1980-12-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the constitutional train has recently arrived in the nation's capital, bringing with it a large delegation representing our aboriginal Canadians, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the Prime Minister welcome these Canadians, thereby demonstrating his great statemanship from the hallowed halls of Parliament Hill equal to his demonstrations of statemanship recently exhibited from the humped side of a camel, and that the Prime Minister bring home the constitution, amended in Canada and not in Britain, to ensure that all Canadians will have an opportunity to be heard on this issue which so affects the future for all Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) has failed to respond to the feelings of western frustration arising out of the discriminatory provisions of the federal so-called budget and his constitutional proposals, and whereas the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore this very real problem, choosing instead to accuse those who would express their dissatisfaction with his proposals of practising blackmail, being separatists or contributing to separatism, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That the Prime Minister be directed to cease taking cheap shots at Canadians who live in the west and, instead, to undertake immediately a diplomatic mission to the cities of Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria for the purpose of meeting the premiers and people of western Canada, so that he might begin to develop some understanding of the true reasons for western alienation, which is both real and growing.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, more than a thousand men, women and children representing the native peoples of Canada have come to Ottawa in peace and good faith to discuss matters of vital concern to their future and to the future of Canada. Considering that the barriers that have been put up in front of the Parliament of our country in response to this act of concern are morally offensive to all those who believe in freedom of assembly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House demonstrate its willingness to reciprocate the peace and good faith of our native brothers and sisters by taking steps to dismantle immediately the offensive barricades.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to introduce the following motion. Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is soon expected to leave Canada for many weeks'

December 1, 1980
5.0.	43
extended holiday in Switzerland, Algeria, Senegal, Brazil and Mexico, all at the Canadian taxpayers' expense, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That the Prime Minister be given leave without pay while he travels around the globe campaigning for the secretary-generalship of the United Nations, and that in the meantime he be replaced by the right hon. member for Yellowhead, who is not at all averse to staying in his own country to deal with Canadian issues on Canadian soil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the city of Kelowna, the city of Armstrong, the regional district of North Okanagan and several other cities and regional councils in British Columbia have passed resolutions petitioning the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to put an end to his government's intrusion into the field of direct resource taxation, and because the imposition of these tax policies will severely inhibit the capacity of municipal governments in B.C. to fulfil their mandate, which is to provide services to their communities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this government recognize the vital importance of the essential services provided to the people of B.C. by their municipal governments and enable them to continue to provide essential services by immediately vacating the area of direct resource taxation.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the outstanding speech given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last night in Montreal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang):
That this House encourage all federalists in western Canada to speak out in defence of one strong, united country and, further, that this House condemn all those in positions of influence in the west who, by their strange silence, give tacit consent to those who arc fuelling the fires of western separatism.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INVITATION TO PRIME MINISTER TO ADDRESS WESTERN CANADIANS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, following on the heels of the last hon. member and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) turned down an invitation to speak to a Canada West Foundation conference in Banff last weekend but chose instead to send his aide, Michael Kirby, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House invite the Prime Minister to address western Canadians in western Canada rather than from a Liberal fund-raising gathering in Montreal, and that under Standing Order 5 this House grant the Prime Minister leave to go and speak to western Canadians in western Canada.


Mr. Trudeau:: Okay.


Mr. Paproski:: It gets pretty hot in the kitchen, so he has to leave.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Liberal members of the joint constitutional committee have voted against extending the deadline of the hearings, thus effectively preventing hundreds of Canadians from appearing before them, and in view of the fact that the native people from my province of British Columbia have, on their own initiative, travelled thousands of miles on the constitutional train to appear before the committee, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the Liberal government reconsider this unreasonable and unjust act of closure perpetrated on the citizens of Canada and thus give such groups as the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs an opportunity to appear before the joint committee, as is their right.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
December 1, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I was going to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, but-


An hon. Member:: He has gone west.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: You asked him to go, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, he has just left, perhaps because of petulance, but if he does go west, we guarantee him a very warm reception.
Therefore, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, on November 9, 1951, speaking at McGill University, stated that:
Canadians will believe that all their cherished rights are completely safe against the encroachment of any possible majority of their fellow citizens.
The late Right Hon. Lester Pearson, in debating the UN Declaration of Human Rights, expressed very similar views and made the point that the majority could not use its power to enact legislation or remove rights against the minority. In view of the fact that these former Liberal prime ministers have rejected unilateral action in the past, could the minister outline how the unilateral action of the government through amendments to the BNA Act in the proposed joint resolution does not threaten both Canadian rights and native Canadian rights?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is probably well aware of section 24 which indicates that in no way can the joint resolution be interpreted to detract or deduct anything from the rights that the native people have. Second, he must be aware that the National Indian Brotherhood and other native organizations will be invited to come before the joint committee this week. I believe the Inuit are going to be there this evening-that is my information-and the Brotherhood perhaps tomorrow, or very soon. But so far as I am aware, there is no question that the joint committee and the steering committee wish to have the native organizations before them.
They will have ample opportunity to present their views at that time not only to government members of that committee
Oral Questions
but to opposition members. I believe the hon. member himself is on that committee. All members of the committee will have an opportunity to hear what the native organizations have to say and to take a position on what should be done with respect to the entrenchment of their rights in the constitution. So not only will government members have to take a position but certainly the hon. member and his party will have to take one too. That assures me, and it should assure the hon. member, that they will have full input into the constitution with respect to expressing their views and getting involvement from elected members of Parliament.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister knows that that answer is not adequate. It is not adequate because the Indian leadership has said very clearly that they have not been consulted. In fact, in a speech on April 29 of this year, the Prime Minister, when he appeared before the Indian Chiefs and Elders in this city, said:
We want to work closely with you in reforming the Canadian Constitution in ways which will better secure the rights and the status of the original people of this land.
The minister knows that the apperance of the NIB and other Indian groups before the joint committee is done almost under duress because the government has been blocking every attempt for a proper hearing in that committee as well. So I should like to ask the minister whether he would outline very clearly, not what the constitutional committee is doing, but what specific steps the government has taken since last April 29 to involve the Indian people in constitutional change, and will he specify which ones were accepted by the Indian people as having been taken in close consultation?


John Carr Munro: First, Madam Speaker, may I indicate to the hon. member that it is not correct and I do not accept-and I ask all hon. members not to accept-that the government is blocking the attempts of the NIB to have their views expressed before the joint committee. This is a matter for all members of the joint committee and of the steering committee to decide and I understand that the Indian groups will be heard.
So far as the substance of the hon. member's question is concerned, there has been a series of meetings since the Prime Minister's statement in April, referred to by the hon. member, showing his concern and his commitment to involve the Indian people in the constitutional discussions relative to questions that are of primary concern to them. There have been meetings between myself and the Indian leadership off and on for a protracted period of time for the last several months. The National Indian Brotherhood and other native organizations have met with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, leading to the first ministers' conference on the constitution. They had a meeting then to discuss their concerns. There have been other meetings at the offical level with federal-provincial officials, several of them with native organizations. If the hon. member does not consider all those meetings-and I think they were a worth-while exchange of views-a real attempt to indulge in consultation, I do not know what the hon. member would consider a real attempt.

December 1, 1980
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. It is not a matter of what I consider is adequate consultation. The point which must be made is that the Indian leadership feels there has not been adequate consultation, and that is why they are here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of the testimony of the Minister of Justice that Indian rights flow from the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and that in fact it is protected in section 24 of the proposed resolution, can the minister give a full guarantee to the Indian people that in fact under section 24 their present rights are guaranteed, a position which we do not accept? More importantly, is it not possible that courts in the future, if section 24 remains as it is, in fact could abrogate, reduce or remove Indian rights now in place?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question. It is my view based on the legal advice which I have received-


An hon. Member:: Table it.


John Carr Munro: -that section 24 does protect all the rights of the Indian people as at the present time, in the sense that the joint resolution in no way detracts from any and all rights of the native people. That is precisely why I anticipate the native people are being invited to appear before the joint committee, so that people like the hon. member can listen to them and make recommendations which could be embodied in a report that would go to Parliament. If the hon. member feels that way, certainly he will have ample opportunity to express those views when the native people appear before the joint committee.


ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHTS OF NATIVE PEOPLE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As many native people do not believe that the present section 24 establishes their rights, is the minister not concerned that their rights will have to be established, given the amending formula in the resolution, at the hands of the majority in the provinces? That is why there is so much concern in the native community which is here at the present time that this section is not adequately protecting them; that they are at the mercy of the majority to get any of their rights put in the constitution.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that their rights remain the same because the Royal Proclamation is still there; but as I have indicated, certainly it would be very useful to see some of the provinces taking a position with respect to protecting the rights of native people. On many of their aboriginal claims hunting rights are affected; they fall within provincial jurisdiction. For that reason if for no other, it
would be useful to have the backing of some of the provinces. Today I saw some indication that at least the Premier of Saskatchewan is prepared to take some of these matters into consideration. So perhaps it is not too late to have that type of support from some of the provinces.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, given that answer, it is no wonder the native people are concerned about what will or will not be in the constitution. I cannot understand why the minister has not recommended that the Royal Proclamation be in the schedule. But because native people have no way other than that process to renew their language and culture rights, can the minister outline if he has any other proposals which will assure them that this will be done after the patriation process has gone through?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, there was already an assurance in a letter from the Prime Minister to the leadership of the three principal native national organizations that, in the second phase after patriation, one of the very first items on the agenda of the first ministers' conference would be the primary concerns of the native people. That assurance was not only given in a letter, but it was repeated orally on several occasions. Again I reiterate that it would be useful, since the joint committee is set up for that very purpose, if the hon. member and other hon. members would give consideration to suggestions of the kind he has made at that committee; that is what the committee is there for.


SUGGESTED MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND NATIVE PEOPLE'S DELEGATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Development. It deals with the same subject which was just raised. Considering that the Prime Minister was well received by the Indian people when he spoke to them last April, as strange as that may seem under the present circumstances, when he pointed out he agreed that they have a unique position among all the peoples of Canada, and considering that there are more than a thousand men, women and children representing the Indian, Inuit and Metis communities across Canada who are here now, is it the minister's view that the Prime Minister should take some time this week to sit down and listen to these people about their expressed concerns with regard to the constitutional resolution?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated orally in the House last Friday and by letter that he would be prepared to meet the Indian leadership at some appropriate time. If he studies the Prime Minister's remarks of last Friday closely, the hon. member will understand that the joint committee is sitting right now to consider many matters, including the requests and concerns of the native people. He indicated that to the House previously. Those concerns expressed there will give us a chance to find out exactly what
December 1, 1980

the essence of their submissions will be to the joint committee, which is made up of members of Parliament both from the government side and the opposition side. The committee's purpose is to consider that very matter and to make recommendations, at which time the House of Commons, and Parliament itself, will consider the report resulting from that committee.
1 think it is clear that the Prime Minister would prefer to see that process take place prior to the meeting in question. I would like to reiterate that there is an assurance that he would be prepared to meet with the Indian leadership at some appropriate time.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the native people of this country are not like any other group. They preceded the French and the English. They preceded all our ethnic minorities. The Prime Minister said in the House on Friday that he would meet "again at some appropriate time in the coming months". With respect, it is not adequate to meet with them in the coming months. The request of the leaders of our native people has been to have a meeting with the Prime Minister prior to the report coming back from the committee. That is the crucial time, since that is when the crucial decision will be made. Therefore I repeat my question to the minister responsible for Indian affairs: Does he not think it advisable in this constitutional change process that the Prime Minister sit down this week with this group of unique people, as he has described them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat what the Prime Minister said here last Friday in answer to questions by a member of the New Democratic Party. The hon. member is fully aware what those questions were. He is fully aware what the answers of the Prime Minister were. The Prime Minister's decision was relayed to the House of Commons last Friday and the Leader of the NDP has had ample opportunity to study those responses.
I reiterate that I think there is some real benefit to be had in terms of the Indian organizations having the right to appear before that committee. 1 am glad the committee has indicated they are prepared to hear them and listen to their views which will be aired before that particular committee. It might be helpful, not only to the Prime Minister of Canada but to many of us here in this House, to find a position which can be taken by all members of that committee, which include members of the opposition, with respect to some of the concerns expressed by the native people. The committee is the place to hear the positions which will be enunciated. It will be of extreme benefit to many of us to know what course should be taken which would be of benefit to the native people.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I am completely at a loss to understand the minister's reply.


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


John Edward Broadbent: I read with care the Prime Minister's answers given in the House last week. There are literally thousands of the original people of this land here in Ottawa. There are members of the opposition and members on the government side who are saying, "Yes, work through the committee." At some levels and for some groups, that is appropriate. Our native peoples are unique. They feel strongly about this matter. Could the minister explain to the House why it is impossible for the Prime Minister, who can find time to travel abroad-and I do not object to that if it is on business-to find time to sit down this week for an hour to discuss this fundamental question with the original peoples of this land?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, it is becoming obvious to me that the Leader of the New Democratic Party seems to be primarily preoccupied with making political hay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: You guys never do that.


John Carr Munro: He is personalizing for political purposes the concerns of the native people and directing antipathy towards the Prime Minister of Canada. I do not think that is a particularly meritorious posture for the Leader of the New Democratic Party, judging by his past history of deep concern for the interests of native people. That is precisely what the hon. member is doing; he is exploiting the situation in order to direct antipathy towards the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's position was clearly stated last Friday and can be found in Hansard. The Prime Minister was present at the last all chiefs' conference in April and he indicated his commitment. He has delegated other ministers to meet with Indian leaders, and they have done so. Also the Prime Minister did not preclude in his answer last Friday the possibility of meeting with the Indian leaders again. At that time he made the reasonable suggestion that the joint committee on the constitution hear out the native peoples, and 1 understand that it is prepared to do so.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, my question arises out of the government's announcement to increase mortgage interest rates on five-year closed mortgages to 15.75 per cent from 15.25 per cent, and it is addressed to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. On a $50,000 loan with an interest rate of 15.75 per cent, the house buyer will pay a total of $195,117, or $145,117 in interest during the life of the mortgage. How can the minister justify this increase in light of the fact that at

December 1, 1980
Oral Questions
15.25 per cent Canadians were already paying in excess of 30 per cent of their income on housing?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member and all hon. members are aware, the increase by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is in direct response to market conditions at the present time. For example, when the interest rate went down in the summer months and in September, CMHC rates were also reduced; when the rates go up, the CMHC rate increases. If there is a gap between the market rate and the rate which the corporation must meet, it becomes a direct expenditure of the government. I notice in the newspapers today that there are experts who say the interest rate is temporary and that it is expected to drop off in the next couple of months.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the minister that there will be a change in the opposite direction because the Canadian dollar is down today to 83.8 cents. This increase will affect very seriously those persons who are purchasing new homes and those who are in the process of negotiating their present mortgages. Will the minister tell the House if it is the intention of this government to introduce any contingency plans to assist home owners to grapple with this impossible burden? The average family income, according to Statistics Canada, is $22,000 per year or $1,833 a month, and 30 per cent of that wage is $550 a month. Yet, a $50,000 mortgage at 15.25 per cent costs $627 a month and even that payment will probably increase. What does the minister have to say on this matter?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, there are a considerable number of Canadians in the third quarter who, for example, are entering the market for the first time as a result of an upturn in building in the residential market. As the hon. member will know, new starts number 185,000 up to the month of October. I am waiting with interest to see what the starts were for last month. It is obvious that there is a segment of the Canadian population which finds that it can enter the market at those particular prices. I have also indicated that we believe the rate is too high and we are hopeful that it has reached its high point and will be reduced by market forces.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. On Friday the minister sent me a letter with regard to Deer Lodge Hospital. In the letter the minister stated that space for 32 chronic or long-term patients at Deer Lodge Hospital has been granted the Manitoba Health Services Commission for a period of one year. Would the minister indicate whether this is the start of the transfer of the Deer
Lodge Hospital from the Department of Veterans Affairs to the government of Manitoba?
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence and Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, in my letter to the hon. member I clearly explained, I think, the procedure that would be followed to ensure that veterans in that area would be provided with the proper care. There may eventually be a transfer, but whatever policy the Department of Veterans Affairs follows, veterans will certainly be given priority consideration and they will receive the care they can rightfully expect.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, we on this side support the action of the federal government to provide additional hospital space to the government of Manitoba. But what action will the minister take now to reduce the long waiting list of veterans who are waiting to get into the Deer Lodge Hospital for chronic and domiciliary care? Many of these patients will be long term. What does the minister intend to do about this list?
[ Translation]


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, according to my information, there is no long waiting list of patients for that hospital. Nevertheless my officials advise me that they will give the matter priority consideration in order to solve the problem and, as I have said, so that veterans can receive the care they can rightfully expect.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A recent study by Environment Canada of northern Manitoba Indian settlements blames inadequate sewage disposal for contamination of the drinking water. The study also indicated that on many of these reserves the bacterial count in the water supply is at least three times the acceptable level. This has led to a substantial number of cases of hepatitis and dysentery. The minister's department is responsible for training the people who work on sewage disposal systems, and the report says that the training of these people has been inadequate. Would the minister tell the House whether or not he has yet given instructions to his department to see that adequate training programs are provided for these people who are responsible for sewage treatment so that these intolerable health threats will not continue?
December 1, 1980


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, 1 am well aware of the whole situation in northern Manitoba as the hon. member has described it. My department is also aware of the concerns of the hon. member on this matter. We have looked into the situation and asked for a complete report. 1 can assure the hon. member that the entire question of more adequate training will receive our immediate attention.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, according to the same report, 75 per cent of the above-ground petroleum storage sites are improperly designed and are a major factor in the pollution which has taken place. Among the companies responsible for this deplorable situation are the Hudson's Bay Company, the CNR, the federal Department of Transport as well as many of the multinational oil corporations located there. Will the minister give directions to his department to ensure that these corporate offenders are instructed very quickly to take care of this situation and to eliminate the pollution which they have created?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, subject to receiving more details in a report later this week-the contents of which I will be pleased to relay to the hon. member-if what he has suggested seems to be an appropriate course of action, then I would have no hesitation in taking that course of action.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the announcement by the Minister of Finance last spring that wages of a spouse working in an unincorporated small business would be deductible for income tax purposes, can the minister assure the House that this commitment made by the Minister of Finance will be honoured for the 1980 taxation year, because the department is refusing to accept income tax contributions deducted for spouses working in unincorporated small businesses?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the policy of the government is as expressed by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in his April statement. We have had some difficulty with legislation because the heavy legislative schedule the government has had, but I can assure the hon. member we will be taking all the necessary steps to ensure that that policy is put in place. People so affected should govern themselves as though all of the necessary steps have been taken which will allow them that claim before the 1980 taxation year.
Oral Questions PETRO-CANADA


INQUIRY WHETHER EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATED IN PREPARATION OF NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister will understand the distinction between being consulted on the content of a policy decision and the actual preparation of a position. In that context, can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell the House whether any official or employee of Petro-Canada participated in the preparation of the energy policy published as part of the budget?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Would the right hon. member repeat the last part of his question? There was some noise and I did not hear him, Madam Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is a distinction, which I believe the hon. minister understands, between being consulted and participating in the preparation of something. My question is whether any official or employee of Petro-Canada participated in the preparation of the energy policy which was tabled as part of the budget.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there was one employee of Petro-Canada who was on leave and was attached to the department during the preparation of the energy program. 1 know of no other employees of Petro-Canada who participated in the program. As I said, the employee in question was on leave from Petro-Canada during the time he worked for the department.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us whether this individual-and I would appreciate having the individual identified-was drawing salary from Petro-Canada at the time he was on leave from that company? In addition, was there any arrangement with Petro-Canada which would speak either to pension rights or to the rights of re-employment, and is that person now back with Petro-Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the individual is Mr. Joel Bell whose name has been public knowledge for the past few months.
I will make some inquiries about his exact contractual arrangements. I was aware of them, but I cannot recall all of the aspects to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. It was made quite clear that the particular individual was to be considered as working for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and, as such, was bound by the rules which apply to federal public servants for the entire period he worked for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we want to know all of the details, including any then existing, recommenced or continu-

December 1, 1980
Oral Questions
ing arrangement between Mr. Bell and Petro-Canada, whose Crown corporation was so well served by the budget he helped to prepare.


THE BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, i have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the House whether any official or employee of any other Crown corporation participated in the preparation of any aspect of the budget? If so, what Crown corporations, other than Petro-Canada, were involved?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Not to my knowledge. Madam Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, would the Minister of Finance confirm that fact? Could he inform himself and provide that information to the House of Commons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker.


