1976-03-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that is quite urgent and pressing. The application of a retroactive quota on red fish or ocean perch, as announced by the minister will seriously affect the economy of Atlantic Canada.
The continued restrictions being directed at Canadian fishermen, while foreigners are still permitted to phase out their operations, requires a thorough investigation of fisheries management. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That this House orders that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and that the minister appear before the committee to explain his policy on fisheries management as it applies to the Canadian fishing industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and if I could get the government's attention I would hope the motion I move will not elicit the automatic "no" that comes from the government side.
Given the refusal yesterday by the government to establish a public inquiry into the serious allegations made by Judge Mackay, and assuming that the government does not change its mind later today on the need for a public inquiry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the government to make publicly available its terms of reference to the Chief Justice of Quebec and also to make publicly available the written report submitted by the Chief Justice of Quebec concerning these important allegations.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the startling increase in unemployment, especially in Quebec, considering also that such unemployment affects more particularly the young people in spite of their education, and that according to the latest statistics over 424,160 unemployed were less than 34 years of age, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That at his earliest convenience the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) state to the House the intentions of his department concerning any job producing program or any other step to assist young Canadians willing to work in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that 1976 is the 100th anniversary of the signing of Treaty No. 6, and in view of the historic nature of Indian treaties and the fact that the various treaties are the basis of native relationships with the federal government and the Crown, I move,

March 4, 1976
Birthday Greetings
seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That the federal government lend its full support to the native people in order that their planned celebrations will be such that the Canadian people will appreciate more fully the importance of these historic treaties.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


BIRTHDAY GREETINGS TO MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Number 43 has special significance today, this day being your forty-third birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That this House wishes you a Happy Birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion of exceptional urgency.
I would like to support the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and wish you Happy Birthday. At the same time, that reminds me of a song that we often sing on occasions such as this one. I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. members in this House by moving:
That your life be filled with success and happiness, peace and joy. [English]


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, just to show that we are unanimous, I wish to make it clear that if the other hon. members had not presented their standing order 43 motions, I would have done so, to wish you the very best on your birthday number 43.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot resist saying that it is a sufficient crisis to encounter one's forty-third birthday. I hoped to keep the connection between Standing Order 43 and my age on this birthday secret. Obviously, I have not done very well. I am grateful for the sentiments expressed; thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Prime Minister. While the chief justice of Quebec may be responsible for the management of some courts, the Prime Minister must accept responsibility for the management and impropriety of this government. In this light I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the serious admissions made yesterday by certain of his ministers, including, particularly, the admission of intervention by the Minister of Public Works, the Prime Minister is now prepared on reconsideration to appoint an independent commission, to conduct the kind of full, open inquiry which these admissions of ministerial intervention make necessary?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I agree, of course, with the premise to the question, as stated by the Leader of the Opposition. I explained to the House yesterday the basis of my decision. I shall repeat it briefly. It was that, in the case of two ministers, Mr. Speaker, their alleged intervention was directed toward judges who have not, to my knowledge, complained about it. I have the statement of my ministers, made publicly here, that they in no way tried to influence the judge. I take their word. Of course, I am prepared to hear the other side of the question. I think it is proper for the chief justice of the Superior Court of Quebec who is entrusted with the administration of these courts to hear the views of the two judges who, to our knowledge, did not complain. Therefore, until they complain we are faced with the word of honourable gentlemen here who say that they did not interfere nor in any way try to influence judgments.
In the third case, which had to do with my then first secretary, the judge in question, Justice Mackay, is the one who is stating that there was an attempt to influence. I have the word of the minister that he in no way did that, that the limit of his talk with Justice Mackay was to ask when the judgment would be rendered. I have looked into the circumstances under which this was requested. I find it a perfectly legitimate intervention in those circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I say this only after some thought, Mr. Speaker, because I realize that it does not appear prima facie good when somebody talks to a judge. However, the House knows the circumstances of this. We had a friendly government saying that there might be riots as a result of a sentence. They wanted to know when the sentence would come down so that they could prepare to meet such riots, if they happened. I think it is perfectly justifiable in such circumstances to elicit that information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here again, I repeat what I said to the House yesterday. It is possible that the Chief Justice entrusted with the administration of those courts would have
March 4, 1976

another version after hearing from his judges about something that happened seven years ago and which had not caused any grievance since then. I am prepared to hear the other side of it and then I will judge-we will judge as a government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: "I will judge."


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have to judge. I am being asked if I will grant an inquiry. If members opposite do not want me to make a judgment on that, they should not ask me the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S VIEW ON SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN JUDICIARY AND LEGISLATURE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is that contact was made, admitted contact by ministers and representatives of the government of Canada, with judges of courts in Quebec concerning cases then before those courts. In light of that fact, does the Prime Minister accept as a matter of very basic principle the traditional doctrine of absolute separation between his ministers and the courts or does he instead take the position that his ministers and their aides have a right to intervene-and that is the word deliberately used yesterday by the Minister of Public Works-with judges and with courts regarding questions that are before the courts? Does he accept that there should be, as a matter of fundamental principle, a separation between the political cabinet and the courts of the land, such as has been broken in this case?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as a discussion of theory-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that members opposite are not very interested in theory. If they are interested in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, my answer still stands.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this unfortunate kind of stonewalling on the question of a public inquiry has marked the life of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I again make direct reference to the statement yesterday by the Minister of Public Works and his use of the word "intervention". I want to refer the Prime Minister to the language used by the Minister of Public Works who said his intervention was for the purpose of seeing that the judge was in possession of full knowledge of the facts and did his duty. My question to the Prime Minister is this-I am not asking a question of theory but one of direct, immediate fact-
Oral Questions
[DOT] (M20)


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Charles Joseph Clark: Does the Prime Minister intend to continue to tolerate that kind of intervention of ministers in the conduct of the courts of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think it was established during the question and answer period yesterday that there was no attempt by anyone to influence the court. Obviously, Justice Mackay does not share this view. But Justice Arono-vitch does not agree with Justice Mackay, because Justice Aronovitch, who was brought into the issue by Justice Mackay, has said clearly there was no attempt to interfere.


An hon. Member:: In one case.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, when we have one judge, Justice Mackay, on hearsay, contradicting what the judge who was supposed to have been interfered with is saying, there is obviously something wrong there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here are two judges who are contradicting themselves, one who is talking from hearsay and who was blaming our ministers, and the other who is talking from personal knowledge. In such circumstances I think we are justified in asking the Chief Justice of the Superior Court to look into this matter to see which of the judges is telling the truth.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we in this House do not have the opportunity to question the Chief Justice of the Quebec Court. What I am asking the Prime Minister relates to the statement made yesterday in this House by the Minister of Public Works, a statement from which he has just attempted to divert attention. I am asking whether he accepts as a matter of continuing practice the intervention by ministers of his cabinet in cases which are before the courts. The Prime Minister is the man to whom that question should be put. We do not want the matter shunted off to the courts of Quebec. We want to know whether, if he refuses an inquiry, the right hon. gentleman will allow this kind of practice to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Woolliams:: I am sorry the Prime Minister did not want to answer that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Three o'clock!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I see, Mr. Speaker, that he refuses again to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The last question by the Leader of the Opposition was clearly a repetition of his previous question.

March 4, 1976
Oral Questions


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-TYPE OF INTERVENTION REQUESTED BY MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to put this question, then, to the Prime Minister. While the Minister of Public Works seems to think his conversations with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are privileged and believes he has the right to dictate the duties of judges, I assume the Prime Minister believes we have the right to know what happens, and knows what happened, as alleged by Mr. Justice Mackay, did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs ask the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance to intervene on his behalf, and what kind of intervention did he want?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the preamble to the question is just as misleading as the hon. member's attempt to represent the situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I see the Prime Minister is up to his usual tricks; he is trying to work another snow job on the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF INTERVENTION BY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yesterday the Minister of Public Works admitted to the House that he had contacted the associate chief justice with regard to the contempt of court proceeding in a way that can only be described as irresponsible interference. Did the Minister of Public Works advise the Prime Minister of his intention, and did he report to the Prime Minister on the conversation at any time before the story broke in the press on Tuesday with reference to the matter that is now before the House in this question period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, again I do not admit the preamble to the question which already prejudges the issue which I think the chief justice has something to do with. I do not admit it is irresponsible, but I am prepared to listen to objective argument on the matter. As for the question itself, the answer is no.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-PRIME MINISTER'S VIEW OF NEED FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. While no one will dispute the appropriateness of the Prime Minister making general inquiries and looking into two sides of an issue as a general proposition when his own ministers or government are not involved as one of the two parties, and he does this before he reaches a decision about whether a public inquiry is needed or not, does the Prime Minister not see that the present circumstance is in fact fundamentally different from that in the sense that his own ministers are involved, being one of the parties in question, and also that the judge who is involved, the chief justice of the

Superior Court of Quebec, has already reprimanded a junior judge who is centrally involved in the case as well. Does not the Prime Minister see that this circumstance makes it absolutely essential that we have a public inquiry now so that he absolves himself from making the decision about the appropriateness or not either of ministers' actions or the judge's actions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I may attempt in my answer to refer to the theory of separation of powers, as expounded by the Leader of the Opposition and upon which hon. members did not want me to comment, may I simply state at this stage that if the theory of separation of powers makes any sense at all we should ask the courts to look into this matter and not attempt to run the courts for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is running roughly 12 minutes behind time, so would he now answer my question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: He did the same thing with the Leader of the Opposition and when he gets to the Social Credit party it will be too late. Let me ask the Prime Minister this most serious question. Since his own ministers are involved, is he not putting himself in a conflict of interest position in passing judgment about the need for a public inquiry after he gets the report, presumably filtered through the Minister of Justice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Leader of the New Democratic Party did not understand that my reference to the separation of powers was in answer to his question, not a comment on the question of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member is asking parliament, the legislative branch, to inquire into the judicial branch.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not at all.


Mr. Paproski:: Stop playing games.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let the judicial branch decide whether any wrongdoing has been done to them. If it has, it will have been done by us presumably, unless they have done it to themselves; but that is what we would like the chief justice to ascertain.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF REPORT OF CHIEF JUSTICE OF QUEBEC
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister has always had difficulty seeing when a conflict of interest principle was involved, but I am sure it is abundantly clear today. Does he not see that he is telling the people of Canada he will make the decision about whether or not a public inquiry is needed and, if so, he is basing it on a report to which we do not have access or in respect of which we do not even know the terms of reference made to the judge. The whole thing from the public point of view is totally obscure and there-
March 4, 1976

fore clouded with suspicion which will inevitably remain even if the Prime Minister in all his known modesty concludes that the people are innocent. I see him shake his head. I should like to ask if he would not at least make the terms of reference to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court public, what specific request the Minister of Justice made to the Chief Justice and, secondly, will he ensure that the public will have access to a written report from the Chief Justice when he looks into this situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the Minister of Justice whose officials I believe communicated with the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, but consistent with my earlier answer I am not trying to be a judge in this particular case. I am trying to ascertain for the satisfaction of the opposition and ourselves whether or not the courts feel aggrieved. I do not take the hon. member's word for that. I would like to know if the court feels aggrieved?


An hon. Member:: One judge does.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would suggest it would be in the interest of all in this House, including ourselves, that the estimation by the courts be made public. I think I would have to leave it to the Chief Justice himself to say whether what he says will be made public but I state that the government certainly would have no objection to it; but we are respectful of the separation of the Powers and I think the court should make the decision on that.

Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Apart altogether from the novel, precedent-shattering and dangerous principles just enunciated by the Prime Minister, may I indicate that there are at least two justices who feel aggrieved at the moment because apparently yesterday Judge Aronovich stated that, although he did not feel the President of the Treasury Board's call to him constituted an interference in the judiciary, nevertheless it was improper. For the benefit of the Minister of Justice may I quote the actual words.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; if the hon. member has a question would he put it?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Justice has to do with the words of Mr. Justice Aronovich yesterday, and I quote:
If any lawyer would call me up about a case that I have under judgment, I would, to say the least, be annoyed because a lawyer knows or should know that he does not-is not supposed to do that. Among other things you know that Chretien is a lawyer.


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


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question-


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Quebec textile industry is now experiencing serious problems due in part to the increase in goods imported from various foreign countries and to the fact that the federal government textile policy of 1970 has not reached its goal on account of foreign competition, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to introduce a new policy to ensure greater protection for employment and the Canadian market, especially the Quebec market?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this policy is now under review by the Textile and Clothing Board and a report will be tabled soon.


INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY PRIME MINISTER TO CABINET MEMBERS WITH REFERENCE TO APPROACHING JUDGES
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House what policy directive he, during his stewardship as Prime Minister, has given to the members of his Cabinet and senior civil servants regarding approaching judges about matters that are before the courts.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: None, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: None! Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Does the Prime Minister then not see how easy it is, because he has never given them any instructions in this regard, to see why his officials have carried out actions which obviously should never be participated in by members of any government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I assume that every minister in my Cabinet feels it is his duty not to try to influence the course of justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 4, 1976
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised that when the hon. member was a minister this directive had to be given specifically to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not realize that when I was a minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: All right; just wait a minute-the Prime Minister of the day was a man who took these matters very seriously indeed-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: -and he made sure that all members of his Cabinet understood that there should be a separation between the activities of his Cabinet and the operations of the courts. That is one of the many reasons the government of which he was Prime Minister did a hell of a lot better job for the country than this government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope it is not because the right hon. gentleman took these matters so seriously that the hon. gentleman who asked the question had to resign from the Cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Where is Turner?


George Harris Hees: Where is Gray and where are all the others?


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REASON PRIME MINISTER CONCLUDES INTERVENTION BY HIS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LEGITIMATE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister failed to explain why the contacting of a superior court judge by a political aide within his office was considered proper procedure without first consulting or seeking the authorization of the then Minister of Justice? Today there has been the very startling revelation that the Prime Minister has concluded that the intervention at that time was a legitimate intervention. I now ask the Prime Minister, was the Justice Department at the time of that intervention asked for its opinion in that regard, has the Prime Minister since the matter has been brought to his attention in the past day contacted the Minister of Justice in order to determine whether in fact that is a legitimate intervention, or is the Prime Minister just philosophically being involved in his usual way? Would he kindly explain that to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member I will try and reduce my philosophy to a minimum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanfield:: You had better reduce more than that. Try reducing your arrogance.


George Harris Hees: You are reducing your term of office by a long, long time. Any more observations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am interested to hear that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings assumed that I would be re-elected for a long, long time. Now, he is having doubts about that.


George Harris Hees: Not since that convention.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I may turn away from the interruptions to deal with this question, I want to emphasize that there was a matter of urgency here. There had been riots in Montreal, and there was real concern that there would be riots in a friendly country as a result of this judgment. This may have been a misapprehension by the friendly country, but the fact is that they did ask us when the judgment was coming down. They did not, to my knowledge, try to influence the court. They wanted to know when the judgment was coming down, presumably in order that they could make preparations.
It is possible that Mr. Justice Mackay found this to be an improper intervention. If so, it is surprising to me, to say the least, that he should at that time have given an answer as a matter of, I would say, almost public duty to one who was asking a question on behalf of the Department of External Affairs, and second, that he should have taken seven years to find himself aggrieved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect, the Prime Minister has evaded my question. I am trying to determine how it is that the Prime Minister can come to this House, as a lawyer knowing that that type of conduct-approaching courts, and judges in particular-is wrong. All I am asking is how the Prime Minister was able to determine, given those facts, that this was a legitimate intervention. Keeping in mind that lawyers in particular do not approach judges at any time, and in particular when there is a case going on, on what does he base this? Where does he get his information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, that is precisely the question the hon. member just asked and which the Prime Minister just answered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REASON FOR INTERVENTION BY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Yesterday the minister indicated to the House that his conversation with this colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, was privileged as between two lawyers and two cabinet colleagues. Following that conversation the minister admitted intervening or talking to the associate chief justice of the province of Quebec to see, and I quote: "that he was in full knowledge of the facts and did his duty."


An hon. Member:: Read it all.
March 4, 1976


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister tell the House why he found it necessary to intervene to see that the associate chief justice of the province of Quebec did his duty, and what facts did he feel it was necessary to bring to his attention?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think a careful reading of Hansard would indicate that I did not communicate with the associate chief justice with a view to conveying information to him, but rather to obtain information from him.


An hon. Member:: What was it?


James Aloysius McGrath: The record indicates that the minister felt it necessary to talk to the associate chief justice, and I quote from Hansard: "to see that he was in full knowledge of the facts and did his duty." That is the quotation on the record. There is no qualification to it.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Walter David Baker: It is on page 11457.


James Aloysius McGrath: In light of this extraordinary, admitted intervention by the minister, is he now prepared to tell the House and the country what facts he felt it was necessary to bring to the attention of the associate chief justice of Quebec, bearing in mind that this is the responsibility of the prosecutor and the defence attorney?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the hon. gentleman has one view as to the appropriateness or otherwise of the action taken, and I have another.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: I am sure you have.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would suggest that the course being followed by the Prime Minister, namely, to have this referred to and looked at by the chief justice of the province of Quebec, is the appropriate course.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- KNOWLEDGE OF JUSTICE MINISTER OF INTERVENTION BY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is to the Minister of Justice, who has the ultimate responsibility here. In view of the admission by his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, that he in fact intervened in a case before the court involving the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I want to ask the Minister of Justice if the Minister of Public Works acquainted him with the fact that he had spoken to the associate chief justice of Quebec, and would the minister tell the House what his reaction was to that admission.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, at the time, no. I think I should make it clear to the hon. gentleman and possibly to the House that there are two areas covered under the law. One is clearly stated in the Criminal Code as obstructing, perverting or defeating the course of justice.
_____________________________11489
Oral Questions Mr. McGrath: Why don't you answer the question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am answering the question. It is clear, under the Criminal Code, that it is wrong to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. It is also clear that it is criminal contempt to have a private communication for the purpose of influencing a judicial decision. Those on this side of the House are bound by that law just as much as those on the other side of the House and all the people in the country. As I indicated yesterday, there is nothing in front of me which would indicate that either of those provisions of the law have been violated.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-VIEW OF PRIME MINISTER ON PROPRIETY OF INTERVENTION BY MINISTERS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works just said that he has a different view with respect to his responsibilities in the matter of intervening in the judicial process, I want to put a question to the Prime Minister. I want to ask the Prime Minister what his view is with respect, not to what two different judges have said, but to what his own minister has said in the House as recorded in Hansard at page 11457 where he admits that in a matter involving one of his colleagues he had a conversation with the associate chief justice of Quebec and said that the purpose of that conversation-and I quote it in full so that there will be no suggestion of misrepresentation-was as follows:
.. . the only intervention that would be contemplated by me would be one to see that he was in full knowledge of the facts and did his duty.
I was under the impression that the judge got his facts from the legal counsel in open court or from meeting in chambers with counsel for both parties to a dispute.


Walter David Baker: And the witnesses.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am
asking the Prime Minister is it, in his opinion, the right of his ministers or any other ministers to get in touch with a judge to give him the facts and to order him to do his duty, which we take it for granted he would do without the intervention of the Minister of Public Works?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is making the case very forcefully and very correctly, and it is because of the seriousness of this that I am concerned with having the judges decide whether or not they have been aggrieved. I am simply answering to the hon. member that the associate Chief Justice has not to my knowledge complained about being influenced in any way. I do not expect him to make his complaint to me; I would expect him to make it to the Chief Justice of his court or perhaps to the Department of Justice.


An hon. Member:: Or the council.

Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Until I have some knowledge of that complaint, surely, the hon. member would not blame me for taking the word of my minister that he has not attempted to influence anybody.


An hon. Member:: We had his word.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that even if the judge does not complain that in his opinion there was intervention, surely the statements by the Minister of Public Works yesterday and again today show there was intervention.
In view of the seriousness of this situation and the effect it will have on the people of Canada generally as well as their respect for this parliament and the judiciary, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if instead of having this cozy "All in the family" arrangement by which he and the Minister of Justice are going to discuss the matter with the Chief Justice of the province of Quebec and then decide what if anything they will do, does he not feel he would be in a better position, Mr. Justice Mackay would be in a better position and the judiciary generally would be in a better position if he agreed to a public investigation? That way the public would not only know that justice has been done but it would be very clear to the public that it has indeed been done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add. I just see something objectionable in the hon. member's suggestion of a cozy arrangement with the Chief Justice of the Superior Court.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I assume that the Chief Justice of the Superior Court will not be influenced or indeed annoyed by the opinion of the hon. member opposite.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if he would not consider that a report being made by the Chief Justice of Quebec to the Minister of Justice and the latter reporting to the Prime Minister without any commitment from the government at this time that the report of the Chief Justice would be made public-how can one consider that to be anything but a cozy arrangement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member did not hear the answer I gave a few minutes ago. As far as the government is concerned, we would welcome the Chief Justice making his report public. I am just indicating, because of the separation of powers which is held so highly on the other side, that I would not order him to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 4, 1976


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the importance of ensuring airspace safety in Canada and the doubts raised in the public mind as a result of the statements made by groups and organizations involved in air transport, can the Minister of Transport tell the House whether the rules of his department require commercial pilots to submit to the breathalizer test before flying, whether it is mandatory for pilots and air controllers to report to the department all near accidents which may occur, and whether his department publishes the results of its inquiries and the causes of the near accidents?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there are rules on the subject of the physical condition of pilots and their consumption of alcohol and drugs. It has not been necessary to follow these rules with any express advance testing. We have no reason to believe there is any interference with the application of these rules. In the case of accidents, there is a requirement for reports but it is certainly not easy to identify specific accidents by cause.


