1977-05-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the large number of legal abortions being carried out in this country and in view of the good work being done by the Coalition for Life to counteract this tendency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That the Minister of Justice re-examine the current abortion law with a view to tightening it up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because this House believes in equal rights as between men and women, I ask leave under Standing Order 43 to present a motion, which is seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I therefore move:
That this House urges the government, in view of its statement that the purpose of Bill C-49 is to recognize the role of spouses working in the home, to bring before the House, as an amendment or in addition to Bill C-49, legislation to provide pensions for all homemaker spouses, in their own right, equivalent to those earned by contributors to the Canada Pension Plan, thus recognizing in full, for pension purposes, the contribution to our society made by those who work in the home.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a presentation would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Rend Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter.
Considering that hockey is an important sport in Canada; that the fans in the Quebec City, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton areas are especially interested in the World Hockey Association since there is a possibility of an all-Canadian league final between Winnipeg and Quebec City; since the supporters of those teams have as many rights and privileges as the supporters of National Hockey League teams and, finally, since the CBC must remain unbiased and fair, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) direct the CBC to review the contract binding the corporation with the Canadian Sport Network so that the television services of the CBC may be at least available to the Canadian cities of the World Hockey Association.


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 unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an important and urgent matter.

May 5, 1977
Oral Questions
Whereas Air Canada has recently adopted a new passenger schedule by which citizens of the central Maritime area, which includes southeastern New Brunswick and northwestern Nova Scotia, have been given the worst air passenger schedule ever presented for at least the last 20 years;
And whereas Air Canada flights in and out of Moncton for Montreal and Ottawa have been literally stripped of any convenience to the travelling public causing a deplorable result on already fragile economic conditions and will have devastating effects on the upcoming tourist industry;
And whereas some of the flights on the new Air Canada schedule necessitate a stopover in Montreal of approximately two to three hours;
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates):
That the Minister of Transport immediately take steps to insist that Air Canada revise the recently adopted passenger schedule to provide a more convenient, useful and practical service from Ottawa-Montreal-Moncton and return for the use of passengers in the central Maritime region.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Order, presentation of the motion can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the hon. gentleman confirm to the House of Commons that the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration, Mr. Robert Bryce, will soon resign, that the other commissioners will be relieved of their duties and that the commission will be abandoned without being allowed to present its report?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: cannot confirm or deny that statement because I have absolutely no information on the question. I shall endeavour to find out and let the Leader of the Opposition know tomorrow.


Charles Joseph Clark: Would the Acting Prime Minister also put himself in a position to confirm that much of the report of the royal commission has already been written and that the government will refuse to publish the research papers and other materials prepared at public expense for the commission, but

will, instead, refer this material to the Economic Council of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not heard any discussion or been informed of any decision with respect to those matters but I will add them to the inquiry.


REASON FOR ALLEGED REFUSAL TO PUBLISH REPORT OF COMMISSION-REQUEST THAT COMMISSION CONTINUE ITS WORK
Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Acting Prime Minister is so agreeable, would he also broaden his inquiries and confirm to the House of Commons that the government's reason for abandoning this Royal commission after nearly two years' work, without publishing its report or its recommendations, is that the direction of the commission of inquiry to date runs directly contrary to the direction of stage two of the government's Competition Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will also check into that. I would be surprised if that is the case, but I am accustomed to surprises in parliament.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the Acting Prime Minister determines that in fact all this is the case, would he now give the House of Commons a guarantee that the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration will be allowed to continue its work and will not be abandoned simply because its findings would embarrass the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give him an assurance on that latter point.


SUGGESTION THAT BACKGROUND PAPERS TO REPORT BE GIVEN TO STANDING COMMITTEE STUDYING BILL C-42
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the importance of this news that the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration has been cancelled with its work in progress, I would ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he would use his influence and power to make sure that the partially completed report and the background papers to that report will be turned over to the standing committee currently studying the subject matter of Bill C-42, which involves monopolies and mergers, a related subject?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances I do not think I could add anything to what the Acting Prime Minister has said. Since he will be reporting to the Leader of the Opposition in response to his question, the question of the hon. member might then become more relevant.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. In view of the fact that the
May 5, 1977

subject matter of Bill C-42 deals with monopolies and mergers in quite an extensive and different way, and in view of the fact that this bill was introduced before the report of the Bryce commission on corporate concentration was issued and there is an overlapping area there which is causing confusion for some members of the House, may I urge the minister to do everything in his power to make sure that its papers are available to the committee and to members of the House?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take very careful note of the hon. member's recommendation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm that the Minister of Supply and Services, according to an announcement made by the external affairs department, has been appointed to the role of adviser in the area of international Francophone affairs to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and if he has been given this new ministerial responsibility, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether or not he thinks that this represents a clear undermining of the authority of the existing Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Minister of Supply and Services has been asked to assist the Secretary of State for External Affairs in an advisory capacity, and I think that is a good idea in view of the increasing importance of our relations with Francophone countries. That situation will permit the Minister of Supply and Services to assist in an advisory capacity, but also to deal, and to assist the minister in dealing, with the increasing number of official visitors and delegations from these countries.
In reply to the second part of the question, I can assure the House that it does not represent in any way an undermining of the minister's responsibilities because he will continue to have full administrative responsibility for all aspects of departmental activities. This arrangement has been put into place with the full concurrence of the minister himself.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister will know from his previous experience as the secretary of state for external affairs that in the past Canadian ministers, who have held that position, have had other ministers with them on trips to deal with a specialized area of responsibility or to provide a consultative role from time to time on matters for conferences here in Canada. Would the minister not acknowledge that the wording of the announcement clearly implies a kind of joint ministerial responsibility, especially when there is
Oral Questions
a clear division of areas, and the Minister of Supply and Services, according to the announcement, has been given authority over international Francophone affairs? If this is the case, does that not mean, in terms of his responsibility, that he is going to be taking over the present responsibilities of the existing minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no, that is not the case. The minister will be responsible in the normal way for all aspects of our external relations. The Minister of Supply and Services will assist in an advisory capacity in an area that is of increasing importance to Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering the Minister of Finance, for example, attends international conferences very frequently and goes abroad to deal with international financial matters, is the government going to be consistent and appoint to the Minister of Finance another minister who would have joint responsibility in that area as well?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of joint responsibility. It is not proposed for the Minister of Finance.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General of Canada.
The Solicitor General doubtless remembers the debate that took place in 1974 between the then minister of justice and the Hon. Jerome Choquette, Quebec Minister of Justice, dealing with financial compensation for maintaining police forces in the province of Quebec. Can he tell the House whether, since the election of the new Quebec government, he has had consultations with the Quebec Minister of Justice in this regard?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Can the minister tell us, if he has had no talks in this regard with the Minister of Justice, whether he has had any with that same minister in other fields relating to justice in Canada?


Francis Fox: No, Mr. Speaker. However, regular meetings are held of the deputy ministers responsible for summary jurisdiction in Canada, and among others, with regard to juvenile delinquency and the new federal programs in that field.


ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS NOT GIVEN TO QUEBEC FOR POLICE FORCE IN CONFEDERATION ACCOUNT
Mr.   Ren@: Mr. Speaker, could the Solicitor General tell the House if these funds, $200 million, which are not given to the province of Quebec because it has its own police force come out of the assets or liabilities of the

May 5, 1977
Oral Questions
public accounts of that province when we consider the cost of confederation.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have already answered that same question in detail for one of his colleagues. As for saying whether they are assets or liabilities, that it is not my responsibility. However, there are more than 1,400 persons currently employed by the RCMP in that province, either as officers of the RCMP or as administrative support personnel, with a total annual payroll of some $30 million.

earners will have been deprived of up to $ 1 billion in wages by the conclusion of the controls program, could the minister tell the House if he agrees with this assessment of losses due to wage controls? If so, would he tell the House what procedure he can suggest to restore their losses without damaging our competitive position any further?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to follow the reasoning behind the questions of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I must admit that the control system in Canada has been very useful until now. Certainly, there are those who complain but a public opinion poll published this week indicates that most Canadians are satisfied with current controls.


REASON FOR INCREASE IN PRICE OF EXPORTS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Noting that the price index for Canadian exported goods has increased by 3 per cent in the first two months of 1977, and considering that this increase in export prices has been sufficient to erode nearly 50 per cent of the competitive advantage Canada gained through depreciation in the external value of our dollar, would the minister tell the House if his department has reviewed these increases? If so, would he indicate why there should be such a jump, bearing in mind that the administration has claimed our inflation is on the wane, or is this another example of the inflation program not working?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping a close eye on the export situation as it develops. Last year we had an export surplus of some $1.2 billion and again this year we hope there will be a very substantial trade surplus.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Perhaps the minister misunderstood me. I asked if the minister has reviewed the 3 per cent reported increase in our export price in the first two months of this year and if so could he indicate why this sudden jump seems to have occurred during a period when the administration has indicated inflation is under control?


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. On December 22, 1976 as recorded in Hansard at page 2248, I asked the Prime Minister whether the government would introduce amendments to the Criminal Code which would restrict the number of abortions in Canada and the wanton killing of 50,000 of Canada's youngest citizens every year. I now ask the Minister of Justice whether he could give us any assurance or guarantee that he will introduce an amendment during this session of parliament which would restrict present abortion practices?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question a number of times and said that it was not my intention to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code relative to therapeutic abortion. When the existing law was passed by Parliament it appeared to represent a compromise by those who held views on either side of the question. The Badgley Report would indicate the consensus has not changed since that time and that the present law should stay.


REQUEST THAT BADGLEY REPORT BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OR SUBJECT OF ABORTION DEBATED
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my previous answer was general but I have nothing to add for the moment. However, we will keep an eye on the situation and I will inquire to see if I might give a more complete answer to the hon. member.


METHOD OF RESTORING WAGE LOSSES WITHOUT DAMAGING COMPETITIVE POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As some labour leaders state that wage


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the acting House leader and suggest to him that there is no compromise between life and death, as the Minister of Justice seemed to want to indicate. In view of the answer I received from the Prime Minister on December 22 that he was waiting for the Badgley Report at which time both government and opposition parties could then assess the workings of the abortion law, and also in view of the fact that the Badgley committee itself says the law is not working properly, could the government House leader give us an assurance that the Badgley committee report will be referred to the appropriate committee in order that witnesses
May 5, 1977

can appear and express their views on the working of the law or, if that is not his wish, could he give us an assurance that he will make time available so the whole question of abortion, because of its importance, can be debated in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, namely the reference of the Badg-ley Report to a committee, this is a new suggestion as far as I am concerned and I should like to think about it and discuss it with the Minister of Justice. The question of a debate in the House of Commons is also a good idea probably, but that possibility has to be examined against the possible debates that we look forward to on a number of other issues at the present time.


AIR CANADA
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Because I am uncertain just how the flying public in Canada react to Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines, particularly in light of that very popular calendar, "Fly United", I should like to ask the minister a question that goes back to the question I asked on April 25.
The minister informed me then of discussions with CP Air and Air Canada concerning the number of improvements in seats allocated for the charter class. May I ask the minister whether discussions have reached a successful conclusion related to Air Canada's approach to pricing empty seats and, if so, what would be the changes, particularly in Air Canada's system of charter class fares in Canada and the availability of seats to Canadians, particularly elderly and young Canadians who may wish to travel outside the strict limitations placed on them by the present system of charter fares?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as this point I have not yet received a report of any decision with regard to a change in this area.


J. Michael Forrestall: Then I wonder if the minister would give an undertaking to the chamber, to the Canadian flying public and to Canadians in general to inquire why Air Canada has moved away from the very successful 10 to 30 days excursion fare plan, which realized a 35 per cent saving to travelling Canadians, to the so-called charter class fare with its inherent greater restrictions, and whether or not, for example, this was done purely for economical reasons and against the background of knowledge that the government was going to take over the debt instruments of Air Canada or whether they were just out to have a fling? Could he take a look at this and report back to the Canadian public in full?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the reasons for the change. It was intentionally designed to ensure that passengers, where possible, were attracted to seats which otherwise would be empty, and the lower priced fares were to be used in order to attract them there. It is obviously in the over-all interest of the Canadian flying public to have as many seats filled as possible in order that the cost of flying be shared as widely as possible. The excursion fares did not serve this purpose as well since they simply added additional pressure to the seats available in a limited way at peak periods. Charter class fares do the other thing, which is attract passengers to the non-peak periods and in that way attempt to raise the over-all load factor, which is something I am interested in seeing achieved.


J. Michael Forrestall: This is of course what the flying public is suspecting, and so long as this government insists that it uses transportation as a tool of national development, then surely the minister can have greater respect for the way in which Crown corporations are using the travelling public.
Let me put this final supplementary question to the minister. Would the minister not agree that reverting to the new charter class fare structure was designed around the preknowledge that it would restrict the number of seats that are available, thus rendering to the Canadian flying public a number of seats that is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians who want to travel by air. Does the minister not agree that that was done deliberately? As the minister well knows, and based on inquiries I made today, it is not a question of not being able to get a seat before Labour day, you cannot get one until well after the new year.


Otto Emil Lang: Air Canada put out an announcement of the periods during which the very successful charter class fares were sold out at an early date. The airlines did direct the volume of charter class fares explicitly to the number of empty seats which would otherwise be expected to exist at various periods of time, and that is exactly the objective which they have in mind. I hope the hon. member would agree that economy in transportation, saving money by not flying empty seats around, is something that should be seen to be in the interest of all Canadians. It is something we should encourage not only in air travel but in other modes of transportation as well.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It concerns the proposed zinc smelter at Belledune in northern New Brunswick. In view of the conflicting statements that have been made recently by the provincial government, I wonder if the minister could inform the House of the present status, the planning and the proposals of the federal govern-

May 5, 1977
Oral Questions
ment and its input to this most important economic development in northern New Brunswick?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot divulge the present state of the negotiations or proposals we may have entertained with or received from this developer concerning a refinery project in northern New Brunswick. But I can confirm that the department is very interested in participating and will of course keep on showing great interest in this project which will have a major impact in the north of this province if it goes through.
Besides, I think it must be added that the statement made by the New Brunswick Minister of Natural Resources and referred to by my colleague has been taken up by the interested party itself to bring up the necessary correction so that the conclusion which had been derived from it could be rectified.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. As the minister well knows, the Prince mine was temporarily closed by the Cape Breton Development Corporation officials on April 28. They blamed the closing on remarks made regarding the safety in that mine by an official in the minister's department. Can the minister advise me whether he, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the head of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, as well as the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and myself, could meet on this matter to ensure that the men's wages lost by this seeming lockout will be paid today?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as you may have noted from my remarks in Hansard, that was a managerial decision. They were not ordered to do so. It is their responsibility to make decisions of that kind. I indicated a preference for them not to close and, since they closed, to reopen as soon as possible and to devote their energies to upgrading the safety of that mine. This, I understand did take place over the weekend. The mine is now open and the men are back at work. With regard to their lost wages during this period, I am meeting with the head of DEVCO, Mr. Mathe-son, this afternoon, when we will discuss safety matters generally. I will be pleased to raise this question with him to see if some resolution cannot be found.


INVITATION TO UNION LEADERS TO DISCUSS MINE SAFETY
Andrew Hogan: The president of District 26 of the United Mine Workers of America and his executive are anxious to come to Ottawa some time

this month to discuss this matter of safety with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of DREE. Can the minister advise me whether he will invite the United Mine Workers district executive to come here for these discussions this month at a date mutually acceptable to him and to the Minister of DREE?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Because of the importance of the subject, I was generous in my intrepretation of the first question of the hon. member which I thought was largely a representation. The second question is entirely a representation.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Andrew Hogan: The minister said yes.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the matter of the organization of the government, particularly with respect to the frightening news that the Minister of Supply and Services is becoming now a special adviser to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Aside from the apology owed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this matter, may I have the assurance of the government House leader that the new adviser will not be dividing his advisory role so that he will be advising the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the purchase of bunker oil, the Solicitor General on the operation of penitentiaries, and so that the Minister of National Defence can be assured that he will not be advised with respect to the purchase of aircraft by the new adviser?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DROUGHT
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it is in relation to the very critical surface water situation across southern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba which is so necessary for stock water and for domestic water supplies for small towns and rural communities. Have appropriate meetings been held with the provincial governments of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan to develop positive emergency crash programs dealing with the drilling of deep wells for water and pumping water through pipelines?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I understand that all these questions have been discussed with
May 5, 1977

the people concerned, and understand from my colleague in charge of regional expansion and development that the matters coming under his jurisdiction are being expedited. I also understand some provinces have taken action. The province of Alberta has already started its own program of deep well drilling. Until they request us to provide extra assistance, we are not going to become involved. Our own program has been prepared; there have been meetings and we have spent many man hours in the past several weeks preparing for this program. We shall make an announcement shortly on what we are prepared to do.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that no such government to government meetings have been held. Since on Tuesday of this week the government of Alberta announced a firm deep well drilling program and a companion water pumping and pipeline policy to meet this emergency, is the federal government prepared to enter into a cost-sharing agreement with Alberta and other Prairie provinces, as needed, in order to help to meet the present critical water crisis facing western Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member heard what I said. I said that last week we met with officials and have conducted ongoing meetings with them. The deputy ministers of all western provinces, including British Columbia, were here approximately ten days ago and they discussed the program with our officials. To say that there have been no ongoing meetings is not factually correct, because there have been many meetings with federal officials who have been co-ordinating these plans. I think the hon. member should also recognize that in Winnipeg today two inches of rain fell, in Regina, more than one inch of rain fell and in other parts of the Prairies more than one and a half inches of rain fell.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Eugene, you are a big drip.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, now that the chief rainmaker has subsided in his seat, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Some time ago there was attributed to the minister a report saying that one of his options for using personnel under his jurisdiction would be the utilization of militia units and formations for peacekeeping purposes. Would the minister advise the House what he meant, if he made such a statement, and does he foresee the use of total militia units to replace regular units? Also, what form of training would he want? What are the circumstances in which he would consider untrained militia units for peacekeeping purposes?
Oral Questions


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misinterpreting what I was suggesting. I was suggesting at that time a greater use of reserve forces in our peacekeeping and other forces, in order to maintain a high level of training among our reserves and provide them with the experience which is so valuable to them. They are presently serving in the Middle East, and in Europe, where I have seen them. I have also seen them serving with the navy, doing worthwhile jobs which, while increasing their training, takes the pressure off the regular forces. I should like to see that expanded.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister may have misinterpreted my question. I spoke of formations or units, and about the statement which has been attributed to the minister and discussed. I did not speak on the question of the utilization of personnel in, shall we say, nursery circumstances, where they are being trained. I spoke of actual units which are taking over responsibilities.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I understood the question, and I thought the hon. member would understand the answer. I referred to personnel as opposed to units. They are hardly involved in a nursery operation. They are far beyond adolescence. They are serving the country well, and performing well in those units in which they are serving. It was not my intention to suggest-and the misinterpretation of my statement may have arisen in this regard-that total reserve units should be serving in these roles.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It is based on reports from Charlottetown indicating that C. M. McLean Limited has expressed interest in expanding its potato processing operations to create an additional 300 jobs. In view of the provincial government's inability or unwillingness to help this important firm, will the minister advise us as to what his department will do to protect this vital job-creating industry within our province?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, although we usually refrain from commenting on applications we receive from industries which want to expand or put new plants in place, this concern has been expressed on different occasions. We have looked at the proposals with a great deal of interest and hope that we shall soon be in a position to affirm our decision and announce what is to happen. I have shown a keen interest in this proposal which is of concern to Prince Edward Island.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

May 5, 1977


ALLEGED BREACHES OF HELSINKI AGREEMENT BY SOVIET UNION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. He is a very experienced minister of foreign affairs, and I am sure he will be able to answer the question I am about to ask. It has to do with the Helsinki agreement which at one time I contended would be honoured in the breach rather than by its observance. We have with us today, in Ottawa, one of the great tribunes of freedom, in the person of the exiled Soviet dissident writer Vladimir Bukovsky. I ask the minister on the basis of his experience since the signing of this pact, is it not a fact that freedom has been greatly diminished in the U.S.S.R. and that immigration has been practically reduced to a trickle, or is far less than that expected when the agreement was entered into. As well, and I couple this with what I said, would the government of Canada set up a commission similar to that set up in the United States, to examine how the Helsinki pact has worked and to pay particular attention to Canadians desiring to secure the rights of their respective peoples in the homeland to migrate to or visit Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the right hon. gentleman, I have no hesitation in saying that the principles adopted at Helsinki have not been implemented in the way which had been expected at that time. In certain instances the reverse seems to have taken place. The right hon. gentleman will be aware that it is intended to have a conference this year, as I recollect at Belgrade, at which time an assessment will be made by the signatories to the Helsinki agreement on the very questions the right hon. gentleman raised. At present the Department of External Affairs is monitoring, in collaboration with other countries, what points are to be brought forward at Belgrade. I regard this as an opportunity for the west particularly to make points with reference to the Helsinki accord which were underlined by the right hon. gentleman in his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the meeting is to take place later in the year. In the meantime, because of the number of Canadians, these being Ukrainian and Baltic peoples and the like, who find they have been denied that opportunity which should have been theirs if the Helsinki agreement had been carried out by the U.S.S.R. and who are greatly aroused, would the Acting Prime Minister see to it that Canadians who are in that position can communicate with the Department of External Affairs so that Canada by itself can, in addition to those criticisms which have been offered by other western countries, make particular reference to the degree to which the tyranny of the U.S.S.R. has denied the relatives of Canadians in those countries I mentioned behind the Iron Curtain their human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion of the right hon. member is a good one. I will draw it particularly to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because it is his objective, as it is of the department, to accumulate the kind of evidence that would be brought forward and support the instances that the obligations undertaken at Helsinki be carried out. I believe that in certain instances, certainly in certain cases with eastern European countries and also with the Soviet Union, there has been from time to time an improvement, particularly in the flow of re-unification cases that have been brought to the attention of these countries.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATION AT HELSINKI REVIEW CONFERENCE
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the reports that the Canadian representation at the Helsinki Review Conference may be limited to officials, can the Acting Prime Minister now assure the House that this is not the case, that at this conference of such importance to many Canadians and to Canada there will be ministerial representation, perhaps even parliamentary representation, particularly when the subject of the third basket items affecting human rights are being resolved?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware at the moment of what level delegations will be present at the Belgrade conference, whether the signatories will be represented at the ministerial level or at the official level. I believe that the suggestion made by the hon. member is well worth considering. It is sufficiently important to consider the representation of Canada at a political level rather than at an official level.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General confirm whether it is the practice of the RCM Police to pay members of the press gallery in order to obtain or gather information about other members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery? If so, what are these people who are the information gatherers being paid and what are the details of these payments?


Francis Fox: No, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge, it is not the practice of the RCMP to pay

May 5, 1977

members of the press gallery for gathering information on members of the Canadian Press Club.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will be more specific, Mr. Speaker. Is the Solicitor General in a position to deny a report in today's Ottawa Citizen to the effect that writer Kitty McKinsey was requested to obtain information with respect to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery? Will he also assure the House that the RCMP are not approaching other reporters to obtain information with respect to reporters generally?


Francis Fox: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not ready to give that assurance. The RCMP security service has a general mandate in connection with the security of this country. Where it is in the interests of national security to do so, the RCMP may approach members of the press gallery as they may approach other members of the Canadian community, including members of the House of Commons, in order to discharge their duties, particularly with reference to certain people who may be involved with foreign countries.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General refuses or ignores my question as to whether in this particular instance that I referred to there was an approach and a request to Kitty McKinsey to obtain or gather information over a period of time respecting members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Is that true or false?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, there may have been approaches in the past and there may be in the future concerning the activities of the foreign press corps who are perhaps suspected of being involved in intelligence activities in Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question touches on a number of ministries. I will direct it to the Minister of the Environment.


An hon. Member:: Look at the odd couple over there.


