1979-03-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the continued support by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) for a child tax credit commercial on television which in my view is totally election-oriented and an affront to the intelligence of Canadian mothers-and all Canadians, for that matter-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the minister immediately discontinue this obscene abuse of taxpayers' money for partisan purposes.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion could be introduced at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that observers placed on board Canadian ships fishing in zones 4VN and 3PN have authority which supersedes that of the captain, thereby causing fish which are unfit for processing to be landed, and that said observers are not provided with a food allowance by the government, thereby placing an additional financial burden on the crew who must pay the food account, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That licences to fish in these areas be given to the captain of the ship and that permanent observers be removed from Canadian ships, since the tonnage caught
and the species can be inspected by shore-based fisheries officials when the ship docks.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), I move:
That this House urges the government to introduce, without delay, an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to end the discrimination therein against persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who are of single status by providing for the equivalent of the spouse's allowance to be available to all persons between the ages of 60 and 65, regardless of marital status, provided they are out of the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that it is reported that the Quebec minister of public works is working on a plan to integrate 53,000 federal public servants into the civil service of Quebec, and is at the same time preparing an inventory of federal buildings to prepare for negotiations for transfer of this property to a sovereign state, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
3754

March 2, 1979
[DOT] (mo)
That the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works explain on motions whether these matters under their respective jurisdictions fall within four-fifths which can be implemented into the federal system or the one-fifth which can be negotiated, which formula was adopted by the Minister of Justice on behalf of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction 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]


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent question of pressing necessity.
Considering that it is important to settle conflicts between the government and its employees, that it seems unacceptable to resort to walkouts to speed up negotiations and that most people will no longer tolerate those continuous labour unrests which disturb everybody and from which no advantage is gained, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House direct the government to introduce as soon as possible a general formula for the settlement of conflicts between employers and employees which would eliminate walkouts or strikes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That this House, in view of the Prime Minister's impending trip to Washington to visit President Carter, register its support for the reported initiative to be taken by the Prime Minister in going to the United States to make a deal on a one-for-one basis to trade Jim Coutts for Billy Carter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamil-ton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott).


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity involving the Pan American Games of 1981.
In view of reports that Venezuela could withdraw as host country as early as March 12, 1979, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):
That this House requests the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) to make a statement at the earliest opportunity on the Pan American Games situation and include in that statement the status of the city of Hamilton as runner-up applicant to Caracas as the site of the Games.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Alexander:: The minister said yes.


GATT NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES-EFFECT ON NEW BRUNSWICK-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: As it is generally accepted that the huge natural market for New Brunswick and the New England states is impeded by tariffs and trade barriers, and that a softening of these regulations would greatly assist New Brunswick's efforts to attract new industry and manufacturing facilities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie):
That this House instruct the government to get on with the negotiations with the United States on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade so as to alleviate this obvious deterrent to New Brunswick's development.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for discussion at this time only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 2, 1979


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I wish to move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Canadian Transport Commission be required to hold public hearings whenever airlines seek to raise their rates, and to hear presentations from public interest groups which wish to oppose the increase in rates, without these organizations having first to establish a prima facie case against an increase before they can obtain a hearing into the increase; and, further, that the CTC require the airlines to disclose the financial data on which their application for fare increases is based, as is now required by the CRTC from Bell Canada when it asks for increases in telephone rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. There is real apprehension in this country that, after great expectations for Canada's economy as a whole, the Alaskan pipeline project is a dead duck and that we have all been led up the garden path, perhaps by the Americans or perhaps by our own government which should have known better.
MS)
The Prime Minister is going to Washington to have discussions with President Carter. On the assumption that this is not merely a public relations exercise, may I ask the Prime Minister if the pipeline project is on the agenda and, if so, what presentation will the Prime Minister make to the President about it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I expect to discuss the whole question of energy with the President of the United States. Naturally, I will express the concern of the Canadian government, having acted diligently, as it has with the support of parliament, in getting the pipeline legislation through, that now the United States does not seem to be very certain of its course.
That is the line I will take with the President, and I will attempt to ascertain from him and Mr. Schlesinger, whom I
Oral Questions
also hope to meet, what intentions and what strong volitions they have of proceeding with the pipeline project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH PRESIDENT CARTER-DISCUSSION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question also relates to the discussions of the Prime Minister with the President.
The United States countervailing duties are negating any Canadian effort to build up our own businesses and industries in Canada's depressed areas. Is this on the agenda for discussion as well? If so, what will be the thrust of the arguments of the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being discussed at the GATT negotiations. It is part of the multilateral trade negotiations. The Canadian government and other governments in the world have expressed their concerns generally about the United States' policies. I do not know if we will have time, or if it will be opportune, to discuss this subject with President Carter.


PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH PRESIDENT CARTER-DISCUSSION OF GATT NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister: it deals with his visit to the President of the United States.
As we know, a broad agreement was reached approximately one week ago between Jake Warren and the American negotiator respecting certain bilateral aspects of the GATT negotiations. Does the Prime Minister intend to raise the substance of that agreement with President Carter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been no expression on the part of the Americans or myself that we would pursue the GATT negotiations bilaterally. It is being dealt with on our side by government ministers, notably the Deputy Prime Minister. We have Mr. Jake Warren who has been meeting regularly with the Americans and his counterparts in other countries. Mr. Strauss will not be part of my meeting with President Carter.


TOURISM
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As there has been a great setback to our tourist industry since the Ameri-

March 2, 1979
Oral Questions
cans chose to make certain convention expenses non-deduct-ibie, would the Prime Minister indicate if he intends to raise this problem with the President? If so, what will his position be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have reported already to the House that I raised this matter with the President at my last meeting, and what his response was. I must inform the House that my meeting with President Carter will be a couple of hours' duration at most and, personally, I intend to spend most of it talking about energy and international affairs related to energy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it was reported in Washington today that one of the questions which might come up, in addition to the energy question, is the fact that the American de-regulation of its airlines' industry has had certain consequences for our airlines. Would the Prime Minister indicate if he intends to raise that question with the President?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS TAKEOVERS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister also. It arises from the announcement today indicating that the Thomson interests are seeking to secure control of the Hudson's Bay Company, which only recently acquired control of Simpsons and Zeller's.
In view of the fact that last January the assistant deputy minister of consumer and corporate affairs, who is also in charge of the combines investigation and research branch of that department, said that the takeover by the Hudson's Bay Company of Simpsons was against the public interest because it would mean department stores sales would be 35 per cent under the control of this company-and if we include Simp-sons-Sears, it would be 60 per cent-will the Prime Minister indicate when we can expect the competition legislation which the government has repeatedly told us it intends to introduce?
I refer particularly to last Tuesday, when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that instead of a fair prices commission, the federal government's preference was proper competition legislation. Can we expect that legislation during this session and, if not, what action does the government propose to take in light of this announcement by the Thomson interests?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is in fact combines legislation

existing now and there is, as he mentioned, a director of investigations and research under that act, a combines commissioner.
I again talked with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs this morning, and because of the very magnitude of that proposed takeover, the facts are being looked at by the director of investigations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, last January, in a speech which the director of investigations made to the Canadian Club in Montreal, he said that the present combines legislation was not adequate to cope with the takeover of Simpsons by Hudson's Bay.
In view of this very much larger takeover, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to follow the example of Premier Bennett of British Columbia, who persuaded the Canadian Pacific Railways to put off its acquisition of MacMillan Bloedel until such time as effective legislation could be put in place by parliament.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure 1 follow the hon. member in his suggestion that Premier Bennett was justified in suggesting that one Canadian company would not be able to take over another Canadian company. This is not our view of the Canadian economic union, where some people are disqualified in Canada because they are from another province. I am surprised that the hon. member is supporting the attitude of the provincial premier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: However, I leave him with his own views of Canada.
In so far as the legislation is concerned, we know it can be improved and, indeed, that is why the government now has a bill to deal with and improve the anti-combines legislation which presently exists. I do not know in what particular context this statement was made by, I believe, the director of investigations, but if he was saying that the present legislation could be improved, indeed this is the position of the government and that is why we proposed to go ahead with the new bill.
As to whether it would be passed by this parliament, I think the hon. member is asking only a rhetorical question, because he knows that would depend on the willingness of the opposition to co-operate in respect of various bills before the House. Some have high priority and are before the House now. If they can be passed, and if parliament will sit a few more months, then indeed we will pass that bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the acquisition by the Thomson interests of the Hudson's Bay Company, which takes in Simpsons and Zeller's, plus the control of a large area of the Canadian economy covering mining, oil, gas, real estate, newspapers, radio and 35 per cent to 60 per cent of the control of retail sales by departmental stores, does the Prime Minister not consider that this constitutes a national oligarchy through
March 2, 1979

which a handful of individuals will be able to control the economic life of millions of Canadians?
Does he not think that is serious enough to warrant the government bringing down that legislation now and asking parliament to give it quick passage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I obviously cannot understand sophistry, even though it is covered in some words of feigned indignation. There is legislation now which can be used.
The director of investigations is investigating the facts. The facts give us as much concern as they give the hon. member. The difference is that the government has its officials acting, rather than making speeches as the hon. member has done.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Last October, for reasons which have not been made clear, he decided to lay off 381 civil servants including 279 who were French language teachers employed by the Public Service Commission. Can the minister tell the House what criteria his department used to select the teachers who are now considered as surplus at the general language training branch?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to provide the precise information for the hon. member, but fundamentally the situation is, as the hon. member is aware, that over the past decade during this transitional phase we have made significant headway as far as establishing French as a second working language in the public service of Canada is concerned and that henceforth there will be a diminution in the amount we will be earmarking for this program.
This is because there has been a transfer of the responsibility for this policy out of the Treasury Board into the departments. The object is to orient the policy more toward departmental needs and their specific technical requirements, rather than having the broad policy throughout the government of general second language training.


Gérard Laprise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Following the lay-off, the department organized a career program to assign these teachers other duties within the public service or to find them jobs in the private sector. Could the President of the Treasury Board indicate now why that program has been frozen until April 1 when it will no longer apply to the language teachers of the public service?
Oral Questions


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, that is not my understanding, but I will verify it with the Public Service Commission which is actually carrying out this program.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. On February 14, the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced outside this House that agreement had been reached on Atlantic coast fisheries and boundary disputes, and that two treaties-one on the third party settlement of the boundary and the other on fisheries arrangements-will be completed and ready for signature by the beginning of March.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister if during his meeting with President Carter these two treaties will be on the agenda for discussion, and will they be signed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, again this is a subject that President Carter and 1 discussed very explicitly at our last meeting and we instructed our negotiators to make progress or to report to us if progress was not being made, because we would want to intervene personally. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has reported to this House, very significant progress has been made, notably on the east coast.
There is no proposal that President Carter and 1 sign any agreement in Washington, but the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs still holds and we are confident that the agreements will be signed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. On February 13, in answer to a question put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning a possible claim by the United States to Canadian territorial waters, he undertook to provide me with information in this regard, which he has done in a letter addressed to me dated February 22. It confirms my worst fears by informing me that the United States has formally claimed continental shelf and fisheries jurisdiction in the Beaufort Sea up to an equidistant line which lies east of the 141st meridian, an area of approximately 6,000 square nautical miles.
In his visit to Washington, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take a firm stand on informing the

March 2, 1979
Oral Questions
President that under no circumstances will Canadian sovereignty be relinquished to any Canadian territorial waters, and that it will not be part of any treaty on fisheries that is signed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course Canada will not relinquish sovereignty over any of its waters. I can say that to the House and I can say that to the President.
The whole question is, where does Canada's sovereignty lie and where does the boundary lie? As the hon. member knows, or should know, this is the whole subject of negotiation. We have made claim over waters that the United States say is an infringement of their sovereignty. The President can tell me the same thing: you must not take our sovereign waters.
The whole matter is one of discussing and deciding where the line lies. That is the object of the negotiations and that will perhaps be the eventual object of arbitration.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since Canada has always operated under the sector theory, the 141st meridian, therefore, would be the established boundary of Canada's territorial waters.
Can the Prime Minister assure us that the Canadian government is taking that stance; that it is insisting upon the application of the sector theory, and that the 141st meridian is the established rigid boundary of Canada's territorial waters in that area of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the sector theory is the one which gives us the broadest scope of sovereignty. It is, of course, the one we are pushing for and prefer, but it is not the one which is accepted in international law or by the United States.
It would be very nice to go up to the North Pole and say that part of the North Pole is ours, but it would be another thing to get the rest of the world to admit that claim. The hon. member knows the difficulties when there are competing claims by different countries. You have to resolve those claims by negotiation, as we have been successful in doing on the east coast and as we hope to be successful in doing elsewhere. Failing that, we will use the other means at our disposal under international law.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question along the same lines. I hope the Prime Minister will add to his agenda the insistence, and not be intimidated by the 54-40 or "fight" notion which has been used in United States politics, on the importance of the A-B line when he is talking to the president.


Mr. Paproski:: He does not know what the A-B line is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know that the colleagues of the hon. member do not understand what the A-B line is. I just heard Mr. Paproski say that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. I said you did not know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You probably do not know that A and B are the first two letters of the alphabet.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The alpha-beta line is the one which is under negotiation. Canada would like to have the present line respected, but it is being disputed by the United States. This is also one of the things they are putting forth for negotiation, just as we are putting forth for negotiation areas of water they claim as theirs and that we are claiming for ourselves.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Bill C-9, the referendum bill, has been before committee for more than a month and many, many meetings have been held.
It is becoming apparent, to me at least, that the official opposition seems to be filibustering. Will the Prime Minister say if Bill C-9 remains a priority of his and the government's, and will he delay calling a general election until this House had dealt with the referendum bill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the first part of the question very readily. The government does attach very great importance to that piece of legislation. We have explained repeatedly that we feel it is an important piece of our arsenal if we are to be able to combat separatism in the United-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Way to go.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You and Billy Carter.


Mr. Hees:: You are better than Jimmy.


An hon. Member:: You are better than Billy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Judging by the opposition questions this morning, they want me to talk with President Carter on just about everything. Maybe they want me to talk to him about the referendum legislation. I think he would certainly understand more than the opposition seem to, the importance to Canada of this particular piece of legislation. I want to assure the people of Canada and the opposition that it is of the utmost importance.
March 2, 1979


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, the temptation is to put another question to the Prime Minister and ask if the Minister of Transport has changed his mind regarding a deep sea fleet, but I would rather put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Yesterday, the minister replied to some questions about Sydney Steel and indicated that the matter of assistance for the plant is under active consideration by the cabinet. Without asking the minister to divulge what form this assistance might take, could he indicate if the government is viewing assistance to Sydney Steel in a positive vein?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it may be a few days too early for me to respond in a complete way to that question, because I would be preventing a decision being reached by cabinet based on what they are assessing. I would ask the hon. gentleman to be patient for a few more days. We will come to a decision on that matter next week, I hope.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. I wonder if I might ask the minister whether in this process, without inviting Premier Buchanan into the inner circles, the province of Nova Scotia is being kept fully advised of the decision-making process within cabinet.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, Premier Buchanan has been kept aware of the progress achieved recently, but I cannot tell the hon. gentleman about all the small details that I have put in front of my colleagues.


PROBLEMS OF INDEPENDENT FUEL OIL DISTRIBUTORS- MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology. At the end of January, I believe, the minister had already received the representations of the Quebec division of the association of independent distributors of fuel oil expressing their considerable concern about the price increases and the difficulties in having their contracts honoured, as well as the possibility of their losing some contracts to the competition of the big companies. Since that time, has the minister reached a decision and can he tell us what his views are about the representations made to him?
Oral Questions


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, there are two problems with respect to the shortage of stove oil and furnace oil in Quebec. The first problem, and the No. 1 priority of the government, is to ensure consumers of stove oil and fuel oil that they will be looked after.
The government has made a number of efforts to ensure that federal arms, such as the Department of National Defence, for instance, have shipped stove oil from the special reserve in Newfoundland into the Quebec market.
Similarly, the Minister of Transport has made special efforts to get the air carriers of Canada to switch fuels temporarily so that more kerosene will be made available to consumers of stove oil in the province of Quebec. I believe that these methods, along with certain other reallocations on the part of eastern refiners to the Quebec market, have helped the situation.
The second problem the hon. member raises is the question of allocation and the position of the independents. We have made every effort to get the co-operation of the refiners to make a fair distribution. I am not satisfied as yet that that fair distribution has been obtained. We have advised the refiners that we have some evidence which indicates they are taking advantage of the situation. I can tell the hon. member that as a result of that evidence I have issued instructions to my department that I want an audit made and an investigation into certain practices in the province of Quebec.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: I appreciate the reply of the minister very much. On a supplementary, last week, I believe, at a meeting of the 800 Quebec independent distributors, the association expressed its intention of asking the government to act through legislation, if the need should arise, to protect those independent distributors who represent thousands of employees. Is the minister aware of the recommendation of the association and under special circumstances would he be willing to introduce a bill to protect those independent distributors?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with representatives of the independent retailers. We have discussed a number of methods. I referred to the audit and investigation which will be launched very shortly.
I also want to tell the hon. member that I have received representations that the differential with respect to middle distillates which has protected Canadian refineries, providing a degree of protection against imports, has had an adverse affect upon the ability of independent retailers to purchase advantageously. I received those representations from the industry and I have received representations from a large number of members of my party from the province of Quebec. As a result of

March 2, 1979
Oral Questions
those representations, Mr. Speaker, 1 have decided that the differential will be removed on middle distillates starting next week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Just this past week, Governor Link of North Dakota made representations to Congress for additional funding for the Garrison diversion unit. Could the Prime Minister assure this House that the question of Garrison will be on the agenda for discussion with President Carter in his visit to Washington next week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, all these are welcome suggestions, but 1 wish the opposition would get together and let me know which of them-1 think there are now ten suggestions for discussion, all of them very lengthy and important-they would like me to raise with President Carter. I will not be able to raise them all.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You will be there for the photos.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But, indeed, if the Garrison diversion is more important to the Tories than the A-B line or the matter of-


An hon. Member:: What about Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are all important, Mr. Speaker. We have constant meetings-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You will remember the photographs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think there is some nervousness over there. Just because their leader is not here does not mean they will get his job. They will just have to take it easy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You will be leaving first.


An hon. Member:: He will get your job.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He may try and get my job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. 1 have in front of me

an article from the Toronto Star dated February 28, entitled "Would a Tory Win Help the Dollar?".


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Of course it would.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, he should put it directly.


An hon. Member:: Naturally it would.


Mr. Chretien:: Are you nervous?


