1978-05-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, to move:
That, without further delay, in view of the Gallup poll of today's date which indicates that the Trudeau government is on the way out, this House calls upon the right hon. Prime Minister, having lost the confidence and support of the Canadian people, to put an end at once to the uncertainty and secure the consent of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada to immediate dissolution of this House so that the people of Canada can elect a government without delay which will meet the tremendous economic problems that exist and face this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: The Prime Minister said no.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the long drawn-out contract negotiations between the government and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers are reaching a critical stage, and the Postmaster General is not involved in the discussions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Postmaster General participate in the current critical contract negotiations with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers through the established procedures of the conciliation board rather than by statements to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL


Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the many criticisms which have been levelled against the National Research Council of Canada, which is said to discriminate against Quebec research workers, with the result that the province of Quebec is not likely to receive its fair share of the research grants, and in view of the series of irregularities which today's edition of Le Devoir has published concerning the appointment of the selection committee, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House urge the minister responsible for the National Research Council of Canada to investigate these alleged irregularities and report to the House so that the Canadian public at large may know the whole truth about this matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter

May 2, 1978
of urgent and vital necessity for both Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Considering that according to what the Prime Minister himself said in the House of Commons on April 19 last, caisses populaires and credit unions will fall under the future bank legislation; considering that in Quebec particularly, but elsewhere as well, both institutions are based on the savings of people and are the centre of local economies; considering that in all logic and justice no amendment to the present status of these institutions should be made without previously seeking consent from the provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the House unanimously urge the Minister of Finance to make public before the next election campaign the essence of the provisions of the future legislation and to consult his provincial counterparts on any proposed change of jurisdiction in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. VIA Rail has announced that excursion rates to Churchill will be the same as last year. At the same time, rates to move cars and half-ton trucks out of communities that are isolated and have no highway access have been increased. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That VIA Rail be instructed to also leave the rates for moving passenger cars and trucks at the same rate as last year.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the statement the Minister of Finance made in this
House on December 6, 1977, as reported at page 1603 of Hansard, that corporations would not be included in the roll-over provision for capital gains tax on farms, and in view of the statement of the hon. member for Trinity, as reported on April 28, that the Income Tax Act would be amended to enable a small businessman to sell his shoe store and buy a clothing store without paying capital gains tax, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That the Minister of Finance immediately introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to allow small businessmen the same capital gains tax provision as suggested by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in Hamilton on April 26.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because the urgency of this matter will continue until it is resolved, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls on the government to expedite the introduction of legislation to establish pension equality for women, including full rights for women under the Canada Pension Plan, equal pension rights for all women between the ages of 60 and 65 regardless of marital status, increasing the pensions paid to widows under various government plans to at least 75 per cent, and the continuing payment of pensions granted to widows regardless of any subsequent change in marital status.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for discussion can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 2, 1978



HISTORIC SITES


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a very important motion.
In view of the fact that the Plains of Abraham at the top of Cape Diamond in Quebec City are under federal jurisdiction; in view of the fact that the National Battlefields Commission is in charge of the administration of this large historic site; in view of the fact that there is a great deal of talk about prohibiting motor vehicle traffic in this area, which will be quite detrimental to aged persons because it is their only means of transport to go there, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House urge the minister in charge of the Plains of Abraham not to allow the National Battlefields Commission to prevent aged persons and young children from gaining access to this historic site by motor vehicle.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that there is 30 per cent unemployment in the construction industry in Manitoba, and in light of the government's decision to proceed in 1980 with a new maximum security penitentiary for Manitoba to be located in Selkirk, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the government immediately proceed with the construction of the penitentiary in order to maximize the economic benefits for both Selkirk and the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions VACANCY


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, P.C., member for the electoral district of Eglinton, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance. Yesterday, Statistics Canada released disturbing figures indicating, based on 1976 incomes, that farm incomes in Canada have declined by 6.9 per cent. I hope the Minister of Agriculture takes note of that. At the same time, the AntiInflation Board introduced startling figures which indicated that food prices in Canada over one month have increased by 2.6 per cent, representing an 11.9 per cent increase in the price of food, as measured by the AIB, in one year.
It is obvious the people of Canada are very unhappy about the situation, and Dr. Gallup confirmed that. What does the government propose to do about this very serious problem which is imposing such an unjust burden on middle and low income earners in this country?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, since April 15 we have relied on the marketplace to decide. Hon. members opposite have been saying for the last three years that controls in Canada were not the proper instrument to control our economy. We then decided to discontinue the controls program and leave the decisions to the marketplace. If the hon. member is proposing that we reinstate controls, we can look into that.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister must still be suffering from Montezuma's revenge, because that could be the only way to explain the fact that he does not know food prices are not covered by the AIB, and never have been.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: It is obvious that food prices in Canada, according to the AIB, will continue to rise. That fact is confirmed by Statistics Canada in the consumer price index. This can be related, among other things, to the minister's floating-sinking dollar. Now that parliament will be around for a while at least, will the minister bring in measures to offset
5050

May 2, 1978
Oral Questions
the failure of his budget and address this serious problem that is hurting the poor and the low income earners of this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is ignoring some very basic facts; firstly, that farm prices are not controlled at the farm gate. However, everything else, the ingredients of transportation, marketing, and so on, is controlled; and this represents more than 50 per cent of the price of the food product. Also, many of the foods consumed in Canada during the winter are imported from the United States and Mexico. Of course, because of the decline of the Canadian dollar we have gained at lot in the export business, but we have to pay higher prices for imported foods.


STEPS TO IMPROVE FARM INCOME
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that tremendous concession, whereby he now admits that his monetary policies are disastrous and are driving up food prices.
I have a question for the gloomy-faced Minister of Agriculture who has a lot to be gloomy about. Can he tell us what he proposes to do about the farm income situation which, if not corrected, will lower production in this country? While he is at it, will he tell us what has become of the so-called conference on food strategy which was heralded with such fanfare last winter?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if anything makes me gloomy, it is some of the false statements made by the hon. member and the fact that some people may believe him. The hon. member has stressed food prices, while knowing full well that such things as coffee showed on the index an increase of 280 per cent last year. Total imports in foods show a 58 per cent increase in one year. These are foods that cannot be produced in Canada and come from tropical and semi-tropical areas.
When the hon. member talks about income to farmers, one of the groups that he condemns is an anti-inflation fighter's dream: the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency lowered egg prices 3.4 per cent last year, yet the producer had a decent profit all the time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Man does not live by eggs alone.


FORECAST RESPECTING FOOD PRICES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance, who has already referred to the weaker dollar. As we know, the weaker dollar is contributing to the high prices in Canada that the minister has already referred to. At page 4 of the Bank of Canada Review for April, we find the admission that increases of nearly 12 per cent, on average, in import prices were experienced in 1977.
Would the minister indicate, bearing in mind the already objectionably high food prices that we have in the country, whether they have taken a survey to determine what is likely

to happen to food prices in May, June and July? May we anticipate still higher food prices, as many merchandising organizations are indicating?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a precise indication of what will happen, but in our forecast we anticipate there will be an average inflation level of 7 per cent in 1978. As usual, with summer coming it means that more food will be produced in Canada of the kind that will bring down the price of food in the CPI. In the winter, when we rely on imported food, we have to pay higher prices because of the weaker dollar, which has been extremely good for our balance of trade. We have a record balance of trade for the month of March to an extent Canada has never experienced before.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If we are to attain that 7 per cent price increase level by the end of the year, it will mean we will have to be down to 6.4 per cent in the last quarter of this year, which is very unlikely. In view of the revelation made today with respect to our foreign exchange reserves, namely, that the government has borrowed a total of $2.1 billion to protect the weaker dollar that the minister has referred to, what does the minister anticipate the interest load on that increased borrowing from foreigners will be, bearing in mind that the interest load set out by the Bank of Canada in the Annual Review this month was $2.4 billion paid to foreigners? That means $100 for every Canadian was paid to foreigners in interest alone in 1977. What will be the impact of the new foreign borrowing revealed in today's figures?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the impact will not be major. If the hon. member understands the system, the money we are borrowing abroad to supplement the inflow of capital into Canada is money that we do not have to borrow internally. When we borrow in Canada, we pay interest, just as we pay interest on foreign borrowing. The net cost is just the margin of the rate of interest we have to pay between the two. If I compare the rate for borrowing on the German market, borrowing there at this time will in fact save us some interest.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is the only Minister of Finance in Canadian history to claim it is better to borrow from foreigners than from the Canadian people. In view of the outflow revealed in the minister's release today of $700 million as far as our reserves are concerned, which is made up, of course, by this foreign borrowing, would the minister indicate if he anticipates this outflow will continue supporting the weaker dollar and, specifically, would he indicate where the $200 million went that we lost in International Monetary Fund reserves?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make any speculation as to what might be the level of fluctuations in our reserves during May. We will wait until the end of the month
May 2, 1978

to reveal the amount, whether positive or negative, of the reserve loss and, of course, the hon. member will find out about it on the first Tuesday of June.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yet another automotive parts company has today announced the shutdown of most of its operations in Sarnia and that it will move back to the United States.
Considering that the Ontario government's study of the auto industry confirmed what we and the Canadian autoworkers have been saying for many months, namely, that Canada is not getting its share of jobs in this industry, would the minister admit that he and his colleague, the minister of public works, have been misinforming the House when they have contended that Canada has received more than its share of jobs, because they failed to take into account the more than 225,000 U.S. auto workers employed in such key sectors as stampings, carburettors and windshields?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I never at any time said that everything at all times is perfect with the automotive pact. I have said repeatedly in this House that we are trying to encourage the building of more automobile plants in Canada because we recognize that there is an imbalance of trade between the two countries. The fact is, however, that the Ontario government's study does not take into consideration third countries shipping to Canada, such as Japan, Germany and other European countries, when trying to balance the automotive trade between Canada and the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: What the minister has said is perfectly true, Mr. Speaker, but they do not consider the price of apples in Tanzania, either. What the minister has indicated is irrelevant to the question. The minister of public works said in this House on Friday that Canada received in excess of 11 per cent of the jobs and that we are consuming some 9 per cent of the output of this industry. That is a falsehood, Mr. Speaker.
I am asking the minister to confirm that that falsehood which he, as the minister, stated on an earlier occasion, not in this House but in committee, leaves out some 225,000 Americans working in such sectors as windshields, stampings, carburettors, and so on. The Government of Canada is using misleading figures: I want the minister to admit that.
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we in Canada have 11.2 per cent of the labour involved in the automobile industry between Canada and the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: That is false.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member says it is false.


John Edward Broadbent: Read the Ontario report.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He can produce his figures. Obviously, the Ontario government has produced theirs, and theirs are in error because they have failed to take into consideration, as I said, third countries shipping into Canada. They have failed to take into consideration that fact; that is why their figures are in error.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this can be pursued at another time, but it is basically the minister who is in error because the federal government has left out 225,000 Americans who are employed in this industry. More specifically, I want to know what the minister is doing about getting more jobs. He has admitted that we have a shortfall in jobs. I want to know what he is doing.
Specifically, would he agree that the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement which states that both countries are committed to a share on a fair and equitable basis in the future growth of the industry means that the companies should be investing proportionately in both countries. If he admits that, would he tell us why he has not obtained from the companies precise commitments to invest in Canada in the next two years in proportion to what they plan to invest in the United States?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly said that there is a shortfall in the automotive trade of about 5,000 jobs. I do not mind saying that again. I have repeatedly told the House that we are carrying on negotiations with the three major auto manufacturers in the North American markets hoping that we will get some additional plants built in Canada.
Nothing world give me more pleasure than to tell the House today that more plants will be built in A, B and C locations, but I cannot say that. Negotiations are still going on. I hope one day to be able to tell the hon. member in this House where the plants will be built and how many more jobs will be created by them.
80038-30%

May 2, 1978
Oral Questions


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of science and technology.
Today's Le Devoir reports statements made by Mr. Brian Gregory who spoke on behalf of the National Institute for Scientific Research in the University of Quebec. The newspaper article denounces discrimination against Quebec research workers who do not receive their fair share of research funding. For example if one considers priority fields such as energy, Quebec research workers have received only 12 per cent of the grants, yet they represent 48 per cent of all Canadian research workers in that field. So I would like to ask the minister whether he has received representations about this injustice which is reported in today's Le Devoir.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received such representation. However, I will be happy to look into the figures drawn to my attention by the hon. member and report back to him.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Mr. Gregory stated that Ontario was generously rewarded with research grants but several other provinces that had applied for grants had not been successful. Will the minister inquire about this matter so that the provinces which have research staff in their universities may get their fair share?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, these grants, basically, are made through universities. There is an evaluation process which they go through. We do not, in fact, do it within the department; it is done by a group primarily made up of academics who assess the various projects which are proposed. As I said earlier, 1 will be happy to look into the representations.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Small Business). In view of the fact that figures which were compiled by Dun and Bradstreet of Canada show that business failures in 1977 increased by over 38 per cent compared with the figure for the year before-an increase of 1,155-can the

minister confirm to the House that the vast preponderance of business failures taking place in Canada today are taking place in the small business section? Also, can he tell the House whether he and his colleagues are prepared to put before parliament a comprehensive program which would give small businessmen the break they need if they are to survive in Canada today?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, in partial answer to the hon. member's question, since the vast preponderance of businesses in Canada are small, necessarily the highest proportion of failures will occur in that sector. We have a number of programs that are very helpful to small business, and more are in the planning stage. There is our tax system and the various other programs.
I would point out that the same organization, Dun and Bradstreet, indicates that the principal cause of 90 per cent of the business failures is management problems. Therefore, we have very strong belief in the CASE program which is offered by the FDBD, employing some 2,000 consultants to help small businessmen, at low cost.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, that is typical of this government. Just as they would blame the unemployed for unemployment, they blame Canada's small businessmen for the failures of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I want to know from this complacent minister whether he and his officials have attempted to compile figures for the first quarter of this year. Can he confirm reports published in the press which indicate that the failure among businesses in Canada has actually accelerated in the first quarter of this year over last year?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am not blaming small business. Since there are one million small businesses, some 400,000 incorporated small businesses, if there is a substantial number of business failures they obviously have to be drawn largely from that sector. The point I am making is that we recognize 1977 and 1978 have been difficult years. We are distressed by the number of business failures. We do have figures compiled. I would not differ with the figures the hon. member has cited, but I would like to examine them.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The minister is attempting to pass the buck. When will this government be placing before parliament new proposals which will give a break to the small business sector? The minister acknowledges that the trend accelerated in the first quarter of 1978. When will the minister be prepared to take action and place a program before parliament?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of programs and I am hopeful we will be producing more.
May 2, 1978


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Yesterday the minister said he was setting new records. However, he has established a few records which he did not mention. In view of record demurrage charges, 16 ships waiting in Vancouver today, record export backlog, 35 million bushels behind, record farm debt, up again today, record discrepancy between selling price and farmers' price at $2 a bushel, record outpouring of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member put his question.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: When does the minister intend to implement those sections of the Hall commission report which are designed to straighten out the transportation mess in our western grain industry?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I find it extraordinary that a member of the Conservative party can say that, when a colleague of his, a Conservative from New Brunswick, in the debate the other day said that we in this government are doing everything in transportation for the west. I do not know how the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek can ride right over the fact that this government just in the last month approved $600 million toward a rail rehabilitation program. We have approved the expansion of Prince Rupert. In fact, we are moving toward a record volume of wheat exports and grain exports. We are likely to move 850 million bushels of grain this year. In the Diefenbaker years, we scarcely passed 400 million bushels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it is generally conceded in western Canada that our grain industry is in the hands of an economic virgin. Yesterday the Alberta Wheat Pool was unable to unload a single bushel of grain; they did not have any. Last weekend only two terminals in Vancouver worked. Will the minister look at the transportation section of the Wheat Board with a view to somehow streamlining it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, once again, I am glad the hon. member referred to the fact that these are operational matters which are in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board. Unlike the hon. member, the Canadian Wheat Board has the full and almost complete support of farmers right across the prairies. I know it does not have the support of the Conservative party, as evidenced just now by this speaker and when the Leader of the Opposition indicated some time ago that he was going to break down the export monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is a losing policy all across the west.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
According to a report issued by the office of the Minister of Commerce here in Ottawa, if the federal government were to adopt the proposals of the Quebec minister of finance even the other provinces might benefit from it; according to the same report, of the 36,000 jobs lost in Canada in the manufacturing industry in the last 18 months, 30,000 were lost in the province of Quebec in the traditional sectors such as clothing, footwear, furniture and others. As those factors-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question to put, would he kindly put it immediately?


William Heward Grafftey: In view of those factors, is the right hon. Prime Minister now willing to negotiate with the province of Quebec in a spirit of flexibility as the government did with Saskatchewan and British Columbia with a view to accepting Mr. Parizeau's proposals?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the hon. member speaks of negotiating and on the other of accepting. Clearly, we are favourable to having negotiations. To wit, the federal Minister of Finance negotiated for three weeks with his provincial counterparts, including Mr. Parizeau. It so happens that Mr. Parizeau was unable to give an answer.
So, we did negotiate, and they could not give us a reply. As pointed out by Mr. Chretien, our finance minister, now that the game is over Mr. Parizeau comes out on the ice and wants to score points. We find that a strange way of negotiating. Still, despite that we have continued to try and find a solution, for the objective of the government is very clear: we want to make sure the Quebec government is not penalized through the fault of that particular government; we have always stated clearly that the money involved would go to Quebeckers one way or another. The problems lies with whether Mr. Parizeau can negotiate as we did with him, that is, in good faith, and as we did with all the other provinces.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Considering that the sales tax remains a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that last week the entire opposition in the National Assembly, which includes the Liberal party, supported Mr. Parizeau's proposal, are you accusing those people at the provincial level of encouraging the separatist option, much as you accused us in the opposition here in Ottawa last week?

May 2, 1978
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well no, Mr. Speaker. The provincial parties, whether in Quebec, in Alberta or in British Columbia, naturally offer a provincial point of view, and that is not only their right, but also in their interest. On the other hand, the federal government-and I would have thought that the opposition would agree-offers a national point of view. That is what we attempted to do by saying: Of course this tax comes under provincial jurisdiction. We want to cut federal taxes, which we can very well do in our sphere of responsibility, but for once let us try to do so jointly. We acted jointly with nine out of ten provinces, the tenth having failed to reply. So the federal government cannot be accused of refusing to negotiate. It was Mr. Parizeau who let the nine other provinces and the federal government arrive at an agreement which was acceptable to all and who then said: Now that everyone has had his turn, I have something else to say. We will continue to negotiate with him. I repeat, the federal government will take the necessary action so that Quebec taxpayers do not lose a cent because of Mr. Parizeau's desire to make federalism impossible.


CANADIAN POSITION AT GATT NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I got off my sick bed to come here, so I cannot shout.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have a question for the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: Speak up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. John's West.


John Carnell Crosbie: In the minister's recent budget he continued certain tariff reductions that were made in 1972 by Mr. Turner, who made these reductions on grounds that he wanted to wrestle the cost of inflation to the ground. The minister continued in his recent budget of 1978. Could the minister tell us, did he get any quid pro quo, or did his colleagues attempt to get any quid pro quo from the nations negotiating at Geneva in this GATT round for his continuation of these cuts, which he was not required to do? Did we get any quid pro quo in return?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we take into account all factors in the negotiations. Those cuts are on a temporary basis for Canada, they are not permanent, so they are still part of the package which we can offer at the Geneva negotiations. I think the hon. member can now go back to his bed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will not tell the minister and the government where they should go; that is obvious.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Grafftey.)


John Carnell Crosbie: In connection with these tariff reductions, one industry, the coffin and casket industry-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -had its tariff reduced from 22.5 per cent to 15 per cent. Has the minister received any representations because, as a result, 300 jobs have been lost and there has been a large increase in the number of coffins and caskets imported-for the government, probably, after the next election- and will he consider some additional protection for industries such as this which manufacture here in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if we look at the people in this House who have tended to encourage that type of operation, caskets, in the last 15 years in the House I think they have bought many more than we have bought. I have not received any specific recommendation from the hon. member or otherwise.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Just try to get into a Japanese casket and see how you like it.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a couple of questions to the Minister of Transport, who is also in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, regarding our future prospects for grain movement and sales. The United States Department of Agriculture foreign magazine of yesterday says that Canada, which is China's largest traditional supplier, is experiencing transportation tie-ups in moving grain for export, and that in any event Canada may not be in a position to supply the import needs of the People's Republic of China through November of 1978.
Is there any accuracy in that statement by the United States Department of Agriculture? If so, what measures is the minister taking to increase grain movement and grain supply of the grades and kinds which are wanted by the Canadian Wheat Board and by the Chinese, and will he be recommending to prairie grain producers that they maximize their seeding acreages this spring?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the nature of our very large sales did lead us on March 1 to indicate to farmers the great opportunities there were for them to produce wheat, Durum and other grains. It is true that the selling program of the Canadian Wheat Board has advanced so far that it has not very much more space for sales, having regard to supplies as well as transportation and port facilities.
In setting a likely record of, for example, 850 million bushels for export this year we may be getting close to what we

May 2, 1978

actually can move out of the country during the course of a year. That, of course, happens to be the total of the 1977 crop available for export, plus 150 million bushels out of that which was available from 1976. Our objective, however, is to continue to encourage production and farming techniques which result in it. The increased storage in Vancouver which is now under construction will be a major help, as will the very important facilities which we expect to see under construction in Prince Rupert within a few months.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the likelihood-or it may be a fact-that China will require additional grain and may look to the United States for that rather than to Canada, has the minister received requests or urgings from the Canadian Wheat Board and others reminding him that 2,000 boxcars went out of service this year and that they are requesting 4,000 more hopper cars and funds for the refurbishing of 5,000 boxcars in order to keep up with the grain movement we would like to have for grain sales to China?
The second part of my question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that there were three parts to his first question. He is now on the second part of his second question, which really calls for some leniency.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to avoid asking for a second supplementary. Will the minister shorten the timeframe for the enlargement of storage facilities at Prince Rupert and allow for the use of the present capacity? We could double grain movement, with the present capacity at Prince Rupert, in order to enlarge shipments to places like China.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that we are looking at all alternatives including, of course, improvements to the existing terminal at Prince Rupert which we announced and which will be under way. We are looking at the question of the need for additional hopper cars. We have been very alert to that problem, and we furnished the first 8,000 hopper cars to move our grain.
We also have been prepared to look at every available facility, including bulk handling facilities on the west coast, and I am fairly satisfied that we can move our export capability up by another 50 million bushels, even with existing facilities but, clearly, we are looking to the future and will want to go even 100 million bushels over that figure.


EFFECT OF DEVALUED DOLLAR ON GRAIN SALES
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the same minister. In view of the fact that forward sales of Canadian wheat were based on the $1.03 dollar and our dollar is now down to 88 cents, which means a direct loss of 15 per cent to the wheat
Oral Questions
producers, I wonder when the minister will be able to say that future sales will be based on the 88-cent dollar.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is exactly wrong in his conclusions. Most of the sales of wheat are, indeed, priced in U.S. dollar terms, so that the 15 per cent change in the value of our dollar has produced an increase of 15 per cent, measured in Canadian dollar terms, to Canadian farmers. So they are far better off in the current circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Judge Winston Arrow, of the United States district court in Pensacola, Florida, recently ruled in favour of a group of American swordfishermen who were charged with distributing swordfish which were supposed to contain excessive amounts of mercury, since under test the fish proved to contain less than one part per million of mercury.
Since the American food and drug directorate set the level of acceptable mercury in swordfish at five parts per million in 1969, has the minister made representations recently to Washington concerning the possibility of reopening the Canadian swordfishing industry, now it is evident that mercury levels in these fish are not harmful; and, if so, what was the result?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I know that conversations were held several weeks ago and I understand that they are going to continue. I will report to the hon. member.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of Transport, who is also responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He made reference a few moments ago to improvement of the port facilities at Prince Rupert. He said it would be a matter of months before that port would be capable of meeting its grain handling potential.
Can the minister tell the House what firm commitments have been made and what the construction schedule is? Is he

May 2, 1978
Oral Questions
not confusing the improvement of elevators there with the coal port which is being planned for the future?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not confusing wheat and coal; but the hon. member is mistaking what I said. I indicated that I would expect construction to begin in the near future in relation to the expansion at Prince Rupert. Indeed, we will be improving the existing elevator and that work will be coming forward very quickly. We will also be moving ahead with the site preparation on Ridley Island on the assumption that a new terminal building will be built there. There are active discussions taking place now involving the Alberta government and some of the grain companies in connection with that terminal, and I am hoping that will put together the necessary equity and investment for a major terminal on Ridley Island. Obviously, the construction phase of the major terminal will take two or three years, but the work will be under way very soon.


Frank Oberle: Is it reasonable to assume that the minister has not yet made any firm commitments to contractors or shippers of grain in respect of the improvement of the elevator facilities and grain handling facilities at Prince Rupert?