Mr. Fairweather:: Which is the lion and which is the lamb?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I was hesitating for a moment so that the minister might be able to hear me. Since the Science Council of Canada recently stated that old newspapers can be recycled by being used in the manufacture of insulation for buildings, can the minister say what tax incentives or other encouragement is being given to the manufacturers of this product and to the use of it in the construction industry?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard this suggestion made. I must confess that I do not have the type of information that would allow me to give a good answer to the hon. member. I will look into it and try to give him further information.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


PROPOSED REDUCTION IN TRANSCONTINENTAL SERVICE-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission in its preferred plan abandons the daily Canadian National Transcontinental train through northern Ontario, as well as a regional train between Capreol and Nakina and a three times weekly train service between Sudbury and White River on the C.P. line, and in view of the fact that these decisions completely contravene every recommendation that was made to the Canadian Transport Commission by communities in northeastern Ontario, and that the decision will in fact cripple train service to those communities in that area, will the minister tell this House if he is prepared to send this report back to the Canadian Transport Commission and instruct them to return with recommendations more in keeping with the needs and desires of the people of northern Ontario?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the preferred plan is put forward for further comment of people upon it. Only after the commission has received those comments will it issue the necessary orders or what might be called a final plan in relation to its view of what passenger services are required and can be supported by taxpayers money in view of alternative transportation available. Therefore, the hon. member may make his submissions directly to the commission and have them take that into account in their final deliberations.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the people who live in these small communities in northeastern Ontario do not have the wherewithal to come to Ottawa to make their presentations to the commission. Therefore, will the commission be instructed to go to the small communities of northeastern Ontario and northern Ontario in general to receive their comments on this preferred plan?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the commission held a very extensive series of meetings and hearings across the country. I suspect it is not its intention to duplicate that. Of course, anyone might make the communication to the commission on behalf of those communities and I urge the hon. member to consider that he might even do so.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It attempts to clarify the sidestep the government House leader did a few moments ago about the proposed debate on abortion. Will the minister confirm that the terms of reference for the Badgley commission specified that the report would be debated in the

May 5, 1977
Oral Questions
House. Moreover, there is an urgency for that debate since the report made clear that the basis of the unchecked situation on abortion laws is the weakness of the federal law. That urgency is increased as it is now two years since one million Canadians sent a petition to the House of Commons asking for a tightening of the law in defence of the unborn.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference used the words "table for debate". I answered in the House some time ago that it would seem to be more valuable that any such debate or discussion follow discussions that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I are having with provincial authorities. That continues to be my position.


Douglas Roche: My supplementary question is to the government House leader. Would he now establish his priorities and tell us when this debate will take place? Does he think such bills as the metric conversion bill of greater importance to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday, by way of a question of privilege, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar drew attention to some words used by the Prime Minister during the question period. According to our precedents, the use of unparliamentary language has always been a matter of order. The use of unparliamentary language is disorder and it is quite properly brought to the attention of the Chair by way of a point of order. It is true that it is often raised by way of a question of privilege also, and though this is an inaccurate practice it is certainly not an unpopular one and there is nothing extraordinary about the hon. member having raised this matter by way of a question of privilege. When it occurs, however, it is disorder and it is, therefore, more correctly raised by way of a point of order.
Equally clearly, in accordance with our practice, after the matter is brought to the attention of the Chair an interval usually follows and the member who is accused of having used impolite language, or intemperate language or, in broader terms, unparliamentary language, is usually given an opportunity to withdraw such an expression and indicate that it was not intended to be used in an offensive way. The matter having been raised, last evening, just after the taking of the vote, the Prime Minister rose in his place and indicated that the language attributed to him was, indeed, the language he used. He told the House he did not intend to offend, and he withdrew the remark. In these circumstances, it does not constitute, within our practice, a question of privilege which ought to be put to the House in an appropriate way. However, it does constitute a valid point of order for the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to have raised. Equally, it has been disposed of by virtue of the withdrawal of the remark by the Prime Minister at about a quarter to seven last evening.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is one aspect of the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the question period which I do

not believe ought to be left hanging over until tomorrow, in fairness both to him and to the gentleman in question. The Leader of the Opposition inquired about the resignation of Mr. Bob Bryce as chairman of the commission. I wish to confirm that Mr. Bryce has resigned his post as head of the commission. He did so because of ill health. I make this statement with regret and sadness because of the services which Mr. Bryce has rendered to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Also, because he will not be able to contribute his great talents to the completion of this task. With respect to the remaining points, I should like the indulgence of hon. members while I get the facts and give them to the Leader of the Opposition tomorrow.


Charles Joseph Clark: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I would naturally like to associate ourselves with that expression of appreciation by the Acting Prime Minister of the long public service given by Mr. Bryce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand the Acting Prime Minister is not in possession of certain information, but I want to make it clear that I am very anxious to know whether it is the intention of the government to carry on with the work Mr. Bryce has begun.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the government House leader inform us what business we shall be proceeding with for the balance of this week and next week? Would he, at the same time, confirm the setting aside of Tuesday, May 10, and Friday, May 13 as allotted days?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the last point, I can confirm that Tuesday and Friday of next week will be allotted days. The order of business I propose for today, the remainder of this week and next week is the following: the Judges Act today, followed by the small loans bill and then the maritime code- about which I should like to say a few words when I have finished-metric conversion, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Criminal Code amendments. I understand there is agreement that the maritime code bill will be brought forward for third reading by unanimous consent and that whatever comments must be made will be made at that point. If that is agreeable, it might be a good idea to register such in the form of an order.


Walter David Baker: That is the understanding, Mr. Speaker. We originally discussed it in those terms as coming forward at the report stage, but there are no amend-
May 5, 1977

ments at the report stage and we feel it would be appropriate to have the discussion on third reading. We agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we join in the agreement that when Bill C-41 is called it be advanced immediately to third reading stage with any debate taking place at that point. The question I should like to put to the minister will not surprise him. It relates to the bill, upon which we have all agreed, to provide unemployment insurance payments to some 18,000 senior citizens who lost their benefits last January. We have been promised this bill day by day. Does the minister intend to give notice of it today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am glad to tell the hon. member, once again, that the bill will be coming forward. I hope it can be put on the notice paper today. The bill has been approved, and if it is ready, notice will be given.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to what occurred last night at the conclusion of our proceedings. Your Honour has dealt with the unfortunate remark of the Prime Minister and referred to his apparent withdrawal of that remark. I gather that the Prime Minister intended to say he regretted the language he used. I rose, you will recall, at the conclusion of our proceedings yesterday for the purpose of concluding the affair by withdrawing my motion and withdrawing the point of order. But, Mr. Speaker, while I was on my feet, the Prime Minister, from his seat, repeated that profanity. It was heard not only by myself but by my colleagues. The Prime Minister indicated in the course of his remarks that he apologized, not because he had uttered the words he did but, rather, because it was heard by the Hansard reporter. The reason I allowed that motion to stand and the reason I continue to feel the Prime Minister is so cynical in this affair is that as soon as he had replied, he repeated that profanity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that the motion he indicated he let stand was related not to a point of order but to a question of privilege. In fact, the use of unparliamentary language, when it does occur, constitutes a point of order. Very often the Chair is relieved of the burden of having to define unparliamentary langage in a situation in which the hon. member concerned comes forward and says he wishes to withdraw the words complained of. Sometimes the choice for the Chair, in having to decide whether or not particular language is unparliamentary, is invidious. When a member comes forward and says, regardless of whether the language used falls within the category of correct etiquette or lack of it, or impoliteness, that he wishes to withdraw it, the Chair is relieved of the burden of having to make a decision.
In any case, if the decision is made by the Chair that the language is unparliamentary, it still does not constitute, under our precedents, a matter of privilege. It is disorder. The motion which is associated with the point raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is one usually associated with a question of privilege, which this is not. Therefore, the motion does not
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act relate to the raising of the point. If disorder at any time occurs, it is always open to any member to bring it to the attention of the Chair and to ask the Chair to take action before proceedings go any further. But in this case no motion which is usually associated with privilege can be associated with a matter which is essentially one of order and not one of privilege.
Order, please. Tabling of documents.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 6 of the Tariff Board Act, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) I wish to table a copy, in English and French, of a report of the Tariff Board in respect of computers and related telecommunications equipment, reference No. 150, together with a transcript of the proceedings on the reference. This report contains recommendations relating to the tariffs on imported computers and related telecommunications equipment and on parts and materials for use in the manufacture of such equipment. I assure hon. members that these recommendations will be carefully considered by the government, but I want to take this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The item that has been called is tabling of documents. It is not open to the hon. member, either on behalf of his minister or on his own behalf, to make any remarks. To do so would constitute not simply the tabling of documents but a statement, to which hon. members on the opposite side would have the right of response according to our rules.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-418, intituled: "An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, this bill tends to eliminate any confusion by substituting the name of Laval for Mille-Iles, which was proclaimed on June 11, 1976 under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
5310

May 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions
There is already a provincial riding called Mille-!les including the east of Ville de Laval, and the same name of Mille-Iles at the federal level would refer to the riding located west of Ville de Laval and thus confuse the voters of both ridings.
Moreover, it would be unfortunate for the people of Laval not to call the federal riding by the name of Laval when we consider that Laval is the second most important city in the province of Quebec in terms of population and area. So we wish to keep this name in all the activities of the Canadian Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, if I may. I should like to serve notice today that I intend to raise a question of privilege some time tomorrow because confidential documents from a subcommittee were published. I have not had time to prepare it for today, as I would have wished, because of pressure of work, but I think it is urgent that this House knows there is a serious breach of confidence which I should like to raise tomorrow.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 137, 1,381, 1,735, 1,934, 1,965, 1,982, 2,013, 2,157, 2,169, 2,213 and 2,246.
[ Text]
CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-FISCAL YEAR 1975/76


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Public Works?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable Figures for the Fiscal year 1973-1974?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 2. 1975/76
(a) for studies, surveys, analyses, etc.
Committed Amount of
Contract Awarded to	Contract Purpose	ContractCooperative Construction Eng.	Analysis, re: Equestrian farm, Mirabel	S 1,000Cote Duvieusart & Assoc.	Study, re: use of Mirabel lands	23,000Cote Duvieusart & Assoc.	Analysis, re: agricultural policies at Mirabel	5,000Cote Duvieusart &	Study, re: rentals for Mirabel farms	5,000
Assoc.

Contract Awarded to
Cote Duvieusart & Assoc.
Descon International
Dube Galebois
Dube Galebois Dunning Brook
Gagne, Bantey & Cie. Hughes, David & Assoc.
Hunter, Straker Templeton Lamothe, M. C.
Lefebvre, Roger & Assoc.
Major & Martin
Major & Martin
Major & Martin Rakhra, A. S.
Raymond, J. D. & Assoc.
Shadbolt, D.
Sice, Michel Transcolog Consultants
Udy, J. M.
Weller, J.
Committed Amount of
Contract Purpose	Contract
Analysis, re: utilization of	6,300
agriculture lands, Mirabel
Study to develop a scientific system	98,600
for building, marine and civil engineering projects within DPW
Economic and demographic studies,	10,000
re: Agricultural policies at Mirabel
Demographic study, re: Mirabel	10,000
Audio-Visual presentation of an	1,500
analysis on Mirabel lands
Study on public relations, Mirabel	50,000
Analysis on commercial zoning-	3,000
Ste. Therese, Que.
Study, re: standard system of signage	50,000
for DPW
Technical survey, re: Fire protection,	3,600
Mirabel
Real Estate evaluation at Mirabel	3,000
Study, re: joint Canada-Quebec	10,137
agreement regarding Commercial/Industrial Park,
Mirabel
Analysis of reimbursement	5,037
procedures for improvements made by tenant-farmers at Mirabel
Study, re: Operation of Quarry at	5,226
Mirabel
Policy research study, re: feasibility	5,000
of alternative uses of real property investment for the government's advancement of federal objectives
a) Analysis of values on engineering	3,000 improvements
b)	Analysis of Real Estate Values,	5,000
Canadian Forces School of
Management, LaSalle, Quebec
Design branch organizational study	5,j00
Set up a land survey program	3,000
Study, re: Management reporting	10,000
systems within Design and Construction Branch
Study on the identification and	25,000
evaluation of federal properties in twenty-five centers throughout the country
Analysis on development of a real	5,000
property investment strategy system
Sub-total	$351,400
(b) into the examination of administration or internal operation of the Department of Public Works.
Assen, C.
Cornell, Wm. G.
Foster, R. L.
Hamilton, D. C.
Examine and assist in the conceptualization and implementation of the Federal Land Management Project Evaluation System
Examination of existing systems, Finance and Administration- Capital Region
Examination and development of staffing guidelines for heating and air conditioning plants in all Crown-owned buildings to ensure compliance with existing provincial regulations
Examination and project planning in connection with the construction investment information systems


[Stage Direction]
May 5, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Committed Amount of
Contract Awarded to	Contract Purpose	ContractMetric Construction	Examination into the Department of	25,000Consultants	Public Works conversion to the Metric system (SI)	Stanley, P.	Identification and articulation of the organizational adjustments, re: the new coordinated property investment strategy	5,000Sub-total	55,700Total	$407,100
3. 1973/74. (a) for studies, surveys, analyses etc.- $90,000; (b) examination of administration or internal operation-
$21,000; Total $111,000.
Mr. Dick: 1.	How many persons in the Department of the Solicitor General in the Ottawa region were paid in excess of $15,000 per annum in (a) 1965 (b) 1970 (c) 1976?
2.	How many (a) Deputy Ministers (b) Assistant Deputy Ministers were in the Department in the Ottawa region in (a) 1965 (b) 1970 (c) 1976?
3.	How many (a) Directors (b) other heads of units were in the Department in the Ottawa region in (i) 1965 (ii) 1970 (iii) 1976 and, in each case, what was the name of the unit and the title of the position held?


Francis Fox: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General: Not applicable for 1965. The Department of the Solicitor General was established on January 1, 1966, by Order-in-Council P.C. 1965-2286 dated December 22, 1965.
Ministry Secretariat: 1. (a) 1965-See note; (b) 1970-14; (c) 1976-102.
2.	(a) Deputy Ministers: (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-1; Deputy Solicitor General: (iii) 1976-Same as in 2 (i) (ii). (b) Assistant Deputy Ministers: (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-1; Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, (iii) 1976-4-Policy Planning and Program Evaluation; Research and Systems Development; Police and Security Planning and Analysis; Communication and Consultation.
3.	(a) Directors: (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-4-Organization and Personnel; Correctional Planning; Information Services; Management Services and Audit, (iii) 1976-14- Policy Unit (2); Security Policy, Police and Security Planning and Analysis; Contingency Plans Development, Police and Security Planning and Analysis Crime Prevention and Law Enforcement, Police and Security Planning and Analysis; Director General, Research; Research Programs; Planning and Liaison (Research); Information Systems and Statistics Division; Administrative Services; Communications Division; Planning and Inter-Governmental Affairs Consultation Division; Programs, Consultation; Management Consulting Services, (b) Other heads of units: (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-7- Chief, Correctional Consultation Centre; Chief, Correctional Research; Chief, Operational Audit; Chief, Manpower Planning, Staffing, Training and Development; Chief, Management Studies; Special Advisor, Correctional Policy Development; Departmental Financial Management Adviser, (iii)
1976-4-Office of the Solicitor General-Ministry Assistant; Office of the Deputy Solicitor General-Executive Assist-
Order Paper Questions
ant to the Deputy Solicitor General; Senior Personnel Policy- Senior Personnel Policy Adviser; Office of the Financial Adviser-Senior Financial Policy Adviser.
Canadian Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service:
1.	(a) 1965-See note; (b) 1970-28; (c) 1976-172.
2.	(a) Deputy Ministers; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-1-
Agency Head (Deputy Minister equivalent) Commissioner of Penitentiaries; (iii) 1976-Same as in 2(i) (ii); (b) Assistant Deputy Ministers (equivalent); (i) 1965- See note; (ii) 1970-2-Deputy	Commissioner, Operational Services;
Deputy Commissioner, Inmate Programs, (iii) 1976-4- Deputy Commissioner, Operational Services; Deputy Commissioner, Inmate Programs; Deputy Commissioner, Security; Executive Director (NPS).
3.	(a) Directors; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-6-Personnel; Finance; Services and Supplies; Industries; Treatment and Training; Medical Services, (iii) 1976-26-Director General, Medical Health Care Services; Director General, Human Resources; Finance; Nursing Operations; Secretariat; Management Review; Organization and Administration; Human Resources; Official Languages; Technical Services; Industries; Personnel; Operational Information Services; Living Units and Human Relations; Social Development; Occupational Development; Community and Human Relations; Preventive Security; Operational Security; Operations (NPS); Community Resources (NPS); Research and Planning (NPS); Inmate Affairs; Public Affairs; Operational Planning; Chaplain General. (b) Other heads of units; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970- Nil; (iii) 1976-Nil.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police: 1. (a) 1965-See note; (b) 1970-101; (c) 1976-1,826.
2.	(a) Deputy Ministers; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-1- Agency Head (Deputy Minister equivalent) Commissioner, R.C.M.P.; (iii) 1976-Same as in 2(a)(i) and (ii); (b) Assistant Deputy Ministers; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-3 (Assistant Deputy Minister equivalent); Deputy Commissioner, Administration; Deputy Commissioner, Criminal Operations; Director General, Security Service, (iii) 1976-4 (Assistant Deputy Minister equivalent); Deputy Commissioner, Administration; Deputy Commissioner, Criminal Operations; Deputy Commissioner, National Police Services; Director General, Security Service.
3.	(a) Directors; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-8-Organization and Personnel; Criminal Investigation; Canadian Police Information Centre; Record Services; Services and Supply; Marine Services; Laboratories and Identification; Music; (iii) 1976-11-Organization and Personnel; Criminal Investigation; Canadian Police Information Centre; Air Services; Official Languages; Protective Policing; Record Services; Services and Supply; Laboratories and Identification; Canadian Police College; Music, (b) Other heads of units; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-Not applicable; (iii) 1976-Not applicable.
National Parole Board: 1. (a) 1965-See note; (b) 1970- 16; (c) 1976-44.
80012-57%

May 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) Deputy Ministers; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-1- Agency Head (Deputy Minister equivalent) Chairman, National Parole Board; (iii) 1976-Same as in 2(a)(i) and (ii);
(b)	Assistant Deputy Ministers; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-Nil; (iii) 1976-1-(Assistant Deputy Minister equivalent) Vice-Chairman, National Parole Board.
3.	(a) Directors; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-3-Executive Director, National Parole Service, and Secretary to the National Parole Board; Assistant Executive Director and Director of Field Operations (NPS); Director, Administrative Services (NPS); (iii) 1976-6-Executive Secretary; Director, Policy Planning & Evaluation; Director, Case Management; Director, Finance and Administration; Director, Personnel; Director, Management Services, (b) Other heads of units; (i) 1965-See note; (ii) 1970-Nil; (iii) 1976-2-Registrar; Legal Officer.


Mr. Beatty: Did the government conduct any studies in the past five years comparing the relative subsidization of the various modes of transportation and, if so, in each case (a) by whom (b) on what date was it (i) commenced (ii) completed (c) has it been publicly released and, if not, for what reason (d) are copies of the study available and, if so, from whom?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Transport Canada is concerned: two studies have been conducted in the period 1970-75 regarding the annual costs and revenues of transportation in Canada by modes and the relative subsidization of each mode.
1)	(a) The first series of studies were undertaken by the Canadian Transport Commission, dealing with the air, marine, road and rail modes and covered the period 1955-1969. (b)(i) The studies were commenced in the fall of 1970 and (ii) completed by approximately the following dates; Air, Fall. 1972; Marine, February 1973; Road, Fall 1972; Rail, April 1973. (c) All the studies except the one on rail were publicly released through Information Canada, (d) These are available through the Department of Supply and Services; the rail study is also available through the Research Branch of the CTC.
2)	(a) As part of the Transportation Task Force's policy review, an update of the CTC studies was undertaken by the CTC. (b)(i) It commenced in January 1975 and (ii) Was completed in May 1975. It covered the period from 1969-1973.
(c)	Copies of the report were made available in summary form originally through Transport Canada and later the Department of Supply and Services, (d) These documents are available through the Department of Supply and Services.
In so far as the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is concerned: studies within the sphere of responsibility of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs relate to the urban component of the overall transportation sector. The ministry is conducting several internal policy studies which analyse costs and subsidies required for urban transportation. One study, conducted by the Transportation Development Agency and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs on the total cost of urban travel commenced in the fall of 1975 and was completed in the spring of 1976. Current plans call for this study to be released publicly later this year when the latest cost/subsidy information has been incorporated.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	Is it government policy to advertise for immigrants and, if so, how much was spent advertising in (a) 1976-77 (b) 1975-76?
2.	Do the advertisements emphasize the need for specific skills, educational backgrounds and/or practical work experiences?
3.	In what countries have such advertisements been placed?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. It is government policy to advertise for immigrants only when there is a specific demand for workers which cannot be met through the normal spontaneous immigration processes and where the country concerned permits such advertising, (a) $130,760; (b) $190,000.
2.	Yes, advertisements refer to both specific skills and work experience.
3.	Such ads were placed in France and Belgium in 1975/76 and 1976/77.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Part 3 of Question No. 706, concerning St. Lawrence Seaway contracts, were there any cases among those listed where the successful bidder was not the lowest tender and, if so, in each case (a) which one (b) what is the name and address of those who bid lower and what was the amount of the bid (c) in any case where the lowest tender was not accepted, for what reason was it not accepted?


Otto Emil Lang: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises that there were four instances where the successful bidder was not the lowest tenderer. Details and reasons are shown below.
No.


[Stage Direction]
To Whom Awarded Name'
Aquarobic Home Sewage Treatment Systems
Adcon Electronics Ltd.
[Stage Direction]
Low Tenderer
Amount	Name and Address
$5,342.72	C.M.S. Equipment Limited, P. O.
Box 1012, Toronto, Ontario
$58,114.00 Jackson & Church Electronics (Canada) Ltd.. 1891 Merivale Road, Ottawa, Ontario
[Stage Direction]
Reasons Low Tender Not Accepted
Amount
$4,300.00 Tender incomplete-installation
charges not included in tender price.
$44,401.20 Tender not in accordance with the specifications-Tenderer did not understand specifications with respect to installation.

May 5, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
No.	A To Whom Awarded Name	Amount	B Low Tenderer Name and Address	Amount	C Reasons Low Tender Not AcceptedP-12-1244	Classis Ornamenial Works Inc.	$4,925.00	B. K. Ornamental & Iron Works Inc., 685 Mercille, St. Lambert, Quebec	$2,900.00	Tender incomplete-Part of work specified in tender omitted from price.P-12-1411	Lehoux and Matte Ltec	$46,000.00	Economical Structural Steel Inc., 9263 63rd Avenue. Riviere des Prairies, Montreal, Quebec	$43,190.00	Contract awarded to low tenderer who refused to sign contract. Tender deposit retained by Seaway
Authority and contract awarded to second low tenderer.
Mr. MacKay: 1.	What were the names of all vessels offered under charter to East Coast Marine and Ferry Service for 1976-77?
2. In each case (a) who is the owner (b) what is its cubic capacity (c) what was the rate (i) submitted (ii) accepted by the government including any overtime rate?
3.	Which vessels were actually chartered and, in each case, on what date?
4.	Are any of the ships presently on charter and (a) if so, on what date is it estimated the charter will terminate (b) if not, on what date did the charter terminate?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. CN Marine requests bids by tender for the Newfoundland Coastal Freight Services. Those offered for charter to CN Marine for this service for 1976-77 are listed below: Topsail Star; Dunure; Clyde; Newfoundland Coast; Marine Transport; Kloster; Marine Voyager; Ambrose Foote; Harry Lake; Glencoe; Marine Trader; Sarah; Prince Andrew; Twillingate; Elizabeth; Borneland; Clarenville; Ada A. Petite; Southern Isle; Regent Swallow; Stephenville; Fair Island Trader; Mount Blair.
2. The following is a list of the vessel owners and cubic capacity:
Vessel	(a) Owner	(b) Cubic CapacityTopsail Star	Topsail Shipping Co. Ltd.	64,920Dunure	Puddister Shipping Ltd.	29,100Clyde	The Lake Group	53,610Newfoundland Coast	Nfld. Marine Services Ltd.	90,000Marine Transport	Marine Transport Ltd.	51,400Kloster	Dorman Roberts Ltd.	38,000Marine Voyager	Marine Voyager Ltd.	38,000Ambrose Foote	J. B. Foote & Sons Ltd.	8,245Harry Lake	Lake & Lake Ltd.	8,245Glencoe	D. Frampton & Co. Ltd.	60,907Marine Trader	Puddister Trading Co Ltd.	29,100Sarah	The Lake Group	72,450Prince Andrew	Fogo Transport Ltd.	16,000Twillingate	H. W. C. Gillett Ltd.	58,300Elizabeth	North Atlantic Bulk Cargoes Ltd.	34,660Borneland	Stephenville Shipping Ltd.	22,600Clarenville	Bonaventures Ltd.	15,400Ada A. Petite	Gordon Petite & Sons Ltd.	13,420Southern Isle	Come By Chance Shipping	42,000Regent Swallow	Come By Chance Shipping	7,000Stephenville	P. H. V. Shipping Ltd.	16,100Fair Island Trader	Wayne Davis	7,000Mount Blair	Claymorr Shipping Ltd.	34,699
(c) The daily and overtime rate of charter are considered privileged information between the owner and CN Marine in that bids were received in a competitive situation. In order to protect the ship owner's interest, this information is held in confidence. However, it should be added that the rates submitted and accepted were in fact the same figures, since they were obtained in a competitive bidding situation. Those accepted were accepted by CN, not by the government of Canada as implied in the question. The entire transaction is subject to audit by government appointed auditors.
3. The vessels actually chartered for the Newfoundland
Coastal Services and the dates	placed on hire
Vessel	Date on Charter
Topsail Star	29/7/76
Dunure	06/4/75
Clyde	13/3/76
Newfoundland Coast	26/5/76
Marine Transport	25/5/76
Kloster	07/6/76
Marine Voyager	25/5/76
Ambrose Foote	01/6/76
Harry Lake	07/6/76
Glencoe	29/7/76
Marine Trader	29/10/76
Sarah	18/11/76
Prince Andrew	03/6/76
07/10/76
24/11/76
4.	(a) The Topsail Star is the only vessel remaining on charter and its charter will terminate March 31, 1977. (b) The following is a list of charter terminations:
Vessel
Topsail Star
Dunure
Clyde
Newfoundland Coast Marine Transport Kloster
Marine Voyager Ambrose Foote Harry Lake Glencoe Marine Trader Sarah
Prince Andrew
Date of Charter 31/3/77 26/11/76 30/12/76 24/12/76 30/12/76 14/8/76 12/11/76 07/11/76 27/11/76 17/12/76 19/01/77 10/12/76 07/11/76
23/12/76
05/03/76


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): How many retired federal civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i)

May 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions
$90.00 to $99.99 per month 0) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 to $399.99 per month (o) $400.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired civil servants and also the number of widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of federal civil servants are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Annuitants	Widows
Less than $20.00 per month	1.(a) 152	2. (a) 168$20.00 to $29.99 per month	(b) 148	(b) 675$30.00 to $39.99 per month	(c) 370	(c) 1,193$40.00 to $49.99 per month	(d) 720	(d) 1,361$50.00 to $59.99 per month	(e) 1,082	(e) 1,384$60.00 to $69.99 per month	(f) 1,266	(0 1,401$70.00 to $79.99 per month	(g) 1.345	(g) 1,344$80.00 to $89.99 per month	(h) 1,391	(h) 1,234$90.00 to $99.99 per month	(i) 1,430	(i) 1,155$100.00 to $149.99 per month	(j) 7,208	(j)5,138$ 150.00 to $ 199.99 per month	(k) 6,667	(k) 4,008$200.00 to $249.99 per month	(1) 5,673	(1) 2,815$250.00 to $299.99 per month	(m) 4,914	(m) 1,693$300.00 to $399.00 per month	(n) 8,065	(n) 1,449$400.00 per month & over	(o) 22,830	(o) 1,156Annuitants	Widows3. Newfoundland	844	343Prince Edward Island	448	180Nova Scotia	3,881	1,596New Brunswick	2,156	836Quebec	10,072	5,110Ontario	26,701	11,019Manitoba	2,971	1,147Saskatchewan	1,913	718Alberta	3,708	1,385British Columbia	9,601	3,379North West Territories	83	24Yukon	114	25


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to enforce wage-and-hour laws?