Donald James Johnston: My question is whether the Minister of Finance and his officials agree with the conclusions expressed in the report-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Donald James Johnston: -of the Institute of Policy Analysis, of the University of Toronto, to the effect that had Tory policies been implemented-


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You can't take it.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board, who seems to have some difficulty keeping his seat these days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I mentioned that before. He is up and down.


An hon. Member:: Watch your seat.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question regarding an answer he gave me the other day concerning lay-offs in the public service, particularly as they apply to women. I quote:
These are the people who are the latest hirees and, naturally, if there is some restriction in the public service it is normal policy that the people most recently hired are the first laid off.
Having had an opportunity to look at the normal policy of the Treasury Board with regard to reductions in the work force, and to see that the reductions are determined by the reverse order of merit-


An hon. Member:: Order.
March 2, 1979


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether last hired, first fired is a new policy regarding reductions in the public service over-all, or does this apply only to women?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the principle used is one of merit. But as a generalization, if there are large numbers of people, one would find a much larger proportion among the last people hired that are being laid off. I suggest to the hon. member that this is consistent with the merit principle which I think she is driving at in her question.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister in charge of the Status of Women.
Seeing that the President of the Treasury Board is following the policy of last hired, first fired-which is clearly discriminatory against women, as he himself admits-or he may, indeed, be following the reverse order of merit policy, which he says is his department's policy, but in a way that clearly discriminates against women-as the figures released the other day prove-I ask the minister if the policy that is being followed by the President of the Treasury Board is one which has his endorsement regarding the treatment of women in the public service. Also, what is he going to do about it? Is this part of his action plan for women which he is supposed to be introducing?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member completely distorts the reply the minister gave here a few minutes ago. I shall reply by asking her whether, in line with her policy, she would like us to lay off the civil servants with the most seniority.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The minister's ad hoc advisory committee on research, which has representatives on it from government and from industry, has published estimates that in constant dollars university research and development must increase by 30 per cent a year, industrial research and development must increase by 27 per cent a year, and government research and development must increase by 10 per cent a year to reach the
Oral Questions
government's announced target of 1.5 per cent of the gross national product by 1983.
Since we are falling so far behind as a result of the cuts announced in the estimates, what steps is the minister taking to reach the goals announced on June 1 by the former minister?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I answered an almost identical question yesterday with regard to that matter. I made it quite clear that the government expects the private sector to play an important role as far as expenditures and performance of research and development in Canada are concerned, not just for the sake of research and development, important as that may be, but as part of the innovative and entrepreneurial process.
Toward that end, the Minister of Finance in the last budget increased the tax credits for research and development in Canada. We believe that if industry takes advantage of those tax credits and also the measures of a previous budget, it could increase expenditures and performance in research and development in Canada by roughly $150 million a year.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the second tier committee set up by the government, which has representation on it from both industry and labour, in analysing these proposed tax cuts predicted that they would not work, and recommended instead that the government adopt a policy of payback from profitable, subsidized research and the prevention of free transfers out of Canada of research and development benefits, is the minister giving consideration to those practical proposals made by the second tier committee?


Alastair William Gillespie: These matters are ongoing efforts among the government, industry and the sector task forces. The hon. member may have read the government's response to the Overview Committee and he may have noted, with respect to the so-called payback mechanisms, that these are mechanisms which the government is already using in connection with some of its programs. They have not always been as successful as industry spokesmen thought they might be, in that they tend to generate a great deal of red tape.
We believe the incentive measures for which industry has been asking, and to which requests the government has responded, are more likely to generate increased research and development in Canadian industry.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

March 2, 1979
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that recent decisions by the United States government have apparently restricted access to more than half of the international boundary between British Columbia and Alaska, and recognizing that development of mineral and other resource industries in northern British Columbia and the Yukon demands unimpeded access through the Panhandle region, will the right hon. gentleman advise us what action has been initiated in response to a recent forceful appeal by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines requesting that the government investigate the serious consequences of these land withdrawals in the state of Alaska? Further, will the Prime Minister undertake to raise this urgent and important matter with President Carter during their tete-a-tete?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to take note of the question on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


PROPOSED CUTBACK IN IMPORTS-EFFECT OF IEA AGREEMENT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In 1974, Canada became one of the signatory countries to the International Energy Agency agreement. One of the clauses in that agreement provided that Canada would reduce its consumption of petroleum products if oil exports from certain sources fell below a certain figure.
Would the minister advise us how Canada proposes to cut back its imports by 5 per cent under that agreement as announced this morning?


Alastair William Gillespie: The governing board of the International Energy Agency met in Paris yesterday and reached a decision to work collectively to reduce world oil demand by two million barrels a day, roughly 5 per cent of the consumption by International Energy Agency countries. The purpose of this decision was to move demand and supply into balance and reduce pressure on prices, particularly spot prices.
As to the methods to be used by these countries operating separately and in addition to obligations under the emergency oil sharing agreement, there are a variety of procedures. They include demand restraint where it would not impair economic activity, the substitution of other fuels for oil where that might work, and increases in indigenous production. The hon. member will recognize that the last named method is one which Canada has already used. By virtue of the swapping arrangements we have been able to manage our resources in such a way that there was reserve capacity, and that reserve has been moved to the east coast. So Canada is already performing in accordance with the undertakings which other countries have assumed.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can the minister tell us if, after several months of negotiations, the federal government and the New Brunswick government have agreed to sign, in the near future, a subsidiary agreement for the underdeveloped areas?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, after many months of negotiations, we have surely made some considerable progress, but I am not in a position to say today that such an agreement will indeed be signed in the coming weeks. I certainly hope so, but there are still some points to be clarified. We will do all we can to sign this agreement as rapidly as possible in order that its implementation may begin in the next financial year.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Labour. It is one of which I have given notice and it has to do with the continuing difficulties being experienced in grain transportation and export.
The acting minister will be aware that the dock workers in Vancouver have voted heavily in favour of strike action. I should like to know what action the minister is taking to avert this serious prospect of a strike which would so gravely affect western farmers and the economy generally.


Hon. Barney Danson (Acting Minister of Labour):: I will have to take notice of the question, though perhaps it could be answered by the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: A notification of impasse has been received from the union, and while a strike vote has been taken the parties have not acquired the right of strike or lock-out. Further conciliation procedures are under consideration by the minister at this moment. He will be in the House on Monday, and if the hon. member wishes to put the question to him, he will be able to answer in more detail.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will put my supplementary because I might not be recognized then. I am sure the minister will be aware of statements of total dissatisfaction by the

March 2, 1979

Western Grain Elevator Association with proposed hours of work regulations covering western grain elevators.
Having regard to the position taken by the minister's predecessor in debate on amendments to the Canada Labour Code, has the department ruled out exempting country elevator managers from the hours of work provisions?


Dennis Dawson: I will take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: But I already gave you notice.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In his absence, perhaps his parliamentary secretary could reply.
Having regard to recent reports of further loss of life in avalanches in British Columbia, is the hon. gentleman able to tell us the extent to which the Ministry of Transport is inquiring into the previous helicopter skiing accident in which seven skiers died?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as in all cases of accident or failure of certain aviation techniques or some bad practices in the field of aviation, the matter is dealt with by the Aviation Safety Investigation Division. If I can obtain more details, I will be happy to communicate them to the hon. member on Monday.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It relates to the overnight intercity courier service launched recently by the Post Office in an attempt to recover business losses to private couriers of up to $100 million.
I should like to ask whether this service is designed to replace the now defunct assured delivery service. Would it require an expensive repainting of post boxes? Further, why has the government imposed secrecy on this program by forbidding officials to discuss it.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: It seems the hon. member is referring to our new service which is called Priority Post. It was devised to give to certain customers under
Oral Questions
contract a mail service comparable to that of any private enterprise competing with us at the moment. We could promote it, in a way, without publicity; the reason we have not publicized it is that we wanted to make sure that the operation was a success, that it was self-sufficient and that undertaking this new venture would not lead to a requirement for more money from taxpayers.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am amazed that this new service was not announced in the House of Commons in accordance with tradition around this place.
Is this new service an attempt by the Post Office to extend its monopoly by surreptitious means over the transfer of goods and the transmission of messages as proposed in the legislation to set up a Crown corporation?


Mr. Lamontagne:: There is nothing secret about it. It is just a question of good management on the part of the Post Office. We are establishing a service to compete with people who are trying to take away part of our business. It is just a matter of good business sense.


REASON FOR DELAY IN UNLOADING MAIL AT GATEWAY PLANT-WITHHOLDING OF DELIVERIES BY BULK MAILERS IN TORONTO
Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of his statement yesterday that 95 per cent to 97 per cent of the mail in Canada is delivered within one to two days, can the minister tell the House why at the Gateway postal plant in Mississauga, Ontario, within the last month more than 60 tractor-trailer loads of mail were held for over 48 hours without being unloaded?
Further, can he explain why officials of the Post Office have been requesting bulk mailers in Toronto to withhold deliveries to that same plant for periods of up to a week because they have been unable to process them?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the difficulties we have had at Mississauga. However, I can assure the hon. member that we are taking care of the Ontario area. The proof is that with the departure of our director-general, Mr. Hubling-which we regret-we have put all Ontario metro areas under the direct responsibility of the Deputy Postmaster General to see that no problems like this arise in the future.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is a very serious question and I know the Prime Minister will treat it very seriously.

March 2, 1979
Oral Questions
As a result of the actions of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner has been reduced to nothing but a toothless tiger. They have attempted to emasculate the Human Rights Act which I know the Prime Minister wants. What is going on here? When we passed this legislation, I thought it would not be selective, but it seems that this government is attempting to make it selective. I ask the Prime Minister, in all seriousness for his views regarding this very important matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I discussed the matter a few days ago with the Minister of Justice. I have not discussed it with him since and I do not know what developments have taken place with regard to the position taken by the commissioner and the fact that some legislation and some actions are before the courts.
I knew that the issue was that the commission should wait to see what the courts were deciding in this particular case. I believe that would be the position of the hon. member, too. The law must prevail. This is a matter for the courts to decide, and I believe that was the situation a few days ago. I do not know what has come out of that court action since.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, 1 am extremely disappointed and very surprised at the Prime Minister's answer, because he too is going along with selectivity in the process. I find that to be very obnoxious. On the order paper now there is a bill which contains the following clause:
Nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The Prime Minister knows that when I am serious, I am serious. I am not going to get smart with him. Would he see to it, in the last days of this parliament, that any legislation which is introduced will take account of the clause to which I have referred? Perhaps it is necessary that such a clause be included in all legislation. Failing that, we will have legislation which will be nothing but a sham and a fraud; we will have reduced the commissioner to the level of someone who has no power whatsoever.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the hon. member's plea to be taken seriously, I am afraid that the last part of his question shows that he is not very serious. This House debated that bill at great length. It was presented in utmost earnest by the government. We chose to head the commission with an honourable and respected member of the hon. member's party.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: But look at what you are doing to him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The law is taking its course. Surely the hon. member is not asking the government to phone a judge to tell him to stand aside in this case.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am saying that there should be no exceptions, and the Prime Minister has not answered my question. That is a sham and a fraud.


PRIVILEGE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The question I would like to raise relates to the question I attempted to pose during the question period to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). With respect, Mr. Speaker, there was a preamble, but I would point out that questions asked by hon. members opposite, such as the one immediately following mine asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), contained a much more substantial and provocative preamble than the one contained in my question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to proceed with his question of privilege, I think he should be aware that fundamentally, to begin with, he was asking a hypothetical question. I am sure that from a cursory examination of the article to which he was referring he is aware that it postulates the victory of a certain political party in the future and presumes some conclusions. That therefore disqualifies his question. Whether or not his question suffered from any other defects or disabilities remains to be seen.
However, I gave him an opportunity to skip over his preamble and put his question. When he did, it seemed to me that the question he was putting was clearly hypothetical. Furthermore, he was asking for an opinion on that hypothesis, and 1 thought, therefore, that his question failed on those two counts. It had nothing to do with a provocative or political preamble.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, today being Friday, the House begins sitting at eleven o'clock rather than two o'clock, and Hansard was delivered today-at least to my office-at 10.10, so it was impossible to give one hour's notice. Yesterday on two occasions Your Honour stated that perhaps after reading what went on yesterday and looking at the precedents people might like to give notice today or at another date-as soon as possible-and I would like to indicate that I probably will be doing that at the first opportunity next week. Unfortunately, on Monday I have an engagement. I have to go to a hospital, but I will be here on Tuesday. I just could not give an hour's notice because of the time at which I received Hansard and because today's sitting began at eleven o'clock and not two o'clock.
MISS MACDONALD-preamble to question asked during QUESTION PERIOD


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, because my name was mentioned by the hon.

March 2, 1979

member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston) in his intervention, 1 would like to state that the preamble to my question referred to a direct quote from the words of a minister as recorded in Hansard for February 27 at page 3629, so it was a fairly substantial preamble.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) does not have to remind me that her preamble was fairly substantial. I remember it very well.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, was presented by hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59, I move that the Supplementary Estimates (B) 1978-79 tabled this day be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows. I have a three page list of committees which has been distributed, so may I dispense with reading it, and would the House take it as read?


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to review that list and it looks to us as if it were appropriate. If the minister can assure us that it is being done in the normal way, if he could confirm that, we would be happy to take it as read and would agree to it.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I can confirm that it is done in the way it is being done, namely that it was distributed to all House leaders. I cannot say it is normal because it might deviate somewhat from the predecents.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the minister's request. Since his list has been circulated, it should be taken as having been included in the motion which he has just now read and will be printed in Hansard so that these estimates can be referred to the several committees named.
[Editor's Note: List above referred to follows]:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture votes 5b, 20b, 40b, 50b and 60b To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts: Communications votes 10b and 15b
Secretary of State votes 15b, 20b, 60b, 85b, 95b, 100b and 125b To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
External Affairs votes lb, 10b, LI6b, LI7b, 30b and L36b
Order Paper Questions National Defence votes lb, 5b and 10b To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Economic Development vote 1 b Finance votes 7b and 16b
Industry, Trade and Commerce votes lb, 35b, 45b and 60b National Revenue votes lb and 5b To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment votes lb, 5b, 15b, 25b and 30b To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
National Health and Welfare votes 15b, 25b, 30b and 50b Urban Affairs vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development votes lb, 5b, 30b, 73b and L76b To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice vote 25b
Solicitor General votes lb, 5b, 15b and LI9b To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration:
Employment and Immigration votes 5b and 15b Labour vote 1 b
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Governor General and Lieutenant Governors vote 1 b
Privy Council vote lb
Science and Technology vote 15b
Supply and Services votes 5b and L6b
Treasury Board vote 40b
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Energy, Mines and Resources votes 5b, L25b, L27b, 50b and L85b Public Works votes 10b, 20b and 45b To the Standing Committee on Privilege and Elections:
Privy Council vote 10b
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion votes lb, LI6b, L20b and 25b To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Post Office vote lb
Transport votes 5b, L7b, 10b, 12b, 13b, 20b, 30b, 40b, 50b, L63b, 70b, 85b and 115b
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs votes lb and 30b


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the seconder of that motion is the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the following

March 2, 1979
Order Paper Questions
questions will be answered today: 145, 379, 445, 712, 972, 998 and 1,020.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all other questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What was Canada's contribution to food aid for third world and developing countries for 1976 and 1977 and (a) to which countries were contributions made
(b)	in each case (i) what food products were contributed (ii) at what dollar value
(c)	what was the (i) administrative costs (ii) distribution costs (iii) value of the food product?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It is not possible to provide a complete breakdown regarding the commodities and their value as supplied by Canada in fiscal years 1975-76 and 1976-77. This is because on the multilateral side, CIDA makes a grant on an annual basis to the World Food Program for purchases of Canadian foodstuffs which are then distributed through the WFP's network in approximately 100 third world and developing countries. We do not know the distribution costs but we make a lump sum annual payment toward defraying those costs in general.
On the bilateral side, it is not possible to provide information regarding distribution costs as that is the responsibility of the recipient country. The foodstuff is bought and shipped (cost, insurance and freight) to the recipient country by CIDA, hence the figures below cover transportation costs also, generally in the range of 20 to 25 per cent of the total.
Finally, in fiscal year 1976-77 CIDA's principal procurement agent, the Department of Supply and Services, went to a cost-recovery method of operation. Hence there is a considerable increase in the indicated administrative cost for the second year shown.
1975-76 Multilateral Food Aid
Grant to the World Food Program		$87,599,041.41
Transportation Contribution to World Food Program		10,000,000.00
UNICEF-Milk Powder		1,994,940.25
UNWRA-Wheat		1,891,751.12 $101,485,732.78
1975-76 Bilateral Food Aid		
Bangladesh	Rapeseed	$7,811,369.67Ghana	Wheat	3,799,719.57Haiti	Flour	511,929.99Beans	37,765.00Potatoes	45,956.62Milk Powder	238,248.00Rapeseed Oil	97,197.48Honduras	Fish	588,000.00Milk Powder	239,190.00India	Wheat	43,513,719.57Rapeseed Oil	20,443,900.88Indo-China	Fish	871,198.82Milk Powder	1,059,534.00Mali	Flour	1,405,166.71Semolina	1,556,367.80Niger	Flour	1,303,605.53Semolina	1,475,108.88
1975-76 Bilateral Food Aid
Pakistan	Wheat	17,540,273.50Senegal	Semolina	747,995.00Milk Powder	540.00Somalia	Milk Powder	416,664.00Sri Lanka	Flour	4,045,430.51Tchad	Semolina	14,925.53Vietnam	Milk Powder	649,292.20 $108,413,099.26Administrative Cost	168,000.001976-77 Multilateral Food Aid	Grant to the World Food Program	$79,410,193.88Transportation Contribution to the World Food	Program	10,000,000.00UNICEF-Milk Powder	916,841.00UNWRA-Flour	2,000,000.00 $92,327,034.881976-77 Bilateral Food Aid	Bangladesh	Wheat	$22,000,000.00Belize	Milk Powder	99,210.00Colombia	Milk Powder	580,000.00Egypt	Wheat	5,600,250.00Rapeseed Oil	2,891,742.76Milk Powder	1,322,760.00Ghana	Wheat	2,000,000.00Guatemala	Rapeseed Oil	48,796.15Liquid Milk	150,000.00Milk Powder	148,142.50Fish	2,060.00Beans	6,944.40Guyana	Milk Powder	88,180.00India	Wheat	40,000,000.00Rapeseed Oil	26,783,795.62Indo-China	Fish	15,226.00Indonesia	Wheat	8,479,999.87Jamaica	Milk Powder	1,102,300.00Mauritania	Wheat	962,501.51Mozambique	Wheat	2,345,447.35Niger	Wheat	982,994.04Pakistan	Wheat	7,500,000.00Peru	Milk Powder	242,500.00Rwanda	Milk Powder	74,950.00Senegal	Wheat	750,000.00Sri Lanka	Flour	7,871,569.71Somalia	Wheat	1,742,090.65Flour	1,075,213.00Rapeseed Oil	426,287.80Tanzania	Wheat	2,976,000.00Vietnam	Wheat	1,500,000.00 $139,768,961.36Transportation	15,842,294.25Administrative Cost	2,071,990.01


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Did the Auditor-General order a report to be prepared by Stevenson and Kellogg on the real cost of Mirabel Airport and, if so, on what date was the report (a) commissioned (b) completed?
2.	Did the report place the real cost of the Airport between 2 to 3 times as much as the amount to which the government has publicly admitted?
3.	Does the government intend to make the report public and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date?