Otto Emil Lang: The contracts in relation to the existing elevator are, of course, the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. The contract preparations are under way. In the case of Wrigley Island, our first project is the engineering studies which are required in order to ensure that we are building the causeway and the rail facilities in the correct location. That work is about to get under way. The construction phase will obviously follow that engineering phase.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that this weekend the Ontario government began its urban transport improvement program with much needed renovations to Toronto's Union station, and because most necessary projected improvements cannot be completed, let alone started, as the result of this government's reneging on its 1974 election promise of $290 million for urban transit, a promise which was assumed to have been made in good faith-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Otto John Jelinek: -I would like to ask the minister whether or not, before he starts drafting new election promises, he would consider fulfilling at least part of his 1974 promise in order

that urban transit projects in and around metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere can be completed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware of the fact that we have made available $230 million for the urban transportation assistance program, which included $100 million of new money on the commuter side. That was not all we had intended to do in our program in 1974, but in face of the severe fiscal restraint being required it was the conscious and careful decision of this government to cut back, particularly in this area where the prime responsibility is that of the province and municipalities. However, we are making $100 million of new money available, and a very flexible $230 million for the urban transportation assistance program.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer, I would like to put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Last year the same government made grants available in the millions of dollars, one of which was for such an earth-shattering project as "to study the role of the harmonica in a social culture of each region of Canada".
In view of the serious need to improve urban transit systems in Toronto as well as in other parts of Canada, could the Prime Minister reconsider the priorities pertaining to the government's expenditures and assure the House that his 1974 election campaign promises, at least in the sense of urban transit, will be fulfilled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular case quoted by the hon. member. I will look it up. I believe it must be a project under the Canada Works program and I suppose it is something that has been decided by a local council. I will look into this matter to see if the hon. member has a point.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a commitment to the House that National Revenue circular No. 78-3 restricting the activities of charitable organizations would be suspended. Since we have taken the Prime Minister at his word in this regard, will he now inform the House of the nature of the communication that has been sent to the 36,000 registered charitable organizations in this country indicating that this circular is no longer in effect, that it has been suspended?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the members of the public who are interested in this debate have heard my words of yesterday. They have
May 2, 1978

heard, also, the explanations I gave-which I repeat now- that this circular was meant to help charitable organizations by indicating to them what the courts had decided on the basis of the law. I repeat what I said yesterday, that if the charitable organizations do not want to be guided by this circular, they do not have to be.
It is put out as a service to them, not as a statement of the law or even as guidance under the law. It is put out as a service to those charitable organizations which asked the previous minister of national revenue if he would issue such guidance for their information. If they do not want to be guided by it, they do not have to be. I repeat my statement of yesterday, that in the last resort it is the courts which will decide what the law says.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister what action he has taken to put his suspension order into effect, because the Prime Minister knows that it is not enough just to say it is suspended and something will vanish. If that were the case, he could have said the same thing long ago, no doubt, about unemployment and inflation. Because of the concern and the confusion that his comments of yesterday have created, what actual steps have been taken to put this order into effect? Has he at least been in touch with the Minister of National Revenue, who is out of reach of this chamber, to instruct him to put his order suspending this circular into effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Following yesterday's debate, I did ensure that the Department of National Revenue would be informed of the debate in the House and they would take whatever action is necessary. I said in the House yesterday that if it were in my power to suspend the document, I would suspend it. I went on to say that suspending such a document only has meaning for those who do not want to ask for help from the department in guiding them on whether or not they are charitable organizations.
The House must understand that many charitable organizations do things through inadvertence which are interpreted as political activity and which might disqualify them from exemptions. I understand that these organizations go to the department and ask for guidance. When they are told that certain actions have been judged under the law as disqualifying them as charitable organizations, they cease those activities and then are able to qualify; they are not penalized. Once again, the Department of National Revenue's duty is to help citizens to understand the law, and this is exactly what the circular is meant for. If some citizens do not consider it helpful, they can consider it suspended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions FINANCE


REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON BANK ACT
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: What the Prime Minister is saying, sir, is that the new document which was suspended yesterday is in effect today. In other words, he is being as consistent in this matter as he was in the question of controls when he betrayed the Canadian people in the 1974 election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question, sir, is for the Minister of Finance-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: First, the Leader of the Opposition forces his lady member to sit down; then he addresses a question to me; then he addresses one to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Go and see the Governor General.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognized the Leader of the Opposition and I will let him pursue his question; but it stretches the point to put a preamble to one minister and a question to another.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I will wait until there is quiet in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Minister of Finance, if I can get some order on that side of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are not in church, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: -relates to economic policy and to the opportunity of the House of Commons to consider some economic measures. 1 wonder if the Minister of Finance can tell the House when he intends to introduce to the House for debate the Bank Act which this government has been deliberately delaying in the hope of avoiding revealing its intentions before an election campaign, and when might we expect to have before the House the necessary amendments to the Income Tax Act arising from the budget?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, last week I gave the answer that we were waiting for the French translation of the bill. The bill is now in front of the cabinet. I hope that within a matter of weeks-

May 2, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield


Some hon. Members:: Weeks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -a maximum of couple of a weeks, to be able to table the bill. So far as the other bill is concerned, I will be discussing it with the House leader and will bring it in as quickly as possible.


Charles Joseph Clark: It raises some intriguing questions as to why a bill, on which the policy has already been decided, which has been drafted and translated, will take a matter of weeks to get through the cabinet, although with this cabinet I can understand that it takes the simplest thing a long time to get through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: So that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs might not be denied an opportunity, even if the entire House is denied an opportunity to deal with economic policy, would the minister be prerared to make an immediate reference of the annual economic review of his department to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will follow the usual procedure about those things. I will be appearing before the committee of the House on Thursday afternoon, at which time hon. members of the opposition can ask me questions. Also, I have agreed to be present at another meeting next week or the week after; I do not know. I am accepting the invitation of the committee. If they want more work in front of them, certainly I am able to send some more over to them.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On Friday I indicated some preliminary reasons for disposing of the motion originally put by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). Also I made some remarks about the basic nature of the subject raised in the motion. I believe the hon. member for Halifax is ready to make further representations.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to follow the discussion in the House on Friday, particularly relating to the question of privilege which I raised originally last Wednesday. At that time I indicated I would be prepared to bring a motion on Thursday, which I did. On Friday there was a discussion concerning that motion, at which time Your Honour expressed some views.
On Friday Your Honour indicated that the motion I presented could not be regarded as being in order. At least that was your disposition at that time. It could not be considered in order, because on Friday the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais)

denied that he took the position the McDonald commission was the only appropriate place for this question to be dealt with, rather than the House. Your Honour indicated that this had become a question of fact, and still remained a question on that point, and could not be regarded as a question of privilege. Certainly I do not quarrel with Your Honour's ruling in that regard.
When I raised the question of privilege on Wednesday, it seemed to me that the Solicitor General was taking the exact position of which I had accused him. On that point, I am content he backed away from that position. On Friday in the House he indicated quite explicitly that he was not standing by that position. He was not contending that the House was not entitled to information. Indeed, he put some information before the House. He was not contending that the McDonald commission was the only appropriate place for this question to be considered. I am happy the Solicitor General departed from the very hard line which he took on last Wednesday, when I raised my question of privilege.
As the matter now stands, in the minister's judgment and the judgment of everyone else it is very clear the House is not precluded from inquiring into this type of question on the grounds it is a security matter, when in fact it touches upon some very fundamental rights and concerns of members of parliament. I take it that is now settled.
As reported at page 4977 of Hansard dated April 28, 1978, Your Honour indicated the following:
The difficulty for the Chair is that that procedural problem does not set aside the basic problem that rests at the core of this matter, which may now come to light, or it may not, I do not know. However, the contributions that have been made now indicate that there may be some regime in existence which may be offensive to members and which they may want to put in the form of some motion.
Your Honour indicated that my motion would have to be set aside on procedural grounds.
Following an intervention by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), Your Honour is reported as saying the following:
The only other step that I had in mind would be to set aside this particular motion on procedural grounds, without prejudice to the right of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), or for that matter to any other member, to reintroduce a motion on the same subject. I do not have to take that step now, however, but I wanted to indicate my thinking on it.
The discussion was suspended until today by Your Honour. If it is believed that there is in fact a prima facie case, I would be prepared to move:
That the matter of the surveillance by the security forces of candidates at general elections be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in order that the committee can determine and report upon the extent of and criteria for such surveillance.
In other words, while the Solicitor General and others have eased our concerns in some respects, still those concerns are very fundamental. I am not referring to the refusal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to tell the House clearly what the instructions of the government were to the security forces following the invocation of the War Measures Act, at which time the government asked the security forces to give more
May 2, 1978

attention to internal subversion. We sought those instructions, but we have not been able to get them. However, that is not the point I am making this afternoon.
Instructions within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to certain designated personnel, relating to the surveillance of candidates in elections, came to light last week. On Friday the minister indicated that in fact the RCMP does not exercise any surveillance. If they check the list of candidates and find a name which is already in their files, then they become interested and place it in their files. Some of us are quite concerned about the security forces' definition of the words "subversive", "security risk" or "security interest" in this connection. From this document, it seems to be very broadly conceived as genuine. It relates to candidates; in some to their agents; and in other cases to their contributors. It includes any candidate who is considered to be a separatist, whether he is a subversive, separatist, or otherwise. Our concern is that we just do not know how sweeping is the definition of "subversive".
Also, the document refers to government requirements. It points out the request for names of nominated candidates is not so much directly for security purposes as it is to meet certain statistical requirements and government requirements. I do not know what the term "government requirements" means in that connection.
I do not know what the RCM Police do with this information when they find somebody who is in one of their files and who has been nominated as a candidate. What do they do with that? Why do they have this particular interest in that file? If somebody is nominated and they feel he is a security risk, what happens after that? Do they merely make up a file and that is as far as it goes, or is some initiative taken in the course of the campaign? I do not know, but I do not like the way matters stand.
As I say, there is a question in this document of the broad definition of security risk; there is a question of what is meant by government requirements, which are referred to as the reason for these instructions, and there is to me the very disturbing question as to what happens in connection with a candidate when his name is found to be on one of their files. With respect, sir, these have to be matters of concern to this House, and I think the existence of the document and these instructions do impinge upon the privileges of this House. This issue should be clarified by being referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. If you believe I have a prima facie ground for doing this, sir, I would so move.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I intend to add very little to what was said in this debate on Friday by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais). The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) has referred to the War Measures Act and the events of 1970 in a way which would, once again, reinforce the impression that was earlier erroneously given that some-
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
how these instructions were given to the police as a result of those events.
I would like to repeat what was made abundantly clear, it seems to me, on Friday in the House, but in the absence of the hon. member for Halifax. It was made abundantly clear that this practice has been going on for at least 30 years, that it has been the practice of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be performing such duties before elections at various levels of government administration. Therefore, the practice existed not only under my predecessor but under the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, under Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Mackenzie King.
While the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) has criticized our attitude, that the government of the day should not be involved in the day-to-day operations of the police, I do remember him saying that when he was Prime Minister he knew everything which was going on in the police. He is not here to speak today, but I merely make that suggestion, and he may want to deal with this point at some other time. However, if he is correct in saying that he knew everything that was going on, presumably he knew about these instructions.
I can say unequivocally that I did not know, because I do not make it a practice, as the House well knows, to involve myself in the day-to-day operations of the RCMP. Either the right hon. gentleman knew about it or he did not, but the point is it has been a practice for at least 30 years, in spite of successive administrations. However, I have been able to give the assurance and to repeat it unequivocally, that no member in this House, since I have been Prime Minister, has been the object of security surveillance without his consent, and in so far as it concerns the members of this House there is obviously no question of privilege. In so far as the practice in general is concerned, it would seem to me that, since it has been going on for at least 30 years, the proper course would be not to make it the subject of partisan debate but to refer these concerns to the royal commission.


Mr. Blais:: They already have.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am told, Mr. Speaker, by the Solicitor General that they already have been referred, and as a matter of fact I believe that the existence of this practice was made known to the McDonald commission.
I realize the urgency in the minds of the members to get to the bottom of this. I repeat, if it has been going on for 30 years without prejudice to the members of this House, one would think that it would be to the advantage-


Mr. Fraser:: How can you say "without prejudice"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member from Vancouver asks how I can say "without prejudice." I repeat, no member of this House, since I have been Prime Minister, has been the object of electronic surveillance by the RCMP in security matters.


John Allen Fraser: To your knowledge.

May 2, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The words are to my knowledge. I have that knowledge from the commissioner of the RCMP. If the hon. gentleman from Vancouver wishes to question that gentleman's word, then of course that is his right. It seems to me-


John Allen Fraser: You also told us that that break-in was an isolated event.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of matter which should be referred to the McDonald commission, and that is what we propose to do.


John Edward Broadbent: I join in this important discussion, Mr. Speaker, following what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) just had to say. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has made two points. The first one concerns the duration of time that this kind of practice may have been in existence. With all due respect to the source, the duration of time, sir, is beside the point. If something has been going on for 30 years which has been pernicious in any way in its influence, whether or not it has become public knowledge, that is no reason to legitimize or perpetuate such a circumstance.
We all know, taking something out of the history of our country and going back into that time-frame, that the Government of Canada took a certain course of action toward Canadians of Japanese ancestry during World War II that was anything but reputable to those who concerned with civil liberties. At that time certain candidates for political office, and indeed certain members of parliament, came to the defence of those Canadians of Japanese ancestry. What the Prime Minister has had to say does not offer any persuasive evidence at all for us to abandon the concerns expressed by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). Indeed, there may well have been some kind of action taken toward the candidates for office at that time, whether they were elected or not. It is something that is worth while for members of the House as it is presently constituted to consider within the framework of its present practices. The argument that the Prime Minister has made with reference to past practice is not one of substance or germane to the issue as raised by the hon. member for Halifax.
The central question is the loose definition and broad concept given to subversive or wrong activity to legitimize this kind of activity by the police forces in Canada. Without repeating the fine argument that has already been made by the hon. member for Halifax, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to lend the strongest possible, unequivocal support to the view that he expressed. If you do find there is a prima facie case that has been made out by the member for Halifax, quite independent of what the McDonald inquiry should decide to do with this matter-and it should look into it as well-it seems to me that the members of the present House have a real obligation to exercise their responsibility representing all parties to look into this matter.
I listened to the words of the Prime Minister with care when he talked this afternoon about surveillance, because in his

earlier comments he said that he had given assurances that since he has been Prime Minister there had been no surveillance of members of the House. I listened, because I know that that is not the record. The record of the Prime Minister has been that there is no electronic surveillance that has been undertaken, and that is quite a different notion. Later in his comments this afternoon he corrected himself when he made reference to surveillance of present members and he said there was no electronic surveillance. I submit, sir, that even the government's position vis-a-vis the issue of surveillance of present members is at the very least ambiguous. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by repeating what I said a few minutes ago, that we support the case made by the hon. member for Halifax 100 per cent.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try not to impose upon you or repeat the argument I made last Friday when the subject was a different motion. The arguments made then were rather forceful and I hope were of assistance to you.
I want to deal briefly with two or three points. The first of these was discussed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), and that is the assurance that no member of the House has been the subject of electronic surveillance since 1968. I am not quite sure if that is the issue and whether it should be conclusive in preventing you from finding a prima facie question of privilege. There has been a question about that assurance as it relates to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) and to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who were alleged to have been the subject of such electronic surveillance. We had a question of privilege on that matter as it related to the hon. member for Nickel Belt, and it was voted upon.
If I understand the submission of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) correctly it is that, having confirmed the existence of a document, one defence to a prima facie question of privilege was the sensitive nature of that document or documents. I do not believe that is a defence to finding that there is a prima facie question of privilege. There is a certain sensitivity, but I think all of us would acknowledge that it has nothing to do with the question of whether our rights and privileges have been affected. Indeed, there are ways of handling that sensitivity which are well known to Your Honour.
We have, apparently, a cross check between the names of political candidates and certain lists of persons believed to be members of subversive groups or who are alleged to have participated in subversive activities.
On Friday the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) made a special point of saying that no one is immune, and I quite agree. I would argue, however, that this is not the issue. There may be other documents and other manuals relating to union leaders, businessmen, municipal leaders, and all kinds of people, but each of those groups has its own remedies. Those remedies may be political or they may be legal. Our remedy, sir, is to appeal to you, because there is this one manual
May 2, 1978

apparently directed solely to a certain group who happen to be political candidates. Your Honour is not asked to deal with union leaders or business leaders and, if I were to intervene on their behalf, I would have no question of privilege. As their spokesman, other remedies would be available to me. Our only remedy, however, is to appeal to you as protector of our rights and privileges.
What I pose as an ancillary to the question put to you by my hon. friend from Halifax is the criteria used in putting these names on a certain list-not what names are there but on what basis they were selected, against which list political candidates are checked. It seems to me that not knowing the criteria might assist you in finding a prima facie case. In other words, doubt about what that criteria might be, might assist Your Honour.
In my submission, the fact that this has been a practice for 30 years is irrelevant. No one knows what criteria have been used over that 30 years or whether they have changed from prime minister to prime minister or from commissioner to commissioner. The fact that the practice has developed over 30 years has nothing to do with the question of whether our rights and privileges may be affected.
We have no idea what criteria are used to put a certain name on a list against which the name of a candidate for political office may be checked to find if he belongs to a subversive group or has engaged in subversive activities, to use the words of the Solicitor General. Therefore, the assurance given by the Solicitor General on Friday about how the manual was used does not, in my view, affect the question of whether there is a question of privilege in this case.
Is Your Honour prepared to find that the threat of an impingement upon our rights is equal to an actual impingement? If there is a cloud over political candidates which may affect them, even though we cannot point to one candidate as the subject of electronic surveillance, is that threat sufficient for Your Honour to find there is a prima facie question of privilege? That is the ancillary argument I would put to the main argument advanced by the hon. member for Halifax.
In summary, sir, I reject the argument advanced by the Deputy Prime Minister on Friday to the effect that we seek special privileges. It is not special privileges we seek but a special forum in which we can look for redress or assistance when we think we have been affected. It is only in this House, and only through you, sir, that we can come to seek that special right.
[ Translation]


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, following the presentation of this new motion by the hon. member, it is clear that he refers to general surveillance. I think it is important, in the present debate, to point out that several speakers have suggested or, at least, seemed to have suggested that systematic surveillance has been exercised on candidates in federal elections.
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
Now, if we refer to the facts or to the evidence given by the Solicitor General or the Deputy Prime Minister in the House last Friday, we realize that this allegation is not true. At the outset of my argument, Mr. Speaker, I stated that this has been categorically denied by the Solicitor General and the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.
Never have we said, on this side of the House, that all candidates have been subjected to systematic surveillance. What has indeed been mentioned is that it is verified whether or not a candidate has a record. Verification is not surveillance, Mr. Speaker. And being a candidate in a federal election does not automatically rule out verification as to whether he or she has a record and whether he or she represents a threat to the security of the state.
So I think that anyone anxious to enter into federal politics is not automatically exempt from simple and normal scrutiny applied to any Canadian citizen. Does the candidate for public office have a record containing facts suggesting that person may represent a threat to the security of the state? I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that this does not constitute systematic surveillance of candidates, but rather a verification to know whether or not there is a record against that person.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, is in line with the first point I referred to. The Solicitor General of Canada has formally denied that any member of this House is the subject of any surveillance. If we take these two facts into account, first that there is no systematic surveillance of candidates, and second that no member of the House is the subject of any surveillance, I wonder how the privileges of hon. members can possibly be threatened or violated. If we are to hold a theoretical discussion on the way the RCMP arrives at its security standards about Canadian citizens, I submit we should not do so by way of a question of privilege before Parliament. Things would be different if one or more members of the House had been the subjects of surveillance. But that has been denied. So we have to take for granted what the Solicitor General says: no member of the House is the subject of surveillance. Therefore we cannot argue that the privileges of members are threatened or violated. As for electoral candidates, they do not come under any systematic surveillance but, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) said, it is a verification to know whether a candidate, who is an ordinary citizen, has a record.
Since this matter of checking on individuals in Canada, whether or not they are running for federal office, is now before an inquiry set up under an act of this Parliament-the McDonald commission was set up under the Public Inquiries Act, an act of this federal parliament, passed by us-since that inquiry is a valid, democratic institution whose purpose and mission is precisely to inquire into those situations, I say it would be a duplication to ask a committee of this House to check whether or not the RCMP has valid criteria on which to determine whether or not an individual who is a Canadian constitutes a risk to the security of the state.

May 2, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
The question the hon. member raises in his motion and his question of privilege is that of the criteria on which the police has to determine whether a candidate constitutes or not a danger for the state. Well, a candidate is not a member of parliament, Mr. Speaker. In this House we deal with questions of privilege affecting members of this House and not people who might become members of parliament. I say it would be a dangerous precedent and a dangerous departure to extend the notion of privilege of members to those who might one day become members of this House. I say that is not our role, that Canadian citizens are not above the law simply because they show an interest in running for federal office, and that on the very face of it the motion is not a prima facie case of encroachment upon the privileges of members. On the contrary, it does not refer to members of parliament but to candidates and to Canadians citizens under surveillance, something which was denied.
There is nothing in this House to indicate that systematic surveillance is being carried out, but rather an absolutely normal check on any Canadian citizen. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, and those are basic issues of fact, I believe that no member here in this House considers that his privileges are being interfered with by an absolutely normal check made by the police on people who want to enter federal politics. For those reasons I say the motion should not be presented, is out of order and there is no breach of the privileges of members of parliament here.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to make a short contribution to this question of privilege. Your Honour will have had time to evaluate the motion put by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), his submission to this debate as well as statements which were made on Friday in support of and against the hon. member's motion. It defies any rule of logic to listen to the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who said on Friday that members of parliament should have no special privilege in this regard, whereas his parliamentary secretary told us just now that members of parliament should have different privileges than has a candidate.
It would help us all if we were to look at the basis for the argument which is presented here, the definition of the words subversion or subversive. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has told us repeatedly that the definition of the term as it is applied here is derived from the definition given in the Official Secrets Act. The Official Secrets Act deals with the matter of subversion in four different categories: (a) espionage or sabotage; (b) foreign intelligence activities; (d) activities by a foreign power directed toward actual or potential attack, and (e) activities of a foreign terrorist group. I have omitted (c), which I suppose is the definition the Prime Minister relates to, that is to say, activities directed toward accomplishing govern-

mental change within Canada or elsewhere by force or violence or any criminal means.
Surely a candidate seeking election to the House of Commons is seeking to take part in a time-honoured democratic process. Is it the suggestion that members of parliament or candidates will resort to violence after they are elected, or during an election? Mr. Speaker, persons issuing directives to the RCMP to keep an eye on persons who offer themselves to this time-honoured democratic process must be attempting to subvert the political process if they are suggesting that a person who seeks office or seeks the confidence of his supporters could indeed resort to violence. It is an expression of non-confidence in the political process.
I do not know what process is carried out by the government party, but in my party there is a serious recruiting process carried on to attract people to run for office. Once these people have made the offer to run for office, the party executives in the various ridings learn more about this person before they offer their support. Following this there is a nomination meeting held where the general membership of the party again follows a process of evaluating the person they will support in the general election. Then there is the general election itself where all Canadians have the right and the responsibility to look at that person who will be representing them in this, the highest court in the land.
I will quote a statement made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) on Friday. He said:
When the names of candidates seeking office become available to the security service...
We do not know how they become available to the security service but we assume that someone is responsible. Are we to believe the person in charge of elections in Canada provides the police with the names of all the candidates who have offered themselves for election? In any event, a list is made available to the RCMP.
The Solicitor General went on to say:
... a name check is conducted against a list of persons known to belong to subversive groups ...
And here again, Mr. Speaker, it is not a name check conducted against files held by the RCMP. The Solicitor General continued by saying:
... or involved in subversive activities. If and when a candidate is positively identified as falling into that category, the fact of his candidacy is duly noted, and the security service continues to be legitimately interested in his or her activities.
I presume those activities might eventually be the duties of a member of parliament.
When the Solicitor General speaks about lists, I cannot, of course, overlook the fact that this House has been preoccupied with the existence of lists. As well, I cannot overlook the fact that in the last week we have been preoccupied with a certain practice within the Solicitor General's office during the tenure of one certain solicitor general who happens to be in the House at the moment. This practice was to compile lists, and a
May 2, 1978

concept called extra parliamentary opposition was very much in evidence.
That brings me to the statement the Prime Minister made a few moments ago, as well on previous occasions, when he said the practice of surveillance has been going on for 30 years. But never before, under no other administration, was there a capacity within the Solicitor General's office of the type that we have now, the security and analysis group, which has access to these lists. As we all know, they have not only kept these lists for the purpose which was identified by the Solicitor General last Friday, but they have circulated these lists to other departments of government. These lists have become public knowledge.
When the President of Privy Council tells us that members of parliament should have no special privilege, he is very much confused. He says that members of parliament should not be on these lists but other people may. There are other lists which are made up of union leaders, when unions have been under surveillance, and native leaders who have been under surveillance. I could name these lists, but I do not intend to do so here. However, I will do so on another occasion. There has been surveillance of student leaders on campuses, and surveillance of public servants.
If one relates this situation to actual personalities there is the example of a person by the name of Walter Rudnicki, whose name happened to be on one of these lists. He is very much interested in the political process. He may want to offer his name to compete in an election. The question arises, what will happen when the police find his name on the list? Also, what will happen when they find his name on the list in which he was identified as a subversive, a person who by illegal and violent means wishes to overthrow this government? That is the difference to which we have to address ourselves.
We have here a unique opportunity to raise these matters which are very sensitive and crucial. In my case it has become a very emotional issue. I still today have information about some of these matters which I have not yet brought to the attention of the McDonald Royal Commission. I find it distasteful to bring this to the attention of the public, either in the House of Commons or outside.
I desperately want to be provided with a forum and an opportunity to tell all I know. What better time and way to do that than by an internal inquiry? If this matter is referred to the committee and the motion of the hon. member for Halifax is accepted, I suggest that some of the hearings and meetings might well be held in camera. People like myself and some of my colleagues could then bring these matters to the attention of our friends and colleagues in the House of Commons. We could once and for all take the necessary remedial actions and measures to clean up what I consider to be a very critical, distasteful, and ugly mess, a sort of monster which has the potential of becoming unmanageable. This should be done at the earliest possible opportunity.
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct your attention to the principal issue before you, the question of whether the rights of members of parliament have been violated as a result of the release of this particular document. Surely the overwhelming fact is that a candidate and member of parliament are one and the same thing during the time that an election takes place.
If I could direct Your Honour's attention to that fact, that is prima facie evidence that the surveillance techniques were putting members of parliament under surveillance. Perhaps you might wish to argue about people who are not members of parliament, those who are merely candidates, and I do not say they should be put under surveillance, because they should not. The key issue is whether there is a prima facie case against members of parliament.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you direct your attention to the law, which is that a member of parliament continues to be a member of parliament after an election is called. Therefore, the documents that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) has referred to clearly refer to the surveillance of members of parliament.
We have ample precedent before us. That is the question which arose from the surveillance of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The facts in that case were that a sworn affidavit by one Warren Hart said (a) "I was directed by the RCMP" and (b) "I placed the hon. member for Nickel Belt under surveillance." Therefore, that was found to be a prima facie case of an interference with the normal rights and privileges of a member of parliament.
In that case, as Your Honour so well put it, it was of such importance, with the new kinds of electronic techniques that have been developed, that Your Honour felt it was a matter that should be dealt with by the House. In that instance Your Honour saw fit to put the motion before the House. This House, to its eternal shame, turned down that motion. The Liberal whips got on the job and decided that the motion Your Honour decided to put before this House should not be referred to a committee.
I am willing to accept the assurances of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). That is my job as a member of parliament. However, I find it deeply suspicious, with a motion put in the circumstances which the hon. member for Nickel Belt was faced with, when this Liberal government, with some notable exceptions I see who are here, would not allow an inquiry, even an inquiry to determine whether his rights had been violated.
We heard some rhetoric from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) on Friday, rhetoric about members of parliament seeking to expand their rights as a result of this. The rights of a member of parliament are traditional, to protect his constituents from oppression. The rights of a member of parliament are a direct result of an attempt by a democracy to protect itself from the agents of the Crown. That is what the rights of a member of parliament are all about.
No one is standing in this House trying to expand the rights of a member of parliament on some kind of personal basis. We