John Carr Munro: December 31, (a) 1968, 20; (b) 1976, 51.
became Part I of the Canada Labour Code in 1971) and the Female Employees Equal Pay Act (which later became a clause in Part III of the Canada Labour Code). The Fair Employment Practices Branch had the responsibility of administering these two Acts and four full-time employees were employed in the branch. The Industrial Relations Officers located in the nine field offices across Canada worked parttime as required in completing the investigations, (b) December 31, 1976-28.


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What is the total amount of the unfunded national debt over the past ten years?
2.	How much of the interest on this indebtedness has been paid to (a) Canadians (b) foreign countries and, in each case, in what form?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. The national or public debt, as reported in the Public Accounts of Canada, consists of unmatured debt outstanding and other liabilities. The latter, which is generally regarded as the unfunded debt of Canada includes both noninterest bearing liabilities and interest bearing liabilities. Table I shows the level of the unfunded debt at March 31, 1966 and at March 31, 1976.
Table 1
March 31, 1966March31, 1976 ($ Millions)
Unfunded national debt
Non-interest bearing liabilities	2,220.8	17,809.0Interest bearing liabilities	6,152.3	16,245.3Total	8,373.1	34,054.3
2. Total interest on the unfunded debt amounted to $230.3 million in 1965-66 and $1,023.0 million in 1975-76. All this interest is payable to Canadians. Table 2 indicates the breakdown by category of these interest costs.
Table 2
Fiscal Year Ending March 31
	1966 ($ Millions)	1976
Interest Charges Relating to:		
Government Employee Pension Accounts	176.9	900.6Government Annuities	50.0	84.5Deposit and Trust Accounts	3.4	14.6Canada Pension Plan Operating Balance Unemployment Insurance Operating	18.7Balance	-	4.6Total Interest on Unfunded Debt	230.3	1,023.0


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to enforce equal-rights laws?


John Carr Munro: (a) As at 31
December 1968, the Canada Department of Labour, administered the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (which


Mr. Dick: 1.	Has Mr. Jerry Duclos, Director General of the Staff Development Branch of the Public Service Commission, been placed on a course with the British Defence College and, if so, did he on his own initiative place himself on the course?
May 5, 1977

2.	Was Mr. Duclos sent on a preliminary trip to England in order to find suitable accommodation for himself and, if so (a) what was the duration of the trip and who paid for it (b) was he accompanied by a public servant at the PM6 level and was this at government expense?
3.	Will the other public servant (the PM6) be in England for the same time and, if so, will this be at government expense?
4.	For what reason is Mr. Duclos talcing the course at the British Defence College rather than at the National Defence College in Canada?
5.	For what reason is Mr. Duclos going on the course in spite of his already excellent education and his age, rather than someone in the 35 to 45-year age bracket for which such courses are generally designed?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Mr. G. G. Duclos is attending the Royal College of Defence studies but did not place himself on the course on his own initiative.
2.	Mr. G. G. Duclos did go on a preliminary trip to England to find suitable accommodation for his family, (a) 6 days- paid for by the Public Service Commission (b) Mr. Duclos was accompanied by his spouse, a public servant at the PM 6 level, and this was in accordance with Foreign Service Directive No. 15.
3.	Mr. Duclos' spouse will be in England for the same time on leave of absence without pay from the public service.
4.	Each year the Royal College of Defence Studies invites Canada to submit nominations for its course. The Public Service Commission is responsible for nominating one senior public servant as part of its overall responsibility for executive manpower development. Mr. Duclos was the nominee for 1977.
5.	Mr. Duclos is in the 35-45 year age bracket and was nominated consistent with the objectives of executive manpower planning in the public service.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 129 and 1,910 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Transport?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?
Return tabled.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	How many persons participated in the Public Service Post-Secondary Recruitment Programme in (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75 (d) 1975-76 (e) 1976-77 to date in (i) the Atlantic Provinces (ii) Quebec (iii) Ontario (iv) the Western Provinces (v) the Territories?
2.	What percentage of the participants were granted one or more interviews and of those interviewed in (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75 (d) 1975-76 (e) 1976-77 to date in (i) the Atlantic Provinces (ii) Quebec (iii) Ontario (iv) the Western Provinces (v) the Territories, what percentage were ultimately hired by the Public Service?
3.	What has been the cost of conducting the Programme in (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75 (d) 1975-76 (e) 1976-77 to date?
4.	What percentage of those hired under the Programme have remained in the Public Service over (a) one year (b) two years (c) five years (d) ten years?
Return tabled.


Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that questions which I asked last December are still unanswered on the order paper. They do not require any great preparation. Question 1,397 is a simple question about air travel by the Secretary of State for External Affairs during six weeks last fall, from September to the end of October. That question is not answered. On February 8 I asked a question in connection with Mr. John C. Doyle, an income tax matter. I was told by the Minister of Justice about a month ago that he had approved an answer, but it has still not been tabled in the House. Apparently it goes to the Privy Council office and into the bureaucratic machine, and it has still not been tabled in the House. On Febuary 10 I asked other questions to which it is also simple to get answers. I want to bring the matter to the minister's attention and ask whether he can get some action on these questions.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, seeing that my name has been brought into it, I correctly informed the hon. member on the one question he referred to, that the answer had been approved and signed by me. It then went for translation. In the meantime, the hon. member made a speech on the subject and I thought it useful to withdraw the answer which I had approved in order to make a more complete answer in line with some of the points he had made in his speech. The answer will be forthcoming as soon as possible.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, on a similar point of order, I raised this issue about a month ago in the House. I refer to question No. 506 which was submitted on October 14 and is a question consisting of four parts dealing with the Post Office Department. It is a simple question and does not ask for complicated or detailed inquiries. It still has not been answered. I have the feeling that the department has simply overlooked it. If that is the case, I hope the appropriate officials will look into question No. 506 and make a determination on it.


Ralph Goodale: With respect to that particular question, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. gentleman raised it in the House some time ago I did pursue the matter to determine exactly where it stood. Unfortunately, I do not have the report with me in the

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
House today, but I will endeavour to pursue the point he has raised and see if he can answer it shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-50, to amend the Judges Act and other acts in respect of judicial matters, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, one of the great responsibilities of the Minister of Justice and all members of the House is to ensure that the judiciary of this country is maintained in a position where it can continue to carry out effectively, intelligently and independently the heavy duties that rest upon our judges. It is with this sense of responsibility that I have brought before this House the measures contained in Bill C-50 and move the adoption of that bill. Before turning to some of the specific provisions contained in the bill, it is perhaps useful to remind ourselves of the role and status of the judiciary in our system of government. Sir William Holdsworth put it well when he said:
The judges hold an office to which is annexed the function of guarding the supremacy of the law. It is because they are holders of an office to which the guardianship of this fundamental constitutional principle is entrusted, that the judiciary forms one of the three great divisions into which the power of the state is divided. The judiciary has separate and autonomous powers just as truly as the king or parliament.
While Sir William was obviously speaking of the British judiciary in the United Kingdom, his remarks are equally apt to describe the Canadian situation, and the case of law of Canada is replete with illustrations of our own courts' role in upholding the supremacy of the law. Maintenance of a vigilant, effective, informed and, above all, independent judiciary requires conscious care and attention on the part of the executive, the legislators and the judges themselves.
At the executive level of appointments to the judiciary, care must be taken to ensure the best qualified persons from the legal profession are attracted and appointed to the bench. In this regard, as I indicated in my first speech as Minister of Justice, I am carrying forward the tradition begun by my predecessor, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who in 1967 implemented the procedure of submitting names of candidates for judicial office to a committee of the Canadian Bar Associa-

tion to obtain its assessment of their suitability for appointment. None has been appointed without that assessment; none has been appointed without a favourable assessment.
I am grateful to those in the profession who are ready to come forward and serve as judges and be appointed pursuant to the Judges Act. I am grateful to those in the judiciary and those at the bar who have commented to me, since I have been Minister of Justice, on the quality and calibre of the people we have been able to put forward for judicial appointment.
I would like to emphasize that I am also committed to the appointment of judges who are sensitive and able to temper the law with compassion and common sense. In searching for such persons, I am conscious that these qualities are not the exclusive domain of either sex.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: While the bench is now unrepresentative of the proportion of women in our country, this situation will change as more women graduate from law schools and become qualified with ten years practice at the bar for appointment. Even now, however, some progress is being made to redress the imbalance. In this regard, I take some pride in the appointment in Quebec of the first female chief justice and the appointment in Ontario of the first woman to the Canadian court of appeal. I hope they are signals of my intention to single out and to appoint to the bench, wherever possible, able women members of the bar.
The legislative arm of government, as represented by those of us in parliament, also has a key role to play in ensuring the high standards of our judiciary. Section 100 of the British North America Act charges parliament with fixing and providing for the salaries, allowances and pensions of federally appointed judges. It thus rests with us to ensure that the levels of remuneration and related benefits are sufficient to attract to the bench judges of the calibre of which I have been speaking.
In doing so, it is important to remember that the candidates we are seeking are the outstanding members of the profession, most often in the prime of their professional career with greater opportunity for advancement in private practice. While we, naturally, expect them to be prepared to make some sacrifice in assuming the public duty of judicial office, we must also offer them a level of compensation befitting the high office and heavy responsibility they are asked to assume. Similarly, we must provide that the size of the judiciary is commensurate with the workload which they have to handle.
To meet the pressures of the ever-growing number of civil and criminal cases coming before all levels of courts in the country-cases because of the law and the nature of the crime that are more complex and more time-consuming than ever before-the bill allows for the appointment of additional judges as requested by the provincial attorneys general. I underline, for the purposes of this debate, that no amendment increasing the size of a bench in any province is made without a firm request from the provincial attorney general.


Mr. Paproski:: No talking to judges, either!
May 5, 1977

Mir. Basford: This is key to the independence of the judiciary. Judges themselves are very much the keepers of their own integrity. The standards of judicial conduct rest very much in their hands. Consequently, it is important that under the aegis of the Canadian Judicial Council these standards be articulated and disseminated for the guidance of all holders of judicial office and for the guidance of the public at large.
In this light, I would like to turn to some of the specific provisions contained in Bill C-50 so as to outline them for hon. members. I indicated earlier that it is parliament's duty to ensure that the provincial superior, county and district courts are provided with the judges necessary effectively to carry out the workloads imposed upon those courts. I am satisfied, as I have indicated, on the basis of representations and formal requests received from provincial attorneys general, that the additional judges provided for in this bill are necessary to accomplish this end.
To further demonstrate this point I would like to table, because it would be a help to hon. members in debating the bill in the House and examining it in committee, in both official languages, a table showing where judges have been appointed since the Judges Act was last dealt with by parliament in 1975, along with the positions which would be available under this new bill. It is a table entitled "Numbers of Federally Appointed Judges Pursuant to the Judges Act", as of April 30, 1977, and as provided for by Bill C-50. Mr. Speaker, may I have the consent of the House to have it printed in today's edition of Hansard?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to have this document printed in today's Hansard1


Steve Eugene Paproski: So agreed, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is agreed and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For list referred to above, see appendix.]


Stanley Ronald Basford: I should emphasize, however, that the provincial attorneys general and I also recognize that adding judges is but one means of coping with the problem of growing case loads and consequent delays in the judicial system. That is why we, both federally and provincially, are currently engaged in actively exploring other measures to alleviate the problem which cannot simply be avoided by appointing more judges and building more court houses.
A number of the provinces are engaged in implementing modern management techniques in the operation of their courts, designed to provide a better case flow as outlined by the attorney general for Ontario in a white paper laid before that legislature some time ago. A number of courts are experimenting with revised procedures in civil and criminal cases that will cut down the length of preliminary inquiries and trials in Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver, for example. Equally, at the federal level we are examining possible legislative measures which will reduce court delays at preliminary
Judges Act
inquiries and criminal trials, as well as means by which fewer minor offenders will be brought into the court system in the first place. I understand the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will have a good deal to say about this in its forthcoming report. It is essential that these sorts of changes go hand in hand with appointing additional judges if we are to achieve the most efficient and effective use of the courts.
There have been questions in the House recently from the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) concerning unified family courts and the so-called reserve pool of judges. Under the bill there is a renewal of the reserve pool system-a system which was established by parliament in two rounds of amendments to the Judges Act made in 1973 under which a reserve pool was set up-so as to meet the anticipated requests from the provinces for additional judges during the next two years before the Judges Act was likely to be amended again. This pool is critical if we are to avoid delay in the appointment of new judges when these needs are identified and demonstrated by the provincial attorneys general.
Clause 18 of the bill also contains unique features in providing salaries for 15 judges who are specially designated for appointment to unified family courts. Under subclause (d), judges at the superior, county and district court level will be available for appointment at the request of the attorneys general as projects are established in the provinces. They will however-and this relates to a good question put by the hon. member for Calgary North-remain superior, county or district court judges. I consider this to be one of the more important provisions in the bill.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have been giving a very high priority to the establishment of unified family court pilot projects in a number of provinces. The existing fragmentation of jurisdiction forces families to take their family related problems to different judges. Thus, no one judge sees the entire family problem as a unit. In a unified family court all issues in a family law dispute can be determined by one judge in one court, with the help of support services. Such issues might include charges against minors, proceedings for the adoption, protection and guardianship of children, disputes respecting the matrimonial home, questions of divorce, separation and the custody of children. Support services for the courts would include family counselling and other services related to the resolution of family problems.
The establishment of unified family courts was one of the more important recommendations contained in the report on family law issued by the Law Reform Commission of Canada which I tabled in this House on May 4, 1976. Immediately following its tabling, it was discussed at a federal-provincial meeting of attorneys general in Vancouver hosted by me. There was general support and consensus among the 11 of us that we should endeavour to move toward the establishment of unified family courts in our respective jurisdictions on a test or pilot basis. By setting up pilot projects we will be able to assess
5318

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
the workability of the concept and to iron out some of the problems which are inherent in any major new initiative.
I am pleased to be able to report that agreement has already been reached to establish pilot projects in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland. In addition, the federal government has agreed to share in the cost of evaluating a pilot project which had previously been set up in British Columbia. It is my hope and, I am sure, the hope of all members, that we will be able to establish unified family courts on a permanent basis in a relatively short period of time, and that our reserve pool of judges for these courts will be fully utilized by the time the Judges Act next comes up for amendment.
Since I became Minister of Justice I have been deeply concerned about the degree of my department's involvement in the administration of judicial affairs. I believe that since the Department of Justice is responsible for the conduct of the government's litigation, it is preferable that the courts should not have to rely on the department for handling its administrative affairs. Again, it is a question of the principle of independence of the judiciary.
To remove the anomaly which currently exists-the anomaly of my department and my counsel often being the principal litigants before a court and also handling the administrative affairs of that court-I am recommending in this bill measures that will transfer from my department its administrative responsibilities for the federal courts and federally appointed judges. At the same time, we will preserve the principle of ministerial responsibility to parliament for the expenditure of public funds.
Under the proposed new regime there will be a commissioner for federal judicial affairs who will assume responsibility for all administrative affairs in respect of federally appointed judges; that is, the district, county and superior court judges and the federally constituted courts, the Federal Court of Canada and the Canadian Judicial Council, but excluding the Supreme Court of Canada. Under the Minister of Justice, the commissioner will have responsibility for the administration of judges' salaries, allowances and annuities, and for the budgetary, financial, personnel and operational requirements for the Federal Court and the Canadian Judicial Council.
I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that I have excepted the Supreme Court of Canada. Given its unique status at the apex of the judicial system, the Supreme Court of Canada will have its registrar designated to perform these same functions in relation to that court and its members. At the same time, the registrar will be placed under the supervision of the chief justice, rather than the minister of justice, in carrying out the day to day administrative management of the court.
Further, amendments will be made to the Supreme Court Act relative to the publishing of reports, the management of the library and the management of the court, all in support of two principles; one removing the anomaly of my department being, on the one hand, the administrative arm of the court and, on the other hand, the chief litigant, and the other in support of the concept I touched upon at the beginning of my
(Mr. Bastard.]
speech, that we in the executive and in parliament should do all we can to enhance the independence of the judiciary.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn now to another critical area of this new bill, namely, the provisions relating to the Canadian Judicial Council. The council was established in 1971 to promote uniformity, efficiency and improvement in the quality of judicial services in the county, district and superior courts. To this end, the council is charged with responsibility for establishing conferences of chief justices and seminars for the continuing education of judges. Members of the House will also note that the act provides that the judicial council may establish an inquiry into the conduct of a judge and make a report to me and to parliament with regard to the rights of parliament under the British North America Act regarding the dismissal of judges.
In the intervening years the council has taken a number of important initiatives in these areas, including an innovative program of seminars for newly-appointed judges launched last year. Its continuing system of educational seminars is now firmly established and no doubt will be further developed in coming years. I also hope that the council will be able in the future to direct its attention to questions involving the application of modern management techniques to the operation of our courts, as well as means by which to reduce delays in court proceedings. The council is at present composed of the 24 chief justices of the superior courts, and its operation has, I believe, benefited from its small size. But at the same time, some of the council's activities are of direct interest to judges of the county and district courts which in many jurisdictions deal with most of the criminal cases in the area. I believe they should have an opportunity, namely, the judges of the county and district courts, for more direct involvement in the council's activities. In order to facilitate such participation without altering the present composition of the council, I am proposing in the bill the creation of a county court committee within the council.
This advisory committee will be composed of the chief judges and associate chief judges of the county and district courts, plus the senior judges nominated from those provinces where the courts have no chief judge, as in British Columbia. Thus, the committee will have a membership of ten, drawn from all provinces except Quebec and Prince Edward Island which have no county or district courts. The county court committee will be authorized to meet from time to time to discuss matters of common interest and concern in an effort to promote uniformity, efficiency and the quality of judicial service in the county and district courts. It will also be in a position to participate more directly in the planning and development of continuing educational seminars for the judges of the county and district courts. It is my hope that the establishment of this committee will bring about a closer working relationship between the judges of the superior, county and district court judges who all face many common problems and share many mutual interests.
May 5, 1977

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, judges' salaries can only be fixed by parliament, and it rests with parliament to ensure that these salaries are adequate properly to compensate for the heavy duties imposed upon those who accept appointment to judicial office. The bill provides for a two-stage increase in judges' salaries. The first increase of $2,000 would be retroactive to April 1, 1977, and the second, equal, increase would become effective on April 1, 1978. These increases are within the anti-inflation guidelines, averaging 4 per cent in 1977 and 3.8 per cent in 1978. The salaries were last set in 1975. It is not anticipated that the Judges Act will be amended for another two of three years, and therefore it is appropriate, I think, that parliament give this modest increase at this time rather than wait for another three years, which would be the earliest opportunity to make an adjustment since 1975.
Parliament is also charged with fixing and providing for the allowance paid to judges in carrying out their duties. 1 have already mentioned the importance I attach to judicial selfimprovement through participation by judges in seminars, conferences and meetings concerned with continuing legal education. Equally, I think it only proper that judges represent their courts at state and other official functions of the nation or of the bar. Such obligations do not fall upon all judges, of course, but they do fall, and understandably so, upon judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, chief justices and chief judges of all the other courts.
May I express my appreciation to members of the judiciary who in recent times, and certainly far more than in the past, are participating throughout the country in seminars, meetings of the bar and consultative sessions with the bar, much to the benefit of the judges themselves, of their courts, of the bar and of the law they administer. May I commend those judges who in terms of the continuing education program have put in an immense amount of hard work.
In this connection, the bill proposes to increase the conference allowance for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada to $1,000 per year and to provide these judges and the chief judges of the county and district courts with an annual representational allowance of $1,500. Many demands are placed upon Supreme Court judges to involve themselves in educational meetings and to represent our highest court at formal functions across the land. Equally, the chief judges of the county and district courts are in no different position than other heads of superior courts in being obliged to represent their courts. These amendments are necessary if the senior members of our judiciary are properly to discharge the judicial and extra-judicial responsibilities that fall upon them by virtue of the high office they hold and which, in my experience, they so willingly undertake.
I have endeavoured to outline the main features of Bill C-50. In conclusion, I would urge that parliament, in recognition of its role in relation to the independence of the judiciary, give close and early consideration to these amendments so they can be dealt with before parliament adjourns for the summer.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks I wonder if I might put a
Judges Act
question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) for clarification of something in the bill before us. It refers to the appointment of a commissioner for the first time. The minister was saying that he will have administrative duties. Could he explain in a more practical and realistic way-and I do not mean to be critical-what the commissioner's duties really will be? The chief justice generally sets the list of judges who will sit in various courts. What will the commissioner do?