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. No. The Auditor General did not commission such a study.
2.	Not applicable-see 1.
3.	Not applicable-see 1.
[Mr. Maine.)
March 2, 1979

However, the Auditor General did conduct a review of planning capital acquisitions as part of his study of procedures in cost effectiveness. This study was led by Mr. Kenneth G. Belbeck, the president of Stevenson & Kellogg, who served with the office of the Auditor General under an executive interchange agreement. Part of the planning capital acquisitions review included the project management of airport construction in the Department of Transport. Two airports, Calgary and Malton, were examined. Observations arising from these examinations will be found on pages 506 and 509 of the 1978 annual report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons. During the latter part of the study, a similar examination of the Mirabel Airport was started. However, after beginning the preliminary work it was concluded that no additional issues would be discovered and accordingly, further work was discontinued due to time and resource constraints.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Was Atco Structures awarded the contract for the RCMP detachment buildings at Baker Lake, Rankin Inlet and Eskimo Point?
2.	Did Atco comply with the bid-depository regulations as set out by the Department of Public Works governing the tender and, if not, for what reason was Atco awarded the contract?
3.	Did the Edmonton office refer the decision to Ottawa as to who should be awarded the contract since the Department clearly indicated that it had received two bids only, namely Ohms Construction and Arc Enterprises 1976 Ltd?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. Atco Structures was awarded three contracts on October 13, 1978 for three separate projects for the RCMP detachment buildings at Baker Lake, Rankin Inlet and Eskimo Point.
2.	Atco Structures did comply with P.W.C. bid depository regulations.
3.	The Edmonton office did refer the matter to departmental officials at headquarters in Ottawa who confirmed the decision that Atco Structures Ltd., would be awarded the three contracts as they had submitted the lowest valid tenders for each of the three projects. Three tenders were received, for each of the three projects, from (i) Arc Enterprises 1976 Ltd., (ii) Atco Structures Ltd., (iii) Ohms Construction Ltd., however, the tenders submitted by Ohms were disqualified because they were not accompanied by the required bid security.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Has Canada considered the presence of an emerging Red Chinese Navy a threat to our Western front?
2.	Does Canada have any defences on the Western Front in order to handle the possibility of an invasion?
3.	Can Canada rely on the help of NATO in such an occurrence?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
No.
Order Paper Questions
2.	A military capability on the Pacific and in the western region is maintained and operates in conjunction with the U.S.A. under the auspices of the CANUS agreement.
3.	An attack on any member of the alliance demands a response by and assistance of other members to counter such action.


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	Does the Internationl Development Research Centre provide research on birth control methods?
2.	What is the full extent of the financial reimbursement for such research to the present time?
3.	For what reason do such expenditures not appear in the Centre's annual report?


Louis Duclos: 1. IDRC does not itself conduct research on birth control methods. It does, however, provide funds to other institutions for such research.
2.	From 1971 to the end of 1978, $10,322,621.61 was committed by the centre to research projects in the following areas:
(a)	development of new and improved contraceptive methods;
(b)	short-time clinical trials to assess safety and acceptance of different contraceptive methods;
(c)	long-term assessment of safety of contraceptive methods in different populations;
(d)	small grants to researchers in the field of human reproduction following their return to developing country institutions after a period of specialized training outside their own countries; and,
(e)	studies on family planning program administration, improved contraceptive distribution systems, and the use of different personnel for the delivery of family planning services.
3.	Such expenditures do appear in the centre's annual reports.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence contract with the University of Alberta to conduct an examination of a respiratory viral disease at CFBs Comox and Alert for the sum of $33,537 and, if so (a) on what date will the examination be completed (b) will a report of such an examination be available to Members of Parliament?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. (a) 31 July, 1979.

March 2, 1979
(b) Yes.
Judges Act


Mr. Huntington: 1.	What are the names of the companies, their addresses and the amounts of each bid on Department of Supply and Services File No. 18, SQ 23440-8-9016, "Design and/or adapt a prototype Measurement/Monitoring/Telemetry system for mountain terrain subsidence"?
2.	Has a preliminary report been published and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Has the contract been awarded and, if so, to whom?
4.	Were there any technical changes in the parameters of the contract on a negotiated contract basis and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.
Contract negotiations are currently in progress and it is departmental policy to maintain proposals confidential until award of contract, at which time, all the proposers will be advised of the result.
2.	No, the contract has not been let.
3.	No.
4.	No technical changes are contemplated affecting the requirements of the request for proposal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-43, to amend the Judges Act, to amend an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend certain other acts in respect of the reconstitution in the courts of New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the opposition parties for their co-operation in the consideration of this bill, Bill C-43. I hope that once we have heard from all parties on this bill we will get agreement to pass this bill through the three stages today in the House.
In effect, this bill, while urgent and extremely useful for a few provinces in particular, is one that should not give rise to long debates or arguments and differences of view on what it tries to achieve. The bill tries to accomplish two purposes. First, it would give effect to a restructuring of the courts systems in the provinces of New Brunswick and Alberta and a proposed restructuring in the province of Saskatchewan.

Second, the bill would replenish the pool of judicial salaries provided for appointments to provincial superior, county and district courts over and above fixed complements.
The restructuring of the courts systems in the three provinces I have mentioned requires amendments to the Judges Act and a number of other statutes so that the restructuring can be given full effect. As is well known by hon. members, the provinces have full jurisdiction to determine what courts they will have. Alberta and New Brunswick have already exercised their jurisdiction in this respect and Saskatchewan is in the process of doing so.
If the House were to agree to proceed to the committee stage, I have an amendment to clause 12 which I will move at that time. I understand that that proposed amendment has been circulated to the opposition parties and they have it in their hands at present. It would be made as a result of a request made by the attorney general of New Brunswick, a request which I have just received today. The amendment would provide that the provisions relating to New Brunswick will come into force on proclamation, as opposed to July 1, 1979, as presently provided. The original provision in the bill for New Brunswick was that it should come into force in that province on July 1, 1979, but the attorney general of that province has just written me saying that they did not think they would be able to put it into effect on July 1 and would like it to be delayed and put into force on proclamation. Their expectation is that their legislation would be in operation on September 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question at this point? He said that in committee he would move an amendment to clause 12. There is no clause 12 in the reprint of the bill, although there was one in the previous printing. I assume he proposes to move an amendment to clause 11.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, I quite agree, Mr. Speaker; the amendment is to clause 11.
As I said, the government of New Brunswick intends to pass legislation changing the effective date of the merger of the courts from July 1 to September 1, and this amendment is made at their request to facilitate their change in plans.
The second purpose of the bill is the restoration to full strength of the pool of additional judges, provisions first enacted by parliament in 1973. It is basically a housekeeping matter necessitated by the fact that 17 judicial appointments have been made and charged, so to speak, to the pool since it was last replenished by parliament in 1976. The proposal is to have the Judges Act itself indicate clearly the number of judges comprising each court and therefore the exact number of salaries approved by parliament, and at the same time bring the pool up to its full complement of 34 judicial salaries, plus another 15 for unified family courts, so that further appointments that are required can be made without the immediate necessity of amending the Judges Act.
In closing, I would again like to thank the opposition parties for their agreement to, and support of, this measure.
March 2, 1979


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde). We have had several bills. That is not due to his error because like everyone else he has to rely on other people, and I will not make anything of that. But finally we have received the right version.
I can incorporate in my remarks what the minister has said about that bill, that is that the main purpose of the bill is to amalgamate the district courts of Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick with the high trial court, which in Alberta would mean the amalgamation of the district court of Alberta with the Supreme Court trial division, which henceforth will be known as the Queen's Bench, and in Saskatchewan it would amalgamate the district court of Saskatchewan with their Queen's Bench, which is their trial court. The same goes for New Brunswick. In the course of amalgamation, the district courts will disappear.
I want to emphasize that district court judges receive less remuneration than high court trial judges of the provinces. The question of salary is mentioned in the bill; it brings the salaries of district court judges up to the level of the new positions they will hold because of the amalgamation of the two courts. There is no suggestion in the bill that the salaries of judges are being increased. When the district court judges move into their new positions and are faced with the new responsibilities of the high court trial divisions of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick, then of course they would receive fair remuneration as set by law and parliament.
I should like to digress somewhat, or as they say in the army, "As you were".


Mr. Baldwin:: At ease!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right on. As was pointed out by the Minister of Justice, parliament previously set up a pool of salaries in reference to new appointments. Rather than coming to parliament each time a new appointment is necessary, particularly when parliament is busy dealing with complex matters, the pool of salaries is available. For example, if a provincial attorney general hears from the trial division chief justice and the Court of Appeal chief justice of his province that extra judges are needed to carry the workload, an appointment is made and a salary is paid out of that pool equivalent to the salary paid to judges as set out by parliament in the last bill before it. Of course, we endorse that pool.
If I might again digress for a few moments, I should like to indicate that we are dealing with an institution when we are dealing with the judiciary which sometimes receives criticism because of its independence. Judges must have a degree of independence because they are separate and apart, under our democratic system, from the legislative processes of parliament. Often they are criticized because of the degree of independence and the positions they take in administering justice. To put it in layman's language, they are criticized
Judges Act
because of the roles they play in trying civil matters and indeed very difficult criminal matters. Of course, they are not able to answer such criticism.
I know I speak for the Minister of Justice when I indicate in a non-partisan manner that on the whole Canada has a very fine judiciary. Of course, I am not speaking for everyone and, as I say, I am not speaking in a partisan manner. I am speaking from the point of view of all parties working together and the liaison existing among the various provincial bar associations and the Canadian Bar Association. In the last 10 or 15 years, the judiciary has been able to obtain people from various law firms or those who were deans of colleges. The judiciary has attracted a calibre of men who have the capacity to make decisions and administer justice. Canadians feel that this calibre of men is necessary.
I should like to take a moment to pay tribute to a man in my own province who has retired as chief justice of the province of Alberta. I am referring to Chief Justice J. Valentine Milvain who was appointed to the Supreme Court trial division of Alberta Dy the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). After serving some time on that bench with distinction, Mr. Milvain was appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government to chief justice of the province of Alberta. In drawing that analogy and in paying this gentleman a great compliment, I have shown that we have endeavoured to move along the road away from the narrow, partisan belief that only people of certain political stripes, if that certain political party is in power, get the nod and receive an appointment to the bench. We have not gone as far as we can in that direction, but it is a step in the right direction.
I might say that I knew Chief Justice Valentine Milvain when he was practising as a lawyer and before he went on the bench. He was always very courteous. After he received his appointment, he was always very discreet, polite, knowledgeable, learned and was quite a humanist. Above all, he had a sense of humour. For example, when a most difficult trial was taking place before him with questions being put and answers being given, as we have witnessed from time to time during oral question period, sometimes the atmosphere became somewhat inflammatory. He was a judge with a sense of humour and he would bring the lawyers either for the defence or the Crown, or for the plaintiff or the defendant, back to the degree of reasonable sanity which is necessary in the administration of justice. I know I speak for members of the House when I wish Chief Justice Val Milvain well in his retirement. I can say that Alberta is sorry to see this man being forced into retirement because of his age. I only mention this in passing because I feel the gentleman is symbolic of the types of people who are being attracted to the judiciary.
Traditionally bills respecting salary increases are brought before parliament for approval. Judges are not overpaid by any means. Many of them give up law practices in which they would make twice as much money as they make on the bench. I could name many such judges but I will not. We must exercise care to see that these men and women receive the necessary compensation to exercise the degree of independence

March 2, 1979
Judges Act
and the degree of integrity demanded of them. Not only must they remain aloof in their jobs; they must keep their powers separate and apart from the other processes of democracy.
Also they must keep their economic affairs separate and apart because of their position. Most of them are not able to make investments in corporations A and B because corporations A and B come before them tomorrow in a law suit. In analysing the compensation paid to judges, we must take a hard look at the position they hold in society. Because they are judges, they are judging people and corporations. They are judging morals and the law, which flow from the morals set by the Criminal Code. They must remain aloof from any outside influence which would suggest any indiscretion on their part in making decisions. On the whole, I think I can safely say, after looking over the judiciary, that that has been accomplished.
I should like to say a few words in reference to the amalgamation of the courts. In my early years I had the privilege of practising in the province of Saskatchewan, and later I went to the province of Alberta. When it came to the high court, one was called the Queen's Bench and the other was called the Supreme Court trial court. Although they were named differently, they were almost identical.
This bill is not being produced today because the government decided to amalgamate the courts and the Minister of Justice accepted that direction, but rather because the federal government has received a mandate or a direction from the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick.
In our busy society of today, with an increase in population and because of the heavy court backlog in some provinces, it has become necessary to increase the number of judges. It was felt that in some districts the district court judges had the capacity to do more work and to take on more responsibility. The district courts in Saskatchewan and Alberta have pretty well the same jurisdiction. They deal with mechanics' lien act cases and with matters involving amounts up to $2,500, although that has fluctuated up to $3,500 in one province. Under the Criminal Code these courts deal with speedy trials when an accused elects to do without a jury. Sometimes they involve pleas of guilty or the hearing of a few witnesses. In these cases the accused elect to have a speedy trial and go before the district court judge. This relieves the pressure of a large number of trials in the high court.
District courts also deal with an important part of criminal law, trials de novo, and I want to say something about this. Under the code offences which are not indictable, generally not serious offences, are summary conviction offences and are tried by the provincial court judges. They used to be called magistrates in police courts, but they changed the name because it was felt the judges were too close to the police. I do not know whether by changing the name they altered the atmosphere, but one thing I do know is that they now call them provincial judges and they deal with summary conviction cases.
If a person found guilty in such a court feels aggrieved, or on the other hand if the Crown thinks an individual was wrongly acquitted, the case can then go before a district judge by way of a trial de novo. Up until two years ago that meant a district court judge would re-try the case by hearing witnesses for the Crown and for the defence, and most of the time they were the same witnesses. Two years ago that was changed so that the district court judge could use discretion as to whether there would be a full trial or just a review of the matter through the record.
I pointed out at the time the amendment was made that every district court judge enjoying that discretion would almost always elect to proceed by way of a review of the record because it is much easier and much simpler. As the Minister of Justice and other lawyers present who have had this experience are aware, there is no appeal from a wrong finding of fact, only an appeal on a question of law. In most cases of summary conviction offences there is very little law involved so appeals are not very successful under this new method. I opposed this at the time and I still oppose it because, while there has been an improvement in the last few years, during the period when these courts were known as police courts the Crown was always very close to the police and it was very difficult to obtain what would appear to be-and sometimes it was more than that-an impartial trial. Once you got the case out of that atmosphere and into the district court, you got a more fair and better trial.
I would presume that when the two courts are united the same situation will occur. There will no longer be a trial de novo as such but rather a review of the evidence. As there is no appeal possible on the law it will make a sham of the right of appeal in this regard.
I am concerned about another thing, and this is not by way of criticizing the minister or his bill. This is a matter really involving the provinces. I refer to the question of estates. In the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan the district courts administer estates in the right to grant probate. Just to put it simply, and application for probate is generally made by a solicitor, setting out the assets with affidavits of witnesses proving the will and so on. This is laid before the judge and there is no application as such. These documents are looked at and examined in an administrative fashion. If there does not appear to be any mathematical error or question about the full disclosure of children, or something of that nature, probate is automatically granted. This surrogate court work really falls within the jurisdiction of provinces rather than the federal government.
For a number of years district court judges have received extra salaries from the provinces over and above what they were paid by the federal government for doing this surrogate court work. I do not know what the Supreme Court trial judges who took on that job before amalgamation are going to say about becoming local administrators of estates.
Let me make a suggestion to the Minister of Justice through you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he could pass this on when he is writing the attorneys general of those provinces. This work

March 2, 1979

could be given to somebody who is on the provincial staffs taking these applications in the courts, such as a master in chambers, or something like that. I cannot believe that with the extensive work now being done by the high court trial judges in Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick-and I understand Ontario is to be phased in-they should be involved in this administrative work. This administration work does take some time, but it does not require the services of anyone other than an efficient clerk. In fact, let me make a confession on behalf of lawyers. I would say that 90 per cent of estates that go through a law firm are handled by experienced secretaries. The lawyer looks at the work to make sure it is all right, puts on his signature and it goes to the court house. I would not like to go that far in respect of mortgages, but I have been lucky to have had the same secretary for almost as long as I have practised and I think she knows more than a lot of lawyers. She does an excellent job. I am sure that if I did it I would probably make a mathematical error. The point I am making is that this is straight administrative work. I suggest that is one matter that could be removed from the jurisdiction of the high courts. Of course, that is up to the provinces.
Having said that, let me end on this note. On behalf of my party I have agreed that this bill should be the subject of a short debate on second reading, which is now taking place, and then referred to the committee of the whole House. There is apparently no contention, so it possibly could be given third reading today. I hope my learned counsel to the left will go along with that in his usual good humour. If the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, along with the referendum bill and the estimates, I do not think it will see the light of day before we have a new government; therefore, I suggest it should go to the committee of the whole. There should be no discussion and it ought to go through in a few minutes.
I am willing now to sit down and listen to the leading counsel in the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have had some delightful and some embarrassing introductions in my day, but I do not know what I can say in reply, to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), except that I am happy to participate for a few minutes in the debate on Bill C-43.
The motion you put at the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, called for the reference of this bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am happy to indicate to you that we are prepared to go along with the request of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) and the agreement expressed by the hon. member for Calgary North. I agree that when it comes time to give second reading to this bill the motion should be amended so that the bill will go to a committee of the whole House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), but the minister
Judges Act
did not give an indication that he was ready to proceed. If he is we will modify the motion, with the consent of the House, and go in to committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe you will find, Mr. Speaker, that although the Minister of Justice did not say that when he presented the motion, he did say it in the course of his remarks. I think you will find that there is agreement. We join in that agreement, partly for the reason just given by the hon. member for Calgary North, namely that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is overloaded with work, and partly because the matters contained in Bill C-43 are routine. They are quite straight forward and I see no reason why we cannot deal with them today in committee of the whole.
I hope that the government House leader will be made aware of our co-operation in this respect and that the favour will be returned on occasion. After all, there are some pieces of legislation which we on this side of the House would like to put through quickly. Lor example, in the field of veterans affairs, just as we are ready today to put this bill through all stages, we would hope that the government would give us a chance to put some veterans legislation through all stages before this session comes to an end.
As the two previous speakers have pointed out, there are two main provisions in this bill. On the one hand it increases the number of judges which can be appointed to the courts at various levels to cope with the workload facing our courts; on the other hand it provides for the amalgamation of certain courts in Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. I think it is relevant to note, particularly in the latter case, that we are simply responding to requests from the various provinces which are affected, and that it is appropriate for us to see that this legislation does not get bogged down.
My friend from Calgary North said some nice things about the judiciary. I do not intend to expand on the subject at length, but I am happy to confirm what he said. In fact, I can say that in my experience in this House I have seen some very partisan members of parliament get appointed to the bench, and I have always been amazed at the metamorphosis that takes place, almost overnight, once they get into the responsible position of being on the bench. They seem quickly to develop a capacity for fairness and impartiality, and I hope that it will continue that way. I join with my friend in the tribute which he paid to our Canadian judiciary.
My hon. friend also had something to say about the salaries of judges, although there is no provision in this bill to increase those salaries. That brings me to something which I would like to say about the explanatory notes in the bill as it is now before us. The hon. member for Calgary North made the point with regard to the salaries of judges that many lawyers could make more money staying in their law practices than they can by taking a position on the bench. That, of course, is their decision. I believe that many of them welcome the chance to be appointed to the bench because of the contribution which they can make and because of the prestige of the position. In other words, the salary is not everything.