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made some reference to that argument which is one that has served its purpose in the past. It has a rather limited application to this particular case. We really ought to stick to the facts of this case.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Getting back to the question at hand, Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that you might have some difficulty with persons who are not members of parliament who could allegedly come under surveillance under the guidelines that the hon. member for Halifax mentioned. However, the argument that somehow there is another forum looking into that is a false argument. If Your Honour would simply examine its terms of reference, you see it has no jurisdiction to inquire into the rights of members of parliament in this place.
There is no other forum that can examine the rights of a member of parliament other than this forum, the highest court in the land. If Your Honour were tempted to accept the argument of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that there is a forum that is examining this subject, therefore let them do it, I say that is a specious and false argument. Your Honour has pointed that out many times in the past. In fact the rights of members of parliament must be determined in this place, not by the McDonald inquiry. Therefore, I would urge you to reject that kind of argument in terms of the material which has been placed before you.
I submit again there is a very strong prima facie case based upon the fact that by law a member of parliament continues to be a member of parliament during a campaign. There is a directive to the police forces of this country to place certain

members under surveillance. It is therefore the duty of this House to determine the extent of that surveillance to protect the rights, not of members of parliament, but of the people of Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest, as I am sure you did as well as other members of the House, to the arguments put forward, both pro and con, on the motion of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). I want to be brief, but I do not want my brevity to indicate any lack of sincere concern about the gravity of this motion.
I want to join with those of my colleagues who have rejected the proposition put by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) when he suggested that the purpose behind a motion of this kind is that we, as members of parliament, are trying to expand our rights individually. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and the Deputy Prime Minister knows full well that what is of interest and importance here is the requirement that we must always try to expand, not upon the rights of individual members of parliament, but the rights of the individual citizens of our country who is indeed deeply affected by the possibility of surveillance of the democratic process.
I want to distile as much as I can the facts which I think Your Honour must consider. There has been in a document an unequivocal admission of surveillance with respect to candidates for office, and I say that Your Honour's role will be to determine whether parliament and its rights as an institution and the rights of members of parliament are affected by the existence of this kind of practice within the security service.
The affirmations made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) that within their knowledge no present member of parliament has been the subject of surveillance simply begs the issue. It is clearly admitted that candidates have been under surveillance. It is clearly admitted by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Solicitor General that the information they have has been given to them by other parties. What I am saying is that the way these hon. gentlemen have framed their statements with respect to members of parliament indicates a qualification, and the point I think important is that if there is a question of degree or any qualification to the statements made by the Prime Minister today, for example, it is incumbent upon Your Honour to allow this motion to go before the House so that the committee can determine by cross-examination of those involved, by examination of documents, and by the introduction of witnesses-the proper forum would be a committee of this House and not the McDonald commission-whether or not there has been a direct or indirect operation affecting the rights and privileges of members of parliament.
I think Your Honour has to judge whether the statements made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Solicitor General somehow render this whole proposition invalid because they have given their word that no member of


May 2, 1978

parliament has been under surveillance. However, I think Your Honour should also consider a very recent exception which I think the Prime Minister himself would have to agree was considered sufficiently strong to allow Your Honour to put a motion with respect to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Allegations were made about the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) regarding accidental or incidental surveillance. It was surveillance, nonetheless.
The point I want to make is that the House of Commons has a responsibility, in the interest of democracy within Canada, to ensure that people presenting themselves as candidates, particularly at this time when we are looking forward within the next year to an election-I gather-are protected. The fact of the matter is that we should be more cognizant now and make ourselves more aware of any limitation upon candidates, because a limitation upon candidacy for parliament is a limitation upon parliament.
In conclusion-and I am attempting to be brief-I am very unhappy to hear rhetoric about how members of parliament are trying to protect themselves against prosecution and about how we are above the law. There are many examples of sitting members of parliament in the Mother of Parliaments, and in this parliament, who, when found to have contravened official secrets acts, have been prosecuted and imprisoned or suffered whatever penalties there were in the existing law. I say that that is not at all relevant. The relevant thing for your Honour to consider is whether we in parliament are being limited in any way in the performance of our duties by this operation. A full examination is required, and I strongly support the position put forward by the hon. member for Halifax in his motion.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in saying a few words about this important matter I would like to identify myself with what was said by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn). As many hon. members have stated, this is the highest court in the land, and there have been many words of legal art or jurisprudence spoken here today, but one of the things hon. members to my knowledge have not mentioned this afternoon is the doctrine with which you, sir, being a distinguished counsel, are very familiar, and that is the doctrine of benefit of doubt.
It seems to me that the perception is growing among members of the public, and perhaps among members of the House of Commons, that this House is abandoning much of its jurisdiction, to stick with legal terminology, and leaving it to the McDonald commission. Surely we cannot permit ourselves as members of parliament to allow things as sensitive as the rights and privileges of ourselves to be considered exclusively by the McDonald commission. I see no reason why the McDonald commission might not have concurrent jurisdiction, but I see no merit at all in the contention that somehow it has exclusive jurisdiction.
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
I was interested in the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, who stated that we should take the assurances of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) that everything was all right. Without meaning any disrespect to the Solicitor General-and this has already been pointed out this afternoon-the Solicitor General may not know. He may in good faith say that certain things are true, but he may not know because he may be misinformed. It was suggested by the predecessor of the Solicitor General at the time of the Hart affair that perhaps things were kept from him. I think this was attributed at one point to the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand). I wish he were here to confirm that. When the present Solicitor General was postmaster general as Your Honour well recalls, he stood in his place in the House and said that mail was never opened, and your Honour will also recall the look of amazement on his face when the then solicitor general said that indeed it had been opened. That is fresh in the recollections of all of us.
So I say to you, sir, that there is no comfort in the fact that the Solicitor General may say that everything is all right. He may be perfectly entitled to do so on the basis of the information he has but, as in the past, it may very well be that he does not have enough information.
The parliamentary secretary also said something to the effect that perhaps the surveillance was not systematic. It may have been only general and occasional. Again, with respect, the best judge of that will be the evidence brought, hopefully, before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Surely as members of parliament we have the right to extract evidence which affects all of us. Surely it must be relevant to consider the performance of the McDonald commission on a matter which has been referred to it, and I will not belabour this because Your Honour has indicated that you do not want much said about it because it has already been argued.
However, to the best of my knowledge the McDonald commission has not taken any meaningful steps, apart from one trip to Washington to make arrangements to take Mr. Hart's testimony, in getting to the bottom of this very important matter. We have a situation where the government is voting down a very important question of privilege. One of the arguments is that the McDonald commission will be looking into it, but based on its track record and performance so far I have yet to see very much indication that the commission is seriously interested in pursuing this particular matter.
In conclusion, I strongly support the motion of the hon. member for Halifax. Without repeating them, I would like to identify myself with the arguments which have been made. I suggest to you, sir, coming back to the proposition that this is the highest court in the land, that surely there is a place for the benefit of the doubt, surely there is an argument to be made for the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to develop jurisprudence in sensitive matters, particularly now when we have the added dimension of television in the House, particularly when this committee is made up of members of parliament who have a particular and unique appreciation of what it means to be candidates and to be members of parlia-

May 2, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
ment because, again coming back, with all respect, to something that the parliamentary secretary said, no member ever came to this place who did not at one time offer himself as a candidate. It is pretty artificial to try to make a valid distinction, particularly at election time, between members of parliament and candidates. We all come in the same way, some of us leave by different routes, but at the same time I think this is not a valid distinction.


Mr. G6rard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, it is not because the Prime Minister denies it or because the Solicitor General said there has not been any surveillance or that other ministers say likewise that we must conclude that it never happened. This is not the first time this government has denied certain facts, Mr. Speaker. One must recall how lightheartedly, as recently as earlier this year, the former solicitor general, the member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) was saying certain things - and how he was eventually forced to say just the opposite. One must recall how strongly the then solicitor general denied the involvement of the RCMP in L'Agence de Presse Libre break-in in Montreal and that later it was proved it had actually happened. One must recall how strongly the ex-solicitor general denied that for several years the police had been carrying out infiltration activities till the time when he was compelled to confess it because the facts and circumstances had been ascertained.
So now when the Solicitor General or the Prime Minister claim that such things have not taken place, Mr. Speaker, it almost amounts to giving us the assurance that they actually happened. In defence of our constituents' freedoms, we have a duty to do everything in our power to prevent this country from becoming a police state, where our traditional freedoms would be hindered by all sorts of fears of interference from above into the individual's private affairs. This is so serious, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot allow these facts and circumstances to go unchallenged, without a committee of this House inquiring into the matter. We must know the motives, the reasons, the causes behind such a system of surveillance.
As evidenced by the Prime Minister's statement made earlier, and the confirmation from hon. members opposite, clearly the attempt is to sidestep the basic question with the suggestion there has been no electronic surveillance.
Mr. Speaker, the type of surveillance does not matter. We must know the real motives, the real reasons, the real causes for initiating as I said the makings of a police state, in this land we are so proud to call a free country. This government is responsible for that. We also have to know how to explain to the people the actions of this government. The suggestion that this has been done for 30 years is no answer. Those who have been in power for ten years, those who are perceived as the people in authority have no right to wash their hands of things so unacceptable. It is either one or the other, Mr. Speaker: either the Prime Minister and the government are responsible, and consequently they know what goes on in this country and are aware of what the police do, or they are not responsible, in which case it is high time we call upon the people to solve the problem democratically.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, we must know what the facts are and see clearly where we stand about this whole thing, so that the people can be guaranteed the most fundamental rights of freedom. Let us note once again, I want to stress the point, that there is a huge difference between the acts that interfere
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
with freedom and the regular activity of a police force that is noble, worthy, that is simply keeping peace and order in a given society. It is all too difficult, as the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) pointed out, to try to determine where there is subversion, to leave it to the discretion of a government that has proved beyond any doubt that is the champion of disunity and discord in this country. The situation has come to that. It is none of our doing, but we know that the government failed in its responsibility and that at some point it felt it had to make up for its lack of real moral authority over the country, and so let the police perform acts that are clearly "antifreedom". There is nothing surprising about that, but it must disappear. It is becoming a sickness we must get rid of immediately to restore a wholesome and free climate in this country.
[DOT] (>612)


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this most fundamental question of privilege until the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) intervened this afternoon. I should like to make only a few comments because those who participated today-and I was not present in the House on Friday-certainly covered many of the points which give me concern.
In part answer to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) indicated that, regardless of what the practice has been for the last 30 years, the creation of a security and analysis branch within the Department of the Solicitor General assumes a different character. That branch is to analyse and/or give direction from time to time respecting what was considered to be normal police practices up until the creation of the branch.
I have followed the debate, as well as reading Hansard dated April 28, 1978. Today the Prime Minister mentioned a practice which has been in existence for 30 years. As other hon. members have indicated this afternoon, that begs the question as to when these instructions were codified, and/or defined, and when they came into practice.
As we are all aware, there is no great fundamental final code which makes parliament tick. There is the British North America Act, as well as customs, traditions, and practices. Obviously there are practices respecting police work. I do not know what the situation was for the last 30 years. I was not a member of parliament 30 years ago. In those days there were prime ministers who paid their price by taking chances on many issues at the polls from time to time. Perhaps this was not an issue because it did not come to the public fore.
I was not bemused, in fact I was disappointed by the Prime Minister's intervention today into something so fundamental as the question of privilege advanced by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). He attempted to use very specious arguments in something which is fundamental. I am present in the chamber today as a member of the thirtieth parliament. There has been the long parliament, the short parliament, and

May 2, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
some time in the 1300's there was what was known as the mad parliament. Once this has come to the attention of parliamentarians, and if this institution does not analyse the import and/or the implications of how these instructions were implemented, through the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, then perhaps this parliament will be known as the mock parliament, in terms of history, as sociologists and political scientists look at what we have done here.
Your Honour has been required to make difficult rulings over the past few months. Whether this is a mock parliament or not, certainly it has been preoccupied during the last six to eight months with security matters of all sorts, shapes, and sizes, with all the convolutions, contradictions, confessions of mistakes, and confessions of ignorance which have come up as different chapters unfold. Certainly I will not go through all of that today.
If it were not so serious, I would be almost bemused by what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) indicated on Friday, which in effect was implied also by the Prime Minister today. Normally the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) makes constructive and cogent arguments, but I cannot agree with what he said. The Prime Minister indicated that there is no electronic surveillance of present members of parliament. What happened to the candidates who ran for the thirtieth parliament? What will happen to the candidates who run for the thirty-first parliament? As members, we represent the people and their rights. That has been indicated by other hon. members. I ran as a candidate and was elected to the thirtieth parliament. I do not know whether I was on a list or not.
There has been nothing said here today which might be amplified and defined in committee that there was the surveillance of X number of Canadians. We have 264 members here, and a possible 1,200 candidates running for these 264 positions at the polls. However, hearing the speech made by the Prime Minister, with respect, I feel compelled to contribute my few cents worth here today. It is in a bemused way that I do so, with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister suggesting that this matter be referred to the McDonald commission. Yet, the Prime Minister, quite rightly perhaps, in the time of crisis in 1970, apprehended or otherwise, was most upset at an extra-parliamentary group that was supposed to be concocted and/or suggested to take over certain things.
Today, however, the argument of the government is that this fundamental question of surveillance by the RCMP or the security forces of candidates and members of parliament should be delegated to some other body, a body which is the creature of this institution. Royal commissions are the creatures of parliament, and surely we are the highest court in the land.
The thing that has interested me throughout this whole debate on privilege, and which to me is almost the proof of the pudding, is that usually on points of privilege we can rattle on and wax eloquently, quoting precedent after precedent from
[Mr. Nowlan.l
the Mother of Parliaments. We go back to Beauchesne, to May, to the Mother of Parliaments; we go to the River Thames and paddle our canoes up and down, and reach into the dusty tomes of parliamentary precedents from the Mother of Parliaments. However, so far in this debate I have not heard one speaker, especially from the government side, even mention any parliamentary precedents.
The question which Your Honour has to face is so extraordinarily unique that it has never come up before. Can any of us visualize the Mother of Parliaments debating whether Scotland Yard or M-15, or whatever they call themselves, has a list of instructions to be followed on surveillance of candidates in a general election? Just propose the question, Mr. Speaker, in a rhetorical way, and think in a most subdued fashion, and it makes it seem so ridiculous. Yet, it having come up and it being there, regardless of what the precedent was, as the hon. member for New Westminster said, you obviously do not condone pernicious practice just because of knowledge. Once it comes out in the open something must be done about it, and it is with that that Your Honour is faced. That is what the members who have participated in this debate have tried to argue.
The point confronting Your Honour is so unique and extraordinary that no one has even touched on it, because the Mother of Parliaments never would have such an invidious situation as debating instructions to the RCMP on surveillance. The Prime Minister says it has been going on for over 30 years. I do not know when that code of instructions was defined, how it was defined, and as the member for Halifax says, "what are the implications of some of the words." Those are questions, Mr. Speaker, that only we can answer in committee. There may have been many names go through this parliament. We just cannot abdicate our responsibility to look into this. I do not know what this parliament is finally going to be called, but I would hate to see it called a mock parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) for having raised this point of privilege. We do not know how much longer we are going to be here, but if it should turn out that this is the last intervention by the hon. member, then it is certainly one to his credit.
1 do not feel the necessity to repeat the arguments that have been made in support of the point of privilege, that has been raised, because the case has been made very effectively. As someone has said, if there is a benefit of the doubt it ought to be accorded to the rights and privileges of this institution. I would argue that if there is any question of steps being taken by the executive or by the police that have any bearing on the operation of this institution, whether we are thinking of members who are successful in getting here or those candidates who also ran, this ought to be examined by a committee of this House of Commons.
However, sir, I rose to make a particular plea, and it relates to something to which reference has been made a few times already. I should like to make the point very strongly, especially in light of the Prime Minister's urging that this matter not
May 2, 1978

be dealt with on a partisan basis. That is a plea on his part that can be met.
I well recall the day when Mr. Speaker's rulings were appealable, and we appealed them by the dozen. I recall one year in particular. It did not do very much for the authority of the Chair or the dignity of parliament, and I have to say, as one who asked for many of those appeals, that they were highly partisan and highly political. Things have been greatly improved because Mr. Speaker's rulings can no longer be appealed. The Speakers we have had since the rule was changed have been much more concerned and much more responsible about the rulings they have given.
In this situation we have a hangover fom the former regime. Your Honour must rule whether or not, in your view, there is a point of privilege, and then you must put it to the House of Commons as to whether or not the matter will be referred to a committee. We have had an instance in this very session where Your Honour ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege. It related to a matter raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). It became the subject of a partisan vote and, in effect, a ruling made by the Chair after deep consideration and several days of reflection was set aside. We should carry over the practice we have adopted with regard to rulings by the Chair on points of order. We should apply this practice to this situation. We cannot change the rules this afternoon, but at least we can get back to the tradition that has been established that when Mr. Speaker finds there is a prima facie case of privilege the House accepts that decision and allows the matter to go to committee.
I earnestly hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will rule that the member for Halifax has a prima facie case of privilege, and if you do so, I earnestly hope that this House of Commons will have respect for that decision and not put it to a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope hon. members will understand that I would like to take some time to consider this matter. Reference has been made in the discussion this afternoon to previous dispositions on similar matters, which perhaps may be important if for no other reason than that they indicate my attitude toward this entire question of surveillance which, as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) pointed out, is a new area entirely.
As to the case of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the House knows that I looked upon that as a matter which had never been dealt with under the umbrella of privilege before, because it involved electronic surveillance, which is a new problem to us. Therefore, I was very much inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in those circumstances to the argument put forward that any suggestion of interference by electronic means with members of the House of Commons ought to be examined in such a way as to give the doubt to the favourable interpretation of that and in such a way that the House would be put to the decision of whether or not the particular case ought to be sent to committee.
In the similar situation here, this motion raises a new problem and therefore the initial disposition that I made is,
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
again, an indication of the importance that I attach to any suggestion that any members of this House-and whether that extends to candidates may be something for some considerable thought when I do make the final decision-are the object of surveillance because I could have brushed aside the motion on procedural grounds. However, that would not have done justice to the very important matter that lies at the core of this subject, and hence we have arrived at this point.
I wish I could say that these were all the difficulties I was going to have, but obviously there are some very fundamental questions such as whether, when parliament is dissolved, there are members of parliament to be interfered with, and whether candidates for membership of this House and members of this House stand on the same footing in respect of the classic definition of privilege. To put the argument another way, it would be technical in the extreme to consider that those who are candidates are not logical extensions of the people who succeed as candidates and become members. I do not know how to resolve that argument at the present time.
Whether having some procedure in the office of the RCMP for calling the attention of the security forces to anyone who puts himself forward amounts to surveillance in the terms of the motion, is another question that I must resolve. Then, if I have resolved all those matters, I have not only to find whether there is a fundamental question of privilege in such a way as to determine whether a decision should be made for or against the motion, obviously, but to decide whether the motion ought to be put as a normal motion, with the usual notice, under normal conditions, or whether it ought to enjoy priority and be put by the Chair forthwith over any other business because it has attached to it that essence of privilege which gives it priority. These are the decisions I have to make and I will want some time to sort the very valuable arguments that have been advanced.
I want to reiterate that the arguments have been very helpful. If I had not thought at the start that there was an extremely important and fundamental matter at the core of this motion presented by the hon. member for Halifax, I could have simply dismissed it out of hand, on procedural grounds last Thursday or Friday, but I preferred to see the matter argued today, and I shall try to come to a conclusion as quickly as I can.