ALLEGATION MINISTER ASKED DR. CONNOLLY TO WITHDRAW CHARGE AGAINST WHITEHORSE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, when a person rises to ask a question my hon. friends opposite act as though they were about to say "Viva Cuba".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the recent case in the Yukon where a charge was laid by Dr. Connolly of the Department of National Health and Welfare against the municipality of Whitehorse for permitting raw sewage to be dumped into the Yukon river. This was one of the minister's own officials. Did the minister ask Dr. Connolly to withdraw that charge and when he refused to do so did the minister have one of his most senior officials get in touch with Dr. Connolly and advise him that the minister had asked him to inform the doctor that unless he carried out his direction he would be dismissed?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have given no such instructions. However, I have heard of the matter, but I should
March 4, 1976

like to refresh my memory as to the facts. I gave no specific instruction to that effect.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. Whether they were specific or not specific did the minister advise the Regional Director of Health Services in Edmonton to inform Dr. Connolly that unless he withdrew the charge he would be dismissed?

Mr. Lalonde No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, did he know that such directions had been given on his behalf?

Mr. Lalonde No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I would think he would be able to recall this case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare has given three very direct answers to the questions asked by the right hon. member. If he has another question I will be prepared to permit it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if you have been listening you will have noticed the desire of government members to howl down anyone from this side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: Castro never had more obedient supporters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister refresh his memory, and will he table the correspondence in connection with this charge as well as the refusal of the official in the Yukon to carry out instructions, so the action went ahead and instead of the fine being $5,000 the town of Whitehorse pleaded guilty and the fine was $100?

Mr. Lalonde Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member that I would look into the facts; I shall be pleased to examine the correspondence that may exist on that subject.


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


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware, sir, as I know you are, that this House has appointed you as the servant of the House, and not its master, with very wide discretionary powers with regard to deciding what is in order and what is not in order in the question period. May I merely say to you, sir, that we are all aware that this discretionary power in your hands has to be exercised with fairness and equality toward all members.
Elections
May I put my point of order this way. All members, including the Prime Minister, ministers and opposition members, participate equally in the rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges accorded to hon. members. This afternoon the Prime Minister on four occasions referred to his interpretation of a single judge's word. When I stood up and by way of preamble to a short, simple question to the chief law officer of the Crown attempted to put on record the actual words of the judge, Your Honour cut me off at the knees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not propose to enter into a dialogue on this matter. I will simply say this as I was compelled to make a decision in respect of the hon. member's question. After being given the floor, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham put what I consider a more than adequate preamble to his question. I intervened, and I always intervene reluctantly, to ask him to put the question forthwith. I did this at the very moment he was about to quote something. In other words, I was saying directly that I thought he had put a long enough preamble and ought to put his question. The hon. member began asking the question and then began to read the quotation I had asked him directly not to read. In the circumstances, I do not see what other choice the Chair had.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On October 14, 1975, Your Honour informed the House that on September 3 you had issued your warrant for a by-election in the constituency of St. John's West. As the statutory six months have expired, I wonder if Your Honour can say why the date for that by-election has not been announced.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I may anticipate the answer even though I do not believe you have called for ministerial statements on motions, I have something before me which may satisfy the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Too late.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why am I too late?


An hon. Member:: Time has expired.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister, I presume, is indicating his intention, on tabling of documents, to perhaps table a document which may be of some interest in this regard.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I am tabling

March 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
copies, in both official languages, of order in council No. 1976-507 ordering the issuance of a writ for a by-election in the electoral district of St. John's West, Newfoundland, on my birthday.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the President of the Privy Council if there is to be any change in the announcement he made the other day. May I also thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to present him with a birthday present later this year.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On his sixtieth birthday.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, when I last announced government business I said that Bill C-68 would continue to be the business before the House, to be followed by several relatively non-controversial bills. Because of the prolonged debate on Bill C-68 the order of business is to be changed. The next item of business is to be the Senate amendment to Bill S-10, followed by Bill S-8, Bill C-86 and Bill C-61.
On Monday we intend to call the first of the bills dealing with amendments to the criminal law. I should like the opportunity, as I told the House leaders, to discuss how we shall deal with that bill and the bill following to do with capital punishment. It is the desire of the House to have full and adequate discussion of these measures; at the same time, I am sure the House does not want discussion on these bills to occupy the time of the House to the detriment of other urgent legislation. I hope we can reach some accommodation on that matter and on the question the Conservative House leader raised for discussion of the petitions regarding redistribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today the Minister of Veterans Affairs made his welcome announcement concerning legislation respecting Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war. It was indicated that the legislation would be before the House in a few days. When will that bill be on the order paper, and can it be taken for granted that, since it will be dealt with quickly, we can interrupt the discussion on other bills to deal with that legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The matter is urgent. We are preparing the bill and it will be on the order paper in due course. But other matters also have priority. I hope we shall have his co-operation on them in the same way that he will have our co-operation on the matter in which he is interested.


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: 3,312, 3,650, 3,697, 3,781, 3,914 and 4,022.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What is the name of the company that leased the government building on Main Street, Penticton, British Columbia?
2.	Who are the principle officers of the company?
3.	What (a) is the length of time (b) are the terms of the lease?
4.	What are the terms of the lease-back (time, rent, etc.) for the portion of the building now occupied by the Penticton Manpower Office?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. This government of Canada building was leased jointly by Leemar Enterprises Ltd., Betca Securities Ltd. and Lancing Enterprises Ltd.
2.	The principal officers are as follows: R. L. Richards and C. E. Erickson and wives for Leemar Enterprises Ltd., C. W. Schwarz and wife for Betca Securities Ltd. and J. M. O'Hara and wife for Lancing Enterprises Ltd.
3.	Leased (a) for a period of 35 years from October 1, 1974, at (b) $6,600 per year or 17 per cent of gross receipts whichever is greater. Lease includes an option to renew the agreement for a period of 15 years at a rate to be negotiated. Tenant responsible for all taxes, repairs and services etc., with no escalation clauses.
4.	A total of 6,213 square feet were re-leased for a period of five years from May 1, 1975 at an annual rent of $41,186.28. The lease agreement includes an option to renew for a period of five years at a rate to be negotiated. Landlord provides all services, including janitor, heat, electricity, taxes etc., under lease-back to Crown.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the specific responsibilities in connection with the surveillance of coastal waters of the Department of (a) the Environment (b) External Affairs (c) the Environment (Fisheries) (d) National Defence (e) the Solicitor General (f) Transport?
2.	Are any such responsibilities overlapping and by what means are the activities coordinated?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	(a) The specific responsibilities of the Department of the Environment in connection with the surveillance of coastal waters include enforcement of all acts and regulations governing fishing activity, both Canadian and foreign, under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, North Pacific Fisheries Convention Act, Pacific Fur Seals Convention Act, North Pacific Halibut Fisheries Convention Act, Pacific Salmon Fisheries Convention Act and the Whaling Convention Act; the conduct of fisheries and oceanographic research; conduct of hydrographic charging; observation
March 4, 1976

of ice; and the monitoring and surveillance of all activities in coastal waters that might lead to the impairment of the marine environment, including enforcement of the Ocean Dumping Act and regulations thereto, as well as other acts and regulations governing the protection of the marine environment. The department is assisted in the conduct of fisheries enforcement by air and sea surveillance undertaken on its behalf by the Department of National Defence, (b) The Department of External Affairs has no specific responsibility in connection with the surveillance of coastal waters. The department has a general responsibility for the international recognition and respect of Canadian sovereignty, and of the laws and regulations which are aspects of this sovereignty. The department is also responsible for the orderly development of international law, taking into account Canada's objectives relating to jurisdiction in coastal waters, and for the communication to foreign governments of the Canadian position based on information obtained from surveillance activities over Canadian coastal waters, (c) See (a) above, (d) The Department of National Defence is charged with the general responsibility to ensure that, overall, an adequate surveillance and control capability exists for the protection of Canadian sovereignty and security. Specifically, the department is responsible for the surveillance and control of Canadian coastal waters and their approaches to determine if there is any foreign military activities in these waters and if necessary to counteract such activity. In addition the Department of National Defence supplements and supports other departments in maintaining surveillance and control of non-military activities that might be prejudicial to Canada's sovereign interests, (e) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not primarily responsible for the surveillance of coastal waters. In the enforcement of federal statutes, however, patrols are made over coastal waters, (f) The Minister of Transport is generally identified as the minister responsible for maritime matters. Such responsibility applies with respect to navigation and shipping within Canada, and outside of Canada where Canadian ships are involved. Such administrative responsibility is legislatively provided for under the Canada Shipping Act, and relates to registration, certification of seamen, pilotage, wreck, salvage, safety and investigation, as well as the maintenance of lighthouses, buoys, and beacons, public harbours and a host of other matters related to marine safety and navigation. For the purposes of enforcement of the maintenance of ship-source pollution prevention standards, as well as search and rescue, the minister, through the Canadian Coast Guard, provides the marine element of Canada's activity in these areas, routine surveillance patrol included. All vessels when at sea are required to provide rescue assistance and to generally report all signs of environmental pollution. Rather than an overlap of activities, a better view would regard the activities of government and private shipping as being coordinated for the purposes of rescue assistance and environmental pollution control.
2.	(a) Co-ordination of all government coastal surveillance activities is achieved by a) aerial and b) surface surveillance. Responsibilities in aerial surveillance overlap with: (a) DND for sovereignty and security, (b) DOE for fisheries, (c) DEMR for continental shelf exploration, (d) DINA for seismic vessel surveillance, (e) DOE for ecological and environment protection, (f) MOT for pollution
Order Paper Questions
from vessels, (i) annual consultation between DND and other departments to determine their forecast surveillance requirements and the programming of Canadian Forces' ship and aircraft operations to ensure these requirements are met; (ii) utilizing the Operational Co-ordination Centres at Halifax and Esquimalt for special-case surveillance missions, (iii) rescue and environmental pollution control operations are co-ordinated in any given case by the Rescue Co-ordination Centre (DND) and the Canadian Coast Traffic Centre (MOT) respectively, (b) Furthermore, there are regional and national coordinating committees administering the Ocean Dumping legislation chaired by the Department of the Environment which allows cooperative arrangements with the Department of National Defence and the Ministry of Transport.
* *
*


Mr. Maine: 1.	How many courts martial were held in each year from 1965 to date?
2.	What was the number of court reporters employed by the Depart-
; of National Defence in each year from 1965 to date?	
on. James mce): 1.	Richardson (Minister of National
Year	Number of Courts Martial
1965	31
1966	22
1967	28
1968	34
1969	62
1970	78
1971	68
1972	58
1973	64
1974	90
1975	116
2. Year	Number of Court Reporters
1965	7
1966	7
1967	6
1968	6
1969	5
1970	8
1971	12
1972	12
1973	13
1974	11
1975	10
11494

Order Paper Questions BLOWPIPE WEAPONS 
Question No. 3,781-Mr. McKinnon:
1.	How many Blowpipe weapons have been issued to Canadian troops up to December 1, 1975?
2.	What fraction or percentage of the order for such weapon does this figure represent?
3.	What is the total cost of the weapon and ammunition issued to the troops up to December 1, 1975?
4.	What is the maximum range of the weapon?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. One hundred three systems are being purchased and some items including training devices are being received. However, no complete systems have been issued to the troops as of this date.
2.	Not applicable in view of 1 above.
3.	Total program cost including aiming units, ancillary items and missiles is estimated to be $30,493,000.
4.	This information is presently classified in accordance with a NATO agreement.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Storage Construction Financial Assistance Programme have meetings been held between the government and the Province of Newfoundland to make them aware of such a programme?
2.	Have any meetings been held between federal agricultural officials stationed in Newfoundland with produce groups to make them aware of such a programme?
3.	(a) What action has been taken by the Information Services, Department of Agriculture to advise produce groups across Canada of the programme (b) on what dates were meetings held (c) what groups were contacted?
4.	Of the 18 projects assisted in 1975 with a total cost of $4,205,883 were any applications received from the Province of Newfoundland?
5.	What were the 18 projects assisted in 1975, by group and province?
6.	What is the total budget allocation for the programme?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes, provincial officials were advised about details of the program through discussions following announcement of the program.
2.	Contact was made individually with potential applicants rather than through formal meetings.
3.	(a), (b) and (c) Information Services, Department of Agriculture, did not have meetings across the country to bring information to the attention of groups but did release complete information about the program through the press and 75 radio stations on September 24, 1973 and September 9, 1974.
4.	No.
5.	Alberta: Bassano Growers Co-operative Ltd., Bassano Vauxhall Potato Farm Storage Ltd., Vauxhall. British Columbia: Vancouver Island Vegetable Co-op, Courtenay, B.C. Kelowna Growers Exchange Co-op., Kelowna, B.C. Cloverdale Lettuce & Vegetable Co-op, Cloverdale, B.C. Oliver-Osoyoos Growers Association, Oliver, B.C. Lake Area Co-operative Growers Assoc., Summerland, B.C. Manitoba: Haskett Growers Ltd., Stanley Man. New

Brunswick: Co-op Kent-Sud, Ste-Marie de Kent. Nova Scotia: Scotian Gold Co-operative Ltd., Kentville, N.S. Ontario Oxford Fruit Co-op Ltd., Woodstock Elgin Cooperative Services, St. Thomas Cedar Springs Cherry Growers Co-op Ltd., Blenheim, Ont. The Norfolks Fruit Growers Assoc., Simcoe, Ont. Bluewater Storage Ltd., Clarksburg Ontario Fruit-for- Processing Co-operative Ltd., St. Catharines. Quebec: Tremblay et Desroches Ltee, St-Alexis. Societe cooperative Agricole des Pomiculteurs de Rougemont, Rougemont.
6.	Budget allocation 1975-76: $2,000,000.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What were the (a) names (b) duties (c) salaries of (i) the Chairman (ii) other members of the study commission that prepared the report entitled Offshore Drilling for Oil in the Beaufort Sea - A Preliminary Assessment?
2.	Did the study relate to the dangers of pollution of (a) water (b) air and, if so, to what degree?
3.	Did the oil companies financially contribute to the research and, if so (a) which companies (b) to what extent in each case (c) were (i) multinational (ii) national companies involved?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: 1.	The report was the result of the work of many scientists both from the federal and private sectors. It was edited by A. R. Milne, Project Manager and B. D. Smiley, Project Biologist and incorporated the comments and observations of many departments. The final authority for the preparation of this report rested with a Steering Committee consisting of the following three members of Environment Canada. Dr. R. W. Stewart, Chairman, SX-2 $31,500-41,500, Director-General, Pacific Region, Ocean and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Marine Service. Dr. J. Clodman, REM-3 $29,000-37,200, Director, Meteorological Services Research Branch, Atmospheric Environment Service. Dr. A. McPherson, SX-2 $31,500-41,500, Director-General, Western and Northern Region, Environmental Management Service.
2.	The study considered that the pollution caused by oil in the water environment posed the greatest threat and the report concentrated on this aspect. The pollution to the air either by the natural escape of gas from a blow-out or by the burning of oil and gas in a countermeasure program was not considered to be as significant.
3.	The oil industry contributed a total of $4.1 million to
the Beaufort Sea Project through a direct transfer to Treasury Board. The industrial input was co-ordinated through the Arctic Petroleum Operators Association and also included the input of scientific and technical knowledge. There were eighteen companies involved and their respective contributions are as follows: Hunt International, multinational, $826,560, 20.16 per cent; Imperial Oil, multinational, $539,560,	13.16 per cent; Canadian Superior,
multinational, $494,460, 12.06 per cent; Aquitaine, multinational, $319,390, 7.79 per cent; Dome Petroleum, national, $300,490, 7.34 per cent; Elf, multinational, $252,970, 6.17 per cent; Sun Oil, multinational, $241,490, 5.89 per cent; Mobil Oil, multinational, $214,840, 5.24 per cent; Gulf, multinational, $214,430, 5.23 per cent; Hudson Bay Oil & Gas, multinational, $173,430, 4.23 per cent; Pan Arctic, national, $120,950, 2.95 per cent; Shell Canada, multinational, $100,-
March 4, 1976

040, 2.44 per cent; Arco, multinational, $84,460, 2.06 per cent; Canadian Export Oil & Gas, national, $63,960, 1.56 per cent; Global Marine, multinational, $63,140, 1.54 per cent; Union Oil, multinational, $43,050, 1.05 per cent; Amoco, multinational, $37,310, 0.91 per cent; Tennaco, multinational, $9,020, 0.22 per cent.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Eugene Whelan: the second reading of an concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to the amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-10, to amend the Feeds Act.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not like the manner in which this bill was presented to the House originally and I do not like how the other place amended the bill. It was first amended in the standing committee of the House of Commons.
In Votes and Proceedings of December 19, 1975, the following is printed:
A message was received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate concurs in the first and second amendments made by this House to Bill S-10, an act to amend the Feeds Act, but has amended the third amendment, as follows:
Strike out the third amendment-
I suggest that the Senate amendment before us is in an unintelligible form. The Senate refers to lines 7 to 30 on page 3 of the bill. If the suggested wording is substituted for the lines cited, the clause does not read properly. The amendment appears to refer to the bill as originally passed by the Senate and not to the version sent by this House to the other place for consideration.
If the error in the amendment had been made by a committee of this House, the correction could be made by the Law Clerk or by unanimous consent. Since this amendment comes to us in imperfect form, contrary to our Standing Order 69-not from any member, minister or committee here, but from the other place-I suggest we do not have the power to alter the Senate message and the amendment must be returned there for correction. I leave the matter for your judgment.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am confused as to the amendment. I agree with the previous speaker that the amendment appears to strike out subsection (3) and substitute therefore the section that appears in the reprinted bill which came from the Senate. Reading the minutes of the Senate and Votes and Proceedings, it is very difficult to assess exactly what they did. The effect is fairly obvious, but it seems that the form of the amendment and the description in Votes and Proceedings do not bear much relationship to the reprinted bill. There is some fault in it.
Tire Safety Act
The House should give consideration to the form in which it is presented, rather than discuss it when it is not clear what took place in the other place in relation to the amendment that had been made and incorporated in the original bill as it was returned from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this matter is rather complicated and it may require some time for Your Honour to consider it. I submit that the point made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) is well taken. We are prepared to accommodate the Chair with respect to time. I understand that the next order of business is Bill S-8. If it is appropriate, we are prepared to proceed with debate on Bill S-8. That may be helpful to the government in the dilemma in which they find themselves.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, the Senate amendment to the bill referred to it by the House contains only one modification of substance to the bill as amended by the House on November 26, 1975. That modification is to remove the penalty limit of $2,000 that may be applied to a corporation if found guilty of an offence and convicted on indictment. The limit is replaced by provision for a fine in the discretion of the court. The legal advice given to officers in my department is that this is within proper procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious that the Chair will need some time to examine the documents and consider the point of order that has been raised and contributed to by hon. members. I think the wisest course of action would be to consider the next item of business and leave this matter with the Chair until such time as I have had an opportunity to look at it. Perhaps prior to five o'clock I will be in a position to make a definitive ruling on the point of order.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the course that you propose is acceptable to the government. I might indicate my willingness, after reviewing the points that have been raised, to provide Your Honour with any wisdom I am able to muster.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this matter will stand for consideration later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTOR VEHICLE TIRE SAFETY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 16, 1975, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Transport), that Bill S-8, respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicle tires and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicle tires imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) had the floor at
21419 - 3514

Tire Safety Act
the time of the last debate. Unfortunately, he cannot be there today.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there was considerable concern over Bill S-8 with regard to the government wanting to have extensive records kept of tires being sold. However, the government has since changed its mind with regard to having this extensive recording system. It is indicated in a letter to the official opposition from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale) that this section will be removed. Similar legislation was passed in the United States in 1966. Studies show that the record system was only 25 per cent to 35 per cent effective. There is a move on foot in the U.S. to abandon this scheme and simply require the tire consumer to fill in the details of the purchase on a card supplied by the dealer and mail it to the tire manufacturer or importer. I understand the government will be introducing a similar scheme for Canada.
In order to allay any fears with regard to tire safety, I wish to point out that Bill S-8 follows essentially the same outline as its predecessor, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in its methods for instituting a single, unified set of government-regulated standards for motor vehicle tires. Out of the 20 million tires sold annually in Canada, six million are covered as original equipment of new motor vehicles by the regulations of the Motor Vehicle Safey Act. The remaining 14 million, however, are not covered by this legislation and may be manufactured and sold without having to conform to any federal set of standards.
There is a recall system. The establishment of a government-regulated recall system based on so comprehensive a set of records would cause much concern among tire manufacturers and distributors who see it as an unnecessary and extreme measure not worth the trouble and expense of its implementation. Between 50 million and 60 million transactions are involved in tire sales each year and it will be very costly for the manufacturer if he is held responsible for tracing each one. The expense of the proposed system would be reflected in an estimated 30 cents to 60 cents increase in the price per tire or a total of over $4 million annually to the consumer.
It is the opinion of the tire manufacturers that there are not enough incidents of recall or occurrences of defective tires leaking into the market to justify the cost and paperwork of the proposed record system when they already have efficient recall systems in effect. Tire companies, by the necessity of maintaining quality control, devote a large amount of time and capital to research and testing, along with recall systems which although rarely used are as effective as any possible. Therefore, there is an excellent system now working in Canada.
Canadian manufacturers have had to initiate very few recalls. Firestone of Canada, for example, has had to recall a series of tires that had reached the customer only once during their 53 years as a company, and this was because there was a possibility that they had not been properly installed on new 1973 Ford Mavericks. Because the cars themselves were registered, there was little difficulty in contacting the owners of these tires and the notification campaign was considered to be 100 per cent effective. Goodyear of Canada has had occasion to recall only one

series of tires in the past five years on account of a very minor defect.
In conclusion, if the bill passed in its original form it would serve as a precedent for government meddling in the affairs of private industry on the pretext of acting for the public safety.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is not the bill in the minister's name, and would he not be closing the debate if he speaks?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion I have before me is in the name of Mr. Sharp, so the minister is speaking for the first time.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the debate was opened by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale). I shall not devote time to stressing the clear objective of safety which is the purpose of this bill. The need for action in this regard was emphasized in the course of a coroner's inquest into an accident in Ontario during last summer, on June 27, at Cornwall. One of the recommendations made by the coroner was that tire manufacturers, in conjunction with the Department of Transport, should adopt more stringent testing procedures and that these tests should be enforced. This is what we are attempting to do as we apply safety standards to replacement tires as well as new tires.
I would simply confirm the comments made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. It has never been our view that an unnecessary burden should be imposed on those engaged in the manufacture or sale of tires, nor has it been our intention to incur unnecessary expense in the form of engaging extra inspectors to act on behalf of the government.
My parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Assiniboia, has written to the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) confirming that it would be our intention, in the course of the consideration of this bill in committee, to look favourable on amendments which would change the recording procedure so that a card procedure could be used on the basis of the purchaser having the burden of returning the card, rather than imposing an elaborate record keeping system on the seller. In addition, we would propose an amendment which would designate inspectors under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act as inspectors under the Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Act as well, thus avoiding duplication of inspection services.
With these changes, I commend the bill to hon. members and trust it may go speedily to committee for further consideration there clause by clause.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to commend the government for this general move. Let me say simply that the many coroner's reports I have read over the last 15 years point directly, and sometimes indirectly, to the fact that overloading of tires and tire defects are the cause of many highway deaths and injuries.
March 4, 1976