Stanley Ronald Basford: He would have nothing to do with the administration of the case lists. That is the role of the chief justice: he will continue to determine the case lists, determine the rota in the federal court, determine who is travelling and who is not. That continues to be a judicial function. The proposal for a commissioner does not affect any judicial functions of any of the judges. What it does is to affect the administrative functions of my department. We are responsible for the allowances, pensions, matters of residence and matters relating to leave of absence for health reasons of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal court of appeal and the federal trial division.
We are responsible, in the federally constituted courts, for estimates going to Treasury Board, for secretarial assistance, for classification of staff, for the provision of buildings, for the provision of translation services and all the support services that a court needs. Those functions will be transferred from my department to the office of the commissioner. It is the administrative functions that are being moved, not the judicial functions. Therefore, for example, the preparation of the estimates, in which the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) always take great interest in committee, will be done by the commissioner in consultation with the chief justices, rather than by my department. Obviously, in our parliamentary system the commissioner would be a deputy head reporting to me, and I to parliament; but that whole function of my department would be moved to the office of the commissioner.
With regard to section 96 judges-federally appointed judges not of federally constituted courts-the function of the commissioner would be to deal with pensions, travelling allowances, leave of absence, moving allowances and that type of matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the minister for his clarification. I wanted that point cleared up because I did not want a new officer set up who would interfere with the independence of the courts.
First of all, I want to congratulate the minister on his address this afternoon in setting out, in particular, the functions of the judiciary and how the separation of power operates in our democratic system. Some years ago the British parliament instigated a study concerning the independence of the judiciary. I was pleased to hear the minister speak of the independence of the judiciary, because not long ago in this chamber we learned that some in responsible positions had interfered with judges in a certain province, either deliberately or otherwise. It was alleged that that interference affected
800t2-S8y2

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
ministers and other members of this House. I say, Mr. Speaker, that in a democratic system an independent judiciary is most important.
Before I comment on the minister's speech, let me congratulate him and the members of his department on the fine calibre of men and women they have appointed to the bench in this country in recent years. The minister is to be congratulated especially for the appointments he has made in Alberta. Alberta appointments have been based on the calibre of the lawyer rather than the political affiliation of the appointee. By so doing the minister has taken a step in the direction recommended by the Canadian Bar Association and other bar associations, and the end result will be judges of ever higher calibre. I felt obliged to put those comments on record since I have been speaking of the independence of the judiciary.
In the study previously alluded to, involving a review by parliament and the courts of judges in Great Britain and the United States, the importance of the independence of judges was emphasized. The study said that the independent judiciary should guarantee the security of the weak against the strong and the individual against the community. It should present a shield against the tyranny of power and arrogance, and against the irresponsibility and irrationality of popular action. Always, the underlying, basic assumption is the intellectual and moral integrity of the judicial officer in his pronouncements.
It is well recognized that the courts must always assure society that the weak will be protected from the strong and that the individual will be protected from the all-powerful state. Actually, lawyers should consider themselves as social engineers. It is the function of the lawyer, of the legal profession, to make sure that the individual is protected from the all-powerful state. What happens to an individual if he is charged with an offence, or engages the state in civil litigation either at the federal or provincial level? The state, with the country's tax money at its disposal, can hire the best experts and finest counsel. It is the job of the lawyer acting for the individual to protect that individual from the all-powerful state and make sure that he is fairly and squarely dealt with by the independent judiciary. That is the function of the lawyer. It is the function of bar associations to be responsible for the conduct of, indeed to discipline, the lawyer.
In each province lawyers are governed by the provincial professional act. The professional act allows lawyers to set up their own bar association which sets out guidelines and conditions according to which men and women are called to the bar. If defalcation takes place, the bar association will discipline the lawyer concerned and take other remedies necessary. I know that the bill speaks of lawyers with ten or more years' experience being appointed to the bench. They need many years of experience in practice if they are to carry out their purposes and functions in the manner I outlined at the beginning of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, for a number of years I have been a member of the Alberta and Saskatchewan bar associations, and I can

say that we are justly proud in Canada of the high quality of men and women who have been appointed to the judiciary, appointed to protect the rights of Canadians everywhere in this country. I say this in all sincerity.
Let me now deal with another point about which I am concerned. On page 3 of the bill there is provision for the appointment of additional judges to our superior, county, district and appellate courts. The chief justices and attorneys general of the provinces submit recommendations to the Minister of Justice or the department. The Minister of Justice, as he accurately and properly said, acts on the basis of those recommendations in the appointment of judges, and in so doing acts according to the laws and constitution of this country. In this connection I draw the attention of the House to page 11 of the bill which provides for the appointment of 15 judges who shall deal with family court matters. However, I see no evidence to suggest that the Minister of Justice has made agreements with the provinces, as it is the responsibility of the provinces to create such family courts.
For several decades the dockets of our high courts and superior courts have been flooded with divorce cases. This created a great deal of work for judges and held up the disposition of civil and sometimes criminal cases. Long lists of divorce cases were the bane of our superior courts. After the divorce laws were changed, our courts were forced to deal with an even greater work load because more people wanted to be divorced. According to recent statistics, Canadian divorce rates are as high as those in the United States.
I have always felt that our federal system of law has not been quite fair to divorced Canadian females with children. Let me illustrate what happens in a divorce. As part of the divorce proceedings, a judge, say in Manitoba, Alberta or Saskatchewan, can make an order for the maintenance of the children of the marriage or alimony for the spouse. The ex-husband may be well employed and a man of means. If he moves to another province, the court may lose jurisdiction and the order may not be enforced. Surely it is up to marriage partners to fulfil the first responsibilities of their marriage, the provision for the welfare of their family. As I say, if the husband moves from Alberta, say, to another province, unless there is a proper reciprocal agreement between the provinces the order made in Alberta is not enforceable.
In addition, any attempt to enforce such orders is costly. It costs a great deal of money to hire lawyers and other legal costs are very high as well. Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of women in this country have suffered over the years because they were not able to enforce maintenance orders and so provide for the necessities and education of their young children. As the Minister of Justice knows, he being a lawyer from British Columbia, unless there are unusual circumstances the judge awards custody of young children to the mother. Therefore, the mother must provide for the necessities and education of her young children.
If she is on welfare, the taxpayer must bear the cost. On the other hand, the husband may be earning an adequate salary, but because of the present state of our law he is able to evade
May 5, 1977

his responsibilities. I hope the Minister of Justice can meet with the ministers of all ten provinces and propose enabling legislation to be passed in this House and in the provincial legislatures which will provide uniform law right across this country. Only then will orders made in Alberta or Ontario be enforced in other parts of Canada. We need such law to make sure that our young do not suffer from the irresponsibility of one of their parents.
That is my recommendation today. I hope that when the minister does set up these family courts-and I realize it is the function of the provinces to set them up-that matter is taken into consideration. I would have thought, and I say this kindly to the minister, we would have had an agreement at least with the provinces if we are, indeed, setting up these family courts. All the bill does is set up a pool of judges: it appoints extra judges to the superior courts. Under most of the jurisdictions that I know, and there are some exceptions such as Ontario, the jurisdiction over divorce, making orders for alimony and maintenance and dealing with domestic matters is under the Queen's Bench or superior courts, the trial divisions of the various provinces.
What we are doing is adding more judges. These judges will be trying those cases anyway. What the minister had in mind, and what the Speech from the Throne was dealing with was that we would have a county court like we have in district courts, the trial supreme court and an appeal court, and a separate and distinct court set up for family matters so that cases could be expedited and orders made and enforced across the land. It would deal with those matters that are cluttering up the courts.
I cannot think of anything more monotonous than a judge spending a couple of days listening to 30 or 40 divorce cases, especially when the only ground is adultery. They listen to that kind of evidence hour after hour and day after day. I cannot think of anything more monotonous for a man skilled in the law than listening to that trash while other cases are held in abeyance. The place for domestic problems should be the family court. Those courts should be empowered to make orders which would be enforced across the country. I do not think I can put it any more clearly than that.
I commend the minister for his action on the question of salaries. Young lawyers only at the bar a few years often make more than the chief justice of the province. If you are going to continue to have high calibre, intelligent men, we must keep salaries at least within the ball-park of what they could earn in other occupations. On the face of it, an increase of $2,000 sounds like quite a large sum. However, when you add it to what they are making at the present time, and take into consideration the scale of income tax, they are lucky to take home an extra $800 or $900. Remember that judges cannot write off expenses which can be written off in a law practice. The tax is deducted at source. It is like members of parliament: when we get our cheques, they have taken off the allowance for our pension and our tax. This increase is certain-
Judges Act
ly not out of line. It has been two or three years since we last examined judges' salaries. If we are to have the kind of men that the minister and I discussed, we must compensate them so they can have the degree of independence that is necessary for the judiciary to function as it does.
I have tried to keep my remarks brief. I endorse the bill. We will be supporting it. I congratulate the minister for bringing it in at this time.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford): when it comes to the political field he is fiercely competitive and very partisan in his politics. When it comes to the administration of his duties as Minister of Justice, he is able, articulate, efficient and fair. I have to say that about the Minister of Justice. The same could be said for some of the other ministers of justice. I notice that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is in the chamber. When he was minister of justice he had the administrative ability to do, and in fact did, an excellent job in that field.
This bill is non-controversial. All that members have to do is try to improve some of the provisions that are contained in it. Bill C-50 deals with four areas: first, the appointment of additional judges; second, increased salaries for judges; third, changes to the Canadian Judicial Council; and fourth, the appointment of a commissioner who will take over some of the administrative duties which fell within the Department of Justice. What we have to do is improve some of the provisions contained in the bill. I may premise that by saying it is the duty of all of us to humanize the law. Judges and lawyers play a very important part in humanizing the law.
It has been said that the law should move from the people to the judges. In the past there has been a great separation between judges and ordinary folk. In my years of practice I have had many cases where people were literally terrified of going to court. They were overwhelmed and overawed by the presence of the judge in the courtroom. That imposes a detachment, a separation of the people from the law. Therefore, it is very important that we humanize the law and get lawyers and judges participating in going to the people in attitude concerning the law.
I have noticed many changes in the law since coming to this place 12 years ago. They are all for the better. I think of the Law Reform Commission and the work they did in setting forth some of the problems and suggesting solutions. They have not been picked up completely by our ministers of justice, but we are moving in the right direction. I think, too, of some of the amendments to the Criminal Code, especially the change with regard to absolute and conditional discharge. That was a good move in changing the law.
I caught some of the adjectives that the minister used concerning judges. I think he said they have to be sensitive and able. I would say they have to be learned, independent, impartial, fair and compassionate. I recall the Hon. John Turner, when he was minister of justice, summing it up in very few words: he said they have to be compassionate and possess

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
common sense. That is the real mark of a judge, and that is what we have to strive for in our appointments.
I have said there has been a separation and detachment by lawyers and judges with regard to ordinary folk which has terrified many people with regard to cases before the courts. One thing we could do is improve the jargon with regard to courts. As hon. members know, in the Supreme Court we have to address the judge as "your lordship" or "my lord". In the county court it is "your honour". At one time in magistrates' courts it was "your worship". Now we have changed "your worship" to "your honour". It seems to me that the terms "your lordship" or "my lord" do not play an important part in the courts today. We might, instead, simply use the designation "your honour" when addressing a judge. It is a little warmer. It is more meaningful than the term "my lord" or "your lordship". This is something the Minister of Justice can think through.
The reason we are appointing additional judges is that the courts face a very heavy case load. A multiplicity of court cases has arisen in the last 10 or 15 years. This is the result of the increase in population and to some extent, no doubt, because of the changes which were made in the divorce laws. Then, again, people may be becoming more contentious. One way in which we could reduce the court case load, more especially in the province of Ontario, would be by taking motor vehicle cases out of the courts. In some provinces-for example, in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba- they have already been removed from the jurisdiction of the courts and made subject to the rulings of tribunals.
In Ontario there is a very heavy list, and on examining that list you notice it includes a tremendous number of cases involving motor vehicles. I see that in its speech from the throne the government of Quebec indicated an intention to take motor vehicle cases out of the courts. This might well be done in Ontario; the number of judges needed would then be fewer.
The minister touched on the qualities and qualifications needed by judges. He pointed out that women are now being appointed to county courts, family courts and courts of appeal. This is an excellent trend, though at the moment I would have to say it is tokenism; there is not the balance there should be. I hope we can move away from tokenism to a situation in which there is real representation of women in the composition of the courts.
Ours is a very complex society. One of the best illustrations of this is the appointment of 15 judges to take care of a unified family court system. Pilot projects are going on in connection with the establishment of family courts, and I think they have proven to be a success. The minister is moving in the right direction when he co-operates with the province to provide more judges as an essential part of the development of a unified family court system. It is most frustrating for people who find themselves in domestic disputes to discover they must go to different courts for decisions about the various issues

which arise. For example, with regard to custody they sometimes go to the family court, sometimes to the surrogate court and sometimes to the supreme court. With regard to maintenance, sometimes they go to family court and sometimes to the supreme court. In connection with grounds for divorce, sometimes there is an option of going to the supreme court or to the county court. The decision to unify the system and to have all these matters presented, debated and resolved before one court is a wise one.
I have talked about the complexity of courts, more especially of the supreme court and the county court. If one were to analyse the various functions of the supreme court and the county court, one would find there was very little difference in the performance of those duties. The minister should take a deep and considered look at the advisability of combining both the county court and the supreme court to one court. This would avoid the confusion which prevails at the moment as to whether people should commence their actions in one court or the other.
I recall when the Minister of Transport was minister of justice. I spoke to him with regard to this question and I think he was in agreement, in principle, to the idea of combining the county courts and the supreme courts. I am sure that the former minister and the present minister Find very little difference with regard to performance of the duties involved. It is important that we should seek to end the separation which adds to the confusion and to the detachment of judges.
When one considers the changes in the composition of the Canadian Judicial Council-the minister says that to recognize the county court judges, a county court committee will be set up-we become aware of the differences which exist between the supreme court and the county court. I say that these differences should not prevail. It seems to me that the Judicial Council is fulfilling an important and effective role with regard to judges. The holding of educational seminars by judges is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. However, a move to combine the county courts and the supreme court would be a far better step to take.
I should like the minister to advise us further with regard to the functions of the judicial council. It seems to me the council arose following the Landreville case. Mr. Justice Landreville was in a very difficult position, and in order to oust him it was necessary to bring forward a motion both in this House and in the Senate. In the event, the judge resigned and no motion was necessary. But as a result of that case the Canadian Judicial Council was formed with responsibilities in the field of education and of discipline.
I think we in Canada can be very proud of the performance of our judges. They are to be complimented. The high standard is probably due in part to the process followed in making appointments. I think their performance has been excellent. But would the minister advise me what the powers of the council are with regard to discipline? My own opinion is that the complaints felt by individuals should be brought before the judicial council. Those who complain against judges should be given a hearing on the basis of which recommendations should
May 5, 1977

be made to the Minister of Justice who should have power to ask a judge to resign where this seems appropriate.
I said earlier that ours is a very complex society. I notice that the chief justice of the high court of Ontario made a statement to reporters recently with regard to class actions. He was afraid that class actions would take time in the courts and that they could add to delays and possibly to confusion.
Class actions had their origin in the United States where groups of people joined together to bring an action regarding an injury they had suffered. The best example I can give in Canada is the "rusty Fords" action. Many people who bought Ford motor cars a few years ago got a very bad deal; in no time at all the cars had rusted. The problem was to bring a class action which would be successful. Hon. members can appreciate the problems of a class action. Somebody has to initiate it; they have to get together the people who have been aggrieved; they have to retain counsel; they have to present evidence; and in many cases a good deal of expert evidence is required. In the "rusty Fords" case there were difficulties in developing the action, and the compensation offered by the Ford Motor Company amounted to little or nothing.
Class actions are becoming a very important aspect of our law, both from the consumer and from the environmental point of view, and we have to assist in the promotion and performance of such actions. The minister must see to it that we have the proper number of judges and that the courts are not cluttered up with cases. I repeat to the minister, as I am sure he knows full well, that in Ontario the number of motor vehicle cases brought is astronomical and they are responsible for cluttering up the courts. When a law professor analysed some of the motor vehicle cases and their result in the courts, he found that sometimes because of lack of proper presentation the litigants had suffered considerably.
The Law Reform Commission has brought forth many studies regarding diversionary procedures in criminal cases and other cases. I hope the Minister of Justice will adopt some of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on the question of diversionary procedures and thus cut down the case load of criminal actions. I note that the minister is attempting at this time to streamline some of the rules concerning evidence. I think he should give an equal amount of time and attention to some diversionary procedures which could be adopted, and thus help the situation.
There is a tremendous amount of specialization on these days, and perhaps we in Canada should develop specialized courts. We are moving in the right direction in regard to family courts. In regard to bankruptcy we do have specialized courts. Perhaps we have to move further regarding specialization in other fields of law. They have done this in England where judges with wide experience in the law are appointed to a particular branch, and they do an excellent job. I think it is almost asking the impossible to have a judge learned in all fields of the law today. It is just too much to expect them to be
Judges Act
expert in criminal law, corporate law and all the other branches of the law.
The minister has cleared up the administrative duties of the commissioner, and I am sure this is a step in the right direction. As I said at the beginning, this is a non-controversial bill. What we have to do is humanize the law. I hope that the Minister of Justice starts this process with lawyers and judges and brings forth many measures having to do with amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, and thus humanize the law. Then we can proudly say that we have the best judicial system and the best laws which apply to all Canadians.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a most statesmanlike debate and I will try and make my remarks in the same spirit, though it is going to be a struggle. This is a welcome piece of legislation and appears to be a good step forward. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has, I think, a good reputation. I have a little irritation with him, which I will come to in a few minutes, but first of all I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate since I am the only barrister and solicitor present in this chamber from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is amazing that out of the seven Newfoundland members there is only one lawyer, which is indeed a setback to human progress. There are very few provinces with only one lawyer among their membership in the House of Commons. As everyone knows, usually the House of Commons and houses of assembly have a large number of lawyers as members, but coming from Newfoundland I feel rather lonely. Even the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) has no training in law, though he is certainly getting quite a bit of training in external affairs.
As one grows older, Mr. Speaker, one can usually see that one is getting older because the policemen start looking very young and judges become your contemporaries. A recent appointment by the Minister of Justice to the Newfoundland supreme court, Mr. Justice Noel Goodridge, is a boyhood friend of mine. I grew up with him. He has been on the bench now for only one year. He is a first-class judge on the bench of Newfoundland and he will be a tremendous adornment to the bench there. Other judges recently appointed were people I have known from boyhood, and this really shows me that time is passing on. When you see that some of your brother lawyers with whom you came to the bar are now on the bench, you know that you are getting over the hill. But I certainly wish them well, and I know that they will do very well on the bench, where they will be sitting for the next 30 years until reaching retirement age.
I should also like to mention what a fine appeal court we had in Newfoundland when I was a young lawyer. I should just like to put the names of the court on the record. There was the then chief justice, the late Sir Albert Walsh. Then there was the late Sir Brian Dunfield, and the late Harry Winter. They were three Newfoundland judges of the very highest calibre who were understanding when a young lawyer first came before them. They were men of high integrity and intelligence and a real adornment to the bench. I know that

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
our present judiciary are all following in their footsteps. It was a pleasure to appear before men of that nature, particularly the chief justice, the late Sir Albert Walsh, who was a great judicial scholar and humanitarian.
I should like the Minister of Justice to try to deal with one matter respecting the bench. We know that the Canadian Judicial Council is supposed to have the task these days of trying to deal with disciplinary questions concerning judges, but there is one area which is not so much a matter of discipline in the sense of a judge misbehaving or a judge behaving in a way which might require a resolution by the House of Commons and the Senate. I refer to the small number of judges who are very slow in their work and in bringing down judgments. They will hear a case, and I have known of cases where three years later judgment had not been rendered. That is a very serious matter, because justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, I would like the minister to deal with this matter. It is an awkward area because, as we all know, our judges must be left with their independence. We cannot have executive interference with judges in their role as judges.
The government must consider the rights of the litigants who appear and whose cases are before judges. The cases may involve them in a great deal of money while waiting for a judgment. It is going to cost one side or the other a great deal of money. Perhaps in other areas humanitarian or human relationship factors are involved. I believe the situation to be intolerable where a judge can go longer than six months or, at the very maximum, a year before he brings down a judgment. I do not know whether the minister can give some direction as to what can be done about this problem, or whether the Canadian Judicial Council has been asked, or will be asked, to do something about it. It is a serious and awkward problem for the bench, for the bar and for the administration of justice. It is a problem that requires a device to be arrived at so that those kinds of rare situations can be avoided.
I approve of the attempts the minister is making to do something about family law within the new concept of family law courts, courts which will deal with all aspects of families- divorce, separation, custody of children, and so on. There is no other area of the law with which I have had any experience that is more trying, has more human values involved and a more human story involved. It has the capability of causing human beings pain and sorrow. I am referring to matters that come up before judges dealing with family law. Custody of children, in particular, is an area that is very much the stuff with which human sorrow is concerned. There is also the attempt by one parent or the other to use their children to get revenge on the other party. These are the kinds of cases that are very difficult for judges to deal with.
These cases are much better dealt with by judges whose experience is totally within the field of family life. They are, therefore, spending their time in that kind of human situation and they understand it. They also have the court's resources to

try to deal with it in a humanitarian and common sense way. I believe the move the minister is making is in the right direction. He has a suggested agreement with the province of Newfoundland, and three or four other provinces are interested.
Judges who are ordinarily dealing with commercial and criminal matters are very often not suited to dealing with very subtle relationships between people. I never make any judgment on family matters. The only family matter that one can really make a judgment on is one you are involved in yourself. What the relationship is between two other people is very difficult for outsiders to fathom. This is an area where a lot of expertise and understanding is needed. This is a move in the right direction and I approve of it.
While I have the chance, I want to say that the administration of justice is certainly not uniform across Canada. Constitutional jurisdiction over matters of the judicial system are divided between the federal government and the provincial governments. As all members of the House know, the federal government appoints the judges, pays their salaries and a portion of their expenses. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. They are responsible for paying the expenses of the courts, the staff that belong to the courts, building courthouses, and the like. That falls within the responsibility of the provincial governments, with the exception of the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada. That is all well and good.
All of us in this chamber know there are provinces well endowed with resources, and provinces that are less endowed financially. I do not believe significant recognition in the administration of justice in Canada has been taken of that fact. For example, the facilities in the system of what used to be called magistrates' court-today called provincial courts in Newfoundland-can by no stretch of the imagination be compared to the same system in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta or practically any other province. The magistrates and provincial court judges of the provincial courts in Newfoundland have the most primitive facilities in which to operate. Those magistrates are now called judges, but I will use the word "magistrates" so that you will know who I am talking about. The magistrates do not have a shorthand-typist in their court to take evidence. They do not have proper court facilities. The hon. gentleman who sits in this House representing Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) will verify that fact.
A lot of money needs to be spent in the province of Newfoundland on court facilities for the supreme court of Newfoundland, for the district courts and for the magistrates' courts which are now called provincial courts. The government of Newfoundland does not have the wherewithal to do that. I have not checked this for some two or three months, but I think the case still is that the judges of the supreme court of Newfoundland do not even have dictating and transcribing equipment. They have to dictate their judgments to stenographers. I do not think each of them has a stenographer.
The same stenographers who take down the evidence in court and who have to transcribe the evidence for appeals will
May 5, 1977

also type judgments for the judges and do their correspondence. This is an inefficient and shocking situation, to my mind. The province of Newfoundland has limited financial resources. It has not the resources to go and build a proper system of court houses and court buildings that are needed in St. John's and outside of St. John's. They are certainly needed outside of St. John's, because at least St. John's has the supreme court and the district court offices which are in half-decent buildings, and facilities which are not too bad. Outside of St. John's the situation is very much worse.
Therefore, we do not have an equal system of justice across Canada. That is because we do not have the same facilities across Canada. That is why I suggest to the government of Canada and to the minister that steps should be taken to try to correct this situation. I know the province of Newfoundland has made submissions to the government of Canada. The minister of justice for Newfoundland and the attorney general, the Hon. T. A. Hickman, Q.C., has put forward suggestions to the government of Canada that they share some responsibility for meeting the costs of the administration of justice in that province. That is one area where I can see the government of Canada, in any constitutional rearrangement, taking over more responsibility, and not less.
Unfortunately, our financial system does not follow the system of the division of power, as every member of this House knows. There are all kinds of cost-sharing programs, but 1 do not think we have any cost-sharing programs in the administration of justice. Penitentiaries are another area, but they are not quite covered by this bill.
We have to move, in Canada, toward increased federal financial responsibility for the administration of justice. Appointing judges and paying them is not enough. The government of Canada should be interested in seeing that they have the proper facilities to do their work equally well wherever they are in Canada. A judge should not suffer from inferior facilities if he sits in Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island as compared to here in Ontario. That is just as important as health and just as important as welfare. The system of justice is equally important.
I have not practiced much since 1966 because I became involved in the political business, but I am glad to note that the quality of lawyers being turned out today is very high. I am also glad to note that law schools are more aware of their responsibility to the public generally and to the public interest. More people who are taking law are interested in aspects of public law and not just interested in becoming lawyers to earn a fantastic living. A lawyer, of course, can still earn a good living. There has been a vast increase in the number of lawyers in Newfoundland. Now they have to start getting out around the province and cannot all stay in St. John's and Corner Brook. They have to go to Grand Falls, Gander and Marys-town to bring legal services to places where they were never received or available before.
One of the things dealt with in this bill is the Supreme Court of Canada. As hon. gentlemen may know, there is a matter now pending before the Supreme Court of Canada in
Judges Act
which I am talking an interest. I am taking an interest in it because I am interested in seeing justice being done in Canada equally for everyone.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice a question about a situation that cries out for explanation. I asked how the government can have a case pending before the Supreme Court of Canada for about seven years and do nothing, that I know of, to see that it is brought on and decided one way or the other. The appeal should either be heard or dismissed. I want to know how that case can be allowed to lie there since 1970.
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the reported case of Doyle v. M.N.R. relating to the tax years 1950 and 1954, which is 24 and 27 years ago. Just imagine, the court is still being asked to decide issues that occurred 24 and 27 years ago! Events that occurred in 1950 and 1954 were not heard by the Income Tax Appeal Board until 1967, and then they were heard and decided in the exchequer court in 1970, three years later. That is bad enough, but the taxpayer who was found liable by the exchequer court in 1970 for a huge amount of taxes then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1970 and has been permitted to let the appeal lie there until now. This matter demands an explanation, and if I do not get one I will raise the matter in this House on every possible occasion as long as I am here.
There is one thing about me, Mr. Speaker; I am persistent. The Minister of Justice is going to discover that I am persistent and stubborn. I am going to get to the bottom of this matter. I asked that question of the Minister of Justice yesterday in the House. I wrote to him on March 23 and on April 22, and after I spoke in this House on April 21 I wrote to the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin). I thought I would write first because I might have to raise the matter again in the House. After three or four weeks going by without an answer, I did bring it up in the House again and I will continue to do so until members are sick of hearing about it and until what happened has been explained and why extraordinarily lenient treatment should be extended to any taxpayer, least of all one who does not deserve it.
Yesterday I asked a question relating to the Supreme Court of Canada. I asked the minister to bring us up to date on what action was taken to rectify this situation. As reported at page 5273 of Hansard the minister answered that he had reviewed the proceedings in these matters with his officials, and went on to say:
They have been proceeding at a pace that the rules of the court allow-
We all know that the rules of the court allow delay if both parties agree, Mr. Speaker. The minister continued:
-except in one case where adjournment was agreed to from the winter list of the Supreme Court of Canada to the spring list, which should result in that case being heard in the spring of this year. Briefly, the officers of my department are instructed, and have been for some time, to proceed with these matters as fast as the rules of the court allow.