March 2, 1979
Judges Act


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is like members of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right; the salary is not everything in either case. Since at the present time restraint is being preached, especially to the little people, I think that it would have been a gross error for the government to ask us to include salary increases for the judges in passing this bill. As a matter of fact, if that had happened there would not be consent to put it through all stages at this time.
I hope I am not saying anything out of order or talking out of school when I say that this matter has been discussed. Indeed, there is evidence of it in the two printings of this bill. We have Bill C-43 which was given first reading on February 22, 1979, and then a few days later we were given a reprint of Bill C-43. The reprinted copy left out the clause which provided for a salary increase in addition to what had been provided in certain other clauses.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am the last one who would want to raise a point of order with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but since he is embarking on this question of the two printings of the bill, I would like to inform the House-although, more properly, it should probably come from the Chair-that the bill to which the Speaker gave first reading in this House is the bill that is before us today.
I understand that when the bill was sent to printing an error was made. The printer used the wrong plates and, as a result, a bill was distributed which was not the bill to which the speaker actually gave first reading. In that sense, the bill with the salary clause, which the hon. member has in his hands, never existed before the House as such. It is a non-existent bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite happy to accept that explanation, Mr. Speaker. I was not raising a point of order or alleging that a non-existent bill is before the House. I accept the fact that the bill before us is the one which has "reprint" at the top.
The point I was trying to make is that obviously there had been some consideration in this regard. After all, this nonexistent bill does exist, if I may speak in existential rather than legal terms. I am glad that any suggestion of salary increase has disappeared from the various printings of the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can always send your salary back, Stanley. I have told you that for years. I will take care of the legal ramifications.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By the time I got through dealing with my friend, there would not be much money left to worry about.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That would relieve your anxiety.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: It would also relieve his pocket book!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have found other and better ways to relieve that anxiety. I am glad that we are passing today the bill and not the explanatory notes. The Minister of Justice points out that it was the corrected form which was handed in for first reading, but if one goes through the bill and reads the explanatory notes, it is obvious that they were written with something else in mind, and when the bill got changed these explanatory notes were not changed.
As a matter of fact, this bothered me at the House leaders' meeting this morning when the question of going into committee of the whole on this bill was raised, because I was aware of the confusion created by the explanatory notes, and I therefore felt that the bill ought to go to the standing committee. Since then, after getting advice from certain learned counsel, I have examined the bill very carefully, and although, as I say, the explanatory notes lead to much confusion and make one wonder what is being explained, I do not find any trouble with the actual wording of the 11 clauses in the bill itself. Accordingly, we are prepared not only to give the bill second reading, but to agree that it be referred to a committee of the whole House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I see that there are a few minutes left before one o'clock. There are some things that I would like to say about the bill, most of which will be acceptable, but I may have one or two things to say which may not be quite so acceptable. Generally, I favour the bill for a number of reasons.
Approximately 25 years ago I was a bencher of the Law Society of Alberta. This particular issue involving the joinder of the two courts is a matter in which I was involved and on which I spoke at several meetings of the Alberta Bar Association. I think the judgment of the government with regard to carrying forward the submissions made by the government of Alberta is very wise. I believe I have also spoken on this matter in this House.
As a member of the bar who practised for a great many years in rural areas, I know there was often a feeling among many people that an inferior type of justice was dispensed at the district court level. I know that many members of the district court, which has become the court of Queen's Bench in Alberta, were fine people, and I subscribe to the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) as to the quality of the bench. There was one judge whom we used to call "the judge of necessity," because there is an ancient maxim that necessity knows no law. He was one of the exceptions, however.
There was a feeling among many people that there was a choice between going to district court or to Supreme Court, but actually this is dictated by the amount of the claim in a suit for damages.
Because of the inequality that exists in the justice dispensed by the different courts, I think the move to amend the act is

March 2, 1979

commendable and should have been done long ago. I am happy to lend my support to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to subscribe as well to the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North about former Chief Justice Mil-vain, who is a very old friend of mine. We served together as benchers. He has followed a great tradition in the province of Alberta.
When I come to write my memoirs I will include the fact that the late Prime Minister Pearson did me the honour of inviting me to go to the bench. I declined because at the time 1 thought I had a more useful role to perform here, although I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) smilingly queries that.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of statutes under which the federal government has the right to initiate proceedings, one being the Official Secrets Act. One of the shocking things about it, however, is the matter of selection of judges to try a case.
In the recent Treu case there was a very serious, formidable charge and the minister of justice of the day, on the advice of his officials-I absolve the present Minister of Justice entirely as he was not involved-saw fit to direct that the party be tried before a provincial judge. I have nothing against the quality of provincial judges, Mr. Speaker, but I am given to understand that the judge in question had just recently been appointed. The charge was laid on the instructions of the minister of justice who, as attorney general, exercises a judicial function under the Official Secrets Act. When the question whether a charge should be laid arises, then in theory the minister of justice is no longer a politician but has to exercise a judicial function.
Because of the formidable character of this act, because of the severe penalties involved, because of the type of procedure that might well be involved in carrying on proceedings, no charge can be made until the minister of justice has an opportunity to survey the facts and decide, on the advice of senior officials and security people, whether a charge should be laid and, if so, what kind of charge. The charge can be laid as an indictable offence with the potential of a very severe penalty, or as a summary offence with the potential of a fine.
In the case in question, the minister of justice, no doubt on the advice of his officials, saw fit to instruct that the charge be laid as an indictable offence to be heard before a provincial court judge who, it happened, had limited experience. I do not question the capacity of the judge; I understand he had been a Crown prosecutor shortly before his appointment. My view is that a minister of justice, theoretically standing apart from his colleagues in the political sense and making that kind of decision, should exercise a great deal more care than did the then minister of justice in the case of Peter Treu.
The minister has said that a group of departmental officials is reviewing this act. I hope they will keep in mind that most judges in this country and in the United Kingdom who have had occasion to try cases involving the Official Secrets Act have not only tried the people appearing before them but have
Judges Act
tried the act and found it guilty. Most have held that the act requires very severe changes to be made to it.
I hope that the minister, in the time that elapses before this parliament comes to a conclusion, or whoever may follow him as minister of justice, will take it as a prior order of business that not only should there be an examination of the act by departmental officials, but also by a committee of parliament. The act does not deserve to survive in its present form. This is tremendously important, Mr. Speaker.
I am one of the few people outside those involved in the Treu case who know the facts. I was co-counsel for Dr. Treu and had access to information. I looked at the evidence and I thoroughly agree with the fine judgment of the three judges of the Quebec Court of Appeal. I think anyone who reads the reasons for judgment carefully will agree that there are grave dangers in allowing that act to be used, for charges to be laid under the conditions which existed in the case of Dr. Treu, and for his being charged before a provincial judge.
I am fully convinced that once there had been a fruitless investigation leading to the expenditure of several hundreds of thousands of dollars, Dr. Treu stood as a symbol of the stupidity and bumbling involved. I do not suggest this occurred at the ministerial level. I do not believe that the former minister is that kind of man. But a decision was made at some place to see that this man was put out of the way for a while. That is the grave danger which exists and it points out the necessity for the government to be careful in the appointments that are made and in the way its powers are used to initiate proceedings involving statutes such as the Official Secrets Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that I seek consent to change the motion for second reading so that by unanimous consent the bill may be referred to committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
Does the House wish that I call it one o'clock and proceed with second reading when we come back at two o'clock? Otherwise I could go into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, with unanimous consent, referred to committee of the whole.
Gérald Laniel: The House now in committee of the whole to consider Bill C-43, to amend the Judges Act, to amend an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend certain other acts in respect of the reconstitution of the courts in New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Shall clause 1 carry?


An hon. Member:: One o'clock, Mr. Chairman.

March 2, 1979
Judges Act


Gérald Laniel: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
On clause 1-
Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, what I am about to say I could have said on the second reading debate before lunch, but I wanted to add to the assurance given to the Minister of Justice that it was our intention to deal with this bill expeditiously and thought I would add to that assurance by speaking first on the consideration of clause 1.
One might wonder why a lawyer from Ontario who is a member of the House of Commons would speak with regard to the amalgamation of federal trial courts in the provinces of Alberta, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. However, the subject matter is really important. The bill is important because of the provinces involved, but it is equally important and applicable to my own province of Ontario-and I will deal further with that aspect in a few moments.
My hon. friend from Peace River said something modestly or else my hearing was modest; if he did not say it, it should have been said. That is that the proposal set out in this piece of legislation was put forward by him when he was a bencher of the Law Society of Alberta some 25 years ago because it has been the quest of those interested in judicial matters to bring some order into and continue the development of order in the legal system.
What this bill really provides is that the trial division of what I would call the high court in the province of Ontario, the trial division in those three provinces, would be amalgamated with the district court, not necessarily by an increase in the number of judges, though there would certainly be an increase paid generally for judges' salaries. I think the objective is worth while and I commend the minister for bringing this measure forward.
I said this was important to me, to the bench and to the bar in the province of Ontario and I want to explain that statement to the minister. We have in this province two levels of courts, three if you count the small claims court and four if you count the provincial court. But with federally appointed judges there are two levels of trial courts, the High Court of Justice trial division and the county and district courts. The history and evolution of our society, increasing the monetary jurisdiction and increasing the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts, have imposed upon the county and district courts of Ontario and upon the judges of those courts a tremendous burden by way of extra workload. Therefore, I hope that through the message of this bill the attorney general of Ontario will cause
[The Chairman.]
to be reviewed once again the proposals of the report of the Law Reform Commission of Ontario issued in 1973, a really monumental work with respect to the administration of justice within the province.
A proposal was presented to that very distinguished commission by the County and District Court Judges Association. The proposal was considered by the commission. It asked for precisely the same kind of thing which is now granted by this bill to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. In its proposal the County and District Court Judges Association laid out what a judicial system is supposed to do in society. I am reading from page 92 of the report as follows:
Modern society requires a judicial system which, without being exhaustive, possesses the following characteristics: (1) Reasonable expedition in the determination of litigants' disputes, (2) Economy for both the litigants and society, (3) Accessibility to all members of society irrespective of their means or station in life, (4) Volume-handling ability to accommodate the litigation explosion corresponding, not only with increased population, but also with increased accessibility and justiciability of new grievances, (5) Comprehensibility of the system to the public for whose needs it exists and (6) "Justice" of the decisions in the sense of confidence among all members and sectors of society in the competence of the decision-makers and quality of their decisions.
I think those are not bad criteria for anyone to consider in terms of what ought to motivate one when one is considering the construction of a judicial system. I point out that the judges were supported by the Ontario Sheriffs' and Court Registrars' Association, which is involved closely with the dispensation of justice and legal services to the citizens of the province of Ontario, in that that association advocated the union of the Supreme Court of Ontario trial division and the county and district courts of the province of Ontario into one superior court for the purposes of hearing trials, and I will deal with how that term specifically arose.
It is a matter of some misfortune and regret that while the government of Ontario adopted a large number of the administrative procedures which were laid out in that excellent, monumental and exhaustive report, for some reason which I cannot discern the government of Ontario chose not to adopt this plan with respect to the union of the courts. I do not say that in criticism. I know there was great pressure from the judges of the high court of the province of Ontario not to have this done, for reasons with which I respectfully dissent and disagree. However, it did not happen in the province of Ontario.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are wiser in Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Calgary North says they are wiser in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and that may very well be, I do not know. I would not want to admit that today. It is Friday afternoon and I will not argue very strenuously with the hon. member on that point.
Because finding candidates for the bench is important, I want to let the Minister of Justice know that there was a memorandum of dissent and explanation filed by a member of the Law Reform Commission who at one time was a member of this House. The Hon. Richard Albert Bell, P.C., Q.C., was
March 2, 1979

a member of the Elouse of Commons from 1957 until 1968 with one period of time out of the House while he returned to the practice of law. I willingly tell my friends in this House that that gentleman happens to be the senior partner of the law firm with which I am associated. I feel it would be inappropriate for me not to say that, having regard to the provisions of Bill C-6 which we might get to at some stage.
That dissenting view which, unfortunately, was not accepted, did involve the amalgamation of the trial division of the high court and the county and district courts, but it did something else too. The memorandum of dissent and explanation also advocated that for judicial purposes the province of Ontario should be divided up into a number of judicial districts so that judges would then be judges having the same jurisdiction. Mr. Bell proposed that they be called judges of the superior court and that they not have to move around to any great extent, which is quite important in terms of the life of a judge. The memorandum of dissent and explanation advocated within each of those districts a small hierarchy so that there could be a president or a chief judge within each of those districts.
That is important to the Minister of Justice because he is responsible for making recommendations, too, and joins his colleagues in cabinet in the decision-making process to decide who among the barristers in a particular province will join the federally appointed court of that province. I have talked to people who have been invited but who have declined, and some do, as the minister knows. One of the reasons they decline is that if one is to follow the law of the province-and there is some doubt as to whether all our high court judges do in terms of residence-one must uproot one's family and move to Toronto. That may be a very happy thing for the hon. member for Rosedale but it is sometimes unhappy for the families of judges. Judges must leave the communities in which they have taken an active part for many years and hive themselves off in Osgoode Hall.
If the judges involved are trial judges, they devote the rest of their lives to travelling in the province of Ontario. That is a very happy thing when one does it under happy circumstances. It is not always the best thing, however, when it has to be considered among a host of other things one might do. I think the adoption of this proposal would make the profession of judge one which would be easier to consider for highly qualified lawyers. That is one of the reasons it was regretted by me and by Mr. Bell that the commission did not see fit to adopt that proposal. It is very extensive and I commend its reading to the Minister of Justice.
There was one other important aspect. Despite the work of chief judges at all levels, but particularly at the levels about which we are talking, justice has been slow. Some of that slowness is to be blamed on the system, particularly on the perambulations of judges across the province of Ontario-and, I suspect, in other provinces as well-because of the necessity to accommodate the public and the legal profession. I would be the last to say that a great deal of the blame does not lie with
Judges Act
the legal profession, which has not been as expeditious as it might.
I think it is important that we look at the formation of the court, its functions and its administration from the point of view not necessarily of the judges or their convenience or of lawyers or their convenience but, rather, from the point of view of the public and the convenience of the public. I commend that to the Minister of Justice.
I am aware of constitutional problems with regard to the administration of justice, but I cannot help but feel that with the prestige of the Minister of Justice there might be some way by which this matter could be reawakened.
A constituent of mine, a Mrs. Mary Herron-who was in this chamber just before two o'clock, as a matter of fact, as guest of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris-from the community of Glencairn in the new city of Kanata, and who happens to be a nurse at the Civic hospital, said something to me when we were discussing the subject matter of the bill before us today, something which I think is important. She said "slow justice is not justice". I think that is a good phrase for all of us to remember, and it falls on the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada to look at procedures by which not only administrations improve but justice within a province is improved.
I want to turn to one other aspect. I said that the high court judges of the province of Ontario were not happy with the proposal of district courts and in fact spoke against it at the commission hearings. They said they would be abandoning the collegiality of Osgoode Hall. There is a certain collegiality at Osgoode Hall which would be lost, they said.
I suppose there are ways that could be remedied for those high court judges. I am sure that opinion is one they honestly hold, but what has happened and what can happen-and this is something which 1 think one should always guard against- is that the system and the judges within the system can lose their sense of collegiality with the community. I suggest to you, sir, that moving the courts into the community to a greater extent and amalgamating the jurisdictions could accomplish great things.
While the Minister of Justice is in the committee I want to turn to one other matter which was raised by the hon. member for Peace River, and I will do it briefly. It is very important when we consider the position of the Minister of Justice that we realize he is also a judicial officer, as the hon. member for Peace River said. There is built into our system a potential conflict of interest. Not only can the person who occupies the position of minister of justice find himself in a conflict of interest position, but there can appear to be a conflict of interest.
As we develop certain other things, we will have to consider the breaking up of the responsibilities of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is a member of the government who is responsible for the maintenance of the operation of his department. He could be a constitutional adviser to his