I hope that, in addition to allaying the fears of hon. members who have already spoken, the government will take this legislation very seriously, because aside from the odd case of tire defects being responsible for specific accidents it is my view that the overloading of tires per se by individual motor operators is the cause of many more accidents than we care to believe. As I say, leaving aside the question of obvious defects in the course of mass tire manufacture, it is my view that at least 35 per cent of the Canadian driving public are overloading their tires, and no amount of sophisticated investigation can tell the minister or the House to what extent overloaded tires are responsible directly or indirectly for motor vehicle accidents.
The overloading of cars on weekends or, for that matter, on any day of the week is a serious factor bearing on highway deaths and injuries, so anything the government can do to enforce the regulations in relation to this bill will play only a part in reducing what I call the worldwide epidemic of highway fatalities.
I realize we are verging upon a philosophical debate here when we talk about consumer protection. Do I have the right, when I go to a tire dealer, to look for a bargain? Certainly, I want to get the best possible tire at the best possible price. But we have to look at this very carefully. There are those who say we do not have the right to interfere with the free market; that a man should be able to buy whatever tire he chooses to put on his car. I can understand that point of view, but to my mind the only right I have when I go to buy a tire is to buy the safest tire for my car that modern technology can produce. I do not have the right, on a Friday night, because I can get a monetary bargain at a tire shop, to go out the next day and wipe out a whole family travelling to the country simply because I have saved a few dollars by putting cheap tires on my car.
We need to be clear about the rights of the individual in terms of what he can or cannot do when he goes shopping for a tire. I am not suggesting the minister should build up a bureaucracy, nor am I suggesting, as was done by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), that because the recording system failed in the United States it will fail in Canada. I am getting a little tired of that way of thinking. Our system does not necessarily have to be the same as the system used in the United States.
I believe the minister is willing to take a good initiative. I know all about the lobbying and the bureaucratic mess in the United States; I have been in touch with Mr. Nader on many occasions and I know in detail why the system failed in the United States. But there is no reason why it should fail in Canada. I have faith in the minister and his philosophy. Modern-day consumerism does not necessarily mean interfering in the marketplace. I believe that government, the public and the manufacturers have to work together, and if we do this in a sensible and adult way, goods can be produced at a reasonable price while yet being of a quality which ensures the protection of the individual.
I think we can find reasonably priced tires in the marketplace and at the same time be sure that they are the best tires that modern technology can produce. The public has a right to expect no less, whether the tires in question are new tires or replacement tires. With a minimum of expense and a maximum amount of modern-day surveil-
Tire Safety Act
lance, we can make sure that the individual buyer gets a good deal and the public gets the protection it deserves.
At the risk of being repetitive, while the minister quoted a specific coroner's report it is impossible to be specific about the number of death and injury-producing accidents that have occurred because the wrong tires were on a vehicle. In terms of manoeuvrability and handling, in terms of fatigue on a long journey, it is essential that a driver has the right tires on a vehicle. I think the minister will agree that no amount of specific investigation by a coroner would disclose that the tires were defective and caused an accident because one blew out, or something of that nature. In my view, the fact that the driver did not have the right tire on his vehicle during a long trip is a definite factor in the cause of a death or injury-producing accident.
Therefore, I commend the government for introducing this legislation and I hope the public and the industry will co-operate in playing some small part in reducing the worldwide epidemic of slaughter on our highways.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say only a few words on this bill. I want to echo the remarks of the previous speaker in saying we welcome the legislation, which provides some better standards in the area of safety, particularly of automobile tires. The legislation deserves the support of all.
May I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if the minimum safety requirements and safety marking of tires results in reducing the multiplicity of sizes and qualities of tires with which the consumer is presently faced, then we will have accomplished a good deal. While I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), one thing I am sure he appreciates as well as the minister is that when Joe Consumer goes into a tire store and he is faced with a multiplicity of makes, sizes and qualities, he is thoroughly confused and does not know what he is buying.
Further, I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) will work very closely together in the area of false and misleading advertising of tires. If you were to believe all the ads you see in the newspapers, Mr. Speaker, you would be able to buy the best tire in the world for almost nothing. The consumer is being harassed or confused in two ways: first, by the multiplicity of sizes, qualities, makes and names of tires; secondly, by the kind of advertising of these tires presented to him.
Another matter that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should look into relates to what are called standard tires. If a person makes the mistake of forgetting about the quality of the tires on a brand new car, he will automatically get tires on his car that are in fact unsafe and unreliable. The last time I ordered a car, Mr. Speaker, I ordered it with Oshawa delivery. It was a compact car and I picked it up in Oshawa. I had forgotten about the tires. The tires on my car were called standard tires, 4-ply, and then in brackets "2-ply rating". If you can get 15,000 to 18,000 miles out of

March 4, 1976
Tire Safety Act
these tires, Mr. Speaker, you are lucky. They are very cheap tires and you get cheap performance out of them.
I submit that that kind of standard for a so-called standard tire is totally inadequate. The tire is unsafe, yet it is automatically placed on a new automobile unless you specify that you want a higher ply rating, a higher quality tire. As a result of this, tens of thousands of brand new automobiles take to the roads in Canada with substandard, unsafe tires. It seems to me that this sort of nonsense of calling a tire a 4-ply tire, and then when you read the fine print you find it has a 2-ply rating, should cease.
I hope the result of this legislation will be that the standards are high enough that consumers, whether they purchase a new car without specifying a particular brand of tire, or whether they purchase new tires to replace worn out ones, will not have to try to work their way through the maze of tire sizes, qualities, names, kinds of tread, whether steel belted, non-steel belted, radial, nylon, rayon, polyester-everything but wool. I hope the legislation will require a sufficiently high standard that a good number of these sizes, makes and treads will have been eliminated from the market.
I also think the consumer should be much more realistic in purchasing something like an automobile tire. In trying to save a buck it may cost him his life or a limb. Cheap tires are cheap; you get exactly what you pay for. They are unsafe. Their quality is such that you cannot trust them at speeds of 60 or 70 miles an hour or on rough roads at slower speeds. There is a much greater tendency for them to break down under such conditions.
So far as advertising tires at cheap prices, special sales, and so on, is concerned, I am often amazed that one year a tire that I want of the size and quality I want will cost $40 or $45, and a year later, because they have developed some new size or tread, or a tire with a wider or narrower white wall, the tire is out of production and all of a sudden can be purchased for $15 or $20. This calls into question the kind of pricing practices used in selling tires which mislead the consumer if not falsely direct him.
If the safety requirements in this legislation raise the standards sufficiently high to reduce not only the massive number of sizes, kinds of tread, makes, and so forth, but also make it possible for the consumer to have a fair degree of confidence in the product he is buying, then the legislation deserves not only the support of all members of the House but the maximum of enforcement. How many times has our parliament passed legislation placing a better standard on a certain sector of our economy, and when the regulations come down or when instructions go out to the civil servants responsible for enforcing the legislation, the government's heart is not in it?
The tire manufacturers, just like the automobile manufacturers, plead and beg and go to whatever other lengths they have to in an effort to get the government to take it easy, to spread the regulations out over a period of several years so that they will have time in which to retool their plant. They will go to great lengths in order to get the government to lay off, with no consideration for the welfare, comfort and safety of the users of the tires. Suddenly
[Mr. Benjamin.)
the urgency concerns the welfare, the capital and the wishes of the manufacturer of the tires.
We, the government, and those in the public service responsible for the enforcement of the laws should keep in mind that tire manufacturers are very adept at retooling very quickly when they come up with a new kind of tire. In that situation there is no problem. However, when regulations are involved, suddenly they need all kinds of time. They say they must have time to recover their capital costs, and so on. In such cases the legislation is not enforced for a period of many months, and sometimes years. We have seen this happen in many other areas such as packaging, labelling, and so on.
I hope this is not the case in this instance. I hope the minister and his officials will not allow the tire and automobile manufacturers, as well as the dealers, an inordinate length of time in which to abide by this legislation. That is not necessary. I hope it is mandatory at a very early date. I hope also that the public will realize that tires may cost a few dollars more but consumers will get a better quality tire. I hope they realize that in fact they will get their money's worth, because until now, on too many occasions and in respect of too many kinds of tires, even when people bought the best tires they were not getting their money's worth but, rather, were being conned into cleaning out the tire inventory of some manufacturer and were receiving inadequate and unsafe tires.
I hope not only that the bill passes quickly, but is enforced quickly and that we do not move in the way we have on many previous occasions and allow these people to make excuses and request an inordinate length of time in which to abide by the legislation. They always have been able to move quickly when it has suited their purpose. Now we want them to do so in order to suit the needs of the consumers of automobile tires in Canada.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the tire distributors in my area have expressed up until just recently very serious concerns and reservations concerning the very heavy onus and responsibility that would be placed upon them. I am pleased to see that the government has withdrawn the pertinent sections which would place the responsibility for registration and recording upon the small businessmen who already, as hon. members of this House know, are overwhelmed by the daily pressure to provide bureaucratic information that must cross their desks and which subsequently ends up in some remote area of Ottawa. So certainly there was an enormous sigh of relief or of well-being from the automotive dealers and the industry concerning the subject of registration.
I recognize the advantages involved in the registration of tires. I recognize the fact that now the responsibility will be on the consumer to fill out the proposed registration card and send it to the tire manufacturer. I wonder how many Canadian consumers will in fact bother to fill out the registration card. I suppose it will be similar to the situation in respect of the filling out of warranty cards in relation to electric frying pans, toasters, and some of the other commodities on the market which have a warranty. Some people are very assiduous and faithful in sending in the warranties-they protect their investment-while others simply ignore the warranty. The peril is then with the individual. The responsibility is on the individual to
March 4, 1976

respond by sending in the registration card to the tire manufacturer.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) when he expressed concern about drivers who overload their cars. He referred to the high percentage of people who drive on the highway with overloaded cars. I suppose this is a matter of public information, just as is the matter of seat belts. There are those segments of the public who readily appreciate they have four objects on their cars which sometimes revolve at a very high rate of speed. These people realize that their tires can be responsible for their ultimate destiny instead of their ultimate destination. On reflection, however, I think it will be found that the majority of Canadians simply do not worry about how much air pressure they have in their tires. About the only time they have their tires inflated is when they switch from summer tires to winter tires, or from winter tires to summer tires, or if a tire becomes soft and this affects the steering of the car.
A person driving a car rarely looks at his tires. Possibly if he takes the car in for an oil change or a grease job the service station attendant, if he is interested, will draw the attention of the owner to a bad cut in his right front tire, or a developing bulge, or whatever the case might be.
When we review the statistics of automobile accidents and the contributing causes, and when we read about a serious accident, it is not uncommon to find that the owner of the automobile has been fined for driving with bald tires. Let us not lay all the blame for faulty tires on the manufacturers. It does not matter whether the owner of an automobile buys the most expensive tires or the cheapest; if he does not look after the tires, that is his fault and is certainly not the fault of the manufacturer.
The driver of a car tends to take the tires for granted. I can speak with some measure of authority on this subject because for some ten years I enjoyed the hobby, which turned out to be a rather expensive hobby, of amateur racing. To me and to my fellow drivers the tires were vitally important. I am amused by the advertising I see today concerning radial tires. I can remember the time when the general public did not know what a radial tire was, although at that time they were readily available, particularly to those involved in racing.
Although I do not wish to give a commercial at this point, I might say that the Englebert, Pirelli and the Michelin tires were excellent. Although I shall not give a commercial for the manufacturer, I can recall one set of tires on which I never succeeded in wearing out the tread. The sidewalls finally gave out before the tread. After hours of continuous racing I inspected those tires and they looked as if they had never been off the showroom floor. It is possible for a manufacturer to engineer tires, not for eternity but certainly of a very high standard and quality, just as it is possible to engineer tire obsolescence. It is the same thing with any other product on the market.
Finally, there is a concern which has been voiced today by one hon. member with reference to the quality of the tires installed on new cars. I have another concern which I think at some point down the line needs the attention of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and
Tire Safety Act
that is with reference to the advertising we see for automobile tires. Is the tiger claw better than the rain tire? What is a tiger claw tire? Is the tire which costs $49.95 much better than the tire costing $39.98? One can go into a service station and find a variety of prices for a variety of qualities of tires with a variety of trade names. One can drive up the street to another service station which is handling another line and be confronted with the same thing.
I hope the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or perhaps the tire industry itself, will decide not to try to confuse the public quite so much and will tell the public that there is a good tire worth so much and a cheaper tire worth so much, which is not recommended but would be all right for a little old lady who drives around at 20 miles an hour. I hope they will tell the public that there is a medium priced tire which is fine for lighter automobiles and small compacts. There is such a variety of choices that it must boggle the mind of the consumer. Surely they must think about the cheapest and go for the lowest quality, or about safety and go for the highest quality. I wonder sometimes if the most expensive tire is really the best tire, in terms of quality, handling and being best for a particular automobile. The radial tire is a great innovation, but there are certain cars which do not handle as well with radial as with conventional tires.
There are many areas which could be examined by the industry. It should not have to be done by the government. Perhaps Senate Bill S-8 will act as a guideline and an incentive to industry to address itself more seriously to the matters of which I have spoken. I note that the bill will be going back for possible amendments. I have noted a couple of clauses which I have some reservations about, for example, the one dealing with the degree of latitude for inspectors. The bill is a little overgenerous with regard to the actions of inspectors and how much freedom they may have. However, the basic thrust and intent of this bill, together with the amendments of which we have been assured by the government, make it acceptable. I compliment the minister and the government on its introduction, and that is something I am not very often inclined to do.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to give credit where credit is due, and when speaking about Bill S-8 we ought to compliment the members of the other place for the work they have done in bringing forward this legislation. Many times that part of the institution is discredited and maligned across the country, and I think this is an appropriate time to give it the credit which is due.
I am reminded of one of my favourite columnists of the Vancouver Province, a man by the name of Eric Nicol who, when he was reflecting on the appointment of the latest member of the other place, said: "This appointment gives new stimulus to the debate on whether there is life after death." However, when he referred to this chamber he said: "The House of Commons, in contrast, raises the question whether there is life before death." I suspect that that is a relevant question every once in a while.
This legislation gives us some heart and some encouragement with regard to the good, productive work that is done in the other place. In conjunction with that, I must compliment the members of the other place on the background

March 4, 1976
Tire Safety Act
work they carried out in order to make this bill as relevant and meaningful as possible, and on the fact that they conducted hearings in order to bring forward the evidence necessary for the drafting of this legislation and for making sure it is in line with the needs of the industry and the needs of the economy.
While I am not usually the first to compliment the government, in this case I compliment them for having broadly consulted the industry regarding what ought to be included in this legislation. We on this side and, I am sure, hon. members opposite have often tried to encourage the government to seek more advice from those who know best with regard to what kind of legislation would be helpful to the economy and to the benefit of the consumer in this area. There have been a good many who have already raised the issue of the kind of bureaucratic paperwork which would have been involved in the administration of this legislation should it have passed in its original form. That kind of discussion and debate brings me to a second point. I should like to pay a compliment to the government for listening to opposition from within its own ranks and from across the chamber to the extent that it is now willing to introduce an amendment which will, by and large, eliminate that kind of bureaucratic paperwork.
I have received representations from the retail industry in my riding. These people were very concerned about the onerous work which would have been involved in processing the registration of tires as outlined in this bill in its original form. I shudder to think of the great amount of paperwork which would have been involved and the cost which would have been passed on to the consumer had the legislation passed in its original form. So I sincerely compliment the government on the way it has responded to criticism in this regard.
However, there are still two areas I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and the government in which they could help the industry; and by helping the industry I believe they would help consumers. I think it would be helpful if the government gave some sense of assurance and security to the industry regarding its own future in relation, for example, to tariff duties or import duties. I have some statistics regarding the net balance of the import and export of tires. I note that between 1967 and 1974, a period of eight years, the import of tires increased fourfold. Granted, the export has also increased.
However, it seems to me that if the federal government really wants to help indigenous industry in Canada, it could do so, not by wholesale protectionism and raising tariff walls around the country, but by at least making sure that the industry knows where it is in terms of the tariffs which would exist. If the tariffs are going to fluctuate between 17 per cent and 12 per cent, the industry will never know where it is and will never know how to plan the future. The government would be doing our economy a great service if it gave the industry some kind of assurance that it could anticipate the level of protection it will receive in the way of tariff duties.
I should like to refer to another area which has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), and that is advertising. I am sure it is

common not only to the tire industry but to many other industries that a great deal of misleading advertising goes on-not so much outright lying about the quality of the product as the creation of a climate of "buyer beware". Some years ago I worked in a gas station and I was confused about the quality of tires I was selling to unsuspecting buyers. The company had a premium tire which was the top of the line, but not many years later it came out with a deluxe tire. It was up to the sales agent to make sure the buyer understood that the premium tire was no longer the top of the line, but the deluxe tire was. Then they produced a super deluxe tire. Again, it was a case of "buyer beware". Was the super deluxe the top of the line, or was a radial or steel belted tire better than the super deluxe?
I know the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has done a considerable amount of work to try to stop this kind of misleading advertising in all industries. There should no longer be a "buyer beware" atmosphere in the marketplace. I realize we cannot always take the buyer by the hand and make sure he is not going to get hurt; he has to exercise some intelligence and independence in the marketplace and be responsible for his own purchases-but he should not be subjected to misleading advertising.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I commend the government for introducing amendments that I believe will greatly improve the tire industry. I should like the government to entertain suggestions that in my opinion would give the industry a better sense of security in planning its direction and providing the kind of industry that Canada deserves. Also, the unsuspecting consumer should not be left to the devices of the advertising agencies of tire manufacturers when faced with the classification of tires.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the other place introduced this bill concerning vehicle safety by designing a trademark for Canadian-produced tires. I am pleased to see that on the "Canadian approved" label there will be included several other pieces of necessary information. One is the ply rating and what it means, and the other is the class of tire-premium, first-line, second-line or whatever. Thus, the buyer will have a yardstick and will know whether he is getting a bargain.
I agree that it was not fair or reasonable to leave the registration of tires in the hands of the corner service station but, rather, to leave it with the manufacturer. The information will be on the warranty returned to the manufacturer, and recalls can be made in an orderly manner. Changes of address and other things will be recorded by the manufacturer, who will have on hand the machinery to check vehicle records and ascertain who owns the tires if recall should be necessary.
The legislation covers two points of prime importance. In many cases I do not think the manufacturers were very honest in the manner of advertising tires. A few years ago most tires were classed as equal; the 4-ply rating was listed as a 2-ply tire. Two-ply tires were put on almost every new car in the country by the manufacturers of automobiles. In my opinion, that was risking the safety of everyone who drove on those tires. It was all very well in the city to use a 2-ply tire, although if you ran over a broken bottle or a small stone it was disastrous. In rural areas, however, with
March 4, 1976

gravel roads the tires were a hazard. They lasted for only
10,000	or 12,000 miles. In my opinion, the public was being cheated by manufacturers who indicated that a 4-ply tire rating was being provided with a 2-ply tire. Under most off-highway driving conditions that was not true and the tires had to be replaced in a short time.
I know that some large companies in the automobile business sell tires which are classed as seconds. Perhaps there is a flaw in the tire which is repaired to meet certain standards, but still they are seconds. It will now be very difficult for a manufacturer to put a label on those tires that will tell the consumer they are second-hand tires, repaired tires or seconds in terms of some defect. As I read the bill, there are no provisions covering the sale of those tires. A large number of tires are culled by the tire manufacturers and sold through hardware stores or automobile stores. They are sold as loss leaders. However, this legislation will not guarantee that they will meet safety standards.
I shall now deal with radial tires. Long before domestic or North American manufacturers produced radial tires, European manufacturers of good reputation were making high quality radials. Now they are available in this country. You can get ordinary radials or steel belted radials. At one time, domestic manufacturers pretended in their advertising that non-radial tires were better than radials. We know that this is not necessarily true. For a long time North American manufacturers were reluctant to admit that the manufacturers of other countries made tires superior in safety and over-all quality to tires made in North America. I suppose Canadian and American manufacturers want nothing to do with a process they cannot control.
Now, of course, we manufacture radial tires. It is generally agreed that for certain drivers, certain automobiles and certain driving conditions, steel belted radials are best, as their performance is sometimes superior to that of other tires. Not all drivers like radial tires as they react differently and do not corner like conventional tires. Some say that the safety record of radials is superior to that of conventional tires. Personally, I do not like steel belted tires; this is just my own preference. I am not used to the way a car corners with them and find that a radial tire equipped car handles somewhat differently. But that is by the way.
I suggest that the government should institute a method for rating the safety of tires imported into this country. Foreign tire manufacturers ought to meet safety specifications laid down by the government, and consumers ought to be made aware of those specifications. As new tires are developed, new standards and specifications will also need to be developed to protect consumers.
This bill will not affect retreaded tires. It says nothing about the state of casings or when tires may safely be retreaded. Often a small manufacturer retreads tires in a small factory. The provincial motor vehicles branch exercises little control over him. Surely we should introduce standards for retreads. For instance, how does one know how well the retread will stick to the casing? The retreading process involves great heat and in my opinion no tire should be retreaded more than twice. The original casing
Tire Safety Act
should not be used for a third retread. Unfortunately, buses in my area use tires which have been retreaded three or more times. They ply the public highways on unsafe tires, often at unsafe speeds, and constitute a hazard.
Commercial vehicles also use retreads. How many members of parliament have driven behind a truck loaded to the limit and bouncing all over the road on retreaded tires? You know that it will not be long before some of those tires are spread all over the road-and you hope you are not behind the truck when it happens. I sometimes see two or three of the eight or ten wheels of a commercial vehicle out of alignment and out of balance. Sometimes these trucks are driven in a way not conducive to safety.
As retreads play an important part in truck operations, the government ought to establish standards governing the safety of retreads. I suggest that there should be stamped on such tires the original date of manufacture and the date of subsequent retreads. Then anyone could tell at a glance the history of the tire and judge how safe it was. Tire manufacturers should be made responsible for their tires. There is not much point in asking service station operators to report on the conditions of tires; they have enough work to do. As for the average motor vehicle inspector, unless the truck is 15 years old and needs a paint job, he is not likely to look at the tires.
Provision should be made for records of tires to be kept as many commercial vehicles drive coast to coast on retreaded, revulcanized tires. I suggest the government ought to consider this matter. I have never thought manufacturers should be the arbiters of safety standards and I am not willing to allow them this decision. I am, therefore, pleased to see language in this bill whereby manufacturers and the federal government jointly will establish standards for Canadian and imported tires. Standards will be arrived at in co-operation between the industry and the federal government. This is essential, because there are many new cars on the road today that are not very safe. Many of them I would not consider buying or even accepting as a gift. I could name some of them. However, anyone who drives them knows their defects and unsafe condition; they are fairly apparent. In some cases the motor is too big for the body, or the tire size is too small for the weight of the vehicle.
As the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Graff-tey) mentioned, this problem with regard to safety has not been met by the manufacturers. Tires installed on new cars are overloaded. One need only go back a few years when 2-ply tires were installed on new Chevs and Fords. You endangered your life by driving on a gravel road. I am sure many members could state unfortunate experiences they have had with 2-ply tires in rural communities. In other manufacturing fields as well, certain standards were set which the manufacturers considered safe, but they did not pass the standards of anyone else. The work of the motor vehicles branch should be extended considerably. This bill is a worth-while start.
No member should leave here thinking we have solved the automobile tire safety problem without considering the other two problems to which I have referred, retreads and substandard tires rejected by the manufacturer as top line
11502