SHIPBUILDING
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is either for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It concerns a long awaited meeting between the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association pursuant to its brief submitted about six months ago. Could either of these hon. gentlemen tell us at what departmental level this meeting will take place? Will the ministers be participating personally in view of the very serious concerns which the industry has raised concerning, for example, the Jones act, which prohibits Canadian vessels being sold in the United States, and in view of the other conditions which are eroding the Canadian shipbuilding industry?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, perhaps my colleague will answer the question because I believe it comes under his jurisdiction.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I met personally with the executive of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association some weeks ago. I believe the association will be having its annual meeting in Ottawa over the next few days. There will be discussions at that time at the senior officials level.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, the minister will know that Canadian fishing companies are looking toward building
replacement vessels in the United States because these vessels can be moved there if and when Canadian companies find it expedient to move their operations to the United States. Is the minister planning to move quickly to remove some of these conditions which are eroding the future prospects of the Canadian shipbuilding industry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are looking very actively into these things and I will be working on them in consultation with my colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The National Energy Board recommendations on the proposed Norman Wells pipeline project in the Northwest Territories will be soon handed down to cabinet for a decision. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, while acting in its role as trustee for the interests of native people, also stands to benefit from one-third ownership of oil produced in the area if the project is approved. The government is also in charge of both the federal environmental assessment review panel and the national energy hearings. This constitutes an obvious conflict of interest.
Given this conflict of interest, how can the department, as trustee for native people, possibly represent the interest of the Dene Nation in a fair and reasonable manner? To ensure that the interests of the Dene Nation are given just and unbiased representation, I ask the minister if he will insist that this matter be brought before the House for a full debate prior to any cabinet decision on the Norman Wells project.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, may I just tell the hon. member that there are many native leaders to whom I have spoken who are very glad that the department has some say with respect to the rate of development north of 60, vis-a-vis our power to consider environmental hearings, issue permits and so on, and to more adequately stage that type of development in the interests of the native people. Within the native population itself, there are some who do not see this type of conflict in quite the same light as the hon. member does.
As for the question of bringing the matter before the House, I cannot answer that question right now but I can assure the hon. member that when the National Energy Board does make its decision, the matter will be thoroughly considered by cabinet and the concerns of the Dene with respect to the Norman Wells development will be made known in a full and objective fashion. I have already given that assurance to George Erasmus, head of the Dene Nation. In fact, the
December 1, 1980

concerns of the Dene have already been relayed to my colleagues in the cabinet.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, when speaking to some of the Dene people this morning, they assured me it is very important that this matter be brought before the House for debate to ensure that their trust is being handled properly. Three years ago the Dene people understood the government had accepted the Berger recommendation for a ten-year moratorium so that their land claims could be settled fairly. Will the minister responsible for a fair settlement of Indian land claims assure this House that, on the basis of the outstanding claims with the Dene people, claims that will be violated if the Norman Wells project goes ahead he will seek a moratorium on the Norman Wells project until such time as the Dene claims have been settled to the satisfaction of the Dene people?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, surely it is a little premature to be reacting in the fashion the hon. member seems to be. The National Energy Board have not yet made their recommendation. That is a board duly constituted by Parliament to go into questions of this kind. It is rather inappropriate to prejudge what the National Energy Board might say. It is quite possible that the National Energy Board may recommend that there be a delay or that the application not be approved at this time.
I understand the Dene feel they have not had an adequate opportunity to present their views. Nevertheless, they did go before the board and the board was aware of their very real concerns. I can only indicate to the hon. member that his questions will be more appropriate once the National Energy Board makes its report and he and I and the entire House find out what they have to say about it.
In the meantime, in terms of allowing the House of Commons to have a full input into the implications of the matter, it is open to the hon. member's party and the other opposition party to raise this subject on their allotted days, because I agree it is a very serious one indeed.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Does the minister agree that the action taken by the RCMP and immigration officials in executing a search warrant on the home of Mr. and Mrs. Fauja Bains in Toronto at 4 a.m., in circumstances where a gun was pointed at Mr. Bains' head, the home was ransacked and the Sikh holy book was torn, was outrageous; and is the minister willing to tender an apology on behalf of the RCMP and the government?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Before I answer that. Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House I have
Oral Questions
directed that pursuant to the resolution passed unanimously by this House at two o'clock the RCMP remove the fence erected in front of the House.
In reply to the question, I would indicate that the RCMP and the Solicitor General are prepared to apologize to the family concerned for that incident. The warrant was issued properly. It was executed in a lawful manner. However, it is obvious that some attention will have to be paid to the religious sensibilities of minority groups in Canada. I intend to consider this fully at the next possible opportunity with the RCMP to ensure adequate sensitivity for the domestic religious practices of members of minority groups in Canada.


Chris Speyer: My supplementary is directed to the minister of immigration. What policy governs the use of firearms in searching for illegal immigrants when immigration officials and RCMP officials conduct such a search? Is there a policy with regard to carrying and pointing firearms in the circumstances in which I asked my previous question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to look into that and give the hon. member information about that. I do not have full details about everything that took place at the residence, but I have asked to be fully briefed about it. I will then be able to indicate to the hon. member the policy of the police on occasions like that.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In fisheries circles in recent days there have been claims that the new Atlantic groundfish management plan could result in lay-offs for trawlermen and plant workers, with suggestions of losses as a result of this plan reaching the $200 million mark. I therefore ask the minister why quotas which could reduce the year round fishing fleet's operations in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to nine months a year have been proposed, and on what scientific data these new quotas are based.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the type of headlines the hon. member refers to are misleading. The reality is that the large trawler fleet has enjoyed an increase in its catch from roughly 200,000 tonnes to over 300,000 tonnes for the last two or three years. Obviously, if the catch rate has increased dramatically and the fleet can take its quota in nine months, then surely that fleet is not entitled to ask me if it can take fish from other fishing enterprises which have a three, four or five-month season in order to ensure it can have a 12-month operation. That is the problem which must be dealt with, a dramatic catch rate increase and a biological increase which has to be kept within reasonable terms.

December 1, 1980
Oral Questions


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, it was my understanding that when the 200-mile limit was established, it was to be of benefit to the Canadian fishing industry. This, of course, is what has happened. When the 200-mile exclusive economic zone was established, quotas to other nations fishing within our zone were to be allocated only on fish surplus to our needs. In view of the fact that the new proposals can only be harmful to Canadians who wish to work not nine months a year but 12 months a year, has the minister decreased the quotas in 1981 for foreign fishermen operating within our 200-mile zone? If so, by how many tonnes and on what species?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the quota that is of interest to Canadians and which was allocated in 1980 to foreign nations was in the order of 25,000 tonnes. The fishing plan for 1981 does not yet dispose of this quota. There are very important negotiations under way or which have just been concluded with the Common Market. 1 have not yet been briefed as to the conclusions of those discussions. It may be that Canada will want some part of that 25,000 tonnes as negotiating currency for access to the European Common Market. I think it is wise to keep this opening available to us.
I might say to the hon. member that the fishing fleet he defends, and which I suspect he has become the voice of, has enjoyed a very substantial increase in its rate of catch since the declaration of the 200-mile limit. That has not been the case for at least three provinces, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, which inside the Gulf of St. Lawrence have not seen a substantial increase at all. It is to these fisheries that the large trawlers which the hon. member defends want to have access. I must tell him that the fish have to be shared, and those who had more cannot always expect to have an unlimited amount.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. A1 MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There have been reports that financial assistance from the Canadian-Italian community to help Italy's earthquake victims is still in Canada. Can the Canadian government facilitate the sending of these moneys to either the Italian government or to international agencies?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I presume the funds to which my hon. friend refers are those collected by the Italian community in Canada. What they decide to do with those funds in the first instance is obviously their own concern. My understanding is that those funds were collected primarily for reconstruction. I suppose they may be used for emergency rehabilitation and relief, if necessary. I can quite understand why they would not have acted at the moment when the full extent of the problem is not known.
With respect to our government assistance, we are now committed to $300,000 in emergency relief and another $1.5 million in longer-term rehabilitation. I understand my colleague the Minister of National Defence, is also making clothing and shelter materials available from our base at Lahr.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the deep concern felt by all Canadians for the suffering still being endured by the people of Italy, will the government consider a special refugee program so that homeless persons in Italy who have no relatives in Canada to sponsor them, or homeless persons who have relatives who cannot afford to sponsor them, might be permitted to come to this country as refugees rather than having to go through all of the immigration red tape?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in the House last week, there is already a provision whereby Italians from the affected earthquake area could immediately come to Canada under the visa regulations of the act, and we have instructed our officials to give them total access at the port of entry and waive some of the normal requirements that a person would normally have to meet. Under those circumstances they would not be landed immediately but would be able to get relief here in Canada, and we would be prepared even under extreme emergency circumstances to provide ministerial permits to allow them to take up residence.
Whether they can be incorporated under the refugee category of the act is something that my colleague the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and I and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will want to have discussed with the Italian government beforehand, because it really is, in part, a decision that they would have to make. Being a very independent country, we would first want to make sure that they are in agreement with that kind of action.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question? In dealing with this matter, will the government also consider the possibility of providing transportation costs and care for a year, as Canada so generously did for the boat people?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I indicated last week, the provisions of the transportation loan fund will be available to people coming from the earthquake areas of Italy; they will have exactly the same provisions available to them. It is also my understanding, again from talking to my colleague and having met with representatives of several Italian organiza-
December 1, 1980

tions over the weekend, that so far as any care or cost that would be encountered once the families or individuals have arrived here is concerned, many of the Italian community themselves are prepared to supply that assistance immediately. We are working with them to make sure that there would be no hardship.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege was raised on Friday, and I raised it on Thursday night right after the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) as reported at page 5121 of Hansard. At that page of Hansard and in that speech, the member for Calgary Centre had this to say:
The New Democratic Party energy critic, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), was bordering on McCarthyism in some of his remarks which were directed at the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).
And then he went on to say:
That cheap McCarthyism-
And finally he said, and 1 quote:
Character and integrity are not words one would use to describe the current New Democratic Party caucus.
The words that I object to and raise the question of privilege on is the charge of "cheap McCarthyism". 1 want to say that one has to look at the context of the debate in which the remarks were raised.
On November 21 1 opened the debate on the Petroleum Administration Act and said that as a Canadian living in western Canada I was concerned about the growing danger of separatism in the west, and 1 spoke of the importance of Canada to me and of the fact that western members of Parliament can be effective in this House, in this Parliament of Canada, can be effective in winning things for their constituents and for their region, and that western Canada was not monolithic in its outlook, that there were many groups there and perhaps the wrong groups were being heard from.
1 said also that I was generally concerned with the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), like the Premier of Alberta, had not forcefully condemned separatists in western Canada, and specifically I said that I was concerned with the remarks made by the member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) in which he spoke of separatism and the establishment of a western parliament.
1 quoted from an article that was in the Vancouver Sun on October 25, 1980, with the headline "MP Urges Western Parliament". I passed out copies of the article to my Conservative colleagues.
1 am not alone in raising these concerns. On October 11, 1980, in the Ottawa Citizen, George Oake, in the column: "Dateline Vancouver", said the following:
Privilege-Mr. Waddell
Conservative Leader Joe Clark appears to be denouncing western separatism these days in almost the same breath he condones the reasons for its existence.
And further on:
A few members of Clark's B.C. caucus have come dangerously close to endorsing separatism. In a recent interview with the Vancouver Sun, Capilano MP Ron Huntington called for a western parliament to ensure more bargaining power with central Canada. Vancouver Centre MP Pat Carney has expressed similar sentiments in the House of Commons, despite pleas from some Tories that she hold her tongue.
And finally he quotes at the end of the article John Fraser, the member for Vancouver South who said, and I applaud this, Madam Speaker-
The day they (provinces) want to separate, I will go to the hills with a rifle and fight-that's how strongly I feel about this country-
This was said by the staunch federalist, John Fraser.
I raised those matters in the context of my speech. The Leader of the Opposition was in the House-at least he was in the back of the House-during part of my speech and he chose not to take part in the debate. The member from Capilano was not here for the debate. It was a six-day debate, and these matters were being debated. I point this out to show the context in which my remarks were raised.
At the end of the debate of November 27, instead of the member from Capilano speaking in the debate, as is right, or the Leader of the Opposition speaking, and replying to my criticisms and, indeed replying to general press criticisms which were similar, they did not take that opportunity. Instead, the member from Calgary Centre called my remarks "cheap McCarthyism".
My point of privilege is this, Madam Speaker, first, that the remarks were legitimate criticisms which my friends may not agree with, and that is their right, but 1 have a right to make them. They come at a time when the polls in western Canada are showing a majority of Canadians from western Canada-


An hon. Member:: Cheap McCarthyism.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -well, they don't want to leave Canada and don't think they are getting a fair deal in Canada. They come at a very, very touchy time. In my speech I suggested ways to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the government whereby westerners could get a better deal in Canada. In the debate we talked about the western development fund having provincial input, having a special committee of the House of Commons chaired by an opposition member, probably a Conservative member, on western development, western alienation, and there were a number of positive suggestions. I urge the leaders of both the Liberal and Conservative parties to turn their thoughts and their actions to healing wounds, not to call us hysterical in western Canada, as the Prime Minister did, and not to say, as the Leader of the Opposition did, that he understands the separatists, but does not condemn them.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could the hon. member restrain himself to pointing out to the Chair where his question of privilege arises? I do not think it is important or necessary to repeat his speech, which apparently he is referring to quite extensively.

December 1, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Waddell


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am just coming to that, and I appreciate your comments. The point is simply this: the word McCarthyism has a certain connotation. It can be objectively defined as defined in the dictionaries, and I ask Your Honour to look at "The American Political Dictionary", fourth edition, by Mr. J. C. Plano, which defines McCarthyism, and I will pass this up to the Chair. It talks about it in terms of unsubstantiated accusations imputing disloyalty, threats and so on, and to being undemocratic. Also in William Safire's "Political Dictionary" of 1978 there is a definition of "McCarthyism" which talks about investigations which flout the rights of individuals in the pursuit of their ends. Again there is the notion of being undemocratic, and this indeed is the question of privilege.
The fact is that McCarthyism is not listed in the words which are listed at pages 108 and 109 of Beauchesne, with which I am sure Your Honour is familiar, but my point is that the word McCarthyism does mean something, it means deceitful and undemocratic, and when an hon. member says that about my remarks, he is imputing to me the notion that somehow I am being deceitful, undemocratic, disloyal, and so forth. That is why I set the context in which the remarks were made.
I ask Your Honour to look at page 136 of Erskine May's nineteenth edition which talks about breaches of privilege and contempt, and about "a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results", in speeches, that may be treated as contempt. It speaks about contempt as reflecting on the character, good faith and motives of a member. I ask Your Honour to look at page 152 of Erskine May which talks about libels in common law and also says the following:
but to constitute a breach of privilege a libel upon a member must concern the character or conduct of the member in that capacity.
To summarize briefly, my point is that the charge made by the hon. member is serious. He is in fact reflecting on my character and saying that I am carrying out something which is deceitful and badly motivated. In the context of my remarks, as I pointed out, I was simply making a legitimate criticism, as 1 am supposed to do in this House.
I was inviting hon. members to take part in the debate and to answer very serious concerns. After all, what is a western parliament when we already have a Parliament in Canada? That is what I was asking, and I was inviting hon. members to take part in the debate. They chose not to. They chose to duck the debate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre chose to make false and slanderous accusations. I ask Your Honour to look at the matter and to ask the hon. member to withdraw them.
I want to raise one other point before I sit down, and that is the nature of a word like McCarthyism. I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but in a debate I thought I heard the Leader of the Opposition, or perhaps someone else, refer to the Chair the other day by saying "Beaudoin". Taken in that particular context that was an unfortunate reflection that the Chair was
acting unfairly. If that remark was made, it seems to me that would be a breach of privilege and that it should be withdrawn because the word Beaudoin has a certain connotation.
The word McCarthyism clearly has certain objective connotations which can be defined, and I have already gone over them. I will not repeat myself, but if Your Honour accepts that the word does have those connotations and can be defined that way, and if Your Honour accepts what I have said-I invite you to look at my remarks in Hansard-as legitimate criticisms, then the hon. member for Calgary Centre is in breach of my privileges as a member of this House by alleging that I am making McCarthyism remarks.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, the word McCarthyism is derived from the activities of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy of the United States who, under the guise of pursuing evil communism, besmirched many reputations of outstanding Americans by making the accusation either directly that they were communists or, more indirectly, by saying, "Will you now stand here and state categorically that you are not, never have been nor have any sympathies for the communist party?" Knowing full well that if a person had, for example, some socialist leanings, the mere asking of the question "Were you communist" was enough to hurt that person's reputation. Since then the word has come into increasing usage, to the point where it is defined in numerous political dictionaries.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) quoted from "The American Political Dictionary" by J. C. Plano. According to that dictionary McCarthyism means:
Unsubstantiated accusations of disloyalty and abuse of legislative investigatory power that engender fear over real or imagined threats to the security of the nation.
Another definition in "The Young Voter's Manual", a topical dictionary of American government and politics by Leon W. Blevins, defines McCarthyism as follows:
The indiscriminate use of loose accusations by those seeking to cast doubts on the loyalty of selected public officials-
Those are two definitions. I bring to the attention of the Chair the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway on November 21, as reported at page 4952 of Hansard, and I quote:
I will go further and say that the Leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Clark), who should know better, is aiding and abetting the new forces of separatism in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: False!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Withdraw!


Harvie Andre: I would define that as a loose accusation by one seeking to cast doubts on the loyalty of a selected public official, in this case the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
December 1, 1980

Then there was an interjection by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), after which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said:
The party to my right is aiding and abetting separatism in western Canada.
He accused the whole party. If the hon. member had said "The party to my right is aiding and abetting communism", that would be a precise example of McCarthyism as defined and accepted common usage. Then the hon. member said, after another interjection by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta:
If the hon. member will give me a chance, let me ask why the former prime minister, who is the Leader of the Conservative party, has not stood up and repudiated the remarks-or denied them-which are reported in the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, October 25. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) was reported to have said-
And so forth. In the heat of debate members sometimes make remarks. There were interjections, perhaps, from this side. One might say that the hon. member simply misspoke, became overly excited or said something he really did not mean. Well, five days later, on November 26, as reported at page 5107 of Hansard, the hon. member said, and I quote:
I stood up in this House and asked the hon. member from Richmond, who is chattering away here, why the Leader of the Opposition does not deny the remarks made about a western parliament by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). Incidentally, the Leader of the Opposition heard this.
The hon. member reaffirmed that his remarks on November 21 were not an accident. He meant to use McCarthyism. He was reaffirming it on this particular date. The reason I accused the hon. member of McCarthyism in his remarks- and it is McCarthyism-stems from another definition of McCarthyism which I think is the real tragedy in what the hon. member is doing. That definition is in "Safire's Political Dictionary", an enlarged, up-to-date edition, in which Douglass Cater, apparently in a book entitled "The Fourth Branch of Government", is quoted as follows:
McCarthyism's greatest threat was not to individual liberty or even to the orderly conduct of government. It corrupted the power to communicate, which is indispensable to men living in a civilized society.


Mr. Nielsen:: Waddellism.


Harvie Andre: Waddellism, perhaps, and that is the reason this had to be raised. Ironically-and he did not intend to-the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is doing a service to this House by raising this issue so that it can be aired, because that is precisely what he is attempting to do. He is attempting to corrupt the power to communicate, which is indispensable. By accusing members of this party of fostering separatism and by talking about it, the hon. member is denying or attempting to prevent us from talking about what is a very real problem in western Canada. It has to be talked about.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has just said that he is grateful that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has raised issues. I feel that the hon. member himself is raising issues. I ask him, as I asked the hon. member before him, to limit himself to discussing the question of privilege. I know he wants to offer definitions of McCarthyism, and I am grateful that he has done that. However,
Privilege-Mr. Waddell
because I will need to ascertain whether the word was unparliamentary, 1 would like him to limit himself to telling me whether or not, in his view, there was a breach of privilege.


Harvie Andre: I thought I was in the process of doing that, Madam Speaker. I think this is a very important question which needs a full airing. Probably the accusation should be reversed. The point of privilege should come from this party because, if this type of behaviour is permitted and we are not allowed at least to counter it by way of debate and call it what it is, that is, McCarthyism, then we are certainly interfering with the privileges of members who feel it to be their responsibility to express the feelings which exist among their constituents, the growing sense of alienation which is harming the country and causing immense disunity in the country.
Perhaps the hon. member does not like to be identified as doing what he is doing, but I think, quite clearly-and this bears repeating-as Douglass Cater said, the greatest threat is not to the individual liberty, to me as a member of Parliament or to my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), as a member of Parliament, but rather the corruption of the power to communicate. In fact the accusation was deliberately made in the debate, as reported at page 5121 of Hansard of November 27. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is only identified as "An hon. Member", and he said "Not with the Tory separatists". I was here and I know it was the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who made the remark. Other hon. members can substantiate this. If a member is allowed to make that remark, which is McCarthyism as defined, and we are not allowed to identify it as such, then that means that western alienation, and the feelings of frustration in the west will never be discussed because those of us who might raise this will be branded as aiding and abetting something which we all detest. When the hon. member for Capilano suggests a possible way in which westerners might give expresssion to the feelings of alienation that are not separatist, namely, ideas on a western parliament or a grouping of the four western provinces-


An hon. Member:: What?


Harvie Andre: -to enhance the negotiating strength, if that is identified as separatism by a member who, unlike the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whom this hon. member supports, served this country during the last war as an airman in the North Atlantic Squadron, under enemy fire-


An hon. Member:: That is imputing motives.