MR. HUNTINGTON-LEGAL PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED BY VANCOUVER BRANCH OF CUPW
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, to explain the background of my question of privilege, I must go back to a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which took place on Thursday, May 5, 1977, at which the Post Office estimates were being considered. For some years I had been deeply concerned, and I still am, about the activities of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, particularly as they affect the city of Vancouver. I have long been convinced that the leadership of the union in Vancouver is

May 2, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
controlled by revolutionaries and agitators whose principal aim is to create havoc in the postal system and disrupt the economy in general.
At the committee meeting on May 5, 1977, I expressed certain views, and passed on certain information which had come into my possession, to the then postmaster general, currently the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), who was appearing before the committee. I said, inter alia:
We in Vancouver know that there are a small number of radicals running the union affairs, to the consternation of many of the people within that union. So I would say we need some democracy in union affairs, and perhaps you might give consideration to initiating something like that.
I had, and still have, a thick file of evidence to support the contentions I expressed at that meeting. Much of the information I have has come to me from postal workers themselves, the honest rank and file who seek only to do a day's work for a day's pay without harassment and intimidation, and who are as troubled as I am by the activities of their own union leadership. I have documented evidence of the theft of registered mail, destruction and opening of mail, deliberate encouragement of on-the-job slacking, distribution of inflammatory pamphlets, and other abuses. One conclusion I arrived at, and which I have expressed publicly several times, is that 45 per cent of the union membership has been denied any voice in union affairs. It goes without saying that nothing would induce me to identify my informants and thus expose them to victimization.
On the day following the committee meeting, Friday, May 6, 1977, and later, on or about May 16,1 participated in radio talk shows hosted by Ed Murphy, at which I repeated the substance of my remarks at the committee meeting and answered questions phoned in by callers. At the first of them I said there were about 30 radicals in and around the union leadership of the Vancouver postal workers, and I named some of them. At the second talk show, a press release by Mr. Peter Whitaker, president of the Vancouver local of the union, was read out. He denied my allegations and accused me of conducting "a despicable witch hunt, reminiscent of the McCarthy era." He demanded a retraction from me. Needless to say, I refused to withdraw anything I had said, pointing out that I had collected a mass of material which supported my contentions.
I might add that I raised this matter of national concern some years ago when the Hon. Bryce Mackasey held office as postmaster general. I privately met with and turned over to Mr. Mackasey the information and material I had concerning the behavioural problems that existed within the Vancouver post office. I took a very low key attitude at that time. I was not seeking confrontation but a resolution of the problems besetting the Post Office, and that remains my position.
During the postal strike of 1975-at about the time the government offer was to be voted on-the union leadership in Vancouver denied those members who had crossed the picket line the right to vote on the government offer. As a local member of parliament I was approached by a group of inside postal workers and was asked for advice. The advice given was

that they should get an injunction against the union, and I assisted these union members with that procedure. It was at this time that I became concerned with the threat to the democratic process of their union affairs.
At the committee meeting to which I referred, the present Solicitor General said:
I am very pleased with the way this meeting has gone because you have identified problems that we are very much aware of.
This suggests that, as far as he was concerned at least, nobody at the meeting was attempting to launch a witch hunt.
Following the first of the talk shows, a meeting with the vice-president of the union local, to which I had agreed, failed to materialize because, I was informed, the union had decided to take alternative action. This action was the issuing of Mr. Whitaker's press statement, prepared I believe by the union's lawyer, Mr. Stewart Rush, and the demand for a retraction which I refused to make. The union then proceeded to issue a writ against me which was finally served on July 26, 1977.
The writ was broadly worded and sought damages for slander, defamation and innuendo, and an injunction to restrain me from further speaking, circulating, broadcasting or causing to be broadcast or circulating or publishing the said or any similar slander, defamatory statement or malicious falsehood or innuendo.
What was particularly odd was the length of time it took them to serve the writ. During the intervening weeks I was readily available, either in Vancouver or Ottawa, and I made no attempt to conceal my movements. Nevertheless, various attempts were made to serve the writ at places where I did not happen to be, and it was suggested by the union's lawyer that I was attempting to evade having it served on me. This was patent nonsense, and I gave them the name of my solicitors. As described, it was couched in very broad terms and I instructed my lawyers to prepare a defence and file an appearance.
Nothing further happened until April 4, 1978, when a statement of claim was filed, the plaintiffs being Mr. Peter Whitaker, whom I at no time identified as being a radical, and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
My lawyers had advised me as follows:
Their delay in filing a statement of claim indicated to us that they weren't intending to proceed. However, after a delay of 252 days they have done so and we must face it by filing a defence.
It is interesting that the filing of the statement of claim was made on the eve of an anticipated election call.
The terms of the statement of claim are much narrower than those of the writ in that it is alleged that Peter Whitaker has been greatly injured in his general character, credit and reputation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to restrict the hon. member unduly, but I do not think the House is as much interested in the merits of his case as in the point at which he feels his privileges or the privileges of other members are being affected. I would ask the hon. member to concentrate upon that.
May 2, 1978


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am very close to that. However, I would like to point out that this is not a civil law suit-I can deal with those-this has political overtones and that is the reason I have raised the matter today. However, the complaint of the union is much less specific, alleging that:
The defendant intended to deprecate the operation of the union and to prevent it from carrying out its lawful activities as a bargaining agent on behalf of its members.
So far I have stated the facts of the case. I come now to my complaint of privilege. I believe that I am the victim of harassment and attempted intimidation by the union in that, by their tactics and the inexplicable length of time which it has taken them to pursue their case, they are obstructing me in my parliamentary duties.
I have been forced to spend a great deal of time and to incur considerable expenses in respect of a law suit which, I believe, is being deliberately drawn out as long as possible, and which may never even come to trial. My lawyers agree that this is strange behaviour on their part. I have no apprehensions about defending myself in court, and indeed I should like to resolve the issue once and for all, but I am deeply concerned at the extent to which this matter is consuming valuable time which, as a busy member of parliament, I cannot spare. I believe also that I am being subjected to a form of pressure the purpose of which is to silence me and to prevent me from publicizing the information I have concerning the activities of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
The condition of the Post Office is a matter of grave national importance. Some of the things which are happening cry out to be exposed, and members of parliament have both the right and the duty to speak out on any matter affecting national interest. Should trade unionists, corporate officers, or anyone else, ever succeed in muzzling the elected representatives of the people, it would be the end of parliamentary democracy in this country. I can think of no greater threat to the well-being of this nation than to allow this kind of obstruction and intimidation to succeed.
I recognize that it is the right of any citizen to seek redress if he believes he has been slandered or libelled. But he has to have solid grounds to support his case. I believe that in the present situation there are unusual circumstances because, as a member of parliament, I am being harassed in relation to a stand I have taken on a matter of undeniable public concern.
My complaint of privilege calls upon two principles; first of all a member's right to protection from obstruction in the pursuit of his duty and, secondly, the concept of what constitutes a proceeding in parliament.
Freedom from molestation is an ancient parliamentary privilege which, although it has never been defined, has been very widely interpreted. A former Clerk of the British House of Commons, Sir Gilbert Campion, interpreted molestation as:
... including not only assaulting or insulting members, or challenging them to fight on account of their conduct in parliament, but even attempting to influence them in their parliamentary conduct by improper means.
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
I have taken this quotation from a memorandum by Mr. L. A. Abraham which was submitted to the British Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege whose report was published on December 1, 1967. The words I have quoted appear on page 93 of that report. The committee devoted four paragraphs of its report to the concept of "freedom from molestation", and described it as "doubtful and unclear". They recommended that the use of the expression be discontinued in order to avoid confusion, pointing out that a member's right to protection against conduct amounting to improper obstruction, which was undeniable, amounted to much the same thing. The relevant paragraphs are numbered 109-112 in the committee's report.
This committee also dealt with the citizen's right to make fair comment on a matter of public interest. It added the following reservation, however:
But if the rights of a citizen, though enforceable in the courts of law, are so exercised as to be likely improperly to obstruct the member in the performance of his parliamentary duty, it must be within the power of the House to restrain him.
This observation appears in paragraph 46 of the report. I submit that the actions of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers are calculated to obstruct me in the performance of my parliamentary duties.
I would like to turn now to the question of what constitutes a proceeding in parliament. This is a term which has apparently never been defined, although it seems clear that there are circumstances in which a matter arising outside parliament may be treated as a proceeding in parliament. There is one important Canadian precedent involving the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a former minister of energy, mines and resources, the present Senator John Greene.
The case, which occurred in 1970, concerned the sale to the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited of certain shares owned or controlled by Mr. Stephen B. Roman and the Roman Corporation in Denison Mines Limited. The Prime Minister and his colleague advised the House of Commons that legislation might be presented to prevent the sale because it would result in a substantial interest in Denison Mines Limited passing into non-Canadian hands. Subsequent to the declarations made in the House, the minister of energy, mines and resources issued a press release repeating substantially what he had said in the House. The Prime Minister sent a telegram to Mr. Roman referring at length to his colleague's statement in the House.
Mr. Roman and the Roman Corporation sued the Prime Minister and the minister of energy, mines and resources for damages arising out of changes in government policy which resulted in the cancellation of the agreement with the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the press release and the telegram were extensions of statements made in the House of Commons and were therefore equally privileged. The decision was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1971, and by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973. In support of his judgment in the Ontario High Court, Mr. Justice Houlden quoted from a 1963

May 2, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which reads as follows:
The most, perhaps, that can be said is that, despite reluctance to treat a member's privilege as going beyond anything that is essential, it is generally recognized that it is impossible to regard his only proper functions as a member as being confined to what he does on the floor of the House itself.
I realize that against this judgment there are others where the decision has been that words spoken in the House when repeated outside the Chamber were not protected by privilege. I submit, nevertheless, that the judgment in the Denison Mines case is an important one and established beyond doubt that in certain situations a matter arising outside parliament can constitute a proceeding in parliament.
In relation to this aspect of the matter, I should also like to cite a British case of 1957 in which a member of the House of Commons wrote a letter to a minister criticizing certain alleged practices of the London Electricity Board. The minister referred the letter to the Board for their comments, whereupon the Board threatened to take libel action against the member if he did not withdraw the allegations made in the letter. The member concerned, Mr. George Strauss, raised a complaint of privilege and the matter was referred to the committee of privileges. The finding of the committee was that Mr. Strauss's letter to the minister constituted a proceeding in parliament and that the Board's threat of libel action against Mr. Strauss constituted a breach of privilege. However, when the House came to debate the report it took the unusual step of rejecting its committee's recommendation by the narrow vote of 219 to 196.
The Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of 1967, to which I have already referred, made some highly significant observations with regard to this case. It referred to it as:
A classic case in which the House acted upon principles contrary to those which, if your committee's recommendations are accepted, will in future be followed.
It continued:
If the House had acted upon the principles which, in your committee's view, ought in future to be followed, it would have asked itself the question "Is this threat, maintained as it has been, a contempt of parliament, that is, an improper obstruction which is likely substantially to interfere with the parliamentary duty of the member affected?"
In fact, however, the committee of privileges to which the matter was referred did not ask this question at all. Instead it asked itself three questions. The decisive one was:
Was Mr. Strauss's letter to the minister a "proceeding in parliament" within the meaning of the Bill of Rights? The committee concluded that it was a "proceeding in parliament" and "therefore" recommended to the House that the action of the Board in threatening proceeding for libel constituted a "breach of privilege".... The sole basis of controversy before the House was whether or not the letter was a "proceeding in parliament".
Accordingly, as it appears to your committee, the House in that case failed to ask itself a question which was material to its powers and which might possibly have been answered in a manner favourable to the member's complaint. It would have been open to the House to hold that the threat by the Board to institute proceedings for libel against Mr. Strauss if he did not withdraw the allegations contained in his letter to the minister was so improper an attempt to obstruct the member in his parliamentary duty as to amount to a contempt of the House.

The paragraphs of the committee's report relevant to this case are numbered 80 to 83. It is also of interest to note that on February 6, 1978, the British House of Commons resolved to bring into immediate effect all the recommendations of this committee which did not require legislation. This resolution followed upon third report from the Standing Committee of Privileges which reviewed the recommendations of the select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and was published on June 14, 1977.
The remarks I made at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on May 5, 1977, were obviously a proceeding in parliament. My remarks in the talk shows which followed arose directly out of what I had said in committee. They were made in good faith, and in the national interest, as I saw it. The subsequent actions against me of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers amount, in my opinion, to harassment. They have certainly obstructed me in the performance of my parliamentary duties by causing me the difficulties I have already described.
People in sensitive areas often seek the aid of their member of parliament. The member must be trusted and must protect the confidence given if effective use is to be made of his position. This is the condition that exists between myself and postal workers who found need to use my office.
What I am seeking is the opportunity to have my peers on the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections assess the general situation as it may be distinguished from some of the existing precedents. There could well be an opportunity for the Committee on Privileges to go into this matter in more detail and to develop jurisprudence, particularly since TV is now in the House and an instant electronic Hansard is now on the airwaves. We have already heard today about new problems.
Such matters of concern, in my opinion, should be referred to the committee almost as a matter of right. If the committee is not to atrophy, it should be given some substantive work, particularly in this era of change in the extension of the proceedings of the House.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is no part of your duty to judge whether a breach of privilege has been committed. I realize that your responsibility is limited to deciding whether or not a complaint should be given precedence over other parliamentary business. What I seek is to have my submission considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am content to let that committee and the House decide whether or not I have a valid case. It is therefore my hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I would like this opportunity to speak briefly to this point. I was present at the meeting of the committee where the incident occurred. The events that have been described were exactly as they took place there. That is not the first time the suggestion has been made that there were activists in the postal union who were making it difficult to bring about a reconciliation of viewpoint between post office management and post office
May 2, 1978

union. The former postmaster general, the Hon. Bryce Mack-asey, made this suggestion from time to time.
I think it would be very useful if the hon. member's motion were accepted and this matter could be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. For example, it would be useful in resolving some of the tension that exists in the Post Office Department at the moment. I say this because there is a movement afoot where responsible members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers are anxious that the confrontation which has persisted far too long should come to an end and that the process of reconciliation should commence. For example, in the Vancouver local, they have elected a new president. The position there is a more moderate one. What took place in Toronto just before Christmas is indicative that the vast majority of postal workers are anxious to get to the root cause of the confrontation that has been expressed so eloquently here by the hon. member who presented this resolution.
I would just bring this matter into focus. I strongly support the recommendation that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I believe a discussion there would have a very beneficial effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has raised a question that is always interesting, that is, the position of a member in speaking for the record of the House for the proceeding in parliament and the definition of a proceeding in parliament as it applies to the immunity from prosecution, particularly in the civil sense, in a lawsuit for libel or slander that may result from any remarks that a member makes in the course of his duties, and whether the precedent as it applies to a proceeding in parliament extends through committees and beyond that, as the hon. member stated today, to matters which flow directly from that particular proceeding in parliament.
There are, however, a number of other difficulties that will require some considerable research, not the least of which is whether this House at this stage should take any steps which would interfere with the prosecution of a lawsuit that is duly constituted in the courts. Whether the lawsuit is with or without merit, as the hon. member has argued, and whether it is proceeded with diligently or intermittently is a matter for the courts once the matter is before the courts.
The hon. member has raised several matters which may be more germane to the defence of the action than they are to an argument on privilege. Again that is a difficulty. I do not make a final decision on that. In the final analysis, I am not sure if any relief could be offered to the member by this House in any case, even if the House were to decide that the matter may have privilege surrounding it in such a way that it should be considered on a priority basis by the House and, if the decision were made to move it to the committee, whether that in any way could interfere with the progress of the lawsuit.
Those are all questions that would have to be answered. They certainly will require some considerable research which I
Introduction of Bills
would be glad to undertake on the hon. member's behalf just as soon as I can get out of the chair this afternoon.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-452, to amend the Canada Labour Code (right to work).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to protect an individual's right to work, thereby ensuring an individual's right to join and maintain membership in a union, and also an equal right not to join or maintain membership in a union. This right to work legislation will protect the basic right of individuals to choose either membership or non-membership in a labour organization. It does not, however, interfere in any way with legitimate union activity, nor does it restrict the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers.
This bill would provide the basic right of citizens to earn their livelihood as voluntary union members or as non-union members, and it would guarantee that no individual could be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of membership or non-membership in any labour organization.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 940, 1,199, 1,269, 1,380, 1,408 and 1,420.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What was the total cost for the construction of the Mirabel Airport and what is a breakdown of such costs?
2.	Since the Airport has been in operation what was the monthly (a) cost (b) revenue (c) profit or loss?
3.	Are the costs to amortize the debt for costs of construction taken into consideration in such a figure and, if so, what are the particulars and details of each item?
5074

May 2, 1978
Order Paper Questions
4.	What were the estimated or planned revenues and expenses and net annual and monthly profits or loss when the decision to build the Airport was made?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Total construction and land acquisition expenditures at Mirabel to March 31, 1977 are as follows:
	(SOOO's)
Land	23,177
Terminals and facilities	107,172
Runways and other paved surfaces	110,712
Machinery and Equipment	11,591
Development including capitalized interest	82,236
Unallocated construction costs	30,748
	365,636
* Cost of construction not allocated to classifications of assets as at March 31, 1977.
2.	Formal profit and loss statements are prepared for the periods ending September 30, December 31 and March 31. Revenues, costs and profits (losses) for the aforementioned periods, since the airport has been in operation, are as follows:
1975/76 Fiscal Year	($000's) 1976/77 Fiscal Year	1977/78 Fiscal YearDec. 1 /75	Dec. 1/75	Apr. 1 /76	Apr. 1 /76	Apr. 1/76	Apr. 1/77to	to	to	to	to	toDec. 31/75	Mar. 31/76 Sept. 30/76	Dec. 31/76	Mar. 31/77 Sept. 30/77	Revenue	1,663	5,581	13,287	19,778	24,972	13,583Less.	Interest	2,412	8,084	14,472	21,514	29,066	16,029expense	Depreciation	1,495	6.044	7,172	13,582	16,125	8,142Other	expenses	1,297	9,835	10,805	17,804	29,602	10,088Profit	(loss)	(3,541)	(18,382)	(19,162)	(33,122)	(49,821)	(20,676)3.	Costs of construction are being amortized through annual depreciation charges to operations, as specified in the above schedule. Costs of financing the debt are shown in the same schedule as interest expense.4.	Revenues, expenses, profits and losses projected for the planning of Mirabel are as follows:
S Millions
1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81
Revenue	20.0	23.3	27.0	31.3	42.3	46.9	52.2
Less:							
Interest	15.3	15.2	15.0	15.4	16.7	18.5	17.2
expense							
Depreciation	13.8	14.1	14.3	15.2	16.7	13.5	13.6Other expenses	11.5	11.7	11.9	12.6	14.0	15.5	16.0Profit (loss)	(20.6)	(17.7)	(14.2)	(11.9)	(5.1)	(.6)	5.4
Costs are on a 1970 basis with no provision for escalation.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government aware of the recent statement by Mr. Keith Spicer, former Commissioner of Official Languages, to the University of Victoria, that the government "blew a billion dollars" in second language training and is the figure accurate and (a) if so, what is its breakdown under such headings as cost of language schools, compensation to departments for replacing employees absent on language training, second language training in the Armed Forces, costs in all departments for bilingual services branches (b) if not, what is the accurate figure and what is the breakdown under the previous mentioned headings?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: (a) Yes, the government is aware of Mr. Spicer's recent statement but his figure is not accurate, (b) Until 1976-77, some direct and indirect costs of the official languages training program were neither specifically identified in departmental budgets nor independently collected. This includes part-time in-house courses and other administrative costs of the program. Recognizing the unavailability of some of these costs for part of the period covered, the total language training costs from 1970-71 to 1976-77 inclusive are listed below. The period for which these figures apply is given in parentheses.
i.	Costs of Language Schools	($.000)	PeriodPublic Service Commission	145,276	(70-71 to 76-77)Language Bureau courses Courses organized in	6,389	(1976-77)departments/agencies Armed Forces	86,670	(72-73 to 76-77)i.(D	Capital and Leasing Costs	Public Service Commission Schools	20,057	(72-73 to 76-77)Departments/Agencies	331	(76-77)Armed Forces	14,529	(72-73 to 76-77)2.	Compensation to departments for	replacing employees absent on language training	Public service	93,589	(72-73 to 76-77)departments/agencies Armed forces	6,419	(72-73 to 76-77)3.	Costs in all departments for bilingual	services branches	Departments/Agencies	11,828	(1976-77)Armed Forces	3,963	(1976-77)Total	389,051


Mr. Epp: To date, were any grants made to feed mills in the Constituency of Provencher and, if so (a) in what amount (b) who were the owners or sponsors of such mills?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: on March 12, 1974, an incentive offer, under the terms of the Regional Development Incentives Act, in the amount of $41,443, was accepted by Mr. J. Koslowsky, president of the Niverville Feed and Farm Supply Ltd., Niverville, Manitoba.


May 2, 1978

In so far as the Departments of Agriculture and Industry, Trade and Commerce are concerned: nil.


Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska): Since 1970, did the Department of Public Works allocate funds for the development, repair or for any other work on the piers in the Constituency of Kamouraska and, if so, in what amount?


J. Judd Buchanan: As of February 28, 1978 Public Works Canada had the following expenditures on marine projects in the constituency of Kamouraska: 1971/ 72, $8,893; 1972/73, $5,431; 1975/76, $868.
Information prior to April 1, 1971, is not available as per the Government of Canada's records disposal schedule.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount contributed (a) by employees (b) by the government, to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the year from April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977?
2.	What was the total amount paid of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account, during the year from April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977, in the form of pension supplements, and to how many individuals were such pension supplements paid at any time during that period?
3.	What was the balance at credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account as at March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.	(a) $35,595,962; (b) $35,595,962.
2.	Pension supplements totalling $131,086,109 were paid to 116,240 individuals during fiscal year 1976-77. Of this amount $5,502,323 was charged to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account and $125,583,786 was charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
3.	(a) $130,258,518; (b) $205,928,464.


Mr. Herbert: Does the government maintain records or are estimates prepared of the number of persons that are holding two jobs and, if so, are these kept by sex and age groups and has there been any recent change in relation to the size of the work force?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: the labour force survey carried out by Statistics Canada provides monthly estimates of the number of persons holding two or more jobs. The estimates, by sex and age group, are published each month in The Labour Force, Statistics Canada, catalogue No. 71-001. Estimates for February for the years 1975-1978 are as follows:
Order Paper Questions
Multiple Jobholders by Age, by Sex, for Canada February 1975, 76, 77, and 78 (in thousands)
Feb.1975	Feb. 1976	Feb. 1977	Feb. 1978All ages	142	150	160	163Men	15-24 years	20	24	28	2625 years plus	121	126	132	137All ages	46	49	52	61Women	15-24 years	12	16	14	2025 years plus	34	33	38	41Total multiple jobholders	187	199	212	224Per cent of total labour force	1.9	2.0	2.1	2.1Per cent of total employment	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.3


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 102 and 1,352 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 102 and 1,352 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Herbert: What was the maximum number of casual or seasonal employees employed by each department during the past twelve months and how many had been employed for a total period exceeding six months?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the list of all aircraft landing and taking off at Dorval Airport including times on arrival and departure, points of origin and flight plan destinations on January 19, 1978?
2.	Were any of the aircraft camouflaged or painted in a brown colour, no numbers, etc. and, if so (a) for what reason and how many (b) how many similar aircraft passed through the same Airport in the two days previous to January 19, 1978 and, in each case, what was the (i) nature of the contents of the aircraft (ii) nationality of the aircraft?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
80038-31'A

May 2, 1978
Railway Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Fisheries-Irish moss fishery in Maritimes; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Fisheries-British Columbia-Seasonal employment for nationals of other countries; the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone)-Canada Council-Guidelines for allocation of grants.
It being Five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent to proceed with consideration of Bill C-213 and that the previous bill be allowed to stand.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-213 and that other bills will retain their order of priority on the order paper, unprejudiced by our proceeding with this bill at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West) moved: that Bill C-213, to amend the Railway Act (definitions), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in beginning debate on my private member's bill I think a brief history relating to the reason for introducing this bill is essential to the understanding of its purpose and intent.