Tire Safety Act
tires. They are repaired and put on the market as seconds even though they are in new condition as far as the tread is concerned. Hopefully, all members, including those in the other place, will pursue this matter of safety and give consideration to these other two fields. Anyone who has driven an automobile is well aware of the fact that if you do not have safe tires, you not only jeopardize your own safety but that of everyone else.
I congratulate the Senate for the work they have done in this field, and the members of the committee who studied this matter in depth and suggested these changes. I hope those considering the question of safety will continue their vigilance and will provide the manufacturers with more stringent safety standards which they can and must meet, thereby ensuring a higher degree of safety for the motoring public of Canada.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I must commend the Senate for putting Bill S-8 before the House because it is a very important bill.
Nearly everything has already been said on the matter but I want to support the arguments made by those who spoke before me, particularly on the aspect of road safety. Statistics tell us that 16 to 18 per cent of road accidents are explained in part by the fact that a tire manufacturer recommends a certain size of tires, a certain type of tires guaranteed for so many miles, for example, in all safety, but after half of the mileage announced in the papers the tire is nearly worn out, that is the tire is no longer safe.
I am talking here about the category of tires that sell for $20 to $60 depending on the place where you buy them. That is quite amazing. As to a similar tire, of the same size, you do not know whether it is a tire that was repaired or retreaded, and it is sold for $20 to $60. Those who cannot afford to buy a tire at $60, or who are misinformed, could pay a tire $20, $22, $23 or $26, particularly in those retail chain outlets. I have no grudge against chain stores but I want to point particularly at the manufacturers who supply those chain stores, when they put ads in papers which mislead the consumer by offering him a $60 tire for $23 or $24 and alleging that it is of the same size and the same quality as the $60 one.
We also have that category of tires, the same category of tires that we would call reinforced nylon. Those types of tires are not balanceable. The evidence is there. I used some from different groups and those tires are very difficult to balance and they need to be balanced every 10,000 miles. If you do not have the time, the steering mechanism becomes disaligned. Yet those tires were paid a high price, about $55, $58 a tire depending on the company, and the consumer is misled on top of that. I was misled like others. That is why I think this bill comes at the right time and I would urge the government to be increasingly strict in this regard.
Also, I would not want to end my remarks before drawing the attention of the House on that question of retreaded tires, particularly on commercial vehicles. Mr. Speaker, many members have driven on highways like me. Certain tires have treads that come from trucks or buses, large treads up to two, three or four feet long and quite large. That tread comes off the carcass of the tire, and I think

this is a cause of accidents, particularly if it is raining. If this tread comes off the casing of the tire, I believe it only means that such a tire should not be put back on the market. Either the company which retreads it is incompetent, or there is not enough control in the matter.
Those are the comments I wanted to make to the House; they show that there are more road accidents and, consequently, increases in motor vehicle insurance costs, not to speak of the many injuries and inconveniences.
I would also like to congratulate the sponsor of the bill. I know that the Senate made the first steps and that the government keeps heading in that direction, which I believe is the right one. Since cars are faster and faster due to the increasing number of horse-powers, tires must ever be stronger. We must also take into account the sudden changes in temperature that we have in this country.
I think the government is heading in the right direction and they should make it more and more difficult for a manufacturer to put tires on the market, so that consumers should not be deceived.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally intended to take part in this debate, but I felt moved to address a few remarks to this legislation for a couple of reasons, one which is personal in the sense that I should establish the fact that the member for Saskatoon-Biggar has been in his place trying to be recognized in the question period for a couple of days, and just to remind Mr. Speaker that it is possible to recognize me even in the course of an important debate such as this one. The second one is, of course, the fact that the minister responsible for this particular piece of legislation is my friend and colleague from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), and somehow I feel compelled to stand and address myself to legislation for some reason whenever he is involved in it, because of my friendship and admiration for him.
The fact of the matter is that I am not addressing this particular legislation as an expert on tire manufacture, as is the case with some of my colleagues, but rather as a consumer with some interest, which I am sure is shared by many members in this House, in the area of automotive and automobile safety, motor vehicle safety, and in this case motor vehicle tire safety.
Mr. Speaker, I think this piece of legislation is complementary to existing legislation on the books now, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In other words, there is great similarity between the provisions of this particular bill and the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself as far as certification of acceptable safety standards, in this case tires, and, in the case of the act, motor vehicles generally. I would like at this time to commend the minister for his flexibility with respect to representations that have been received in connection with this legislation.
I would also like to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), for the particular initiative he has taken in this case to try to bring forward some amendments, some changes to the legislation that are rational and reasonable. The result, I think, will be to remove a very heavy obligation on the
March 4, 1976

average, small, tire businessman and to place that obligation with respect to tire safety more in the hands of the tire manufacturer.
I think we are all in agreement that this is a worth while and very valid point that has been taken by my colleague, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth, and the ministry has seen fit at this point in time to accept the suggestion and to indicate by correspondence to the member its intentions to bring forward amendments to the legislation.
I would like to address myself to two aspects with respect to this legislation because of the similarity that I see between this bill and the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Possibly when the minister is closing the debate on second reading and responding to the inquiries and suggestions made during this debate he will also be good enough to elaborate on whether or not my apprehension is well founded, or whether provision has been made to avoid a pitfall which may be contained in the bill. I have been in correspondence with the minister in respect to some complaints on particular defects that I have received with reference to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, of which the minister, I am sure, is aware.
I raised with the minister at that time an inquiry as to the operation of that act because it was, quite frankly, not clear to me whether the act was being interpreted in accordance with my reading of it. The complaint I raised with the minister was that the only motor vehicle defect which is considered by the Ministry of Transport or the appropriate agency of the ministry was of such a nature that the operator of the vehicle would not have reasonable warning of the defect.
In other words, if I understand the correspondence which I have had with the Department of Transport in this area, it was the case that the defect was one which must make itself obvious or apparent and of which the driver or owner was or should have been aware, before the agency of the department involved in defect investigation would be seized with jurisdiction and responsibility. The extent to which this interpretation might apply is rather questionable. The example I presented to the minister was one of alleged defects in the steering mechanism, and the response I received from the Department of Transport was that because of the fact there should have been, and from their investigations usually was, a cracking sound in the steering mechanism, this should have put an operator on guard for defect. Therefore, this was not the kind of defect they would normally concern themselves with.
It seemed to me, on the basis of that response from the department, that I should first get clarification from the minister of the interpretation and, second, if that in fact is the case, I had made a representation that I thought the department should concern itself with defects regardless of whether or not a prudent man might in fact have noticed something wrong with the vehicle. The same questions would apply with this tire standards bill. If there is any defect at all with respect to a tire or a motor vehicle, it seems to me there should be an investigation. If a defect is reported to the department, there should be an investigation and appropriate action taken, regardless of whether it is the kind of defect an operator might have prior notice of in the normal operation of a vehicle or, in the case of a tire,
Tire Safety Act
in the way in which the tire seemed to operate on the vehicle.
I would appreciate very much at this point in time, and possibly in anticipation of a letter which I will receive in due course-or if the minister is going to address himself to this bill on second reading to close the debate-if he would simply clarify that point which I now raise and possibly enunciate the department's official policy with respect to the reasons for such interpretation, or his concurrence that some change should be made to this legislation and the legislation respecting motor vehicles.
I want to go back, if I may, to the amendments that are apparently being suggested to this legislation by the minister. It seems to me there is no complaint about the standards and the certification aspects of the bill. Apparently they have received the approbation of the Rubber Association of Canada which speaks on behalf of the tire manufacturers in our country, and therefore there seems to be general acceptance of the main part of the bill. As I say, I am glad to see that there was a reasonable amount of flexibility shown by the department by agreeing to change the provisions of the bill whereby every dealer would be required to keep detailed records of sales and certification requirements.
This would, of course, place a very substantial burden on the small businessman and there are many thousands of small entrepreneurs across our country who, Lord knows, have enough facing them as it is. I think those amendments are worth while and are worthy of our support, in effect providing for the consumer a form that can be submitted to the manufacturer. The matter of registration can be taken care of in this manner, as is done in the case of many other appliances, utensils and commodities of every description.
I want to indicate, on second reading, that I fully support the intent of this legislation. Anything we in parliament can do to increase the safety aspect of motor vehicle operation will receive our almost unanimous support. Our comments here are meant to be of a constructive nature so we have the best possible legislation, and I trust suggestions from the opposition will be accepted from time to time since we have such outstanding and vigilant members as the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth, who has brought forward rational and sensible proposals for the government on each occasion I have heard him speak.
In conclusion, may I indicate to the House that my investigation of this matter has indicated that we have a very good record as far as the Canadian tire manufacturer is concerned. That is to say, there is very little evidence of a serious tire defect problem affecting the safety of our motor vehicles, and the industry is to be commended for this. But that is not to say that we should not in fact be vigilant in the interests of the average citizen who operates a motor vehicle. A growing number of our population drive motor vehicles. Apparently something in the vicinity of 80 per cent of all travel in Canada is by motor vehicle.
I understand it to be the case that these standards will apply not only to our own domestically manufactured tires but also to tires that are imported. I also understand that tires imported into Canada account for something in the
21419 - 3614

March 4, 1976
Veterans Insurance
vicinity of 50 per cent of all tires sold in Canada. I think another reason the bill should be supported is that it is desirable that we have a uniform standard of tire regardless of the place of manufacture, a responsibility which is placed upon those who bring tires into this country for sale.
Certain members on the other side are now indicating that they wish me to speak for another five minutes. I am hesitant to do so as I feel I have made the contribution that I wished to make. I close by commending my colleague from Halton-Wentworth, and also the Minister of Transport for his approach to this particular legislation. May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence in hearing my point of view on this very important matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.

Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-86, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act and the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to move second reading of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Veterans Insurance Act and the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. These two acts are perhaps less familiar to hon. members than some of the other statutes embodied in the veterans' charter. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, it may be useful for me to describe very briefly their purpose and scope.
Parliament enacted the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act and the Veterans Insurance Act to provide access to life insurance coverage primarily for veterans not able to secure this form of economic protection for their dependants through commercial carriers. Eligibility under the legislation, however, was not restricted to those faced with that difficulty and insurance coverage was available to all veterans.
The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act provided coverage of up to $5,000 for veterans of World War I. Approximately
48.000	policies were issued between 1920 and 1933, representing a face value of just over $109 million; 2,500 policies remain in force with a face value of $5V4 million. Some
18.000	contracts have been settled as death claims and a similar number for their cash surrender value; 9,000 contracts have been terminated for other reasons.
The Veterans Insurance Act, which applies to veterans of World War II, received royal assent in August, 1944. This act provided coverage of up to $10,000. As with several other legislative provisions for veterans, October 31, 1968, was established as the closing date for applications for the issue of policies; 56,000 contracts were entered into, providing $185 million of coverage; 19,000 policies, for a face amount of over $60 million, now remain in force; just over
9.000	policies have been settled as death claims; 23,500 were

surrendered for their cash values and 4,200 were terminated for other reasons.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the bill before us. Its purposes are, first, to change the manner of insurance settlement as policies mature through the death of the insured and, second, to bring the two insurance statutes into harmony with other social legislation concerning common law unions. Some hon. members will recall that they have received representations about these matters from constituents who are either policyholders or beneficiaries. I am pleased to have had these representations brought to my attention by those hon. members. Similar representations have been made directly to me and to officials of my department. These proposed amendments are the government's response to that very clearly identified need.
Specifically, the first amendment provides an option in the manner of settlement of insurance claims which is not available now to the insured veteran or to his beneficiary. It permits a policyholder to elect to have full policy proceeds paid in a lump sum to his beneficiary or beneficiaries on his death. This option is also extended to the beneficiaries who will also have the choice of taking proceeds in a lump sum or as an annuity at the time the policy becomes payable. As the legislation now stands, immediate death benefit may only be paid up to $2,000, with the balance paid as an annuity. The only exceptions to this manner of settlement are those cases where policy proceeds are not greater than $3,000 for each recipient. Under these circumstances, proceeds may be paid in a lump sum at the request of the beneficiary and with the consent of the minister. It will be clear to hon. members that this amendment recognizes that policyholders and beneficiaries are the best judges of the type of policy settlement which meets their particular needs most effectively. The government considers that the current legislation inhibits the freedom of choice of those directly affected by it.
The second amendment permits the recognition of a common law spouse as the beneficiary of an insurance contract. As hon. members know, similar recognition of common law unions has already been incorporated into other social legislation, including the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. The bill provides that a common law spouse designated by the insured as the beneficiary of his insurance policy may be paid the proceeds of the policy if the couple have resided together and have publicly represented themselves as man and wife for a period of at least three years where there is a bar to their marriage, and at least one year's duration where there is no such bar. This change in the legislation enables compliance with the expressed wish of the insured with respect to disposition of the proceeds of his insurance policy. This is not possible under the present legislation.
If parliament approves the bill now presented, my department will inform all policyholders and annuitants under both acts of the implication of the changes and will provide ample opportunity for present contracts to be adjusted as desired.
Mr. Speaker, before I close may I say, as has been said on previous occasions, that all hon. members of this House have consistently shown a high level of interest in veter-
March 4, 1976

ans' legislation and in ensuring that the contribution made to the national interest by those we refer to as veterans is adequately recognized. I believe that the bill before us reflects that concern of this government and of this House. I hope the House will ensure speedy passage of this bill for early incorporation in the veterans' charter.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure, on behalf of the official opposition, to speak in support of Bill C-86 as presented by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). This is a routine bill to amend the Veterans Insurance Act and the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. It will allow insured persons and beneficiaries to opt for certain variations in the manner of payment under contracts of insurance. It will also deem designated beneficiaries, under prescribed circumstances, to be surviving spouses of the insured.
As the acts now stand, payment to a beneficiary under an insurance contract is as a lump sum not exceeding $2,000 with the remainder, if any, payable in some form of annuity as decided on by the insured person. The amendments in Bill C-86 would give the insured person the option to decide that the beneficiary should be paid the full face value of the policy or a lesser amount with the remainder to be paid in some form of annuity as decided on by the insured person.
Additional amendments in Bill C-8.6 give the beneficiary the right, after the death of the insured person to opt to be paid the commuted value of all future annuity payments in a lump sum or to opt for some other combination of lump sum and annuity payments. In other words, the beneficiary can, after the death of the insured person, alter the terms of payment of the policy. I think this removes the rather paternalistic way in which the act has had to be administered in its present form. It has been sort of a "father knows best" situation, a situation in which only the department knew how these benefits should be distributed. I think a realistic approach has been taken in respect of this change. I think it is a realization of the fact that the veteran's beneficiary has better knowledge of the financial situation in which he or she may find themselves after the death of the insured.
Clause 4(2) and clause 6(6) amend the acts for the benefit of common law spouses. We know the officials of the department have run into some difficult situations where the surviving spouse has perhaps lived with a veteran for up to 30 years as man and wife, but on the basis of the present legislation was deprived of benefit under the act. These amendments, as I say, provide that an insured person may designate as a beneficiary, as if that person were his spouse, someone with whom he had been living immediately prior to his death for a period of not less than three years if a previous marriage of one of the persons prevented their remarriage, or not less than one year if there was no prohibition against their marrying. This provision-I think this is an important aspect-is subject to the discretion of the minister who must be satisfied that the two lived together and represented themselves as man and wife. A new amendment to the acts would allow payment to be made to the deemed spouse even if the insured misrepresented his relationship to that spouse.
I think this clause which gives ministerial discretion is a mechanism to correct any obvious injustices arising out of
Adjournment Motion
a common law relationship and greatly changes the position of a surviving spouse of a legal marriage. There has been some question about this, but it seems to me that the ministerial discretion here is most important. I am sure the minister will exercise the proper discretion should some dispute arise between the spouse by a legal marriage and the common law, surviving spouse. It appears that nothing in this legislation affects the validity of any payment of insurance money made to a beneficiary under the terms of the Veterans Insurance Act of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act prior to the coming into force of this new act.
This bill allows greater flexibility to both the insured person and the beneficiary in respect of how insurance should be paid. It also meets the case of common law spouses. We in the opposition see no reason to oppose passage of this bill. The members of the official opposition who are interested in this legislation have discussed it with veterans. I can indicate to the minister that there will be no opposition to its passage. I assure the minister we will give third reading to the bill this day or, I might say, at this hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening are as follows: The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre)-Government Administration- Alleged discrepancy between item in estimates and in pamphlet "How your tax dollar is spent"; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Research-Suggested reconsideration of freeze on funds; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Penitentiaries-British Columbia-Request for report on seizing of hostages.
Before proceeding with private members' hour, I indicated earlier that I had hoped, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) concerning the difficulty with regard to Bill S-10, I would be able to come back at this hour with a decision. It will not, regrettably, be possible to deal with this matter until tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I called it five o'clock, I hope it did not sound as though I were disagreeing with the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) when he suggested that we could dispose of this bill in this hour. If the House would like to suspend private members' business in this hour to deal with Bill C-86, I should be quite happy.

March 4, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to surrender private members' hour if the House would set another time to provide me an opportunity to proceed with my bill, Bill S-30.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, yes, we agree.


Mr. Speaker:: I have all the ingredients of a very incomplete agreement. Everyone seems to be agreed that this hour might be used to proceed in the suggested manner, provided the hon. member be given another hour to proceed with his bill. I do not know how that can be agreed with any degree of certainty. The battle lines having been very clearly drawn on this matter one week ago, it is evident that private members' hour today should, and will, be used to discuss further the bill regarding the bank incorporation which was before us a week ago.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 26, consideration of Bill S-30, to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: We are now resuming discussion on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) which, at the request of the Chair, was held over until today and on which the hon. member gained the floor at about three or four minutes to six last week.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) has placed on the order paper a series of amendments for discussion at the report stage. I want to discuss the impact of those amendments as a whole because in point of fact their net effect is to express an expanded negative to the general principle of the bill before us, Bill S-30.
The point I want to make is that the purpose of Bill S-30' is to take an already existing financial institution lawfully operating under the jurisdiction of provincial authority, and to transform that institution into a bank which would conform to the laws of this parliament and this jurisdiction. In order to be able to change the operations and the structure of that organization, operating lawfully under a particular jurisdiction, to one which could operate under the jurisdiction of the Bank Act, it is necessary to provide certain changes in order to bring the organization known as IAC into conformity with the Bank Act.