Harvie Andre: I hear the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) speaking up because he too is guilty of McCarthyism in its more blatant form.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 1, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Waddell


Harvie Andre: According to a Globe and Mail article here he "repudiates separatists". What separatists? The NDP members are feeling somewhat embarrassed these days because of their chicanery and because they are hopping into bed with the Liberals-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to ask the hon. member to please conclude his comments. He is entering into a debate and not discussing the question of privilege.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that this is certainly not a question of privilege. If anyone has a question of privilege it is members on this side who have been charged with disloyalty to Canada in the form of supporting separatism, and indeed of being separatists. We are accused of being separatists. If anybody has a point of privilege it is the members of this party, not members of the party to my left. It was quite significant that the hon. member who raised the question of privilege has not quoted from a citation in Beau-chesne because the point he raised today cannot be considered a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, as you probably know, I have been absent from the House since it reconvened for the second part of its first session. 1 have been away for several reasons. First, there was the death of the president of my company, which meant I had duties to some 100 employees to keep the economic unit intact and to keep it sound. The second reason is that I have been involved for the past three years in litigation which arose out of a Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates dealing with the Post Office. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who is so good at reading out about character, good faith and motives, knew very well that in the last week of October and in the last week of November I had been involved with that court case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. So, while 1 have been attempting to defend the rights of individual members of a union, he has been accepting dictates from union bosses to malign my name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: My reputation as a Canadian, while 1 have been involved in these legal processes, has been maligned. 1 have been insulted as an individual, and my family has been insulted. I have been called a non-Canadian on a national television show by a member of the other place, and I resent that deeply. I resent being called a separatist and a nonCanadian at any time, because I can hold up my record, and my service to this country as being equal to that of any other Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: My brother, my sister and myself served this country in the last war and have worn the Canada badge on our shoulders. I was not running around in a leather jacket with a swastika on the back, on a motorcycle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: When 1 came down with my family to the centennial world fair in 1967, you cannot imagine the pride and the emotion which my family and I felt for this country during that trip to Quebec, and when coming to see the Peace Tower, walking through these halls and seeing this chamber, on a tour. The emotion went up the back and into the spine. That is the kind of love 1 have for this country, and to be denigrated and accused of avoiding my duties in this House when there are other matters which occasionally take priority, is something which 1 do not have to stand for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the alleged charge of being a separatist. Since the middle of 1978 I have been writing to my constituents through the riding mailer which is the privilege of a member of Parliament. Ever since Bill C-60 of the Thirtieth Parliament came down, 1 have felt a deep concern about the changes that were taking place in the style and form of government in this country. 1 have written to my constituents at length, and practically all of these riding mailers have been published in the newspapers and even read over the radio out west. I have expressed these concerns and I have tried to educate my constituents. I have met with a great deal of appreciation and support, and 1 think the polls have shown that. They understand what kind of a Canadian I am.
Madam Speaker, I ask you to bear with me because the time and the hour are important in this day, and the emotions are high. I have been critical of this Parliament. I have spoken in this House and have had agreement nodded from my colleagues across the floor about the fact that I think this Parliament is not working, that the locked in caucus system does not allow the voice of the regions to be heard. The cry of the regions is not allowed to get out and be heard and understood through the cameras and the newspapers of the land.
As you so well know, Madam Speaker, the great excitement of Parliament takes place in caucus and that is where the regional disputes take place, and to me that is a tragedy. Not all members on this side agree with me on that. But, if we and the people out there understood the debate that went on, if the House opened up its processes so that we could let go the emotion and understand each other, so that the people of Ontario and Quebec understand the deep rock-bound frustration in the west, this would be a healthier country, and this form of government would be working to serve the people and the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: My frustration as a Canadian and as a western Canadian-it is part of the whole; it has always been that way-is that I did not see from the last election a mandate to change the constitution unilaterally, to escalate the
December 1, 1980

powers of the central provinces and emasculate the powers of the western ones and put them into a second-class status forever.


An hon. Member:: Some of them third class.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I never saw in the last election the power or mandate to expropriate and nationalize the energy industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We are not addressing energy supply any longer in this country. We are addressing some kind of a unilateral form of government which is being imposed upon us.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that he is making a very impassioned speech but this is not the time to make such a speech. I would like him to address himself to the question of privilege which has been raised. It is a narrow matter, and although some of the arguments of the hon. member might be remotely relevant, in these matters of procedure one must be kept much closer to procedure. 1 ask him to relate solely to the question of privilege.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I thank you. Madam Speaker, and accept your admonition but, after all, my character was impugned and I was called a non-Canadian. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has insulted me on several occasions in the House, but I will accept Your Honour's admonition.
In closing I should like to read from a riding mailer which was directly on this issue. It was sent out in August, 1980, and reads in part as follows:
As your member of Parliament, it is my duty to do everything possible to keep this onee great and proud country intact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It continues:
However, the constitutional crisis has been created and if Mr. Trudeau's concept of federalism is nothing more than a brilliantly contrived vehicle to socialize Canada then I personally would rather sec western Canada out than be a part of this Trudeau revolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is what it is; it is an overnight socialization of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We, and many of us in western Canada, are alarmed at this intrusion because there was no mandate for it.


An hon. Member:: That is the way the west feels.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am speaking on behalf of my part of this great country, just as my hon. friend across the aisle speaks about his. 1 understand his emotion and his feelings. I am
Privilege-Mr. Waddell
appealing so that the emotions of western Canada will be heard and understood. Do not rend this country apart with unilateral imposition on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to join with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) in this important question of privilege which, in one sense, goes to the heart of the debate about the future of our country, but the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), in the course of his comments just a few minutes ago, made reference to myself as indulging in a kind of McCarthyism as well.
In a dispassionate but honest attempt I will deal with the accusations which have been made. In a similar fashion I want to defend the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. We have just heard the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) say that he was called a separatist, and say that he was called a non-Canadian, if 1 heard him correctly. I have checked this with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and 1 want to say that at no time was it suggested that the hon. member for Capilano was a separatist or a non-Canadian. He does not have to wave his patriotic flag-a number of us in all parties could do that if we were interested-because, if I may say so, I think it is entirely beside the point in this argument.
What is at stake in the accusation of the hon. member for Calgary Centre the other day about my colleague is the imputation of motives, and I refer to Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 316, subsection (e) which deals with the imputation of motives. To say that the motives of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway were something other than what he said they were, that is, to pass a judgment and to state the truth as he was quoting it, in my view is a question of privilege. 1 do not think that is what the member was doing.
As he has done for a period of a week or so in the House, with justification, the member was saying that when the hon. member for Capilano called for a western Parliament-and he did not deny it today-it meant one thing and one thing only. We have legislative assemblies and parliamentary bodies outside the Parliament of Canada and, in my judgment, a member can rise here and express legitimate grievances whether he is from western Canada, Ontario, Quebec or Atlantic Canada.
There are legitimate grievances about the west with which my party has sought to deal positively, by proposing, for example, resource amendments that are central to western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is a joke.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 have hit a sensitive chord, but we can watch the Tories and see how they vote when those amendments are presented in committee.
80092 -33

December 1, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Waddell
When a member rises and seeks to talk about legitimate grievances, whether they are about the west, the central part of the country or the east, and then calls for a Parliament for that region, what does it mean if it is not, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway described it, aiding and abetting-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The forces.


John Edward Broadbent: -aiding and abetting the forces of separatism? If anyone has any sense of impartial judgment, that is precisely what is involved. If I were a western Canadian and I had grievances, as indeed the west has, and I heard someone rise in the Parliament of Canada and say, "If we do not get our improvements, we need a Parliament of western Canada", then surely that is the same kind of tactic which supported Rene Levesque in the province of Quebec, an independence movement in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: What did you do about it?


Some hon. Members:: Where were you?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Oui.


John Edward Broadbent: I listened with interest, I listened in silence. I will reply to the obvious, little emotional concern in the Conservative party. During the debate on the referendum in the province of Quebec, we made it-


Erik Nielsen: Where were you?


John Edward Broadbent: If the member listens, he will hear the answer right now. The New Democratic Party was on the record in the province of Quebec, and with its leader it went into the province of Quebec, as aptly as the Leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Clark), and spoke clearly for the federal side in that debate. There is no question about it; it is part of the public record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: But I want to return to the essence of the problem. If, during the great debate about the future of the province of Quebec, members of the Liberal party, the New Democratic Party or the Conservative party said, "Oh, well, Quebeckers have legitimate grievances, I guess we should form a Parliament of Quebec", the Tories would have been the first in the House of Commons to rise and say, "You are aiding and abetting separatism", and they would have been correct!
If they had gotten up and said what is really needed, because of their grievances, is an entirely different representative system-that is precisely what the member for Capilano has done, in my judgment-I would agree with proposals which ought to be implemented in the House of Commons to deal with the legitimate concerns of western Canada. However, rather than speaking about that he raises-and to use the words of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, he aids and abets-the separatist option. He talks about a western Parliament. Surely that is what is being done.
There are forces now in western Canada calling for independence. In those meetings they will be able to quote Conservative members of the House of Commons who say that what we need, perhaps, is a parliament of western Canada. If aiding and abetting the forces of separatism means anything, it seems to me that is what it means. Therefore, when the member for Vancouver-Kingsway made the accusation I think he made it with intellectual and moral honesty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Members to my right may differ, but I think he was dead on. If we had members in the House of Commons at the time of the Quebec referendum, or prior to it, who went around saying that what we need is a separate parliamentary system, entirely different from the one we now have in the province of Quebec, the Tory party would have been calling that, I repeat, "aiding and abetting the forces of separatism."
So, Madam Speaker, I say that our member has a legitimate question of privilege. When the member for Calgary Centre gets up and says that he was indulging in McCarthyism, which means he was distorting beyond the level of evidence, beyond the point which evidence would support-in blunter terms, that he was lying or was imputing bad motives-then I think the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a legitimate question of privilege. It is inappropriate for one member of this House to describe another member's remarks or speeches in the way the member for Calgary Centre has done.
I conclude by saying that the Conservative party does this country no good by repeating the kind of statements that the member for Capilano has made. I support them 100 per cent in this House when they state western grievances, or grievances from any part of Canada. 1 for one in this party will take a very definite stand for a united Canada. I will not aid and abet, by the use of exaggerated statements such as the ones which have been made by members of the Tory party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I take it the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) wishes to speak on this question of privilege. The Chair is becoming quite informed through the arguments which have been made on this question of privilege. Some of these arguments have been repeated several times. 1 have allowed the three hon. members concerned to speak on this question of privilege. I have allowed the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) to intervene as well, since he is the leader, and also because in his intervention the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) referred to him. Therefore I have allowed the hon. member for Oshawa to reply. 1 will also allow the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to speak, but I will cut the debate off after that. I appeal
December 1, 1980

to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to make his remarks brief.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, naturally I will be brief. I would like to begin by congratulating the Liberal party for once again arranging to have the New Democratic Party do its work for them by levying accusations at my colleagues and myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like to begin, Madam Speaker, by correcting what I am prepared to believe was-


Mr. Rae:: You are a disgrace.


Charles Joseph Clark: The silver spoon socialist is speaking again, Madam Speaker.
I will be as brief as the NDP interjections will allow me to be. If they will sit calmly in their seats while I put the facts on the record then 1 will do that with dispatch. Let me begin by correcting what I believe to have been an innocent error made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) when he said, as reported at page 4957 of Hansard, in relation to my presence:
-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was here this morning. He was in the lobby, he heard my remarks when they were made-[DOT]>
That is not correct. I was in the House toward the end of his remarks, after he had made remarks relative to me. I did not have his remarks relative to me drawn to my attention until after that occasion, so he was wrong on that matter. I am sure he will accept my word that that was the case.
Second, I could not help but note that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in characterizing his remarks about me today, said that he had criticized me for not speaking forcefully against separatism. Indeed, as has been read into the record, that is not what he said about me on that day, November 21. What he said was: "The leader of the Conservative party is aiding and abetting the new forces of separatism in western Canada." That is an accusation markedly different from an accusation that I am not speaking forcefully against separatism in western Canada or elsewhere.
I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway will agree that in his statements today he has misrepresented what he himself said in his statements on November 21. He has distorted those statements. Today he said I have been making statements that I understand separatism, understand the sources of separatism in western Canada, but have not been condemning that phenomenon. Madam Speaker, I have condemned that phenomenon on public platforms in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, Barrhead and Drum-heller to date. I will continue to speak out for Canada and against separatism, and to try to divert the energies of western Canada into the counsel of a Canadian channel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Waddell


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like to turn to the rather absurd position put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). He has suggested that the member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is a separatist because he proposes a new
way-


John Edward Broadbent: 1 did not say that.


Charles Joseph Clark: -in which members from one part of Canada can have their influence felt within Canada. Let me remind the Leader of the New Democratic Party that for years there have been recommendations that there should be a parliament of Atlantic Canada to allow the people of that region to make their cause known within the context of a united Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Who said that?


Charles Joseph Clark: No one accused those people, those advocates in royal commissions, or other advocates of maritime union, of being separatists, although by the logic of the New Democratic Party they are separatists, by the definition of their leader.
Ever since the concerns have arisen and developed in this country about the adequacy of our institutions to develop and reflect the regions of the country there have been a number of proposals put forward with respect to changes in Canadian institutions which could better reflect the nature of the country. There have been proposals for a House of the provinces. There has been a proposal by the Leader of the New Democratic Party himself to change our system to a system of proportional representation. He did that only after election results were in, not having had the foresight to do that beforehand.


John Edward Broadbent: Another distortion.


Charles Joseph Clark: There have been a number of proposals to change the institutions of this country within the context of Canada, to ensure that the institutions of this country could better reflect the regional realities of this country and to stop the kind of temptation toward separatism, the kind of frustration which has so alarmed and caught attention and provoked the remarks and suggestion of the hon. member for Capilano. Indeed, if the New Democratic Party and their allies in the Liberal party are interested, the full quote of the hon. member for Capilano was:
Let's organize ourselves in the west to give us enough political clout and bargaining power at the table.
Well, Madam Speaker, at what table? Obviously, at the Canadian table.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What the member of Parliament for Capilano was proposing was not some device to take the people of his region out of Canada but, instead, some device to make the people of his region feel effective within Canada. That should be a preoccupation of all of us in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December !, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Waddell


Charles Joseph Clark: I know now why the New' Democratic Party are raising these accusations, not simply in the House of Commons but in speeches the hon. member for Oshawa made in Winnipeg recently, in speeches he made across the country, and in Vancouver. This occurs at a time when the government has introduced an energy policy and a constitutional policy both of which can deeply divide the country, and at a time when there are also very serious economic problems which are causing hardship across the country. But the Leader of the New Democratic Party does not attack the constitutional provisions, the economic situation of the country or the energy policy of the government. Instead, he attacks the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: He applauds that now. His party attacks us, not on the basis of the policies which we have put forward, but by imputing motives to members of my party, by suggesting that they are less than loyal to Canada than members of the New Democratic Party. The NDP members do not attack us on the merits of what we have proposed or on the merits of our appeal to the people of western Canada to find their future within this larger country, but as separatists.
That party has attacked us as separatists, not because there is something in the record of the performance of the Progressive Conservative Party, but to draw attention away from the behaviour of the New Democratic Party and the way in which the members of that party have betrayed the electors who sent them here to stand against the Liberal party. Many of their constituents have become alarmed to find the members of the New Democratic Party hopping into league, hopping into liaison or hopping into bed with the Liberals they were elected to oppose.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party talked about his campaign in the province of Quebec against the forces of separatism. I give him the fact that he was there, but his was the only national party which refused to join the No campaign against separatism. His was the only party in Canada which turned its back on Claude Ryan because-


John Edward Broadbent: Who was in bed with the Liberals then, Joe?


Erik Nielsen: We were in bed with Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: They were afraid to take the unequivocal kind of stand for Canada and for federalism which was taken at that time by the Liberal party and the Progressive Conservative Party. Now that party is doing everything it can, in every public forum it can find, to try to turn attention away from the fact that it joined in support of the Liberal constitution, a position which is driving western Canadians to consider leaving this country, and which is described as civilized by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
1 do not consider a measure which drives people of my country to consider leaving my country a civilized measure.
and I do not wonder at all at the fact that members of the New Democratic Party arc so embarrassed about their own behaviour that they are trying to create false issues by calling into question the dedication to Canada of other members of this House of Commons.
Let me say one thing. Madam Speaker, about the sources and the cause of separatism, and the anger and frustration of those in western Canada. 1 would hope that members of Parliament, instead of accusing others of separatism because they report reality which is disturbing in one region of our country, before the word separatism leaps to their lips would do themselves and the country the favour of getting out of a part of the country where perhaps separatism is not a dynamic and growing force and of visiting western Canada to determine for themselves the level of anger and frustration which is growing there and which is being provoked there by the positions taken by the government on the constitution, energy, and other areas, and which are supported in such a Pavlovian way by the New Democratic Party.
1 have fought separatism in Quebec and in western Canada, and I am fighting it now because it is a very dangerous and real problem. We do not solve the sources of separatism by making false accusations in this House of Commons about members of this House. We solve the danger and the prospect of separatism by recognizing how real that danger is in western Canada today and by paying heed, not casting scorn, on those members of Parliament who have the courage, honesty and dedication to their country to stand up in whatever forum to describe the real nature of the problem which is growing there.
If separatism is allowed to go unaddressed, it will grow into dimensions which will be very dangerous to this country. This is not a time to slander people who fight separatism in western Canada by offering alternatives to those Canadians in that region who are frustrated. It is not a time to slander members of this House or citizens in western Canada who are offering alternatives to the frustrated citizenry of that region who arc now allowing their emotions to find outlet in movements which would take them outside this country. The hon. member for Vancouvcr-Kingsway has reason to worry about the reputation of his party, but he has no reason at all to cast that kind of slander upon myself or upon my colleagues in this House of Commons.


Madam Speaker:: I have heard all the arguments and the definitions of McCarthyism and of the aspersions that might have derived from the whole discussion on separatism in western Canada. I will cut off the debate now, look into the interventions, and rule on the question of privilege later.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my point of order relates to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
December 1, 1980

Transport (Mr. Bockstael), who today during the period assigned for motions under Standing Order 43 moved such a motion. I believe you will recall. Madam Speaker, that your predecessor, almost immediately after assuming office, took the position, upon which he expounded at some length in the House, that he would not entertain the previous questionable practice which had given rise to considerable objection prior to his assuming the Chair, of parliamentary secretaries participating in the question period.
Mr. Speaker Jerome gave at least three reasons for taking this action. One reason was that the parliamentary secretaries were in receipt of emoluments over and above those ordinarily received by members of Parliament. Another reason was that a parliamentary secretary takes an oath somewhat similar to the oath taken by cabinet members. Perhaps the most important reason was that parliamentary secretaries were privy to matters that were the responsibility of the individual departments and, beyond that, privy to matters which were the subject of genera] cabinet discussions. Mr. Speaker Jerome took the position that for these and other reasons he would not entertain any further participation by parliamentary secretaries in the question period. As far as I am aware, this has not happened thus far in this session.


Mr. Evans:: It was not during question period.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) will be patient for a moment, he will hear my argument with respect to the participation of parliamentary secretaries in the period reserved for motions under Standing Order 43. There is no distinction, in my submission. 1 do not recollect, nor have 1 had the time since the matter arose today to look at the precedents, whether Mr. Speaker Jerome dealt with the period reserved for motions under Standing Order 43. He may not have done so. but I am making the submission now that there is no difference between parliamentary secretaries participating in the period reserved for motions under Standing Order 43 and participating in question period.
1 make my submission on the same basis and the same arguments which have been outlined. For example, it is quite conceivable that a parliamentary secretary may, by virtue of his position, have information which would be unavailable to any other member of Parliament, and as a result be placed in the favoured position with respect to moving a motion under Standing Order 43, in which he would not otherwise find himself. For that reason I submit that you should take the matter under advisement and obtain the counsel of your advisers, Madam Speaker. Hopefully, you can come back to advise us that your position will be along the same lines as that of your predecessor, in other words, that it would not be mete for parliamentary secretaries to engage in the period reserved for motions under Standing Order 43 which, by and large is a period reserved for members of the opposition, any more than it would be proper for them to engage in the question period itself.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has raised this question, and I join with him in asking you to review this practice.
I was here in the Thirtieth Parliament when Speaker Jerome made his ruling, both on the participation of parliamentary secretaries in question period and in the time reserved for motions under Standing Order 43. At the time 1 think it caused a lot of concern and reservation on the part of parliamentary secretaries, not so much on the ruling directed toward participation in question period because 1 believe Speaker Jerome was entirely correct that a parliamentary secretary cannot be expected both to answer questions and pose questions at the same time, but because motions under the provisions of Standing Order 43 come under a different section of the routine proceedings of the House. As 1 understand it, this section was designed to allow every hon. member to rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, especially as it affected a member's constituency.
As hon. members know, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) is one of two Liberal members elected from western Canada. He has deep feelings on the whole question of the debate now under way affecting western Canada. I believe he has every right to express his emotions and feelings, as do members opposite who engaged in the question of privilege raised earlier. Of course, the hon. member for St. Boniface is a parliamentary secretary and he does not have the means in the House to bring those emotions to bear on a regular basis.
To my recollection, during the Thirtieth Parliament Speaker Jerome permitted parliamentary secretaries two or three times to move motions under the provisions of Standing Order 43. At one point he actually broke his own rule, and I believe allowed a parliamentary secretary, who is now the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), to ask a question during question period, although it was not directed toward the ministry he was then serving.
Therefore, I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to look into this matter so that we can have a clear ruling. I believe that today was the third occasion on which you have allowed a parliamentary secretary to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 since this Thirty-second Parliament opened. You allowed the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipi-gon (Mr. Masters) to move a motion under Standing Order 43 the other week.
On behalf of members on this side of the House, 1 urge that you view the matter concerning the rule under which parliamentary secretaries can participate in the period reserved for motions under Standing Order 43 as a flexible one.
Respecting the question period, I believe the precedents are clear.


Madam Speaker:: My decision to allow the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 was based on the Standing Orders and on several precedents. Standing Order 15(2) per-

December 1, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
mits members, other than ministers of the Crown, to move motions. That is the limitation placed on Standing Order 43. Even so, there are examples of ministers having moved such motions and of ministers having seconded such motions.
I am not sure whether it was three other occasions when 1 allowed-although I will take the hon. member's word for it- parliamentary secretaries to move motions under Standing Order 43. However, there are several precedents where parliamentary secretaries have moved motions under Standing Order 43. I have a record of one moved by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on November 6, 1979. I have one moved by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) at the time he was prime minister. I have one moved by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) on March 21, 1979. The precedent is there. The reasons for that precedent are, I think, quite different from those which would preclude parliamentary secretaries from asking questions, as was ruled by my predecessor. However, my predecessor has not ruled on the matter of motions under Standing Order 43. He has allowed them. It is also my feeling that they should be allowed.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I seem to be surrounded by questionable precedents. Of course 1 respect the ruling of the Chair, but there is one area which I intend to raise, if it occurs to me proper to do so, where the provisions of Standing Order 43 might be used on the basis of information in the hands of a parliamentary secretary by virtue of his position. 1 think that would be totally improper.