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the rules of the court do not have the least thing to do with the gross negligence which has apparently occurred in the matter. The rules of the court do not say you must delay seven years before proceeding with an income tax case against John C. Doyle. The rules are there to govern. You put in a factum and then you have so many days after the person responds, etc., but the implication here is that the matter has been held over seven years because of the Supreme Court of Canada. I say that is not the reason; it is not an acceptable reason, and it is an unfair criticism of the Supreme Court of Canada.
As a supplementary question I asked if the Minister of Justice was suggesting that the Supreme Court of Canada was lax in hearing cases involving taxes, and if a seven-year delay was normal and in accordance with the rules of the court in cases regarding income tax. The minister replied:
No. Of course, the Supreme Court of Canada deals with its cases diligently and as fast as it possibly can.
Certainly it does when the lawyers bring a case before it, but if the lawyers on both sides are satisfied to let the matter lie, like shaving soap-it does not sink and does not float, but just lies there-then, of course, the court cannot deal with it expeditiously because the parties do not care if it is ever settled. This will not wash, Mr. Speaker. There is not one comma or full stop in the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada to justify this matter being allowed to lie there for seven years.
I went to the trouble of finding out how many appeals on income tax matters are before the Supreme Court of Canada at the present time. I am advised that as of March 31, 1977, there were ten. One appeal has been heard and they are awaiting judgment, but the other nine appeals have yet to be dealt with by the court. Of those nine, presumably two are the cases I mentioned, Doyle v. M.N.R. in 1950 and 1954, so that leaves seven cases. What I am going to get next, unless the minister wants to get it for me, is the date the other appeals were allowed, and for what income tax year. Are they for 1950 and 1954? When were the appeals first entered? How many appeals are pending going back to 1950 and 1954?
The other day I came across the case of a man I know in British Columbia. The income tax people allege that he owes $23,000 for the last couple of years-not $1,859,000 from 1954. He is not a fugitive from justice; he is not in Panama and has not been to Costa Rica. He is in Canada and is alleged to owe the Department of National Revenue $23,000. The department tells him that he has to pay the $23,000 and pay the interest on it before he can appeal. Yet we have this other person who has owed millions of dollars for years and years and is wanted in Canada to face charges of fraud. But still the Department of Justice and the Department of National Revenue do not move, and I want to know why. Before I am finished, the people of Canada will want to know why, as well, and they are going to get an answer. I know these things take time. They take time in Newfoundland. You ask a question one year, you keep asking and asking and eventually the media

picks up its pencil and looks into the matter. The next thing you know is that it is a major issue and an election turns on it.
I am genuinely disturbed by this case, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to get to the bottom of it. The Minister of Justice made a mistake yesterday when he tried to slough me off with the answer that this had something to do with the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada. If by some chance it had, then we should ask the Supreme Court to change the rules. I should say I have every confidence in those gentlemen of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I said at the beginning that I wanted to be statesmanlike, Mr. Speaker, so I have not allowed myself to get excited. If this debate had not been on a high level, I would have gone wild on this subject. I am holding that for the time when the amendments to the Income Tax Act come before the House; but when anything remotely associated with National Revenue or Justice comes up, I will introduce this matter. I will leave the subject for now, however.
I just make the point to the Minister of Justice that I think he is going to have to make a statement on motions, or somehow in this House, and go into this matter in detail to try to persuade the House it is not a case of gross negligence or malfeasance, misfeasance or whatever-feasance. We are all going to be treated the same in Canada when it comes to paying taxes, paying the interest and paying for security. The law is for us all. A fugitive from justice should not get preferential treatment. As a matter of fact, a fugitive from justice should get tougher treatment. If you do not pay your taxes, you are a citizen, you live here, you work here, and you have a business here, they are knocking on your door with warrants, they are seizing your assets, they are putting on attachments-


An hon. Member:: Language!


John Carnell Crosbie: -if I used unparliamentary language, I will withdraw it. So, Mr. Speaker, what is sauce for the Canadian goose should be sauce for the Panamanian gander.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let me get back to my earlier remarks, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to consider instituting some reforms to overcome the problem that I mentioned of the inequality of judicial facilities across Canada, both in magistrate courts, now called provincial courts, and in district and supreme courts, so that the facilities will be more equal wherever you are in Canada, and so that the judges will have the same kinds of facilities in health and other assistance programs. This is much to be desired in Newfoundland, where the need is very great; although there might be just as great a need in other parts of the country. This problem will not be overcome. I have been on the treasury board of the Newfoundland government, and I was minister of finance for three years. The minister of finance is, of course, the most miserable character in the government. That is not

true of this government; they have more miserable characters than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: But usually the minister of finance is widely perceived to be the most miserable character because he has to keep the finances under control. Everybody is against him because he is stopping their pet projects. I was on the treasury board in Newfoundland for three years, and I had to do that. You have to have a pretty thick skin, Mr. Speaker. When the minister of justice came year after year to ask us for money to construct proper court house facilities and improve the facilities for judges in courts in Newfoundland, we had to say no because there were other things that had to come ahead of this, even though the judicial system is so important.
So on behalf of my colleagues in the government of Newfoundland I make this point to the Minister of Justice who, I am sure, will consider it with some sympathy because, as I said when I started, the minister has a good name and reputation. The case that I mentioned this afternoon was not one that originated with him. He has only been Minister of Justice for perhaps two years-I forget the exact length of time. This case goes back to a previous minister of justice. I addressed these points to the present minister because he is now Minister of Justice. I ask him now, as soon as he gets a chance, to give us the full details on that matter so that it can lie, if everthing is satisfactorily explained, or so it can be dealt with properly.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this bill because it has improvements in it to help the judicial system in Canada and in Newfoundland. I am happy to see that there will be a chief justice of the district courts in Newfoundland. That will give us eight district court judges. In Newfoundland we have some very fine district court judges now. This will be a good step forward, and I wish the minister well in this continuing evolution of the judicial system.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, by most standards I should not enter this debate because I am not a lawyer, but I want to say a few words on this bill because of a particular case with which I am dealing which is related to family courts. The matter also involves what is alleged to be an international kidnapping. I think the case was well publicized in the newspapers of this country last year. Briefly, it is this: a Canadian citizen married a man from Iran who was given landed immigrant status and subsequently fathered her child, also a Canadian citizen.
This gentleman then went to the Iranian embassy and registered his wife and his child as Iranian citizens. A short time later he separated from his wife, a divorce was granted and the courts of Ontario gave the wife custody of the child. The husband was gone for six years from Canada; he went back to Iran. Under the court order, the wife had custody of the child. There was some correspondence back and forth in which he demanded that the child be sent to Iran to visit him. The judge of the circuit court of Ontario looked into the details of the case and advised the wife against sending the
Adjournment Motion
child to Iran because apparently under Iranian law she was a Iranian citizen.
The husband returned to Canada and under order of the court had visiting privileges from nine to six in the daytime. He visited the home, took the child with him, boarded a taxi, went to Montreal and boarded an aeroplane for New York. From New York he went to Paris, London and then to Teheran. The distraught mother called the RCMP, and they said, "We cannot deal with it because it is a family court matter". Subsequently she called the FBI. They were not able to deal with it because they did not have a request from the RCMP. Then she called Scotland Yard in London, England, who agreed that if they came in contact with the child they would detain her so that her status could be clarified. The point here is that here is a woman and a child who are Canadian citizens and who have had their citizenship denied them. The woman considered going to Iran but was advised against it because she was an Iranian citizen by the mere fact of her husband going to the embassy and registering her that way.
What I would like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to look into is whether in such cases-and there are several of them-our embassies overseas can make representations to the courts in the other country so that this matter can be adjudicated.
There are human considerations here. The young girl in question, who is 11 years old, has contacted her mother by telephone and by letter in which she made heart-rending comments such as, "I am fighting for my life. Please help". I am not being critical of our Department of External Affairs.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)- Trade-GATT negotiations-Request that Canada not take position endangering employment; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian economy-Level of inflation by end of year-Restraint on spending by all levels of government; the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-Agriculture-Potential drought in western Canada- Suggested discussions with United States on joint action.
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, notices of motions, papers, and public bills.

May 5, 1977
Continental Bank of Canada



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 3, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reid that Bill C-1001, to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Representatives of the NDP caucus have met with the principals of IAC and discussed our objections to this bill. In view of certain changed conditions and the willingness of IAC to accept many of our suggested amendments, we are now prepared to agree to the second reading motion and have the bill go to committee. It now seems certain that the Bank Act revisions cannot be dealt with before the end of the present session of parliament, and it seems highly likely they will not be dealt with until after the next election. In light of these circumstances which could work great hardship against a Canadian company employing 3,000 persons, and since IAC has indicated its willingness to accept many of our proposed amendments and meet our objections to the extent possible, and the extent to which the inspector general of banks may agree, we are prepared to give the bill second reading and send it to committee to be examined.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point under the guise of a point of order. I feel that what he has said hardly constitutes a point of order. Nevertheless, the hon. member has made his submission, and the Chair will not intervene at this time.
[ Translation]


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) rise on the same point of order?


Eudore Allard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is that the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) of the New Democratic Party has decided to withdraw his opposition to Bill C-1001. I find it strange that he changed his mind on the ground that the Bank Act will not be discussed in the House before two years since the review of that legislation will not come up before then. I thought it was a plea to pretend we should not fight that bill by all possible means because we believe there are enough chartered banks to satisfy the public and that while we are waiting for the review of the banking legislation we should oppose the conversion of IAC into a chartered bank. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are squarely against the proposal of the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) rising to his feet. Does the hon. member wish to speak on the point of order previously raised? If he does, let me add that I still have some reservations about it inasmuch as the opinions expressed could have been expressed during the debate. An hon. member is not raising a point of order when he says he supports a bill or does not support it. He is participating in debate. Does the hon. member wish to raise some particular point which will enlighten the Chair?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to pursue the point, and I think all members appreciate greatly the patience you have shown. I am sure the news the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), speaking on behalf of the NDP, gave the House will be welcome indeed to the ears of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). However, as Your Honour may have noted, several hon. members still wish to participate in the debate and, under our rules, debate in the hour available for it would continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Exactly. The hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.
[ Translation]


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, on November 25, 1976, quite a long time ago, I was speaking on that subject when the House adjourned on that famous Bill C-1001; it was just given a large figure and that is all. Bill C-1001 tends to incorporate the Continental Bank of Canada, thus making of the Industrial Acceptance Corporation a chartered bank. This bill that was studied and passed by the Senate, since only money bills concern that hon. Chamber, has not been passed so far.
On November 25, 1976, that bill was again deferred. But its Liberal sponsors, undaunted, came back before the House on February 3, 1977, and were defeated once again. Today, the same bill is rising again from its ashes and returns once again to haunt the House of Commons. It is strange that when money bills are involved, they can be brought back time and again during the private members' hour, mind you, as long as the opposition is not winded enough to allow to pass the measures they want to get through. If it can be said that the judiciary has a wide influence, it can also be said that the financial power is still quite alive and that its servants must conquer or die. In our system of government, which depends on high finance, it is the only way for a political party to survive. You have to grovel before powerful bankers and give them whatever they want. And that is indeed what the two old parties do.
And today even the New Democratic Party is giving up. While listening to the hon. member a moment ago, I was asking myself a lot of questions and wondering how much IAC will have to pay to gain the approval of the three other parties. This is a question we intend to ask in committee, for this bill is finally going to be referred to the committee. I have been sitting in this House for 15 years now and I have seen many
May 5, 1977

finance bills of this kind, which deal only with money. We have to stop burying our heads in the sand. People know very well that those bills are not passed for nothing, let us be frank.
That is why I oppose this one energetically. I see smiles, because we dare not tell the truth to the people, but they are not that stupid. They know what it costs those companies to create a bank. Everybody has long since been aware of what goes on behind the scene. We are discussing bank legislation and it has to profit someone. That is it! In my opinion, it has to profit someone, for ever since 1 have sat here it has always profited the party in power.
As the saying goes, business is business. And they claim to defend the interests of the people. That is what revolts me most, when I hear them say: "the interests of the people". Imagine! To create one more bank, to strengthen monopolies, that is the goal. Yet they talk about competition. Let no one tell me there is competition among banks. It is the worst monopoly in the country. Today, through the establishment of this bank, we reinforce that monopoly-
[DOT] (nio)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Charlevoix on a point of order.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to make an intervention at this point but 1 know we are discussing the bill concerning the establishing of a new bank. One can discuss the pros and cons of this bill, fair enough, but I cannot understand how a member dare say that because of this legislation the party in power was able to obtain, through lobbying, financial or other advantages. Mr. Speaker, I think that such an allegation is unacceptable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may be right in the sense that the hon. member concerned should be warned against saying such things. I do not believe that those remarks as such are generally against the Standing Orders of the House which prohibit any member from passing judgment on the reputation of their hon. colleagues.
I believe his remarks are general enough not to be out of order or go against the practice of the House. Still, I do think he may have been treading dangerous ground, but I am sure he will of his own accord get back to remarks more directly related to the bill before the House.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say one thing: every time I speak, the hon. member intervenes without rhyme or reason. He does not repeat what I have said but makes up statements of his own. I suspect he feels the hat fits him or his party. However, to come back to what he said, he did not quote me, but made up remarks of his own. It would have been better for him not to speak up and to sit quietly, as he usually does, and remain silent than to blunder as he did. Mr. Speaker, I was merely denouncing the monopoly of the banks which today are not controlled efficiently but in fact control the governments. That is what I object to at this time.
Continental Bank of Canada
Mr. Speaker, we have many arguments to put forward. I have just been handed a statement made by the Prime Minister. I quote:
We must start by doing away with the power of money which has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. The banks are the most generous contributors to the two funds, Conservative and Liberal. Obviously, they consider their donations as insurance premiums against any form of radicalism.
Mr. Speaker, we have a lot more quotations like that. A while ago, I said we will have to quit burying our heads in the sand. The young member who has come to the House will certainly learn that. I believe he has been digging a hole for a long time in which he wants to hide his head, but let him do what he wants. During the next election ... People are not so stupid. Let us have no fear.
I want to quote now an excerpt from the speech of the sponsor of the bill, who wanted to give us some indication of what IAC Limited is all about, and I quote:
I do not think it is necessary to explain at length the reasons for this bill, but I think it is necessary to outline some salient facts about IAC Limited. Since its founding in 1925, IAC has experienced an enviable growth record so that today it is Canada's eleventh largest financial institution,...
And we are proud of it as a financial institution-
. .. excluding insurance companies. It has more than 3,000 employees across Canada and over 12,000 shareholders, of whom more than 96 per cent are Canadians. The decision to seek legislation converting it into a chartered bank was made only after detailed study of how IAC could best continue to serve its customers, employees and shareholders in the rapidly changing Canadian financial system. The study concluded that IAC is at a competitive disadvantage by comparison with other financial institutions.
That is where I start wondering about some things, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how this company can be disadvantaged in its field as compared to other similar companies. If we compare it with banks, we are dealing with two different fields. I wonder why the hon. member said this company was disadvantaged as compared to other institutions. Hundreds of others will be disadvantaged so that it can join the bank monopoly. There is no competition going on, banks are not competing with each other. It's an absolute monopoly. And if this company is allowed to join the bank monopoly, are we not discriminating against hundreds of other companies that are in the banking business like IAC? It's a matter of justice, Mr. Speaker.
This is terrible in my opinion. In letters which I received from other very interesting companies, as able as IAC, I was told the following: Look at the discrimination involved if that bank is accepted. To be fair, you would have to accept 150 other ones. It has to be recalled that the main object of IAC is its former business which it has always carried out. I am not against IAC, but I want it to remain in its business. And I say there are enough chartered banks to control governments. Chartered banks are not even controlled by the Bank of Canada, they have free access instead to Canadian financial circles. And to think that a chartered bank which has only 4 per cent or 6 per cent of its reserve funds is entitled to multiply them by 16 per cent and to loan those funds at 12 or 13 per cent interest rates! It is a scandal throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker.

May 5, 1977
Continental Bank of Canada
It is scandalous. And they say that poor IAC should become a bank. It does not make enough money, it should take back its funds and multiply them by 16, not by 16 per cent, but by 16 to make even more money. This is our famous bank system. Let us give it the same as to all others. If we do it for one, we should do it for all others. I want justice. When we have given the same thing to all companies there will be enough of them for us to realize the ineptitude of our present system.
The hon. member continues as follows: We should note that almost 65 per cent of the present business of IAC is similar to that of chartered banks. Of course. It does not have the right to create credit like banks, that's all. It wants that right. IAC wants to create money from nothing, with $6 it wants to lend $100. This is the whole issue.
Over 90 per cent of IAC shares are of a kind that will allow the corporation to be assimilated to chartered banks if, as recommended in the white paper, banks are allowed to offer indirect services. IAC should become a chartered bank, whether the proposals made in the white paper are recognized or not. They do not care. They did say they could not care less until we get to the white paper proposals. Some people have interests in IAC and I am told that 90 or 95 per cent of shareholders are Canadians-I cannot find the place-96 per cent of shareholders are Canadians.
This is a monumental joke. They say that 96 per cent are Canadians but I would be interested to know the facts. The question has been put and it got a partial answer. One shareholder owns 19.6 per cent of the shares. If five shareholders own 51 per cent of the shares, they are not concerned about the others. They make people believe that the corporation is controlled by the people when in fact only four or five individuals direct the full operations of that finance company.
Well, I will oppose those moves as long as I live because at that rate we will end up with chartered banks completely outside the control of the Bank of Canada. What is forgotten today is that the Bank of Canada should be given the power it should have, that is the sole power to create currency, but instead of giving it that power they want to give it to chartered banks. The Bank of Canada alone should control monetary credit as legal tender, and then we would be in business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard).


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), for making a very specific statement on Bill C-1001.
Mr. Speaker, It will soon be five years that I first came to the House and I always ask myself a question that puzzles me, namely, why do such bills which favour finance or the setting

up of corporations to exploit Canadians, why do such bills seem to have seven lives? We keep killing them as they come but they always spring right back.
Yet, when we study a bill aimed at alleviating human suffering, at increasing old age pensions or family allowances, or at building roads or houses, there is always some government member to reject it. At five o'clock, they disappear.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the system in which we must work. Today we are asking this distinguished assembly at least to allow the establishment of a new bank. Are all of us who are here today sincerely convinced that the establishment of a new bank will improve the situation, reduce unemployment, put an end to the closing down of plants and stimulate business? I believe we now have in Canada ten chartered banks that are well organized and that can create all the necessary credit with a pencil and a piece of paper. There are 22 million people in Canada and we could all become overnight millionnaires because it is easy when we know where money comes from and how a dollar is made: you simply need a piece of paper and a pen to create credit.
My colleague said earlier that we had the right to create 16 per cent. It is not 16 per cent, but 16 times the amount on deposit. Chartered banks can create new credit. Our politicians have given them this privilege. We may well wonder why this privilege was extended to a group of individuals. However, it remains that this privilege was granted to a group of people who have a right of life or death on the development of our country. If those people control the air we breath, they would put it in storage and distribute it bit by bit, like they do for the monetary system.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think there are enough chartered banks to meet our needs. Second, my colleague mentioned the Bank of Canada. This bank belongs to each Canadian. It was established by a good Liberal leader in 1934. At that time, he actually said that the Bank of Canada was designed to be a bank for all of us, to issue the funds required for the expansion and development of our country.
Unfortunately, that bank never served its purpose because someone came to our public men and said: Much good that will do you, but let me tell you this: when you need money, just come and see us and we will fix that, we will lend you money. It is not me who said it but someone opposite said that a people that does not control its economy, its currency, regardless of the laws it passes, is ineffective, and we have proof of this today. With all the banks we have, we are facing a terrible crisis, a record unemployment rate and we are unable to find answers to our problems.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote an internationally known economist, Mr. Paul A. Samuelson. He puts the following question: Do chartered banks really make or create money? I say yes and he also says yes. I should like now to quote some excerpts from his work. As I said earlier, we are now discussing banks and we must tell the people and members of the House that banks really create money and credit through the so-called process of multiple expansion of bank deposits. Most people have heard that by some mysterious conjuring tricks,
May 5, 1977

banks are able to make money. And, of course, without a single thing or rather with a piece of paper and a pen. However very few people realize how they go about it.
There is nothing really magical or obscure in the creation of bank deposits. It is obvious that anyone of us can deposit $100 or $200 in the bank with a deposit slip. This is wonderfully easy, there is nothing to it. Any intelligent person can easily follow the processing of the account, step by step. The real explanation of the creation of deposits is simple. The only hard things to understand are the false explanations which keep cropping up. Naturally, those who control the economic pulse of the nation have everything to gain by confusing things. According to these frivolous explanations, an ordinary bank manager could, with his pen, like I said earlier, loan out several dollars for each dollar in deposit.
It is no wonder then that experienced bankers see red when we infer they do likewise. They would like nothing better but they know well enough that a banker cannot invest sums or loan out money he simply does not have. Each dollar he uses to buy bonds or pay out a loan will eventually have to come out of his bank.
I have here certain examples of the banking system. That is why very often bankers go to the extreme opposite. They readily argue that the banking system as a whole is incapable of putting out money. So it is. Indeed, for the small change, the chicken feed that goes into our pockets, the Bank of Canada or the Canadian Mint must come into line. After all, banks can invest only the sums deposited by their clients. That is not true, it is totally false. They canot loan out the bank deposit. We create nothing, so they say, we are simply putting to work the community's savings.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that point is not valid. Bankers who suggest that fall victim to a fallacy we are all aware of but that still deserves refutation. What is true of one person may not be true of all. The banking system as a whole can accomplish what no individual bank can do, that is expand its loans and investments to the point where they become a multiple of the original volume of resources in the system, although in the process each small bank lends but a fraction of its deposits.
So we answer yes to the question put in the preamble to this section. Yes, the U.S. banking system and public taken together create some $5 in banking deposits for each dollar withdrawn from circulation to be deposited with the banks.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, obviously chartered banks have the privilege of creating credit.
Unfortunately, these credits have debts tied in. This is why it is said that there is a built-in debt in credit. A long lasting and sometimes bitter debt. We know that Canada is currently indebted to the tune of more than $54 million. Not so long ago, I read that the Jacques-Cartier bridge in Montreal and another bridge which was built in 1934 at the cost of $54 million, have been inaugurated. Having paid back $12 million already, we still owe $42 million on it. When shall we pay it off? God knows. And what will it lead us to?
Continental Bank of Canada
I do not know whether my great-great-grandchildren will ever finish paying it. When it is all paid up, the bridge will have long ceased being any good. And then, Mr. Speaker, they still have the nerve and cheek to ask for the creation of a new bank. One more bank or one less, that will not change the system but nevertheless, as my colleague said earlier, it would be a flagrant piece of injustice towards other finance companies which are dealing in the same business as IAC and as was said earlier, that would give them the chance to be part of a monopoly, a monopoly on the economic life of the nation.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker our good friends, from the New Democratic Party who are supposed to be a people's party so they say, a party working on behalf of small wage earners have finally given up. They thought that it was no use fighting anymore, and that it would take two more years before we could see any result. But within two years, a lot of things can happen. Besides, I think it is time to start fighting against this menace. If we wait another two years, things will get even worse. I wonder why the New Democrats let everything go. I remember last winter, when they were all enthusiastic. They would go around and say: We must prevent this from happening at any cost; but suddenly, nothing works anymore.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to question people's intentions, but as I said before, I am asking myself serious questions. I do not know what happened and I believe they had a flat tire on the way. That is why I wonder why we should not carry on in this party, not because of the IAC or of Mr. So and So, but for the good of each and every Canadian, as we have a very important part to play, in order to defend the interests of Canadians and of our children.
We are not alone. I am getting old, there are some younger than me here, but the fact remains that it is our sacred duty, Mr. Speaker, to take a position and uphold the rights of the people in this country. That is why we have agreed, not in a spirit of revenge, but merely to enlighten the people and make them aware, regardless of their religious beliefs and ethnic origins, of the direction in which our present system is leading us. It is leading us to bankruptcy, to hell, because we are in a vicious circle and there is only one way to get out of it.
As I mentioned earlier, we will never be able to pay completely for the Jacques-Cartier bridge and the Champlain bridge. Why? Because while paying for a bridge, we paid four or five others to financial institutions. The same is true in the present system of an individual who builds a home. He has every right to build a home. Everything is available. But we are told: To build a house, one needs money. No, money is not required. To build a house, Mr. Speaker, one needs lumber, nails, shingles, cement and workers, hammers and a saw. That is what is required to build a house. One does not say that a road cannot be built for lack of money. That is quite sensible. A bridge is not built over a river for lack of money. Quite sensible also. To build a bridge, Mr. Speaker, what does it take? It takes sand, cement, iron, engineers, and we have all that. It is quite ridiculous to be subjected to such a terrible system, because if you observe nature, you see that when bees