March 2, 1979
Judges Act
colleagues and to the Prime Minister. He has line responsibilities to the government which are very important. Those responsibilities might not coincide with his quasi-judicial function as Attorney General of Canada, and it is important, I think, that we consider the direction in which we are going.
The joint committee on statutory instruments is now considering a way of examining the regulatory power of governments as it falls from each statute, so that when there is a reference from this House to a particular standing committee of the House, there is a parallel reference of the power to make orders in council and statutory instruments to the joint committee to be considered. If this occurs, we will be calling upon the advice of the Attorney General, a judicial officer or quasi-judicial officer who, as the hon. member for Peace River would say, should stand apart from his colleagues in government. Not that a minister of justice personally would not attempt to stand apart, but that the Minister of Justice, now dubbed Attorney General, would be seen to stand apart from the line functions of the government.
This question was raised the other day when we were considering the application of the human rights code which this parliament passed with respect to immigration. The Minister of Justice is a colleague of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and as his colleague he has responsibility for the joint decision of the government, and all ministers are in that bag, even though from time to time one or two of them attempt to get out of it. There can arise out of that a case which could put the Minister of Justice in a difficult situation-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member; the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: I thank my colleagues. I will speak only for a minute or two more.
The other area into which we are moving is the law with respect to freedom of information upon which decisions will have to be made and advice given to the executive, not on the basis of membership in the government but perhaps on the basis of advice to the government from an independent quasijudicial authority.
Finally, there is the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Calgary North which I think should be addressed, and that is the appointment of Her Majesty's judges. There has been a movement, which some see as a healthy movement, toward using consultation in areas outside the government. I consider it terribly unhealthy.
There are some in society who feel that perhaps the function of appointment, and therefore ultimately the responsibility for the appointment of Her Majesty's judges, should be undertak-

en by someone other than the Minister of Justice. I caution the minister that while it would be foolish for him not to consult the Canadian Bar Association and perhaps judges and the community, it would be equally foolish for him to give the impression in the excellent appointments that have been made-and, I am confident, will be made, regardless of what party forms the government-that the Minister of Justice be seen to have removed from himself or from the government of the day the ultimate responsibility for these appointments. Certainly he should consult, but not to such an extent that the appointment of Her Majesty's judges is seen to be taken away from the government of the day. I think it is one of the most important functions that a government performs.
I want to thank my colleagues in the House for indulging with me in the last two minutes or so and allowing me to complete those thoughts which I wanted to pass on today to the minister.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief but I do think it is important to bring up a point which has always concerned me since I was elected to the House of Commons almost 11 years ago. Hon. members had the opportunity of considering that matter during the last session when we studied and passed Bill C-42 amending the Criminal Code and introduced a new section dealing with the language of the accused. Its purpose was, of course, to make our courts more humane, to ensure that, to the greatest possible extent at this juncture in Canadian history, the chosen official language of the accused is respected. So, the House proceeded to adopt those amendments thanks to which the accused, whether Francophone or Anglophone in Canada, no matter where he lives, now has a better chance of being heard and judged in the official language of his choice. However, I have always wondered why in an effort towards reform such as this, we did not go directly to the root of the problem.
I note that the bill before us today, Bill C-43, does not make any mention of being able to carry out a judge's duties in either of the two official languages of this country. Yet the hon. member who spoke before me quoted abundantly from a survey made in the province of Ontario and he said among other things that access of all members of society was an important factor in the delivery of legal services in this country.
So I am not trying to delay this bill unduly by raising this question. I represent in the parliament of Canada a group which is constantly concerned that justice be dealt fully for all Canadian citizens regardless of where they live in Canada. I am still curious and I would like to get an answer-how is it that in this proposed reform no mention is made of the languages of judges? I am not saying that judges in Canada, regardless of the province in which they reside, should be bilingual to qualify. Far from it, Mr. Chairman, that is not
March 2, 1979

what I am trying to get in a Canada which wants to remain united.
I believe the judiciary, starting with the judges themselves, should have at least that capacity. Individually, perhaps not, but generally I believe this country should guarantee that kind of representation. I note in the proposed constitutional reform, if one also refers to the constitution as it stands now, that it says a certain number of judges should originate from Quebec and other provinces. There is no question of language there as far as I know. I am not as learned as many members of this House who have a legal background, nevertheless I am talking for the man on the street, if I may put it that way. I am talking for the official language minorities, particularly French language minorities which always feel that their rights are being shortchanged. And in spite of the good will shown when Bill C-42 was considered, I believe progress is excessively slow in the provision of that fundamental justice in the delivery of legal services to all Canadians. Mr. Chairman, since I address myself to this particular aspect of the bill, the minister could perhaps take this opportunity to tell us what progress has been made since the passage last year of Bill C-42 concerning the language used by the accused with a view to ensuring greater justice throughout the country in the provision of French language services to the accused, or English language services if they live in Quebec of course.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member concerning the matter he has just raised.
First of all, I do not believe that the Judges Act as such would be the proper instrument to attack these problems. Other means have been found. As the hon. member stated, certain amendments have already been made to the Criminal Code to encourage the provinces to provide trials in one or the other of the official languages according to the choice of the accused as concerns criminal matters. Moreover, the hon. member is probably aware that during our constitutional discussions with the provinces concerning a human rights charter which would include linguistic rights, it was specifically provided that the provinces would be invited in this charter to guarantee to all their citizens the right to be heard in either official language, even in matters other than of a criminal nature. I am speaking about civil cases which come within provincial jurisdiction. I would also like to emphasize that enormous progress has been made concerning the ability of judges to speak and understand both official languages of Canada at the present time.
My department has financed a linguistic training program for judges which has been very useful. At the present time we can say, for instance, that on the whole the Supreme Court of Canada can operate very well in both official languages, that the Federal Court of Canada can also operate in both official languages, and I would like to mention simply the new chief justice of the provincial court, namely the Supreme Court of
Judges Act
Alberta, Mr. Justice Sinclair, who, thanks to these courses, can now speak perfectly in both languages and can express himself in a French which many French-speaking Canadians would envy.
Tremendous progress has been made, first by judges individually, second through amendments to the Criminal Code and, third, through the discussions taking place with the provinces concerning a linguistic rights charter. Finally, as concerns the appointment or the selection of judges, obviously the first criterion must be their juridical competence. Of course, if we need a judge for northern New Brunswick, we will try to appoint someone who is fluent in both official languages. The same situation prevails in some areas of Ontario and in the province of Quebec, of course, it is required by the constitution. The constitution does not require that every judge speak both languages but in Quebec you can be tried in the official language of your choice.
Now then, as concerns the specific question raised by the hon. member about the amendment made to the Criminal Code last year, there are continuous consultations with the provinces involved, particularly the province of Ontario, the province of New Brunswick, the province of Quebec, where it exists already, and I must say that remarkable progress has been made in Ontario in the last year. I cannot tell the hon. member exactly when those provinces will pass the proposed amendment. Recently we have had some administrative difficulties, perfectly understandable, having the staff required for the training courses at a given place, or a given date, so that the system may really work.
I can say without hesitation that the provinces which have sizeable official language minorities have made a lot of efforts and progress in that area since last year, and that the provincial ministers of justice concerned gave me full co-operation on this. I think that the will of parliament in that regard was very clearly expressed last year and that the attorneys general and the provincial ministers of justice gave us continuous co-operation in order to offer to their citizens the services which are provided for in that piece of legislation. So I think we can make substantial progress and that the provinces indicated very clearly and strongly their intention to continue in that direction and their wish to have those amendments to the Criminal Code proclaimed as soon as they will be in a position to offer all the services to their citizens. So we are really making considerable progress in that direction at the present time.
Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11-


Marc Lalonde: I should like to move an amendment, seconded by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen):
800S0-2S

March 2, 1979
Housing
That Bill C-43, an act to amend the Judges Act, to amend an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend certain other acts in respect of the reconstitution of the courts in New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan, be amended in clause 11:
(a)	by striking out line 2 on page 5 and substituting the following:
"subsections (2), (3) and (4), this Act shall come"
(b)	by adding the following immediately after line 4 on page 6:
New Brunswick
"(4) Section 3 and subsections 7(2) and 8(1), and section 10 in so far as it
relates to the Province of New Brunswick, shall come into force on a day, not
earlier than July 1, 1979, to be fixed by proclamation."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree but we would like to see it.
Amendment (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Marc Lalonde: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to proceed now to third reading of the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to continue the debate on Bill C-29, from where we left off yesterday, at which time I was addressing certain remarks on the value, merit, or demerit if you like, of mortgage interest deductibility schemes and schemes to provide deduction for real estate taxes in terms of stimulating the housing industry in this country.

I had pointed out that a number of us, a bipartisan parliamentary group, had conducted a fairly in-depth analysis of the experience of our neighbours in the United States in this particular area. I should like very briefly to reiterate that no positive decision to introduce mortgage interest deductibility or real estate tax deductibility as a policy matter has ever been adopted in the United States. It is part, if you like, of the basic structure of the U.S. revenue system, having existed since 1913 and extending not only to real estate taxes but to other local taxes, and extending not only to mortgage interest but to all interest. Therefore, I think it is important for us to recognize, when comparing our situation in Canada to that of our U.S. neighbours, that no option has ever existed in recent years for the United States to introduce such a scheme. The only option has been, of course, to withdraw such a scheme.
We were advised by all observers in the United States that the elimination of this particular provision of the law would be impossible, for a number of reasons which are quite obvious. First of all, many people who have purchased homes are, of course, dependent upon mortgage financing and upon the deductibility of interest associated with those mortgages. Basically they are in the position where the withdrawal of that benefit at this point could have severe personal economic consequences, not to speak, of course, of the very serious political difficulties of withdrawing a plan which is supported by a large number of home owners in the United States.
It was our experience, and I believe this was mentioned by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) in the course of a number of her comments both inside and outside the House, that privately many individuals whom she had encountered supported mortgage interest deductibility because they personally found it beneficial. I can assure the House that the same would be true in this country. I can think of nothing more attractive for many Canadian home owners, myself included, than to have the benefit of being able to deduct the interest which we pay on our mortgages and the real estate taxes we pay to our municipalities. That would be the personal preference, I am sure, of a wide cross-section of Canadians, and maybe of many members of this House.
When it comes to an issue of this importance, I suggest that the public interest must be placed ahead of our own personal interests here as individuals and as parliamentarians. We must look at this kind of plan in terms of what it can provide to Canadians in meeting certain fiscal, social and economic objectives.
What are those objectives? I analyse the objectives of any scheme of this kind as falling essentially into three categories. One, of course, is the social objective which has been put forward, namely, that of stimulating home ownership. As I indicated in the course of my remarks last night, we could probably find unanimity on that objective as being a desirable one for Canadians. It would also be a social objective to assist people to improve their housing accommodation and perhaps obtain some relief from the care and costs of housing accom-
March 2, 1979

modation. Those 1 would put in the area of social objectives which I believe are really germane to this debate on Bill C-29.
The fiscal objectives of any plan should be to provide a more efficient, effective and, above all, equitable tax structure. When I think of equity in terms of the tax structure-and 1 am sure that members of the opposition will agree with me-1 think of creating as much neutrality in the tax system as possible. That is, people in the same financial circumstances should bear the same amount of tax.
Finally, there is an over-all economic objective which has been put forward in support of this kind of scheme, namely that it would provide some stimulus to the economy by increasing home construction, home purchasing and concomitant consumer spending on furnishings, home improvements and so on. Those seem to be the principal objectives of any scheme of this kind.
Surely, we must look at this question of mortgage interest deductibility and real estate tax deductibility in terms of how well it achieves those objectives, on the assumption that we accept those objectives, as opposed to other techniques designed to achieve the same purposes.
One of the most significant objectives, in my opinion, of Bill C-29 is the providing of more and better housing accommodation and more ownership for Canadians. It is apparent that mortgage interest deductibility and real estate deductibility favour home owners. I am not arguing at this stage whether that is good or bad; I am simply saying that that is the result of this kind of program. By its very nature it provides more discretionary disposable income to those Canadians who find themselves in the higher income tax brackets. When we look at home ownership we find that more homes are owned by people in higher income tax brackets than people in lower income tax brackets. Obviously, it does much less to encourage the acquisition of homes by those persons who find themselves at the lower end of the income scale-


Mr. Clarke:: Tell that to the tenants.


Donald James Johnston: -such as young couples and others who are seeking to obtain housing. My hon. friend the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) has referred to tenants, and the bill does nothing whatever for that category. Essentially, the deductions that are suggested would tend to widen the gap in terms of housing accommodation between the upper income groups and the lower income groups. My value judgment on that situation is that it is bad.
It may be-and I will return to this later-that many home owners in this country feel that they are prejudiced by high rates of taxation and that they should be provided with some form of relief. They may very well be prejudiced by high rates of taxation, and it is unquestionably true that this measure would provide those people with some form of relief. The question is, however, should that be an objective of a mortgage interest deductibility program as opposed to seeking to provide additional housing to a particular group who require housing in this country?
Housing
As has been mentioned by other members who have addressed this subject, any plan of this kind has far-reaching implications which can only be measured after rather sophisticated econometric and other studies have been conducted. For example, it was mentioned by one speaker that this kind of program of mortgage interest deductibility and real estate tax deductibility, appealing as it does to middle and upper income groups, might tend to attract those people into some of the city cores who would renovate the housing in that area-as I understand has been the case in certain areas of the United States-to the detriment of the core's existing tenant population, which is largely composed of people from lower income groups. Surely that cannot be regarded as a desirable social consequence of this kind of program.
Moving from the social objectives to the fiscal objectives, which I defined as seeking to provide more equity and more tax neutrality, it is obvious that this kind of program does not favour tax neutrality because it creates a benefit to home owners but not to existing tenants. It does not create the same benefits to people who find themselves in essentially the same financial circumstances. Therefore, it offends the principle of tax neutrality.
As I mentioned last night, there would obviously be, as we were advised by observers in the United States, a shift of local taxation into the real estate tax sector because, clearly, if a real property owner can obtain a tax deduction in that particular area but not in terms of other local taxes, then the municipalities or other local governments would be encouraged to increase the taxes in that particular area. Also, the economic objectives cannot be met through this particular plan as well as they could be met through other kinds of plans. Specifically, because the creation of additional disposable discretionary income finds its way to the higher income groups, there is less likelihood that it will find its way back to the economic stream as quickly as it would if it favoured lower income groups and people at the lower end of the scale, who basically are more consumer oriented, as statistics have shown us.
Perhaps more significant-and 1 would like all members of the House to focus on this-is the fact that, as our U.S. neighbours have told us, once this scheme is incorporated into our system, for the reasons I have already outlined it is impossible to remove it. Therefore, as I have indicated, it cannot be regarded as an economic tool. An economic tool is something which can be applied in a counter-cyclical fashion to stimulate the economy when stimulus is required and to cool off the economy when it should be cooled off. Yet here we run the risk of incorporating something structurally into our system which will be there for all time once it is introduced. Therefore, as an economic tool it is simply not viable.
I have a certain kinship with the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who preceded me in the debate on this bill. I believe, though I stand to be corrected, that at one time he was opposed to the concept of mortgage interest deductibility, but last night he effectively supported the concept. My kinship with him is that I am almost a mirror image of the hon. member for Rosedale, in that at one time I suggested that

March 2, 1979
Housing
mortgage interest deductibility be introduced as an alternative to the registered home ownership savings plan. Subsequently, upon further examination and taking into account only some of the issues which I have raised during the course of these comments, I determined that it would not accomplish these objectives. I then moved toward a tax credit plan and have effectively supported that idea since that time, provided it is economically feasible for the country to introduce any kind of scheme at this point. I say this with a certain amount of humility, recognizing that I have had a change of position based upon a further appreciation of the very serious consequences of the introduction of this kind of scheme. I say this not in any way to denigrate the position of the progressive conservative party who brought the spotlight to bear on this issue-for that they deserve credit-but I think it behooves them to re-examine this policy in light of the evidence we have and the studies which are now available, in order to determine whether it would be in the best interests of Canadians as a whole. Upon examination of the issue I am convinced that it is not. I would encourage them to review some of the material that we have prepared.
I regard this as a very serious problem which should be considered in a non-partisan way. I am prepared to make available to the opposition the analysis we have made so that there can be a better dialogue on the subject. If there are any benefits to be derived from the mortgage interest deductibility and real estate tax deductions, I should like to know what they are. If there are any, they should be considered. On the basis of the analysis that we have made, Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be any merit to the scheme at all over other schemes, and in some ways there could be very negative aspects.
I have prepared a document for the national caucus which I would be quite happy to make available to my friends on the other side of the House. It summarizes the conclusions I arrived at on the basis of the discussions held at Washington at which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-who, I understand, will speak on this bill-the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott), and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae) were present.
There is no doubt that when this policy was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) during the summer of 1978, it struck a responsive chord in certain sections of the community. I noticed it in my riding and I am sure other hon. members noticed it in theirs. I ask myself, if all these negative aspects are inherent in the plan, why did it strike such a responsive chord? Initially, I think it gives the appearance of stimulating the housing industry and encouraging home ownership. I was the victim of that illusion myself until I studied the matter in more detail. It is apparent now that it does not stimulate new housing nearly to the extent to which it stimulates, encourages, and benefits existing home owners. There are any number of other plans which would be more effective in creating new housing and bringing more people on to the housing market. If there is an objective inherent in this scheme, to provide tax relief to home owners, then there is no

doubt that objective is accomplished by the suggestion that mortgage interest and real estate taxes should be deductible.
If we wish to provide tax relief to middle and upper income people, who suffer a severe tax burden under our present tax system, I believe, should we single out home owners? Why should we not consider our fiscal system as a whole and try to make it more fair and create more tax neutrality in all areas to which it applies? That is the objective I have been working toward for several years. It is one of the reasons why I sought to become a member of parliament, so that I could become involved in the area of fiscal reform which I believe to be so important.
It bothers me to think that we would consider introducing a provision of this kind which would further exacerbate the problems which I, and others involved in fiscal matters, have been attempting to eliminate. For example, home owners feel disadvantaged because their real estate taxes and mortgage interest payments are not deductible. If we take two Canadians, each of whom has an amount of available capital with which to buy the average priced house in Canada-which I understand is in the neighbourhood of $60,000-the question is whether the one who buys the home is better off than the one who receives interest income from his $60,000 which, assuming a 50 per cent bracket, at 10 per cent, nets $3,000 after tax. He then has that amount available for rental accommodation. I suggest that there are not too many Canadians who would prefer the position of the man with $3,000 after tax income available for living accommodation to that of the man who owns the $60,000 home, even with the costs which he has to support.
It may sound sophisticated, Mr. Speaker, but all economists have established that there is a real benefit to living in your own home. There is an imputed rental value to be attached to that benefit which, until 1963, was actually subject to taxation in the United Kingdom. We should not be horrified to learn that it has even been considered by other countries in the western world. There is a real benefit to be attached to home ownership by the mere fact of living in the house, which has never been taxed. I am hopeful and confident that it will never be taxed. Nevertheless, the home owner is in a much better situation than the renter in the same financial circumstances.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have the advantage in Canada that a capital gain on the principal residence is not taxable, irrespective of whether the vendor intends to buy another home. The United States has recently adopted a provision which exempts a once in a lifetime $100,000 gain. First of all, however, the home owner must be aged 55 or over and must have owned the house for at least seven years and lived in it for a certain period during those seven years. Our provisions are infinitely more attractive than those of the United States in this regard.
If we want to attain these objectives, Mr. Speaker, and provide that more people can own homes, we must look at programs which will be effective in bringing about that situation. The tax credit scheme is one because it treats people at the high end of the scale and people at the low end of the scale
March 2, 1979