Madam Speaker:: If I may reply to the hon. member, and I do it now because I want to be enlightened on this question, it seems to me that the Speaker could disallow a motion in one case or the other. The Speaker could say that it is not in order or that it is not proper to be put to the House during the period reserved for motions under Standing Order 43. In a sense, I suppose I am a depository of that kind of judgment. Sometimes I may not be able to make judgments because these things happen so quickly, but it does seem to me that this judgment is in the hands of the Chair. However, I am willing to discuss the topic with the hon. member at some future time. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).
I am sorry, I have notice of a question of privilege from another hon. member and 1 do have to take them in the order in which they come. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloyd-minster (Mr. McKnight) has given me notice of a question of privilege. I will hear him first, and then the hon. member for South Shore.


Mr. McKnight:: Madam Speaker, I submitted my question of privilege in the hope that the hon. member whom it concerns would be in the House at this time. The hon. member is not in the House and I would like my question of privilege deferred until such time as both he and I are in the chamber together.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. CROUSE-STATEMENT MADE BY MR. LeBLANC DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege. It concerns the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) and, in particular, the response he gave today to questions I raised in the House. I regret that he is not present at the moment, but I feel it is important that 1 put my remarks on the record. He implied that I am speaking for my own interests in the fishing industry and not for the fishing industry as a whole. This allegation has been made on previous occasions by the same minister.
I wish to state for the record that I have sold all of my interests in the deep sea fishing fleet which, through my own initiative, I brought into being. 1 established the fleet in 1948 and sold all of my interest in 1968. At that same time I sold all of my financial interests in the Canadian fish processing industry. I no longer have any capital invested in this particular industry.
Therefore, when I rise in my place and raise questions relating to the fishing industry, I do so because more than one-third of the people in my constituency, whom I have represented for more than 24 years, are involved in the fishing industry, either inshore, mid-water, offshore or through ancillary industries. The minister's reply indicates not only an insensitivity to the interests of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland fishermen, but an insensitivity as well to the interests of the shore workers in the plants of both provinces.
On November 22, Mr. Lawrence Wilneff, president of the Canadian Seafood and Allied Workers said, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald-.
-the management plan will likely lead to plant closure during the last three months of next year unless there are massive changes made in the scheme.
He said plant closures would force workers to go on UIC benefits for part of the year, resulting in some 40 per cent reduction in their pay.
Obviously my questions were related to the hard-working people I have been elected to serve, not only the fishermen of that area but the plant workers in my constituency and throughout all of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I wonder why the Newfoundland members have not been actively pursuing this matter as well, because the people they have been elected to serve are also affected.
In closing, I demand a retraction of the minister's allegations. I submit to this House that he has no right to impute motives to me when I am carrying out my duties in this House.


Madam Speaker:: The minister is not present in the chamber. I presume he will want to reply to the hon. member. Therefore I will leave the matter open until the minister is again in the House, to give him the opportunity, if he wishes, to reply. The matter will be left open for the time being.
December 1, 1980


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacKAY-BARRICADES ERECTED OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker,
I rise on a point of order, or a point of information. As Your Honour is well aware, the matter of barricades was dealt with today in motions under Standing Order 43, and again in the question period. I think this is a matter of some disquiet to members.
Having looked very briefly through the fifth edition of Beauchesne, 1 wonder whether the Chair would take under advisement as a point of information the circumstances under which barriers or barricades are placed around the House of Commons, and clarify for the benefit of myself and others whether our security people should have the exclusive jurisdiction. 1 understand that, pursuant to rule 105, so far as the Centre Block is concerned there is no question whatsoever that the protective staff of both the Senate and the House of Commons, who are parliamentary employees, have sole and exclusive jurisdiction. Once outside this building, however, security and control of access are more directly under the control of the executive branch of the government.
1 am curious, and other members are as well, about the extent of the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the government on a matter as sensitive as this, as has been demonstrated today. I wonder whether the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has the proper jurisdiction to arrange on short notice to have these barricades taken down, or put up in the first instance, and to what extent Your Honour has the right to be consulted or not to be consulted in matters of this kind.


Madam Speaker:: 1 think I can reply to the hon. member. There may be other questions to which I may not be able to give answers. Protection and security inside the House of Commons are, of course, the responsibility of the Speaker of the House. Outside the premises the responsibility is that of the Solicitor General. 1 have to assume it was under his responsibility that the barricades were erected outside the Parliament Buildings and under his responsibility that they have been removed, if they have been removed. I have not been out there to see.
There is a clear division of responsibility. I assume it must flow from the kind of competence that is required to ensure protection and security inside the building as to what might be required outside the building. 1 do not know at what point this clear division of responsibility has been established. I can look into that. However, it is quite clear that the responsibility is so divided.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,584, 1,585, 1,631 and 1,640.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Did more than 200 prisoners at the Dorchester Penitentiary, New Brunswick, in the month of August 1980, take part in a 24-hour fast?
2.	Was there a major disturbance by sixty prisoners?
3.	Did two convicted murderers escape from the penitentiary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: 1. Yes, on August 10, 1980, 265 inmates refused to eat lunch and 28 refused their supper in observance of the National Prison Justice Day.
2.	There were no major disturbances involving 60 inmates. However, there was a sit-in in the exercise yard involving 157 inmates. This incident occurred August 20, 1980.
3.	Yes, the escape took place on August 24, 1980, while a disturbance involving 25 inmates in one range was taking place.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Did two convicted murderers escape from Dorchester Penitentiary, New Brunswick, in the month of July, 1980?
2.	In the same month, was there a hostage-taking incident at the penitentiary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: 1. Yes, both inmates escaped on July 11, 1980.
2. Yes, on July 28, 1980, one inmate took a shop instructor hostage.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many embassies and consular offices have staff members from the Department of (a) Industry, Trade and Commerce (b) Agriculture?
2.	How many public servants in the offices are not covered by the budget of the Department of External Affairs?

December 1, 1980
Judges Act


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. (a) There are 90 posts which have staff members from Industry, Trade and Commerce.
(b) There are four posts which have staff members from Agriculture.
2. In these posts, 235 of the public servants are not covered by the budget of the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the cost of the steel fence built by the National Harbours Board around its property at Saint John, New Brunswick, during the summer of 1980, when Local 1925 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees was engaged in a legal strike?
2.	What was the cost of hiring guards, including the cost of overtime, during the time of the legal strike?
3.	How many supervisors were brought to Saint John during the time of the legal strike and (a) where did they come from (b) what was the cost, including salaries, overtime, room and board?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. $2,509.41.
2. $6,800.
3. Eleven supervisors.
(a)	St. John's, Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver.
(b)	$65,706.35.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Are the remaining questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-34, to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[ English ]
He said: Madam Speaker, we have had in this country in the last few years a judiciary whose morale has progressively deteriorated with the passage of time, the increase in inflation, and an apparent lack of concern by governments with their economic condition. In August, 1978, a committee of the
Canadian Bar Association recommended substantial modification of the compensation package of the federally appointed judges. In November, 1978, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Compensation and Related Matters-the Dorfman committee-which was appointed by the then minister of justice to advise him on these issues, presented its recommendations. In the summer of 1979, the executive committee of the Conference of Chief Justices of Canada, followed in April of this year by the Canadian Judges Conference, made a number of suggestions on this subject.
All of these views took as their point of departure the fact that since 1975 federally appointed Superior Court judges had received salary increases which totalled 7.5 per cent.
In the same period the industrial composite, which reflects the average wages and salaries in occupational groups across the country, registered an increase of some 60 per cent. A significant erosion of the economic position of these judges is demonstrated by this simple recital of figures; their salary increases have clearly fallen far behind the rate of inflation and the consequences to the judges have been serious.
We can all think of reasons for the delay in coming to grips with the problem of judges' compensation. We know about the competition for parliamentary time, and we know about differences in priority that may be attached to the various legislative proposals presented to the Parliament of Canada for its consideration.
But there comes a time when inaction on the salaries of judges in an inflationary period begins to have profound effects, not only on the morale of those sitting on the bench but also on the attractiveness of judicial appointment to the more highly qualified lawyers whom we would like to see appointed to the bench. At some stage, subtly and slowly, no doubt, a failure to maintain judicial compensation in line to some degree with inflationary tendencies must come to affect the quality of our judiciary. I have no doubt about the correctness of that proposition, and I venture to suggest that there is a real concern about judicial compensation that underlies section 100 of the British North America Act.
That section, which deals with the provision of salaries, allowances and pensions of the federally appointed judiciary, is unique. It is the sole section of the BNA Act which casts an affirmative obligation on Parliament to enact legislation. In recent economic circumstances, this obligation serves to secure not only the independence of the judiciary, but also requires Parliament to take action to mitigate the debilitating effects on the judiciary that flow from undue delay or default in securing legislation on judicial compensation. Bill C-34 seeks to fulfil that constitutional responsibility and to improve the structure of compensation for the federally appointed judiciary. It does so in a way that is responsive to the present concerns for judicial morale and recruitment. It also makes provision for future remuneration which should avoid further difficulties flowing from the dependence of the judges on salary adjustments by statute, in a manner consistent with the principles of ministerial responsibility for financial management under our system of government.
December 1, 1980

[ Translation]
And so, Mr. Speaker, this bill is meant to grant, for each of the fiscal years 1979-80 and 1980-81, a $6,500 increase to the puisne judges of the superior courts and a $7,500 increase to the county and district judges, the difference in the increase reflecting, as recommended in the Dorfman report, the relative importance of the specific responsibilities of each of those two levels of jurisdiction. Those increases respond to the effects of inflation since 1975 and raise the salaries to a level which henceforth will serve as an adequate base for automatic adjustments in the future.
Under the bill, the salaries of the judges appointed by the federal government will be adjusted automatically from April 1, 1981, on the basis of the annual increase in the composite index of economic activities, up to a maximum of 7 per cent. This indexation is the same as the one that applies to MPs. Naturally, should the indexation factor be considered inadequate, the whole mechanism of automatic adjustment will become unsatisfactory, and once again a bill will have to be introduced later on to remedy the situation. In addition to salary indexation starting at an adequate level, the bill provides for the appointment of a commission made up of no more than five members which will be asked to examine every three years the adequacy of judicial compensation.
Since 1975, the pension plan has been another source of malaise in the federal judiciary since only the judges appointed after February 6, 1975, must contribute to their basic annuities under the provisions of the Judges Act. All judges contribute to the supplementary retirement benefits, or indexing. The date of appointment can therefore mean a substantial difference in the salary of judges sitting at the same level in the same court and hearing the same cases. Experience has shown that the system is not necessarily good. Financially, the retirement pension account of judges is not self-supportive because of the relatively short career of the contributors, and it is certainly not beneficial in terms of morale once it has been productive of real grievance on the part of a significant group of judges.
To rectify the situation, Bill C-34 provides that all judges will contribute to the pension plan at the normal rate prescribed by the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. This provision will be retroactive to the date of introduction, therefore re-establishing the salary equality of judges. The bill will also readjust the pensions granted several years ago to the surviving spouses of judges. These very modest pensions will be readjusted on the basis of the average of all pensions paid to the surviving spouses of judges.
The bill also aims at readjusting for the first time the allowances granted to judges appointed by the federal government and creating a new allowance to reimburse major representational expenses, such as the price of purchase of
Judges Act
judicial robes and the like that our necessarily incidental to the proper performance of the office of a judge.
Finally, it provides for the creation of several new judiciary positions in certain provinces and both territories to respond to the need.
I am certain that the new salary structure provided in this bill will allay the real concerns of judges that the federal government is not interested in their well-being. Some members may individually or collectively question this feeling or not share the opinion of the government concerning the economic situation of judges. Nevertheless this piece of legislation must ensure a just compensation for judges in order to reinforce the expertise and independence of this essential component of our system of government. By passing this bill we will be doing this unique duty of ours as parliamentarians. As I said, it is in this area only that the Canadian Constitution places on members of Parliament any direct obligation as far as salary and compensation are concerned.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity at long last to participate in this debate with respect to Bill C-34 which relates to the renumeration and the benefits to be paid to judges. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has pointed out, the matter has been under discussion for some considerable period of time. He rightly points out that the question of the agenda of the House of Commons is one which is in the exclusive control of the government. In other words, they are the ones who decide when matters of importance must be brought forward and the order of priority.
1 will not make any further comment with respect to the timing of the delay that has taken place with this legislation, except to point out that it is a government's prerogative to call the business on orders of the day, as we have seen on so many occasions in the past when that right has been challenged.
I want to join with the minister, as he so rightly points out, in underlining the importance of an independent judiciary in our country. An independent judiciary involves a number of considerations, one of which happens to be independence from concerns with respect to the level of renumeration. I should like to quote a statement by Sir William Holdsworth, who is known to jurists and lawyers alike, with respect to the role of judiciary and parliamentary system that we adhere to in Canada. Sir William Holdsworth said:
The judges hold an office lo which is annexed the function of guarding the supremacy of the law. It is because they are holders of an office to which the guardianship of this fundamental constitutional principle is entrusted, that the judiciary forms one of the three great divisions into which the power of the stale is divided. The judiciary has separate and autonomous powers just as truly as the King or Parliament.
The principle of the independence of the judiciary has been established in common law since the Act of Settlement of 1700 whereby, as opposed to the situation prior to that time, judges held tenure at the King's pleasure, to the point where they could only be removed for serious misbehaviour or conviction
5208

December 1, 1980
Judges Act
of a serious offence and only upon an address of the Parliament with respect to the removal of those judges.
There is no question that we are very much involved in an era of increased litigation, increased access to the courts with respect to matters of serioqs concern in our country. I need only point to the fact that we in Canada are involved in a very serious constitutional debate. One of the proposals involves the entrenchment of a charter of rights by which there will be a departure from what the situation has been up to now with respect to a matter of basic and fundamental human rights. It is going to mean that the courts will be taking on an even more important role in terms of the interpretation of the fundamental rights of Canadians.
Not only the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, but indeed every level of court federally appointed will be involved if the government's intention to proceed with this entrenched bill of rights takes place and will be involved with serious considerations of a constitutional nature. So it becomes absolutely essential that we attract to the bench members of the Bar of the highest competence and the highest capacity. As a result 1 think-there will be sympathy with the desire on the part of the government, as stated by the Minister of Justice, to make sure that there is adequate and reasonable compensation so that there will not be a significant deterrent to people of competence coming forward and offering themselves-after the appropriate solicitation, of course, by the Minister of Justice or his amanuensis-and serving on the bench.
It seems to me that we will be entering into a very different kind of judicial activity with respect to an entrenched charter of rights. 1 do not want to be drawn into that debate. I was previously denied the opportunity to participate in the debate on the constitution on the floor of the House, but let me just smuggle in an observation. There will be a greater responsibility placed upon the judiciary with respect to these questions, and the final charter of rights we bring about and entrench in our constitution will call for a significantly more important role for the judiciary generally.
As an aside, I read with interest recently a book published in the United States, written by Messrs. Woodward and Armstrong, entitled "The Brethren", which is an interesting treatise on the activities of the Supreme Court of the United States. We in politics are sometimes known by the press to have a tendency to exaggerate or occasionally to make a mistake of fact, but if one-fifteenth of what is written in that book is accurate, we can see that the whole question of the interpretation of constitutional matters by the judiciary is not clearcut or a matter of precise and distinct judicial interpretation. There are other considerations which enter into these deliberations.
If I may be permitted to say so, there is a certain amount of politicking in the courts. There is a very important consideration as to the backgrounds of judges with respect to appointments. It becomes important, when we deal with constitutional
matters, to know what is the philosophic outlook of judges. That in itself is a very important aspect with regard to the appointment of judges.
However, that is not the purpose of my intervention today. My purpose is not to discuss an entrenched bill of rights or the way we appoint judges, but I think it is relevant for us to consider that we are not going into a period when the judiciary will be any less important in terms of our country and the interpretation and supremacy of law. Indeed, from what we can see of the government's package, we might well expect a greater role to be played by the judiciary.
Amongst other things, this bill deals with an increase in the number of judges who are to be appointed to the courts of Canada and who are to be available. If I may be permitted to make a statement to the minister by way of representation, it has been my observation in the course of my conduct in private life as a lawyer and teaching at a law school that we are now faced with a higher and higher proportion of women at the Bar who are available for judicial appointments. There have been statements from the government side on a number of occasions. The actions of the government in a sense do not live up to the statement of intention made by the minister and other spokesmen on behalf of the government.
Women comprise 51 per cent of the population. We are also approaching that ratio with respect to women attending law schools and becoming members of the bar. These are women of some considerable competence. I think it is appropriate for me to say that it is time for the government to settle, in very precise manner and without the application of any quota system-which I think would be inappropriate-and to demonstrate and indicate very clearly its intention to proceed with the appointment of more women to the bench. It is my experience that the bench is woefully lacking in this regard.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would entertain a very brief question on the subject he has just raised.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: At the end of my remarks, if that is all right. I have to admit a bit of conflict. I have to leave the chamber, and I want to make sure I get my remarks on the record. After I have, if time permits, I will be glad to receive a question from the hon. member.
I want to get down to the details of the bill and to canvass some of its aspects which I think require consideration by this House, and certainly by the committee.
There are some 650-plus judges in the federal judiciary. The cost of their salaries at the present time totals some $35 million. Because of the increases proposed in this bill we can anticipate an increase in the expenditure for judges' salaries of some $4.5 million, which would bring the total expenditure up to some $39.5 million on an annual basis.
The cost of implementing the proposals brought forward by the Minister of Justice will mean that, in addition to that expenditure of an additional $4.5 million, there will be a one-shot repayment with respect to annuities, to which I want to come back
December 1, 1980

because I think that is one area of serious concern which must be expressed in this House and in committee as well. There will be a one-shot repayment under the provisions of this bill of some $3.5 million. The increase will involve $800,000 annually for this increase in judges' allowances.
The bill provides for the increases outlined by the Minister of Justice, and I think it is important for us to note that the amount being proposed by the government exceeds the amount proposed by three committees or commissions which were established to review judges' salaries. I refer to the Casgrain committee which reported to the Canadian Bar Association, the Dorfman report which was referred to by the minister and, most recently, the statements made by the judges themselves in their committee in which recommendations were made by them with respect to the amount of increase which would be appropriate.
1 think it is important for us to have full, adequate, and reasonable compensation for our judges. I do not take exception to that, but I must draw to the attention of the House, and express my concern about, the provision relating to pensions.
I might give some background of what has transpired over the course of the last few years. What is being proposed here is the abolition of any contributory element with respect to judges' pensions and benefits. We are being asked by this bill to change a situation which was brought about in 1975. At that time federally-appointed judges received, at the will of the governor in council, upon retirement pensions to which they did not contribute. Under the minister of justice at that time the government brought in amendments to the Judges Act, to supplementary benefits provisions, to ancillary provisions and to ancillary legislation whereby judges appointed after 1975 would contribute toward pensions or annuities which they would receive on retirement.
As a result, we have two classes of judges. One class is composed of those appointed before 1975, and the other is composed of those appointed since that time. Quite frankly, the expedient the government is now undertaking is that rather than having everyone on one course of action which involves a contributory pension, the government is suggesting that we revert back to the situation which obtained in 1975 by which there will be no contribution to pensions by judges except for a I per cent levy which will go toward the payment of the indexation provision.
I think it is important, therefore, that we consider this part of the bill, because what the bill purports to do for the judges and for those other officers who are affected by the Judges Act, is to put them into a unique position. 1 think it would be important for us to compare this with what is happening in other executive positions, whether it be in the public service, the armed forces, the RCMP or the House of Commons and the Senate. I just want to emphasize that in the circumstances in which we are now required to address this bill, judges will be in a somewhat different position from practically everyone else who is paid out of public funds.
Judges Act
In terms of public servants, pension benefits are accrued at the rate of 2 per cent per year of service, multiplied by the average salary in the best six consecutive years. The maximum rate of a pension is 70 per cent, which would be earned after 35 years of service. The result is that a public servant who has reached the age of 55, may retire with a 60 per cent pension if he or she has served 30 years. A public servant who has reached the age of 60, may receive a partial pension if he or she has served at least five years, with the pension rate equal to 2 per cent for each full year. That is to say, ten years equals 20 per cent of the average salary in the best six consecutive years.
Turning to the armed forces, the period of service required to retire with an immediate annuity or pension varies with rank, with less service required for enlisted men. A general, for example, may retire with a 60 per cent pension at age 55 if he has 30 years of service. An enlisted man may receive a 40 per cent pension at age 40 if he has served 20 years. Pension benefits are accrued at the rate of 2 per cent per year and are based on the average of the best six consecutive years.
In the RCMP, lower ranks may receive an unreduced pension after 25 years of service. Officers with 35 years' service may receive a pension at the age 55. Pension credits earned at the rate of 2 per cent for each year of service are based on the average of the best six consecutive years of service.
With regard to members of Parliament and senators, members earn pension benefits related to their best six consecutive years' average indemnity at the rate of 3.5 per cent in each of their first ten years. I do not know what the best six years are, whether it is in terms of their production or in terms of salary, but I assume the latter is the case. Members of Parliaments' benefits are related to 3 per cent in each of the next ten years and 2 per cent in each of the next five years. An MP serving the minimum six years would thus be entitled to a future pension of 21 per cent of his or her average indemnity. An MP serving two terms, that is eight years, would be entitled to a pension equal to 28 per cent of the average of his or her best six years.
I simply read these statistics to point out that what we are doing is putting the judges-I am not sure the judges themselves are necessarily anxious to be put in a unique and different position-in a situation which is quite different from that of anyone else in the country who is paid from public funds. 1 understand the argument that judges are, generally speaking, appointed at the height of their income earning ability, and that they tend to be usually appointed later on in their careers and therefore it is difficult for them to get into a properly funded pension plan which can be demonstrated to be actuarially sound, although I should say that judges now seem to be appointed at a younger and younger age. 1 am not saying that the government has been in power for too long, but perhaps nowadays the older Liberals are getting their reward and the younger ones are now being called upon to be judges.
Having taught at law school for a few years, I often run into former students whom I ask whether they are in their third

December I, 1980
Judges Act
year or are articling, and more likely than not the man or woman will say to me, "No, I am a Queen's Bench judge." I want to point out that they are getting somewhat younger, or perhaps I am getting older. It must be a sign of aging in me as well. I hear the chief government whip asking me if I am looking for a job. I say to him, yes, I am looking for his job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to get back to the government side and fill that most important position, of course, only after the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempiing).