The amendments proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge go to the heart of this change. If it were possible for the people behind the proposal to create the Continental Bank to proceed by way of a model bill as outlined in the Bank Act, they would have been most happy to have done so; but because they were taking an existing organization and wishing to transform it into an organization operating under the Bank Act, it was necessary for them to engage in long discussions with officials of the government and the regulatory agencies in order to be able to work out a transference of this organization from one jurisdiction to the other.
Therefore, the purpose of Bill S-30 is to take an already existing institution, operating under provincial law, and transform it into a financial institution operating under the Bank Act, a law of this parliament. What the amendments do, I submit, in whole and in part is violate specifically and directly the total aim of the bill, and as such can only be considered an expanded negative or an attempt to do by the back door what cannot be done by the front door.
If Your Honour wishes, I can run over the amendments and explain individually and collectively what their effect would be. I do not know whether Your Honour would like me to proceed in that way, or to deal with them all to show what their collective impact would be. It is in their collective impact that I believe the point can be shown to the greatest degree and with the least amount of doubt. If Your Honour could indicate in which way the Chair would like me to proceed, I would be delighted to comply.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member is one which is usually raised with respect to each individual motion, and dealing with a point of this sort in respect of all the motions in their collective effect puts the Chair in a very awkard position. It is a rather unique approach to this kind of point of order. I think the point of order raised last week by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was of a more general nature, that is, whether there ought to be a report stage in the form it is now before the House.
However, what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) is saying is that each motion, in its impact, has the effect of being an expanded negative vis-a-vis the particular subject area of that motion and technically it probably ought to be argued individually; and I suppose there ought to be a counterargument, individually, as to whether that is in fact the case. I presume, however, that if we were to do it in respect of one motion, the same argument and the same judgment would likely prevail in respect of the others.
I think, to keep the matter clear on the record, we really ought to consider, before taking the argument of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, that we are really dealing with motion No. 1 and than he can put his argument in respect of that motion, I can allow counterargument and further discussion on that particular motion, and make a ruling. Then presumably my ruling, having had application to motion No. 1, might be expected to have similar application to the others, and we can lay the point aside. However, I am open to discussion.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the problem which faces the Chair, yet in
March 4, 1976

some ways we have to deal with this as a package; although if Your Honour prefers, I can deal with each one separately. However, what has to be said about each of them really applies to the entire group of motions, although with somewhat different impact.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) accuses the mover of these motions of trying to do something through the back door which would not be permitted through the front door. I think the accusation is more appropriate to the sponsors of this bill. The fact of the matter is that the Bank Act quite clearly does not permit this kind of change to take place. There is no law which permits this kind of change to take place, and therefore they have taken the model bill of the Bank Act, twisted it, turned it and distorted it, in order to create a very special set of exemptions which the Bank Act was never intended to accomplish.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Max Saltsman: We are not opposed to IAC turning itself into a bank. We have not even taken a position as to whether the Bank Act itself should be altered in order to permit things of this nature to take place. What we are saying is that we do not think it is appropriate for the sponsors of this bill to drag it in through the back door in the guise of the Bank Act with amendments to the Bank Act. It seems to me that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is arguing that it would not be possible for IAC to transform itself into a bank if these amendments went through, and the result of these amendments would turn the present bill into the model bill which is called for by the Bank Act.
I should like to make a technical point which Your Honour will certainly want to check into. There is nothing to prevent IAC from becoming a bank if all these amendments are accepted by the House. What is at stake is not whether IAC can become a bank, but under what conditions IAC can become a bank and whether the long-standing traditions and practices outlined in the Bank Act are to be upheld. The question is not whether IAC can become a bank, but how big a bank it can become. The assets of IAC are now of sufficient size that they can remove sufficient of those assets, convert them into a bank and continue their present operation under IAC. The difficulty, and what IAC does not want, is to break its corporate structure, the interlocking directors, and all the holds it now has.
Nothing in our amendments prevents it from becoming a bank. We have agreed to the formation of banks in the past. If IAC were to take part in those aspects, it could easily have a corporate structure, as does the Unity Bank and other banks. That is a technical issue that it seems to me Your Honour would want to take under advisement.
I would hope Your Honour would see the amendments as being a way of preventing debate on what is really a very important issue, or cutting short debate on what is a very important issue and a very critical question for this House; that is, whether this kind of conversion of assets, which is strictly prohibited by the Bank Act, and a fundamental
Continental Bank of Canada
change of this kind can be made through the back door by these outlandish changes to the model bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Edmonton West, I want to recall to the House that we are dealing with one rather unusual point; that all of these motions ought to be ruled out because their effect as a package is to negative the purpose of the bill. With respect, I would think the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge goes right to the heart of the matter in the remarks he just made; this is, the point of decision would be that so long as the effect of the amendments is to leave this bank incorporated in some way, shape or form, I could scarcely accept the argument that the effect is to negative the bill.
If it is generally agreed it remains some kind of bank under some kind of conditions, what those conditions are would remain a matter for subjective and procedural argument on the motion. If I considered all motions should be ruled out of order at the same time, the only question in my mind would be whether that would leave an incorporated entity as a bank in some way, shape or form. If it does, I would have to set the hon. member's motions aside.
The hon. member for Edmonton West was interrupted in his remarks when he asked for some direction, so I will return to the hon. member for Edmonton West and then to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would have been happier if the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) had spoken to the point of order rather than to the substance of an argument in principle that he was advocating. In so far as IAC turning into a bank is concerned, that is totally immaterial to the point of order. On the point of order, if it is the allegation of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge that Bill S-30 is a derogation of the model bill, then I would point to amendment No. 2 which strips the bill of any provisional directors, does not substitute any provisional directors, and therefore is in direct contravention.
Bill S-30 cannot qualify under the Bank Act. The Continental Bank could not thus be incorporated at all, in any way. Therefore, I think it is the answer to the interim argument put forward by the Chair that is the point at issue before the Chair at the present time, and that whether there is a bank incorporated, in whatever form, is not for the Chair to decide.
All I say is that the effect of motion No. 2 is not to have a bank at all. In its attempt to remove every reference to IAC it is, in effect, an expanded negative. If the desire expressed by the hon. member a moment ago is that the Continental Bank be not incorporated, then the only thing to do is to vote against the bill. That is all the question of an expanded negative is. Whether I vote one way or another is immaterial to the objective of these amendments. All I say is, what is the effect of such amendments?
I am putting myself strictly on the point of order, very narrowly on the point of order, not as the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge did, who argued some philosophical argument about a bank and a financial institution having grown so big it is going to do something with its assets. That has nothing to do with the point of order, in my respectful submission. He can hold his philosophical viewpoint, and that is fine, but it is for some second reading

March 4, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
speech which I did not hear him make, nor was that point put forward in committee. Again, it is a strange campaign to strip IAC. I say, on the point of order, every one of these amendments goes to the question of being, in effect, an expanded negative.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I shall address myself to the very narrow point which Your Honour raised, that is, even by the carriage of all of these amendments taken as a group, with which position the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge and myself are in agreement, I would direct Your Honour's attention to motion No. 3 which calls for the deletion of clause 6 of the bill which reads as follows:
This act shall be construed to confer upon the bank-
That is, the Continental Bank.
-all the powers, privileges and immunities, and to subject it to all the liabilities and provisions set forth in the Bank Act, except as provided in the Bank Act or in this act.
If that particular motion were to carry, then there would obviously be no bank possible as a result. As the hon. member for Edmonton West has pointed out, this is perhaps also the case with motion No. 2. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge raised the question dealing with the transformation of IAC Limited into the Continental Bank and the way in which one can proceed. That is another point of order which I should like to argue, because there are certain problems with IAC being incorporated in one jurisdiction and not being able to make changes under the law of a further jurisdiction to submit itself to the provisions of the model bill as outlined in the Bank Act. It is simply an impossibility for IAC to be able to do that. That is a further point I should like to argue in conjunction with the general argument as to the inadmissibility of these motions as a group, if Your Honour should take that position.
I have just addressed myself to the narrow point of what would happen if this motion were carried. My submission would be that no bank can exist were motion No. 3 to carry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the preliminary opinion that Your Honour gave from the chair, it is not necessary for me to make one of my long dissertations because I strongly agree with the preliminary view that you stated. Like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), I believe at this point we should confine ourselves to the narrow issue of whether this series of amendments constitutes an indirect form of negating the bill and therefore should not be allowed.
I hope Your Honour will not be cross with me if I remind you that earlier today you indicated to some of us that a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux was always a great help, because I have in my hands a ruling by your distinguished predecessor. It was given on February 13, 1969, in connection with a report stage amendment moved by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman).
The main issue on that occasion was the right to move a report stage amendment to a private bill. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled in favour of that, and you so ruled last week, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux pointed out

that under certain conditions he would not have been able to allow several of such amendments. He said, specifically, that if there were before the House a bill with three clauses, and if there were three separate motions moved by three hon. members to delete each of the three clauses, the Chair would have to rule that the three motions, the consequence of which would be the loss of the bill, could not be accepted. We have before us a 24-clause bill and we have not put down amendments seeking to delete every one of the 24 clauses, but only 11. The matter therefore, does not come under the ban indicated by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on February 13, 1969.
Your Honour's predecessor distinguished, in that important ruling, between the committee of the whole stage and the report stage. He said that in committee of the whole we deal with individual clauses and a motion to delete a clause is simply an expanded negative, and therefore is not allowed. We simply vote on the clause. But at report stage we are dealing with a bill, and motions put down are motions to amend the bill. It has been clearly said, first, that report stage amendments to amend private bills are in order; second, that provided they do not constitute in themselves the total negation of the bill, they are in order.
As has been said, this is a bill of 24 clauses, but there are only 11 proposed report stage amendments. Some of the clauses are left intact and some of the clauses are to be altered. In the result, even if all the report stage motions carried, there would still be a bill. It might not satisfy the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) or the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), but there would still be a bill.


An hon. Member:: But no bank.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says, "But no bank." That is a point of substance, perhaps, which can be debated later. Does the status of the bank depend on this bill, or could it be a bank under the Bank Act? I am ready to admit that perhaps some of the report stage motions go too far in that they seek to wipe out quite a few clauses. For that reason Your Honour made good sense by saying you could hardly make a blanket ruling on all report stage amendments. You might decide some are out of order. Yet to be taken in by the views of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and arguments that these motions should not be allowed because they involve expanded negatives would be a mistake.
As Your Honour said in your preliminary views, if these motions were put and carried there would still be a bill. That being so, it seems to me that the right of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge to present these motions is established. Perhaps he would not object if you found two or three of them out of order in terms of how they fit into the total structure of the bill. I submit that he has the right to move a series of report stage amendments. Bear in mind that this is the report stage where we are dealing with a bill, not committee of the whole where we deal with clauses. The rule concerning expanded negatives does not apply and I hope, therefore, that your Honour will allow this series of report stage motions.
March 4. 1976


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I believe the remarks you just made were quite to the point, but if I may, I would simply add that these amendments were brought in to preclude so to speak the establishment of the bank. I would add this in support of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). With due respect, I would not wish those amendments to be considered collectively.
For instance, when we met the promoters of that bank, called Continental Bank, they were somewhat reluctant to name the bank's shareholders, because already there were people holding a good number of IAC Limited shares. This was violating from the start the Bank Act. They told us they would comply with the Bank Act if there were chances the bill would go through in the House of Commons. All this speaks well for the research done by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge. Amendment No. 10, bringing a new facet to his criticism, provides, and I quote:
d) by striking out lines 35 to 47 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"The persons who are the directors and officers of IAC Limited on
the coming into force of this Act shall be considered to have been
duly elected or appointed in accordance with sections 19 and 21 of the
Bank Act."
The officers now working for IAC Limited, who promoted the bill, want to protect the sponsors of the bill or the persons holding IAC shares. They did not state clearly whether they would comply with the question.
I believe all this has been partly clarified in committee, and the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge saw fit, because there had been no thorough clarification, to introduce this pertinent amendment which, in my view, certainly must be discussed separately.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I return to the original difficulty, the proposal of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that these motions should all be ruled out of order at the same time because their combined effect would be an expanded negative at this stage of the bill. Having listened to argument, I am not persuaded that that ought to be done. The question is: If these motions pass, will there still be a bill and a bank? There is considerable difference of opinion about that, which is exactly the point. Whether the bank survives in the form which the proponents of the bill want, or in some other form, is a matter for debate and discussion. I must be persuaded absolutely that there would be no bank as a result of the combined effect of these motions.
Bearing in mind that individually each motion ought to be considered, I do not say, because all these motions ought to be considered one at a time, that I am ruling all of them as being in order. Far from it. Some of the motions may clearly offend our procedures in being expanded negatives in respect of the particular clauses to which they refer; that may be the case. But, because one, two or three motions may fall into that category, that does not lead me to conclude that I have power at this stage to so rule on all of them. To carry the argument further, if three or four motions are out of order for the reasons stated, presumably they will be set aside by the Chair for discussion and
Continental Bank of Canada
argument. That means , that the remaining motions are in order within our procedures.
If the effect of this process is to reduce on the order paper the number of motions, some of which are out of order, to a smaller number all in order, then obviously that is the right course for the House to follow in this procedure. For example, to consider motion No. 1 I can hardly accept the argument that the bill would fall to the ground, or the bank cease to be a bank as envisaged by the proposer of the bill if motion No. 1 were to carry. It is in fact an excepting provision which is being taken out. That being the case with one of the motions, it is obvious that argument ought to proceed on each motion individually. Of course procedural arguments can be raised as we go.
I may say at the same time there has been a suggestion that a point of order will be put forward on the opposite point of view. That is because of some regulation concerning the bill vis-a-vis a pro forma bill respecting the incorporation of banks. I may give advance warning. I will hear argument and discussion on it, but I must say that if there is any merit to the argument, and I have not examined the details to see whether there is, there seems to be a fundamental difficulty with that argument in that this is an improper stage of this legislation on which to raise that kind of argument.
This bill has gone though all stages in one House and all but the last two stages in this House. It certainly seems to the Chair to be totally improper to raise general objections now to the form the bill is in. If that was a valid argument at any time it ought to have been made at some other stage rather than now at the report stage. I would certainly have to be persuaded there is some reason why this bill ought to be stopped at this stage when that argument either was not advanced at all or not advanced at an earlier stage when that kind of argument should have been considered.
Having said that, if there is any further contribution to that or any other point of order, I will be pleased to receive it. Otherwise the House ought to move on to the consideration of these motions seriatim.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the point you made is one that was made to me in private by our consultant on these matters. Therefore I am not totally unaware of what Your Honour might be saying on this matter. I sometimes suspect our consultant of having clairvoyance in these matters. Nevertheless it is an important enough point that it should be raised in order to get a definitive ruling from the Chair on this matter. I regret that I did not have an opportunity to raise this at the introduction of the bill. However, it is of such importance that I want to raise it at this point and to elicit a ruling from Your Honour.
Standing Order 94(2) reads:
Every bill for an Act of incorporation, where a form of model bill has been adopted, shall be drawn in accordance with a model bill (copies of model bills may be obtained from the Clerk of the House). Any provisions contained in any such bill which are not in accord with the model bill shall be inserted between brackets or underlined, and shall be so printed.

March 4, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
Standing Order 94(5) reads:
A brief explanatory note giving the reasons for any clause of an unusual nature or which differs from the model bill clauses or standard clauses shall be printed opposite the clause in the bill.
Schedule B of the Bank Act is, it would appear, such a model bill. It provides a blank form consisting of six sections, with blank spaces where the particular names and information which identify the particular bank which is seeking incorporation can be inserted.
If one looks at the bills incorporating previous banks such as, for instance, the Unity Bank in 1972, we find that they correspond to the model bill in Schedule B of the Bank Act in every particular.
Bill S-30, however, the act to incorporate the Continental Bank of Canada, differs from Schedule B of the Bank Act in several ways. It contains 24 clauses rather than six, and a good many of these clauses have the effect of giving the Continental Bank and its directors a series of exemptions for a considerable period of time from the normal provisions of the Bank Act. For instance, section 8(1) of the Bank Act reads:
The name of the bank, the additional name under which it is authorized to carry on business, the authorized capital stock of the bank, the par value of its shares, the place in Canada where its head office is to be situated and the names, addresses and occupations of the provisional directors shall be declared in the act of incorporation of the bank.
This is a reasonably clear statement of the requirements. However, when we turn to the bill in question, S-30, we find clause 2(1) states:
Subject to subsection (2), the persons who are the directors of IAC Limited on the coming into force of this act are the provisional directors of the bank, and this subsection constitutes a declaration of the names, addresses and occupations of those persons for purposes of subsection 8(1) of the Bank Act.
Nowhere do the actual names, addresses, occupations and so on appear in the bill. Does this not constitute a departure from the model bill, as discussed above? Yet we find nowhere, either in the bill as passed by the Senate or in the bill as amended in committee, any explanation for this lack of specific names, addresses, and so on. Does this not mean that the bill is an imperfect bill? Standing Order 69, which applies to private bills as well as public bills, reads:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
There is the question of whose responsibility it is to detect it at an early stage. In some ways there is a question of privilege involved as to whether it was raised immediately or at this point. That is why I am proceeding with this particular point.
Moreover, does not this lack of specific names and so on constitute an amendment to subsection 8(1) of the Bank Act? Standing Order 94(3) reads:
Where a private bill amends any section, subsection or paragraph of an existing Act, such section, subsection or paragraph shall be repealed in the text of the bill and re-enacted as proposed to be amended, the new matter being indicated by underlining; and the section, subsection or paragraph which is to be so repealed, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed in the right-hand page opposite such section, subsection or paragraph.

Standing Order 94(4) reads:
When a private bill repeals an existing section, subsection, or other minor division of a section, that section, subsection or division, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed opposite the clause.
Bill S-30 does not appear to meet these requirements, either in the bill as printed in the form in which it was passed by the Senate or in the report stage version. Does this mean that it is not in proper shape to be distributed or discussed?
It should be noted that this is an extremely complex bill. The sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainey River (Mr. Reid), noted this fact in his second reading speech in the House. As well, the bill it seems will set several precedents. As Mr. Read, the superintendent of banks, noted in committee, the fact that a large finance company is now attempting to have itself converted into a bank is the result of government policy which has been encouraging competition in the banking system. This is the first instance of a functioning finance company attempting to incorporate itself as a bank, but we can expect, if Mr. Read's words mean anything, that there will be more.
Moreover, since this is the first instance of this particular type it will inevitably have an effect on future instances, and may have an effect on the Bank Act when it is revised in the near future. Since government policy seems to be encouraging this sort of conversion it would appear likely that some regular provision would appear in the new Bank Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I made some preliminary remarks. I do not want to stop the hon. member, but I really feel that his presentation ought to be abbreviated and not really direct itself to the basic argument. The simple proposition is that this bill is not in the pro forma type envisaged by the Standing Orders to which he referred. That is well known, well understood. It is not necessary to expand on that proposition. The question before us is, if that were in fact grounds to stop the bill at the proper stage, should it stop the bill now? If the hon. member has anything to add on that particular point I would be glad to hear it.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something on that particular point. Limited attention is paid to these private bills. This is probably wrong. Greater attention should be paid to them. There is a tendency not to pay too much attention to them when they are introduced. There is more than just a point of order involved. There is a question of privilege.
If a bill is introduced at some time, an hon. member may not be in his place or not aware of the bill, particularly if it is a private member's bill. Perhaps he should be, and Your Honour may rule that way. Does he then forfeit the right to call attention to an imperfect bill? We know that hon. members would be in this House on every occasion if it were possible for them to do so. But you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that you are not being asked to rule on whether it is imperfect or not but on whether at any point an hon. member can rise and say, "This bill is in the wrong draft and therefore I have a right to point this out and have it altered at any stage."
March 4, 1976

I appreciate Your Honour's courtesy in allowing me this rather extended period of time in which to explain my point of order, but I do think the conclusion you are called upon to reach will have important consequences and that it will affect not only the point of order but also the question of members' privileges.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the point which has been raised about the proper timing in relation to this question is a very valid one. I do not wish to take any particular pride in what I have said in this House, but if you would look at page 9989 of Hansard, December 12, 1975, I think you will recognize that I devoted at least half my remarks on that occasion to calling attention to the perplexities of this bill, to the fact that it would create a precedent, and that it was an extraordinary measure. I recommended to hon. members that they should spend considerable time studying it in committee. My reason for doing so, as the sponsor of this bill, was to ensure that hon. members might have an opportunity to raise any valid objections they wished to raise at the proper time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With great respect to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), his argument that he was present at the committee hearings when the bill was being voted on is self-defeating. If it had been an improper form and if he had been in possession of the written argument he is now trying to impose on the House-contrary, I suggest, to our custom because he is reading a text which obviously had been prepared by somebody else-then I suggest action should have been taken in the committee itself. We all know very well that it is possible to raise a point of order at any time with regard to the acceptability or otherwise of an amendment or a bill, or indeed of any motion which might have to be considered in debate.
If the hon. member is able to carry his argument with the Chair it would be possible for a member to rise immediately prior, say, to taking a vote on third reading and in effect to declare that the bill has been out of order all along and that the Chair has been deluded or misled into regarding it as acceptable. It would be strange, indeed, if that kind of argument could carry in the House.
The bill has been accepted by the chief Clerk of Private Bills. Moreover, the version of the bill before us in our files is not the one originally presented in the other place. I do not think the hon. member can make reference to that, because I do not think he is in possession of that form of the bill. Therefore the argument that it does not conform to a model bill when it is impossible, in any event, for a bill of this kind converting an existing financial institution into a chartered bank to follow slavishly the form of a model bill designed to apply to a bank which is starting from square one, cannot possibly be solved. Therefore it would seem to me, first, that the argument advanced by the hon. member is out of time, and second, that it fails inasmuch as this kind of bill need not slavishly conform with a model bill designed for a different situation.