equally. If we were to establish a refundable tax credit, that would reach the lower economic levels of our society and provide them with money to enable them to have adequate housing.
It is important to recognize that these schemes are costly, Mr. Speaker. Fiscal responsibility requires that no scheme of this magnitude be introduced without the most thorough analysis of the economic consequences, both in terms of stimulation of the economy and in terms of increased government deficit.
There are better ways of providing home ownership, Mr. Speaker, and there are many better ways of bringing equity into the fiscal system. This scheme would basically create a further departure from the principle of tax neutrality which I find to be unacceptable. Accordingly, I think all members of the House should address themselves, over the next several years, to the question of how our fiscal system can be improved. There is no question that there are inequities in it. This program, however, would not improve the fiscal system but would merely worsen it.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as an instrument of economic stimulus this scheme would not be effective. It would favour people at the upper end of the bracket who, by and large, are not the consuming public, and it could never be eliminated from our system.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that this is not something I approach in a partisan way. At one point, as I said, I supported the idea. I think that together in this country we should seek the best possible means of providing home ownership to more Canadians. I beseech the Conservative opposition not to suggest that a mortgage interest deductibility plan and a real estate tax deductibility plan be foisted on the Canadian public, with all the serious long-term economic consequences it could have.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-29, the housing legislation we have been discussing in our spare time, when there is nothing else to do, because this is the way we have been doing it since the minister put the bill forward a number of days ago. This strengthens my opinion that the bill has been badly put together, it is incomplete and very difficult to understand. I have been wondering, if we passed the bill as it is, whether the regulations to be enacted would be so different we would not recognize the act anymore.
My feeling is we will have to be very careful in committee with this legislation, and the minister will have to be well prepared to give us the information needed, mainly on the criteria referred to in certain clauses of the bill. There is mention of standards and criteria in a number of places, but no explanation is given and we have no sure indication where those criteria might lead us. We have no clear idea who will
Housing
establish those criteria or construction standards, the standards for establishing lending values. The experience with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is that they have numerous offices across Canada and it would seem there were just as many National Housing Acts as there are CMHC offices. If we are to compare for instance the way the act is implemented in the area served by the Val d'Or office with that of another office in the lower St. Lawrence or the Montreal area, we would think the act is different because there is so much difference.
I suggest there should be uniformity, even if flexibility must be maintained to meet the needs and weather conditions in various areas. Building in southern Ontario is quite different from building in northern Quebec. But when it comes to lending values and valuation, I feel that variations are too wide and it is hard to assess the basis used to determine valuation rates and lending values. Mr. Speaker, in his introduction the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has praised the National Housing Act. Obviously he dealt only with the bright side of the story. He surely was not going to, nor did 1 expect him to, openly criticize all the shortcomings in the act. Yet in his speech he told us over and over again that most Canadians enjoy good housing.
I have tried to grasp what the minister meant by that when he said that most Canadians have good housing. Did he mean that Canadians live in luxurious houses, that they live in very comfortable houses, houses in which they want to live or rather did the minister mean to say that Canadians live in expensive houses? This brings us to the issue of programs developed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, these loan programs which we have had for several years, one formerly called AHOP and now rebaptized GMP, and all these types of loans which have been promoted. Most of these loans were designed for moderate income people. When one studies what is happening in the case of these people, one will realize that they actually live in very expensive houses. It does not mean that they live in luxurious houses, far from it.
1 have before me a brochure published by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which explains the new GMP program-the graduated mortgage payments program. We are given as an example a $35,000 loan at 103/4 per cent over 25 years. Under the old program which called for equal payments over 25 years, the reimbursement of such a mortgage would cost $99,300. Under the new graduated mortgage payments program this $35,000 mortgage at 103/4 per cent will in the end cost $108,864. I therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, that most Canadians who have availed themselves of our housing legislation live in houses which are much too expensive in relation to the size of their income. When these houses are sold, it is natural that developers and builders do not mention it because they are under no obligation to do so but in the end when the buyer is through paying for his house, it will have cost him over $100,000 to get a house which is very little more than

March 2, 1979
Housing
four walls, a roof and foundations. The house is far from luxurious, it is just good enough to live decently in, nothing more.
Developers and builders tell buyers: Thanks to payment facilities, thanks to easy loans, all you will have to pay is so much every month during so many years. A young couple who want to live in their home and who want to own a house do not realize the full extent of the commitment they are about to sign; they see only what they are going to pay, only the difference between what they will have to pay to own a house and what they are paying now as tenants. People are being lured with that difference but the truth and the reality are quite different. I do think that if every prospective owner sat down to count how much money he will have spent to buy his house over 25 or 30 years, many of them would think twice before buying and would not dare commit themselves that way. They might come up with another solution. That is exactly what is happening now, and many young couples prefer to deal with builders and developers rather than build their houses themselves and get a mortgage loan elsewhere in order to avoid lengthy and costly commitments they would have to make if they were to deal with CMHC.
This means, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this housing program does not really meet the needs of Canadian people, the needs of the people this legislation is designed to help, because there are three main groups of people in Canada, those with a large income or with enough savings to do without lenders, banks, trust companies, insurance companies if they build a house. They are well off and have enough money to pay for their house when they buy it or have it built. The next group, perhaps the largest, is made up of people with low incomes who do not have enough savings to pay cash for their houses. Therefore, they have to borrow money, to deal with authorized lenders, with banks or credit unions, trust companies or insurance companies to obtain housing loans. Those are perhaps the most hard up.
The third group, Mr. Speaker, is probably made up of people who do not want or need to own a home because they are mobile, as it were. They live in a town or village for a few months, to work on a job and then they move on to another village. They are always on the move because of their jobs, or still they may be handicapped or disabled and do not think of or feel like buying a house.
Mr. Speaker, our housing legislation was designed to meet the needs of people in the largest group in making easier terms and easier loan facilities available to them so they can become home owners. But they were really tricked because by holding out to them these easier loans, they were forced to pay unduly high interest rates compared to their incomes.
At the present time, in my area at least, interest rates are about 10%, 11 and 11% per cent. Mr. Speaker, when one

agrees to repay a $35,000 mortgage over a 25- or 30-year period, we have to think twice about it because it is a commitment to pay very high interests over a very long period. The new program the minister is promoting so much may seem attractive to young couples who want to become homeowners because at first, for about ten years, the payments will be a little less since they are not paying any interest at that time. Interests will accrue and will be charged only from the seventh year. I think that once again, Mr. Speaker, they foisted the program upon the public rather like pressure salesmen. The government is quite good at submitting attractive programs, but in the end people who want to borrow to buy a house will have to pay about $10,000 more.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it would have been much better to lower the interest rates to help young couples buy a house. A few years ago, through a special program, interest rates were lowered to 8 per cent in certain cases while the current rates were about 9'/2 per cent or 10 per cent. This nearly was the same as subsidizing new homeowners.
1 believe that if we want to be logical and help everyone make his dream of owning his own house come true in Canada, we must find the means to lower considerably the interest rates on mortgage loans. Otherwise, we shall never achieve this objective. We shall always be tenants in our own homes. We shall always have payments to make, because I can assure you that not many people will see the end of 25 year mortgages as there are not many houses built today which can last 25 or 30 years without costly repairs and maintenance jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to underline this once again and ask the minister and the government to find the means to lower mortgage interest rates so that they do not exceed 6 per cent. This would be much more effective than any other suggestion made either by the Progressive Conservative party, the New Democratic Party or even the Liberal party. We can criticize any suggestion that is made, but if we do not take the means to enable low income people to find housing without putting too much pressure on their income and forcing them to seek out loan companies, I believe that we shall have failed in our duty and that we shall never succeed as well as we should in providing appropriate housing for everyone.
Mr. Speaker, we have all we need to build homes. We hardly have to import anything from other countries, as we produce our own building materials, such as structural materials and lumber, and we have a great many sawmills producing high quality lumber, we have plants that produce all kinds of materials used in the construction and production of these houses. I cannot understand why the cost of homes remains so high. Obviously the cost of housing has gone up because of wages and all sorts of overhead that go into the cost of producing houses.
I have here a chart from the Quebec Provincial Home Builders Association which mentions nine different trades connected with home building. For each one of them, which
March 2, 1979

include carpenters, bricklayers, cement finishers, roofers, and so on, the builder must pay, over and above wages, which in Quebec, for a carpenter for example, is $10.28 an hour, nine other items such as holidays, social security, the Office de la construction du Quebec, unemployment insurance, Workmen's Compensation Board, Quebec Pension Plan, medicare, wage compensation fund and so forth, nine items, for a total of $2.76 which is added to the worker's salary.
There are also the administrative costs which the builder must assume and which are passed on to the customer. There is also a fair profit of 10 per cent, so that if a carpenter is paid $10.28 an hour, the customer is billed $17.93 an hour for his services. Therefore, it is not the carpenter alone who is expensive, but all those who are involved in a construction project. There are about ten other people who must get paid in addition to the carpenter. All these elements certainly contribute to the high cost of housing.
On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we have interest rates which are over 10 per cent. In fact, they are about 11% per cent just now. I suggest therefore that it is almost impossible and unthinkable for young Canadians to become the owners of their own houses, without restricting themselves on such items as food, lodging, medical care, education and so on. I suggest this bill needs improvements if we want the National Housing Act to meet the needs of Canadians and of those who require assistance to become home owners.
During committee meetings, I hope that all those who have a brief to submit, advice to give and recommendations to make to the minister will be heard, in order to improve this bill, so that the Housing Act may better meet the needs and fulfil the expectation of Canadians.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to take part in this debate unexpectedly, and with a mixture of sadness and anger. I say that my participation today at second reading of Bill C-29 is unexpected, in the sense that the problem in my riding 1 am about to describe came to my attention as a surprising first assignment as a member of parliament immediately following my election in Hamilton-Wentworth last October 16. The sadness I feel this afternoon stems from a personal investigation of a CMHC horror story and a first-hand feeling of the helplessness and frustration experienced by many of my constituents. My anger mounts when I realize that the situation I am about to describe is not confined to one condominium development sliding into a ravine but to several other badly executed housing projects in Hamilton and, indeed, across the country.
The countless other horror stories which are coming to light in this debate may not be as spectacular as 100 Quigley Road in east end Hamilton, but the principal failure of the federal government's role in this near tragedy for my constituents is typical of the chaos which has enveloped CMHC because of
Housing
inadequate inspections and the use of substandard building materials.
Like other hon. members on this side of the House, I want to go on record as saying that the bill before the House contains many good features, some of which are long overdue, but I also wish to register the concern of my colleagues on this side of the House that these National Housing Act amendments deserve, indeed, demand, close scrutiny in the standing committee, although I am beginning to wonder whether we members of the opposition will have much opportunity to carry out the kind of detailed examination needed. This has something to do with an election, and that is why I am taking this opportunity this afternoon to raise a particular concern of mine relating to this bill, namely, the program which will replace the Assisted Home Ownership Program. I want to get my experience and the very real worries of my constituents on the record now so that the government will be in no doubt as to the official opposition's criticism and suggested remedies once we hit the campaign trail.
AHOP was, and is, a good idea. It is the government's execution of that idea which has created so many problems across the country. AHOP has succeeded in making affordable housing available to people who normally would not be able to afford to buy homes, even if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) calls owning one's own home a luxury. That is not our view, and notwithstanding the comments made by the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston), there are countless hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the middle and lower income brackets who are tenants and whose dream it is to own their own homes some day. My leader's mortgage interest deductibility proposal, as has been pointed out in this debate, is aimed at that vast and important constituency. People are responding to that constructive proposal, which offers them hope of achieving their dream.
And so did AHOP offer hope, but in the government's haste to cash in on the building boom of the mid-1970s and the desire of people to own condominiums, that hope has long since turned into financial and personal nightmares for too many Canadians who took this government and its program at their word. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, it is the same thing all over again: inadequate inspections, disgraceful construction and design, and the use of substandard building materials.
I will deal in a moment with the charge of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) that we on this side of the House are raising only isolated incidents.
Let me tell the House how I first came to learn of what I thought was just an isolated incident at 100 Quigley Road in Hamilton. The very first weekend following the October 16 by-election 1 received an urgent message through my Stoney Creek constituency office from Mr. and Mrs. Keith Parks. When I called back, they informed me that several units in their condominium development were slowly sliding into a 50 to 75-foot deep ravine. Apparently the units had been built too close to the edge of the ravine, and the developer had not packed down properly some 13 to 17 feet of fill. Furthermore,

March 2, 1979
Housing
he used inferior chemically-treated fill. This resulted in soil erosion, then cracks and, finally, a fear on the part of several tenants that one more winter of weighty snow or an accompanying heavy spring run-off, and whole back yards, patios and family rooms could end up at the bottom of the Red Hill Ravine.
The physical threat to the tenants of 100 Quigley Road, not to mention all the little kiddies who were playing around the edge of that erosion, was frightening enough, but Mr. and Mrs. Parks had another incredible piece of news for me.
The condominium tenants were under a city of Hamilton court order to effect immediate repairs to the erosion. Construction was to begin not later than November 22, 1978, and it would cost $30,000. Failure to meet the deadline and complete these repairs would result in a $10,000 fine being levied against the condominium owners. In any event, I was told that the people at 100 Quigley Road were to be assessed an extra $200 per unit on their mortgages. Being hit with that news during the Christmas shopping season, needless to say, had these folks mighty upset.
The question to their new member of parliament was what could 1 do to convince Ottawa that none of this was the fault of the condominium owners, and was there a possibility of a $30,000 federal grant or loan until the repairs were carried out? The owners eventually settled on a loan. They were determined to pay it all back. My first reaction on hearing this story, frankly, was that of a television newsman: "What a visual story this will be!" Did anybody else know about 100 Quigley Road? No, said Mr. and Mrs. Parks, people were afraid to let the media know about their plight because the resulting publicity could damage the credibility of their housing project, but would I please come and talk with the unit owners and see the situation for myself?
I agreed to treat this first case as a member of parliament on the confidential basis that the public comes to expect from its elected representatives. However, there is one element in my journalistic background which I could not set aside. In a case like this I felt it vitally important to conduct a personal investigation into both sides of the story. This I have done in connection with this case. One hundred Quigley Road started as a rental townhouse project in 1974. Like so many other housing starts, this was during the boom of the mid-seventies, those halcyon days which the Canadian construction industry remembers now with misty eyes. At any rate, in 1975, 100 Quigley Road quickly changed to a condominium project called the Wentworth Condominium Corporation No. 20, registered in September, 1975, and including 150 units.
The financing was originally a blanket mortgage through CMHC. It was replaced with individual CMHC mortgages, and by the end of 1975 all the units were occupied. That is a point to which I will come back a little later.
It was during the spring of 1976 that a soil erosion problem became evident. The land fill behind several of the units on the north slope of the ravine began disappearing, and finally things

began happening in the units themselves as they settled. By September of 1978 a crack had appeared in the ground within seven feet of units 62, 63 and 64, and the land started to slide. Cracks also appeared in the basement of the affected units. Second floor toilets leaked through the vestibule ceilings, and family rooms began to sag.
Consulting engineers were immediately retained to analyse the problem, and in the meantime Hamilton's building department issued a court order to make the north slope between units 54 to 62 more stable. I should point out that the units in question were built on the north and west slopes of that ravine. The north slope is the most precarious; the west slope could withstand this and perhaps next winter's snow, but inevitably several other units face a similar caving in. The consulting engineers' report made recommendations for shoring up the units, at a cost of $30,000 for the 150 unit owners. The north slope needing immediate repairs would cost $18,000, the west slope would require $12,000 worth of restoration.
That news hit the 100 Quigley Road condominium tenants on October 16, 1978. By this time, my newsman's sense, 1 must admit, was getting the better of me. I have kept 100 Quigley Road a private matter, but by now, several members of the Wentworth condominium board of directors and I felt that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this scandal quiet any longer. I decided to raise the matter in the House of Commons and let the media take it from there to the public. Frankly, what spurred me on was the Virginia Drive project raised by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). In December, during the question period, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs had roundly castigated my colleague for raising the matter, saying it was just an "isolated incident". The minister knew then, and he knows now very well, that Virgina Drive was anything but an isolated incident involving CMHC funded housing projects.
If Virginia Drive was an isolated incident, then why did one of his senior CMHC officials tell me that even if the corporation could lend the Quigley Road people the $30,000 to shore up the ravine, he refused on the grounds that:
It would open up the flood gates to similar requests across Canada.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs, in his answer to my question one day in the House of Commons, said "yes", that was why he turned down a grant or loan to the people of 100 Quigley Road.
Hon. members on the government side will probably think that we in the opposition-and I, specifically in these remarks-have been embarking on a CMHC bashing exercise by raising the kind of situation I been have discussing. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker.
What really made me realize that we are on the right track to detail cases such as 100 Quigley Road in Hamilton and the Virginia Drive problem in St. John's, Newfoundland, and pursue the government for its sheer negligence in these situations, was a chance meeting I had during a brief vacation in January. By staggering coincidence, a young couple staying at our hotel in the Caribbean used to live in the city of Hamilton.
March 2, 1979

It was several days before I discovered that the fellow with whom I had had several casual conversations was an inspector with CMHC and in fact had worked on projects in and around the Red Hill Creek area of Hamilton, including 100 Quigley Road. He could not be certain that the units which were sliding into the ravine had been his exact responsibility, but he knew the CMHC personnel on site at the time. What he told me, on a not for attribution basis, confirmed my worst suspicions about why these, and who knows how many hundreds of other AHOP customers, have been going through incredible inconvenience in recent years. I should point out that the CMHC inspector in question now works in another part of Canada, but his memory is vivid on the corporation's role regarding 100 Quigley Road.
This inspector told me that an initial on site inspection of the location, the plans, and the construction of a CMHC approved projects, was always supposed to be followed up by supplementary visits. However, during this particular period in the mid-1970s, when there was a real construction boom and many hundreds of condominium projects were being thrown up, CMHC simply did not have the manpower available to carry out their supplementary inspections. My informant says that he cannot understand how he or his fellow inspectors could have missed the danger signals which were so apparent with the construction of these units at Quigley Road so close to the edge of the ravine. He is certain that a supplementary visit by a CMHC inspector, indeed two or three supplementary visits, would have discovered the slipshod methods being used in the land-fill procedure to shore up the rear of the units. But, he said, "obviously, somebody wasn't watching what was going on."
That, to me, is a pretty damning indictment of the lack of responsibility assumed by the federal government housing agency. My informant went on to explain that there were several other projects in the east Hamilton area going on at the same time and that I would probably discover similar, if not as spectacular, cases as 100 Quigley Road. He was reading my mind, because shortly thereafter I brought the Red Hill ravine problem to the attention of the Hamilton media when I, along with other Hamilton area political representatives, began receiving complaints and horror stories from nearby condominium projects, all of them initially financed and inspected under AHOP.
Let me introduce to you very briefly the case of Mr. Godwin Charles who lives in unit 26 No. 11 Glen Vista Drive, about half a mile away from 100 Quigley Road. Mr. Charles outlined a weird problem he was having in his kitchen and invited me to drop around and experience for myself what had become for Mr. Charles and his family an intolerable situation. It was on a clear, cold Saturday afternoon in late November that I visited unit 26, a fashionable, comfortable, indeed cosy looking split-level condominium unit on Glen Vista Drive. It was cosy looking, but anything but cosy feeling.
As you enter the front door and go down a small hallway, you come upon a very compact and comfortable looking living room. There is a half flight of stairs to another hallway on the
Housing
mezzanine level which has a dining room and leads to several bedrooms. But at the top of the stairway is the kitchen, which is built over the garage, and looks out on to Glen Vista Drive. The kitchen is positively frigid, a good 20 degrees cooler than the rest of the house. I can hear hon. members interjecting and asking, "How cold was it?" It was so cold that liquids under the kitchen sink froze if left there for just a few hours, so cold that you could feel the wind blowing through electric light sockets. The Charles' cannot heat anything on their stove, even with the burners turned up full because of the blast of cold air that is coming down through the vent above the stove.