Mr. Kempiing:: You can have it!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact is that I understand those arguments, but it seems to me that in terms of considering this bill and its operation, we should give serious consideration to the implications of the proposals it brings forward. A serious concern has to be expressed for the non-contributory pension scheme. Whether or not the scheme will be actuarially sound is another matter we can address. It seems that in the course of deliberations in committee we should take a look at this, and already we have received an indication from the minister, on occasions when he has appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, that he is prepared to discuss this aspect of the matter. I say to him that this is a matter which will be brought up by us at committee stage, and one to which we want to pay serious attention. We want to consider the implications of the proposals brought forward by the government.
Also dealing with the pension matter, I hope that the minister will be able to answer questions at some point in this debate or in committee on a rather curious operation of the pension provisions in this bill. I refer to the fact, under the provisions of this bill, if a judge dies, the widow's annuity is suspended upon remarriage. By definition that includes a widower. I simply raise this as a matter of interest. I have never understood why this provision exists in our pension legislation. It seems to me that if people are entitled to benefits under the provisions of any pension legislation, then their pension benefits should not be suspended on remarriage. There may be quite legitimate reasons for a widow or a widower remarrying, and this whole provision of availability of a pension seems to be a curious anomaly in the law.
What I want to say about this bill in general terms is that we have a certain difficulty with respect to matters of legislation. I know that under section 100 of the BNA Act, Parliament, to distinguish it from the cabinet and the executive, has the responsibility of dealing with the salaries, benefits, annuities or pensions of the judiciary. I understand that responsibility, and I am not suggesting for a moment that we should do anything which would tend to diminish that very important role which Parliament must play. However, it seems to me- and I want to extend a compliment to the minister in this respect-that perhaps we should look at a better system with respect to executive compensation for public service. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has commented
on this in the course of the years. We should not have to operate on an ad hoc basis in dealing with salary increases, as we do it seems. I was very pleased to see that there is at least a start in the bill before us in the provisions which allow for a compensation review committee to be established after 1983, and every three years thereafter, to make recommendations to Parliament on compensation to be paid to our judges. I think that is a good start on action which has been long overdue.
It seems that we have been dealing in a rather casual way with compensation for a segment of our society which has rendered a public service of some importance. I think my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West, will address himself, as he has in the past, to this important topic. This is possibly an opportunity for us to canvass the potential of having some mechanism by which this committee would make its recommendations directly to Parliament. There is a certain amount of support for the idea of allowing Parliament to control this entire process. The recommendations would be brought forward and enacted, unless we had something in the nature of a negative resolution brought forward in a petition by a certain nominal number of members of the House of Commons.
We want to ensure that when people are appointed to the bench they will understand and expect, without concerning themselves with the vagaries of elections and parliamentary agenda, that a reasonable and rational salary range will be considered on their behalf before Parliament. In that event they would have financial security in the performance of their very important functions. I hope we will have the opportunity to deal with that particular aspect with the minister. I hope he will be prepared to discuss some of the advice he will receive from his departmental officials, and 1 am sure we will have recommendations and suggestions of our own.
In conjunction with that, I want to raise another matter. Under the provisions of the Judges Act-and it is affected by this legislation-certain public servants are tied cheek by jowl to the increases proposed and the salary ranges suggested for judges. Of course I am referring to the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Chief Electoral Officer, and members of the tax review board by way of example. Their salaries are related to the amount awarded or passed by Parliament with respect to judges. If we will be pursuing the entire question of executive compensation, I wonder aloud whether or not that whole range of public servants should necessarily be tied to the compensations paid to judges.
When we consider the salary of a particular vocation, profession or pursuit, it is rather too simplistic to suggest that it should apply to a whole range of other positions. If there is to be a review by way of a commission, it should concentrate on what in fact judges require, or what would be fair and appropriate for the judiciary. If we look at the salary of the Chief Electoral Officer, he may require more money than the judiciary, because of the stress of that position. It may be appropriate to decide whether he requires more or less,

as

December 1, 1980

depending on the prevailing salary rate being paid to judges. But simply willy-nilly tying the salaries of these public servants who perform important functions to the salaries of the judiciary is rather an inappropriate way for us to do justice with respect to their salaries, or indeed with respect to the questions of the role and the compensation of the judiciary in the country.
I simply wanted to point out these particular observations and to express my sincere concern respecting the pension provisions of this bill. I recall an article which was written some time ago by an English humorist, Geoffrey Lincoln. He pointed out that Her Majesty's judges, as everyone knows, are a race completely apart. He referred to the fact that their salaries were in the order of $70,000 and that their pensions after retirement amounted to some two-thirds of that. To the uninformed layman, they might seem to occupy somewhat enviable positions, but as he humorously pointed out the judges are the first to point out that they are required to be at work at ten o'clock and to work through until four o'clock in the afternoon; that they have occupational hazards such as occasionally riding on public transportation, and cannot be found in enclosed places after dark. This was really said in jest, because it is an oversimplification of the great dedication of and duty performed by the judiciary, of which we can be justly proud.
Notwithstanding the fact that we have gone through periods of great crisis and serious political debate about divisions in our country, by and large the judiciary has been exemplary in its contribution to society, in its protection of the supremacy of law, and in its independent interpretation of law.
I say that judges must be independent. It is a principle in common law with which 1 find no dispute. Often it interests me, and sometimes quite frankly mystifies me, that in the course of discussions respecting constitutional matters some people feel very strongly that somehow it would be the prerogative of one level of government or another to have judicial appointments, that somehow the mere fact a federal court judge is appointed by a provincial government ensures that there will be a string attached to the judge in the course of his deliberations, and that somehow for time immemorial, or for the judge's time on the bench, his decisions will be influenced by who appointed him. I think history has demonstrated that nothing could be further from the truth. Once persons are appointed to the bench, because of their independence and their respect for common law traditions they have in fact operated in a completely independent fashion, one which is not affected by the government that appointed them. 1 compliment the judiciary from that point of view.
Having made these few remarks, I want to thank my colleagues and the minister for their attention. I hope we will have an opportunity to consider some of the points I have raised which are of serious concern to my party and me. I look forward to pursuing this matter on the floor of the House and to hearing the government response both here and in committee.
Business of the House


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the hon. member would permit a brief question. Understandably, the hon. member referred to the importance of increasing the number of women who are appointed to the federal judiciary. In light of this, 1 wonder if the hon. member could explain why, since confederation, no Conservative government in this country ever appointed a single woman to the federal judiciary, including the government of which he was a member?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I am glad to respond to that question. Of course the hon. member forgets that for the few fleeting hours we were in government it was difficult to accomplish all goals. But I can understand the hon. member's sense of sanctimony; he has now been a member of the NDP caucus for a while and the holier-than-thou attitude has been bred into him. As far as my party is concerned, we stand second to none with respect to our determination to ensure that the women of Canada, not only in appointments to the judiciary but in every respect, receive proper attention. 1 must say I appreciate the subtlety of the particular question, because it comes from a member of a party which has been known to spend more time, in the course of deliberations, on rhetoric rather than action.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, before you move to the private members' hour, there have been discussions among the parties concerning the progress of two private members' private bills sponsored by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Trade. 1 believe there is a disposition with respect to Senate Bills Nos. 13 and 14, which were reported last week, to proceed with the report stage and third reading with no debate, with the caveat that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, will be tabling some documents which have been requested by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) in the context of the committee deliberations.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That was our understanding as well. I have spoken personally to the hon. member and also to the hon. member for York-Peel. I understand that when these bills are introduced, with respect to each of these private members' bills the member will be making a statement to the House with respect to the tabling of certain documents. He may need consent to table those documents. He could have that consent today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there have been such discussions. We have agreed that a few minutes be taken for this purpose. 1 remind the parliamentary secretary that the assurance was that the whole operation would not take more than two or three minutes. My friend, the hon. member for Prince Albert, whose private member's motion is to follow, is willing to surrender those two or three minutes and no more. I trust.

December 1, 1980
Private Bills


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The House has heard the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council and the comments in pursuance of that made by hon. members representing their parties. Is it the agreement of the House that we can proceed with Bills S-13 and S-14 on all stages?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Trade)) moved: that Bill S-13, to revive Montilac Ltd. and Socam Ltd., as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Claude-André Lachance: that Bill S-13, to revive Montilac Ltd. and Socam Ltd., be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 should like to thank the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) for his kindness in allowing me some time so that we can concur in the report and give third reading to those two bills.
The hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) asked for some information when the bill was before our Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders. For technical reasons, I was unable to get them and do not have them with me today. But 1 shall be getting them sometime this week. With the consent of the House, I shall table them so that everyone in the House can acquaint themselves with them. More specifically, these are letters signed by the shareholders and by the public curator of the province of Quebec agreeing with the procedure we are following today.
1 therefore promise the House, Mr. Speaker, that the information concerned will be conveyed to the House as soon as I have received it. I shall personally inform the hon. member for York-Peel who asked me for them in committee.
1 thank the House for having agreed to proceed today without real notice, and 1 move this motion be passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the proposals made by the parliamentary secretary that certain documents related to Bill S-13 be tabled. Is there unanimous consent to the proposal?


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and myself have had discussions and what he has said to the House is substantially what my understanding was. I would like to see this bill proceed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I must apologize to the hon. member for York-Peel, as I was otherwise occupied.


Walter David Baker: He said he wants to have it proceed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Do 1 understand that we have unanimous consent to proceed? I assume that documents will be tabled in the course of the next few minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the next day or two.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Those documents will be tabled in the next day or two.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: We will deal in the same manner with Bill S-14. 1 understand from the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary that there is also a request to delay the tabling of certain documents respecting Bill S-14, and that is so indicated.


TREMUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Claude-André Lachance: that Bill S-14, an act to revive Tremus Industries Limited, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member was trying to catch your eye in order to put a similar statement on the record with respect to this bill.


Claude-André Lachance: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rose and said that it was the same thing. I simply want to repeat what I said to the hon. member who asked for similar information regarding Tremus Industries Limited. As far as that company is concerned, we have all the information. But it is now on its way from Montreal to Ottawa, and I intend to table it just as for Bill S-13. The hon. member will then have the information he
December 1, 1980

wants, and I will speak with him personally on the matter so that he may judge himself.
[English)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Given the exchange of comments, we will proceed to third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Claude-André Lachance: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of expanding the Canadian Wheat Board into a Canadian Grains Board, placing the major grains, wheat, oats, barley, rye, rapeseed, corn and soybeans under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Grains Board and under the quota system including full responsibility for the marketing of all feed grains delivered to primary elevators in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce this motion to the House today-perhaps I should say reintroduce this motion to the House today, since a similar motion has been put before this House on a number of occasions, once by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), and by other members of my party.
All parts of Canada are faced with the solving of problems which have been created by the technological age in which we live. Not the least of these problems is the marketing and distribution of grain, with which this motion deals. In the larger world picture we are faced with forecasts which indicate a doubling of the world population before the end of the century. We are faced with the growth of population where even today millions of people live in hunger.
Our capacity for food production in Canada is not functioning to the maximum. Even in Canada malnutrition and poverty continue to exist. Canada is blessed with the ability to produce much more food than is necessary for our own requirements. We have committed ourselves to the world as a net exporter of food, particularly grains. We have built out farm economy in the west on providing these grains to the rest of the world. We know the rest of the world needs them and it therefore should be providing and developing a distribution system which can offset the growing threat of world hunger.
Canadian Wheal Board
In the last year we have seen food, particularly grain, used as a political weapon. Both the official opposition, when they were in power, and the present government, bowed to the political might of the United States and agreed to an embargo on grain shipped to the Soviet Union. It is my contention, and that of many in my party, that food should never be used as a political weapon against another country. This policy was adopted by our party in a motion put forward by Alf Gleave, the former member from Saskatoon-Biggar. I am proud to support that motion. I condemn the government for waiting eight months before realizing that this embargo was hurting Canada's reputation as a grain exporter. In a food embargo, only the poor and the hungry suffer and animosity between the countries increases.
Food should be used as an instrument of peace. Canada, as a net food producer, should recognize its moral obligation to assist in feeding the world within the limits of good land husbandry. The provision of an effective marketing and distribution system will help us to fulfil that obligation.
Today's motion deals with an area of food distribution known as grain marketing. While I was growing up on a farm in northern Saskatchewan during the 1920s and the 1930s, the scourge of the farmers, particularly the small farmer, was the fact that wheat and other grains were subject to a great deal of speculation by members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. The effect of that speculation, pure and simple, was to rob the farmer.
1 can remember my father selling wheat for $1 per bushel in the fall, a time when he needed money and therefore had to sell, and it sold for $2 per bushel in the spring, when my father had no grain left to sell. This meant that my father received only $1 per bushel for his investment which was the use of his land and all his hard work. Whether or not this was enough money, the fact is my father had no alternative but to sell in the fall. Consequently, his grain went into the system at $1 per bushel. This was at a time when very little was needed for transportation and handling. Therefore, someone who provided no work, no investment, no land or any productivity of any kind took the rest of the money. In many cases these people did not even risk the loss of their own money, because they would buy on margin and would not be required to own the grain on which they made their money.
This speculation was one of the reasons for the establishment of the original Canadian Wheat Board. However, the motion before us today is not aimed particularly at speculation, but is intended to point out the need for a stable and orderly marketing system. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, Senator Argue, have come out often and loudly in support of orderly marketing. Most farmers and the New Democratic Party wholeheartedly agree with the ministers on this position. Our main concern is that it seems to be all talk and no action. There seems to be a great deal of equivocation on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. For example, the

December 1, 1980
Canadian Wheat Board
Minister of Agriculture stated specifically that he supports orderly grain marketing, but seems very hesistant to support the proposition that all feeds grains be placed back under the Canadian Wheat Board.
This motion suggests that the Canadian Wheat Board be expanded and renamed the Canadian Grains Board in order to put all grains under its jurisdiction, including oil seeds such as rapeseed and soya beans. In simple terms, this motion suggests extending the orderly marketing to all the products listed, and treating those products in the same way in which wheat, barley and oats are handled on the prairies now. At present, the Canadian Wheat Board is the sole marketing agent for prairie wheat, oats and barley sold for export or for domestic industrial use. This motion would extend the power of the Wheat Board to allow for orderly marketing of all the grains listed and for the return of domestic feed to the Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board grew from the history of prairie grain marketing. The men who developed the idea of a central marketing system were pioneers of this country. They came to the prairies from all parts of Europe, eastern Canada and the United States, to own land and to achieve their dreams. The prairies are a harsh teacher. The farmers watched their crops being ruined by grasshoppers, drought, disease or hail. After washing off the dust of the drought of the 1930s, they took what little grain they had to market and sold it for a price of 25 cents a bushel.
Being strong and determined people these farmers were provoked into action. The first agrarian movement had the goal of greater regulation and supervision of the grain companies and the major railways. When this failed, the agrarian movement turned to a central marketing system as the answer. Farmers had experienced the board of grain supervisors in 1917 and 1918 as a wartime measure. They had also experienced the effect of the first Canadian Wheat Board in the years 1919 and 1920. So it was that during the early 1930s, the depression, when the grain industry was tottering, farmers pressed the government for a central marketing system. The administration of the Conservative Prime Minister, R. B. Bennett, from 1930 to 1935 saw the depression worsen, the provincial wheat pool stumble, and their central selling agencies collapse before they were finally convinced of the need for a Canadian Wheat Board.
The establishment of the Canadian Wheat Board in 1935, just prior to Bennett's defeat at the polls, was a surprising legacy left to the grain industry by this Prime Minister, since he spent most of his term in office proclaiming that the open market system would solve all the problems. Mr. Bennett's proposals which received first reading in June, 1935, provided for a compulsory marketing agency, which would take delivery of all grains. During the committee meeting chaired by Mr. Bennett, the legislation was changed to become a voluntary agency, and, surprisingly-or perhaps it is not so surprising- the Liberal opposition under William Lyon Mackenzie King took most of the credit for the bill.
The compulsory factors of the board did not come into being until 1933 for wheat and 1949 for barley and oats. The basic
mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board fits as well today as it did in 1935. It was to provide grain farmers with a more orderly marketing system, to assure them the best return possible for their grain under changing marketing conditions, and to provide the maximum degree of price stability to producers. The motion before us today suggests extending this mandate to more producers.
The Canadian Wheat Board fulfils this mandate through three main operations. It controls grain marketing through a central agency, the delivery of grain to the customers and through a price pooling system it achieves price stability. This mandate implies some kind of supply management which the Wheat Board has evolved over the years as the quota system.
During this past year there have been a couple of situations arise which point out the fact that the position suggested in this motion is acceptable to most farmers and the fact that an open or free market, as it is sometimes called, is causing problems in our market today. Last year's situation also pointed out that lack of an orderly marketing system for all grains is costing the farmers a considerable amount of money. It is causing a number of transportation difficulties because of movement of off-board grains. There are other irregularities which have developed regarding the resale of western barley.
On October 21, 1980, the advisory committees to the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Livestock Wheat Board agreed that, given suitable conditions, the federal government should return control of domestic feed grain marketing to the Canadian Wheat Board by next July I. This is a rather historical agreement because it is an agreement between the producers and the consumers of feed grain.
In an article printed in The Western Producer, Mr. Charles Munro of Embro, Ontario, a member of the CLFB, is reported as saying:
Members arc not very happy with the activity of the trade-there was a lot of support for the Wheat Board system.
Mr. Munro said that the Canadian Livestock Feed Board committee was disturbed at the way the open market had been operating recently with traders buying grain.
Between 1976 and 1979 off-board grain sold in Canada cost farmers $142 million. This money could have been in the farmers' pockets. The figures indicate that farmers had average losses over the last three years of 49 cents per bushel for feed wheat; 16 cents per bushel for oats; and 36 cents per bushel for barley, all because farmers did not sell through the board. There were many transportation problems because of off-board sales.
In an editorial, we find the following:
Al a time when the whole grain transportation industry has been working toward greater efficiency some of the most difficult transport tie-ups have stemmed from these policies.
A classic example occurred just over a year ago when an oversupply of barley resulted in producers seeking to unload it by moving large numbers of producer cars into the system. The extra cars clogged trackage and terminal space needed for other purposes.
December 1, 1980

The movement of rapeseed, which is an off-board grain, also caused a number of problems. In The Western Producer, for September 18, 1980, we find the following comment:
Unpriced rapeseed has been a serious problem for the Alberta Wheat Pool, according to Ted Ball, director of operations. Ball says during the middle of August, AWP's Pacific Terminal was so full of unpriced rapeseed administered by grain dealers that the Pool was having trouble taking delivery of enough of its own rapeseed to fill its sales program.
The Pool was forced to obtain rapeseed from other grain companies to fill commitments-
That same rapeseed also caused a lot of trouble in the futures market because the futures market did not work. The cash price for rapeseed is considerably lower than the futures price. However, I will not go into that aspect today.
Because the Wheat Board is forced to sell barley to fulfil eastern feed orders at a corn competitive price, we are concerned the price of barley may become so high that it will be profitable for Ontario traders to buy barley from the west and resell it at an export price. Again there has been considerable loss because of that factor.
I started my comments with a global look at food needs and our responsibility in fulfilling those needs. The type of orderly market suggested for grain by this motion would allow the farmers of Canada to fulfil those needs efficiently, as far as grain is concerned, without themselves or consumers being exploited by speculators or by multinational corporations.
This motion touches only the grain area. We need the same kind of orderly market in all farm commodity areas. This government has expressed support for that movement. Indeed, it has established effective and successful marketing boards in many areas. Let us hope the government will help to extend that direction by passing this motion and getting on with the job in other areas as well.