Max Saltsman: Perhaps I might comment on the observations made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The argument I am making is that where those
Continental Bank of Canada
departures from the Bank Act exist they should be underlined so that all members, not only those who studied the measure in committee, may see the extent to which this bill departs from the model bill. That is the purpose of the underlining and explanatory notes which appear in other bills; where there is a departure from standard procedure it is clearly marked in the bill so that members may be aware of that departure and use their good judgment as to the wisdom of the alteration. Nothing of that kind has been done in the bill before us. It is as though it was designed to hide and obscure rather than to enlighten.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why did you not say so
in committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all respect to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) he grossly underestimates the effectiveness of his opposition to the bill. I can scarcely now conclude he has in any way been limited or prejudiced in his resistance to this measure by the failure of the proponents of the bill to conform with the Standing Order to which he refers. If this suggestion were seriously advanced I might perhaps come to a different conclusion, but in fact I do have to return to the original point, which is that though his argument might have had application at some stage of the bill I am setting aside the point of order at this moment on the very narrow ground that it is now too late in the progress of the bill to raise an objection which should have been made earlier as to the original form of the measure.
Again I say that I see no indication-as a matter of fact I see every indication to the contrary-that the hon. member's objection and resistance to the bill are other than detailed and thorough. I have not examined the committee proceedings, of course, but certainly with respect to the motions which have been put down at this stage there does not seem to have been any restriction on the hon. member's ability to bring forward effective opposition. Accordingly it would seem to me that, all points of order having now been discussed and set aside, the House ought to move on to the consideration of motion No. I standing in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order in connection with motion No. I and its effect on the bill, and perhaps this would be an appropriate moment at which to do so. The point I wish to raise is that motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) deals with clause 2, which says the requirement that bank directors should hold qualifying shares in the bank should be waived, and a substitute requirement be inserted that they hold the corresponding number of shares in IAC Limited. The amendment would delete this provision, which would therefore force the bank directors to hold shares of both. This would prevent the bank from being a wholly owned subsidiary of IAC. It is interesting to note that if this could be complied with-I use the word "could"-it would confer a significant benefit on those bank directors at the expense of IAC shareholders.
The point I want to make about this amendment is that because of the structure of the transformation of the bank from a finance company, with leasing operations and whatnot, because of the difficulties there has to be a develop-

March 4, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
ment to provide for an orderly transfer. The reasons for that transfer were four-fold. The first is that the security indebtedness of IAC would not be permissible in the case of a chartered bank. It is impossible for an ongoing institution to be able to convert that kind of indebtedness to the type of indebtedness permitted under the Bank Act. Secondly, IAC has outstanding convertible securities which would not be permissible for a chartered bank under the Bank Act and these could not be immediately redeemed. Thirdly, the leases IAC has entered into are held for a certain time and could not be eliminated immediately. Fourthly, there are other aspects of IAC's capital structure and operations which would create serious difficulties with this procedure.
The form and development of the transformation that was looked at I cannot describe in detail, but basically they are to set up a chartered bank as a sister company of IAC; this was found to be impossible to accomplish. The second was to organize the chartered bank as a parent of IAC and then convert the business to the bank. The third was to create a situation where the business of IAC is funneled to the bank, the bank becomes a subsidiary of IAC and over a ten-year period absorbs the whole company so that the surviving institution is the bank. This is the only way that technically a conversion could work within the terms of the Bank Act. If the amendment were permitted its effect would be to strike the whole structure of the bill to the ground, because then IAC could not have a bank that is a wholly owned subsidiary owing to the difficulty of having directors hold shares outside.
I know that this is a technical matter, but it is one that would put the company in conflict with the provisions of the Bank Act. I therefore request that this motion be struck down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put my argument in the form of a simple question. If this is a point of order, what will the hon. member say when he gets to the substance of the motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members recognize that the question to be asked about the orderliness of the amendment is not really what type of corporation this is going to be and what its business and restrictions will be. The intent of the amendment, on the face of it, is somehow to interfere with that description of the privileges and powers that is envisaged in the bill. Surely that is the power of a motion at this stage, or at least the capacity of a motion at this stage.
Whether or not that turns out to be to the convenience or to the preference of the proponents of the bill is a matter for discussion on the substance, and it may be a matter for division in this House in this individual case. There may be other instances in these motions which in fact, by deletion, run an expanded negative, but in my opinion motion No. 1 does not fall within that category.
We are now approaching six o'clock and obviously hon. members have their basic right to make a speech on motion No. 1. However, may we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Subject to the effect of motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker. There again, this could in effect be an expanded negative in that if the effect of the hon. member's amendment is to remove ownership of shares which are a condition precedent in the bank, the bill would not provide for the ownership of shares. After all, clause 2(1) is subject to subsection (2). The hon. member's motion seeks in effect to eliminate subsection (2), and therefore this would mean that the directors of IAC are named as directors of the bank but would have no shareholdings in the bank. That is contrary to section 10 of the Bank Act. There is a requirement in section 10(2) of the Bank Act that a provisional director of a bank be a subscriber to stock of that bank. With the greatest respect, it would make nonsense of the whole bill because some of the provisions of the Bank Act are negated.
I find that this is the consequence of almost every one of these amendments. Your Honour has pointed out, quite rightly, that you are not concerned with the form of the bank, but it must be a bank within the general framework of the Bank Act. There is nothing that says that amendments cannot be made to the Bank Act or that the shareholding must be this or that. The bill provides that the directors of IAC will be the provisional directors, and their shareholdings in IAC shall be the qualifying shares for their directorships in the Continental Bank of Canada, pursuant to section 10(2) of the Bank Act. The hon. member would be eliminating the qualification of those provisional directors, and if he wants to do that his only clear course in this House is to vote against clause 2, and not amend it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has gone directly to the procedural question. If it were to turn out that the effect of the motion meant that the bank could not in fact be incorporated at all, then that may transform the question of procedure. However, it being six o'clock, I will give the matter very careful consideration during the 14 days that presumably will elapse between now and the next time the bill is considered. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock later this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan) that Bill C-86, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act and the Returned Soldiers' Insurance
March 4, 1976
[Stage Direction]
Act be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, as the minister pointed out shortly before five o'clock this afternoon when he moved the second reading of Bill C-86, this is a relatively simple piece of legislation. It makes similar amendments, two of them in each case, to two different acts that are part of the veterans' charter. One act is the insurance legislation that was made available to veterans after World War I; the other is the insurance legislation that was made available to veterans after World War II. I suppose I could say in passing, for the enjoyment of my colleagues, that I was not here to vote for the first one but I was here to vote for the second one. That was in 1944. I simply recommend to hon. members that they stick around; the place becomes more interesting as the decades go by.
I appreciate the desire of the minister to give us the bits of information he put on the record this afternoon. I think it was important to remind this generation of what was made available. I think we are all interested in the statistics which tell us that there are still 2,500 policies in force from the first world war program and that there are still
19,000	policies in force from the second world war life insurance program.
As the minister says, the amendments being made to each of these acts are very simple. On the one hand the appropriate change is being made so that the benefits from an insurance policy at the discretion of the insured or of the beneficiary may be taken out entirely in a lump sum instead of only up to a certain amount. That seems to me to be acceptable. I know there have been a number of requests for this and we are happy to approve that part of the bill, namely, the amendment to both the acts which are before us at this time.
The other part of this bill, as already has been pointed out, is one that brings these insurance acts into line with other veterans' legislation in that common-law spouses are recognized under certain stated conditions for purposes of this legislation. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been realistic, practical, and I think humane in this area for many years. We certainly have no quarrel with this effort to bring these two pieces of legislation in line with other veterans' legislation in this respect.
I hope I will be forgiven if I again make the comment I suppose I have made just about every time we have done the right thing for common-law wives. I wish we would be equally generous and equally quick in moving on behalf of married wives and widows who were legally married. I shall not go into it at this moment, but the minister knows that we are looking forward to another piece of legislation having to do with prisoners of war which I hope will be along in a few days. Some of us are disappointed that our recommendation to improve the position of the widows of veterans on disability pensions is not to be included in that legislation. That is what I mean by the comment I now make.
I wish we could extend this generosity, this decency, this humane approach we offer, to a common-law relationship
Veterans Insurance
to improve the position particularly of widows of veterans where there is no question about the marriage relationship. I hope at some point in this session, either on the bill regarding prisoners of war or before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, we can move a little further in that area. That is really all that needs to be said at this time. The bill is one which corrects a couple of anomalies and we are happy to give it our support.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, I am very happy indeed to take part in this debate on Bill C-86, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act and also the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. My comments tonight really will focus particularly on new subsection 6 and section 3 of the act.
I should like to quote section 3:
Section 3 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(6) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where, at the death of the insured, any insurance money is being paid or is to be paid as an annuity to any beneficiary, such money shall, upon the request of the beneficiary, be paid in a lump sum or in any other manner provided for in subsection (3) as the beneficiary may request."
In this regard I should like to say that in, my opinion, the $2,000 maximum death benefit appeared to be ample in the days when the act was framed. However, this amount is completely unrealistic today in view of the cost associated with a death.


Jack Marshall: Put it in an amendment.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I agree wholeheartedly with the minister, if the hon. member wants to know that is the reason I am making this comment. I believe the government has made a fantastic advance and has been very realistic with this particular aspect of the law benefiting veterans, and I think it would be remiss on the part of hon. members on this side of the House if they did not bring to the attention of the House, and to everyone in the country, the fact that the government has not only adhered to the committee report but also it has recognized that a change must be made now and has been made, and this is the reason I am speaking on this subject this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Many beneficiaries, particularly the widows of world war I veterans are now at the age where they are unlikely to live long enough to benefit from compulsory annuities. So therefore the $2,000 limit on immediate death benefit was undoubtedly regarded as protectionism for the widow at the time the act was passed a number of years ago. However, it is out of keeping with the role of women in today's society, so over the years many representations by insured veterans and their beneficiaires have been made to the minister and to his colleagues to have the full value of the policy paid as an immediate death benefit. So the current legislation denies the veteran the right to determine the best method of having his policy paid to his selected beneficiary.
This amendment lifts a restriction imposed many years ago on a veteran's right to decide modes of payment of his insurance policy. The bill will bring veterans into line with

March 4, 1976
Veterans Insurance
a practice followed by commercial insurance companies in that the insured has the full right to decide the method of payment on a policy.
This amendment will also allow a beneficiary who is currently receiving an annuity to receive the full settlement of the annuity if he so desires. This amendment in no way affects the veteran's right to designate the proceeds of his policy as an annuity if he considers this is indicated.
I also mentioned that I had other remarks to make, primarily with regard to clause 6, and I should like to-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), but he is not supposed to refer to particular clauses at this stage. He will be allowed to do so when we will go into committee of the whole.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, I should like to add to your suggestion by saying that it is also very important, somehow and somewhere, that someone should mention some parts of the legislation with which we are faced. One thing I cannot be criticized for is not being able to speak about the bill before us at the present time.
Perhaps I should mention this clause, but in a few words. This would give a person who is designated as a beneficiary by the insured the right, subject to the discretion of the minister and to the furnishing of the required proof to be paid under the contract of insurance on the death of the insured-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Again I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he must not refer to nor read any particular clause at this stage. We have to discuss the broad principles of the bill and not specific clauses.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.


Jack Marshall: Madam Speaker, I could not agree with you more, and if the hon. member had been in the House before when there was unanimous consent to have second reading, he would know that we could get into the committee of the whole and that he could bring up clause 6 and say anything he wants about it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In that case I am one of those who will not unduly delay any legislation in any way, shape or form, and I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Morin in the chair.
On clause 2.
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Chairman, I want to thank all hon. members present here this evening for allowing me to continue with some of the comments I

wanted to make. I know that there could have been some objection, so I wish to thank hon. members in the opposition for allowing me to comment at this time.
In accordance with your suggestion, Madam Chairman, I will now quote clause 6, and a part thereof which I wanted to mention.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Again I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but we are discussing clause 2 at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6.
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Now you've forgotten what you were going to say.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I believe that by now hon. members will know the clause to which I wish to make reference. I believe I do not have to quote it again, and there is no doubt that I will be very brief.


Jack Marshall: I think we all agree that we want to pass this bill quickly, and I hope the hon. member is not trying to filibuster it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I should like to bring to the attention of the House this evening the fact that if the loyal opposition is concerned about passing this bill in the limited time in which we are discussing it at the present time, it should be more willing to do so with regard to all other bills, including Bill C-68. If they are willing to do this, they can rest assured that I will sit down right now.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: We are on clause 6, Joe.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: All I want to say is that I am wholeheartedly in favour of this bill. I had something to say about clause 6. I am very happy that the minister and the government saw fit to bring in this legislation despite the fact that some may believe that I am trying to delay it, even in three minutes. I will now sit down in order to allow the bill to pass.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 6 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
March 4, 1976
[Stage Direction]
On clause 1-Short title.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, there are just a very few observations I want to make about this bill. As one of the declining number of veterans in this House I can understand the motivation of the department in putting forward this particular bill. The minister full well knows my attitude, and I am sure his officials do as well, toward what in effect is one of the main thrusts of this bill. It is one that I have felt was a retrograde step in the total thrust of government legislation over the past few years.
It had been the rule that in order to recognize a certain status for concubines of seven years, or common law marriages of seven years, this would be equated to a legal marriage and that any benefits flowing to survivors under superannuation or compensation schemes of whatever nature under general federal legislation would apply to such concubines and common law wives.
We know there were some cases of hardship here and there, but I would say that the mood of the Canadian people in the late 1960's had tolerated a change from this status; now in the mid seventies that has changed considerably. Most of us in our generation believe the moral and the legal effects and consequences of marriage lie at the root of our social structure, in this country and in most other countries, and we do not think that this should be lightly cast aside. Somehow or other it got to be a popular idea that a shack-up of three years was enough-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the hon. member just contemplate. Look at this legislation and I will tell the hon. member, who is pretty junior in years, of scores of cases of the wives of veterans-


Mrs. Sauve:: Junior but smart.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. minister has no knowledge of this because she has never been over the track. Perhaps the hon. lady has not had an opportunity of having-


Marcel-Claude Roy: You should write your speeches, it would be quicker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let the hon. member for Laval mark my words. I shall not put up with lessons in the House.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Please, read your speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, I won't. You do read your speeches. I wish to add this, Madam Chairman: I hope that those hon. members who are jeering tonight and think this issue is a big joke will receive telephone calls or visits from middle-aged ladies.


Miss Begin:: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Chairman.
Veterans Insurance


Charles Robert Turner: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary rise on a question of privilege or on a point of order?


Monique Bégin: On a question of privilege, Madam Chairman. With your permission, Madam Chairman, I would like to ask if the hon. opposition member has accused hon. women members on this side of the House of being middle-aged. I did not quite understand. I fail to see how this is related to the veterans' legislation.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, I wish to tell the clever Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss Begin) that had she followed the debate, she would understand that I am referring to veterans' wives. If she is touchy about her age, that is her problem not mine. But there are women who call and tell us about their husbands who deserted them because they were attracted by younger and more attractive women. They have raised children, a family, and their husbands are veterans who are receiving a pension or certain benefits under the veterans' program. In such cases, the problem arises as to who is to be considered as the surviving spouse of this veteran. Previously, if there had been a broken home, if there had been not a divorce but a legal separation from bed and board or simply voluntary separation between husband and wife, the right of the common law wife could be established only after seven years of living together. Nowadays, three years are enough. That is not very easy to buy oneself a pension! And what about the wife who has been deserted, tossed on the scrap heap of society? Should we tell her as I had to tell somebody: Listen, Madam, your fate is to rely on welfare. For so many people here in the House, the eventual answer is: Madam, go and apply for welfare. Yet this woman has raised a veteran's children, she has shared his home as well as his joys and miseries for 20 or 25 years. But she is put aside after barely three years. And what are three years? The wife is not entitled to the survivor pension, it is his mistress, his concubine who will get it. It is very simple!
But what did we read in this legislationr no we know it? What is the principle proposed by this government? It is the same principle that we adopted and I voted last year against amendments to the legislation concerning several programs for veterans. But I think-

I make a plea to members of this House: why do we have to sap the social structure of our society?


Monique Bégin: Times have changed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. parliamentary secretary tells me that times have changed. Listen to see if she is in favour of co\ncubinage-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!

March 4, 1976
Veterans Insurance


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Chairman, I rise on a question of personal privilege. The hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe, in the interests of seeing this bill passed speedily, suggested that I should not speak on it. I have not spoken; yet here is the hon. member for Edmonton West speaking on the bill for the last 15 minutes and delaying passage. I have forgone the opportunity to speak, and I think members of the opposition should also be willing to make short speeches. It would assist matters greatly if the hon. member for Edmonton West would consider this matter and allow this bill to pass immediately.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, I told the hon. member personally that I do not approve of this type of legislation. Perhaps it will take a few knocks for this message to get through.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Chairman, I rise on a question of personal privilege-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. It is not a question of privilege, but a point of debate. I shall now recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West. [English]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If, under threats from the chief government whip, we must consider the bill-


An hon. Member:: Say something.


Mr. Flynn:: If you have anything to say, say it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I tell the hon. member from down in Ontario that I have something to say, and I will say it, on my feet.


Jacques Flynn: If you have something to say, say it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member spends a good deal of time sitting in his seat, opening his mouth and showing how wide is the cavity between his ears.


Jacques Flynn: We are still listening. Say something, if you have anything to say.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The parliamentary secretary may say, "But these are modern day mores". Yes, they are among certain people. Surely to goodness, people of a contrary view have the right to express that. I am prepared to listen to the parliamentary secretary explain why certain social and moral values, as between marriage and the right of common wives or spouses, should be relaxed. I would be pleased to listen, to hear what kind of case she could make. I regret this legislation. I do not think it is right in the present day context, and lots of people support me in this view.
I am exercised that this bill has been brought forward in the present manner, that it has been before the committee on veterans affairs, been before the legislative committee of the cabinet, and that it appears on the order paper, when in fact the recommendations of the veterans affairs committee regarding prisoners of war were before the cabinet
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
and the department last year and the year before. I have exhorted the Department of Veterans Affairs and various deputy ministers over the years, only to get the brush-off.


An hon. Member:: You need it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Who said, "You need it?" Somebody said the prisoners of war need the brush-off.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Who was that gutless individual on the other side?


An hon. Member:: It was Munro.


Donald W. Munro: No. Munro is not here.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I find it passing strange, and I speak on behalf of thousands of prisoners of war-I was one of them and I have declared my interest and position in this-I find it passing strange that the department and the cabinet should give greater priority to common-law wives than to the claims of prisoners of war and their entitlement. That is why I object to the bill.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Madam Chairman, will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I trust it is pertinent to common-law wives of veterans, about whom I have been speaking.


Iona Campagnolo: My question is most relevant. The hon. gentleman referred tonight to mistresses, concubines, those who have been shacked up, and so on, ad infinitum. He has not observed the facts of life. Some veterans who came home from the war and became parents undoubtedly are the parents of young children around today. I have had personal dealings with women who are second wives or, if you will common law spouses. They have young children to raise, while the first, legitimate wife's children are over 30 years old. I feel that the question is relevant and a most important point for consideration.


An hon. Member:: Put that in your pipe.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, the hon. lady has had no more contact with those persons than I have. I assure her that there are more veterans and wives in the city of Edmonton than in her part of British Columbia. Working through the Legion, I can assure her I have seen all kinds of people.
May I say this: the woman in her fifties, who has raised her family and is tossed on the scrap heap of society by a husband who picks somebody else, is defenceless. You will find far fewer young women who have taken up with a World War II veteran. I am not talking of the man who has been discharged from the forces recently. After all, the man who was in World War II is probably over 50. It is not likely that he will have a young, common-law wife. There are not many who will have a young, common-law wife, and children.
March 4, 1976


An hon. Member:: What about an older common-law wife?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are far more of them. I will wager with the hon. member and meet him afterwards. I will say that there are far more veterans of his age and mine who, unfortunately, have cast aside their wives and picked up, shall we say, with someone else. There will be far more in that category than in the hypothetical category put forward by the hon. member for Skeena. That is the case I make. How does this happen?
What do you do with the woman who has been cast aside? Do you tell her to collect social welfare? That would be the solution, shall we say, that some would put forward.


Iona Campagnolo: Madam Chairman-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. The hon. member is raising a point of debate. If she wants to participate, she will be recognized afterwards.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, I have finished.


Iona Campagnolo: Madam Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Edmonton West has imputed that somehow I fabricated the case to which I drew the attention of this House. That is not so. The person in question lives with five small children, and I think the possibility that five young children may be put on the scrap heap is far more serious than the matter the hon. member brought forward. I ask the hon. member not to forget this and allow us to get on with the business so that we can pass this bill.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Charles Robert Turner: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other Acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Does the House agree to grouping motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for debate, with a separate vote being taken on each motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Maritime Code


Jean Marchand: motion No. 1: That Bill C-61, An Act to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other Acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be amended in Clause 8 of the French version by striking out lines 16 to 18 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"a) le transport par eau, ou par eau et par voie de surface, des marchandises ou des passagers, ainsi que le remorquage, directement ou avec escale a l'etranger,."


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East) moved: motion No. 2:
That Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other Acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be amended in Clause 8 by deleting line 20 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor: "Canada: and, for better ensuring the attainment of the said purposes, any port or place in the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon shall be deemed to be a port or place in Canada, and the Governor in Council may, by order, provide that any other port or place not in Canada shall be deemed to be in Canada,".


Donald W. Munro: motion No. 3:
That Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other Acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be amended in Clause 8 by deleting line 30 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor: "whether directly or by way of a foreign port or place and when carrying passengers whether or not the passengers leave the ship at a port or place in Canada and if the passengers leave the ship at a port or place in Canada whether they do so definitely or merely for a temporary period;".


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the first of the amendments, which you have just read, is in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and relates to Clause 8 of Bill C-61. The other two motions stand in the names of hon. members opposite. I propose in my initial remarks to direct my attention exclusively to motion No. 1 proposed by the Minister of Transport.
May I say in a general way that certainly we on this side of the House, and I think I speak for members in this Chamber generally, are very pleased to see the progress of Bill C-61 to date. We are glad to see that on this occasion we are back before the House of Commons at the report stage considering a relatively small number of further amendments to the legislation. I hope this indicates the House may very shortly give this additional degree of approval to Bill C-61.
There is some work to be done yet, but I think it is fair to say that very good progress has been made, particularly the work done before and since Christmas in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communication.
I want to express a word of thanks to the members of that committee who worked very hard and conscientiously on this legislation in an effort to give it fair consideration and, in the final analysis, to improve certain aspects of it. I want to thank members opposite for their co-operation and, in particular, members on this side of the House for their constant attendance at the committee and the good work they did on this particular bill.