May 5, 1977
Continental Bank of Canada
want to build a nest, they do not ask anybody's permission. They find everything they need in their own environment and do not owe anybody anything. People say that money created out of nothing should be made available interest-free. The Bank of Canada should be responsible for that, for it would only mint-so to speak-our national resources. That is, why, Mr. Speaker, I shall keep on fighting as long as I live against the government granting another link to the credit monopoly, to high finance. I urge therefore all my followers to realize that we are fighting not against a phantasm, but against something real, our real enemies.
As I said, Mr Speaker, we do not object to this, but how is the bank supposed to finance investments or other financial assets it has acquired like any other buyer? It will, of course, make a cheque payable to its creditor or to the payee of a promissory note. If all these people agreed not to cash cheques at the bank or, which would come to the same thing, agreed to keep in a frozen account all the money received, the bank could then acquire all the assets it wished, without running the risk of losing a single cent of its cash flow. But nobody borrows funds at 6 per cent in order to leave them idle in a bank. The borrower uses them to process raw materials and produce, say, a car. The bank will therefore have to disburse, before long, the amounts equivalent to those loans. And if, as is likely, it is only one of the many financial institutions serving the town, the district, the state or the federation, it will recover only part of the amounts thus withdrawn.
The dispersal of the deposits in a bank which makes investments is further exemplified when it buys bonds or grants a loan to some local business. When a Boston bank buys government bonds, what are the chances that the bond dealer has an account with that bank? Such a probability is negligible. The dealer no doubt realizes that in New York, Los Angeles or Iowa, all the money is invested by the bank.
Mr. Speaker, naturally this may not be the time nor the place to go into the details or show proof of this national economic crime in Canada. It is neither the time nor the place, I think, to make you understand to what extent the gap widens each year between the income of the rich and that of the poor. And this in a very prosperous country known as Canada. And we who were entrusted by 23 million Canadians with the mission of restoring the balance through legislation and adequate figures, realize that we have sorrily failed in our mission. We realize that since 1967, when the Bank Act was revised, banks collect as much as 15 and 16 billion dollars in assets after taxes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allowed to him has now expired. Without the unanimous consent of the House, he may not continue his speech.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Champlain.


Mr.   Ren@: Mr. Speaker, when debating a subject such as this one we should be logical and sensible. Consequently, we should ask ourselves very appropriate questions. The objective of this bill being to have a charter for the creation of a new bank, it is therefore quite reasonable to ask oneself how much Canada or the Canadian people need a new bank now. Not so long ago, and it is still true today, we were ridiculed because we recommended economic measures which seemed revolutionary. We were used to hear again and again that our doctrine could be summed up in the printing of paper money and it was said that our objective was to issue paper money.
Mr. Speaker, I shall venture today to return the ball to those who would be in favour of a new bank. What do they want to do? What is the purpose of a bank? And particularly in this period of inflation when all Canadians are complaining about their low purchasing power, when prices are increasing so much that almost every week workers and even white collars are wondering how to make both ends meet because the prices of products and services are much higher than their purchasing power. However, if banks were trying to solve the problem of purchasing power, we could encourage them. But in the present economic system, banks are only deluding people.
We want to issue paper money but the banks only give illusions and utopias, for how could a new bank settle even an insignificant part of our economic problems? My colleagues insisted on that point. Of course, this is not the way to solve our problems. Consequently, the first thing we should ask ourselves when debating such a bill is whether we need a bank. It seems to me that this is only normal. But I tried to prove that we certainly do not need it for the moment. We are discussing the advisability of creating a bank when we are facing much more important problems. I am not aware of any bank problem in any area of the country, in any town and I would even say in any village.
There is certainly no shortage of banks. Even in the smallest localities, there is a tremendous competition between various banks, various financial institutions, whose purpose is to lend money. So there is absolutely no need for that, none at all. I would even say that such an initiative can only threaten to fuel the inflation which faces the country at the moment.
Mr. Speaker, we should certainly take advantage of the opportunity which will be offered us during the revision of the Bank Act, to find the means we could put at the disposal of all Canadians to try and seriously solve our economic problems. Of course, some people will say that by helping banks, which in turn make more credit available through loans, we could encourage investments which will lead to the progress we all wish. But, Mr. Speaker, we know very well that this is not what bank owners are after. Those are not the intentions of big financiers, and let me say briefly what those people really want.
May 5, 1977

Under the pretext of doing a service to Canadians, they want to incorporate banks with all the necessary branches. But I would say, Mr. Speaker, that people who are looking forward to creating new institutions want first of all to take advantage of loopholes in our financial and economic system to exploit, 1 repeat, to exploit Canadian citizens. They figured out that with such a system they could make money out of nothing. That is worse than the Social Credit money machine, Mr. Speaker, because those who want to create this new institution know full well that they need just a few million dollars in deposit to borrow 16 times this amount, as pointed out by my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, if it were not so hard and if I had the same intentions as those financiers, I could say: Let us get together and operate banks so that we can become rich.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that our situation allows us to tolerate any further in this country any exploiters and exploited. I understand that regulations, laws and what have you allow us to do so, since we are fool enough to accept an economic system leading us directly towards a dead end. My colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Allard) very aptly explained that it was ridiculous, and I think we have to face it seriously.
I think it is about time we open our mind and our intelligence to the fact that finance, as it is managed, leads to an economic dead end. We are usually given as an excuse that this system is established throughout the world, that we have to follow it. But the example of the whole world is there to prove to us that it is a failure, because the problems of inflation and rising prices are problems which every country is facing and which seem in fact insolvable. This is a worldwide problem. That is why it is high time that a part of this world begins to think there is perhaps some way to change all this and drafts economic policies based for once on common sense and on the possibility for everybody to have access to the benefits of our economy, instead of having a small privileged group still taking advantage of the loopholes of the Bank of Canada Act and allowing these swindlers to take the money of Canadian taxpayers. In return for loans granted by the bank or those which are just based on fabricated credit, of course individuals, corporations, communities and even provincial governments borrow and pay back money which comes from our taxes. Mr. Speaker, some still do not understand today in 1977 that it is stupid, I would even say immoral, or at least amoral, to use the taxpayers' money to enrich high finance, and one cannot touch that, it is a dogma. Mr. Speaker, when will the representatives of the people understand that we are here to serve the people and not defend exploiters? Consequently, when it comes to taxes taken by the government out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers that money must serve exclusively to initiate distributive justice, provide everyone with goods and services and not enrich a few individuals.
Mr. Speaker, when we still see today that pilgrimages have to be made to New York to feel the pulse of high finance, that is appalling. If we thought about it seriously I think we would be ashamed to see a country that is in a position to bring the United States to its knees to have natural gas, oil, paper and all kinds of valuable resources that abound here in Canada,
Judges Act
crawl to be able to get permission from American bankers. That is a crazy system, that is the right word, and for that reason it must be changed.
By accepting the institution of another bank when we do not have any shortage of those banks at home we are once again endorsing the principle of consecrating the system. And since we are opposed to the banking system as we have it in Canada you will understand that it is our duty to oppose as forcefully as we can a bill that seeks to institutionalize other banks in this country. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the Chair until 8 p.m.
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. Basford that Bill C-50, to amend the Judges Act and other Acts in respect of judicial matters, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I will not be much longer on this matter. As I was saying before I called it five o'clock, it is not my intention, in raising this matter, to be critical of the Department of External Affairs or of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) or any of his officials. This is a difficult case, and I recognize that. The reason I am raising the matter is that, in order to reinforce the decisions of our court I believe there is an obligation on the government to go beyond the borders of Canada, wherever possible. The mother was in receipt of the decision rendered by the surrogate judge, Judge Fogarty, in Ottawa, which said in part:
Since Kazem-
Which is the name of the father
-and his daughter were strangers after the separation of more than six years, it was deemed unwise to send her to Iran.
In other words, the mother took guidance from the court in not allowing her daughter to go to Iran to visit her father, as had been allowed by a previous court at the time of separation when the custody of the child was given to the mother.

MayS, 1977
Judges Act
The other fundamental question that comes to mind is the matter of the rights of Canadian citizens. A Canadian citizen under the act has rights and obligations, and if the citizen abides by the laws and regulations of the country, surely the government should also abide by some of the obligations on behalf of the citizen. In this instance the young lady was kidnapped by her father, who subsequently left Canada.
Subsequently he came back to Canada, kidnapped his daughter in the true legal sense, and took her out of the country illegally. Her mother went to the RCMP, who said, "This is a family matter; we cannot act." At present the woman has no hope of regaining her daughter unless she goes to Iran, there to begin proceedings in court to regain her daughter. The mother is a Canadian citizen, without the resources which would enable her to go to Iran, pay for accommodation and hire a lawyer to work his way through the laws of a foreign country. She does not speak the language of that country. I therefore say there is an obligation on the federal government to represent the rights of this Canadian citizen in that country, and that is why I bring this matter forward this evening.
I greatly respect the Minister of Justice and think him a fair-minded, just person. I ask him to look into this matter, to see whether in the circumstances the Government of Canada can bring this matter before the courts of Iran, or have the young lady appear before some competent official there, to determine if she is happy or wants to return to her mother in Canada. She has said in many letters sent to her mother and grandparents, and in telephone conversations, that she wants to return.
Her mother is going through a most difficult time. Mr. Speaker, Vicki Starr, an 11-year-old citizen of Canada, was kidnapped from Canada against her will by her father, after he had been absent six years. Her father registered her citizenship and that of the mother in an embassy in Iran, by making a declaration without their knowledge or agreement. Yet a court in the province of Ontario had given custody of the child to the mother, who is a natural born Canadian citizen. Also, a court of the province of Ontario had advised the mother not to allow her daughter to go to Iran. In such circumstances, and one could mention other cases, I say the government is obligated to represent the rights of that Canadian citizen in a foreign court. If Canadian citizenship is to mean anything, the government must do it.
The distraught mother made representation to the Iranian embassy, and I think it is worth putting on record what happened. The Iranian ambassador reportedly said to Mrs. Starr, "At first it is natural for a mother who has lost her child to wail and gnash her teeth." He said that in time she will get over it. What sort of answer was that for a mother in such circumstances?
Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that the young lady's father attempted a form of blackmail. He said he wanted his daughter to come to Iran to visit him, but he laid down three

conditions. His former wife was to apply to a Canadian court, to have custody of the daughter transferred to him. He stipulated that the daughter must spend her entire summer holiday with him each year, and that the former wife should post a substantial cash bond in Iran to ensure that this condition was met promptly. He then demanded that all criminal charges outstanding against him in Canada should be withdrawn. That this should have happened I find incredible.
Writing to the mother, the young lady said, "I am fighting for my life. I am scared. Please help me." I talked to the mother this evening. She said, "We just can't get anywhere; it is maddening." She said, "I can't even go to Iran, to represent myself before the courts." According to two legal opinions, she is still an Iranian citizen, even though she is no longer married to the man, and, there is no guarantee that if she entered that country, she could ever leave it.
I have left this matter dormant for some time because our Department of External Affairs was trying to get the young lady back with quiet diplomacy. The mother was told that if somehow someone could spirit her daughter to the Canadian embassy in Teheran, since that embassy stands on Canadian soil the daughter would be safe and perhaps some way could be found to smuggle her aboard an aircraft and so return her to Canada. However, that is a hazardous way to reclaim your kidnapped child.
I shall rest the matter by pleading with the minister to look into this question carefully. If his officials wish to interview the mother, I shall be glad to make all necessary arrangements. The lawyer is in Ottawa but says his hands are tied. He can do no more. This unfortunate experience has been emotionally frustrating for the mother and her child. Mr. Speaker, the judgments of our courts must be upheld, enforced, and recognized by other countries. When they are not I say the Government of Canada is obliged to intervene on behalf of its citizens to make sure that justice is done in foreign countries.
I thank the minister and hon. members for hearing me. I know my comments were not strictly germane to the bill. Nevertheless, they relate to a family matter which has been before the courts. I hope that the few words I have spoken, together with the good offices of the Minister of Justice, will in small measure be instrumental in re-uniting this mother and daughter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my comments this evening on Bill C-50 will be confined to the eligibility of judges, their numbers, and the salaries paid to them. I shall not go into the question of administration of justice which, with all due respect, comes under provincial jurisdiction.
I think there is a good case to be made in support of the provisions of clause 1 of this bill which amends Part I of the Judges Act. I am referring to the eligibility of judges. The clause calls for the appointment of those who have practised at the bar for ten years in a province. However, I would think that any years of experience as a provincial judge, or magistrate, as the case may be, should count; also I draw the line at
May 5, 1977

appointing judges on the recommendation of bagmen. I do not think appointees should come entirely from one political party.
I recall, back in 1957, that my former colleague who was then minister of justice, Davie Fulton, who is now a member of the supreme court of the province of British Columbia-


Stanley Ronald Basford: He was appointed by the Liberals.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -initiated the practice of consulting with the benchers of the law society of any province on the suitability of appointees to judgeships. I will consider what has happened in the case of my own province, because there the situation has been notorious. In the past 20 years there have been no appointments made from among the Conservatives, whether they were in government, as they were in 1963, or in opposition, which they have been since then. With the exception of one man who was promoted from being a justice of the Supreme Court to be chief justice of a certain section, there has not been any consideration in a positive sense of the appointment of any lawyer to the County Court or the Supreme Court, whether the trial or the appellate division, other than adherents to the Liberal party, even though they have not had a ministerial representative in that province for years.
The provincial administration on the other hand has been much more even-handed in the appointment of provincial judges who are paid a salary that is not far behind that of county court judges. It has crossed party lines, depending upon the party of the individuals, the recommendations of the law society, and the reputation of the individual lawyer who might be a competent and reputable provincial judge.
The Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Basford) for the past many years has followed an even-handed, one-sided policy of naming defeated Liberal candidates, agents of defeated Liberal candidates, or bagmen of defeated Liberal candidates to the county or, as we call it in Alberta, the district court and Supreme and Appellate divisions.
I am not going to quarrel with the personality of those individuals. They are contemporaries of mine. I know them. They are good judges. However, the minister and his officials should hang their heads in shame at this general practice. I notice the minister is being very assiduous in studying his notes at the present time. Frankly, the practice of the government with regard to the naming of judges in this country stinks. This practice applies across the country.
The man who named the judges in the province of Alberta up until now was the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). There are no two ways about it. It is a shocking practice, totally opposed to the views of the people in the province of Alberta. That is all there is to it. The same applies in the province of Saskatchewan and in the province of British Columbia.
Across western Canada there is a unanimous and general practice of naming judges to the federal courts providing somewhere along the line they demonstrated some adherence to the Liberal party.
Judges Act


An hon. Member:: What about Davie Fulton?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This goes back a long time, long before the parliamentary secretary, who is sitting on the wrong side of the House, even raised his voice and before the present Minister of Justice assumed his portfolio.
If anything, that former Minister of Justice earned his reputation in the Parliament of Canada, not only as a member on both sides of the House, but as a very successful and efficient Minister of Justice to the point of becoming a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He earned it on his own reputation. He is the only one.


An hon. Member:: What about Berger? What about Hughes?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a great habit when we talk about Mr. Justice Berger in British Columbia. The Liberals were paying court to British Columbia at that time. They were trying to suborn the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When I occupied the position of Speaker of this House, Mr. Justice Berger was a member of the NDP in this House.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a Standing Order about comments reflecting on judges in one way or another. The hon. member can make whatever reflections he wishes on me. However, I would hope he would not speak of individual judges, their appointment process and how they may have become appointed. First, it is contrary to the Standing Orders. Second, it is terribly unbecoming of the hon. member. It places the particular judges in an invidious position because they are in no way able to reply. If the hon. member is big enough, he is entitled to attack me, but I wish he would not make invidious comments on judges.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I want to be fair. I have to admit that the names, if some have been brought to the attention of and mentioned in this House, were mentioned by other members who did not have the floor. I think the hon. member was being fair. Although he may have reflected on persons or the position of persons before being appointed to the Bench, he did not mention their names in his remarks until they were mentioned by other members who were listening to him, maybe too attentively. I am sure the hon. member with all his experience is aware of this very important Standing Order and will abide by it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am very pleased to have this intervention by the Minister of Justice. If any names were supplied to me, they were supplied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) who sat on this side of the House and kibitzed as to particular names. If the Minister of Justice is somewhat tender about the practice that has been continued for the past number of years, that is a matter for him to resolve.

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
This is not the first time I have spoken on this. As a member of the bar in my province of longer standing than the Minister of Justice as a member of the bar in his province, I can assure him that I place as high or perhaps even higher a standard on the quality of judges who may be named by the Minister of Justice in any province in Canada.
I do not think any good lawyer can ever hide his politics. This is why I suppose the politics of any man who is named to the Bench always stands out in high relief. Good lawyers take an active interest in their community and their politics stand out, not like a sore thumb, but in very high relief. Therefore everyone is able to recognize them. If doctors, dentists, engineers, architects and others would stand as high in political profile as do lawyers-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Here I am going to get shot down by many of my colleagues. The dear and hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) is a medical doctor. I have always marvelled at his courage in offering himself as a candidate for election to the House of Commons. Why? Because there are very few doctors who do that.


Mr. Railton:: You can stop right there, thank you.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will do that out of deference to my colleague.
I discussed the question of eligibility. One question that is of far more serious import, and here I will adopt mutual ground, which has been raised by members on both sides of the House, is the salary ranges that apply to judges. When I look at the number of county court judges who have not even had the courage to run for public office but contented themselves with being on the periphery, I say that I think far too many of those appointments are pure gravy. But then, I am one of those who has run for public office and been elected.
I also draw attention to salaries at the executive level of the public service. We saw a report from the so-called Lambert Committee-no relation to me-on executive salaries in connection with deputy ministers and senior grades in the public service. The newspaper columnists ran a 48-hour wonder in exclamation at the level of those salaries. The newspaper owners tut-tutted about it, without disclosing the fact that they were probably getting even more. But it makes the whole picture wrong.
When I was elected a member of parliament my salary was equivalent to that of a county court judge. But I find that according to this bill his salary will now go from $43,000 this year to $45,000, and next April it will go to $47,000.


Samuel Victor Railton: Where is the AIB?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, the AIB, incidentally, rationalized the stupendous increase in judges' salaries of 1975

on the basis that provision had been made for it by statute prior to the invocation of the board. But so had the increase in the salaries of members of parliament. Then some weak-kneed individuals decided to run before the wind, and the result was that salaries of members of parliament were subject to the slash. But not those of judges. And those salaries have continued to rise to the extent that today they are far more than those of members of parliament.
Remember, too, that the expenses of judges are not controllable by the AIB while the expenses of members of parliament are. In somebody's twisted brain, the expenses are part of the compensation which is paid to members of parliament. But we face increases in the cost of hotels, automobile travel, and all the other items down the line. Businessmen face these increases but they get an adjustment in terms of their income tax. There is no question they can increase their expenses by 25 or 30 per cent on the basis of what they pay. Members of parliament face the same business expenditures in many constituencies, but there are some weak-kneed individuals who are afraid to stand up and say, "People who are in this business should be treated with an equal hand."
The judges, those who are on circuit, file their bills and they are paid. Provincial judges file their bills and they are paid. But not here. My participation tonight is only on this basis- that the government and the House must take their courage in their hands with regard to the treatment of executive salaries in the public service and elsewhere. Where there is a commission which makes a report, the government usually follows right along and the senior executives get those increases in salaries. Don't talk about expenses, because they get them too with no questions asked. Nobody talks about them, but they benefit by them.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Parliamentary secretaries and ministers benefit.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why don't we in this country take the course followed in many another country? We know the difficulty. All the newspaper editors will say it is wrong for members of parliament to set their own salaries, that it is wrong for members of legislatures and members of city councils to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, who is going to set them? When I think of the newspaper publishers who complain about this in editorial columns it occurs to me that they have seats on the boards of directors of their newspapers and that, as directors, they set their own salaries. Directors of any corporation set their own remuneration, subject, it is true, to approval by the shareholders. But who has heard of shareholders objecting to it?
Oh, you will hear people complaining at the lower level that members of parliament should not be paid so much. But I invite them, first of all, to meet the general quality of members of this House. Two weeks ago I spoke about the contribution made by the backbenchers in this place, and after 20 years here I shall continue to fight for the right of the individual member of parliament who gets nothing but denigration. He
May 5, 1977

gets-I could use some awfully crude language but I am not in the league of the Prime Minister-very severely maligned.
The same can be said of all cabinet ministers as well as backbenchers; I do not differentiate between them in this connection. I know what the duties of a cabinet minister are and, quite frankly, the average cabinet minister is way underpaid the level of impost of income tax upon his salary. The same applies all through the legislatures. In countries like West Germany legislators at this level are paid more; their salaries are not taxed, and for a very practical reason. If they were, they would simply say that they had to increase their salaries in order to pay the tax. In France legislators are paid more than Canadian members of parliament. In the United States a Congressman's stipend has been increased to $57,000, and he has emoluments and allowances for staff which are not chargeable to him, as certain expenses do apply here in Canada.
I know many members of the House would like a global allowance for staff salaries which would depend on size of constituency and what have you. Members themselves would set the salaries of their staff, which would remove some of the obvious inequities which now exist. But no, Mr. Speaker, public opinion, spurred on by certain individuals and newspaper columnists, would say that the individual member of parliament is getting another $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 a year. What balderdash! That is absolute and utter misrepresentation.
No public servant with a secretary-and some have several-is charged with the expense of his staff. No businessman is charged with the expense of his staff, and neither is a judge. And there are many judges, Mr. Speaker. I can see Your Honour is getting a little uncomfortable, but this affords the opportunity to me to make my general thesis, which is that there should be an independent statutory commission which, by law, would be charged to report back to parliament, either annually or every second year, on the level of compensation of senior public servants of the Government of Canada, members of the Parliament of Canada-including Senators-and members of the judiciary.
In this country we have the courts, the judiciary, on the one hand, and the administration, the public service, on the other hand. We also have the legislative arm, comprising ministers and members of parliament. In all logic and justice there must be some correlation at those levels if we are to call for top flight people in the public service. I am not averse to paying the man of demonstrated ability his just dues. I suppose that some people might accuse me of being an elitist; but only by looking at people who will set the highest standards of performance for themselves and who achieve those standards can we ultimately continue to strive for excellence. This applies not only to the public service but, as we all know, to business, although the rules of competition there are somewhat different. However, in the public service where merit is the ground rule we must certainly insist upon high standards.
Judges Act
I insist even more so, Mr. Speaker, that it be the rule in the courts that we have men of the highest quality going forward. And we will pay them well. Here in parliament and in the legislatures we will also pay men and women. I apologize if I did not use the word women in the other context because, without being patronizing, there are many who are well qualified in all aspects to discharge those offices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: However, I make this plea to all members of the House, that we must ultimately consider some formula that escapes the arbitrariness of the setting of salaries as demonstrated in this bill. This arbtrariness is shown so far as the bench is concerned, and it is notorious so far as the salaries of members of parliament are concerned. It is a question of courage, like standing by the discharge of a shotgun when out shooting quail.
In the public service the government has a high powered committee which could not be more arbitrary, illogical or unjust, consisting of people who, for one reason or another, are out not for their own personal gain necessarily but to try to achieve better administration of the affairs of their fellow citizens and of the country as a whole. But such is the Canadian habit that he who will advance himself to do his duty in his country will be kicked in the shins and he will be kicked elsewhere. And he will be maligned. It is high time that the Canadian body politic changed those standards.
This Chamber and the chamber of judges should not be the private preserve of him who has no bean to lose, of him who has made his pile, or of him who has inherited a comfortable position. We all have normal aspirations, and we have aspirations for our children. Public servants, judges, lawyers who become judges, and members of parliament all have honest aspirations in regard to their success and the development of their families. It is a continuing shame in Canadian history that the first ones who get kicked and are denigrated are those who are elected. Then come the people in the Public Service. We can hear criticism all over the spectrum. We can hear that their salaries are far too high for doing nothing. It is only that person who knows nothing and does nothing who is envious.
It seems to me that we, as Canadian people, have got to get back to recompensing, and recognizing the proper degree of recompense for excellence I speak for my fellow members in this House. I know what they do, what they put up with, and how they merit the confidence of their electors in each of their constituencies in different ways. They cannot all be bright spots in the question period; they cannot all be buddy buddies with certain of the people around this House. The most undistinguished member of this House is he who works for his constituents as a good representative on the quiet side. What he does here in the House is just catering to that so-called demand for the TV image-the showman. That is worth precisely zilch when it comes to representation by the ordinary

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
member whom I have known here over 20 years, in so far as his constituents are concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If I have	time,	Mr. Speaker.