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) is most concerned about this issue raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and he asked me to outline some thoughts on this motion. The hon. member for St. Boniface wanted to be here, but his responsibilities on the constitutional committee have prevented him from doing so.
It is likely that the reason we have both the board and open market systems operating side by side in Canada today is because of the advantages either system offers in particular marketing situations.
When it is suggested that all the major grains in Canada should be placed under a single marketing board and under the delivery quota system, I think we should take a careful look at the marketing system for each grain in deciding whether it could be better handled by a marketing board or whether it would fare better on the open market. In each case we need to examine the applicable federal and provincial legislation. More important, we need to ascertain the views of producers of each grain on whether they wish to have the sale of their crop transferred from one marketing system to another.
Canadian Wheat Board
1 recognize in this motion a fine tribute to the objectives of the particular farm organizations which have been advocating the universal adoption of the board marketing system, to the exclusion of the open market, for the past 60 years. It is also a tribute to the operating performance of the Canadian Wheat Board since 1935. Yet, there are many who believe that the well-intended pursuit of that objective to the complete destruction of the open market could lead to unexpected and unwelcome results, which may be unacceptable to the affected producers themselves.
For example, problems could arise in placing crops such as corn and soybeans under the jurisdiction of a conglomerate grain marketing board whose constitutional authority for marketing grain is limited to interprovincial and export trade which may not apply to corn and soybeans at all.
Having made the point that different circumstances surround the marketing of each grain, which the mover of this motion would like to assign to a single marketing board, I shall now review the experience the Canadian Wheat Board has had with the marketing of oats and barley since 1949 and the practical lessons learned when you try to handle different crops having distinctly different market outlets within the supervision of one board.
The federal government has had very serious misgivings concerning problems which would face the Canadian Wheat Board if it were the sole marketing agency for western oats and barley, as western producers and eastern feeders evidently wanted. The doubts over its practicability were well expressed by the Hon. C. D. Howe, who introduced an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act on February 27, 1948, to provide for the board marketing of oats and barley.
Because his statement so clearly contrasted the market situations for wheat and the major coarse grains, and underscored the need for complementary provincial legislation, all of which is relevant to the motion we now have before us, 1 would like to place part of Mr. Howe's statement on the record again, and I quote from pages 1677-78 of the House of Commons Debates in 1948:
The fourth amendment proposes to empower the governor in council by regulation to extend to oats and barley the regulations now applicable to wheat. Strong representations favouring the marketing of oats and barley through the Wheat Board have been received from farm organizations in this regard, provided a workable plan can be agreed upon. However, the government is well aware that the compulsory marketing of oats and barley through the board represents serious difficulties. The success of such an enterprise must be dependent on a large measure of agreement on policy matters as between organized farmers of both the producer and the consumer class, as well as on the co-operation of provincial governments. Therefore, this government will wish to have concrete evidence of such agreement and such co-operation before it can assume the responsibility for putting this amendment into effect.
He goes on to illustrate some of the difficulties he sees, such as the fact that oats and barley are primarily feed crops, most of which do not even leave the farm. He concluded:
The government is prepared to take whatever steps lie within its power to assist in establishing marketing arrangements that will help to maintain ceononv ic and stable prices for Canadian agricultural products. The government must.

December 1, 1980
Canadian Wheat Board
however, be satisfied that any given scheme for this purpose is a practical one, a constitutional one, a workable one and one that will command the support of the interested groups concerned. Until it is satisfied that these conditions have been met, the government will not be prepared to undertake the marketing of oats and barley through the Wheat Board.
After Mr. Howe's amending bill received royal assent, Premier T. C. Douglas promptly introduced a coarse grain marketing control bill in the Saskatchewan legislature. Its substantive provisions were very simple. Section 4(1) provided that "No producer shall sell . . . grain ... for delivery within the province to any person other than the Canadian Wheat Board", and section 4(2) excluded farm to farm transactions for feeding purposes from the provisions of the bill. Thus, all farm to farm sales, even if trucked at a considerable distance within the province remained outside the control of the board. The Saskatchewan coarse grain marketing control act received royal assent on March 25, 1948, but the Alberta and Manitoba governments did not act so quickly.
On March 16, 1948, Premier Stuart Garson of Manitoba wrote to Mr. Howe. He took note of the fact that ever since 1943 the Canadian Wheat Board has been an agency of the Crown, and that as such the federal government had the power to direct its pricing policies in contravention of the board's acting as an agent of producers and selling to their best advantage, and he raised the following pertinent questions.
Is the Wheat Board to be the agent of the producer of oats and barley charged with the responsibility of securing the best price possible in all available outlets, or is the board to be the agency of the government, buying oats and barley at a price set by the government for reasons not necessarily related to, and even incompatible with, the securing of the best price? Is the price to be set, for example, at a certain level to keep down the cost of living in Canada or to provide livestock raisers with feed at a reasonable figure? In this latter case if the Wheat Board fixes a price for oats and barley below what those commodities can be sold for, will the resulting loss be left with the producer of oats and barley, or will this loss be paid by the whole Canadian people? To put it in another way, will it be the policy of the Wheat Board in handling oats and barley to hold down the price to the buyer by open or hidden subsidies? If so, who will pay the subsidies-the producer of oats and barley, or the federal government representing the whole body of the Canadian people?
Mr. Howe made no attempt to answer these questions in detail, but simply repeated his position that the federal oats and barley amendment would not be proclaimed until all three prairie provinces enacted complementary legislation. In the spring of 1949, both the Manitoba and Alberta legislatures passed coarse grains marketing control acts which were drafted in the same form as the Saskatchewan act. With the enactment of the complementary legislation, the federal government's commitment to proclaim its act had been met, and the Wheat Board was instructed to take over the marketing responsibility for oats and barley commencing August 1, 1949.
Before doing so, the board's criterion for its sales policy still had to be established. It had been placed in the middle, along with the federal government, of the conflict over prices between, on the one hand, farmers producing and selling their grain as a cash crop to consumers and, on the other, those whose customers are farmers themselves, buying grains to convert into livestock products. This conflict of interest over the pricing of oats and barley between farm producers and farm consumers has continued from 1949 to today.
When the Canadian Federation of Agriculture recruited equal support among its eastern and western members in 1948 for placing the marketing of oats and barley under the Wheat Board, it admitted that it would have difficulty in recommending to government the price that the Wheat Board should fix for these grains, one which would be fair and reasonable to producers and consumers alike. Nevertheless, it undertook to make such a recommendation and, had the federal government taken the federation at its word, the federation would have been saddled with the same conflict of interest between domestic farm producers on the one hand, and domestic farm consumers on the other, with which the federal government and the Wheat Board have been saddled ever since.
Mr. Howe and his Wheat Board faced this issue first as the latter took over the monopoly marketing of oats and barley in 1949. Because they were not prepared to depend upon price recommendations to be forthcoming from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, they decided to abide by the mandate provided by the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935, to sell to the western producers' best advantage, although this was not what the eastern feeders sought to obtain by supporting board marketing of oats and barley.
At the same time, the Wheat Board encouraged the Winnipeg Grain Exchange to keep its futures markets for oats and barley open, and the board confined its selling operations to offering both grains for sale in the oats and barley futures markets. Thus, for a number of years, the board continued to use the facilities which the open market system had been providing. It was a somewhat contrived situation at best, because the board now became the dominant seller in these futures markets. Yet the prices those markets registered could be pointed to as an indicator of the prices at which it was fair and reasonable for the board to sell.
After a while, all sorts of problems began to develop in the marketing of oats and barley. As surpluses accumulated in the west, the board was forced to restrict the delivery of oats and barley to primary elevators which had become congested. This it did through the delivery quota system administered by the board.
When western producers found themselves cut off from sales through the elevator system to the Canadian Wheat Board, they turned to the only other market available to them, namely, farm to farm transactions or the off-board market which was exempted from the complementary provincial marketing legislation, and over which the board had no control.
These off-board sales could be carried to considerable lengths by long distance trucking within each province which was perfectly legal under the provincial legislation, or across provincial boundaries, though this contravened the regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board which had jurisdiction over
December 1, 1980

interprovincia! trade. With the expansion of this off-board market, a two-price system for oats and barley developed, one at board prices for the restricted delivery to elevators, and another at a much lower price for off-board sales. Not only were western producers discontented, but their eastern customers became incensed because they had no access to the low-priced off-board grains, and had to pay the higher board prices for grain moving through interprovincial trade.
Hon. members who were here in those days will recall the hearings which took place in the House committee on agriculture which led to the recommendation adopted by the government in 1974 to remove from the Wheat Board the sole responsibility for the domestic marketing of the feed grades of wheat, oats and barley. Commencing on August 1, 1974, western producers were given the option of selling their feed grades of these grains either on the open market or through the facilities of the Wheat Board. Thus, from that time a substantial portion of the sales of the feed grades of western grain have reverted to the open market.
One further episode in the Wheat Board's experience in handling oats and barley should also be recorded. This hit at the core of the Wheat Board's legislative responsibility to sell producers' grain to the best advantage. Occasions arose in the 1970s when barley could be sold for higher prices overseas than in competition with imported feeds in eastern Canada. The board's parliamentary directive required it to sell in the producers' interests in the most attractive market. But this meant the shorting of supplies of western feed in the eastern market, and the irregularity of supply could threaten the future competitive position of western grains in that market.
In that situation, the government and the board recognized that western producers' longer-term interests warranted the retention of a continuous supply to eastern Canadian feeders at the expense of sacrificing short-term price gains to the western producers. In consequence, the Wheat Board undertook to furnish the eastern Canadian market on a continuous basis in accordance with a pricing formula which related the domestic prices for western oats and barley to the prices eastern feeders were paying for corn imported from the United States. There is an adjustment for protein from soybeans. American corn and soybean prices are, of course, determined by the Chicago futures market.
In conclusion, in the account I have given, I have described the extent to which the marketing of western oats and barley differs from the marketing of western wheat, and the way in which any government is caught in the middle in trying to arbitrate the price governing transactions between one set of domestic producers and another. I have shown that no board system is in complete control over all transactions in feed grains and that a two-price system can develop between board and off-board grains when farm to farm sales take place within each province.
I wonder, therefore, if the sponsor of this motion would like to see feed grades of western wheat, oats and barley sold to Canadian feeders in the east and the west at different price levels, either through the board or through farm to farm
Canadian Wheat Board
transactions. It would be a backward step if Canadian feeders did not have access to the same price. I also wonder about the extent of actual producer support for such action.
Last, I would like to know what price directive he would be prepared to give to the board-whether to sell to western producers' best advantage at all times, thereby shorting at times the domestic market, or whether he is satisfied that western feed grains should be continuously offered to eastern markets at prices related to the Chicago open market prices for corn.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks in this private members' hour and try to put on the record, at least briefly, the position of the western livestock feeding industry. I am thinking primarily of my own province of Alberta, I suppose, but my remarks certainly include the feeding industry in Saskatchewan and Manitoba- and that is an enormous feeding industry. It has become vastly important, much more important than it used to be. For example, in Alberta, wheat is no longer the big crop; it has not been so for a good many years. The big crop is feed barley. Sometimes we can raise anywhere from 500 million to as much as 700 million bushels of barley every year in the province, an enormous crop. That situation is going to continue. After the very severe indication of drought for the first two to three months of this year's growth season, when the rains finally came back it was barley with its growth season, that came back and won the day for the grain producers in Alberta. There was a very substantial crop of barley in spite of conditions during that crop year.
Where is the principal market in the west for feed grains? The big market, in spite of the headlines that are made about the export of feed grains and especially barley to foreign markets, is right at home. That is the big market and we should never forget it. It is either on the same farm as the barley is produced on or on the farm next door or at the feed lots which are so well established in western Canada. The sales through the private grain market, through the open market for feed grains, satisfy that market which is by far the most important market there is.
I know that the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) is very sincere in his motion. He is a very sincere man. I respect his sincerity and his initiative in promoting this market, but I say to this House and to all western Canadians who are concerned about this subject, that there is no way the feeding industry could ever operate with a proposal such as he has put forward in this private members' hour. We must have an open market for our domestic feed grains in western Canada. Let there be no doubt about that. The importance of the feeding industry itself in western Canada should certainly be justification for that statement and I mean this most sincerely. I want to mention that this is only part of an ongoing debate that we are hopefully going to see more of in the balance of this session of the Thirty-second Parliament. I am sure it will not surprise members to know that I am referring to the combined Crows-nest Pass freight rate issue and the domestic feed grain pricing

December 1, 1980
Canadian Wheat Board
policy. Those two issues are as important to western agricultural people in total, that is, the grain producers and the livestock industry, and as important to the whole of western Canada in their own way as some of those other issues that we think are so important to all of Canada-1 am referring to the constitutional issue and even the energy issue. That is the importance that I attach to this double-barrelled controversial issue of domestic feed grain prices plus the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has been making public statements-and 1 think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has done the same-to indicate that it is his wish to bring to a head in some way this public debate that has been going on now for quite a number of years in western Canada, and very seriously over the last two years, and bring it to the floor of the House of Commons. It remains to be seen, of course, what form it will take. There is a suggestion that it could take the form of a commission that would, shall we say, publicize the suggested policy and ask for input from all concerned. We will take it from there and probably see the government bring in an appropriate piece of legislation. This is not going to happen overnight, of course. It is going to take several years. After all, the problem has been with us now for four generations.
1 know my friend from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is not happy with what 1 am saying, but 1 hope he at least recognizes that 1 have a personal interest in this and I am very sincere about it.


Mr. Benjamin:: I am just trying to get you to change your mind.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: It is a litle late, that is all I can say.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is never too late.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I want to say that we just cannot possibly envisage the whole grain system in the prairies of western Canada operating without free access to an open feed grains market.
On a related matter I want to draw the attention of this House-this is the first time I have been able to do so although 1 have raised the matter in the Standing Committee on Agriculture-to what has been termed a joint press release from advisory committees dated at Ottawa, October 23, 1980. It is on the stationery of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, and I will read briefly from it. This is a statement which followed a joint meeting here in Ottaw'a at about the time of this release, October 23. No doubt it was a day or two earlier. The two groups which were meeting were the Canadian Livestock Feed Board advisory committee, which is a board appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, and the advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board, an elected board which is now a very important part of our western grain economy. Those two boards got together here in Ottawa and put out a release which referred three or four times to a unanimous agreement reached by the two boards. They key one is at the bottom of the fist page, and I will read it into the record as follows:
Both committees unanimously rejected any system whereby the supply of domestic feed grains would be totally within the domain of the private trade. It was fell that such a system would be detrimental to the interests of both grain and livestock producers throughout Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: It is utter rubbish to suggest that those two boards could sit down together and issue a statement saying that they were unanimous. I do not know how the circumstances came about, but immediately afterwards at least four of the members of the advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board denied very vehemently that there was any substance to this. Two of them are from Manitoba and two are from Alberta, and they were elected representatives. They put out their own statement about it immediately afterward.
At that particular meeting of the two boards two ministers were reported to have been involved in at least part of their deliberations. Those ministers were the Minister of Agriculture and the minister of state responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Some of us in the Standing Committee on Agriculture did have an opportunity to question the Minister of Agriculture about his involvement.
The issue was raised by three or four of us from this side of the House. The minister denied that he had any specific input into the preparation of this joint press release. He did so rather vigorously, and I would say that those from our side pressed our point equally as vigourously. In the end the minister went on record-when the minutes are finally printed we will find this reference-as saying that the only thing he was dead sure of was that he was for orderly marketing. He repeated that several times. 1 am saying, I suppose rather tactfully, that the minister was somewhat embarrassed. The Minister of Agriculture was somewhat embarrassed to be involved in a statement on government stationery belonging to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
I do not propose to speak much longer, but 1 want to place on the record the importance of the feeding industry in western Canada. I refer to feed for both cattle and hogs. If I may digress for a moment, I would like to say something about our hog industry, especially in Alberta. It was not too many years ago when the hog industry in Alberta was the largest in Canada by province. We had the largest hog population, and it was a thriving industry.
Then when the higher price for barley and the surplus grain era came along, that hog industry rather suddenly diminished, and at first glance it appeared that it was taken over by the province of Quebec. There is reason for assuming that things happened that way, but in reality we in western Canada lost our large hog industry, especially in Alberta, not to Quebec but to the corn belt in the United States, simply because hogs could be produced cheaper there than here, and there is a better climate there. Of course, we have always known that.
While this was going on, the provincial government of Quebec introduced a rich subsidy program to encourage hog production and feeding in that province. This eventually paid off to the extent that either in the current year almost ending, or next year the largest hog producer in Canada will, 1 am
December 1, 1980

sure, be the province of Quebec. This is essentially because of the subsidy program.
The basic reason hogs were a casualty in the west was the unsatisfactory pricing system for domestic feed grains. That is why, when this great debate moves into Parliament, we have to address ourselves to it so completely. Surely the farmers themselves, both the producers of feed grains and their customers, cattle feeders and hog feeders, must make the decision themselves.
They are prepared to do that now after many, many years of discussion especially of the Crowsnest Pass freight rate and to a lesser degree the domestic feed grain pricing policy, both being hush-hush types of topics. They had never been raised seriously at annual meetings, but that situation has ended. These subjects are now out in the open They are no longer taboo. We will see them raised here, and rightly so. However, when they are here, let us put on our non-partisan hats. Many members of Parliament will be involved. There are many farmers in western Canada who do not completely understand what is behind the Crowsnest Pass freight rate and what it does to the total agricultural economy and the total Canadian economy. There are many who do not understand, including farmers. That will be the case in this House, and when that situation arises, I will ask hon. members to be patient and to try to learn, understand and give the debate a chance to develop properly. I am sure it will eventually develop all across Canada. Hopefully at some time the committee will travel across Canada either to put a policy to livestock producers and grain growers or to ask their advice preliminary to a policy being established by the government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We have done that a dozen times, Bert. Hon. members opposite do not have the guts to do anything. We have had a dozen hearings and heard a dozen submissions.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: In response to my hon. friend, who at one time helped me ship cattle in Walsh, I will say that they will have an opportunity. The government of the day will have an opportunity to face up to this great question. In the meantime I say to hon. members very sincerely that this is not the time to abolish the open market for domestic feed grains.


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in a review of the actual marketing circumstances for each of the major grains enumerated in motion No. 12 1 would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the different circumstances and conditions which affect the marketing of each grain. The only valid conclusion that can be drawn is that the board marketing system has already been adopted wherever it has appeared to be in the best interests of producers to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired, and I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.
Judges Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-34, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise this evening to say a few words about a very important bill before the House, that is, Bill C-34 to amend the Judges Act. Hon. members will know that the last time there was a serious debate about the Judges Act was in 1975. They will also know that this bill was introduced, received first reading on June 12, 1980, and that members of the judiciary have expressed considerable concern at the delays which it has encountered in receiving second reading.
As the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) pointed out it is, of course, the responsibility of the government to establish the legislative timetable, and certainly the delay in the tabling of this bill for second reading is one for which we bear no responsibility. We are as concerned as are members of the judiciary that this matter should receive serious study.
Under section 92(14) of the British North America Act, the provinces have jurisdiction over the administration of justice itself. We know that from time to time concerns have been expressed about the inadequacy of the resources which some provinces have allocated to the administration of justice at the provincial level-that they have not been prepared to give this important area the kind of priority that it deserves in Canadian society, with the result that the justice system, both criminal and civil, has suffered. We on this side of the House certainly hope that all provinces will take seriously their responsibility to provide adequate resources in the area of the administration of justice.
But Parliament itself has serious responsibilities toward the federal judiciary. Those responsibilities are established in the terms of the British North America Act, primarly in section 96 which deals with the appointment and supervision of judges, in certain sections which deal with the removal of judges, although fortunately their application has not been necessary in Canada, and in section 100 which sets the terms of compensation and pensions for the federal judiciary. These are serious responsibilities which no member of the House takes lightly. Similarly, it is very important there be no suggestion that these responsibilities under the British North America Act should in some way be foisted off on some special advisory board or on the governor in council without there