Before the turn of the century, in the 1880's, a number of small railway companies were formed in Kootenay West to serve mining communities and mines near Kootenay Lake and Slocan Lake. These lines were leased to the CPR over a period of years.
In 1898 the CPR leased, in perpetuity, a line from Proctor to Nelson built by the British Columbia Southern Railway Company. In 1903 the CPR leased, for 999 years, the line built by the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company, and in 1921 the CPR leased the line from Kaslo to Sandon built by the Kaslo and Slocan Railway.
This network of railway lines led to and from Kootenay Lake to connect with the CPR's rail barge link which operated until July 31, 1975, at which time the CPR abandoned the service.
Why a rail barge? Why not a railway? The decision to employ a rail barge made good economic sense. It was a relatively short haul by water of some 20 to 25 miles. The alternative would have been a rail line down the west side of the lake of some 50 miles to Nelson, or up to the head of the lake to the eastern shore and thence to Creston, about 150 miles. In both cases the rail line would have traversed forbidding terrain, with enormous engineering problems.
After the CPR abandonment I appealed to the Rail Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission to hold a hearing regarding the abandonment. The committee denied the hearing on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction. In the fall of 1975 the Rail Transport Committee agreed to accept arguments as to whether or not it had jurisdiction. The CPR submitted its case, I submitted mine based on considerable research and study, and the province of British Columbia submitted its brief in support of my position.
A year later, in October of 1976, the Rail Transport Committee decided that on the basis of arguments presented and the committee's own careful study, it indeed has jurisdiction over rail barges and that they were indeed an integral part of a railway line. The committee then ordered the CP rail barge back into service. The CPR appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Canada in Vancouver in September of 1977, and won its appeal. The Rail Transport Committee presented argument, as did the ministry of the attorney general of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Basford). Again, the rail barge service was abandoned. In December of 1977 the Attorney General of Canada asked the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the case to the highest court of the land-save parliament-the Supreme Court of Canada. The appeal was granted, and the case will be heard this year in the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the particular case of the rail barge service on Kootenay Lake there is no doubt that Canadian Pacific Limited of today succeeded to the right and obligation to operate and maintain such barges from a railway which was given this right and obligation under the umbrella of a federal act.
Confirmation that the barge service on Kootenay Lake is part of a railway is also found in a letter of the general
May 2, 1978

solicitor of the Canadian Pacific Railway addressed to the Board of Transport Commissioners dated March 19, 1942, promising to continue the barge and boat service "as heretofore". There can be no other reason why the Canadian Pacific Railway should make such a commitment to the Board of Transport Commissioners other than that the Canadian Pacific Railway considered the barge and boat service to be under the authority of the Board of Transport Commissioners. It does not now lie in the mouth of Canadian Pacific Limited to argue that the rail barge service is an entity which is separate and severable from the rail service. The judicial principle of estoppel applies to any such argument. The authority of the Board of Transport Commissioners was passed to the Railway Transport Committee of today when the Board of Railway Commissioners turned into the Railway Transport Committee in 1966-67.
We can list an additional modern case where a rail barge service or a water-going vessel is considered to be a part of a railway. The Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada Act, 13 George VI, Chapter 1, to approve the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, assented to on February 18, 1949, considers, under term 33(a), the barge and boat service between Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, to be a part of a railway.
Taking note of section 21 of the National Transportation Act, we find that it is the duty of the Canadian Transport Commission to perform functions vested in that act as well as the Railway Act and Transport Act, with the aim of coordinating and harmonizing the operations of all carriers. Section 23(4) of the same act states, furthermore, that the Canadian Transport Commission can rule on the prejudicial effects of any actions taken by the transport industry.
Finally, it would be a violation of common sense to consider each part of a railway as a work differing radically in kind from each other part, to the point where we introduce the possibility that many different jurisdictions have control over each segment. It seems clear that these features of any given work which form an essential link, without which that given work could not reach its ultimate aims, must be considered to be an integral part of that work. Therefore, it follows that any claim that we can arbitrarily divide that work for the purposes of legal jurisdiction must be rejected.
A railway line has as its ultimate purpose and effect to provide a continuous stream of motion of goods. Because it is the duty of the Railway Transport Committee to work for the regulation and efficiency of such a stream of goods, it is absurd to consider any one given integral part of any given line as not being within its jurisdiction. Certainly, there is no question as to a rail barge differing radically from the rest of the line since it actually has rails affixed to it, uses railway cars on its surface, has rails which connect to corresponding ones on dry land, and has locomotives used on it. A rail barge is essentially a rail bed which floats between two designated points without deviation.
Railway Act
There is one vital issue which lies in the shadow of this bill.
In 1975, I, the MLA for Revelstoke-Slocan, Bill King, and concerned citizens and businessmen appeared before the Rail Transport Committee in Nakusp, B.C., on an application by the CPR to abandon a rail line between Denver Canyon and Nakusp used for hauling freight. We were successful in persuading the RTC to rule in our favour, and accordingly the CPR was ordered to upgrade and maintain the rail line and apply for a subsidy. That rail line lies in the next north-south valley to the west of Kootenay Lake. This line is serviced by a rail barge link between Slocan and Denver Canyon, a distance of approximately 20 miles, on Slocan Lake. Again, as on the Kootenay Lake, it was done for sound reasons of economy. A rail line would have to be constructed along the edge of Slocan Lake which, on much of its east side terrain is virtually perpendicular.
The point is that if the rail barge on Kootenay Lake can be abandoned with impunity, then also the CPR can abandon the rail barge link on Slocan Lake with impunity. Once that has been done, the CPR can, by default, defeat the purpose and intent of the ruling by the Rail Transport Committee that the CPR must maintain the Denver Canyon-Nakusp rail line. The CPR will point to the line and say, "Look, it starts nowhere and it goes nowhere." It follows that the abandonment of the Slocan Lake rail barge service will be followed immediately by an application to abandon the Denver Canyon-Nakusp rail link.
Surely that is not the intent or wish of the Rail Transport Committee, or indeed of parliament. I therefore urge that members on the government side allow this bill to go before the parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in order to plug this loophole in the Railway Act.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, there might be general agreement today that economic issues are the most pressing ones facing the country at this time. Certainly my priority is jobs and I will support any economic program aimed at stimulating the economy. Indeed, I will press for economic initiatives from the government, especially with respect to the automotive industry. Nevertheless, there are other problems confronting the country, one of which is transportation problems of all kinds.
I have presented one of these to the House in Bill C-439, which I trust will come up for debate later in the session, in which I try to ensure that the jurisdiction of the CTC with respect to rehearing of cases is limited in the same way as that of courts.
Bill C-213 has its roots in a specific case involving CP Rail's intent to discontinue a rail car barge operation on Kootenay Lake, British Columbia. CP Rail has operated a steamer service from Lardeau to various points along Kootenay Lake, including Kaslo and Procter, B.C., moving loaded or empty railway cars between points on the lake, thus avoiding the

May 2, 1978
Railway Act
expense of joining these points by a continuous railway line around the lake.
In 1942 the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada granted CP Rail permission to abandon parts of its railway line system between Lardeau and Gerrard, B.C., that extended north from Kootenay Lake. Prior to the abandonment approval, the CP general solicitor had advised the Board that CP would continue to operate the boat and barge service to Lardeau as before, and the company did so for 33 years until July 31, 1975, when CP Rail decided to discontinue its barge service between Procter, Kaslo, and Lardeau on Kootenay Lake.
The Canadian Transport Commission was requested to order CP Rail to reinstate the barge service. After a preliminary examiniation, the Railway Transport Committee of the CTC indicated that it did not have jurisdiction over the barge service and that it could not, therefore, require CP Rail not to discontinue the service.
Due to the expressed concern of interested parties, including the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), the Railway Transport Committee issued a notice on November 18, 1975, stating it would reconsider the matter and inviting all interested parties to make written representation: on the general subject of the extent of the committee's jurisdiction in so far as it relates to rail barges and ... whether or not a rail barge is a "branch line or segment thereof' pursuant to section 252 of the Railway Act.
I understand that several submissions, notably those from the hon. member and the government of British Columbia, supported the position of the CTC and jurisdiction.


Robert Hylton Brisco: And the Government of Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who wrote that for you?


Mark R. MacGuigan: On the other hand, CP Rail, CN, and the Minister of Transport for the province of Quebec argued the contrary, that the Commission did not have jurisdiction.
On October 18, 1976, the Railway Transport Committee issued its decision stating reasons why it had full jurisdiction to deal with the discontinuance of the CP Rail barge service on Kootenay Lake and, as a result, ordered CP Rail to resume the operation.
CP Rail appealed this decision of the Railway Transport Committee to the Federal Court of Appeal. The court heard arguments in Vancouver and, on September 30, 1977, held that the Railway Transport Committee of the CTC was without jurisdiction to order CP Rail to reinstate and resume rail barge service on Kootenay Lake.
The Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Basford) then sought leave of the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, and leave to appeal was granted last December 14 by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The jurisdictional question is a difficult one, and I certainly share the concern of the hon. member for Kootenay West about the problem which this jurisdictional question has created on Kootenay Lake. The bill as written, however, creates

certain difficulties in a number of areas which make it inadvisable to proceed with it, especially in light of the fact that we are now awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter.
The principle underlying the purpose of Bill C-213 has merit in attempting to clarify a Railway Transport Committee jurisdictional question. The specific case of the CP Rail barge service on Kootenay Lake would be a desirable area for the jurisdiction of the Railway Transport Committee of the CTC.
There is a need for this jurisdiction, despite the fact that CP Rail operated a barge service connecting its railway lines in the Kootenay area for about 40 years, and, after abandoning some of its railway lines in 1942, continued to provide the barge service for another 35 years.
In the absence of regulatory provisions, it is conceivable that CP Rail could have decided, for valid reasons of its own, to discontinue the service many years before it actually chose to do so in July, 1975.
In offering the barge service to connect its railway lines, CP Rail likely created an expectation of transportation service on the part of shippers and receivers in the area and elsewhere. This in turn may have directly stimulated investments in local industrial opportunities. Without appropriate regulatory mechanisms in place to guard against a unilateral decision to discontinue a service without adequate substitute services in place, the local and other interested party investments could have been seriously jeopardized.
Without adequate regulation, only a moral obligation would rest on CP Rail, and therefore it is indeed important to ascertain whether obligation is imposed on CP Rail under the jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners.
At first glance, the wording of Bill C-213 appears to satisfy the intention to provide the CTC with appropriate jurisdiction over ferries and barges used to transport railway cars. The bill, however, intends to amend a definition of "railway", a term used extensively throughout the Railway Act in which major sections deal with the provisions for construction and commencement of operations.
The wording of any amendment does not clearly ensure that only certain specific rail car ferry services come under the abandonment jurisdiction of the CTC, so as to avoid any implication that the CTC will regulate the abandonment of automobile ferry services or intraprovincial barge and ferry services which are not related to federally regulated railways.
There is good reason to believe that the present definition of "railway" may already be broad enough to include the rail barge, but we have to await the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this point.
One other possible problem with the proposed amendment is how it would apply to certain east coast ferry services. We particularly wish to consider carefully what regulatory authority the Canadian Transport Commission should be given in this area in view of the constitutional obligations of the federal

government to provide ferry services to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. These services effectively link those provinces to the mainland railway system. These obligations are now being fulfilled by Canadian National on behalf of the government, using ferry vessels owned by the federal government. Consideration is being given to the creation of a separate Crown corporation to operate and fulfil the federal government's east coast transportation service obligations and objectives.
In addition, unlike the Kootenay Lake barge operation for railway cars only, the Gulf Ferry Services carry automobiles, trucks, buses, and individual passengers. In other words, there may be some cases where a general CTC jurisdiction over the operation and abandonment of rail car ferry or barge operations, as part of a railway operation, may create problems in policy, jurisdiction and regulatory areas.
However, it is fair to say the government agrees with the general principle that the railway transport committee should have jurisdiction over the abandonment of rail car ferry and barge operations, when these services are directly related to federally regulated railway operations.
Because the Attorney General of Canada has obtained leave of the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, which indicated the Railway Transport Committee of the CTC did not have jurisdiction in the Kootenay Lake case, I believe further deliberations on this bill may not be productive until after the Kootenay Lake test case is finally resolved by the Supreme Court. Only then would a clear statement of the adequacies of the present Railway Act provisions be available to form the basis for the drafting of any appropriate amendments to the act.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). He is a very knowledgeable member, and has a great background in transport and legal matters. Particularly I was interested in hearing him raise the considerations implicit in ferry services in the eastern part of this country which link the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland to the mainland. In the past it has been a matter of great concern, particularly to people of the island provinces, that every time there is a national rail disruption the existing situation governing rail and ferry services automatically exacerbates the situation in those provinces.
In the context of some future debate on a bill like this, I hope the House considers ways and means to make certain, every time there is a national rail tie-up, it does not necessarily tie up rail freight services to Newfoundland or prince Edward Island. I am sure that is beyond the scope of this bill, but I wanted to use this opportunity to put those thoughts forward.
It is a pleasure to speak on this particular piece of legislation because it has a very constructive purpose. Actually it purports to prevent indirectly the abandonment of transport services by CP, in a manner which could not be done directly by virtue of section 253 of the Railway Act. As the hon. member for
Railway Act
Windsor-Walkerville pointed out, one of the catalysts was the action of CPR when it abandoned its railway line and barge service on Kootenay Lake. That service transported railway cars. The abandonment of it caused such a furor that our national television network did a feature film on it. Obviously the transportation disruption occasioned by the action of CP is a matter of great concern to that area. It is in the process of being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Last fall the Attorney General of Canada intervened to assist in this regard.
The judgment of Mr. Justice Le Dain was a very interesting one. As has already been stated, the case was heard in Vancouver. A judgment was given from the bench, and the decision was that the Railway Transport Committee of the CTC was without jurisdiction to order Canadian Pacific to reinstate its rail barge service on Kootenay Lake, thus reversing a previous ruling made by the committee.
Ever since its creation, historically there has been buckpassing between the Department of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission over matters of jurisdiction and definition involving the Railway Act, as well as other federal statutes. In this case, ferry or rail barge services is a key area which needs to be clarified. This very timely bill provides the House of Commons with an opportunity to do just that.
The purpose of this bill is to remove any anomalies which presently exist in the Railway Act. I think that deserves serious consideration by the House. As the learned justices of the Federal Court of Appeal pointed out, certainly these are matters of grave concern in studying the contradictions which are implicit in some of the legislation involving marine and rail transport. To require the railways to justify the abandonment of an obviously outmoded and non-productive branch line, pursuant to section 253 of the Railway Act, and yet to allow them to discontinue service as vital as the one at Kootenay Lake, which is part and parcel of a railway service, is not practical or realistic. We in the House have an opportunity to correct some of those anomalies by virtue of this bill.
In his very comprehensive decision Mr. Justice Le Dain recognized that there was a fundamental difference of legislative policy in respect of the abandonment of rail and water transport services. Therefore it is up to the House of Commons to assist in clarifying this legislative policy. This bill can be of assistance in this regard. The question of jurisdiction on the appeal resolved itself, as was noted by Mr. Justice Le Dain in the question of whether the rail barge service is the operation of a minor railway. He quoted from the findings of fact by the Railway Transport Committee of the CTC, which read as follows:
The barges were first operated to connect various towns situated on Kootenay Lake and the line of railway which ran out of these towns. These barges were an integral part of CPR's undertaking in this area, and as such formed an integral part of CPR's railway system. The barges were built uniquely to accommodate rail traffic. There are rails on each barge which link up with rails on the wharves of each point of origin and of destination, thereby enabling railway cars to be transported from one point on Kootenay Lake to another without themselves being loaded and unloaded.
The barges were never a separate operation from the operation of the railway lines which serve the Kootenay Lake area. They were built with actual rails on them so as to be able to connect directly with the lines of railway at Procter,

May 2, 1978
Railway Act
Kaslo and Lardeau. Without the barges, there would have been no connected and continuous railway system to serve these areas. They were operated, as mentioned above, in place of a railway line along the shore because it was considered to be a more efficient method of transporting rail traffic from one town on the lake to another town on the lake.
Mr. Justice Le Dain made reference to CP's emphasis on the distinction between rail and water transport, as reflected in certain provisions of the Railway Act and the Transport Act. However, the issue which still remains is the operation of the rail barge service and, although it involves a form of water transport, the operation of a line of railway. Mr. Justice Le Dain came down with a decision which indicated that the Railway Transport Committee was without jurisdiction to take the action it did. Therefore it is quite proper for the House of Commons to clarify the legislative anomaly which caused the court to come to this conclusion, and prevent an obvious contradiction if an integrated transportation system were allowed to find a loophole to discontinue a link in the transportation service to a region, thus preventing the railway from doing what it could not do under the clear intent of the Railway Act.
I commend the Attorney General of Canada for this action. Since the government has seen fit, on November 18 of last year, to intervene and to seek leave to appeal the Federal Court decision to the Supreme Court-which leave was granted-I fail to see why, even though the Supreme Court is going to rule on this matter, the House of Commons would not be within its right to move forward and assist the court in changing the definition of "railroad". After all, we are the highest court in the land.
I commend the definition contained in this bill to the House of Commons because it seems to be most straightforward with no semantics and thus an acceptable definition as opposed to the one that exists now. It would not be construed by the Supreme Court of Canada, or anyone else I am sure, as interference or, indeed, as counter productive to what the court is about to do. It would give the court in some respects some assistance. More important than that, it would allow the House of Commons to improve a definition which, by its nature, is one of the most important and critical definitions in any statute, that being just what does constitute the proper definition of a railway.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for presenting this bill and I commend it to the favourable attention of this House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On behalf of my party, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that we support the bill proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). In a few moments I would like to attempt to persuade our colleagues on the government side to allow this bill to pass second reading and at least go to committee. I may not get further than that, but if it got through committee and came back here for third reading, then if the government or government members feel that they do not want it to pass, they can
[Mr. MacKay.l
always put up three speakers at 20 minutes per speaker once every four years and the bill will never pass.
The issue of these rail and passenger ferries as between the continental mainland and appendages to Canada which happen to be islands is not new. Since the 1880's Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk in the early 1900's, and the Grand Trunk Pacific have made great arguments on how these were essential links in their rail systems. The CPR said decades ago that connecting the mainland to Vancouver Island was an essential part of their rail transportation system. In fact, it was part of their terms of reference, and the reason for their existence was to hook up Canada from coast to coast.
Suddenly, a rail ferry system that connects two parts of their rail lines on the ground across a piece of water is no longer relevant. I am no lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and I get a little tired of all the legal nitpicking that goes on, but if it was an essential part of a rail transportation system in the 1880's, 1910's or 1920's, I do not know how it is less essential now. The rail ferries across the Kootenay Lakes is a small part of the whole problem.
I hope my colleague from Kootenay West and his friends can persuade the Conservative government of British Columbia and the Liberal government of Canada that the British Columbia coastal ferries are an essential part of the trans-Canada highway. There should be no argument about that, but the B.C. government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) have opted for a user-pay principle on an essential part of the trans-Canada highway system. How they reconcile that I will never know. I hope the hon. member for Kootenay West can persuade people in Victoria and Ottawa on that matter.
Those passenger and rail ferries are an essential part of our road or rail system, since there are, in fact, large bodies of water inland and islands off our coasts on three sides that require water connections to whatever ground connections there are close by. We are attempting here to make some new law, or at least clarify old law or entrench in old law what has been an obvious fact and practice since the 1880's.
On top of that, the Canadian Transport Commission, which I would hardly call a great friend of the Canadian transport user-it has always been a great friend of the transport companies-ruled in favour of the transportation users. The communities and citizens around the Kootenay Lakes, the present member of parliament for Kootenay West, his predecessor, a provincial member of the legislature and the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission all agree that the demand and need has been very well expressed.
A lower court, after some legal nitpicking on behalf of some CPR counsel, overruled the Canadian Transport Commission, and now the matter is before the Supreme Court because the Department of Justice is appealing it. The Government of Canada is adding its weight to the representations made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, by other people and communities regarding a decision made by the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission.
May 2, 1978

If in appealing it is not obvious that this particular amendment to the Railway Act should go through, I do not know what else can be done. Perhaps we should hit the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) over the head with a cedar post to get his attention. I hope that is not necessary. I see no reason why this bill cannot go through right now on second reading to the standing committee. Whatever treatment it will receive there, it will still have to come back here for the report stage and third reading. If in the wisdom of the government or the parliamentary secretary it should not proceed any further, then the bill can still be stopped in private members' hour because this bill, along with 200 others, will be selected out of a hat in each session of parliament, and if the hon. member is lucky, and if he is still here, and if his bill comes out in the top 30 or 40, it will get called for debate for one hour once every four years.
Let us move on it at least to this extent. If the parliamentary secretary and his minister are worried about usurping or prejudging any decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, I do not think it is a valid concern. The Supreme Court, if and when it hears this case, will make its decision based on the old law, the old practice and the old decisions of the lower courts. However, if this parliament were to pass this amendment to the Railway Act, which is retroactive I believe to 1975-an excellent move on the part of the hon. member for Kootenay West-the Supreme Court will be relieved of a duty which it probably feels it should not have had in the first place. The CPR, CN or any other organization, who for decades have justified these essential water connections, should not be allowed now to turn around 180 degrees and tell us that it is not an essential part of the transportation system. That will not hold water, Mr. Speaker. I urge the parliamentary secretary and his colleagues to let this bill go to the committee. I am particularly anxious to hear the arguments of the CPR, so for that reason if for no other I hope the bill will go through second reading. It has our full support, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speeches with a great deal of interest and I must say, as one who has a great amount of transportation going through his constituency, I always find transportation debates to be of great interest. I can readily understand the view of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) and the difficulties his communities have been faced with as a result of service which they have had available to them for a long period of time being withdrawn by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Unfortunately, it seems to me that those of us who live in the rural areas are constantly facing this problem of services which we have enjoyed and which have formed the centres around which our communities have grown being suddenly and almost unilaterally withdrawn by the transportation industry.
I submit there are probably good and significant reasons for those decisions to be taken, however hurtful they may be to the local communities. For example, one of the most important withdrawals of transportation services affecting the constituen-
Railway Act
cy of Kenora-Rainy River was passenger service on the northern part of the CNR line. That was a decision taken by the Canadian Transport Commission through its railway committee and it is in the process of implementation.
I find that particularly difficult to accept, as do most members who come from northern Ontario, because what has been agreed to under this plan is to put two passenger trains on the CPR line and none on the CNR line. While I am the first to admit that the reasons for using the CPR line are compelling at first glance-that is where the bulk of the population in north western and north eastern Ontario is located-at the same time it leads to a substantial denial of service to a large number of people and communities who have become dependent upon it. The replacement which has been suggested-that is, a three-days-a-week service between Capreol and Winnipeg-is inadequate.
It is this kind of attitude which leads me to support the position of the hon. member for Kootenay West. I can readily understand the frustration which his communities must face and the difficulties which they are confronted with through having an appropriate form of transportation removed. But while I agree with the hon. member in principle, I do not necessarily agree with the way in which he has chosen to proceed. I disagree because I think he ought to have held his bill until the Supreme Court has made its decision.
It seems to me that the Supreme Court-and I speak as a layman, not a lawyer-will make a decision in one of two ways. It will agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West in that it will say that, indeed, the particular instance of which he complains is within the jurisdiction of the Railway Transport Committee. In this event his bill will be superfluous. He will have won his case without it.
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court agrees with the Federal Court, then it strikes me there will be a legislative remedy since the Attorney General of Canada is leading the charge in the Supreme Court against the CPR in support of the Railway Transport Committee. So the hon. member is in the beautiful position, it seems to me, of having won his case no matter what happens to this bill, and perhaps no matter what happens in the case before the Supreme Court.
There are some considerations which I think it would be useful to have on the record, however, in terms of what would happen if we did proceed with this bill and even, perhaps, were to pass it, assuming we would not have to pay any attention to the due processes of law. Speaking of that factor, Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that when we have created a system to adjudicate these disputes the least we can do before seeking a legislative remedy, or any other remedy, is to allow that due process to take place.
It appears to me there are a number of advantages which accrue to everybody concerned. First of all, of course, and most important, is the clarification of issues in such a way as to make them more readily understandable in terms of law. For as much as the hon. gentleman will protest, to some extent the case about which he is concerned is a local case. But any judgment involved-and, indeed, any judgment by this
5082

May 2, 1978
Railway Act
House-goes far beyond simply the local case; it goes right into the general application of the law across Canada and it may have consequences which are unforeseen. Therefore I would not like to see the House act precipitously or until we have moved through the system.
There are, however, implications which I would like to deal with briefly, Mr. Speaker, so that hon. members may realize what is at stake here. The first point is that if this bill were approved, the proposed act would imply that all automobile, rail and ferry services would come under the jurisdiction of the CTC. To put it mildly, Mr. Speaker, that would be a very substantial increase in the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission and particularly that of the Railway Transport Committee. That jurisdiction does not presently lie there and to some extent would amount to a transfer by the courts and by this proposed legislation of jurisdiction from one agency to another agency. I really think that would require far more determination than we could give it in private members' hour.
Second, if ferry services were deemed to be an extension of railway branch lines, when put up for abandonment they would become eligible for subsidies if their continuance were considered to be in the public interest. That also is a question of public policy and public tax moneys.
One of the things which strikes me as being at the heart of many of these rail line abandonments and the abandoning of services on which communities have become reliant is the fact that the people who have been paying for these services in the past have become reluctant to do so in the present and in the future. Indeed, this can be an important factor, because if the business is not there to justify the internal subsidies which are generated to keep these services going, then it seems to me that another form of subsidy has to be discovered. Usually that subsidy takes the form of taxpayers' money which is collected by the federal government and distributed to the agency involved.
A perfect example of this principle, Mr. Speaker, is the situation with respect to railway passenger service which has traditionally been paid for by the freight shippers in this country. At one time, perhaps, when railways were the main means of transportation for people as well as goods between communities, that was no problem. Passenger service may even have provided a substantial income and profit for the carriers. But it is interesting to note that back in the mid-sixties the legislation was changed so that 80 per cent of the losses incurred by the railways in providing passenger service would be paid by the general taxpayer to the federal government. It is interesting, again, to note that the concept of VIA Rail, which is now in the process of being implemented, provides for 100 per cent of the losses to be paid for by the general taxpayers.
It seems to me that the great difficulty we have when we experience local disruption of service by the cancellation of a particular type of service can only be solved by finding someone who can pay the bill. The costs of providing these services do not go away, and whether those who pay that bill, or the greater part of it, should be the general taxpayers or the
(Mr. Reid.]
persons requesting the service is a matter which this House has often debated and on which we have reached no real conclusion.
The more equitable way, it seems to me, would be to have a sharing of the costs between the general taxpayers and the users of the service. Whether the users of the service should pay a premium which is greater than that which somebody else acquiring the service in another geographical location requires is an open question. It appears to me that it would be very useful to have at least a substantial amount of the costs of providing any kind of service paid for by the users as well as a share being borne by the taxpayers.
The question in Canada, I suspect, as to what is the appropriate level of subsidization to be applied to various levels of transportation services is one which is going to bedevil us as long as this House exists. There will never be agreement. As long as people have to use these services there will always be argument raised, as a general principle and point of honour, that they are paying too much for transportation services, just as those taxpayers who do not necessarily use those services will complain that they, too, are paying too much through the general tax levy.
It is a known fact, for example, that the automobile accounts for the bulk of the intercity passenger miles, to the tune of about 85 per cent. Yet when we examine the amount of money which the federal government puts out in terms of railway passenger service, even before the new formula comes into effect, we can see that a person who uses his automobile is paying a substantial premium in order that people can use trains. I have no objection to this principle but we should acknowledge it and try to devise the proper relationship between the user who must pay for part of the service and the taxpayer who must pay for the rest of the service.
Another implication of this bill concerns interprovincial barge and ferry services which come under provincial jurisdiction at the present time. Consequently, there is potential for jurisdictional disputes between the federal and provincial governments. If this bill were to pass it is not clear just exactly where the jurisdictional argument would lead. We know that provinces have steadily acquired authority and power during the last ten to fifteen years at the expense of the federal government as well as opening up new areas for themselves. We also know how sensitive these interprovincial and intragovernmental disputes can be.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to extend the powers of the CTC with respect to this particular point of including waterborne railway traffic in the jurisdiction of the federal government, such legislation be drawn carefully so as to permit the provinces to carry on in those areas where they have traditionally carried on. I am not so certain that the federal taxpayer would want to pick up the subsidies which are now being carried by some provincial governments to provide services which they regard as essential, but which may not be
May 2, 1978

essential from the point of view of maintaining a federal national transportation system.
The new proposal made by the hon. member for Kootenay West would be in conflict with the Canada Shipping Act respecting regulation of vessels in Canadian waters and Canadian registered vessels-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No. How did they operate previously?