An hon. Member:: That's really cool.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Ah, you say, that is because the kitchen is built over the garage, and any kitchens built directly over enclosed garages are likely to experience this drop in temperature, or the windows are not fitted properly and the cold is seeping into the kitchen that way, or maybe there is faulty insulation under the kitchen floor or in the walls facing the street. I was astounded to learn two things; neither of the obvious faults that come to mind was apparent in the case of Godwin Charles' kitchen; and that his unit was one of many up and down Glen Vista Drive experiencing the same insufferable inconvenience. Not only was it an insufferable inconvenience, but an expensive one. The cold air which fills the kitchen sweeps down the small staircase and makes the sitting room below quite uncomfortable. Only the bedrooms are liveable, but in the meantime the heating bills of the Charles' family and their neighbours on Glen Vista Drive have skyrocketed since this problem was first discovered more than a year ago.
Hon. members might be interested to know that 1 personally checked out each of the possible design faults which would result in the freezing kitchens. The covered garages immediately below the kitchens are warmer than the kitchens. There is plenty of insulation in the walls of the garage and in the ceiling immediately below the kitchens. Some of the unit owners have even taped clear vinyl coverings inside and outside the windows to cut down on the cold but without luck. Explanations have been offered that a kitchen located below a garage with a sloping roof inevitably causes temperature problems.
In any event, now it is up to the individual condominium unit owners, on top of the $42,000 price tag on each unit, to invest what they can or must to rectify this most unusual problem, which clearly is either a design fault by the builder, inferior insulation material, or both. As in the case of 100 Quigley Road, it is the buyer who gets caught between faulty design, materials and inspection on the one hand, and a passing of the buck between one level of government to another, and to another, when it comes to redressing these totally unexpected and highly unjustified inconveniences experienced by these home owners.
3786

March 2, 1979
Housing
The entire AHOP program from the outset should have been labelled like cigarette packages which warn of danger to smokers' health. Every AHOP project should have been labelled, "Buyer beware." Had many of my constituents known the inconvenience and heartache they were about to experience when they took advantage of the federal government's generous offer to assist in their home buying, they would not be living in 100 Quigley Road or in No. 11 Glen Vista Drive today. Indeed, many of them no longer live there.
At Quigley Road 32 owners have defaulted on their mortgages. It is small wonder. The units at 100 Quigley Road were all purchased in 1975 on the AHOP program. A reduced mortgage was paid for the first five years. Mrs. Parks complains that she is paying $233 a month for her three-bedroom unit, and without AHOP she would have been paying $353 a month. That is fine, however, but by 1980 she will have to start paying the higher rate and will owe 120 per cent of the original value of the unit, or about $9,000 more. One must add to that prospect the escalating levy to each unit owner to effect repairs or maintenance because of poor quality workmanship inside the units and on the landscaping.
The value of the units at 100 Quigley Road will not exactly be bargain basement prices for house hunters. By 1980, when the payments suddenly increase and owners start to find that they owe 120 per cent on their homes, a tidal wave of defaults may start to occur. It is an awful prospect, and by 1981 perhaps 100 Quigley Road will be a ghost town. I wonder how many similar potential ghost towns, or how many hundreds of other 100 Quigley Roads there are across Canada. That is why I was so angry when the Minister of State for Urban Affairs had the unmitigated audacity to suggest the situations raised by the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) are isolated incidents and are not indicative of the government's excellent federal housing policy. One just has to ask the people of Quigley Road or Glen Vista Drive how isolated they feel right now.
Like the constituents I represent, I guess my real sense of frustration lies in the lack of responsiblity which the federal government feels it should take in situations like 100 Quigley Road. As a reporter I became sick and tired of buck passing between one level of government to the other. As a member of parliament, not just reporting on the plight of people caught in the bureaucratic web but representing them, I am even more exasperated at the failure of the federal government to live up to its responsibility. My people in Hamilton, and untold thousands of other people in hundreds of projects across the country, believed in the government's promise to make it easier for them to acquire their own homes. They were not told they would have to contend with city bylaws, provincial conservation authority regulations and, above all, improper inspection and negligence on the part of the federal government's housing authority.
I, and the minister, know that the entire blame for situations like 100 Quigley Road does not lie at the feet of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In this case the local contractor, Lucille Investments Limited, and the city of

Hamilton building inspectors, share some responbility for the problem. According to city bylaws, two or three of those units should not have been built at all. Authorization was made on the basis of drawings and not by on-site inspection. In 1975 when the builder applied to make the units at Quigley Road into a condominium project, the provincial conservation authority reported that the project should be rejected because the homes had to be built not closer than 25 feet to the edge of the ravine.
The case I am making against CMHC basically is one of moral neglect of the owners, who originally were enticed by the corporation into buying these homes. As I have pointed out, the method of inspection by CMHC is spotty at best, and to repeat the words of my CMHC inspector friend, "Somebody was not watching what was going on."
Typical of the government's attitude is the following quote from a letter which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs recently sent to Mrs. June Collins, the director of the Quigley Road Condominium Corporation:
Unfortunately, there is no authority under the National Housing Act which would permit Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make a grant to your corporation to cover the cost of the necessary remedial work. 1 regret that CMHC is unable to be of assistance in resolving the soil erosion problem.
The minister described the Quigley Road problems as being "unforeseen expenditures". Members of the House cannot imagine how much at a loss these condominium owners feel when they receive this kind of reply from a minister of the government. Perhaps if anyone is listening on the government side they will understand how infuriated I am that good and decent people, like those I have met at 100 Quigley Road, should find themselves in a physical and financial bind over which they had no control, in the first place, and for which they should not have responsibility now.
Surely the bottom line to this litany of personal tragedies and disasters recorded during this debate is some responsibility on the part of the government. Surely the minister has some compassion for what we on this side have shown are not isolated incidents but regular occurrences in the government's national housing agency. The minister must realize CMHC is in a mess, and that a full public accounting is needed before even more millions of taxpayers' dollars are wasted on this corporation. It is nothing short of a political tool of the government. I conclude by referring to the lead editorial in the February 3 edition of the Hamilton Spectator. "It's time to evaluate CMHC".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will add another chapter to this debate, one of sorrow and bungling. It demonstrates what the government has accomplished in the last ten years since it professed to be the champion of the just society in 1968.
I do not wish to take away from the thrust of the argument I will make, the argument of the poor people who comprise 20 per cent of our population. These people hoped the government would fulfil its promise respecting housing. I do not want to
March 2, 1979

take away from the thrust of this argument, so may I call it four o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 9, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond Delta (Mr. Siddon). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Item No. 13, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Item No. 15, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Item No. 16, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Item No. 17, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina) moved: that Bill C-219, to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence), be read the second
Criminal Code
time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-219, I share with the House that the intent of this piece of legislation is to reinstate capital punishment for crimes of high treason or premeditated murder.
On July 14, 1976, this House abolished capital punishment under legislation known as Bill C-84. It is interesting when we review the vote on third reading to find that there were just six votes difference, an extremely thin margin. I spoke on third reading at that time and stated it was a sad day for participatory democracy because surveys indicated at that time, as they still indicate today, that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the Canadian people wished to retain capital punishment for premeditated and planned murder. To this date I still fail to understand what makes individual members of parliament feel their conscience is so much wiser than the collective conscience of the Canadian people.
It was stated in this House by members of the government party that we were to free ourselves in Canada of that ordeal known as capital punishment, but that is not the case. The government has not given the House any indication of what its plans are regarding the introduction of amendments to the National Defence Act. I understand this act presently provides capital punishment for 36 offences, some of them as strange as an individual getting drunk while on watch. We do not have total abolition in Canada simply because this act has not been amended and there are these provisions contained in the National Defence Act. I would appreciate very much some guidance from government members as to what the government's intentions are in dealing with the National Defence Act itself. We find that we are discriminating against one segment of our society in the armed forces because of this provision for capital punishment still in the legislation.
Capital punishment is not an issue in respect of which party politics should become involved. It involves a decision that individual members in this chamber have to make within themselves, and vote accordingly. It is imperative that we truly have a free vote in this chamber, not only like the vote in 1976. It was supposedly free, but in reality it was not. We saw cabinet members en masse vote for abolition of capital punishment, but it was obvious to me when watching the voting on the other side that some disciplinary action, even though it was not overly obvious, had been taken in regard to some of the backbench members as well.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Peter Elzinga: If we are to have a truly free vote in the House of Commons it should be conducted as it was in 1966 when four private members sponsored a bill at that time, without any obligation on the cabinet or any member to support a piece of government legislation, as was the case in respect of Bill C-84 in 1976. That is the commitment the leader of this party has given to the Canadian people, that we will have a

March 2, 1979
Criminal Code
truly free vote on this issue in the House of Commons by allowing a vote on a private member's bill, or a series of private members' bills on which each and every member of this House would have a free vote. Members will have no obligation to support government legislation because it will be a private member's bill and we will have freedom to vote for the reinstatement of capital punishment or the retention of abolition.
I also found it somewhat surprising to note the attitude of members opposite in dealing with the referendum legislation. They wish to go to the people on a question as to whether they wish to see our country separated. It is obvious to me there are very few people in this nation of ours who wish to see Canada separated. They want to hear the wishes of Canadians on an issue like this, but are not interested in hearing what Canadian people have to say on an issue like capital punishment.
As I said earlier, it is a sad day for participatory democracy when members opposite close their ears to a pressing issue such as capital punishment, a very emotional issue to the majority of Canadian people. I am truly puzzled how an abolitionist can feel that his own conscience is so much wiser than the collective conscience of the Canadian people.
The incidence of violent crime in the past ten years has increased dramatically. We cannot go back just to the period of 1976 when capital punishment was abolished in this House, because in essence it was abolished in 1965 by this government. No one has been hanged in Canada since that time. Abolition may not have been approved by legislative authority before 1976, but since 1965 this government has not carried out capital punishment for any capital crime.
The evidence is inconclusive as to whether capital punishment is in reality a deterrent. Any discussion of the merits or otherwise of capital punishment goes beyond the area of politics and each person makes up his own mind according to the dictates of his conscience and his judgment.
The abolitionists claim that capital punishment is not a deterrent to would-be murderers. In my opinion this is an empty argument and completely beside the point. There is no way to determine how many murders were not committed by those who wanted to commit the act, but did not, for fear of execution. The question should be, does the supreme crime demand the supreme penalty? In effect, do we place the highest possible value on the life of the victim?
The abolitionists say capital punishment has no deterrent effect. There are no facts to prove it one way or the other, but to say that the death penalty is no deterrent is to say that men do not fear death. I find that to be a rather incredible assertion. Fear of death, in my view, is an instinctive reaction.
I would ask how many of us in this chamber do not value or fear for our lives? Life is regarded by man as a precious possession which he wishes to preserve more eagerly than anything else. He would, therefore, defend it to the utmost against every threat, including the threat of capital execution.
There must be a serious and real risk of execution for the death penalty to be an effective tool, because crime will not

decrease until being a criminal becomes more dangerous than being a victim.
The abolitionists usually state as an argument in favour of abolition that a mistake can be made in carrying out capital punishment. Although this is a valid comment, it is not a valid argument in a debate on capital punishment, because what we are discussing now is what the price should be for an individual who commits premeditated or planned murder. We are not arguing or discussing the merits of our judicial system. If there are errors in that area they must be safeguarded against; but that statement is not a valid argument in this debate because, as I said, what we have to resolve here is what to do with an individual who has been found guilty of taking another individual's life intentionally.
The very individuals we ask to give us protection deserve protection themselves, and I speak mainly of our police officers and prison guards. If what is known as capital punishment today is not reinstated, our friends who do such a superb job of law enforcement will have no protection whatsoever. What will a criminal imprisoned for life have to lose if he kills a prison guard? In reality, he will gain his freedom if his bid for escape succeeds; if he does not, he loses nothing. If capital punishment is not reinstated the prisoner in reality has nothing to lose and a great deal to gain.
I believe in capital punishment for all premeditated or planned murder, which makes up approximately 1 per cent of the murders committed in Canada. I believe it is the prime duty of the government to offer citizens protection against violent crime, and in my view capital punishment is a necessary tool to ensure that protection. That is why I have introduced Bill C-219 to amend the Criminal Code to reinstate capital punishment for premeditated and planned murder.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized and having this opportunity to add a few words to this debate. I want to say at the outset that I very much respect the right of any member of this House to express a view contrary to mine on this very controversial issue, and I respect their sincerity for that view. 1 know that the hon. member opposite who has brought forward this private member's bill has done so with the serious concern that the reinstitution of the death penalty will indeed bring better protection for the public in Canada. I cannot agree with that, and for that reason I would like to add some comments.
Back in the so-called minority parliament of 1972 to 1974, this House debated and then brought into effect a limited capital punishment bill which reduced the categories of murder that would lead to the imposition of the death penalty to the categories of killers of policemen and prison guards on duty. At that time I put forward, along with the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), outside this House a proposal, which I had hoped the government would take up, of total abolition.
I believe that in fact there are many other victims of this most terrible of all crimes other than policemen and prison
March 2, 1979

guards, who are less prepared and less aware of the risk within their lives and livelihoods of death. I speak, for instance, of assaults on children leading to death, kidnapping and death, and premeditated murder and death, although that can also be premeditated murder in the case of prison guards or policemen being killed.
At that time I brought the bill forward arguing, although I did not have the opportunity because of the system to bring it formally into the House, that what we needed was not the death penalty but more effective law, with very harsh penalties for a much broader segment of that most serious of all crimes, murder. The member for Saint-Denis and I proposed at that time substantially the same bill that the government later adopted when it abolished capital punishment in 1976. Had we acted earlier, however, we would have had for three more years what we have had since 1976.
As an abolitionist of long standing, I want to make it clear that I believe that we have a more effective law, stronger deterrence and better results for the Canadian public since the House abolished the capital punishment penalty in 1976. That law said that we would no longer have the death penalty on the books. If one measured all violent crimes on a yardstick, crimes of murder would be a very small proportion of that yardstick, and those crimes of murder which involve the killing of policemen and prison guards on duty would be a very, very small part of that measurement of murder out of the total violent crimes.
What we did was to change the law so that not only would the killers of policemen and prison guards on duty face the strictest of all possible penalties, short of society doing what it abhors most, the taking of human life. We said there would be 25 years before the consideration of parole-not released after 25 years, but 25 years before the consideration of parole, and then the possibility of parole.
In the original proposal made by the hon. member for Saint-Denis and I, we had not included the so-called "glimmer of hope" clause. The "glimmer of hope" clause which was in the law passed in 1976 says that after 15 years if one has had absolutely the highest kind of behaviour while in prison, that person will have a chance to go before a special board and have that term reduced to 15 years and then be eligible for parole. If that board of judges determines that this slim possibility can take place because of the prisoner's exemplary behaviour, the parole board can then consider parole. That parole board would have members on it from the constituency into which that convicted murderer would be released.
As an abolitionist, who first took up this cause back in the early 1960s when a journalist, and who covered the last hangings in Canada of two men called Turpin and Lucas, at the Don jail on, I believe, December 11, 1962, I think that society must have a principle beyond the emotions of any individual within that society. If we believe that we organize ourselves not only in order to care for each other and protect ourselves, but also to demonstrate to one another that we could each do better by recognizing each other, then surely a state that has reached that enlightened level should not endorse the
Criminal Code
taking of human life, which our criminal law books say is the most extreme of all crimes.
I must admit that facing the public as an elected politician both in 1972, 1973, and then again in 1976 on this issue, a public very concerned about increased rates of violent crime, I felt an obligation to offer them something that would not have society perform that most terrible of all acts and yet would give them some real assurance of an effective deterrent for this most terrible of all crimes. What we offered and what was passed as an alternative is a frightening imposition on any human being, no matter how terrible that human being is. To lock someone up for life, it has been argued in this House, is worse than having the state destroy them because, indeed, if you are incarcerated for life, what is human life? I only argue that we had an obligation to give the public some protection.
In the course of giving that very severe deterrent, 25 years before consideration of parole, with that "glimmer of hope" clause, we have in fact left ourselves as a parliament free to consider any revision or change in that, when parliament itself or those people who are concerned about the extremity of the penalty-and we all should be because that penalty is most extreme-can prove that that is not necessary and that we can protect ourselves and provide sufficient deterrent then, indeed, we can change the law from its present, very severe form.
The issue of deterrent is always the basic argument on the question of the death penalty. I had an opportunity to freshen my mind considerably on this subject a couple of days ago, along with a colleague of mine on this side of the House, a colleague from the other side of the House, a chaplain who in fact witnessed the last hangings at the Don jail, and a man for whom I have the greatest respect, the chief of police of metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Harold Adamson, when 1 taped a program for the Global Television Network. In the course of that debate-and I do not think that I am being unfair to my colleagues who attended, but they of course can review Hansard-I must say that when pressed it is impossible for either side to prove that the death penalty is or is not a deterrent. If anybody watches that program, and if I can plug it, it is running tomorrow night from nine o'clock to ten o'clock, they will find, and it was agreed, that it simply cannot be proved. Chief Adamson agreed with this position.
The hon. member opposite who preceded me said that people must have a fear of death and that nobody could tell him that it would not work. I believe that that is an emotional argument. The fact of the matter is that in 1889 Rhode Island abolished the death penalty, and Rhode Island has a lower murder rate than adjacent states which have had the death penalty for many more years. In California several years ago they took a referendum on the death penalty, the result of which indicated that people were overwhelmingly in favour of the death penalty, but in the months that followed, the murder rate in California soared. One would think that potential murderers, seeing that the death penalty is coming back, would fear that, but that is not the case. I am simply saying that the deterence argument is neither valid for me as an abolitionist nor for the retentionists. It cannot be proven. And