December 1, 1980
Judges Act
being full responsibility of Parliament at least at the final stages. We have no objections to an independent advisory board considering the concerns expressed by the judiciary on compensation and pensions, but ultimately Parliament must take its responsibilities. We will strenuously oppose any suggestion that the cabinet or the governor in council should have sole responsibility for implementing changes to the compensation of the federal judiciary.
We have been fortunate in Canada in having outstanding judiciary. I have only had the privilege of practising for a short time in British Columbia as a member of the Bar, but 1 stand here and say with pride that we in British Columbia-and I am sure this would be the case in the rest of Canada-have an outstanding judiciary, one of which all members of the bar are very proud. The chief justices of the Supreme Court and the chief justices of British Columbia are men who have very fine records as practitioners. As I say, certainly we are proud of the judiciary in the province of British Columbia, and indeed 1 know that other members speak with equal pride about the record of the judiciary throughout the country.
The judiciary plays a very important role in Canadian society, a role which is sometimes not given the recognition it should receive. As we know the federal judiciary-and I am speaking now only of the federal judiciary-handles a wide range of issues which concern Canadians including both criminal and civil matters. The federal courts handle matters such as the Income Tax Act, immigration questions and the supervision of various federal tribunals; that particular level of the judiciary is perhaps one of the least understood, yet one of the most important in Canadian society. As we know, Parliament has responsibility for supervising to some extent the compensation levels of judge and appointments to the Federal Court of Canada and ultimately to the pinnacle of our judicial system, the Supreme Court of Canada.
Many Canadian citizens do not appreciate the difficulties involved in being a member of the judiciary. It is important that Canadians respect and understand the vital role which members of the judiciary play in Canadian society. For example, one need only imagine the difficulty involved in properly charging the jury in a complex criminal case, covering every aspect of the charge carefully knowing that every word will be scrutinized by a court of appeal if the decision is appealed. Also one can imagine the great burden which is placed on a judge in considering the difficult and often vexing question of sentencing.
1 should like to say a word or two about the whole area of sentencing because it is one of the most important obligations and responsibilities of our federal judiciary. When we talk about sentencing in the criminal justice system, it is fair to say it is absolutely essential that our federal judiciary should have a clear understanding and knowledge of exactly what is involved in the sentences they are imposing. Too many members of the federal judiciary, and indeed of the provincial judiciary, have an inadequate concept of the prison system of the country. I suggest it is incumbent upon any judges in the country whose task includes sentencing convicted criminals, to
have the obligation and responsibility to observe at first hand conditions in the Canadian penal system so as to be more aware of the kind of justice they are dispensing, in order to be more aware of the failure, in many respects, of the Canadian prison system, in order that hopefully, in considering appropriate sentences, they might look very carefully at alternatives to imprisonment wherever such alternatives are feasible. Certainly we will welcome the proposals which the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) has promised for some time designed to make the opportunities for alternatives within the criminal sentencing system more appropriate. Those opportunities are presently lacking, but within the present sentencing system I think it is fair to say that our judiciary has not shown the kind of flexibility it should have shown. They must turn so readily to imprisonment but, in appropriate cases, they must consider alternatives such as restitution, the concept of community service, and the concept of fines geared to ability to pay.
Also, our judiciary must look at the concept of fairness in sentencing. I should like to give one example which was raised recently of inequity in sentencing. I know that our judiciary has by and large attempted to apply an even hand in the very difficult process of sentencing, but unfortunately when there are instances such as the one I am about to relate, it tends to bring the entire federal judiciary and its sentencing process into question. I should like to compare the sentencing process in the case of the late Clarence Campbell, on the one hand, and on the other hand, in the case of Jean-Claude Parrot. I quote from a column by Allan Fotheringham who dealt with this question. In the introduction to the comparison of these two cases, he said:
White-collar crime still pays. If you're going to break the law, for heaven's sake wear your best suit (not to mention your best lawyer) to court. The jails are full of grubby little men who do stupid things. They seldom are overflowing with those who do extremely clever, illegal things. Fiddling with large amounts of money is one thing, but if you really want to stay out of trouble, don't get caught stealing hubcaps.
The column in question went on to point out that Clarence Campbell was found guilty in February of a very serious offence involving an attempt to bribe a member of the other place, a member of the Senate, in return for assistance on a government contract. The trial judge at that time said that this was an affront to the fundamental values of Canadian society which must be denounced in strong terms. Well, what were those strong terms? Mr. Campbell received a token one day in jail and a $25,000 fine. In fact, he served some five hours in jail and the NHL had already raised over $50,000 to assist him with his legal fees.
In contrast, we have the case of Jean-Claude Parrot, leader of the CIJPW who led a legal strike of postal workers which started on October 16, 1978. Three days later Parliament passed back-to-work legislation and Parrot, on October 25, sent his people back to work. He and four of his fellow officers were charged under section 115 of the Criminal Code for defying an act of Parliament. The maximum penalty is two years.
December 1, 1980


Mr. Breau:: He did not defy the law.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Keeping in mind the one-day sentence imposed on Clarence Campbell, what was the penalty the trial judge imposed on Jean-Claude Parrot, a man that Chief Justice Gregory Evans of the Ontario Supreme Court called an honest and dedicated man? He was given a sentence of three months in prison. Contrast that with one day to Clarence Campbell for attempting to bribe a Liberal Senator. The hon. member in the Liberal benches opposite suggests there was not a violation of the law. If it is not a violation of the law to attempt to bribe a member of the Senate to obtain a favour, I do not know what a violation of the law is.
It is important that the public see clearly there is equity and fairness in the sentencing system in this country. Cases such as the one I have outlined, unfortunately, do not enhance that impression.
The law and our judiciary must be more sensitive and more accessible to the poor and minority groups. The courts must be accessible to all citizens in this country. Recently we have seen cutbacks in legal aid programs, which mean that the old adage about there being one law for the rich and one law for the poor is, unfortunately, a reality in some cases. It must be a fundamental precept of the Canadian criminal justice system that no man or woman in this society should be denied justice, denied their day in court, because they do not have enough money to pay for a lawyer.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Judges Act and about the role of Parliament in dealing with the federal judiciary. We know that as a result of the proposals by the government- proposals with respect to an entrenched charter of rights which we support-the role of the courts will be substantially enhanced. We welcome the principle of an entrenched charter of rights, a charter which says no Parliament and, indeed, no provincial legislature at any given time, can through a transient majority, take away fundamental rights which many Canadians thought they had yet which could be swept away at a moment's notice, as we have seen in this country on too many occasions. We saw it in 1970 with the proclamation of the War Measures Act; we saw it in 1942, and following that the scandalous treatment of Canadians of Japanese origin who were interned and whose property was confiscated. To this day they have not been adequately compensated. We recognize and we support the increased role of the judiciary. In interpreting a charter of the fundamental rights of all Canadians, we recognize there are very serious flaws in the proposal which is presently being studied by the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution. We do accept, as I say, that our judiciary will have a more activist role, a broader role in interpreting this charter of rights.
For example, the very first section of the proposed charter of rights as it is now worded, is a section which is being condemned by every group which has studied it and which has appeared before the constitution committee. This means it will be up to the courts to decide what the appropriate limits are on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Judges Act
Under section 7 of the proposed charter of rights it will be up to our courts to determine what constitutes the principles of "fundamental justice", a new concept in Canadian law. If reasonable amendments are accepted, as we certainly hope the Minister of Justice will see fit do, then important decisions concerning what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure, what constitutes unreasonable denial of fair bail, will be left to the courts to decide-not just the Supreme Court of Canada but the federal judiciary at every level.
Perhaps one of the most important obligations of our federal judiciary under the proposed charter of rights will be that under section 15; to determine whether there has been a violation of the right of all Canadians, men and women, to equality before the law and to the equal protection of the law. The record of our judiciary on the interpretation of the words "equality before the law" is not one of which we can be proud. That is why we in this party will be proposing amendments which are being urged upon the committee by a number of groups and individuals make it clear that when we talk about equality before the law we are not talking about the concept which has been determined by the Supreme Court in this country to be merely one of equality in the administration of the law but, rather, about equality in the law itself. We talk about no Canadian being denied equality before the law on the basis of some unreasonable distinction. As I say, we recognize that in the interpretation of the charter of rights our judiciary will have an increased role. And we welcome the entrenchment of a charter of rights.
But I must say there is another section of the proposed charter of rights which would take away any discretion our courts should have. It is with respect to that section we hope the Minister of Justice will listen carefully to the representations which have been made by many groups. We hope he will listen to amendments which we shall be proposing. What section 26 of the proposed charter does is tie the hands of our federal judiciary and say they have no-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. member if he has anything to say about the salaries of the judges. He seems to have avoided it since he started his speech. He is dealing with the bill of rights and other matters, to which I have no objection, but I would like to know how his party stands on the pay increase and if he has any intention of voting for it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I know that members of the judiciary and others will read with great interest the eight-minute speech of the Minister of Justice. If that is all he had to say about the judicial system in this country then I think it is a rather sorry commentary on his understanding, knowledge and recognition of the importance of the judiciary in this country. I intend to take the full 40 minutes which I have been allotted. I hope the Minister of Justice will perhaps give more serious recognition later on in the course of this debate to the role of the federal judiciary and not merely talk for a few

December 1, 1980
Judges Act
minutes about the salaries and pensions. Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be dealing with those. I am sorry to hear that the federal justice minister, unlike his three immediate predecessors, said not a word about the important role of the judiciary in this country. We on this side of the House recognize that role and respect it.
I was talking about section 26. Since we recognize the importance and competence of our judiciary, 1 am urging the government to give very serious consideration to permitting a discretion in our judiciary to exclude evidence which has been obtained in a way that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Surely, if we are to have confidence in our courts and confidence in the federal judiciary, it is not good enough to say to them they must accept evidence no matter how it is obtained, whether illegally, through the use of force or duress or, the use of illegal search and seizure. It is incumbent upon the government to say, "We trust you. We trust the judiciary to exercise its discretion wisely." Indeed, they should have that discretion. We hope the government will recognize that in dealing with the charter of rights.
We recognize the fundamental and important role of an independent judiciary. There are some 657 federally-appointed judges at all levels in this country. Their job is not an easy one. 1 would like to quote from some comments made by Judge Learned Hand, the eminent American judge who, in answering the question: What makes a good judge? was quoted as saying that, in interpreting a constitutional document, a judge should:
- have at least a bowing acquaintance with Acton and Maintland, with Thyucy-dides. Gibbon and Carlyle, with Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton, with Machiavelli, Montaigne and Rabelais, with Plato, Bacon, Hume and Kant . . . For in such matters everything turns upon the spirit in which he approaches the questions before him.
The role of the federal judiciary is indeed a difficult one. The independence of the judiciary is surely the cornerstone of the Canadian justice system. We must not for a moment tolerate any threat or any incursion into that independence. I am glad to see that the days of telephoning judges by certain members of the cabinet opposite appear to have gone by. The appearance of justice is very, very important, and it is not good enough to suggest that because a certain individual has a position in society or is a cabinet member in a government he or she can pick up a telephone and talk to a judge. We reject that concept.
We say that there must be one law right across the land for all citizens and that no person, no matter how powerful, should ever have special access to judges as was outlined in the case known as the "Judges Affair", the sorry incidents of telephoning judges in our fairly recent past. We say that the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law are cornerstones of our Canadian justice system.
We await with interest the government's response to the question of the rule of law and how it will apply when there have been violations of that law by members of those who are pledged to enforce that law. We wait with interest the outcome of the McDonald commission and with even greater interest
the response of this government to the recommendations of that commission.
With regard to the importance of the judiciary, we do not deny there are certain areas which can be updated. In some respects the powers which are given to the judiciary are obsolete. For example, one of the powers of the judiciary which is surely obsolete is its power to cite contempt for what is known as "scandalizing the court". That power is obsolete. Indeed, it had not been used in Canadian society until recently when it was revived in the case of the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-I hope that he will make some contribution to this debate and give us his thoughts on the independence of the judiciary, perhaps with a particular comment on the role of the Quebec judiciary. Wc know that this power was used in the case of the editor of a New Brunswick newspaper.
The concept of contempt by scandalizing the court was described at the turn of the century by the British House of Commons as "giving an arbitrary, complete and sweeping power to the judiciary". Indeed, it was dealt with by the judicial committee of the Privy Council which said "contempt of court convictions for scandalizing the court have become obsolete" and "the courts could leave to public opinion, attacks or comments derogatory or scandalous to them". Surely, that power should be removed from the hands of our judiciary, and I am sure the judiciary itself would overwhelmingly welcome that suggestion.
There are other suggestions with respect to updating the role of the federal judiciary. It has been suggested that the descriptions "my Lord" and "my Lady", are outdated and that with equal respect members of the judiciary could be addressed as "Your Honour". There are those who suggest, and I think properly, that the scheduling of our legal calendar leaves something to be desired-that perhaps the summer recess in July and August should be looked at with the idea in mind of rotating vacations, thereby serving Canadians better in the administration of justice.
There are other areas-


Walter David Baker: How about air conditioning in the courts?


Svend Johannes Robinson: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has quite properly pointed out that Ontario courts in many cases are not air conditioned. Naturally, the administration of justice is the responsibility of the Conservative provincial government, and I will be pleased to make representations to that government on behalf of the hon. member. We must also look at the areas of discipline and of continuing education for our federal judiciary. We welcome the establishment of the Canadian Judicial Council in 1971. However, it is argued that there should be some public involvement in the discipline and the continuing education process of our federal judiciary. It is not good enough to have a system whereby judges judge other judges, though that indeed is the system as it now stands.

December 1, 1980

There are flaws in that system, and I need only point to the example of a recent case involving a distinguished member of the judiciary of the province of British Columbia. Certain allegations were made against that member of the judiciary and, frankly, an investigation should have been carried out. It is not enough to say that because the member of the judiciary resigned from the bench, there was no mechanism whatesoever at that point for reviewing his conduct. Surely, if in the eyes of the public there is to be confidence in our federal judiciary, there must be some way of reviewing the conduct of members of the judiciary in those very rare instances in which there are suggestions of impropriety. It should not be good enough for members of the judiciary simply to resign, thereby effectively cutting off all scrutiny.
It was noted with some interest-and I must say this because I believe it is relevant-that the judge in question had sat and, indeed, delivered judgment in a case in which the whole area of prostitution was front and centre. The issue in the case in which this particular individual rendered judgment was whether or not a customer of a prostitute could be charged under the Criminal Code. Surely, in view of the allegations against that particular member of the judiciary, there should have been a full and complete investigation.
Of course, we have a fine judiciary in this country. We have come a long way from the days when, as was suggested in one Ontario appeal court, all that was necessary was for counsel to appear before the court of appeal and to indicate that he was appealing from the judgment of Mr. Justice "X" for the court of appeal to say, "Thank you very much, Mr. Solicitor; do you have any other grounds for your appeal?" And he would get no further. Fortunately, these days are in the past.
With that brief introduction, I would like to turn now to some of the specific clauses of Bill C-34. One of the three major areas covered is provision for some 20 additional judges throughout the country. The other two provide for substantial salary increases for the federal judiciary and changes to the pension provisions. I will not comment on the provisions for an increased number of judges throughout this country, except to say that I believe it was Tommy Douglas who welcomed similar provisions in 1975 by saying that "at least with the appointment of these additional judges, there will not be as many lawyers in Canada!" I say that as a lawyer and intending no disrespect to my fellow lawyers.


Walter David Baker: You intended no humour, either!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Certainly, we have no objection to this reasonable response to the concerns of provincial attorneys general that there should be additional judges in their jurisdictions. However, in the area of appointments there are a number of aspects which could be raised. We have serious concern about the rather incestuous nature of the present consultation process with the Canadian Bar Association through a special committee which consults with the minister of justice. A member of that committee, of all men, may pick up the phone and, often on the basis of hearsay evidence, make
Judges Act
a recommendation to the minister of justice. Surely, that should not be the only vetting process for the federal judiciary, that this kind of hear-say evidence can be accepted.
We suggest that the process be broadened-that some type of independent commission be statutorily entrenched to ensure that the sweeping powers of the minister of justice in appointing judges are exercised carefully. For example, such a statute could specify that an adequate number of women be appointed to the federal judiciary. If there is one area which stands out above all others in the area of appointments, it is the abject failure of governments, both Conservative and Liberal, to appoint women as members of the federal judiciary. Not one woman has been appointed a judge by the Conservative party since confederation, although the Conservative party had an opportunity to do so in the last Parliament. No women judges have been appointed by that party in its entire history. At the moment there are 20 women who sit as federal judges. In Canada's history, 21 women have been appointed to the federal bench and 20 of the 21 women still sit on the federal bench.


Walter David Baker: How many did the NDP
appoint?


Svend Johannes Robinson: We know that the NDP appointments are coming soon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: The excuse has been there were not enough women in the legal profession, but that is no longer the case. The number of women practising law and distinguishing themselves in that practice is now much greater. I challenge the Minister of Justice to give this House a commitment that the next Supreme Court of Canada justice he appoints will be a woman. Surely that is not an unreasonable request to make. I note that the newly elected President of the United States has made a similar promise. However, I must say there are some of us on this side of the House who are sending vitamin pills to members of the United States Supreme Court, urging them to maintain their health, at least for the next four years. Surely it is incumbent and long overdue for this Minister of Justice to make a clear commitment that the next Supreme Court of Canada justice to be appointed by him will be a woman, and that he will appoint more women to the federal judiciary.
In the past we have seen too many examples of political patronage as the basis for appointments. There have been some recent examples, but I will not dwell on those.

December 1, 1980
Judges Act


Walter David Baker: Go ahead.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I know that all members of this Elouse hope that this will be a thing of the past.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has suggested that I go ahead. I will not, for example, give the example of the Supreme Court of Canada justice who was appointed by the Conservative party and who just happened to be a Conservative candidate in the province of Quebec. 1 will not give the example of a former Liberal member of Parliament who was appointed to the federal court bench in 1978 to make way for the present hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), who, unfortunately, ran third that year. I do not have to give the example of the hon. member from Nova Scotia who was appointed to the provincial court bench because a deal was made. Lie said quite openly that a deal was made between himself and the Liberal government of the day because he was not appointed Speaker of this House. I do not have to give specific examples.


An hon. Member:: Are they good judges?


Svend Johannes Robinson: The minister responsible for amateur sport will know of the example about which 1 am talking. Political patronage should play no part in the appointment of judges in this country. Hopefully those days have come and gone.
I would like to turn to the question of salaries.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This matter involves an official of this House who served it very well. He was appointed to the bench, not by the federal government, but by the provincial government of Nova Scotia. For the hon. member to impute motives of wheeling and dealing is inappropriate. 1 think the hon. member should refrain from casting doubt on people who have served this House and have served as judges honourably in the last few years.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I must quote from the letter sent by a former member from the province of Nova Scotia. He said, referring to the Liberal government:
The government, however, felt an obligation to me, and I understand tried to carry it out then with a judicial appointment. Mr. Stanfield felt, and I agreed, that I should serve at least a part of my term. Time, one might say, marched on.
I am now advised that the provincial government-
I believe that was the provincial government headed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan). The letter continues:
-will authorize my appointment as a provincial judge, which carries out the understanding reached in 1974. I have decided to accept the same since, essentially, that has been my position since 1974.
Mr. Lynch, wrote the column in which the letter appeared. He asked:
If we were permitted to question the learned judge, we would ask: What 'understanding'? What 'position'? What 'principle'?
There is no question but that it was a deal. As I have said, hopefully those days are past.


Mr. Regan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was premier of the province of Nova Scotia as the time the Conservative member Robert McCleave, a very able and respected member, was appointed a provincial judge in Nova Scotia. I do not know how the NDP runs a government, but the cabinet of the government of Nova Scotia at that time decided on the appointment of Mr. McCleave based upon his abilities and the respect which the people of Nova Scotia had for him. His appointment was not based on any federal government considerations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It appears that we are entering into a debate, and I invite hon. members to respond in the normal way.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened quietly to what the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) said. What he said is most unfair and wrong. He was wrong, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), at least with respect to His Honour Judge McCleave. When Judge McCleave was a member here he was appointed Deputy Speaker of this House of Commons by a party which does not bear the label that Judge McCleave wore when he was fortunate enough to be among those who could defend themselves in this House.
Second, 1 think this is a place of free debate, but it is a free debate with some discretion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. members who have spoken, this may be difficult to accept as ordered. It appears there is a very substantial difference of opinion. I would hope hon. members in the course of debate would respond, but the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) does have the floor. He will, of course, take responsibility for his own remarks.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is drawing to a close. I want to refer to two other aspects of this bill which give us serious concern. I will deal with the first briefly. It concerns the question of proposed salaries for judges.
Naturally we recognize that Parliament has the responsibility to set salaries which are fair and just. They must reflect the seriousness with which we take the federal judiciary and we must recognize also that often there is a considerable financial sacrifice involved in accepting an appointment to the federal bench. However, our party will be elaborating on this point in committee. But the proposed salary increases go far beyond those recommended even by the independent Dorfman commission and the Canadian Bar Association itself. We should be looking at narrowing the income gap not widening it. While recognizing the importance of a fairly and adequately paid judiciary, we will be expressing concern in committee about the levels of the proposed increases.
Next is the question of the proposed pension provisions under this bill. They are nothing short of scandalous. The Minister of Justice came before us in the fall of 1975 and said
December 1, 1980

then, as President of the Privy Council, that it was time members of the federal judiciary at least contributed to their own pensions. He brought in a bill requiring that contributions be made by the federal judiciary to their pensions. That bill was effective December 20, 1975. The same minister now comes before the House and suggests that contributions should no longer be made by the federal judiciary to their pension plan but that we should refund with interest all of the contributions made so far. Surely that is an unacceptable provision. Surely members of the federal judiciary have the same responsibilities of citizenship as do all other Canadians. They pay taxes. It is not unreasonable to ask the federal judiciary to contribute to their pension plan in the same way as other Canadian citizens do, and as members of Parliament do.
We urge the government to reconsider this particular clause of the bill, a provision not even asked for by the Canadian Bar Association.
1 conclude by saying once again that we recognize the importance of an independent judiciary as being the cornerstone of the Canadian judicial system. We recognize the importance of the rule of law, the strength and vitality of the Canadian federal judiciary. We hope that after examination in committee we will ultimately come up with a better bill, a bill of which all members of this House, all members of the judiciary and the legal profession can indeed be proud.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. The question may be accepted only with unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I came into the House as the hon. member was speaking. I want to say in passing that I commend him on some of his remarks with regard to sentencing and so on. However, there is one remark that I wonder if he researched. I understood him to refer to the "late" Clarence Campbell. I wonder if he is aware of what he said. As far as I know, Clarence Campbell is still alive.