John Mercer Reid: While that is a matter which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) may dismiss lightly, it does mean that if that is done the implications of amending the act are far greater than he chooses to admit. It is not only a question of changing the Transportation Act, it is also a question of changing the Canada Shipping Act and probably a few other acts as well. I do not hold that out as an impossible problem to overcome, but I point this out as an indication of what must be done in order to make the ideas of the hon. member more explicit.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member will accept a short question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions some ramifications respecting navigation on water. Would he be good enough to explain to the House how the CPR and other organizations operated water craft for the past 90 years? There were requirements regarding navigation in the course of those water operations connecting their rail-lines. How was this accomplished over the past 80 or 90 years, if the hon. member is suggesting now that this is in conflict with maritime legislation?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I suggested there was a navigational problem. I did suggest that it could bring it into conflict with the Canada Shipping Act and there would be two jurisdictional authorities under the federal government intertwined which are now separate.
When one examines the situation on the inland waterways there is probably no difficulty at all about jurisdiction. However, what we are talking about is the application of this amendment. As I pointed out earlier, it may have ramifications regarding larger areas of jurisdiction than are contemplated by the hon. member. I did suggest that it could cause the jurisdictional authority of the Railway Transport Committee to extend into other areas which are now regulated by other acts. I used the Canada Shipping Act as an example of this kind of extension. It means that it totally confuses the regulatory authority.
It seems to me that if the hon. member for Kootenay West is correct in his assumption and also in his remedy, the amending bill will have to be a far more complex one than the one he has provided here. I do not criticize him for that because I think he has done his constituents and the House a service by bringing forward this knotty question in the way he
Railway Act
has. The purpose of debate is to examine the ramifications and to see what the implications are of moving in this way. I am trying to indicate to him that the problem he has unearthed and for which he seeks remedy is a legitimate one. However, the solution he has developed may not be the only one. It may not be the most appropriate one and it may indeed cause more difficulties in other areas.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, members of the Railway Transport Committee and learned judges of the Federal Court of Appeal in Vancouver did not address themselves to the concerns expressed by the hon. member. They did not even visualize or conceive that this would be a problem in the arguments which were presented. How does the hon. member square his perception with reference to his arguments now in light of the fact that Mr. Justice Le Dain as well as other learned judges, including the members of the Rail Transport Committee, did not consider that type of argument to be germane to the case?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised to know that in the judgments of the Federal Court and in the decisions of the Railway Transport Committee those arguments would have been considered at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 o'clock 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, from Monday, May 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill S-8, respecting fugitive offenders in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
80038-32'A
[Stage Direction]
May 2, 1978
Fugitive Offenders
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very long in the debate this evening. I think we might move through at least this stage expeditiously.
This bill contains amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act. It is a further aspect of this government's effort to deal effectively with the world-wide scope of law-breaking, especially organized crime. We must recognize that modern day criminals are very mobile and sophisticated.
The purpose of this bill is to permit us under certain conditions to return foreign offenders to the countries where they committed their crimes, both inside the Commonwealth under the Fugitive Offenders Act, and in other countries by way of the Extradition Act. At the same time, the proposed legislation would enable us more effectively to seek the return for trial of Canadian offenders who have fled our borders.
Of equal importance, the bill contains provisions which would allow Canada to protect the civil liberties of refugees from political, racial or religious oppression. The bill is designed to allow Canada to play its proper role in suppressing true crime while protecting those who are victims of prejudice or oppression.
I think there are several parts of this bill which merit special attention. One is the new schedule of returnable offences which will be provided under the Fugitive Offenders Act. The present act provides that an offence is deemed returnable when it is punishable under the laws of the offender's country by at least 12 months' imprisonment combined with hard labour.
The new bill contains a schedule of returnable offences which has been modernized and updated and includes such serious modern day criminal phenomena as air piracy, income tax evasion, stock frauds, counterfeiting and bankruptcy offences.
One aspect of the new bill which merits attention is the provision which would allow the Minister of Justice a discretion to withhold permission to return an offender to his country if he is likely to be subjected to capital punishment. The prisoner can be surrendered if an assurance is given that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, that it will not be carried out. This means that there is no absolute prohibition of surrender to states which retain capital punishment.
This is not a provision unique to Canada. Such provisions are found in all modern extradition treaties to which Canada is a party. Indeed, Great Britain has included it in every extradition treaty it has negotiated since the second world war. I might go further to point out that the scheme relating to the rendition of fugitive offenders contains a supplementary article to this effect in Annex 2, Article 1. It should be noted that only eight associated states of the total 69 independent countries and dependencies in the Commonwealth have not yet abolished the death penalty for murder. These include Ber-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
muda, Belize, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.
Thus, the question of activating this ministerial discretion with respect to murder will rarely occur. If it should, however, the legislation does not suggest that Canada will not return accused murderers to these countries, but rather that the Minister of Justice has the discretion to request assurance that a penalty other than death, such as life imprisonment, will be imposed. That is to say that Canada does not necessarily have to return fugitive offenders, perhaps some of whom might be our own nationals, to a punishment greater or more extreme than that to which we ourselves would subject people in this country.
I should like now to discuss the provisions which would allow Canada to refuse to surrender a fugitive who is the subject of political persecution or prejudice based on religion, sex or nationality. As surprising as it may seem, under the present Fugitive Offenders Act a fugitive may not resist surrender to a commonwealth country for offences of a political character. Thus, if a revolution were to take place in some commonwealth country and the new government were of a vindictive disposition, it might conceivably lay serious charges against an individual for legitimate actions carried out while he was in the employ of the deposed government. Under the present act Canada would be obliged to return such an accused person. We have no authority at present, for example, to refuse to surrender a fugitive who is charged with an offence in Uganda. Hon. members will appreciate, therefore, the significance I attach to clause 4 of this bill.
This new act would give the Minister of Justice discretion to refuse to surrender an offender under such circumstances. Discretion may also be used where we believe the person charged with a returnable offence might be discriminated against on his return for reasons having nothing to do with his guilt or innocence but because of his race, religion, sex or nationality.
I must emphasize, however, that persons wanted for offences such as murder of or assault upon a head of state-something which the offender might consider an expression of political opinion-would not be subject to this ministerial discretion. They must be surrendered, subject to the death penalty clause I spoke of earlier.
In closing, I would like to point out that Bill S-8 provides important changes to legislation which is close to 100 years old and would allow Canada to play a much more effective role in modern international crime-fighting.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want first to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his explanantion of the bill and for his brevity. I will also try to be brief. This bill is entitled "An act respecting fugitive offenders in Canada". It is really what in law we commonly call a bill dealing with extradition. Extradition-and I think I can put this succinctly-means surrender of a fugitive, alleged criminal, by one state or government to another within whose territories the criminal is accused of having committed crime,
May 2, 1978

in order that he may undergo trial and, if convicted, punishment.
As I understand the bill, it applies only to certain crimes which are spelled out. The parliamentary secretary may want to correct me on this, but I believe that the bill applies only to commonwealth countries and not to others. We have been dragging our feet in getting a bill before the House because many of the countries, as the parliamentary secretary has said, have already endorsed and enacted their legislation.
The most questionable feature of this bill is the exclusion of persons who have committed offences of a political character. With the greatest of respect to the parliamentary secretary, I noticed that he quickly slid over that particular phrase regarding offences of a political character. Rather than being positive in the definition of offences of a political character, the bill does not say what that means. It says what it does not mean. It says that an offence of a political character does not include and I quote:
... the murder, kidnapping or other assault on or restriction of the liberty of any person who is an "internationally protected person" as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code or who would be such a person if
(i)	in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (a) of that definition, he were in a state other than the state in which he holds an office or position referred to in that paragraph, and
(ii)	in the case of a member of a family referred to in paragraph (b) of that definition, he accompanied a person referred to in paragraph (a) of that definition to a state other than the state in which the person referred to in that paragraph (a) holds an office or position referred to in that paragraph (a)...
That sounds like a jungle of words, but this offence applies not only to a political prisoner but also to his family or to those connected with him. The definition continues:
(b)	an attack on the official premises, private accommodation or means of transportation of any person referred to in paragraph (a),
(c)	any crime set out in item 22 or 23 of Schedule I...
One of the faults I find with this bill, which may lead to some problems in the future, is the lack of definition of a political prisoner. I can give an example. The fugitives to whom I refer are not in a commonwealth country, as far as I can ascertain. However, Your Honour will recall that some years ago Pierre Laporte, labour minister in the Quebec provincial government, was murdered, and Mr. Cross, a British diplomat, was kidnapped and held for many days contrary to his wishes. A deal was made with this government at that time. I am not here tonight to criticize that deal because we were dealing with a very sensitive diplomatic question. If the people involved in the kidnapping were permitted to go to a foreign state-I believe at that time it was Algeria-Mr. Cross would be released. Cross was released, and his kidnappers left the country.
Assuming Canada wanted to extradite them from a commonwealth country because of new evidence, the question would arise as to whether they are political prisoners. As I understand it, they were members of the FLQ or of some agency associated with the FLQ. Where are political prisoners defined? What does the term mean? I have great sympathy for
Fugitive Offenders
the parliamentary secretary who referred to a revolution taking place in a certain country, and that was a good example. Another good example is the United Kingdom where many revolutions have taken place in the history of that country, where fugitives have left the country to escape with their lives to other countries where they could live in safety.
These were political prisoners in all likelihood and I do not believe that in such circumstances they should be handed over to the country from which they escaped. On the other hand, political prisoners might mean people such as those who murdered Laporte and kidnapped Cross. If, under this bill, they are not extradited because they are political prisoners, then I would like to see a definition of that term in this bill rather than an explanation of what that term does not mean, which is a negative approach. It is like taking four away from ten and ending up with six. You say the four points are what the term does not mean and the six points are unknown.
There is a great deal of ambiguity when you are dealing with extradition, and I have had some experience with that. Generally, a trial is held, as set out in this bill. The intent does not have to be proven at the trial, only that the crime was committed by that person. If that is proven, then generally there is an order of the court for the extradition of that person to the country or state which requests the return of the fugitive, and that is where the word "fugitive" comes from.
In addition to that remedy, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) always has discretion under the bill. I am not too sure-perhaps this will be clarified at the committee stage-at what point the court makes the decision and whether the minister exercises his discretion over and above the court decision or whether he exercises it in certain circumstances independently of the court. Those are some of the points that were left unanswered in the short speech made by the parliamentary secretary this evening.
Another provision in the bill which I believe should be considered very carefully is clause 18 on page 11 of the bill, which reads:
18(1) The minister may refuse to order the surrender of a fugitive offender where it appears to him that the fugitive offender would be likely to suffer the death penalty for the returnable offence in respect of which his return is requested if
(a) that offence is not punishable by death in Canada;
Let us make that very clear. The last time the abolition bill came before the House, the death penalty for all offences in Canada, such as treason and murder, was abolished. In the case of the United States, individual states have reinstated the death penalty for murder in certain circumstances. Of course, that is not a commonwealth country. If that were to occur in a commonwealth country, there would be what I would call a vacuum problem.
I do not wish to reargue the question of the death penalty, the abolition of capital punishment. That is not my job tonight when considering a bill on extradition. What I want to say is that although Canada is one of the great nations of the Commonwealth, has followed the traditions of the Commonwealth and has taken part in the horrible holocaust of the

May 2, 1978
Fugitive Offenders
second world war-that holocaust which was described to us on television-during which our armed forces have gained the respect of other nations, not only in the Battle of Britain but in the battle for survival in Europe, the battle to regain the freedom and liberty of those people, some of whom are fighting today the democratic institutions we enjoy, I do not think we should be dictating the law of the land to other nations.
Let me give an example. Suppose a fugitive escapes from another nation where capital punishment is the law and comes to Canada, and that nation asks for his extradition. I am not talking now about political prisoners. If we refuse to return him, we will become a haven for similar fugitives.
Let me refer to a study on that subject which has been done by a professor. Unfortunately I left the paper on my desk in my home in Calgary. It deals with Canadian laws relating to this subject. Since the abolition of capital punishment in Canada 87 people have been found guilty of first degree murder and some 100 found guilty of second degree murder. If that situation continues for three or four years, we will have in our prisons 900 people serving 25 years for first degree murder or 21 years for second degree murder. I do not know whether the institutions we have today are sufficiently well equipped to deal with such a large group of people. We have now in British Columbia a man who has committed his third offence but who cannot be sentenced to more than 25 years. I do not know what kind of law enforcement we would need if there were to be as many as 900 of those people confined in our prisons at one time.
What I am saying is that probably we can handle our own problems-or I trust we can, sir-but can we take care of fugitives from other lands who come here because there is no capital punishment here, and thus we become a haven for people found guilty of first degree murder and similar crimes which call for the death penalty? Under this bill, once they come to Canada they will not be extradited. I have not checked that out but I have the word of the parliamentary secretary that this is also the law in Great Britain. Of course, that does not make it right. I say that if the law of another land calls for either life imprisonment or the death penalty, it is the democratic process of that other country which should prevail for its citizens and it is not our function to dictate our law to other commonwealth nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Having said that, I wish to make the point that we should look at this provision very carefully in committee. I would like to see a witness called who is knowledgeable about the laws regarding this question in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and other commonwealth nations. I would like to know where they stand on this problem at present. This bill covers all homicide, wounding, maiming and bodily harm, illegal abortion, kidnapping, abduction, false imprisonment, rape, indecent assault, incest and bigamy, procuring, wilful non-support or abandonment of a child or dependent person, robbery, theft, housebreaking, burglary, embezzlement, extortion, fraud, forgery and uttering, perjury,

arson, assisting to escape custody, bribery, offences relating to civil disorders and riots, usury, and here is the one which was added, namely, endangering the safety of an aircraft.
Today, most hijacking is carried out internationally, according to the media, generally by political prisoners or in the name of political prisoners escaping. They have attempted to upset things in their own countries, and they want to get out. It is similar to the situation which is ongoing in Italy. They want to trade off the unfortunate former prime minister of Italy, Mr. Moro, for the escape of those people who caused terrorism in that country. So far the Italian government has said no. I do not want to comment on that because it is an international situation. If one was to use the example of a commonwealth country, these fugitives may escape and get on a plane. They could hijack the plane, as well as commit some crimes such as wounding, killing and other things. Are these people to be considered political prisoners? It is for reasons such as this that I would like the term "political prisoners" defined in the act. I am not objecting to what this bill contains. I am indicating that the bill is wrong in what it does not contain. We do not want Canada to become a haven for political prisoners.
I should like to refer to clauses 12(a) and 15(b) of Bill S-8. Clause 15 reads as follows:
A fugitive offender committed to prison under section 11 shall not be surrendered under this act
(a)	in any case, until the expiration of the fifteen days ...
(b)	if the fugitive offender makes an application for leave to appeal or for a
writ of habeas corpus, until all proceedings on the application and on any
appeal arising out of the application have been finally disposed of.
I do not see anything too wrong with that. Habeas corpus is a remedy of special prerogative writs. Actually it came from the United Kingdom. If a person is wrongfully incarcerated in prison because of some basic principle of law, an application is made to a judge to have him released. Habeas corpus application can be made in conjunction with certiorari, where the certiorari is quashing the charge. Then habeas corpus is an order to release the prisoner.
People have the right of appeal, which appeal falls under the jurisdiction of the county courts and the superior courts. If a person loses an application in respect of extradition and is faced with being sent back to a commonwealth country, for example, under the spirit of the act he will have the right of appeal. After 15 days, in the due process of law, he has the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. I think that is good protection.
Bill S-8 exempts ambassadors and heads of state to certain degrees. For example, if an English ambassador to Canada went to Australia for a visit and was kidnapped by a Canadian in that country, that Canadian could be extradited because he kidnapped an ambassador. Of course, I will deal with that question more fully at committee level.
I have made my case in reference to the question of capital punishment. We are trying to lay down the law by referring to
May 2, 1978

the situations in other countries. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his brevity. I have attempted to be as brief in my remarks. Basically extradition is necessary in our relationships with other states within the Commonwealth. When this bill becomes law, I hope some of the matters I have referred to will be explained by the committee. I hope amendments will occur to bring it into line. In closing, we endorse this bill in principle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take it the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) would like to see this bill go to committee. I was going to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to committee of the whole at this point. My understanding is that this proposal was discussed at one time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, the more propitious route would be to refer the matter to committee for it to be dealt with in the usual manner, rather than taking the time of the House by reverting to committee of the whole. We are interested in dealing with whatever legislative program the government has in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we think it would be better to let this bill go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Accordingly, the bill has been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-42, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 represents a very important legislative step in our criminal justice system, and is an amendment to the Criminal Code. It constitutes fulfilment of a commitment made in the last Speech from the Throne to guarantee language rights of accused persons before our criminal courts. All members will appreciate the significance which such a step bears upon the issue of national unity. It is significant at this particular time, because it is being introduced and moved by a British Columbian.
Criminal Code
This bill is directed to official language minorities, be it the French minority outside Quebec in the settlements and communities across Canada, or the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec. I will go into the details of this bill a litle later, but I should like to take an opportunity at the outset to emphasize that this bill is not forcing French or English down anyone's throat, nor is it forcing French or English down the throats of the nation's court houses. The intent of this bill is to allow people, whose language is either French or English, to testify or tell their own stories in their own language to people who speak the same language.
This means that the most important part of the case for the accused-his side of the story-is told without the encumbrances and difficulties of translation, because the trier of the fact, be it judge or jury, will understand the language of the accused. It does not mean that any French-speaking or English-speaking person can demand a completely French or English trial in any part of Canada. But it does mean we intend by the provisions of this bill, which have been worked out, I think, very sensitively on this issue, to be careful and deliberate in implementing this measure to provide the protection which I think at the present time in our country's development it is essential to provide.
It seems to me that all persons living in a country which recognizes two official languages must have the right to use and be understood in either of those languages when on trial before courts of criminal jurisdiction. I repeat that a trial before a judge or jury who understand the accused's language should be a fundamental right and not a privilege. The right to be heard in a criminal proceeding by a judge or a judge and jury who speak the accused's own official language, even if it is the minority official language in a given province, surely is a right that is a bare minimum in terms of serving the interests of both justice and Canadian unity. It is essentially a question of fairness that is involved.
I should point out at the outset that Ontario has recently taken some administrative measures within its court system and has introduced legislation to provide greater language rights to accused persons in that province. The House will recall that the province of New Brunswick has in fact implemented through its own judicature act, and through the application of the Official Languages Act, a similar system in the province. Apart from special provisions in the Criminal Code relative to Quebec and Manitoba, the practice in the province of Quebec is to conduct trials in either official language.
Bill C-42 would extend what this government considers to be a basic minimum of equal language rights before the criminal courts to all persons in every province and territory. It does not mean, however, that in every part of each province will such a right apply. Clearly some parts of each province will be better able to provide the required resources more quickly than others.

May 2, 1978
Criminal Code
The bill also provides that persons whose language is neither of the two official languages may be tried in the official language in which they are most proficient, whether that language is English or French in the province where the trial is to be held. Naturally, and I want to underline this, Mr. Speaker, this does not, obviously, abrogate the rights that people now have under the Bill of Rights by which an interpreter is guaranteed for persons on trial who speak neither of Canada's official languages.
We have been discussing the provisions contained in this bill with the provinces since last fall, both at the political and at the official levels, and the legislation was reviewed again very recently at a federal-provincial meeting of deputy attorneys general held in Ottawa earlier this month. Not a single province was opposed to the concept embodied in this bill, and each of them, I think, recognized the need at this particular time for us in Canada and in this parliament to legislate in this area.
Indeed, the very positive and encouraging reaction from many of the provinces bodes very well for the future of this country. The attorney general of Nova Scotia has termed the purpose of this bill a laudable objective. The attorney general of Ontario has written to me to state the following:
I welcome the initiatives set out in your letter, which I understand have now been placed before Parliament with the introduction of Bill C-42 on April 4, 1978.
As you will have noted, Mr. Speaker, last week the attorney general of Ontario introduced complementary provincial legislation to bring into effect within Ontario the provisions of this bill when it is passed. Their chief concern, as is to be understood, is that proclamation of the bill not be carried out until they have been closely consulted on the date of implementation. I have given that undertaking in writing to provincial attorneys general, and I repeat that undertaking here this evening.
Proclamation, as is provided for under the bill, will be on a province by province basis. This means that the law will not come into force throughout the country at the same time. I indicated when I introduced the bill that I hoped it could be proclaimed and implemented very quickly in the province of Quebec. I have today received a letter from the minister of justice for Quebec expressing his appreciation for consultation on the measure, expressing his willingness to go forward and expressing, obviously, his desire to be consulted in working out the mechanics of proclamation and implementation.
As I indicated, the province of Ontario has requested this legislation and has introduced complementary provincial legislation. The provisions apply in New Brunswick where there is a system now under the Official Languages Act that embodies much the same thrust and principle of this bill, and I would hope it could also be implemented as quickly as in the province of Manitoba, thereby covering in those four provinces the largest communities of both French and English-speaking minorities.
I recognize that not all provinces can accommodate these changes at the same moment, and some, understandably, for

demographic reasons, have greater resources in personnel and other resources for these measures. This bill and its proposal for implementation are as flexible and as sensitive as possible to assist the provinces in putting the legislation into effect.
We have reassured the provinces that the bill does not require entire court proceedings to be held in the official language of the accused since this would obviously cause serious difficulties in some provinces in respect of the need to hire and train prosecutors and other court officials perfectly fluent in the minority official language.
The scheme of the legislation is that the accused person very quickly at his first appearance in court will be advised by the judge that he has the right to be tried in French or English, at his choice, by a judge or judge and jury who speak that language. The judge may, after receiving that election from the accused, in appropriate cases order that the trial be presided over by a judge and jury who speak both official languages, who are bilingual. Where such orders are made it would be possible, if appropriate, to have trials held in a bilingual fashion, subject to the rights of the accused to be assisted by an an interpreter for those parts of the trial conducted in a language other than his own. Prosecutors and court officers would also be assisted by interpreters, if necessary.
The bill provides that courts may order a change of venue within the same province when the trial cannot be conveniently held within a given territorial division. Some provinces have suggested that we allow change of venue between provinces, but I do not feel this would best serve the interests of justice as far as the accused is concerned. It also raises certain jurisdictional problems, by reason of change of venue of an accused's trial from one province to another, that are very difficult to resolve. Thus we have chosen instead, and in keeping with suggestions made by certain other provinces, to provide for regulations to be made by lieutenant governors in council in each province so that if the province so wishes it may allow for these measures to be in force only in some territorial divisions of a particular province.
This recognizes that there are within many provinces settlements or pockets of population using English or French as a minority language. In such areas these measures can be easily introduced. There are, however, many communities or districts in English-speaking parts of Canada where little French is spoken and where the population is very small and, similarly, communities and districts in provinces in French-speaking parts of Canada where little English is spoken. Thus, courts of other territorial divisions not able to proceed in the official language of the accused because of the lack of adequate language capacity may order the trial transferred to one of these designated territorial divisions.
The provinces and the federal government will have to give greater attention in the future, when making appointments to the bench, to the language capabilities of the candidates. The same should apply when hiring some Crown prosecutors and
May 2, 1978

other court officials. In addition, certain federal-provincial programs for the language training of provincial and municipal officials already exists. I have given provincial attorneys general the assurance that, if need be, consideration will be given to extending these programs in order to better meet the needs of the provinces. As I say, I have undertaken to explore this matter with the provinces.
The question of finding sufficient jurors who speak the minority official language in some provinces has been raised as a potential problem. It is interesting to note that even Newfoundland, which has the smallest Francophone population in Canada, still has some 3,500 Francophones among its half million population. In a usual case it requires at the maximum 100 people to impanel a jury for a trial and therefore even in the smallest province it seems to me possible for the sheriff, bailiff or the appropriate officer to impanel a jury. Prince Edward Island has over 7,000 Francophones and Saskatchewan has over 31,000. We believe that the necessary population exists in each province and territory, keeping in mind the ability to move trials to designated districts, to permit impanelling of the jury speaking the official minority language of that province or territory. Since there is no reason to believe that official minority groups have a higher crime rate than the majority, it is not likely that there will be an inordinately heavy demand for minority language criminal trials which would place unusual strains on the minority population in terms of jury duty.
It is also worth noting that a significant percentage of all criminal trials in Canada are held in the three major centres of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, all of which have a substantial Francophone population and an availability of bilingual judges. Therefore, in expressing and outlining the scheme of this legislation in which the accused person may elect to be tried by a judge or judge and jury in the official language of his choice, and by which the judge thereafter may order that the trial be held bilingually, and by which, if appropriate, the venue of the trial can be changed from one judicial district to another, it seems to me, and I seriously submit, that this piece of legislation can be proclaimed and implemented in all of the provinces of Canada in an orderly way so as not to affect the administration of justice. At the same time it provides this essential right that it is important to preserve and protect at this particular time.
There is in each of the provinces, taking into account the option to have a bilingual trial, taking into account the option of moving the trials from one judicial district to another, in my view the ability to establish at least in one judicial district in fairly short order a system of judges and jury selection to allow this bill to be implemented. The population statistics for each province indicate that that is the case. This bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this House in that it proposes to guarantee to all persons in Canada a minimum of equal linguistic rights before courts of criminal jurisdiction.
There is nothing in this bill to prevent the provinces from going further and providing, for example, for full court pro-
Criminal Code
ceedings in either official language or for extending language of trial rights to civil proceedings, which are clearly within their jurisdiction. Indeed, some provinces, notably Quebec and New Brunswick, will offer accused persons in their jurisdiction more than is strictly required by this bill once it becomes law. Ontario has also set machinery in motion, as I indicated, to enhance these language provisions. Obviously, not all provinces have the resources to go much beyond what this bill requires of them, but all have expressed the view that this minimum guarantee is one that is essential if Canada is to survive as a country with two official languages.
I have been heartened since this subject was first raised by my informal discussions with judges across the country, all of whom have indicated to me their capacity to establish in each province a bilingual facility for the hearing of such cases. More importantly, each has indicated to me an understanding that this is something that we as a parliament and as a country should do at this particular time.
It has been said that national unity and the preservation of national unity is not the preserve of any particular political party in this House. I would hope that each of us in this House, regardless of which side we sit on, will examine this bill, and the principle and right that it is designed to protect, preserve and enhance. By supporting this bill members are recognizing that this is a measure that we at this particular time should be passing, should be supporting. All members, regardless of where they sit, would be making their particular contribution to national unity by supporting this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. minister leaves I wonder if he would permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. minister permit a question of the hon. member for Calgary North?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I listened very carefully to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), and I would like to get his position very clear in my mind before I make my opening remarks. My question is: Can he assure the House that the attorneys general of all ten provinces agreed to the bill in question as it is worded at the present time? Is that his position, and does he say they all agreed without any changes to the bill?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I indicated in my speech, Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations going back to last fall, mainly between officials of my department and those of the provincial attorneys general. There was one round of consultations which took place regarding the concept of the idea. At that consultation various aspects, problems and suggestions were raised. There was a further consultation when our proposal had been further developed.
Prior to introduction of the bill and in the course of those consultations, the representatives of each province indicated that they supported this concept and these proposals. Just