March 4, 1976
Maritime Code
I should also mention the many witnesses who appeared before the committee in the course of our deliberations on Bill C-61. A great many of the ideas, suggestions, and specific proposals put forward by those witnesses were very helpful. They contributed substantially to the measure before us in this form this evening.
To deal specifically with motion No. 1 being proposed by the Minister of Transport, I believe this can be considered and disposed of rather quickly and simply. The change is a minor correction in the technical wording of the French version of clause 8(3)(a). There is no substantive change. It is merely a technical correction. I commend it to all members for speedy adoption.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I see we are not going to get very much co-operation this evening from the parliamentary secretary. We anticipated a rather lengthy introduction on this, the most massive public statute in the laws of Canada.
The parliamentary secretary is quite right with respect to the technical amendment he proposes on behalf of the government this evening. It is not controversial. It is just a matter of tidying up some language in the act.
Our challenge this evening as we consider report stage of a bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, entitled the Maritime Code, cannot be treated nearly as lightly as the parliamentary secretary would lead us to believe. In the first place the importance of the subject requires the presence here of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). We heard and saw so little of him in the standing committee that at times we were somewhat frustrated. I might add that if the minister had found it possible to be present more often during those meetings there might not have been need for the six amendments we are proposing to put forward at this time, not to mention the technical amendments which I understand are being proposed to the French version of the bill and with which I myself am not particularly qualified to deal.
In connection with what the parliamentary secretary had to say there are one or two observations to be made on the subject of the translation of bills. Under the old principle a draftsman wandered into the Department of Justice armed with the knowledge of what he intended to propose, singled out a person in that department, and communicated to him his requirements with respect to the legislation. That person, with his knowledge of legal terms and so on, which most of us barely comprehend, was expected to turn out the required document. That was the practice accepted in this Chamber for a long time, perhaps for 100 years.
In recent years, however, concern arose about the ability of translators to make a precise rendition from one language into the other-from English into French or from French into English, so we adopted a system of which most of us approved. This involved the director of drafting in the Department of Justice addressing himself to an English-speaking person and communicating to him the import of what he wished to convey, and then moving over and addressing himself to a person conversant with the French language, but never the twain shall meet, the principle

being that the drafters were able to communicate the content and the spirit intended in the act.
The assurance given in the House by a former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) when he was a very effective and acceptable House leader, was that these versions would be interpreted equally before the courts. That was fine, and it expedited the use of the two languages in legislation.
What do we find today in connection with Bill C-61 which leads to the amendment brought forward by the parliamentary secretary? What happens is that the director of drafting wanders into the office of the Minister of Justice, looks around, very often finds that it is understaffed, and says, "Who is available to do some work?" He may get a French drafter or an English drafter. It doesn't matter. Whoever gets the drafting chore is then responsible for getting a verbatim translation made into the other language. So we are back where we started.
My criticism of the amendment is that we find in Bill C-61 a mixture of the old system and the new. There is, in fact, a combination of two systems. The danger of this is that when an action is brought before a court, whether in English or in French, widely differing interpretations could arise. The practice of the English courts is to refer to common usage and the common understanding of a word.
The French approach to this problem is to have recourse to historical documents where possible. And if those documents do not follow a consistent pattern it is likely that judgments will be inconsistent.
That is the burden of the message which will appear in a number of places as we go through this bill, because the parliamentary secretary, the minister, and the representatives of the department who were largely responsible for drafting this bill have given us an assurance that essentially the two languages used in it will be interpreted by the courts in the same way. God help counsel whenever they have a case involving what is the most massive piece of legislation on the statute books of Canada.
As to the technical matters involved, perhaps there is not much point in my dealing with them in detail. I am sure most hon. members will understand the dilemma which faces some of us when it comes to addressing ourselves to a fairly narrow point of this kind. I take the time of the House to raise this question because I believe it to be fundamental to the administration of an act which we on this side, with two major exceptions which I can think of immediately, are prone to support.
Our reservations have to do with the very clause the parliamentary secretary seeks to amend. They have to do with the protection of primary users of transport in Canada and, as others will point out while the debate goes on this evening and for the next few days, they have to do with the movement of every single item of commerce in this country, bar none. The conflict which arises when you have a Railway Act bound in statutes to adhere to compensatory arrangements, spells out in essence our fate for those of us who live in the extremities of the country.
March 4, 1976

For those of us who have to compete with the railways through water borne traffic it tends to impair, as pointed out by the council of maritime premiers, the ability of people such as farmers to import grains at a competitive rate. It tends to play havoc with the shipment of west coast lumber, with the movement of flour, indeed with every commercial activity requiring some form of transportation from one part of Canada to another.
Basically the parliamentary secretary is attempting to amend the most important section of Books I and II. It is the section that will close exclusively to Canadian ships the coastal waters of Canada. Some years ago we closed the Great Lakes to Canadian registered ships and had great fears about it. Fortunately, because of growing technology, those fears were not realized. However, as the report stage debate continues, Mr. Speaker, you will be hearing members on this side of the House setting forth for consideration in absolute detail the very vital principles that are at stake if this section is passed without something other than the assurance, written or verbal, of the Minister of Transport which will be required by the council of maritime premiers. Indeed the government of British Columbia may require such assurance since Mr. Jack Davis, a distinguished minister in the present British Columbia government, was a former minister in the federal government when the principle of closing coastal trade to Canadian ships was under active consideration. He himself was actively involved in a department that could not itself understand the consequences of this particular section.
What we require to have built into this legislation at some point is a written assurance that nothing that the legislation chooses to do will in any way impair the competitive position of shippers, be they on the west coast, the east coast, or in central Canada. Nothing must impair their ability to move goods and services at the lowest possible rate.
We are concerned about this question from a variety of viewpoints. We know the shellacking that the Atlantic provinces are going to take on April 1 after the Minister of Transport brings in amendments to the Railway Act, particularly to section 272 which controls freight rates, freight rate subsidies and so forth for the movement of goods in our area. We are also concerned about bearing the loss of a level of subsidy on the movement of goods and services by a Canadian fleet which today can only operate at a cost equal to or higher than the existing statute provides for, inasmuch as it does provide for licences and the use of other than non-Canadian ships for the movement of goods and services between one Canadian port and another, or between two Canadian ports by way of a foreign port.
The department has gone a long way to upgrade a bill that essentially arose out of the old British merchant marine act going back to the middle 1800's, and indeed much earlier. We have consolidated the statutes, brought them together and added to them, and they have affected virtually every law on the books in Canada. We are now engaged in updating Victorian attitudes which underlie the old act.
We on this side are grateful that we have got this far. Books I and II, as we will learn when we go through them, deal with some of the general aspects, such as coastal trade
Maritime Code
and the definition of what is a Canadian ship, what are Canadian waters, what are territorial waters, what is a Canadian registered ship, who can own a Canadian ship, what a foreign owner is, what his responsibilities are, and so on.
We have the basis of a good bill here, but it is weakened by two things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it is weakened by the point that I outlined earlier regarding translation and the approach used in drafting the legislation before us. To Your Honour's deep and continuing concern, most members on this side feel that the one language does not necessarily conform to the other. If you read the legislation in the French version and you ask your colleague whether the English corresponds, you are not likely to get an affirmative answer. The same is true of the other language in certain parts of the bill. In other parts if you were to ask your colleague whether the English translates properly into French, he would say it does exactly. But if you were to ask a judge to give his interpretation he would come up with a different interpretation based on whether an action is brought under the act en frangais or in English.
The second matter, requiring a minor technical amendment which we will support, has to do with the shortcomings of the legislation under this particular section. I trust that some of my colleagues will speak in a definitive way on this matter. I refer to the impact on shippers of the consequences of this act if we take water borne transportation out of its presently highly competitive posture vis-avis the railways and place it in a posture that allows the railways to increase their rates. God only knows how the railways set their rate structure other than through competition.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the maritime council of premiers was concerned about this question. We have members from New Brunswick and also members from the west coast who are concerned about it too. It is a matter that must be dealt with by the minister before we go too far on this stage of the bill.
We intend to introduce amendments on this aspect and when we reach clause 12, so that we might have a little more time to consider certain amendments, I will ask that it be stood in order to give the government time to consider ways of incorporating in the bill the type of assurances that are absolutely necessary if the government has any desire to get this piece of legislation out of report stage and into third reading during the present session.
We have six amendments that will follow. We intend to debate all six, although not at any great length. We believe these amendments are stronger than the wording in the bill and tend to give the legislation the type of strength, spirit, and intention of the act. We have indicated publicly that in general we are very much in favour of the bill. I believe in the development of our own Canadian merchant marine.
I might go back to the reference by Judge Bell to the need for a framework or consolidation of the old Canada Shipping Act into a maritime code for the orderly development of our own Canadian merchant marine. This goes back over a period of 15 or 20 years. If he were here this evening he would welcome this. I refer to him because he

March 4, 1976
Maritime Code
fought long and hard for it. Although he is no longer in the partisan sphere I indicate his concern for the protection of the security of transport in the maritimes, in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada, and his concern about anything that imperils the livelihood of the thousands of Canadians who rely on competitive transport for their survival or economic well-being.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leeway you have given me with regard to the very specific amendment the parliamentary secretary has brought in. We have no serious objection to the amendment. We merely wish to indicate in a general way our caveat or reservation concerning the general drafting of the bill. I would hope the parliamentary secretary, or the Minister of Transport personally would give this House the assurance that they are satisfied that the drafters of this bill have done a piece of work which will lead to an equitable interpretation by the courts in Canada, whether it be in English or in French.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would be lacking in full Canadianism if I did not support the basic thrust of this bill. I have often stated, and my words on the record in this House have made abundantly clear, that in my view Canada requires its own merchant marine.
Canada is a nation which is involved in international trade. We have three coasts. Much of our trade is carried by ships. We will not be able to expand our trade until we are able to command the bottoms in which it is carried.
Basically this is a piece of legislation we have been awaiting. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), who has just spoken, mentioned some of the shortcomings that we see in the amendment proposed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and spoken to briefly by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale). One of the shortcomings is in respect of something that appears in the French text compared to what appears in the English text. I should like to direct attention to two portions. One immediately strikes the point.
Although I do not think one can push this too far, generally speaking there is an equivalence in the English version of the protracted text in the French version; because of the precision with which the French language defines itself the French version normally is a little longer than the English version. When I see a French version that is shorter than the English version it immediately jumps at my eye. I immediately think that something must be omitted somewhere. Then I examine it more closely. There may be other examples, but here I find at least two. This is a long complicated bill which requires a great deal of examination, even having just this in mind.
I should like to cite an example on page 14. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the top of page 14 you will see subclause (2) which is almost twice as long as the French version. One might say to oneself that the French version is concise here. However, I do not think this can be so. I looked a little more closely. I find that there is one expression in the English text which really is not carried over into the French text. One of the expressions in subclause (2) is:
... in the twelve month period immediately preceding September 24, 1973 . ..

The French version says simply;
A regulierement et legalement fait du cabotage au Canada depuis le 24 septembre 1972.
That is a different version of the whole thing. Perhaps we should shorten up the English version to correspond with the French version. Instead of saying, "for the twelve month period immediately preceding September 24, 1973" we should say "regularly and legally having been in the service of cabotage in Canada since September 24, 1972." Perhaps this is one aspect of the free translation or free interpretation.
Another example I would cite is on page 50. Here again we have a counteraction in the French. Here the meaning of "cabotage" is narrowed much more in English than in the French. In French it is very large:
Utilise pour faire du cabotage au Canada.
It refers to "other than a Canadian ship in the particular aspect of the coasting trade". The coasting trade, roughly speaking, one can say is cabotage. There is reference to the particular aspect of the coasting trade of Canada in which the applicant proposes to use the ship to which the application relates. I do not think "faire du cabotage" can be translated with this lengthy expression or that the lengthy English expression can be translated into French by simply saying "faire du cabotage" because cabotage does not cover a definition of a particular form of cabotage when one looks at the definition. In fact "cabotage", if we look in the definition under this bill, is not defined at all. So I support the remarks of my colleague from Dartmouth-Halifax East who mentioned this aspect of the bill. Again I agree with him generally that this is a bill that Canada has long needed.
There is another aspect of the definitions here that I feel is worthy of bringing to your attention, Mr. Speaker. That is, we have two definitions of a Canadian ship, one appearing on page 2 under the definition of Canadian ship. It is on page 2 as item 6. Then on page 4, the third full definition is that of navire canadien. That corresponds with item 6 of the definition in English. Having got there we see that a Canadian ship means a Canadian registered ship or a Canadian registered small craft. Then we go to page 12, and we find that "for the purposes of this section and sections 11, 12 and 14" a Canadian ship means something else.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt my hon. friend, and I say that sincerely, but I think we have had a bit of a misunderstanding as to our way of proceeding this evening. It relates to the original grouping of motions in terms of debating purposes and voting purposes for this evening's discussion. It seems that both my hon. friends across the way and I misunderstood what Madam Speaker earlier had concluded on this matter.
With the consent of the House I propose a new arrangement for dealing with the various motions on the order paper in terms of the clauses that we group together for discussion purposes. I think, just as an aside, that all of us who have spoken so far, including my hon. friend whom I have just interrupted-and I apologize for that-have restricted our remarks so far to the question of the correspondence between the English and French versions, so I
March 4, 1976

do not think we have caused any difficulty for the Chair in that respect.
I propose that motions Nos. 1 and 5 be grouped together for the purposes of discussion and voting because they both relate to a similar subject matter in connection with the two versions of the bill, that is, the English and French versions. I think we could conveniently deal with motions Nos. 2 and 3 together. Motion No. 4 should be dealt with separately. I think motions Nos. 6 and 7 could be conveniently grouped together. Motion No. 8 should be dealt with separately, and motion No. 9 should be dealt with separately. I think there would be a disposition in the House to deal with the clauses in that fashion.


J. Michael Forrestall: The observations of the parliamentary secretary are correct. We apologize to the House and trust that we have not caused any great inconvenience. Before we get too deeply into this, I think the groupings the parliamentary secretary has outlined, namely, grouping motions Nos. 1 and 5, and Nos. 2 and 3 No. 4 separately, Nos. 6 and 7 together, No. 8 separately, and No. 9 separately, is the general course of action which would best meet and facilitate the House in getting on with the debate and in any subsequent voting which should take place. I simply support the parliamentary secretary in this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that a vote on motion No. 1 will dispose of motion No. 5; a vote on motion No. 2 will dispose of ihotion No. 3; motion No. 4 will be a separate vote; a vote on motion No. 6 will dispose of motion No. 7; motion No. 8 will be a separate vote, and motion No. 9 will be a separate vote. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for any misunderstanding. I did confine myself within these limits up to a point; I recognize that. Then I got into two definitions in English which I found just a little difficult to follow, and I am sure that if I had followed the French versions I would have found navire canadien appears in two places with two definitions, so I think in those circumstances I am not entirely out of order.
However, I think these remarks are still worth making because, although I am not a lawyer, I feel there is some role that a definition section in a law of this complexity should play. Then having found out through the definition section what something means, I have to pull myself up with a bit of a jerk as I come a little further along in the legislation to find that that term does not mean the same thing there; it means something else again. As I say, it is not a matter of translation from one language to the other, but the use of the same term in the same language in different senses in different parts of the bill.
My remarks concerning the abbreviation in some portions of the French-and perhaps there is a lack of consonants in the English version-certainly stand, and dealing simply with motions Nos. 1 and 5, I reiterate at this point, that to my way of thinking, when we reach clause 12, there will be a need for a little more assurance. Agreed, this is not covered by these motions, but when we reach clause 12 on page 16 we will need something a little more positive in the way of an assurance. For example, 1 should like to
Maritime Code
think that the regulations in both languages will be ready for us to look at before this legislation is finally given third reading, and also that these regulations will have met with the approval of the Maritime premiers who, I understand, expressed some grave reservations, for good economic reasons, about the imposition of this legislation.
I have no quarrel with the amendments which have been put forward, motions Nos. 1 and 5. I think this does illustrate, however, a fact that we have been trying to bring out. I should also like some clarification from the parliamentary secretary, or from the minister himself when the time comes, that the interpretations in one superior court or another will be based on the same sort of facts.
Again I admit that I am not a lawyer, but I have been given to understand that in English speaking courts one relies entirely on the precedents and definitions which are written in the law, whereas-and this again is my understanding, subject to correction-in the French speaking courts, and the superior courts particularly, the judges have access to and they use the historical documents building up the definitions, and even the discussion we are having tonight might very well constitute part of the desiderata of a judge when he is considering the meaning of some term, phrase of clause. This would introduce some quite different elements in the judgments, so I should like during the course of this debate, or later, to have a defini-tie assurance on these matters.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak to clause 8 of the bill in order to express the concern of the shippers of British Columbia about its inclusion in Bill C-61. Everybody in British Columbia welcomes Bill C-61, and those of us who have sat on the committee understand the tremendous amount of work that has gone into it. This is a technical bill and pertains to the new transportation policy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Is the hon. member speaking to motion No. 8? Only motions Nos. 1 and 5 are before the House at the moment.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: No, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking to the amendment to clause 8, which is motion No. 1.
We realize that the bill is needed to put into shape much of the legislation which is necessary for the implementation of the new transportation policy for Canada. But clause 8 is of real and serious concern to the shippers of British Columbia. This clause would implement something new. We are not continuing with the housekeeping nature and improvement nature of Bill C-61, we are moving into a restriction of coastal shipping to Canadian bottoms.
In British Columbia we are completely capable of building equipment that is entirely suitable in advanced technology for the movement of goods on the coast. We are also capable of building equipment to move goods and service the Arctic from that coast. The problem that shippers in British Columbia have with clause 8 is in regard to its inter-coastal nature, that is, the movement of goods from the west coast to the east coast. This clause puts shippers in British Columbia into the same condition that the Jones Act puts the Pacific Northwest State shippers in the United States-a non-competitive position.

March 4, 1976
Maritime Code
It is a fact of life that British Columbia shippers enjoy a lower rail rate on a mileage basis only because of their ability to move goods across this country by water through the Panama Canal. The recent Canadian National-Canadi-an Pacific increase in rail rates has caused shippers in British Columbia to look again at the water or ocean movement of British Columbia products to the east coast of the United States and Canada.
What we are doing by insisting that we move merchandise from British Columbia via the Panama Canal in Canadian bottoms is creating a monopoly situation that will either be owned by single interests or by the railroads of Canada. Such a monopoly situation would make the products of British Columbia more expensive to eastern markets and would reduce the take-home pay of the workers in British Columbia. It is absolutely essential that this be understood, and the point was made to the former minister of transport in October, 1974.
In his opening remarks the parliamentary secretary mentioned that we had heard from many committees. It is interesting to note that the steering committee did not see fit to bring back to the transport committee the points made by the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia. In the discussions in committee I was not made aware that the Council of Forest Industries had made a presentation to the Minister of Transport. I think that was an oversight that has not worked to the advantage of British Columbia shippers.
It is a known fact that limiting the movement of British Columbia products to the east coast of North America via the Panama Canal in Canadian bottoms only would raise the cost, and the limited volume of freight would leave us pretty much in a monopoly situation which would work against our interests. I have been advised that clause 8 can only work extreme adverse hardship on British Columbia shippers.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. For-restall) pointed out that the same fears existed when Canadian bottoms were limited to the Great Lakes. I should like to point out that on the Pacific rim and in the port of Vancouver we have been serving the hinterland with overland common point rates of the railroads. Much of the service which comes through that port has been due to that classification of freight rate which recognizes the competition of the Panama Canal.
I also point out that the fears of my colleagues about the Great Lakes mentioned by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East did not come to pass. I would suggest that the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway system are a heavily subsidized system for which you could not get an honest comparison of rates.
The Welland Canal alone requires a subsidy of from $33 million to $38 million a year over and above its revenues. The total St. Lawrence seaway system accumulated deficit is approaching $800 million. With that type of subsidy I suggest there is no argument left to allay the fear in British Columbia that Canadian bottoms moving British Columbia goods via the Panama Canal to eastern Canadian coastal ports would do anything but increase the cost of moving those goods to markets. As we are dealing on a delivered basis that increased cost can only come out of the payroll and revenues of British Columbia.