George Albert Proud: Afterwards?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If I have	time,	Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I do not know how much time you have left, but if you want to answer questions, I shall not count the time this will take.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, since my colleague said that speeches in the House from a member who is very devoted to his electors are quite irrelevant, I gather from what he said that what is important to him, and what is very important to a member is to be very, very devoted to his electors. Does he mean to say that speeches made in the House mean zero and sometimes they are just made to impress our friends in the press gallery? Actually, that is what he said. Is he in agreement, then, that the rules of the House should be changed if speeches of members are so irrelevant? Would he be in agreement with me that it is about high time, because my younger colleagues are getting very upset about the horse and buggy type of rules of the House to which we have to be subjected, we changed the rules of the House, he having been the Speaker, so as to assist these faithful servants, the members of parliament, whose first duty is to be at the disposal of those who elect them? Is he in agreement with me and my younger colleagues that it is high time we changed the rules of the House?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, without having my time cut back, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was listening with only one third of his ear, as usual. I referred to the performance during the question period. That is the judgment on the press gallery, of members and ministers. If the hon. member had listened to many of my speeches in the past he would have heard me say that this is a deliberative Chamber, not based upon the executive action and mere standing up and voting by rote. If the hon. member has an opinion to express and if his backbenchers and colleagues have opinions to express on behalf of their electors, why do they not get up on their feet? They do not!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Go get them, Marcel!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I know the hon. member for Saint-Denis. He is a very pleasant and articulate individual. I would love to hear him many more times tell us what his constituents tell him about matters that are being proposed.


George Albert Proud: Caucus is more effective.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But caucus is not parliament. I do not know what you say in caucus. I do not know whether some hon. members give the hon. member the back of their hands. I would like to see hon. members here give the backs of their hands to the hon. members on the government's back benches, as it is reputed they get in caucus. Mr. Speaker, I think I have made my point.


George Albert Proud: I have made mine too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Saint-Denis wants to stand up and make a speech, let him stand up and make those assertions.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In so far as the salaries of the executive group, the judges and the members of parliament are concerned, they should be set by a statutory committee reporting back to this House, either annually or biannually. Its recommendations should be implemented, unless a stated and large number of members stand up in opposition, so that there shall be no hanky panky played by Cabinet and so that we recognize the independence of such a committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are few members of this House for whom on one count, at any rate, I have more respect than I have for the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). During the years that he and I have been both here, I have been impressed by the way he works at the job of being a member of parliament. I believe that if more members worked as hard as he does it would be a better place. Although I have this great respect for my hon. friend as a hard-working member, he is also a member with whom I frequently disagree. I am sure he will say the second thing about me. Whether he will say the first thing or not, does not matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I repay you the
compliment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A point where we certainly disagree is germane to this bill, and that is the question of extra high salaries for certain people in our society. This applies particularly in a time of restraint, at least a time when restraint is being preached to the general public and a time in which the little fellow is being asked to practise it.
I noticed this afternoon, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) referred to the salary increases that are provided in this bill as only $2,000 a year, that he described them as modest increases. I suppose if your salary is in the $40,000 to $50,000 range that $2,000 is a modest increase. But I know a great many workers, a great many pensioners, and a great
May 5, 1977

many veterans who would love to have a modest increase of $2,000 a year. In this time, as I say, when the government is preaching restraint, I think it should be practised at the top.
I had not planned to make a speech along this line, but as I say, the views of my hard-working friend from Edmonton West prompted me to get to my feet again on this issue.
I believe that members of parliament, senior public servants, senior judges, football players, hockey players and a few others are getting too much. The fact that they are getting too much produces not only inequality but unhapiness and division in our society. I wish there were a little more of the practice of restraint at the upper level.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word in which I shall actually agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West, regarding the references made to the Anti-Inflation Board in the context of this bill. The Minister of Justice said that these increases of only $2,000 per year are below the $2,400 level and are therefore within the anti-inflation guidelines. Mr. Speaker, I am looking down this aisle to my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He and I, with others, sat with the Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board a few months ago discussing the increase provided by statute for members of parliament, which was to take place in 1977. I am not now going to discuss whether there should have been any increase, as my views in that respect are well known, but I want to discuss it in relation to what has been put into this bill.
When we met with Mr. Pepin and other officials it was put on the table that, by statute, our taxable salary was supposed to have gone up by $1,600 and our tax-free allowance was supposed to have gone up by $700, a total of $2,300, or $100 below $2,400. It was thought that there was no problem, but we were reminded that an increase in salary produces an increase in contributions to the pension fund and other things of that nature.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is why-


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend, the minister, may reply in a moment. It was also drawn to our attention that whatever members of parliament might call our tax-free allowance, to the Anti-Inflation Board it was compensation. It was also pointed out that parliamentary secretaries, cabinet ministers, Mr. Speaker and his colleagues in the Chair, and others, would get further increases, but we were told that we should follow the rules of the Anti-Inflation Board and the provisions of the legislation, and that to make up for this extra money for the pension contribution and medicare and various other things, $100 was lopped off the $1,600 increase in salary that we were going to get. It interested me that the $100 was taken off the taxable portion and not the untaxable portion, but that is a reference on the side which I hope is understood.
I am not now discussing my views on high salaries among various groups. Those views are well known. It seems to me if those rules were made to apply to members of parliament and
Judges Act
members of the other place-if they were in particular made to apply to the Prime Minister and all other ministers as well as parliamentary secretaries, why should they not apply to judges? The $2,000 is less than $2,400, but they are on a pension scheme as well. A few years ago their pension was non-contributory but now it is contributory and the government matches it, and these other allowances, for travel, hospitality and so on, are being increased.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that when you put these things together they amount to precisely the same position as members of parliament were in; that the total increase in terms of the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines exceeds $2,400. It is not good enough just for the minister to say that he is satisfied that it is all right. I want him to tell the House whether the provisions of this bill were actually discussed with the Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board and whether he gave answers to these questions comparable to the answers he gave to us when we discussed the position of members of parliament.
So, Mr. Speaker, I make that point. I intend to keep my remarks very brief. My colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), has already indicated our general support of the bill. We think it should have second reading and go to committee. We also accept the proposition that there need to be more judges to do the jobs that have to be done in that field.
In that connection perhaps I might put this as a question to the Minister of Justice as well, as I think he is going to try to close the debate. Perhaps in that context he can tell the House whether any consideration was given to lengthening the working year of the judges instead of solving the problem only by adding more to the roster. I am told their year is not as long as the working year of most people and that their summers are pretty generous. It is sometimes argued that they need it to write their judgments, but I thought they took time off between cases and wrote their judgments then. I put that question to the Minister of Justice.
Amongst items such as the Canadian Judiciary Committee and a few others there are, as I see it, two main things in the bill: one is an increase in pay, and the other an increase in the number of judges. I should like to ask the minister if he will tell us what discussions, if any, he had with Mr. Pepin about the increase in salaries and all the other perquisites and benefits. I should also like him to tell the House whether any consideration was given to increasing the length of the working year of judges as an alternative to adding to the number of judges provided in this bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand I am the last speaker for the official opposition on this bill.


An hon. Member:: That is a benediction.


Walter David Baker: It is not within the rules of this House that I have the opportunity to pronounce the benediction. I want to assure members of the House and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) that I do not want to carry

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
on so long that I will call it ten o'clock, either. I know that will warm the heart of my friends over there.
1 think this is a very important bill and it has given members an opportunity to express themselves with respect to a class of public servants in our community who, by the nature of their jobs, cannot express themselves with respect to a matter we can talk about freely, publicly, and openly. That is one of the privileges of belonging to parliament. 1 hope it is impressed upon people who read this debate that judges who are indeed privileged on the one hand with respect to the question of their tenure and in terms of their position in the community, have burdens upon them which none of us have, as well as restrictions in terms of their speech, movement, and association- even their right to express an opinion at the polls, something that .all of us have. All this puts the judiciary of Canada in a very unique position.
I am sure the Minister of Justice must be very pleased with the attention this House has given to the bill. I am sure he is equally pleased to know it is our intention to allow the bill to go to committee. It must be a very discouraging thing for a minister, whose departmental officials have laboured long and hard over a bill, to see it afforded only perfunctory debate in the House. I am sure the minister is pleased that it has received the attention it has in this House and to know that members of all parties will approve the principle of this bill.
I know of no greater responsibility a government has-there may be greater but I do not know of them-than choosing those men and women of the legal profession in Canada who will sit as judges in the courts over which the Minister of Justice and this government have jurisdiction. It casts a great responsibility upon the minister to make a recommendation to his colleagues, to canvass the opinion of the judiciary, canvass the opinion of the bar, and canvass the opinion of the community generally in the way it has to be done in respect of making appointments. This is important because once an appointment is made, a judge, except in very rare instances and circumstances, is then apart from the law of the normal society which all of us know very well. That is a very important consideration. That is what makes the office of the minister of justice one of the most important and why there has been a distinction by this Minister of Justice between his job as minister of justice on the one hand and as attorney general on the other. It is a very responsible ministerial position.
I must say that the system has been criticized from time to time by people who are uninformed about the canvassing that must go on if responsible appointments are to be made. Some say that it should be left to organizations such as the Canadian Bar Association, or a council of some kind, to make appointments, that the responsibility should be taken out of the hands of elected representatives and of the government, which has the majority in the House of Commons, and should be put somewhere else. I do not think so. I think the experience of the last few years-I say this about the minister himself in terms of his own appointments to the courts in this country and
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).J
about his predecessors within my memory-has been that the appointments have been well made. The people who have been appointed have served well.
The bench in Canada, which is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, is a capable, discerning bench. The judges as a group are vested with a sense of concern, a good dash of horse sense and common sense, and the Minister of Justice and his predecessors in that important porfolio are to be commended for the quality of the appointments made to the bench.
One could not say that that is universal. There used to be a joke among lawyers that, "So and so is a very good judge, except for last week when he found against me; then I had second thoughts and reservations about him." But basically the quality of the bench has been very high and the minister and his predecessor deserve credit for that. I think it is important that appointments be made where the responsibility lies. That is not to say that this minister and other ministers and the government generally should not follow advice, or that responsible groups and people in the community should not solicit advice, because I think they should. But I do not think it would benefit our system if the appointment of judges as a matter of practice were taken out of the hands of the government, of the Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues. I think that kind of appointment should not be handed to any organization which might be deemed to be a clique of some kind and not responsible.
It has also been said that it is important that judges-if you are speaking about male judges-be gentlemen in their conduct, and if you are speaking about women, that they be the female alternative of gentlemen, in the sense that with respect to those who appear before them as counsel and those who appear before them as litigants or as accused, that they show a reasonable amount of compassion and concern and a sense of common decency. I think most of them show it. I think it is perhaps even more important than a high academic knowledge and a great deal of learning with respect to the law.
Lawyers in courts who are properly instructed can and do help a judge in his work. If a judge happens to have a fair knowledge of the law, that is a bonus in terms of his appointment. But I think that basically his human qualities are more important in the long run than his qualities of legal learning, which can be acquired.
I think it is important also that in considering candidates for the bench, whether men or women, that those candidates not be appointed too early in life. Experience at the bar is a great leveller. Experience in the practice of law brings a lawyer into contact with all kinds of cases, all kinds of human beings, and it develops knowledge and a sense of understanding, which are important. Perhaps it also develops a sense of tolerance in terms of human behaviour which helps a judge understand the complexities of the law. There is nothing like experience in that way.
It is also salutary in another way that people sometimes do not talk about. I think it is important, aside from all the things that I have mentioned, that judges not be appointed too early in their lives because the appointment has such permanency to
May 5, 1977

it. If by chance a judge does not adjust himself to the bench and cannot adjust himself to the structures of that life and finds that he does not enjoy it, his conduct in the courtroom as part of the judicial process is affected thereby and perhaps he will not make the best judge or the best human being in that job. This is the reason why the question of judges' salaries becomes important because, whether we like it or not-and if I were practising I would like it-the fact is that legal incomes in Canada have risen to a great degree and if a man or woman is being considered for appointment to the bench at the age of 45, 50 or 53-in that age range, which is not a bad age, I respectfully suggest, to appoint a judge-he or she must consider giving up that way of life at the height of their earning power and the height of their abilities. This does create problems.
Judges, lawyers, and accountants are no different from anyone else. Each has a certain standard that he sets for himself, each has a certain obligation to his family, some heavier than others. If it is the object of this bill-and I think it is at least in part-to ensure that the level of the salary will not be an enticement to the bench on the one hand and, on the other hand, will not be a deterrent to the bench, then the principle of the bill in that sense is supportable. For that reason I go along with the minister with respect to the bill.
The other aspect of the bill is the amount of work with which judges and the courts are faced. I do not think there is anyone who has ever practised in any court in any province of this country before judges who have been appointed by the Minister of Justice, who will ever say that they can go to a client and say to him that his business is being processed quickly, and not blush a little. Some of that blushing is earned in the sense that from time to time lawyers, like everyone else in any profession or business, tend to get themselves too involved. Some of it is not earned by the profession. Actually a lot of it is not. Some of it is earned by the sheer burden placed on courts because of new causes of action created by new technology.
As the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) mentioned, a disproportionate amount of the time of our county court and superior court judges in Canada is taken up with motor vehicle litigation, and if justice delayed is justice denied, we can place a great part of the blame on motor vehicle litigation which has slowed the wheels of justice. Rights must be adjudicated upon. The question falls within the purview of this government and it must be considered. Also, the legal profession, governments and the bench will have to decide quickly how this matter is to be dealt with.


John Gilbert: Send a copy of your speech to Bill Davis.


Walter David Baker: The question is being considered carefully.
The other aspect of my remarks concerns the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who spoke a few minutes ago about lengthening the working
Judges Act
year of Her Majesty's judges. I have the greatest respect for the hon. member. He is my friend and neighbour, a former printer, and a learned fellow, who goes around this House rapier in one hand and Standing Orders in the other. I say to him, in friendship, that it is not just a question of lengthening the working year of the courts.
I think a good case could be made for changing the arrangements under which our courts work. My own view is that a good case could be made for joining together into one court the superior court and county and district courts of the province of Ontario, and their equivalents in other provinces. I would include in this arrangement the trial division of the Ontario Supreme Court. All these courts I would make into one court. There is a good case to be made in support of that idea. That case is being strengthened because our county judges are assuming ever more duties; yet, as I recall, their salaries are somewhat lower than those of high court judges. I suggest that this fact alone strengthens the case for amalgamation.
There is also a good case to be made for decentralization of our courts. A good case could be made in this province, Ontario, as well as in other provinces, for establishing districts which would come under the jurisdiction of the amalgamated courts. Perhaps we could appoint even more judges, who could do their work in a smaller area. Mr. Speaker, it is hard for a judge to travel around a province, although some judges like to travel. At present our supreme court judges in Ontario must travel around the province a good deal. But that disrupts their family life and creates a whole series of difficulties. I do not think travelling necessarily advances the efficiency of our administration of justice, and we could well consider decentralizing our courts and dividing the province or provinces, into administrative areas. As I say, a good case could be made for joining together into one court our county, district and superior courts, in which I include the trial division of our supreme courts.
It may be difficult to convince the public, who are the final judges, that it is absolutely necessary for all superior courts of this country to close down during the summer months. I am speaking of closing in an operational sense. One could with imagination devise methods whereby judges could stagger their holidays and periods when not on the bench. It makes good sense for judges to have time away from the bench, for they need time to write their reserve judgments. Let me put it this way. It would be difficult to convince me that there is a case to be made for continuing the operation of our superior courts all through the summer months.
Perhaps hon. members will recall that a former member of this House, a Privy Councillor, Hon. Richard Bell, served as a member of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. He presented a minority report. I point out that the commission in part reviewed the province of Ontario court system. I commend a reading of that minority report on the organization of the courts to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and to those interested in the administration of justice. That minority report of course was not accepted, but it brought to the
5342

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
attention of the public, the legislators and people of Ontario, an alternative to the present system.
The public is questioning the present system. It suffers from delays, some of which are created, I suppose, by the very nature of the system; others of which are created in part by the nature of the profession. It is important to keep these matters under review. Since passage of this bill will ease the load on judges, it is worthy of support on that second ground.
I look forward to the day when we shall have a unified family court system. All the matters with which our courts deal come under the law, and I do not know of any aspect with which our courts deal which is outside the law. However, I think matters pertaining to family law really have no place within the adversary system; I think they are out of place in an adversary system, just as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is out of place sitting next to the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I hope the Minister of Justice will do his best within the purview of his authority to urge the matter of unification in the context in which I have raised it, since such an important initiative would have general support in the community at large. I suggest it would have the support of the profession in general, including that of the bench.
I welcome the appointment of women to the bench. Although no self-respecting female member of the bar would suggest that women should be appointed in accordance with a quota, no one would argue that women are not as capable as men in matters pertaining to the law. Indeed their sense of compassion is at least equal to, if not greater than that of men, and they are just as capable as men in handing down judgments. I therefore think that the minister's efforts to appoint women to the bench are worthy of support.
Finally, I raise the question of court facilities. I suggest that the federal government and the profession should consider the adequacy of our court facilities in the province of Ontario and other provinces. Mr. Speaker, I have pleaded in many court houses. Many are fine, old, historic buildings which deserve to be preserved, if possible. However, in terms of facilities, many of them are very unsatisfactory. I am afraid to say that facilities in the provincial courts of Ottawa and the national capital region are so poor as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. I hope it will not be lost upon those in authority, and I am sure it will not be, that court facilities in this city must be improved.
It is difficult to imagine, but on one occasion in the provincial court in Ottawa, a trial was held before a provincial court judge in a room in one of the Holiday Inns in this city. Instead of the flag being the flag that is to the right of you, Mr. Speaker, the flag happened to be the house flag of Holiday Inns. There was no picture of the sovereign who is the head of state. It was not missing for any perverse reason, but simply because there was not one available. That was a criminal court, a court before which a citizen is brought, and presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is a court where the

public come as witnesses and where a judge sits. I believe these deplorable conditions are repeated in many parts of Canada.
I recognize that this is not the direct responsibility of the Minister of Justice. However, if the time comes when we are negotiating or considering the restructuring of the court system of this province, I hope the minister will not feel so out of it that he will not advance the proposition that he who appoints the judges has some obligation to be concerned about the facilities in which they must play their part in the administration of justice.
In closing, I commend the minister for bringing forward this bill. We are very pleased to'accommodate him in terms of bringing the debate to a conclusion with respect to second reading. I am sure the minister is pleased that the profession and the courts have received the attention of this House that they deserve, and that the passage of this bill and its movement to committee do not take place only after perfunctory attention. It is important that we never lose sight of that one group of people who, by their nature, cannot speak for themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: According to Standing Order 37(3) it is my duty to inform the House that, if the minister speaks at this time, he will close the debate. If any other member wishes to participate, he should do so now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in order that other business of the House can proceed. I want to express my appreciation to hon. members who have spoken on the bill and my appreciation of their willingness to allow it to move into the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for clause by clause discussion.
I want to comment on a few points made by some of the speakers during the course of the debate, particularly the critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). He offered a very constructive group of comments on the bill.
The hon. member raised the issue of the unified family courts and why I was not able at this point to have some firm agreement with all of the provinces as to the number of unified family court judges that would need to be appointed over the next few years. The simple answer to that is that we are developing these on an experimental or pilot project basis. At this point it is impossible to determine how quickly provincial attorneys general or their legislatures will move in the formation of unified family courts.
We have the agreements I specified in my speech, one with Ontario to commence operation on July 1, an agreement in principle with Newfoundland, one with Manitoba to start on July 1, and other provinces that I mentioned in my speech. However, it is impossible at this point to specify in legislation how many judges will be required. It is for this precise reason that we have adopted in clause 18 the flexible approach of having a reserve pool from which we could appoint judges, either of the superior court or district court, to be judges of unified family courts as they are established by the provinces.
May 5, 1977

The other option would be not to make this provision and to enter into agreements with provinces to form these courts. Each time they did, we would have to come back to parliament to amend this act in order to create a position to fill it.
I think the hon. member for Calgary North was supportive of the clause. I just give him that explanation as to why at this point we are unable to give the precise number of judges that are needed. My own hope would be that we would need all of them and that we would use up that reserve pool as quickly as possible. Obviously the whole thrust of my interventions and discussions with provincial attorneys general over the past 18 months has been to encourage them to form unified family courts.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) raised a number of interesting points. One was the question of merger. He raised the issue that the public is often confused as between superior courts and district courts or county courts, and that maybe the time has come to merge them. Of course they have been merged in Prince Edward Island and Quebec for a long period of time.
Whether the two levels of courts are merged or not is a decision for provincial attorneys general and provincial legislatures. I want to be very clear in this to the hon. member for Broadview. I have made it unequivocally clear to provincial attorneys general who, after all, are in charge of the administration of justice and have constitutional responsibility therefor, that if they and their governments make the decision that the courts in their province should be merged, they will have no opposition whatsoever from me and I will forthwith introduce the necessary legislation to bring that about.
I would point out that it is essentially a provincial decision that must be made as to what is the best system for the administration of justice within a particular province. As I say, I have indicated to them that I have no philosophic, political or governmental objection to that step being taken. I will anticipate that possibly over the next year or so we will see in some of the provinces mergers of the two levels of courts taking place.
The only concern that I might have, and that I have expressed, is that in any merger proposals, provision be made for adequate judicial service throughout the whole of the province either by circuits, rota or changes of residence of the judges. That is really the only observation that I have.
The subject is one of heated debate in some provinces, heated in respects that I think are unnecessary and unwise. Often it seems to turn on the question of personalities, of either the superior court judge looking at the district court judges and saying they do not want to serve together, or the bar looking at a certain person and saying that he should or should not be a judge. That should really not be the basis upon which either chief justices or chief judges or attorneys general or presidents of bar associations make a decision or a representation upon the question.
Judges Act
The hon. member for Broadview also raised the question of discipline through the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council, as set up under the Judges Act in sections 30, 31 and 32, has functions which include education, and the pursuit of judicial uniformity, all of which it does very well. It also serves as a disciplinary body for judges appointed by the governor in council. It may, at the request of myself or of a provincial attorney general or on its own initiative, institute an inquiry or an investigation into the conduct of a judge. It is, I find, an immensely worthwhile institution to have.
In the old days the only way to deal with a judge against whom there might be a serious complaint, either valid or invalid, was through a representation to the Minister of Justice who was then placed in a truly impossible position. He had what might be a valid complaint on his desk. On the other hand, as a member of the executive, he could not interfere with the conduct of judges. I think it was one of my predecessors as minister of justice, the hon. Mr. Garson, who said he never figured out how to deal with these complaints in what he regarded as a satisfactory manner.
Nowadays, if there is a complaint made to me it is forwarded automatically to the Judicial Council. Often it happens that people write directly to the Judicial Council. Complaints range from those of unsuccessful litigants who are unhappy with judges because of court decisions, to serious allegations which are dealt with seriously by the Council. The ultimate remedy under the act is the removal of a judge on the recommendation of the Council; at that point I bring the recommendation before parliament for the appropriate action under the British North America Act. I might add that this has never happened since the Judicial Council was established.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) discussed a number of matters, including discipline. He mentioned, as did the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the question of court facilities. The latter comes from one of the richest provinces in Canada, and the other hon. member comes from one of the least rich. I would point out, however, that the administration of justice, which includes the provision of appropriate court facilities, is a provincial responsibility and that any interference from me or the federal level in this regard would be strongly resisted.
I might tell the hon. member for St. John's West that I have inspected some of the facilities in St. John's. Indeed I have gone over the courthouse from the belfry to the basement and discussed the matter with the attorney general, Mr. Hickman. I would also point out to the hon. member that the payment made to Newfoundland in equalization grants amounts to some $234 million a year and that the whole purpose of equalization is to allow the less rich provinces to provide public services of the necessary national standard. I think it would be most unwise to enter into cost-sharing schemes in every line of activity or in connection with every provincial program. Assistance in these areas is precisely the purpose of equalization. It is up to Newfoundland or to any other province to decide what
80012-59V2