May 2, 1978
Criminal Code
before introduction of the bill I wrote to each provincial attorney general and in a long letter-without sending them the precise copy of the bill in order not to breach the parliamentary tradition-outlined to them in quite complete form the proposed measure I was intending to introduce, asking them for their comments and suggestions. I received no suggestions for change. Obviously, if one were to indicate the need for change, I would consider that very carefully.
As I indicated in my speech, I have had communication with a number of attorneys general-the minister of justice of Quebec, the attorney general of Ontario, the attorney general of Nova Scotia-and they have all indicated their support and willingness to work with us in implementing this bill. I am sorry to take so long in answering the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thought you could have said yes or no.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Having read the comments of the attorney general of Manitoba as reported in the press when the bill was introduced, I can only conclude that he misunderstood its purport and thought it had the requirement that there be trials in both languages in every judicial district of Manitoba. That is not the effect of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is rising on a point of order.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to ask the minister a number of questions before he leaves, but if the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has additional questions I shall wait until he is finished and then put my questions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question was not quite answered by the minister. I have a preamble to this question because we are going to ask for a substantial change to one part of the bill. Have the attorneys general of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the other provinces that he missed said yes or no to the principle of this bill?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, through official discussions each province has indicated that they support the provisions of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if he provided additional information on this bill to members of the government. I did not catch all of his remarks tonight and I should like to know if he provided additional information to them. If so, did he discuss the question whether or not the government would consider extending the program as it relates to municipal and provincial public servants?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not sure I understand the question, Mr. Speaker. As is usual, when I introduced the bill I gave

members of my caucus my written description of the bill and its effect. Regarding the latter part of the question, as I said in my speech and indicated in the press release that was attached to the bill when it was introduced, there is a program for the support of language training for provincial and municipal officials. I indicated that I would be ready to discuss an extension or enlargement of that program with the provinces in order to include court officers in language training.
The question was whether the bill would be extended to include provincial and municipal officers. That is not true as it relates to the amendment to the Criminal Code, but I indicated that we were ready to discuss extending the program to include court officers.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my question. I should like a direct answer. Did he provide additional information on this bill to government members in a two-page document entitled "Background Information"? I ask him directly if he provided additional information to members of the government that was not provided to members of the opposition.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I just answered yes to that. I have not checked the difference between the press release and whatever information I sent to members of my caucus, but if there is a difference the answer is yes, and if there is not a difference the answer is no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in certain parts of the country such as in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and even some parts of Ontario, both official languages are used. Although we support the bill in principle we will ask for substantial amendment to it. The bill basically covers all the crimes set out in the Criminal Code.
The minister has said that the program will be phased in by the federal government. Clause 6(1) of the bill reads, in part, as follows:
... shall come into force in any province only on a day fixed in a proclamation...
That means a proclamation of the federal government alone. When the bill reaches the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I shall ask that this law not be phased in in any province unless it is done by joint proclamation of the federal and provincial governments or with the consent of the province in question. In other words, before this could become law in the province of Quebec, for example, the Quebec government would have to give its consent to a federal proclamation. Before this could become the law of the land it would require enabling legislation or a proclamation of the federal government as called for in clause 6 with the consent-not in consultation with but with the consent-of the provinces.
I contend on behalf of my party and on behalf of my national leader that provincial rights in this matter must be respected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 2, 1978


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: According to section 92(14) of the constitution, the administration of justice falls within the sole jurisdiction of the provinces.
I want to emphasize again that we agree with the bill in principle. There are many areas of Canada in which the two linguistic groups co-exist in great numbers. The provinces will also be concerned about the cost of implementing this program and therefore must have some say in it.
The federal government opposed the province of Quebec on certain aspects of an inquiry into organized crime in that province where various criminals and syndicates were being investigated. This government and this Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) actually told the government of Quebec that it could not appoint a commission to investigate crime within its own borders!
As a result of that challenge the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal of Nicola Di Iorio and Gerard Fontaine and The Warden of the Common Jail of the City of Montreal and Rheal Brunet, the Attorney General for Canada, the Attorney General for Quebec, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General for Alberta, the Attorney General for British Columbia and the Attorney General for New Brunswick. It is interesting to read the remarks of Mr. Justice Martland in the Canada Supreme Court Reports, Part 1, 1978 Vol. 1 at page 154 where, referring to the legislation to set up the commission in the province of Quebec, he said:
The legislation under attack is based solely on the province's jurisdiction in the "Administration of Justice''. This is an independent source of provincial power which does not need to rely on some other head of power.
By "head of power" he means the federal government. In light of that judgment we will be asking for an amendment to clause 6 of this bill to ensure that, if it is to become the law of any province, such province has the right to proclaim it jointly with the federal government so that it can be declared the law of the land. That is what the decision says and that is the law. That is what every province has asked for in order to keep a united Canada and to save confederation from being endangered by the federal government running slipshod over provincial rights.
Let me quote from the Canada Supreme Court Reports at page 155 of the same case:
Beetz J: . .. But subject to this provision and to the paramountcy of federal law enacted under primary or ancillary federal jurisdiction, the provinces were to remain responsible in principle for the enforcement of criminal law and to retain such power as they had before with respect to the administration of criminal justice.
Section 92(14) of the B.N.A. Act does not distinguish between civil and criminal justice the natural meaning of the expression the administration of justice is broad enough to encompass both.
It is broad enough to mean that this falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Having said that-and I want to repeat it to make sure it is clear that our party agrees in principle with this bill. We say we will buy this legislation if this law comes into force only by joint proclamation of both levels of government or by a
Criminal Code
proclamation of the federal government, as a matter of procedure, with the consent of the provinces, not some wishy-washy consultation we do not know anything about. That is our position.
Now I come to the rights of the judiciary. This is something which is precious to all of us here in parliament, the highest court of the land. I want to set out something I think we should always keep in mind when we are dealing with the judiciary. What is the function of the judiciary? Everybody must have a fair trial. I might say in passing that in this great land of ours are people from all over the world. I can name many countries which are represented, not only in Toronto but in many parts of western Canada. These are people who speak many languages. Our courts have always been understanding of this. Whether a person speaks Ukrainian, Italian or whatever language, when he appears before the bench for trial, or even in a civil matter, if he does not understand English or French there is always an interpreter supplied to ensure that person gets a fair and equitable trial. That is a procedure I have seen. It certainly takes a long time but justice is never great if it is rushed. There is no justice when it is rushed justice.
What is the function of the judiciary? It enables the guarantee of security to the weak against the strong and to the individual against the community. It presents a shield against the tyranny of power and arrogance and against the irresponsibility and irrationality of popular action, whether of opinion or violence. It enables the voice of sanity to rise above the turbulence of passion; and it is to be preserved inviolate.
But what does the independence of judges imply? That can be nothing short of this: That the minister to whom such an authority is committed shall himself be the first to respect what has been entrusted to him, the administration of the rule of justice under law, including loyalty to its institutions. That sets out what our courts are really all about.
We have separation of powers. We have legislative powers, on the one hand, and we have the judiciary, on the other. Then there is the Crown. There is our separation of power. When the minister speaks of Quebec and Manitoba I would bring to the House's attention something in the Criminal Code which every member should appreciate tonight. This adds weight to the argument which I have presented. Section 555 of the Criminal Code deals with mixed juries in Quebec. For the record, because it is so important, I will read part of that section:
(1) In those districts in the Province of Quebec in which the sheriff is required by law to return a panel of Petit jurors composed one-half of persons who speak the English language and one-half of persons who speak the French language, he shall in his return specify in separate lists those jurors whom he returns as speaking the French language, and the names of the jurors summoned shall be called alternately from those lists.
What does that mean? For example, say a person is charged with murder. A jury panel is assembled composed of half French and half English jurors. If the accused happens to be French and wishes to be tried in the province of Quebec in French, then a French jury is picked, so there is nothing new. We have that now in the province of Quebec.

May 2, 1978
Criminal Code
The other sections give the right as:
(2) The judge may order the sheriff to summon a sufficient panel of jurors who speak the language of the accused unless, in his discretion, it appears that the ends of justice are better served by empanelling a mixed jury.
In some cases they have that. And that is not only in Quebec; this law of the land is in the Code. If one looks at this bill these sections are repealed and they are rewritten pretty well in the same language. I do not want to leave any misunderstanding tonight that the Minister of Justice is doing something new for the province of Quebec.
Now I will deal with the province of Manitoba. Section 556 says:
(1) Where an accused is arraigned before the Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba demands a jury composed at least half of persons who speak the language of the accused, if that language is either English or French, he shall be tried by a jury composed at least of one-half of the persons whose names stand first in succession upon the general panel and who, not being lawfully challenged, are found, in the judgment of the court, to speak the language of the accused.
In other words, in the province of Quebec and in the province of Manitoba this law has been in effect and has worked well. I have never received or heard any complaints from anyone in those provinces as far as the judiciary is concerned-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would accept a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. minister mind asking me the question at the end of my speech because I want to keep my thoughts together.
What offences does this bill include? We now turn to Section 462.1, which is the introduction section. It says:
On application by an accused whose language is one of the official languages of Canada, made not later than (a) the time of the appearance of the accused at which his trial date is set, if he is accused of an offence ...
What offences does this cover? It deals with treason, breaching the peace, intimidating parliament, mutiny, sedition, murder and bribery. In addition to that it deals with all offences under which a provincial judge has absolute jurisdiction, like summary convictions and some indictable offences. It deals with all offences where the accused may be tried by a provincial judge with the accused's consent. It deals with all offences in which the high court has absolute jurisdiction with or without a jury. That is under the Code.
We agree, providing the provinces consent or have a joint proclamation, that a person should be tried in one or the other official language, similar to the provision in sections 555 and 556 of the Criminal Code. We agree providing the provinces consent or have a joint proclamation. A person should be tried in one or the other official language similar to section 5(55) or 5(56) of the Criminal Code. I have asked the question, what does the Code say today? I have recited what it states in Quebec and Manitoba. We have mixed juries in both Quebec and Manitoba. These are some of the things we must think about when the bill gets to the committee level.

Let us not create an expectancy for Canadians that we cannot fulfil. I know something about the make-up of this country. I know what goes on in Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and other major cities in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Let us not create an expectancy for Canadians we cannot fulfil. The minister was fair in that regard in his speech. I will deal with Calgary. I know more about it because I live there. If you want to have a trial in the French language, unless you can find a venue like St. Paul, you will not get a fair trial. There are not enough people who speak the language fluently.
The practice of law and the judiciary is very sophisticated. In order for a person to make a proper defence, there must be proper communication. The judge can in his discretion change the venue. The big thing in the bill is that there is nothing about the cost. Will the federal government underwrite these costs, particularly in such places as the Atlantic provinces and the western provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia?
I can understand the situation in Ontario because it is part of central Canada. The two provinces of upper and lower Canada are side by side. There is greater communication and immigration from one to the other, if you can call provincial exchange of citizens that. Therefore, you have a greater population of both races and the problem is different. In some areas, it may be very difficult.
What about the practical approach? If you are to have a fair trial, the clerk, registrar, court reporters, judge and jury must speak that official language. If you are to phase this in by federal proclamation without the provinces having a say in it, you are thrusting the problem on the provinces, creating some aggravation and some irritation by these added costs. That is why provincial rights must not be run slipshod over.
Our constitution, the law of this land sets out that the administration of justice falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Criminal law falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Section 92(14) reads:
The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts.
One then asks, is this bill constitutional? The Supreme Court of Canada has said that the administration of justice falls under provincial jurisdiction. The administration of justice is one of those provincial rights that a province has and each should have the right to proclaim this legislation. If they so wish, before the law is enacted it may be done jointly with the federal government and the provincial governments. Is that too much to ask when it is within the provinces' jurisdiction? I do not think so.
That is why we say we agree with the spirit of the bill, but that we will ask, urge, seek and press for that amendment at the committee level. We shall insist on an amendment to this bill after the words:
May 2, 1978

-shall come into force in any Province only on a day fixed in a Proclamation declaring that the-
It then deals with various sections of the Code, different laws under different parts of the Code. That should be amended to "fixing a proclamation by the federal government and by the provincial government" or "a proclamation by the federal government with the consent of the provinces". In that way, you would keep a happy family together. You would get full co-operation in legislation rather than thrusting it on people as policy, as was done with some other matters that came before this House for expensive programs. The provinces could ill afford them and the federal government did nothing with regard to their financing.
In other words, this amendment would mean that this act creating language rights in the courts and which falls under administration of justice, a provincial right, shall not be thrust on the provinces without their enabling legislation declaring the same, or without obtaining each province's consent before this language bill becomes the law in any province. Surely that is fair. In other words, before any province adopts this law, they must agree and consent to the same.
The minister said he had the consent of the provinces through consultations. However, they may want some time to arrange their affairs. Ontario became a province long before confederation in the west in 1905. Therefore, it has had more time. They have more French Canadians, more people speaking both official languages. It is therefore possible to change the venue from Toronto to northern Ontario with bilingual judges or bilingual or French-speaking staff. It will work. In fact, it must work if we are going to have confederation. However, to thrust it on a province without preparation or consulting them is very dangerous and unconstitutional.
I hope that when I resume my seat I will have made a case. I have said we agree in principle. I hope I have made a case for confederation and a case for provincial rights. I hope the Minister of Justice will not say no just because the bill happens to have been drafted in that way. With regard to the pornography bill, he said he would not change the definition. However, when I read the new bill, I saw it was the one we recommended. That is commendable. I commend the Minister of Justice for his flexibility in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Some provinces may agree, some provinces may not, but each province should have the right to make its choice. It is their jurisdiction.
We shall insist on this amendment. We will press hard for it. This bill is really an invasion of provincial rights because the administration of justice falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. There must be legal consultation between the federal government and all the provincial governments which have to plan what will take place when this amendment is accepted.
Extra costs of the administration of justice must be borne by the federal government. Surely that is fair because it is common to all Canadians. Our constitution divides those things common to all Canadians as being under federal juris-
Criminal Code
diction and those that are local as being under provincial jurisdiction.
We will approve this legislation very quickly if the amendment is accepted. It can only be made at the committee stage, unless it is at report stage. However, once it gets to that stage it is buried-voted on and forgotten. We would move the amendment now if the rules of parliament would permit that. The rules do not permit an amendment at second reading but only at the committee and report stages. I want to repeat that our amendment will say that the bill shall come into force in any province only on a day fixed in a federal and provincial proclamation declaring the sub-paragraph to be in force in that province, and for greater certainty it will go on to describe what particular sections of the code we are talking about. If it would make for more comfortable language and drafting, it could be done in consultation.
When we are dealing with matters affecting confederation it is a good time to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has too long played ducks and drakes with the constitution, and above all, provincial rights. He confronts and thrusts laws illegally on provinces and then wonders why there is trouble in the land. He likes that. He is a man who sets himself up as king to solve all the problems he creates. He is like the fellow who threw a pail of dust, cleaned it up with a vacuum cleaner and said "Look at what a good job I have done".


Mrs. Campagnolo:: You support it all in principle.


Mr. Nystrom:: What is that?


Iona Campagnolo: I said he supports it all in principle.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I was interrupted. What about the sales tax? The Prime Minister said, when questioned by our leaders and others, that there had been consultation. He tried to leave the impression that there was consent. Then we found out that three provinces had not consented at all. Finally, agreements had to be made with two, and there is still no agreement with Quebec. That is not consultation. The Prime Minister said there was negotiation. This is his negotiation: "This is my position, I won't move an inch, and if you don't come to the trough to drink, you don't get any water".
My party is the party of confederation. We want it to work, and it will work. The provision of trial services in both French and English throughout Canada will not be made without problems. Some will see this as essentially a duplication, and a needless one, of services. In parts of this country where little French is spoken these amendments are likely to result, as the Minister of Justice said, in some criticism. It is therefore important that a federal administration intending to implement trial services in French and English be aware of local, regional and provincial concerns. That is why we must have a joint proclamation of this legislation.
No one can pretend that trial services in French and English throughout the country will come cheaply. This is not a matter

May 2, 1978
Criminal Code
to be dealt with lightly either, in view of the government's penchant for making greater demands on the private sector to provide resources for more and improved public services and goods. Spokesmen in this party have stated on many occasions the necessity of slowing the growth of government expenditures. We are on record as favouring a permanent tax cut. We have talked about that. The government talks about restraint, but if it is going to thrust legislation on the provinces by its own unilateral proclamation, it should be ready to pay the shot.
It is within this framework that these amendments, which will be approved by this House, must go forward and be implemented in the most efficient and reasonable manner possible. This will require a great deal of consultation with all provincial governments.
I come back to the first point I made. In New Brunswick the right of litigants to elect trials in French or English dates back ten years. It is nothing new. Approximately 37 per cent of the population of that province speaks French as a first language.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: It dates back six years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the hon. member is from New Brunswick, I accept his correction and thank him very much. I said ten years. That figure was given to me by my researchers, and I accepted it. I thank the hon. member very much for that interruption. New Brunswick is now completely bilingual in providing services, including services in the court system.
The official languages act of New Brunswick provides the right to witnesses to testify in the official language-French or English-of their choice. And, subject to the discretion of the trial judge, who must satisfy himself as to the interests of justice, litigants have the right to elect the language of their trial. Because this act is provincial legislation, it applies only to prosecutions under provincial and municipal legislation and in civil matters. Of course, the administration of justice regarding court procedures under the Code comes under the provinces, and that is why we need a joint proclamation.
Trial services in French and English cannot be implemented overnight. In New Brunswick approximately 40 per cent of that province's courtroom staff, including judges, are bilingual. Implementation of recent measures in New Brunswick has been greatly aided by the fact that trials at the magistrate or provincial court level have taken place in French for at least one hundred years in some parts of the province where French is the predominant language. In recent years some expense has been involved in having available courtroom staff which is French-speaking to deal with cases in English-speaking areas of the province. So it works two ways.
In cases where preliminary hearings or jury trials are necessary a change of venue adds to the expense of holding trials. New Brunswick and Ontario have committed funds for trial services in French and English. However, other provinces are of the opinion that federal financial assistance is needed to help in training courtroom staff, in providing the necessary facilities and in defraying the actual expense of holding a trial in the "other" official language.

Here is one example of how onerous a burden this could become: In Newfoundland, the predominant French-speaking area is in Labrador. These amendments allow for a change of venue, so presumably somebody charged with an offence in St. John's who wished to have his trial conducted in French would have to have his trial shifted to Labrador. That would certainly cost money.
Leadership in bringing a bilingual capacity to Canadian courts has been taken by two provinces, New Brunswick and Ontario, which provide trials in both official languages. It is reasonable and to be expected that these two provinces should be leaders in the provision of trials in both official languages. New Brunswick and Ontario are the two provinces with the largest French-speaking populations outside the province of Quebec.
Ontario's efforts at providing trials in both official languages dates back to 1975. The present attorney general of Ontario, Mr. Roy McMurtry, committed his government to the development of French language services in the courts that year. In 1976 the province began a pilot project in Sudbury in the provincial court, the court which deals with 99 per cent of criminal and quasi-criminal cases. Last year the province extended French language services to the judicial district of Ottawa-Carleton, to the united counties of Prescott and Russell and to five communities in northern Ontario: Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Hearst, Hornepayne and Smooth Rock Falls.
With the expansion last year, French language services are now available in 66 per cent of Ontario. What Ontario has done can be done in the remainder of the provinces if the proper procedure is followed.
Ontario's commitment to French language services in the courts has not stopped at this point. Last fall this service was expanded to include the family division of the provincial court in Sudbury. I am told that Mr. McMurtry hopes to be in a position in the next few weeks to announce further expansions of this service to family division courts in other parts of the province.
On April 28 Mr. McMurtry introduced into the Ontario legislature amendments to the province's judicature act and to the juries act in accordance with the constitution. To quote the Ontario attorney general, the amendments "will lay the foundation for the further development and expansion of French language services in Ontario courts". These latest amendments will provide for the official designation of courts and of counties and districts in which French-speaking litigants may elect to testify in their own language. They provide that evidence in these cases will be received and understood by the court without the intervention of an interpreter. These amendments authorize the sheriff in any district with French language service to prepare two jury roles. This party approves and supports the objective of this legislation.
These amendments to the Criminal Code would give accused persons in Canada the right to have testimony at their trials heard in their own official language, either French or English. For persons who speak other languages it would be necessary to have interpreters. This party is committed to
May 2, 1978

guaranteeing language rights of accused before courts where it is practical and where the provinces want it.
M2)
I have spoken at some length, Mr. Speaker, so let me say in conclusion that I sincerely hope the Minister of Justice will accept our amendment. As I have said, under the constitution the administration of justice falls under provincial jurisdiction so that both levels of government should proclaim that act with each other's consent.
I appreciate the attention which members of the House have given me tonight on this very difficult legal and sensitive matter. I trust that in my work as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I will continue to receive the co-operation of hon. members opposite, as I have in the past, and that they will be as fair as they have been when we on this side have proposed amendments.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat-he asked me to put my question at the end of his remarks-I wonder if he would entertain a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly, go ahead.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Without commenting on the substance of the policy of the hon. member's amendment, he dwelt at some length on the question of the constitution and the administration of justice and I wonder whether therein he had taken into account the case of Jones and the Attorney General of New Brunswick, in which the Supreme Court held that the power to legislate language in criminal cases was necessarily incidental to the federal power under section 91.27 of the criminal law, including procedures in criminal matters.
The second part of my question regards the fact that the hon. member dealt at some length with the provisions in the Criminal Code relating to Quebec and Manitoba which provide for mixed juries. So far as I can discover-and perhaps the hon. member can add to my information-the last mixed jury in Quebec was in the Coffin murder trial of some years ago, and as far as my counsel from Manitoba can determine, they have never been used in Manitoba, certainly not in recent times.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last question first. Sections of the law are there to be used. That was part of the meat of my speech tonight. The law must be practical. It does not mean that a mixture is used. There is a difference between a jury roll and an impanelled jury. If there is a roll of 50 per cent English-speaking and 50 per cent French-speaking members of the jury, it is left to the discretion of the court. So that if the accused says that his language is English, he can have an English jury; but if his language is French, he gets a French jury. It is not good having a mixture of 50-50 because then 50 per cent of the jury would not understand what is going on, and that would be grounds for a new trial.
With reference to the matter relating to the Supreme Court of Canada, I have stated where the last statement was made. I have not read it so I cannot answer the particular case quoted
Criminal Code
by the Minister of Justice. I can only refer to Abraham Lincoln. One morning he pleaded a case on one side and in the afternoon he pleaded another case on the opposite side. The judge said to him: "This afternoon you say one thing, but this morning you said the opposite." "Well", said Lincoln, "this morning I only thought I was right; this afternoon I know I am right"!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to just say a few words in the second reading debate of the bill that is before us to indicate that we support the bill and the principle of the bill. I think it is the type of bill we need in this country; it is going in the right direction. Perhaps there will be need for some minor housekeeping amendments which I will support at the committee or at the report stage.
I took the minister at his word when he said that he had consulted the provinces and the provinces had indicated their initial support for the principle of the bill. I also took him at his word when he said that in the implementation of the bill the provinces will have a great deal of flexibility, in terms of their own timetables, in such provinces as Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick where the bill will be of much greater use than it would be in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Newfoundland. For these reasons I would like to indicate that we agree with the bill and we are glad to see the provinces agreeing to it in principle.
Another point which I think is very important-and the minister mentioned it in his communique-is that under the Bill of Rights of our country people of other language groups in Canada will have the right to an interpreter before the courts. I know that this type of provision is very important in a riding such as mine where there is a large number of Ukrainian, German and Polish-speaking people, even the odd Scandinavian such as myself, or our Indian people. That right is guaranteed under our Bill of Rights and was reiterated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) as an important right.
May I remind hon. members that in ridings like mine people of other origins make very little use of the courts because they are most law abiding citizens, as we all know, but that right is there for them if they cannot speak the English language, and they can always have an interpreter available to them in court. That is a basic right which we must defend in this country, whether it applies to Italians in Toronto or Ukrainians in Saskatchewan. It must be there for those people so they can testify in their own language before the courts.
Under the bill before us people will be allowed to testify in their own language and to be judged in one of the official languages as well as have a jury which understands either English or French. It is one of the basic rights which must be provided in the country from coast to coast if we want Canada to stay together. There must be an understanding of both language groups, an understanding by Quebec of its English minority and an understanding by English Canada of the French minority. As the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) says, this exists already, and since that good will does exist, it should be put into the law of the land. We should

May 2, 1978
Criminal Code
provide bilingual services in the courts, just as we do nationally for the public service.
As I said earlier, some of the provinces will be implementing the legislation sooner than others, and those will be the provinces that have a much larger minority language group than others.