March 2, 1979
Criminal Code
if it cannot be proven, then surely we should not, as a state, be taking human life.
I also had an opportunity to discuss this matter at a national convention of my party about three years ago. I am proud to say that at that convention my party voted, albeit by a very narrow vote, for abolition of the death penalty, but at the same time said, "We want tougher laws to deal with the broad range of murder where in fact they could be paroled in six, seven or eight years, and now in fact face 25 years". At that particular session I described how, if I personally suffered the murder of someone close to me, such as my wife or a member of my family, that I could not imagine any other reaction within me than a desire either personally or to have the state not only erradicate that person but probably torture the individual and stretch him from limb to limb. But, again, we are human beings, and we have our own emotions and concerns. Therefore, I would not expect any other reaction from the most sensitive of human beings, and I do not claim to be that. What I am saying is that the state must represent a higher order than each of us as individuals could represent at a particular moment of duress or concern.
Over the years the issue of the death penalty has prompted many police officers and organizations of policemen to come forward and lobby politicians to reinstate the death penalty or, when it was in existence to make the death penalty more severe. I would like to refer to some comments I made in a speech on this subject in 1976, as they are reported in Hansard at page 13244.
I have the greatest respect for Canadian police forces, for the RCMP, and certainly for the police force in my own area of metropolitan Toronto, but in all fairness it should be pointed out that police officers and prison guards go into their work knowing the risks they face and they are trained to be prepared for those risks. I am arguing that the law as it is now constituted simply does not seem to be fair. If we investigate statistics of the average of fatalities on the job for 10,000 employees in Canada from 1964 to 1973, the highest on the job fatality rate is for miners. The second highest is for loggers, then fishermen, transport workers, labourers, and police officers rank sixth.
If we consider the jeopardy of these fine men and women police officers who protect us, if we can stand back from the emotion and look at the situation objectively, we must admit that the risk of losing life in their work is less than for many other people in our society.
I shall not go at great length, Mr. Speaker, because several other members want to discuss this problem. There are two other areas I should like to touch on, however. First is the record of the rate of murder in Canada in recent years. In 1974 the murder rate per 100,000 people was 2.4; in 1975, 2.8; 1976, 2.7; and in 1977, 2.7. The death penalty was abolished in 1976, but the murder rate remained the same the following year, and in 1976-77 it was marginally less than in 1975. In 1974, it was lower than in the following three years. Surely that suggests that the death penalty does not have a direct effect as a deterrent.
The second thing I wanted to deal with is the statistics which suggest that in recent years in Canada 86 to 90 per cent of violent crime is armed assault, and assault. Of the 86 per

cent of violent crime, murder represents only a small percentage point. I suppose we can never really say "only", because taking human life by murder is extreme, and that is why I am an abolitionist.
The public, not having had the time or opportunity to look into this issue thoughtfully, and learning about violence in our society, believes that the death penalty is the fast answer to their fears about their well-being and the state of our society. I do not believe the general public even knew, when we had the death penalty, who could be hanged and for what crimes.
The old provision of the death penalty for the killers of police and prison guards on duty, was not a protection for them at all. Very few were murdered, but for some there was a great danger of assault. In 1976 a parallel bill was passed which strongly toughened the penalties for the lesser and more numerous crimes of assault.
It might help if we could take the Canadian public, group by group-and I am not being condescending but rather pointing out that it is our job to be thoughtful about an issue and do what we think is responsible and effective as I believe we did with the bill in 1976-and explained that the laws are tougher, and more convictions are being obtained for the broader range of violent crime.
I think I shall leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, except to argue that I will be saddened indeed if this issue is not discussed objectively in the coming election campaign. We have a responsibility, no matter what party we belong to, when affairs of government are so confusing and life has so much tension, to explain the issues to people, with intelligence and knowledge.
Sir Robert Mark, the former superintendent of Scotland Yard in Great Britain, said he was not terribly concerned about whether Great Britain executed people or not. He said he had a great deal of difficulty getting convictions because in this modern society, where there is real concern about taking human life, juries disagree. As a result, the accused is often incarcerated on a manslaughter charge or convicted of second degree murder with a sentence of six or seven years. He said that he would like to see the death penalty abolished and tough sentencing substituted so that they could get criminals off the streets.
With my reservations about the severity of penalties, that is the kind of broadly effective law that we have had for several years. It would be very sad indeed if this House were to change its position today, because there is wide misunderstanding on the issue and because the bill looks like a quick and easy answer to the concerns of the public.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to enter this debate today. I missed the debate in 1976, but I took part in the 1973 debate on the side of abolition. I think the suggestion that there was not a free expression of opinion in those debates is not correct. It was insisted in our caucus that everyone should vote according to his or her conscience.
March 2, 1979

It is correct to say that the death penalty is not a deterrent. This has been amply demonstrated in many surveys. A large prison near Detroit has probably more murderers on death row than any other prison in the world, and it is obvious that none of them would be deterred from repeating the crime by threat of death. Speaking as a doctor, I believe that a murderer has a unique personality. That is not to say that all of the potential murderers are in jail-there may be some here in the House of Commons who would like to do murder once in a while!
We should realize that people who will commit murder are not deterred by the fear of their own death. Murder is an action they take on their way to a certain goal, or it is the goal itself and nothing is going to deter them from the deed. If we realize that, we should also realize that all our finer feelings of civilization are wasted when we consider the role of the murderer except to say that if we take life, no matter whether by hanging or in any other way, we are causing death. This is rather an antithesis to our ideas of civilization. We must apprehend the criminal who has committed murder and make sure he is not released into society again. I believe in recidivism. The idea that people who have committed murder can be prevented from doing it again is an entirely wrong premise. Murderers are unique in psychological type. When sent to prison they act like model Sunday school boys. Murderers have attained their goal, so why must they act in any other way? Given the same set of circumstances, when released from jail, the whole psychological mechanism will be set in motion again and the cycle will be repeated.
As far as collective conscience is concerned, a point entered by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), one cannot depend on that. Socrates advocated new knowledge, and collective conscience had him drink the hemlock. Our own religion was against the collective conscience of that day. Tyranny has always put down collective conscience. We had such things as the inquisition, and following that the reformation. It seems to me that one cannot depend on the emotional ideas and decisions of a people of a certain time in the world's history as being collectively correct, no matter whether it is acceptable to the majority or not. In that sense majority does not mean a great deal.
In my opinion parole for a killer is wrong. I do not believe that a murderer, because he has acted as a fine individual in prison for ten or 15 years, ought to be let out. I would not think of letting him out. In my view the only solution is to keep him in prison until he is harmless. The 25-year idea of imprisonment is fairly good, but not perfect. One must realize that the death penalty is not a deterrent. After the criminal is in prison one must make sure that he is not released. If he acts well in prison and performs some kind of useful work, he might have some degree of personal satisfaction. For instance, a criminal might be satisfied that he can make amends for what he has done. It seems to me this would give him some hope for life and maybe for the next life. I do not believe that release from prison is the solution.
Criminal Code
It is very important that we do not subscribe to capital punishment as revenge or as a deterrent. Instead, these people must be taken away from society. But let them try to carry on some kind of life in prison or by doing some work that is satisfying to them, during which time they might make some atonement.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be short. I rise to support Bill C-29 introduced by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga).
I would like to say that the wishes of the Canadian people should be expressed in this House especially when such a large number of people are in favour of capital punishment. Polls that have been taken reflect this opinion vividly. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) said the public have not had time to look into this subject objectively. I do not believe it. I do not believe the public at large would buy that statement. This subject has been to the forefront during our lifetime. People have watched closely the progress of the various bills presented in this House over the years. They have followed this subject more closely than any other. They very well know what happens to people on parole and to people serving life sentences. They have seen these things and they know exactly what is going on.
The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) stated that the last vote on capital punishment in the House of Commons reflected a true cross-section of opinion. I wish it were the case that we could have a true vote in this House of Commons. I almost believed it would happen until I saw what went on in the last few days before the vote took place. I realize it is very difficult to obtain a true vote in this House when a bill is introduced. When it is a government bill it is put forward in the name of the government. We know immediately that there is cabinet solidarity. Cabinet solidarity showed up in the last vote taken on capital punishment.
In my opinion the only way one can have a free vote in this House is to have a vote on a private member's bill. Since it is not a government bill, cabinet solidarity is not needed and there are no pressures put on members, as has been the case in the past. Under the existing rules I realize we will not get far when it comes to having a vote on a private member's bill. The government will not let it go through. The government knows that all it must do is to sit for an hour and talk out a private member's bill so as to avoid having to do anything about it. Occasionally a private member's bill resolution goes through. I have had a resolution passed; it was so embarrassing to the government that they allowed it, but it was all more or less pre-arranged beforehand.
There should be some changes in the rules in order to give precedence and more weight to private members' bills. I am not just talking about a debate on capital punishment. A lot of good bills presented to this House by private members never get the full discussion or the precedence they deserve. I know it is embarrassing to government members to have to stand up and talk these private members' bills out, because very often they believe they are good and deserving of more emphasis than is given.

March 2, 1979
Criminal Code
It would be much better, in my view, if some other rules could be devised to cover private members' hour. As things are, not many members take the trouble to attend because they know bills will be talked out in any event and that they will not be called upon to make a decision. I think it would be much better if we were to adopt a system as is followed in the United States where a private member's bill means something to its sponsor, to his constituents, and to the people.
The subject now under discussion is of importance to the people of Canada. My own experience is that since the last vote on capital punishment was taken in the House, public opinion has hardened on the issue. I would have thought that a decision having been made, people would have softened their attitude. But this has not happened. For instance, only a few weeks ago a radio station in my riding put out an editorial on capital punishment, fairly early in the morning. Then the phone lines were opened and listeners were invited to say whether or not they favoured capital punishment. The lines were open for about half an hour and the station received 110 calls in that time. This shows how important people feel the subject to be. Over 90 per cent of those calls was in favour of capital punishment. That has been my experience, too. Public opinion has hardened, and I believe it is time this subject was raised by way of a private member's bill. Maybe the government will allow the issue to be decided in this way once and for all.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few points. The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) introducing this bill, said it would bring back the death sentence only in cases of treason and premeditated murder. However, the explanatory notes to the bill talk about its purpose being to impose the death sentence in all cases of murder.
Along with the hon. member who has just spoken, he made the point that the vote which took place in this House three years or so ago on the subject was not a free vote. I think it is about time all of us in this House, and anybody in this country who is left to doubt, ought to admit that this was a free vote. It was a free vote by all members of parliament standing up on their own initiative and voting yes and no as they felt fit, and as their consciences dictated. That point bothered me a little because I have heard comments of that kind before from Conservative members. They try to label the vote which took place as being other than a free vote.
Let me point this out to the hon. member for Pembina. My hon. friend from Bruce-Grey, who has since become a parliamentary secretary, voted at that time to retain the death penalty. I, who last year served with the minister of justice who succeeded the minister of justice who presented that bill, voted retentionist. But it did not prevent either of us from becoming parliamentary secretaries. My hon. friend from St. Catharines, who also serves as a parliamentary secretary, voted with us. Some of the other parliamentary secretaries voted for abolition. They voted as free men with free con-

sciences, with no one in this party dictating to them or twisting their arms, or trying to put pressure on them in any way. Let us settle that question once and for all. We can go back, in our individual ways, and explain the stand we took to our electors if the matter comes up in the campaign. Let us not try to make a party political statement out of something which did not occur in this House.


Peter Elzinga: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the last statement made by the hon. member has as much validity as his first statement with regard to my bill. It is obvious he has read only the first sentence and none of the clauses which define the offences in respect of which we hope to reinstate capital punishment, that is, high treason and premeditated murder. It is obvious the hon. gentleman is confused on that issue as well as on the issue of whether there was a free vote on that side of the House.


Roger Carl Young: I am not making statements and generalities, Mr. Speaker. I think I have proven my point. I have given examples, not only in my case but in the case of other members on this side. I might mention the hon. member for Skeena who is now a member of the cabinet who happened to vote in part the way I and some of my colleagues voted. I wonder where the members on that side of the House are this evening who voted abolitionist at that time and could be here in private members' hour today. Is this some kind of little game among members of the Conservative party? We know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has consented to allow a private member to bring on a bill to reintroduce capital punishment, without making any hard and fast rules on it, but are there some members over there who want to speak according to their consciences?


Howard Earl Johnston: I can answer the hon. member's question very quickly by saying yes, if he would allow me time in which to do so.


Roger Carl Young: I would be very glad to leave the hon. member some time to speak on the bill this afternoon. I heard comments during this discussion to the effect that the will of the Canadian people was not allowed to be carried out as a result of the vote which took place. The hon. member for Pembina says that according to a Gallup poll between 80 and 85 per cent of the Canadian public felt that the death penalty should be enforced. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the figures are 80 per cent or 85 per cent in favour of the death penalty. I have done some research in my own constituency, and 1 would be inclined to say they run somewhere in the order of 65 per cent in favour and 35 per cent opposed, but even then there are uncertainties expressed when people are asked what they really mean.
I sent out a newsletter at the time, balancing the arguments for and against the death penalty, and I invited my constituents to write to me on the subject. Of some 35,000 polled households in my riding which received the newsletter 1 got back some 700 responses. I read each of those responses several times. I read them the day they came in, I read them
March 2, 1979

during the course of the debate on capital punishment, on Bill C-84, the evening before I voted, and again before I voted in the morning. It was clear to me that even those who were very strong retentionists were saying that they did not really believe in capital punishment for all cases of murder, except in cases of premeditated murder.
People felt very strongly about the murder of policemen and prison guards on duty, and I shared some of those feelings. People in this country were telling me that they felt very strongly about others being killed through bombings, terrorism and hijacking. I lived in Europe a few years ago. I studied and travelled there. A couple of terrorist bombs exploded in a neighbourhood relatively close to where I was living. At one time windows in the little apartment in which I lived were shattered. I shared some of that concern. I do not want to get into explaining why or how I voted the way I did at the time, but those were some of the thoughts which were going through my mind.
We are asked this afternoon to consider Bill C-219, legislation to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the death sentence. The bill provides for mandatory death sentences in all cases of murder, and restricts the traditional authority of the governor in council to commute such sentences to cases where a jury or a majority of a jury makes a positive recommendation for clemency.
The bill also reintroduces some former provisions of the Criminal Code, such as postponements of executions of pregnant women until at least a few days after they have delivered their children, forbidding executions of those under 18 years of age, rights of appeal, methods of procedures for executions- which I note would be hanging-places of burial of executed persons, and so forth. It pains me somewhat to think that we would return to thoughts of executing a woman who had just given birth to a child and orphaning that child.
It may be said that this bill would turn the clock back to the situation which prevailed prior to 1960. It would turn the clock back to a situation which prevailed before the amendments which were brought in by the Hon. E. Davie Fulton, then minister of justice in a cabinet led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I think that was in 1961. Those amendments introduced a differentiation between premeditated murder and non-premeditated murder. We now have first degree and second degree classifications.
Today we are debating, for the fifth time in 13 years, the issue of capital punishment. What this bill would do would be to dismiss the decision taken by this House just about three years ago when I think almost half the members of the House individually participated freely in that debate, and when the House voted freely.
I know that one of my hon. colleagues opposite wants to speak. I will perhaps just summarize. All first and second degree murder cases, given the passage of this bill, would attract a mandatory sentence of death by hanging in the event of conviction, not only of those individuals found guilty of
Criminal Code
planned and deliberate murder, the murder of a police officer or prison guard or murder committed in the course of committing certain other crimes, but also those individuals convicted for spur of the moment crimes, crimes of passion, which have troubled many people, even the most ardent retentionists, for a long time.
One of the difficulties with this bill is the issue of leaving it to a jury to make a recommendation to the governor in council. The way it is drafted, this bill would require a judge to poll the jury on whether its members might make a recommendation for clemency or no recommendation. However, it does not give a jury any guidelines. It does not give any instructions to the judge for when he is instructing the jury. What would happen if jurors wish to remain silent? What would happen in the case of a 12-person jury in which four or five wish to recommend clemency and the other seven or eight are unable to make a recommendation? The bill says nothing about jurors wishing to remain silent.
I know from my practice of law over a limited period of time that when we had the death sentence for murder it was very difficult in many cases to get convictions, simply because juries were loath to think of the person on trial before them actually being disposed of by hanging. Juries could not face that in their minds, so they often convicted people of lesser crimes than first degree or premeditated murder.
I could go on and make a number of other comments. I have pushed the clock along somewhat more than I wished. I did want to leave my hon. colleague opposite some time in which to make comments, and I think I will stop at this point.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the hon. member opposite, who has left me all of two minutes for what may well be the last speech I will have a chance to give in this chamber, which I will be leaving.
It was the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), which moved me to speak. He will be returned to this House, and he needs no assistance from me in the coming election campaign on this subject, but being a member of generous heart I am prepared to offer him a little assistance because I know he was serious when he spoke in favour of and demanded a free vote in parliament. That means freeing members from party discipline and freeing them to vote according to their conscience on the issue at hand.
I also listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), who asked how a member such as myself could pit my conscience against public opinion on the cause to which he and the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary referred. It is quite easy, because there is another test of the common sense of the public and that, of course, is in the decisions of juries in jury trials. I keep track of these. A jury at Kamloops, British Columbia, reduced the charge against the murderer of Patrick Charles Danchuk. The charge was reduced to manslaughter, and the accused was sentenced to four years. That is a test of the common sense of the public.

March 2, 1979
Criminal Code
It is a truer test than the amateurish polls which are taken from time to time, because when 12 good people and true get together they express the public opinion. I suspect, had we returned to capital punishment, the jury in that case would have acquitted, as the jury would have acquitted in the case of Maxwell, who was murdered in Kelowna. There was a reduced charge also, through plea bargaining, of the murderer of Sadie Jones Edward at Sicamous, British Columbia. One can follow these cases. That is the true test.
I hope this parliament will not ever return this nation to capital punishment. I admired the courage of one Lowell Green for suggesting in the Ottawa Journal that in the future, if there are to be executions, they be televised publicly. I see no reason why they should not. We have allowed the monster of television into this chamber, and I do not know how we can
keep it out of anything else it might be interested in getting into, including the courts. If this chamber, the highest court of the land, is televised, then every other court of the land should be televised so that the public can watch the process of justice, particularly in cases of murder. Then I think we would have justification for the vote which was taken in this House.
One notes, of course, that the murder rate dropped after the decision to abolish capital punishment. I believe we saved some lives, and not just those of murderers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier)::