May 5, 1977
Judges Act
its priorities shall be and how best to expend the money received.
The hon. member also discussed the Doyle case. I take serious exception to what he said. I have examined the matter and I have stated in this House that there is no negligence on the part of any minister or on the part of any of the officials involved. Having said that once, 1 would expect the hon. member to accept my statement instead of continually attacking it and challenging it as he does.
Second, I wish that when he was attacking me this afternoon-I notice he is not in the House this evening-he had read into the record my complete answer the other day: that there is one case before the Supreme Court concerning which an adjournment has been agreed to which will result in a delay of four or five months, and that the particular case to which he referred, which has been filed for appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada for seven years, has not been proceeded with for technical legal reasons, on the advice of the law officers of the Crown that it would be unwise to proceed with that appeal until another case has been settled in a federal court relating to the same assessment. I rather resent this being characterized as an improper or negligent way of conducting the case. I say from my place in the House of Commons that the law officers of the Crown have been instructed to proceed with all these cases as expeditiously as the law and the rules of the court allow. I would ask that the hon. member read this statement and accept it in accordance with the practice of this House.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a number of issues, including the appointment and the method of appointment of judges. The hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, and the hon. member for Broadview all discussed appointments and I think they approached the subject with the proper judicial and judicious attitude. But the hon. member for Edmonton West launched into something of a tirade about political appointments. I thought, first, that he was preaching for a call. It turned out that he was preaching for a pay increase. Being an elder statesman-one with more hair than I but still an elder statesman-he may be a little out of touch, as is common among some elder statesmen. May I, on the appointment question, read to him from one of a series of lectures in 1975-76 collected under the title of "The Canadian Judiciary", published by the Osgoode Hall Law School and edited by Mr. A. M. Linden. I read from a commentary on judicial appointments by William H. Angus, Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall:
One can only applaud the favourable developments over the past ten years in the method of judicial appointment by the federal government. These achievements are all the more remarkable when viewed in the context of a century of dissatisfaction with the exercise of the appointing power since Confederation. Our guest lecturer has very ably described the recent events with clarity and frankness.
His own substantial contribution to the process should not be overlooked when acknowledging the credit due to three previous Ministers of Justice and the present incumbent-
[Mr. Basford.J
The present incumbent being myself.
-who is publicly committed to continuing the policies of his immediate predecessors.
My first comment on the lecture is directed to the future. Although the old ad hoc approach to judicial appointments has been replaced by a "system", to use the language of our guest lecturer, the new order is still an impermanent structure as presently constituted. The true test will come with a change of government, which is bound to occur sooner or later.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hold your applause for a moment.
After the first flush of that electoral victory will come a perhaps understandable, although regrettable in my opinion, desire to reward party supporters. Whether this motivation can be resisted in the sphere of judicial appointments to preserve the advances achieved since 1967 is problematical at this point in time.
Having listened to the hon. member for Edmonton West, I suggest it is not only problematical but certain. He spoke of the judicial process and said, apparently, that it was wrong because there was not a minister from Edmonton at the particular time of which he spoke. He indicated to me very clearly that he could not wait to get into office to return to the pre-1967 days. At no point in his speech about the judicial appointment process, regarding which he criticized me and my predecessors, did he put in place or suggest any system. He seemed to be totally unaware of the present system which is commented on in this series of lectures which I have quoted; and he certainly indicated to me that Professor Angus is indeed right when he says that he has some fear of what might happen to the judicial appointment process if ever there were a change in government.
I make one last point in relation to the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The compensation allowances provided for in this bill were discussed not by me but by my officials with the officials and members of the Anti-Inflation Board, and I am advised that they have been approved as being within the guidelines. The increase is $2,000 in dollar terms and $400 to take account of other items of compensation, including pensions. As I say, they have been examined by the officials of the AIB and are deemed to be within the guidelines.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also raised the question of the work of judges, and this was picked up by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I touched upon a few of those questions in my speech this afternoon in regard to the work judges are doing in terms of judicial education, the experiments they are conducting in pre-trial procedures and in speeding up the process. However, I am delighted that the hon. member raised the subject again because I think it is one to which judges from one end of the country to the other have to pay careful attention. This able and dedicated group of people are in fact organizing their affairs and their case loads in as efficient a way as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
May 5, 1977

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-48, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Business Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times in the life of this parliament a member has called it ten o'clock twice in a row. In any event, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) about 20 minutes ago said he was going to be very brief, and it is now three minutes to the hour. If there is agreement in the House, I would call it ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. We would require agreement to call it ten o'clock and be sure that members who are to participate in the adjournement debate are in the House. That being so, is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?
Some bon. Members: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of pursuing this evening my attempts to obtain more information about the approach of the Canadian delegation at the current round of negotiations relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and also to obtain assurances that Canada's goal at these negotiations will be to safeguard Canadian jobs, especially in the manufacturing industry and particularly the automotive parts and electrical industries.
The world is experiencing a difficult economic situation, plagued by increased production costs and the prospect of shortages of energy and other resources. Since the Toyko declaration on GATT in 1973, political instability, economic recession, inflation, and the oil crisis in particular are contributing to a decrease in the chances of achieving the goal of greater trade liberalization. Spokesmen for Canadian manufacturing industries have expressed concern about the present state of their competitiveness and the future of Canadian jobs, especially when faced with increasing domestic and economic
Adjournment Debate
problems and the present difficult position of Canada at the negotiating table in Geneva.
The current economic climate appears to be inhospitable to Canada's chances of obtaining easier access to foreign markets. Unless Canadian negotiators are successful in this goal, the Canadian manufacturing industry will suffer, jobs will be lost, and our standard of living will fall. It is therefore vital for us that the federal government be most prudent and very skilful so that our men in Geneva may extract the best deal. In addition, our government here at home must develop new and rational industrial strategies without further delay.
Although Canada is a large trading nation, our balance of trade has been deteriorating. We have been for too long exporters of raw materials, and heavy importers of manufactured goods. In 1976 we imported $23 billion worth of these goods and ended last year with a deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods totalling $10 billion, which is higher than any other country in the world. This reveals a lot about our lifestyle, the openness of the Canadian market, and the precarious competitive position of manufacturing industry in Canada. The realities of international trade and the Canadian economic environment are such that Canadian manufacturing industries have to compete against the combined efforts of foreign manufacturers and the industrial strategies and trade policies of their governments.
The negotiating strategies of those countries in Geneva are based upon the industrial strategies of those countries. Moreover, those industrial strategies reflect the philosophy that a strong domestic base for industry is a necessary prerequisite to competitive exports. However, in Canada we do not have yet an articulated equivalent rational industrial strategy and a favourable economic environment that would give our industry a fighting chance to compete in the international market.
It is this predicament and the prospect of facing a 50 per cent reduction in tariffs that are producing great apprehension in certain manufacturing industries and among their employees. It is understandable, therefore, that they are reluctant to see our government make concessions that will greatly encourage imports from other countries. Furthermore, too many concessions made by Canada at Geneva could further aggravate the employment situation in our manufacturing industries, especially in the electrical and automotive parts. That is why we hope Canada will be successful in pressing for the elimination of the non-tariff barriers and also will firmly insist on the sectoral approach to the GATT negotiations.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) recognizes the great importance of the automotive industry to the economy of Canada, and the electronic portion of that as well. The minister also recognizes the contribution continually made by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) to the interests of this industry. It should be able to survive and indeed prosper.

May 5, 1977
Adjournment Debate
We all know the automotive industry, generally, was the one sector of our economy which provided the greatest share of deficit in our international trade in the last year. However, with respect to the GATT negotiations and the ongoing negotiations there, a successful negotiation which leads to a substantial reduction of foreign barriers to trade will create important new opportunities for Canadian exports. Equally important, a carefully managed and sensibly staged reduction of Canadian trade barriers, accompanied by appropriate domestic measures including, where necessary, assistance from government, will help in achieving the structural changes needed to make the Canadian economy more efficient, more competitive, and more capable of meeting inflationary pressures.
This is the seventh round of negotiations since GATT was signed in 1947 and marks the first time that there is a systematic effort to negotiate on both tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, whether applicable to agricultural or industrial products. All our major trading partners are engaged in these negotiations. Just as we will be seeking major benefits for our exporters, we will be expected to contribute our share of concessions. At the same time, the government has clearly demonstrated its willingness to act expeditiously in instances where rapid and unprecedented growth in imports creates short term, emergency situations. Examples include recent measures on clothing and certain other textile imports where rapid increases were putting at serious risk employment in those industries.
The government is conscious of the need to maintain a close and continuing dialogue with the private sector on the current negotiations. To this end the Canadian trade and Tariffs Committee has received over 250 submissions from the private sector outlining particular views and concerns about the negotiations, including those of the automotive and other secondary manufacturing industries. Through this process, which includes formal meetings with firms, associations and interests representing all sectors of the Canadian economy and all regions of the country, account is taken of the views expressed by the private sector as the necessary Canadian negotiating positions are developed. Through the activities of the Parts Manufacturers' Association and their very able representative, Mr. Pat Laval, its views are being pressed upon the minister daily.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-LEVEL OF INFLATION BY END OF YEAR-RESTRAINT ON SPENDING BY ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on March 111 asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) a question which was basically to inquire if he was still confident that we will achieve a 6 per cent inflation level by the end of the year. The minister replied in part as follows:
If we can maintain additional restraint and achieve a further reduction on the non-food price side, then indeed the target can be attained.
{Mr. Poulin.]
On May 3 the minister changed his tune when he replied to a question put by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in part as follows:
... it might be a difficult target to meet. I hope we will not reach the 7 per cent level, but this will depend on events through the year.
A further question was put by me dealing with the minister's fiscal and monetary policies. I asked the minister when we would hear from the government as to when it proposes to terminate wage and price controls. The minister said he would make a statement in that regard in the budget context. The budget has come and gone and still no termination date has been suggested for the controls or anti-inflation program. We have had no indication as to what would be the new contingency plan in view of the fact that the anti-inflation program is not working. In fact, if it were not for our energy and resource wealth we would have one of the worst economic records of any of the main industrialized nations at the present time.
Let us look at the record in Canada compared to that of the United States, our main trading partner. In 1975 our real growth was 4.8 per cent compared to 6.2 per cent in the United States. Our consumer prices went up 7.8 per cent last year compared to 5.8 per cent in the United States which has no controls. We had more people out of work in this country than any other large industrialized nation.
Our current account balance was $4.9 billion in deficit last year as it was the year before, compared to the United States which in those two years was in surplus. Even the United Kingdom had a deficit less than ours in the past two years. Most alarming, hourly compensation in manufacturing jumped 12.9 per cent last year compared to 7.3 per cent in the United States. That means we are continuing to lose our competitive position with the United States.
In Canada we paid our workers in manufacturing last year $7.39 while the United States paid $6.90-yet we had controls and of course the U.S. did not. That is a difference of 49 cents per hour. The year before, 1975, there was a difference of only 9 cents per hour, and of course in 1970 the rate in the United States was $4.20 and we were at a level of $3.46. We were 74 cents below the average rate in the United States; now we are 49 cents above the United States wage level in manufacturing.
I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that that is after the government's so-called anti-inflation program which has been in position since mid-October 1975.
Just let me cite a few more Figures. For example, in textiles our workers are now paid $5.30 compared to the United States where they are paid $4.55; in footwear our level is $4.55, and the United States level is $4.10. I could go through various other sectors of our economy. I am suggesting that this is an important reason why we now have the worst of all worlds- high inflation and high unemployment. Trends in productivity spell this fact out. For example, in the United States last year productivity went up 8.4 per cent while ours went up 3.5 per cent. This is one of the worst increases of any industrialized nation.
In unit labour costs and manufacturing our record is absolutely deplorable. Last year these costs jumped 11.7 per cent
May 5, 1977

while in the United States they actually went down 1.9 per cent.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the government has got to start coming clean with this House. It has to start giving answers on why inflation is rising notwithstanding its so-called anti-inflation program. It has to show why we are in such a stagnant position compared to our main trading partner, the United States, and it has to show what its new contingency plan to stop inflation in this country Js going to be. Clearly the program it outlined in 1975 is not working but we cannot get from it today any indication of when it plans to terminate the wage and price control program. We can get no indication as to whether it plans to use more or less fiscal restraint, more or less monetary restraint, but we have these figures piling up month by month showing that our economy is in a very serious condition.
Typically, this government rather than re-evaluate its own shortsighted policies has chosen instead merely to revise its goals. What else can you read into the comment made by the minister last Tuesday when he was asked a straight question as to whether we were going to achieve a 6 per cent goal, and he said, no, but he hoped that the new target of 7 per cent would not be achieved? In short, the policy of ministers opposite seems to be: if at first you do not succeed, lower your sights. It is time the country was rid of them.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is quick to criticize, notwithstanding the fact that it has been ably demonstrated in the economic performance of the past period since the AIB program has been in effect that the program had been effective in reducing rising prices and in reducing the rising cost of wages, which he says very emphatically has been one of the major causes of our lack of competitiveness on the world scene.
Are we going to meet the expectations of the 6 per cent or 7 per cent increase? Are we going to ensure that it does not exceed that? Every effort of this government is devoted to ensuring that that is accomplished and that that end is met. We have presented programs. This government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), have presented programs that have worked well. Our rate of inflation has increased, but other indicators have decreased in the past months and years since the program has been in place. In all the rantings and ravings that some hon. members from the other side have engaged in, I have not yet heard any constructive program offered by the hon. member for York-Simcoe as his party's financial critic.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Read the April 4 speech, you damn nut.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The recent appointment of the new chairman of the AIB has indicated that the program will not end by the end of 1977 because the expectations of Canadians have not decreased to the level where we can expect voluntary restraint
Adjournment Debate
in the corporate, management, and labour sectors. Until that happens, we will have to continue the type of program with which we had a measure of success in reducing the rate of inflation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Give us the figures.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: I would like to hear from the opposition their program on fiscal policy which they would put in place-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Read the April 4 speech.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: -and when they would withdraw the AIB program which has been so effective. People in the private sector are saying that now they are able to go ahead and plan, they are able to price, quote, and bid, and know they are not going to be outpaced by inflation which had been running rampant. This has been a successful program, and I would like to hear an alternative.


AGRICULTURE-POTENTIAL DROUGHT IN WESTERN CANADA- SUGGESTED DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON JOINT ACTION
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, my reference in the adjournment debate is last March 9, as recorded at page 3798 of Hansard. That was the occasion when the issue of the serious drought in western Canada was first raised in the House in a series of questions by my leader and by myself addressed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Hon. members may remember that that was the first time that the critical drought situation was mentioned in parliament. It has been raised many times since, including today's question period when by coincidence my questions to the same minister were essentially on the same subject, namely, the drought in Canada.
I am sure hon. members will recall that on the first occasion on March 9 the minister's response to our plea for immediate emergency action was to ask all members of the House to pray for rain. I am sure all of us who fully appreciated the extent of the drought crisis did indeed pray for rain, and are not ashamed to say so. This was the same minister who, two and a half weeks later, according to a feature article carried in the Canadian Week End magazine, said in a speech he delivered at Tilley, Alberta, that the free market system is as outdated as Jesus Christ, and almost as redundant.
Last March 9 the minister was more than a little uneasy and touchy about my drought questions, and he was equally uneasy and touchy today when I raised the same subject. His completely evasive answers on those occasions were exceedingly disappointing to me, as they were, I am sure, to every farmer in the extensive drought belt of the west. Surely the Minister of Agriculture knows that this serious drought is a non-partisan, non-political issue. It is much too serious to make quips about or to joke about, and one cannot assume credit for the first rain of any consequence to fall in over nine months. Mr. Speaker, the first significant amounts of rain fell last night and today on most of the western Prairies.

May 5, 1977
Adjournment Debate
I asked the minister last March, and again today, about a joint emergency drought approach involving the prairie provincial governments, and about a sharing of information with the United States. I understand there have been no such meetings with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan. If they have taken place, let the minister say so and put out a positive press release. Why be so secretive? Western farmers are aware of the concern, and of the quick response and action taken by United States federal government agencies with respect to their vast drought areas.
On Tuesday of this week the government of Alberta announced a crash program for deep water well drilling and the companion to it, a program for pumping and pipelining water for both stock water and small town domestic use. I ask the minister again, now, will the federal government enter into a cost-sharing arrangement with Alberta and the other Prairie provinces on this and other emergency programs? Failure to act now, or at least to give a firm indication of federal action, will only contribute to a further degree of disaster in the west.
Almost all related agricultural industries and most service industries are hurting badly today in western Canada, Farm machinery sales are down between 30 per cent and 45 per cent from levels of one year ago. Receipts at Prairie stockyards have jumped in the last three weeks or more by as much as 40 per cent, and in southeast Alberta, by 50 per cent. It is now inevitable that the Prairie cattle industry will suffer more than the grain industry, and a continued drought could lead to a drastic reduction in western cattle poulations, at the very time markets and prices are definitely on the upturn.
The drought situation demands co-operation and action by the three principals involved. Farmers, especially cattle producers, have already made significant sacrifices by drastically reducing their herd numbers to fit their grass and feed supplies. At least some provincial governments have already acted. Is it too much to ask for leadership and immediate action from our federal government now?
In closing, I thank the Minister of Agriculture for attending in the House this evening. Perhaps the minister could use his influence with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Les-sard) to open immediately the Suffield PFRA pasture for use this year.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, let me comment first on what the hon. member said about praying for rain. I was quite serious when I told the House of Commons that I hoped our people would pray for rain. The hon. member's leader said at the time, "Is that all that the Minister of Agriculture has to offer the farmers of western Canada, prayer and fertilizer?" Yesterday the hon. member's
former leader, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), after hearing the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion reply to his supplementary question, as reported on page 5275 of Hansard, said:
Mr. Speaker... I would ask him whether the original plan suggested by the Minister of Agriculture, that he was going to pray for rain, has been departed from?
It has rained recently in western Canada, Mr. Speaker. Of course, all the meetings of our agriculture, DREE and environment officials did not bring on the rain, but I think it is in order to say a prayer of thanks for the rain we received.
The hon. member referred to some comments of mine, as reported in a Canadian magazine. I think I was reported by a newspaper yesterday as saying that when I saw the article I knew I would be in trouble, because people would write me letters about what I had said. I said that the marketing system for beef was older than Christ. They were using a marketing system in those times, and it goes back at least to those days. I have used such terminology many times. I have said that the marketing system is older than Christ. Mr. Speaker, Christ threw the money changers out of the temple, because of the way they were trading. It was practically the same in beef. That means it is nearly 2,000 years old. I said it is as outdated as that marketing system.
The hon. member holds up the article. However, he does not point out all the good things. Anyone who knows me and knows how I live my life, knows that I am not kidding when I suggest that they pray for rain or pray for anything else. I may not appear to be a strong believer, but I am. These prayers have been answered. I see that when I look at the rainfall in the west. As late as yesterday morning the weather experts said they could see no rain.
Early in the year, in fact last fall, our people were concerned about moisture conditions as well as snow conditions in the mountains. We had continual reports on this throughout the year. We have done more than the United States. In the United States they might have been meeting with their governors. We will exchange this information with the United States Secretary of Agriculture and exchange aid and so on.
I will conclude by saying that if the hon. member would do a little more praying instead of making so much noise, it would do more good. We will be making a statement in the House tomorrow on our progress.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10:24 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
May 5, 1977


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Numbers of Federally Appointed Judges (Pursuant to the Judges Act)
	As of	As Provided by
Jurisdiction and Court	April 30, 1977	Bill C-50
Canada Supreme Court of Canada
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
8*
[Stage Direction]
Federal Court of Canada Court of Appeal
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
5*
[Stage Direction]
Trial Division
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
9
[Stage Direction]
9*
[Stage Direction]
Ontario Court of Appeal
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Associate Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
13
[Stage Direction]
13*
[Stage Direction]
High Court of Justice
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Associate Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
36**
[Stage Direction]
36**
[Stage Direction]
County and District Courts
[Stage Direction]
Chief Judge
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Associate Chief Judge
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
114*
[Stage Direction]
119
[Stage Direction]
Quebec Court of Appeal
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
14
[Stage Direction]
14*
[Stage Direction]
Superior Court
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Senior Associate Chief
[Stage Direction]
Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Associate Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
102**
[Stage Direction]
106
[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia Appeal Division
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
4
[Stage Direction]
4*
[Stage Direction]
Trial Division
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
County Courts
[Stage Direction]
Judges
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
8*
[Stage Direction]
New Brunswick Appeal Division
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
3*
[Stage Direction]
Queen's Bench Division
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
6*
[Stage Direction]
County Court
[Stage Direction]
Chief Judge
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
6*
[Stage Direction]
As of
[Stage Direction]
As Provided by
[Stage Direction]
Jurisdiction and Court
[Stage Direction]
April 30, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-50
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba Court of Appeal
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
5*
[Stage Direction]
Queen's Bench
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
8*
[Stage Direction]
County Courts
[Stage Direction]
Chief Judge
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
10
[Stage Direction]
10*
[Stage Direction]
British Columbia Court of Appeal
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
9
[Stage Direction]
9*
[Stage Direction]
Supreme Court
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
25**
[Stage Direction]
26
[Stage Direction]
County Courts
[Stage Direction]
Judges
[Stage Direction]
33**
[Stage Direction]
35
[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward Island Supreme Court
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
6*
[Stage Direction]
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
4
[Stage Direction]
4*
[Stage Direction]
Queen's Bench
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
9
[Stage Direction]
District Courts
[Stage Direction]
Judges
[Stage Direction]
18
[Stage Direction]
18*
[Stage Direction]
Alberta Appellate Division
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
8**
[Stage Direction]
8*
[Stage Direction]
Trial Division
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
16**
[Stage Direction]
16*
[Stage Direction]
District Court
[Stage Direction]
Chief Judge
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Associate Chief Judge
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
18
[Stage Direction]
18*
[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland Court of Appeal
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
2*
[Stage Direction]
Trial Division
[Stage Direction]
Chief Justice
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
3*
[Stage Direction]
District Court
[Stage Direction]
Chief Judge
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Other judges
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
7*
[Stage Direction]
May 5, 1977
Jurisdiction and Court
Yukon Territory Supreme Court Judge
Northwest Territories Supreme Court Judge
Supernumerary Judges Provincial Appeal Courts Provincial Trial Courts Provincial County/District Courts
Additional Judges provided under Section 23, Chapter 48, Statutes of 1974-75 and under Clause 18 of Bill C-50 for appointment to courts as new
[Stage Direction]
As of
[Stage Direction]
As Provided by
[Stage Direction]
As of
[Stage Direction]
As Provided by
[Stage Direction]
April 30, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-50
[Stage Direction]
Jurisdiction and Court
[Stage Direction]
April 30, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-50
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
positions are established by provinces:
[Stage Direction]
Provincial Appeal Courts
[Stage Direction]
4
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
Provincial Trial Courts Provincial County/District
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
12
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1*
[Stage Direction]
Courts Provincial Unified Family
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Courts
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
27
[Stage Direction]
* Indicates courts where there will be no increase in the
[Stage Direction]
number of judges shown as of April 30, 1977.
** Indicates courts to which additional judges have been appointed pursuant to Section 23 of Chapter 48 of the Statutes of 1974-75 since July 1975. Twelve have been appointed to Ontario courts, one to Quebec's Superior Court, four to British Columbia courts and three to Alberta courts.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 6, 1977