I have here, Mr. Speaker, a news release put out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the statistics for 1977 on the number of Canadians who speak the language of the minority in each Canadian province. In the province of Newfoundland, for instance, only 0.7 per cent of the people speak French. In Prince Edward Island, 6.6 per cent or 7,365 persons speak French. In the province of New Brunswick, almost
40.000	persons speak French, or 5 per cent of the total population. On the other hand, in that province and especially in the riding of Yarmouth, many people speak French. New Brunswick is a truly bilingual province where the two languages "work" harmoniously together. There are more than
200.000	French-speaking people there, that is 34 per cent of the population.
In the province of Quebec, 13 per cent of the population or
800.000	people speak the minority language, which is English.
In Ontario, 6.3 per cent of the population or 500,000 people speak the minority language, which is French.
In Manitoba, the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan, 10 per cent of the population or 60,500 people speak French.
In my province, Saskatchewan, 3.4 per cent of the population or 31,000 people speak French as their mother tongue. They live in southern Saskatchewan, in the town of Gravel-bourg, and in the other nearby villages.
In Alberta, 3 per cent of the population or 46,000 people speak French.
In British Columbia, 1.7 per cent or 38,000 people speak French. But in that province, most French-speaking people live in Vancouver. In that city alone there are nearly 30,000 people who are French-speaking. It would therefore be easy in the area around the city to find a French speaking jury.
As I said earlier, when one looks at the statistics one will find provinces where bilingual courts are being implemented very quickly. The need is obviously present in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. A large number of people in those provinces speak the minority language, be it English in Quebec or French in the other two provinces. It is not quite as important to have bilingual courts in the remaining provinces, but those provinces have given approval in principle. They are interested in implementing bilingual courts, particularly for some of the regions where there are
[Mr. Nystrom.l
large Francophone populations. I am thinking of, for example, parts of Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.
It is important to proceed with this bill. It is one gesture toward keeping this country together. Not just bills similar to this one will keep Canada together. When we talk about national unity and having an understanding between all peoples of our country, we should realize we must resolve the economic problems of Canada. As long as there are more than one million people unemployed, there will not be a positive feeling about unity and staying together. If some of those basic economic problems cannot be resolved, it does not matter how many bills are passed by the House.
There are too many inequities in this country. Too many things in the prairies are unequal and should be resolved, such as freight rates, and there should be an increase in the manufacturing of basic goods and materials. There is too much unemployment in the province of Quebec. There are not enough opportunities for development in the Atlantic provinces. Too many things are discriminated against in the north. Hand in hand with language reform, which is ongoing in the right direction, we must have economic reform so that all Canadians will truly feel they are a part of this great country, which is to their benefit as well as to the benefit of their children and grandchildren in the future.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this bill before it is referred to committee for consideration and probably amendment, as I heard it tonight. The purpose of this bill is to allow an accused to defend himself before the court in his mother tongue, to have a judge who understands him, to have a jury in his mother tongue. We in Quebec have been doing this for a long time. For 110 years we have been setting the example for all other provinces, and for that reason we are happy tonight to be discussing Bill C-42 which, according to what the minister said, seems to be accepted in principle by all provincial governments. And the minister did say "in principle". For 110 years in principle the other provinces should have protected French minorities and in principle they still hope to have Frenchspeaking courts in their provinces. From what I heard tonight I think that practice will still be long in coming.
When you cannot be accepted as a Canadian in certain provinces because you do not speak English, I tell you it hurts, Mr. Speaker, it really hurts. It makes one wonder what Anglophones have in their minds or in their hearts not to understand that Canada is made up as two peoples. When you go to British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, you are likely to be called names every day because you speak French.
The members in this House, and I know they are serious and aware of this, should be taking a stand in their provinces with their fellow citizens, as is being done in the province of Quebec. I am proud of the province of Quebec when my fellow citizens respect Anglophones as we like to be respected when we go in English-speaking provinces, Mr. Speaker. I do not
May 2, 1978

know if we are going to speak clearly enough to be understood by Anglophones-even in this House there are English-speaking bigots, and there are bigots in the province of Quebec, and there are even some in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Ah, ah!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: There are English-speaking bigots even in this House. I heard them. They will have to change. They will have to think that the issue of the Plains of Abraham is a thing of the past. We are living in today's generation. We want to live together, Mr. Speaker, and you need to have respect to live in perfect harmony. I do not believe in a planned Canadian unity, Mr. Speaker, but I do believe in Canadian harmony through understanding between intelligent people, and I hope that this bill will not remain a principle but will be implemented as was done for 110 years in Quebec to teach Anglophones a lesson, a lesson that they still do not seem to have understood.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the bill and I do hope to have a few minutes more, I do hope the bill will be passed and will have its anticipated effects not only in Quebec, but also in Ontario and New Brunswick. We are already making selections among the provinces. We should stop selecting and begin speaking of Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday in the House I raised a question of importance to the fishermen of the maritime provinces, particularly those engaged in the Irish moss industry. For many hon. members the Irish moss industry is relatively unheard of. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) can well identify with this important fishery because it occupies an important part of the activities of fishermen in his area, in the western part of Prince Edward Island and parts of Nova Scotia.
Last Wednesday I raised the special plight of these fishermen. In the last two or three years they have suffered a serious setback in the pricing and marketing of their product, as well as in the amount of Irish moss actually available for harvest. I mentioned to the minister a communication I received and know was sent to him, as well as to the provincial minister of fisheries, on March 16, 1978. It was addressed to him on
Adjournment Debate
behalf of the Prince County Fishermen's Association and it reads as follows:
Dear Mr. LeBlanc:
Last year the P.E.I. Irish moss harvesters requested aid of your department in the form of deficiency payments and market research. The aid was requested due to a decline in landings from 1975 and similar prices; these payments were made and we thank you and your department.
1977 has been not a good year either as far as landings are concerned, they were close to the 1976 figures.
They were below the 1976 figures, if I understand it correctly. The letter continues:
The price paid to the harvesters increased only slightly and the complete picture did not appear any healthier.
Due to the above factors the Prince County Fishermen's Association requests an extension of these deficiency payments for the 1977 years landings. We however, request that payments be given only to licenced harvesters.
Since then I have met with the president, Tilmon Arsenault, to clarify their specific request because he is well aware that it has only been in the last year we have had a definite body of regulations, which were announced by the minister in fact on January 17 last, that would allow us to identify specifically those who were licensed fishermen for the purpose of the Irish moss fisheries.
At the time the minister made his announcement of last January, in addition to the $375,000 covering Irish moss fishermen in all three maritime provinces he also mentioned the fact that he was instituting and I quote from his press release-an "active market exploration and development program to help stabilize the demand for Irish moss products".
In addition to the specific request received about a month and a half ago from the Prince County Fishermen's Association, there was an inquiry as to what actual steps had been taken to develop more firm, stable and attractive markets for Irish moss fishermen. It would seem to me that to date we have had no answer. The minister did assure me in his reply that he would check immediately with the officials of the fisheries price support board. Just this afternoon I received an acknowledgement from the minister's executive assistant that some inquiry was proceeding but, as members of this House are well aware, these fishermen have suffered this serious hardship over a series of some months and urgently require an answer in order to alleviate at least some of their obvious hardship.
In addition, I also asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) to see if there was any firm basis in fact to the accusations that have been levied in a recent report published by the social action commission of the diocese of Charlottetown in a report entitled "Global Village? Global Pillage Irish Moss from P.E.I. in the World Market". In that report there is the suggestion that there has been some form of collusion on the part of the three multinational companies which basically dominate the Irish moss purchases in Prince Edward Island and, indeed, throughout the Atlantic provinces.

May 2, 1978
Adjournment Debate
I also asked the minister to determine whether there has been any fixing of buying practices in a way that would drive the newly formed Irish moss harvesters co-operative and the Prince Edward Island marine plants co-operative out of business. These were serious charges, as I mentioned to the minister. After that question asked in the House I gave the Minister a copy of the report directly by hand in order that he or his officials could determine whether there was any substance to these charges. So far I have not had any answer back from the minister in respect of that suggestion.
In addition, there is growing concern, which is again mentioned in this particular report, that much of the federal money being spent through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the National Research Council is going into research and development funding of commercial seaweed extraction, and that is to the benefit of these foreign companies, with little or no guarantee that the benefits will also accrue to Canadians, either in terms of the fishermen who are directly involved with the harvesting of this product, or those who might be involved in a secondary way.
This recent report produced for the social action commission of Prince Edward Island is a significant document. One does not have to agree with all the recommendations or information in it, but this is the first attempt I know of to go beyond merely a technological examination of one aspect of the industry to recognize that there is a serious problem in respect of effective Canadian control on the part of the producers, in order to achieve maximum benefit for those who are directly involved in the industry.
I would recommend that the minister look at the six recommendations and, in particular, the final conclusion, which states:
There is evidence that the multinationals involved in the Irish moss industry have tried to control the resource through (a) buying practices, (b) control of information, (c) aquacultural research.
These are important comments, if not charges, and ones that I think need to be dealt with by the responsible departments involved. That is why I have circulated three copies of this report and will provide others to relevant ministers if there is a need to do so. I look forward to a response from the parliamentary secretary in order to provide some assurance and information to the fishermen directly concerned.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member dealt with two areas, one under consumer affairs and one under fisheries. I do not know if in the three minutes I will be able to deal with both; however I will reply in writing to the one on consumer affairs.
Last winter the Gulf of St. Lawrence marine plant advisory committee was established, made up of Irish moss harvesters, processors and representatives of provincial and federal departments of fisheries. The main terms of reference of the committee are to advise the government on policies and programs to optimize the marine plant resource; to promote better

management of the marine plant industry; to improve communications between harvesters, buyers and government agencies; and to encourage input into management policies from harvesters, buyers and interested citizens.
An investigation of the market situation was begun immediately following the announcement in January 1977 of the federal government's program to assist the Irish moss industry. It is clearly apparent that the marketing problems encountered by the primary producers of Irish moss stem from the market structure of the industry, including the international availability of seaweeds which compete with Irish moss.
In the maritimes, as in other countries, there are a large number of producer/sellers of Irish moss. On the other hand, there are very few buyers. This situation in itself ensures that Canadian producers of Irish moss are price takers, with no control over the market price for their product.
The hydro-colloids industry, which is the primary user of Irish moss, purchases its raw material on a global scale. While other competing seaweeds are only partial substitutes for Irish moss in certain uses, this factor is very largely offset by their ready availability and much cheaper price structure.
The existence of a very competitive market for the end products of seaweeds ensures that buyers of Irish moss give as much weight as possible to price when deciding to purchase one type or source of seaweed rather than another. In the absence of technical barriers to the substitution of competing seaweeds for Irish moss, the size of the market over the long term will continue to be directly related to the relative price level of Irish moss. Over the past year, potential markets have been investigated by both the federal and provincial governments. No new long term markets have been located.
In view of the international market for Irish moss, the scope for government intervention in the market development and stabilization is necessarily extremely limited. Currently under consideration is the possibility of providing Canadian producers with statistical and market information, including the prices of competing products. Such information would enable producers to make more informed decisions concerning the marketing of their products. The availability of accurate and timely market information will enable producers to take action to mitigate the volatile nature of the market for Irish moss.
In 1976, the average price paid to Irish moss harvesters in the maritimes was 3.5 cents per pound, compared to 4.1 cents per pound in 1977. In Prince county, Prince Edward Island, the price for Irish moss in 1977 went from 4.5 cents to 4.9 cents per pound. I am told, Mr. Speaker, that harvesters are currently negotiating prices for the 1978 harvest.
With respect to the request for assistance on the 1977 harvest-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.
May 2, 1978


FISHERIES-BRITISH COLUMBIA-SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT FOR NATIONALS OF OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, on April 10 I put the following question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment:
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment or his parliamentary secretary. Is he aware of the fact that the bonanza in the herring roe fishing industry in British Columbia is attracting some seasonal employment, and that Japanese nationals have been hired as technicians for that industry who are really not technicians but are out in the fishing grounds working along with the other fishermen and are taking jobs away from Canadians?
The minister was not in the House so his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), made the following reply:
I am not aware of any Japanese nationals who are fishing with the herring boats off British Columbia.
On April 28 in The Columbian, a British Columbia newspaper, an article appeared under the heading "Jobs taken by Japanese: Union." It reads in part:
Jack McKinstrey, Pacific region immigration director, said Thursday that most of the investigation is complete and no evidence has been found of serious infractions of work permits issued to the Japanese.
I do not know if there was any connection between the question I asked and the fact that an investigation was going on. Perhaps the investigation was already in progress but it strikes me that any Japanese nationals working in the fishing grounds would soon become aware of immigration investigators in the area. An interesting thing about that investigation is that the union did not know it was going on until it was almost complete.
It seems to me that the people most likely to be aware of infractions committed by foreign nationals would be those people who work alongside them. Surely the fishermen would be in the best position to know whether infractions are committed by nationals from Japan.
The policy of bringing nationals from Japan to work as technicians in the roe industry began in 1971 when the department of immigration granted working visas. That was understandable at the time because this was a new industry and Canadians were not yet qualified to perform the inspections and grading which are so sensitive. Today, however, over 400 working permits have been issued to Japanese nationals to work in the roe industry. Of these, 240 are in the hands of people known to be working in the British Columbia fishing industry, 100 working in Prince Rupert alone.
The understanding in 1971 was that if permits were granted to Japanese nationals they would train Canadians to do this work. To date, however, not one Canadian has been trained. Certainly the Japanese nationals have the expertise but I should like to know what the department has been doing about the commitment to train Canadians for this work.
I have learned that some Japanese nationals have been in Canada for as long as 11 'A months. As people in British Columbia know, the herring roe industry only lasts about five
Adjournment Debate
weeks so why are the Japanese allowed to stay for periods up to 11 months? I hear that they are building fish boxes and salting roe, jobs that could be done by Canadians. The government gives the excuse that as long as they are here they may as well be working and also that they can find no evidence of this. These Japanese nationals are being paid in funds from Japan, not in Canadian funds.
The newspaper report I referred to earlier, as well as reports from the union, indicate that photographs exist showing Canadian technicians working on the production line. Tonight I spoke to someone in the union who told me that they had irrefutable evidence that Japanese nationals are doing jobs in the industry which was not intended when the work permits were granted.
The organizer in the union at Prince Rupert is asking for a full investigation of this matter. When this is complete the union will then produce its evidence. They can hardly do that at the present time in light of the kind of prejudiced investigation which is proceeding but they have evidence to prove that the practice is going on.
It is interesting to note that Mr. McKinstrey admitted that the union spokesmen were correct in saying that there was a commitment on the part of immigration authorities to do that job. Yet that commitment has not been fulfilled. The fact is that we export products in lumber and other kinds of primary products, and we do the inspection and the grading in Canada. Why is it that we cannot train Canadians to do the inspection and the grading in the herring roe industry?
I have one final comment and I know that the parliamentary secretary is not prepared to comment on this because it is an addendum to my question. There is also a report that one of the Canadian-Japanese companies in Richmond has been what we might call strong-armed by a Japanese national company moving in and muscling its way into the Canadian-Japanese company and taking it over through a large Japanese conglomerate called Sumitomo. It has now made the Canadian national-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the original question put forth by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) indicated that Japanese technicians were working along with Canadian fishermen in the fishing grounds. The Japanese nationals to which the hon. member refers are not on fishing boats or packers but are engaged in the processing plants as advisers on roe grading and quality standards.
Since Japan is the sole buyer of B.C. herring roe, and since there is keen competition among the Japanese companies that are purchasing the roe, the individual buyers have requested permission, which had been granted, to place observers in the various processing plants from which they are buying roe. It is

May 2, 1978
Adjournment Debate
conceivable if one processor is supplying five different Japanese customers that there could be observers from five different customers present in one plant. With 34 buyers competing for herring roe in B.C. in 1978, this can create a situation where many such advisers and observers would be required to look after the interests of the various Japanese purchasers. In fact, in 1978, 486 special visas have been issued for such observers for the herring roe and salmon roe processing operations. However, we conducted a survey of the number of Japanese nationals in each of the processing plants in B.C. We found that there are less than half that number actually present, so it is obvious that not all of the visas issued have been used.
The Department of Employment and Immigration, under the terms of the Immigration Act, has authority to issue special visas to permit entry for these people and has done so for the past six years. In the early 1970's when we first entered this market, Japanese technicians did accompany the herring seiners to advise the captains when the roe had reached the stage of maturity suitable for the Japanese market so the fishing operation could proceed. However, this function has now been taken over by the Canadian fishermen and the fisheries and marine service in the field which determines fishing times in discrete areas by maturity of the roe and abundance of herring present. This change for a time caused a decline in the number of Japanese technicians entering Canada, but this number is now escalating again due to the increased number of buyers after roe herring.
By the terms of the temporary visas issued to these people, they are to take no active part in any of the actual work conducted in the processing operation. However, to look after the interests of their employers they may be required to handle and assist in the grading of the roe, so there is a grey area involved where the plant workers' duties terminate and those of the technician commence.
The fisheries and marine service in conjunction with the Department of Employment and Immigration is conducting an investigation into the role and need for these technicians in so far as the herring roe and salmon roe processing operations are concerned. This investigation will touch on such specific points as the number of technicians that may be required in each processing plant, or by each Japanese buyer-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


CANADA COUNCIL-GUIDELINES FOR ALLOCATIONS OF GRANTS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, on March 15 of this year I rose in the House to ask a question of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) relating to Canada Council grants, the regulations by which they are guided and how many people had written in protest of the lack of regulations. I noted later in response to a question I placed on the order paper that the minister indicated that some 1,000 letters had

been received in protest of the regulations for Canada Council grants.
The simple thing I want to make reference to at this time is the fact that we have before us a situation in which there is much to be produced by the Canada Council. While the majority of its work is excellent and it is a very serviceable kind of organization, the laxity of regulation creates a situation wherein we find what many people classify as the printing of pornographic literature, the awarding of grants for projects that many people presume to be useless. One example is the $174,000 grant to study air breathing fish on the Amazon River. That is only one example.
What most people are concerned about with the Canada Council is not the fact that it is an agency of government which gives grants, but that there appears to be no checks or balances on how the money is spent. I want to make it clear my quarrel is not with the agency but with the guidelines and regulations. What I find insulting when I look at some of the poetry supported by Canada Council grants is that when I go to the men's room in the local tavern and read what is written there, the only difference is that in large measure the stuff in the tavern washroom is of higher quality. As a taxpayer, I find it insulting that tax money goes to support things that many people find insulting. That is not what taxpayers want their money spent on.
Before the parliamentary secretary begins to feel that I am chastising only this government, I want to say that it is a problem far more afield. All governments have that problem. However, we cannot hide it under a bushel, simply saying that the matter of political interference means we have a lack of political responsibility.
In today's Ottawa Citizen there is a complaint about a grant of $97,000 to study ethnic and class relationships in the Peruvian Andes. It goes on to state:
Part of the ethnic and class relationships study, it turns out, involved one of the two professors making about "20" visits to a bordello at a place called San Tuti-
... In a flash, the thing was done, with 364 voting for, 37 against. And only one congressman had the bad grace to point out that it was this appropriation that, in 1977, contained $62,300 for a study of homosexual tendencies among California seagulls.
Although such things as the CBC, CNR and Canada Council should be removed from politics, they should not be removed from responsibility. The question I put forward and am now asking the parliamentary secretary is: Surely there must be some way, when these regulations come to the surface and are brought before the public, that the minister can ask that the guidelines be reviewed? It appears to a mass of people across this country now that there is some abuse. Therefore, the regulations should come before a parliamentary committee.
Before sitting down I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether there is not some way by which he can indicate tonight what action is being taken. Many people have been protesting the lack of regulatory guidelines. Is any action
May 2, 1978

being taken? Is any action contemplated? Could the parliamentary secretary clear up this whole question? Many people have said that they are not against the Canada Council and that it is an excellent organization, but that there are obviously abuses. Those abuses have been detailed. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us what the ministry is doing to live up to its responsibility?
The ministry is the steward of taxpayers' funds, and it simply cannot continue to say that there are abuses but that we have to live with them and that the department cannot get involved in the politics of this question. Surely there is another side to the question. The government is responsible for taxpayers' money. The parliamentary secretary recognizes that all governments from time to time allow certain things to get out of hand, but somehow we must regulate the Canada Council, and whatever regulatory agency is involved should come under the review of a parliamentary committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a question which has obviously caused substantial concern on both sides of this House. This has been evidenced by the discussions which have taken place in the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
As indicated by the hon. member, there have been a number of letters to the minister. At the time of the writing of the document I have before me at least 670 members of the public had written to the minister. As the hon. member pointed out, there may indeed be more. There is no question that there is public perception of some difficulty. There is no question that in fact a number of people have written and indicated that there appears to be something which needs review and revision.
1 need not go into great detail on this because there appears to be substantial agreement on the part of the hon. member and myself that the majority of the Canada Council budget goes to worthwhile endeavours. One need only suggest the Canadian Opera Company, the Shaw Festival and the Stratford Festival, all of which are recipients of Canada Council
Adjournment Debate
moneys and grants. I think all parties would agree that these are worthy recipients of the money which goes to them.
What we sometimes forget, however, is that the portion of the Canada Council grants at which we look with chagrin refers to a gross of only 16 per cent of the Canada Council budget which is devoted to grants to individual artists. Of that, only a small percentage is currently the subject of criticism and review as suggested by the public at large. It is not the full 16 per cent of those individual artistic grants which are subject to criticism. Indeed, the majority of that 16 per cent would be viewed by most persons as being properly given.
On the other hand, the representations received reflect the very real difficulties involved in choosing which artists are worthy of support. Art is essentially a matter of personal taste, and is, therefore, hard to adjudicate. The council tries to apply the highest contemporary standards, rather than the taste and judgment of any one individual, in its review process. That is why grant applications are reviewed by panels of independent jurors, all of whom are private citizens and experts in their own artistic fields. Public comment such as has been made, on the other hand, provides a valuable indication of contemporary taste and cannot be ignored.
The government believes that a judicious melding of the two elements, expert judgment and public opinion, in an independent review process is the best means of assuring balance and equitable support for all types of artistic expression.
I would not want to agree with the hon. member that there is a lack of control or a lack of accountability. The council is still the subject of control by this parliament and members of the committee. Through votes which come before the committee, members decide what money will be given to the Canada Council, and that committee directs the council in terms of what it should or should not be doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, May 3, 1978