgment, except to note that Mr. Justice Hugessen played but a passive role here and was the victim of circumstances.
These are, Mr. Minister, the facts that I consider it my duty to bring to your attention.
Considering the very special circumstances that have surrounded the revelation of these incidents and the debates in Parliament to which they have given rise, I have no objections to your making this letter public, if you consider that appropriate. My three colleagues whose version of the events is set out above, have also consented to the publication of this letter.
Indeed I would see some advantage in doing so, so that the public may be reassured of the integrity of the judiciary, in view of the negative results of the approaches of which my colleagues were the object.
Yours truly,
Chief Justice, (signed) Jules Deschenes
Quebec, March 10, 1976.
Chief Justice Deschenes submitted this account to me in my capacity of Senior Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court especially responsible for the administration of the Superior Court in the Quebec Appeal Division.
After consideration and discussion, I agree entirely with the views expressed by my colleague.
Senior Associate Chief Justice, (signed) Eugene Marquis

Monday March 15, 1976