To give an idea of the volumes unvalued I will take two commodities, Mr. Speaker. In 1974 the lumber moved by rail and truck from British Columbia to eastern markets totalled 471 million cubic board feet. At 50,000 cubic board feet to a carload we are talking about nine to ten thousand carloads of this one commodity.
Another product is plywood. In 1974 we shipped 650 million square feet. At 55,000 square feet to the carload we are talking about some 11,000 or 12,000 carloads of this product. That all moves into these eastern markets and the rail rate has to be competitive with water rates that are available from other flags attending the west coast market.
I think the government should be very careful with this clause of the bill because it carries most serious economic consequences for the people of British Columbia. As I have said, we are very capable of designing and building efficient equipment to service the coastal areas and the north into the Arctic. Our main concern is the intercoastal movement of British Columbia products via the Panama Canal. We do not criticize the need for a Canadian merchant marine; if fact, we on the west coast would like to see a Canadian merchant marine, but perhaps with a broader reason and use.
Canadian consumers suffer a very serious disadvantage and deficit when dealing with members of the Ocean Conference. Because we in Canada do not have a Canadian merchant marine we are not party to the Ocean Conference. It is difficult for the port of Vancouver to compete with Seattle as U.S. shippers are members of the Conference. For instance, containers are delivered by the ship slings to the ships at Vancouver and the cost thereafter of moving the container to rest at Vancouver dock or shed is charged to the account of the shipper or receiver. In Seattle, a port which is part of the Ocean Conference, the container is delivered from the ship to "at rest" in the shed, at the expense of the ship. Therefore shippers or receivers in the port of Seattle do not have to meet this additional cost. That is not the case in Canada, as we are not part of the Ocean Conference.
There is no Canadian Marine Industry. I do not think anyone would criticize attempts to establish such an industry in this country. I think the inclusion of clause 8 as worded in the bill shows that the Minister of Transport and the ministry have not given due consideration to the needs of British Columbia.
Another matter to do with clause 8 concerns Canadian bottoms, or the lack of them, involved in coastal trade. I am concerned about trade via the Panama Canal. Canada faces tremendous capital needs for energy, and in the immediate future for modernizing its transport system. Why should we involve ourselves in pouring capital into Canadian bottoms when other bottoms are available to serve us, and take B.C. products to east coast markets? I should like to see this aspect of clause 8 corrected, in order that there may be due consideration of the factors I have mentioned. All regions of Canada must be considered in the matter of transport.
Another concern is this: it has been my personal experience that it is extremely difficult to find crews to man ships. At present we in British Columbia are building a
March 4, 1976

highly technical vessel to serve the oil rigs in the North Sea. Canadian companies are leasing these vessels to the exploration companies. Not long ago I witnessed a launching of one such vessel.
I learned that Canadian companies could not man these ships with Canadian crews. The pay was between $20,000 and $30,000. You would be three weeks on and three weeks off. Your family would live in Spain, and you would be flown back and forth if you served on such a ship. The working conditions and quality of employment were the best I have seen. Yet it was difficult to man that ship. A crew could not be found in British Columbia. The company searched across Canada for personnel to man the ship. That again is another factor to which the government has paid insufficient attention by including clause 8 as worded. For that reason I should like to see this aspect of clause 8 not included in the bill.
In October, 1974, the former minister of transport promised the institution of an efficient waiver system which would allow the use of foreign ships if Canadian ships were unavailable at suitable rates or were unsuitable for the task at hand. If the government intends to include clause 8 in this housekeeping bill I should like to see some guarantee being given with regard to that promised waiver provision.
Again I ask, if you insist on Canadian bottoms moving B.C. products, primary and secondary products, to eastern Canadian markets, who will own the bottoms and will they operate at competitive rates? I suppose they will be owned by Canada Steamship, or a consortium involving Canada Steamship, or one involving the railroads. If the railroads are involved in the ownership of Canadian bottoms serving British Columbia we shall lose the last vestige of hope for obtaining competitive rail rates for moving our products efficiently to consumers in the east.
It is my judgment that it is better to tackle this problem by giving tax incentives in place of subsidy incentives. If you provide tax incentives, industry will find the most efficient answer. Industry will be more efficient than the bureaucracy. I am opposed to this bureaucratic meddling in B.C. industry. It restricts the freedom of our industry.
I was interested to note that the B.C. transport minister has expressed the same concern I have expressed in the House this evening. He said that the Jones Act has worked to the disadvantage of industries in Oregon and Washington competing with British Columbia. We shall neutralize that advantage if we include clause 8 as written in Bill C-61. There can be only one result for B.C. shippers;- increased cost of delivering B.C. products to eastern Canadian markets.
As an alternative we could continue using other countries' bottoms. We could discharge the goods at nonCanadian ports, then ship them by rail or truck to eastern Canadian markets. But that makes no sense. For that reason I contend that the government has not deliberated enough on the need for a rewording of clause 8. It works to the disadvantage of the industries and people of British Columbia. I am glad that Mr. Davis, the B.C. transport minister, now sees the producers' point of view. He was not concerned, I understand, when this subject matter was considered in 1973. He at that time raised no objection to the inclusion of clause 8, as presently worded.
Maritime Code
In closing I urge the Department of Transport, the Minister of Transport, and the parliamentary secretary to delete clause 8 in its present form from the bill as it will work a disincentive to the industries and people of British Columbia.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Originally it was agreed that motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would be voted on and discussed together, under certain conditions. In the light of the later agreement is there unanimous consent to withdraw motions Nos. 2 and 3 from the grouping?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Armstrong Richardson: motion No. 5:
That Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other Acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be amended in Clause 11 of the French version by deleting subclause (2) at pages 14 and 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) L<a Commission canadienne des transports ne peut delivrer la
licence prevue au paragraphe (1) que si le requerant la convainc
a)	qu'il est dans l'interet public d'utiliser un navire autre qu'un navire canadien compte tenu de l'usage particulier auquel le navire vise par la demande est destine:
b)	que le navire vise par la demande presente les caracteristiques necessaires a cet usage."


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the comments I made on the first motion apply to this motion also. The principle is the same, no substantive change is being made in the effect of this clause. This, simply, is a technical amendment, to make the French language version of the bill correspond with the English version. Comments made with regard to the importance of making both versions the same are relevant here as well.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do I understand that the remarks that were just made were directed to motion No. 5 and that we have up until now been discussing motions Nos. 1 and 5 together, or were we just discussing motion No. 1? I am really confused.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Motions Nos. 1 and 5. We withdrew motions Nos. 2 and 3 from the grouping. Is the House ready for the question? The question is on motion No. 1 and motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering whether the government House leader was paying any attention to us tonight. Possibly we can defer any and all results until some point in the future because there will be votes. It might be easier to dispose of this at one time and now move to motion No. 2.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Could we not now agree on division?


Steve Eugene Paproski: On division.

Maritime Code


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the said motions will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the yeas have it. Do the motions carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motions Nos. 1 and 5 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now proceed to motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, these motions have already been formally moved. We are now starting to get into the meat of the content of Bill C-61, the Maritime Code. We are still dealing with clause 8 with regard to the coastal ports of Canada. My two colleagues have in a general way pointed out some of the fears we on this side have with respect to it.
The amendment I put forward seeks to strengthen the intent and spirit of the act as it relates to cabotage. What we have been attempting to do since we lost the Canadian merchant marine through what can only be described as carelessness by Liberal administrations of 15 or 20 years ago is to re-establish a framework for a Canadian merchant marine.
This House has heard me talk about the role of Canada in the north, for example, that we should be the ones to control our extractive industries, build the boats, find the crews, and provide the technology and planning. My amendment seeks to close one of the major loopholes in the bill. Fears have been expressed by my colleagues from the west. My colleagues from the east will be a little less restrained than those two hon. gentlemen and will put in a forceful manner some of the fears we have.
For those who have bothered to read my amendment it is not put forward with tongue in cheek. I will read it because I am sure most members have not bothered to look at it. I am attempting to close a very serious loophole in the act. If we pass this bill without giving consideration to and doing some thing about this, we might just as well not have bothered in the first place. I have moved the deletion of line 20 at page 12 and the substitution of the following therefor, and I quote:
"Canada: and, for better ensuring the attainment of the said purposes, any port or place in the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon shall be deemed to be a port or place in Canada, and the Governor in Council may, by order, provide that any other port or place not in Canada shall be deemed to be in Canada."
March 4, 1976
We are trying to get at closing the damnable practice of foreign ships coming into our country and engaging in business that could well be carried on by Canadian entrepreneurs. This is not being done by Canadians because parliament will not give them a change to invest in developing a tourist industry.
As an example, Russian ships enter the port of Montreal and take on passengers who have paid $300, $400 or $500 for a trip. The ship flies a foreign flag. There is a foreign crew. They are not subject to the Canada Labour Code, the Immigration Act, the Income Tax Act, or any other Canadian Laws. We permit them to come here, pick up passengers, steam down the St. Lawrence, up the Saguenay and get off at Quebec. They can clear the Saguenay or Diamond Point at St. Pierre and Miquelon, a foreign place. It does not matter whether they go into that port. They simply have to clear "foreign" and then return to drop off their passengers. They can do so at rates the Canadian industry cannot afford. It is to correct this that we have introduced this amendment. I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I will resume when this matter is next before the House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, February 26, I endeavoured to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) respecting the veracity of a statement contained in the document "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent" which was tabled by the minister at the time he tabled the main estimates for 1976-77.
I feel that I must have worded the question badly since the Chair ruled that it ought to be put to the minister when he is before the standing committee. Certainly any questions dealing with spending by the Treasury Board should be put to the President of the Treasury Board in committee. And of course any questions dealing with the details of spending in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources should be put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) in committee.
However, the question I had was not with regard to the estimates or the spending by these departments, but rather with regard to a statement in the pamphlet "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent". In particular, on page 24 of this pamphlet in the final paragraph, indeed the final sentence of the section describing Energy, Mines and Resources, there is the statement, and I quote:

March 4, 1976

Main estimates for this ministry are higher in 1976-77 mainly because of the requirement for increased payments under the oil price subsidy program.
Well, looking at the estimates at page 5-4 I see that spending under the oil price subsidy program will, in fact, decrease by the amount of $250 million between the fiscal years 1975-76 and 1976-77. I realize that detailed questions regarding the nature of these expenses ought to be put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in committee, and I intend to do that. But this booklet, "How your Tax Dollar is Spent" was not referred to the committee. In the words of the President of the Treasury Board in his introduction, the booklet was designed to beof considerable use to taxpayers and members of the House of Commons and the Senate because of the way it summarizes the voluminous details of the Blue Book, and because of additional information provided to show the economic context in which the government planned its expenditures.
Surely that is the case only if the information contained in the book is correct. A casual look at the estimates with regard to the statement to which I referred earlier shows that it is clearly not correct.
On February 12, Mr. Speaker, this house spent a day debating a motion put forward by my hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants dealing with the question of freedom of information. During the rather high level debate which took place that day members on both sides agreed there was a need for more and better information to be supplied by the government, in particular in connection with spending programs.
In his contribution to the debate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said the government was in fact providing more information. He gave us an example. He said that much more information was being provided by way of white papers and documents prepared to support the budget. He might have talked about this document, "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent". It is a relatively new edition to the procedure when tabling estimates. Anyway, this, we were told, was an example of the way the government was moving, and it is a desirable direction. But it must be acknowledged that there are statements here which are exactly contrary to the facts, as one is able to glean them from that awfully complicated document, the Blue Book of main estimates.
I do not intend to rehash old pleas about the necessity of better information, particularly for members of the House of Commons. This is so obvious that it should not require any elaboration. It is necessary for the functioning of our system that there should be less secrecy and more openness about spending.
The President of the Treasury Board has been moved to tell the House how difficult it is to curtail government spending. Well, Mr. Speaker, the C. D. Howe Research Institute gave some excellent advice when it stated that the first place the government should start in its program of restraint was by providing the public with better information as to how money was being spent and the problems the government was encountering in trying to hold down growth in government spending. Part of that is a requirement for more openness and honesty.
Adjournment Debate
This might be an honest mistake in the document, it might not. As I read the document it is less information about how your tax dollars are spent and more of an apologia for the government's inability to control government spending along the lines that were promised the Canadian people in the budget and many times since.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the booklet to which the hon. member refers, entitled "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent", provides comparisons between budgets printed in the Blue Books of main estimates of two consecutive years. In this case, the 1965-76 Blue Book displayed oil import compensation payments as $1,300 million, and the 1976-77 Blue Book displays these payments as $1,410 million.


Harvie Andre: What book are you reading?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: When the hon. member reads my statement I think he will understand what I am saying. I just ask him to hear me out; I think it will be self-explanatory. Therefore, comparison of these figures identifies an increase of $110 million, as the hon. member pointed out.
However, the amount printed in the 1975-76 Blue Book was supplemented during the course of the fiscal year by $385 million, bringing the total program up to $1,685 million. This was displayed in supplementary estimates "A" of this year and is displayed as total 1975-76 program cost in the 1976-77 Blue Book. It is because of that supplementary estimate that the program, as it appears in next year's Blue Book, shows a decrease of $275 million. The hon. member is perfectly right in calling attention to the difficulty of getting documents printed on a basis that includes the latest information, including supplementary estimates tabled in the House. That is the explanation of the particular discrepancy to which he points.


RESEARCH-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF FREEZE ON FUNDS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: On January 27, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether in view of protests that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the minister of state in charge of science and technology and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) were receiving from all sectors of the scientific community regarding the virtual freeze on research funds provided to universities, the government would reconsider its position. The Acting Prime Minister replied that there would be no change.
I have refrained until now from pursuing the question further because I hoped that the protests, which I knew were continuing to flow into the Prime Minister's office, might give the Prime Minister some understanding of the horror which the government's freeze has created for the scientific community.
Let me put on the record some of the comments that have been made. The President of the National Research Council, Dr. W. G. Schneider, said among other things;
Canada will not be able to hold its own in the international market for new and improved manufactured products in a few years time because of these research cuts.
11526

March 4, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Dr. Gerhard Herzberg, one of Canada's new Nobel prize winners, charged in Ottawa in February that government bureaucracy and cost cutting have stifled the creativity of Canada's scientific researchers. He said:
... that pure, not applied, science had suffered most from government cutbacks. Basic research funds increased minimally in the past five years, he said, at a time of high inflation. As a result, actual government spending in pure science declined by about half.
What this means can be seen very quickly if one looks at a letter written by the President of the Medical Research Council, Dr. Malcolm Brown. I shall quote just a few sentences from his letter in which he outlines what the Medical Research Council is doing in order to meet the constraints put on it by the government:
The Visiting Scientist, Research Professorships and Summer Undergraduate Research Scholarships programs have been suspended for 1976-77.
The June 1976 grants competition has been cancelled. General Research Grants have each been reduced by one third for 1976-77.
A 3 per cent cut will be made in the operating component (exclusive of support provided for approved trainees and professional assistants) of all MRC grants for 1976-77 except term grants in their third year and terminal awards,...
Let me place on the record a few quotations from some of the letters which have gone to the Prime Minister. Here is one from my province from Professor J. C. Haworth, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Centre. He states:
Reduction of our research programs will have the following results:
1. Since about 70 per cent of our research funding is used to pay salaries, the reduction in the value of research funds will inevitably require the discharge of some technical staff. Quite apart from the personal hardship this will cause, it must be recognized that many of these people are highly trained and skilled in their work and it will take years to train others to the same level of competence when research funds again become more plentiful.
Here is a letter to the Prime Minister from Dr. D. G. Scraba, Associate Professor of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Alberta. He says:
While I support your government's intention to control its spending, I seriously question its priorities for restraint. Surely the saving of $7,000,000 from the total federal budget cannot justify the harmful immediate and long-term effects upon medical research in this country.
He concludes by saying:
The net result of these restrictions will be to retard progress now, and to seriously imperil the future of medical research in Canada. Once momentum and enthusiasm has been lost in this field a substantial period of time will be required to regenerate it.
I could go on, but I just want to say that when the government restricts scientific research to the few millions of dollars it has this year, when we have a budget of well over $30 billion, to say the least it is being pretty stupid about priorities, particularly when one keeps in mind the kind of criticism of government spending the Auditor General made in his last report.
Let me put on the record a few of the comments of the Auditor General. He points out that rental costs for unoccupied space in Ottawa were $487,300 in 1974-75 and will probably be $4.5 million in 1975-76. Let me point out that the Department of National Defence is to construct a language centre at its base at St. Jean at a cost of $88 million.

Let me point out that we are spending something in the neighbourhood of $1 billion to construct the Olympic facilities for a three weeks' spectacular. Let me point out that we spent $10 million on the Pickering Airport which has been abandoned. Finally, in the last six years when the government has been talking about restraints, the number of executive employees has grown from something under 400 to over 1,000, an increase of two and a half times. I am talking about senior civil servants who earn from $30,000 to $65,000 per year. It seems obvious to me that when the government talks about restraint and imposes the kind of restraint which it has imposed on the scientific community, it is not only stupid but, to say the lbast, criminal.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who has expressed a sincere and genuine concern about the amount of money which is available at any time for scientific research.
The hon. member is an experienced parliamentarian and has been in this House for a good long while, and he knows full well that the government has been fully committed and remains committed to the maintenance and development of a national capacity to perform research when that research is in the field of natural, medical, or social sciences. Research leads to new knowledge, and hopefully that knowledge will become available for applications which can be useful to the human condition. We all recognize that. Most of our basic research over the years has been directed toward the universities because we know that there is the greatest freedom and stimulation for a very high quality of basic research.
Hon. members know what has been happening in the universities, particularly in the 1960's. During that period of time undergraduate enrollment in universities doubled, and post graduate enrollment increased five-fold. During this period we only need to ask ourselves what was the participation and the role of the federal government? The budget of the research council for grants and scholarships during that same period of time increased annually by the amount of 20 per cent.


David Orlikow: What has happened in the last couple of years?


B. Keith Penner: Every member of parliament with an ounce of fiscal commonsense knows that this pattern of expenditures simply could not go on indefinitely. A change in emphasis in government spending was bound to occur, and that is the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time. We realize now, somewhat painfully, that we are in a time of fiscal restraint, and every segment of our economy must bear its share of the burden in this effort to reduce inflation. That includes the scientific community.
Unfortunately, scientific research cannot be an exception. There are budgetary restraints and there is a budgetary discipline, and I believe that the scientists and researchers in Canada can learn to live with that because it certainly does not mean that there will be a dismantling
March 4, 1976

of our research teams. It does mean learning how to live within the present constraints. That is a challenge all of us are facing, but I for one have a great deal of confidence in our Canadian scientists and researchers and I believe that, despite these financial restraints which have been imposed on them and other segments of the economy, they will continue contributing to the pool of knowledge which we expect and need.


PENITENTIARIES-BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON SEIZING OF HOSTAGES
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on February 19 three well known desperadoes in the New Westminster penitentiary managed to find themselves in a place where they could capture three hostages and hold them at bay while they entered into negotiations with federal authorities. On that day I rose in the House and asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) whether there were any weapons of any type involved when these hostages were seized, whether it happened during the time when the prisoners were being transferred, and what the circumstances were.
First I should like to thank the Solicitor General for his candid answer on that day at a time when he was under severe tension because the hostages were still being held at knife point in the B.C. penitentiary. However, there has been nothing said by the minister which would shed further light on this incident, and the whole case brings into question the administration of the federal penitentiary system in Canada. There are some very serious unanswered questions. I have been through that penitentiary at least twice and have seen the former security area and at one time the solitary confinement area, popularly known as "the penthouse"-an impregnable area.
As soon as the supreme court judge issued his judgment on the matter of cruel and unusual treatment the administrator of the federal penitentiary in New Westminster almost fell over himself to remove prisoners from the maximum security area and establish a new section known as the administration segregation unit.
The first question I should like the parliamentary secretary to answer is why the administrator was in such a hurry to move those prisoners from the maximum security area to the new area which had been so recently constructed. I am very certain no court order was issued commanding the administrator to transfer them to the new unit. Who authorized him to do that, and why was he in such a hurry?
Second, when these men were known to be such desperate criminals, why were three of them in such close proximity? Why were three of them in a position to remain in the exercise area that day so that they could hold three hostages until their demands were met? Why were they all free at the same time?
I would point out to the parliamentary secretary that one of the prison guards, Mr. Crawford, opened the door for Mr. Lucas, who was one of the three men who held the 15 hostages last June. Mr. Jarvis opened the door for Mr. Adjournment Debate
Lowe. Who opened the door for Mr. Bruce? All three desperados were free at the same time.
These questions have not been answered, Mr. Speaker. If we are to have a secure prison system why were those three men free at the same time? Where did they get the knives? Is there no security system to check knives and all the other prison utensils when prisoners finish their meal? What kind of administration allows such loose surveillance of the utensils the prisoners use?
The final question is the fundamental one. It would seem that the routine order transferring these men, or allowing them to exercise, allows only one person to exercise at a time. That seems an obvious and sensible policy, but it would appear that the routine order had been changed that day so that three of them got out at the same time. I wonder if the Solicitor General would agree to table in the House the routine order for that day so that members could see what had been done so that three men were free to exercise in the court at the same time.
We are about to debate a measure dealing with peace and security. That type of legislation becomes somewhat of a mockery if, at the same time the government puts it before us, there is sloppy administration in the prison system. How is it possible to pass further legislation in this House when the laws of the land are being violated with impunity?
I simply pose these questions to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Speaker. Why was it that Mr. Maurice Ford, who went in to help the men for whom he was responsible, was not given support by the administration of the penitentiary when he was held at ransom? What man in his right mind is going to work in the penitentiary if he gets no more support than Mr. Ford got on that day? I think the Canadian people and the House deserve some answers about the administration of our penitentiaries by officers appointed by the Solicitor General. I would hope the Solicitor General will answer these questions so that we will see he has a responsible attitude toward the administration of justice in the land.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) is concerned and that many of the questions he has asked tonight cannot be answered until the commission of inquiry ordered by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries has been completed.
At the time the initial question was answered the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) was able to provide some particulars, and I may be able to provide further at this time.
As a result of a judgment rendered by the hon. Justice Heald of British Columbia, changes were made in the conditions of segregation at the British Columbia penitentiary. The inmates who were involved in the recent hostage taking incident, namely, Messrs. Lucas, Bruce, and Lowe, had been transferred from the special correctional unit on the top floor of the British Columbia penitentiary to a special area isolated for the purpose of segregation, but located in the main dome area of the British Columbia penitentiary. This area was especially isolated for the purpose of holding inmates in segregation. They were accommodated in the same type of cells as provided for the rest
21419-37*/2

March 4, 1976
Adjournment Debate
of the inmate population. That particular range of cells in which the incident took place was under the control of the correctional officers.
The Solicitor General earlier stated in the House that the incident occurred at approximately 0820 hours Pacific time. The three inmates seized three correctional officers and held them in one end of the administrative segregation area, B-7. They had five kitchen knives which they had filed down, and what officials believe to be a container of acid. The incident ended shortly before 2300 hours on the same day. Neither staff nor inmates were injured.
Some of the demands of the three inmates were related to minor problems of administration which the director, after consulting with the commissioner, agreed to take action upon. Another demand was that changes be made with respect to the procedures governing inmate disciplinary courts. The director could not agree to this matter as it was beyond his jurisdiction. However, this demand was referred to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries for his consideration. The commissioner declined to make any comment on this matter except to state that this matter had been looked at in detail by the Vantour report. The penitentiary service will be giving their official reaction to this report in the near future.
The inmates further requested that they be transferred to the Dorchester penitentiary. This request was agreed to, and at this time the transfer of two of the inmates is completed. The third inmate involved appeared in court in British Columbia on March 3 and was subsequently transferred to Dorchester penitentiary.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General, to take this opportunity to commend all these persons in authority who were involved in this incident for having been successful in obtaining the release of the three hostages without any injury or loss of life to either personnel or inmates. He also wants to thank Miss Winfield, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Siegfried for their most valuable co-operation in this matter.
An inquiry has been convened into these incidents and it is the minister's intention to inform the House of the results of this inquiry in due course of time. For this reason the minister would be most reluctant to comment on the details of the incident and risk prejudicing anyone involved in this case. May I again thank the hon. member for his extreme interest in the matter.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, March 5, 1976