Walter David Baker: That is more than you say about the member.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: While I am not one of his greatest fans, keeping in mind the way he treated Don Gallinger, Billy Taylor, Maurice Richard and his former friend and partner Andy Anton, 1 would like to think he is still around in order to continue some of the judicial proceedings in which he is embroiled. 1 wonder if the hon. member can tell me whether Clarence Campbell has really expired.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that my reports of his death are greatly exaggerated.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have hoped the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) would have concentrated on this bill, which contains
Judges Act
many provisions, rather than engaging the House in what 1, as a lawyer with some 30 years standing, can only characterize as gutter-depth denigration of the legal profession. He reminds me of one of those who always walks along and at intersections looks for horse dung, cigarette butts and chewing gum wrappers. That is about the level of what is found there.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there are some standards in this House with respect to the kind of language which can be used against hon. members.
I would hope that those standards would be adhered to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is paying careful attention as to parliamentary and unparliamentary remarks and has detected nothing so far that can be considered unparliamentary.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member will learn. This bill is much more important than the government seems to imply when it asks this House to accept it and possibly to consider all of the implications. I am not concerned about what the judiciary is going to do with regard to a new constitution. That is a lot of tripe in this debate, but very important in another debate.
What we have to consider here is a proposal to increase the number of judges in certain provinces and to note that some of the provinces have moved away from a district and superior court level. New Brunswick and Alberta have merged the courts in their provinces and Saskatchewan is about to do the same. There is a proposal to increase the salaries of judges at all levels. I want to take hon. members through those implications because not only do they tie in at the level of federally appointed judges, but many provincial departments of justice and solicitors general have more or less tied the salary scales of provincial judges to the federal scale.
We then come to the pension provisions which were referred to by the previous speaker and the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). 1 had hoped the hon. member for Burnaby would have spent more time looking at the practical effects of salary increases and used a little of the basic mathematics to which he might have been exposed during his educational career. He would have realized just what salary levels are projected in this bill.
I also want to talk about non-contributory pensions. I wish the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) were in his place at this moment. I recall the many remonstrations I made to him prior to 1975 to have judicial pensions made contributory. In 1975 I had hoped this was being done in the spirit that henceforth all members of the judiciary, regardless of when appointed, would make suitable pensions contributions as provided for in the bill. But that was not the case. The "weasel" interpretation was made that judges appointed after February 15, 1975, would be asked to contribute the standard 6 per cent of their salary toward a pension scheme. All others would continue at their non-contributory basic level. All they paid was a margin to take into account future indexing. I will deal with that in a little while.
I invite hon. members to read Bill C-34. They will see at what levels of salary they are and where the judges are to be. I

December 1, 1980
Judges Act
want to read from the Parliamentary Newsletter of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of October 23, 1980. Hon. members will see how this is handled in the United States. I quote:
U.S. Senators voted by 78 to 13 to reject the planned 9.1 per cent pay increase to top civil servants on grounds of economy. It was reported, however, that the real reason for the decision was that Congressmen were determined that senior officials and judges should not earn more than they earn. The Senate majority leader, Mr. Robert Byrd, gave this reason frankly. The basic salaries of Congressmen are currently frozen at $68,662 a year.
That is where they are. Hon. members in this House are paid in the $30,000 range, with an expense allowance. When 1 came to this House in 1957, my salary was at the level of a district court judge. Today that individual is paid $50,000. It is proposed to pay him an additional $15,000 effective April 1, 1980. In other words, from the $30,000 that a member of Parliament earns, the spread to a county court judge is $65,000. It beggars description and cries out for some investigation as to how this spread has arisen. One of the important elements highlighted by this particular bill is the haphazard way in which senior salaries are fixed. There is a statute, the Senate and House of Commons Act, which sets the salary levels for members of Parliament, ministers of the Crown and members of the other House. There are the order in council people appointed at the behest of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They are guided by certain recommendations presumably from an independent advisory body, but that does not necessarily apply. There have been some glaring examples of omissions and capricious changes as a result of Privy Council appointments and payments. Then there are, from the same advisory body, salaries at the senior executive level in the public service. We know, for instance, that under the top Privy Council appointment the limit for a DM-3 or possibly a DM-4 is in the $88,000 a year range. There may be one, two or three such individuals in the Public Service of Canada. That is considerably more than the Prime Minister of the country is paid. That in itself is an unacceptable anomaly. Regardless of the personality of the Prime Minister, the position is such that it is the prime position and that is where the prime salary should be. Then we have a series of fixed salaries in Crown corporations which compete partially with industry-and I must say they are poor competitors. For instance, there are the banks, insurance companies and trust companies. See what we pay to the governor of the Bank of Canada who is supposed to be the first, above all bankers.


An hon. Member:: Does he get to take home samples?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is paid only maybe a third or a quarter of what some other heads of banks are paid. The Federal Business Development Bank president is way underpaid which affects the salary scale all the way down into mid-management. That corporation spends its time training credit officers who are then siphoned off into various parts of industry which pay better. Frankly, it is not fair. Then we have the judges, whose salaries are fixed by statute. This statute is a limper as to time. The situation is most unfair to the judges who depend
upon the hazards of the parliamentary calendar to have their salaries adjusted. In this particular bill two annual increases are included, but they are all going to fall in with the other increases in one year. As a matter of fact, at the present rate of progress it could be that both of them will fall into the year 1981 with the other increases. So, the judges will be hit just that much harder, possibly on income tax, although at their level most judges at their marginal rate would be at the top 47 per cent on a good portion of their salaries.
Dealing with, shall we say, the middle court, I will read salaries now provided. The current salaries in effect since April 1, 1978, are as follows: in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Chief Justice, $72,000; puisne judges, $67,000 each; in the Federal Court of Canada, the chief justice and the associate chief justice, $62,000 each. These are basic salaries. There are some adjustments and representational increments of up to about $3,000 for various positions. Other judges in the federal court, $57,000. In the superior courts of a province, the chief justice and associate chief justice, $62,000; other judges, $57,000. The judges of the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territories and the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, $57,000 each. The last level of federally appointed judges, the chief judge and the associate chief judge of the county and district courts, $55,000, and other judges, $50,000.
This bill proposes to increase the salaries for the years 1979 and 1980. The Chief Justice of Canada will receive an increase of $8,000 a year for a total of $16,000 bringing him to a level of $88,000 on the passage of this bill. The puisne judges will get a total of $81,000 because their present levels are $67,000 and they will get total increases of $14,000. The salary of the chief justice of the federal court will go to $76,000 and those of the other judges will rise from $57,000 to $70,000, such as the superior court judges in all of the provinces. The salaries of district court judges will rise to $50,000 plus $15,000. In other words, they will go to $65,000. I have made a tabular list but unfortunately, as I immediately noticed, I made one mechanical error in the Supreme Court calculation: I am short by about $13,000, but I might point out that an appointment of 15 years is the minimum required for a vesting of pension.
In this act the wording is "shall", the governor in council shall grant a pension to a member of the judiciary after 15 years of service. If hon. members turn to clause 16 of the bill, they will read the conditions under which a judge, having reached age 65 with 15 years of service, may retire. There are other provisions and then a condition whereby a judge, having reached retirement age after ten years of service, may get a full pension. Then there are proportional pensions.
I will not say that I am a mathematical genius, but on the basis of my calculations-and it may be that 1 am slightly out-some of my friends appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench division in the province of Alberta will receive salaries as of this year of $70,000. There is a formula in the bill which says that salaries of judges shall be increased annually by the lesser of 7 per cent or the average of industrial wage increases
December 1, 1980

in the country. That is the formula which is applied to the salaries of members of Parliament. The only difference is that members of Parliament started on a base of $24,000, whereas judges of the Court of Queen's Bench start on the formula at $70,000. Let me assure hon. members that the results are dramatic. At the end of ten years, in 1990, the judge who is appointed this year will be drawing down $138,923 per annum. In 1995 when he will have completed his 15 years so as to draw a pension, his salary will be $194,844. Those poor men and women!
Pension entitlement shall be two-thirds of salary on retirement, and two-thirds of $194,844, comes to the small and measly sum of $129,950 retirement pension in 1995, and in some cases it will be 1990.
That is for those men and women being appointed today who will serve their time. That is for the Court of Queen's Bench division, which is the middle range of court levels.
I now refer to Supreme Court justices. Their finishing salaries will be somewhere around $215,000 in 1995. According to my figures, in ten years the salary increase under this formula of 7 per cent compounded without any of the rest provided for in the bill-because there is a sweetener in the bill which does not apply in the case of anyone else-is 198.4 per cent, and in 15 years it is a mere 278 per cent.
I wish the Minister of Justice or his parliamentary secretary were here to defend those figures. Judges have to be paid well, but outside, possibly, of some of the senior positions in the country such as chief justices and Supreme Court of Canada justices many judicial offices are filled by men who sought them because they cannot-and refuse to-put up with the hassle of private practice. 1 know many of my contemporaries and men who are perhaps ten years younger than 1 are going to provincial solicitors general and asking to be appointed provincial court judges. They are senior partners in good and medium-range law firms.
They are men who earn $75,000 or $80,000 per year without the bat of an eye, but they will not put up with constant hassles with junior partners who want to become millionaires or aspiring millionaires in the first five years of practice, who want to cut corners and who are not prepared to abide by the standards which have developed in the practice of law after years of experience. Many of these men in my home province have told me that that is why they want to seek the peace and honour of the bench.
If I am to be a county court judge, I start out this year at $65,000, and with the indexing formula of 7 per cent-even if it is not reviewed by commissions every three years to be upgraded in order to meet increases in the cost of living, which does not apply in the case of members of Parliament-in ten years' time I shall be earning $128,900. True enough, we do not know what the value of the dollar will be at that time but, by God, where are the rest of the people going to be? The government has laid down this yardstick for the future. This is where this bill is important: It is a yardstick for salaries of senior public servants because, if we look further at the bill, we
Judges Act
see that the Auditor General is tied into this particular salary schedule with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The salary of the Commissioner of Official Languages is tied into this bill as is the salary of the Chief Electoral Officer. In committee I will find out-and I hope hon. members will help me find out-about their pensions. Will theirs be noncontributory as well?
I come now to the last indecency in this bill. It is proposed that all contributions made by judges since 1975 shall be reimbursed, and any contributions made by any judges who since 1975 have died shall be repaid to their estates. That is only fair if we accept the principle of repayment, but on this question of contribution or non-contribution with respect to pensions, judges are the only ones in the public service whose pension schemes were non-contributory. This was brought in in 1975, effective February 15, as I have said before, but why was contribution not applied to all judges then occupying their positions? Certainly in the fluxion of time there would have been some windfall gains for a few of them, just as we accepted windfall gains when we created the Canada Pension Plan. A number of people did not contribute the nine years as required for full contributions, but if my memory serves me correctly, any person having reached the age of 64 at the time of the act's coming into effect, or something akin to that, would after five years be entitled to full benefits. So there was a windfall gain-a small one.
We accept that because no scheme can provide that all persons shall pay the same amount and receive the same benefits. That is what should have happened in the case of the Judges Act. Now they have come around, 1 am told, and have convinced the bureaucrats, who have convinced the Minister of Justice, that they should not pay. That is wrong. Some are paying in and some are not. Every last one of them should pay in, and we will find out on an actuarial basis just what the equivalent of that non-contributory pension is. I have made statements before and I make statements-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a brief question on the subject?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, a question, not a statement.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The hon. member has referred, I think quite properly, to the scandalous situation of non-contributory pension plans and the refunds of the contributions proposed in the bill before us. I wonder if the hon. member would explain then why it is that the previous minister of justice in the Conservative government proposed exactly that in a letter dated December 20, 1979, to members of the federal judiciary. Why is it that the hon. member's own government proposed exactly the same scheme as that to which he now objects so bitterly?

December 1, 1980
Judges Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, Mr. Speaker, to justify the hon. member, who is a great nit-picker, and also the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell)-those swashbuckling legal twins from Vancouver-1 will say that that letter was written per incuriam by the members of this caucus. I will say it quite flatly: I have opposed this matter from the beginning, and I am opposing it now-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -because I want to ask hon. members too, in case they have not done their homework, how much does anyone consider should be paid to an honourable judge in the Queen's Bench Commission who concludes his career on a salary of $194,844, plus or minus several hundreds of dollars, to yield to him a pension of $129,000 per annum after 15 years' purchase with a 50 per cent survival benefit of $65,000 for his widow or, in the event that the judge is a woman, for her male survivor? I have made statements in the House and I do not think I am far wrong, that in order to achieve that same pension level, a judge would have to be paid $194,000 in his final year and he would be paid 100 per cent more on hi*' scale of salary to yield to him tax-paid dollars which would buy that 15-year purchase annuities contract. Remember this: income tax is at 47 per cent. If anyone should think that it will be easy to buy a contract yielding $129,000 per annum to be indexed on the basis of the scales provided in this act with that escalating formula, he has another think coming. I have asked actuaries about the situation and they have thrown up their hands and said the conditions are too variable. True enough, a man may serve 30 years and therefore the benefits for pension purposes are much less per annum because he can purchase a longer contract.
This bill provides a mare's nest of problems. It points up the illogicality of the ad hoc system we have of setting salaries of senior public servants in this country. I am not denying that a competent judge is not worth $70,000 a year or, in the case of the Chief Justice of Canada or the puisne judges of the Supreme Court, that they are worth their salary, but I will deny most vehemently, that members of Parliament, many of whom are the intellectual and other equals of these judges, members who work a lot longer hours and have no security of tenure, are overpaid. I say they are paid a relative pittance. I am one of them, but I have had almost 25 years here. There are few of us here who can speak out like this. It is a crying shame and there is a scrambling of values that is quite wrong. I can go into various areas and pick up some more inconsistencies.
This brings me to my last point because, having diagnosed an ill, I want to prescribe a remedy. I have brought this forward before, in an adjournment debate in July, and 1 have set down a private member's motion to this effect; I hope it will get a chance to be debated.
As sure as God made little apples, 1 will go after this in committee and I will ensure that the Minister of Justice explains this non-contributory pension scheme and the figures 1 have given as a result of the escalation clause. One has to
say, "Just a minute, how silly can we be!" I want to propose to hon. members that we consider the practice followed by our Australian friends. Remember, we do not have a blueprint here on the best possible procedures in Parliament. We think we have some pretty good things around here, but on this one we have to take a seat way back, not the rumble seat but a seat somewhere in the fifth vehicle in tow behind our Australian friends. They have a remuneration review tribunal provided for in an act which came into effect in either 1972 or 1973. I commend it to members of the House for its fairness. A commission of three people is set up, independent of government, before whom the government is only an interested party. The rules say the chairman shall be a legal person but not a judge appointed by the federal government. He or she shall be a state-appointed judicial officer, and the other two persons shall be also divorced from government service. No former member of Parliament or senator can be a member of the commission, except after seven years of continuous absence from elected office. Once a year the commission announces publicly that it will hear representations with regard to the salaries from the prime minister down through all the ministry, members of the house of representatives in Australia, the senate, senior public servants, heads of governments board and agencies, and the judiciary. If the government wants to put brakes on salary increases, it appears before the board or the tribunal. In any event, within a fixed time the tribunal must make its report-I think it is within 15 days, but perhaps it is within 30 days of the report having been tabled in Parliament. Unless 50 per cent of the members of the house shall have signed a motion rejecting the report, the report becomes effective.
That is the type of fairness which must be present in every city in every province. Many members of the House have sat on municipal bodies and have had their skins flailed by editorial comments concerning the pay scales of city aldermen and mayors; they have withstood a lot of abuse. The same applies at the provincial level to a lesser degree, but the favourite kicking boys in newspaper columns and other areas are federal members of Parliament. These self-same commentators do not look at their empire-building reports which are filed and before which they all kneel down and prostrate themselves in worship. All these reports do is pile on the agony with more controllers at higher levels of pay. It just packs together the bureaucracy. That is why we have expensive inefficient government in Canada, and that is why we have government controlled by bureaucrats rather than being controlled by Parliament. I say with great regret but with great advisement that is the situation we face in Canada.
I do not like this bill. It is not because of the increases in the salaries of judges or their general salary level, but 1 do not want to see a formula which will take off like a rocket within the next 15 years, nor a pension scheme such as the one proposed. If members opposite think that they can sell it to the public, let them try. I think judges should be paid well and
December I, 1980

that they should enjoy a comfortable pension on retirement, but we should not provide a financial trough which makes the English Channel look like a mere brook. Unfortunately in my view that is what this formula will provide.
I am glad to see the bill because I think it is one more reason why the government and the House must move toward a sensible remuneration review tribunal which is independent of government and independent of the influence of individual members and sectors of the public service. We are all working hard for the country, but by God, we are not paid the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak against the contribution aspect of the pension plan and in favour of part of the proposed salary increases. But before doing so, let me suggest that this debate shows what an absolute farce Parliament has become. The Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) who is on his way out of the chamber-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am not leaving the chamber. I am in my place. Surely I am allowed to stand.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice or I have the floor?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Frankly I have some difficulty being sure. !f I do not see the hon. minister rising to his feet again, I will continue to recognizx the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


David Kilgour: There are virtually a million unemployed Canadians, inflation is running at more than 10 per cent per year, two-thirds of the persons over age 65 in Canada have incomes of less than $5,000, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is going through a checklist on how to disunite the country, most particularly in the west, and what are we doing?
We are discussing whether or not we should increase the salaries of judges. I should like to give a few figures. The present salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is $72,000. Now we must add $8,000 and another $7,000.


John Leslie Evans: And what is the total?


David Kilgour: It will increase his salary from $72,000 to $80,000-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: How many oilmen in the province of Alberta make more money than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada?


David Kilgour: We are also discussing increasing the $55,000 per year salaries of county court judges by $8,000 and $7,500.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are irresponsible.
Judges Act


David Kilgour: The Minister of Justice is heckling from his seat as usual. He knows that if the people of Canada could listen to this sort of nonsense, they would vote each and every one of the members of this Parliament out of office in the next election; they would know how we are using the public time at this point.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Then why are you holding up the debate?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. Let me state very clearly that the proposition in front of the House was presented to judges in a letter of the former minister of justice, Mr. Flynn.


Mr. Lawrence:: But it was not approved by government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It was sent at the beginning of the year and with the approval of cabinet. When I hear an hon. member from a province in which there are people with $100 million in the bank making a fuss, because we want to give decent salaries to the very good judiciary of Canada, and making derogatory reference to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, I think it is clear demagogy and acute irresponsibility on the part of members like the one who is on his feet right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: I should like to inform the Minister of Justice that when my ancestor was the chief justice of the province of Manitoba in 1938, he was earning a salary of $5,000 a year and he had to stay on in that role because there was no pension at all. To make a statement indicating that there is someone in Alberta with $100 million in the bank is so much an argument ad hominem that I do not know how to grapple with it. I have maintained since 1 came here that anyone in the House who has taken a course in logic is under a great disadvantage, and the Minister of Justice continues to reinforce that opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: I see that my time is running out-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are filibustering.


David Kilgour: I should like to deal with one aspect of the bill at this time, the question of the pensions of judges as compared to those of public servants. Public servants contribute 6.4 per cent of their salaries to pension plans, with the federal government paying 9.5 per cent. Under the provisions of this bill, judges will pay I per cent of their salaries, and these contributions are only paper indexing. How in the name of anything that makes any sense do judges get such special treatment? Of course there is no answer; we will discuss it in committee.
Turning to the area of retirement benefits, a judge can obtain a two-thirds pension after as little as ten years of service. Public servants receive pensions of 70 per cent of their average salary over the last six years of employment after 35

December 1, 1980
Judges Act
years. To obtain a two-thirds pension, they would be required to work approximately 33 years. Both pensions are indexed to the rate of inflation, and there is no fund for the pensions of judges. It is creating a new class of people, those who are judges. Judges do not have to pay in anything like what they take out because they are considered by our so-called democrats on the opposite side of the House to be special people who should not have to do what everybody else must do.
I see my time is quickly running out. I would like to deal with a couple of other aspects with respect to judges' pensions. To obtain a two-thirds pension a judge need serve only 15 years, or in some instances, ten years. As I just mentioned, public servants, members of the armed forces or members of the RCMP would have to serve 33 years to receive a two-thirds pension. In other words, a judge is something special. A poor mounted policeman who goes out and risks his life 24 hours a day must work 33 years to get the same benefits-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A fallacy!


David Kilgour: It happens to be the truth. 1 dare say it is important to appreciate the difference. As I mentioned, judges contributed 1 per cent for their indexation-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Following the lead of Jacques Flynn.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister of Justice has been lobbied by the lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association. Two-thirds of the people in this House read the National, which comes out once a month, and which has a new article every time saying that the poor judges are underpaid.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is aware that this very important bill has been awaited for some time by the federal judiciary. I wonder if he is prepared to draw his remarks to a close very quickly in order that this matter might be studied in committee rather than needlessly prolonging the debate on this important bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has, I believe, been a practising member of the Bar for a total of only ten months. Is that not right?


An hon. Member:: So what?


David Kilgour: I appreciate the cost of living in British Columbia is quite high. Since I have the undivided attention of members opposite-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You would honour yourself by silting down!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Walter David Baker: When he has finished his speech.


David Kilgour: I know the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) is anxious to hear about the Casgrain report.
That report made the following recommendations:
1.	Judges' salaries should be fixed by the governor in council after consultation with an advisory committee constituted for that purpose.
2.	While awaiting the establishment of the advisory committee the Judges' Act should be amended to provide for an increase of at least $5,000 in each of the years 1979 and 1980.
3.	The $3,000 allowance paid to judges since June I. 1971, should be converted to a non-taxablc allowance.
4.	Pension contributions should be virtually eliminated and the discrimination between payments made by "old" and "new" judges should be eliminated retroactively.
5.	The gap between salaries of Superior Court judges and those of district and county courts should be eliminated progressively.
I quite agree with that last point. I will now deal with the Dorfman report which recommended:
1.	Salary increases of $3,500 to be effective April 1, 1979, and same amount on April 1, 1980.
2.	A non-taxable allowance of $1,000 for expenditures on textbooks, law reports, court office.
I would again remind the hon. Minister of Justice that to my knowledge there is not one judge's library in any of the four provinces in which I have practised law which is not perfectly adequately shelved with books.
The Dorfman report also made these recommendations:
3.	That the Judges' Act be amended effective February 17, 1975, to require contributions to supplementary benefits retirement only (I per cent of salary).
4.	Gradual reduction of differential between salaries of Superior Court judges and called for special allowance for judges of Supreme Court of Yukon and N.W.T.
5.	Recognized the need for a more flexible procedure to fix judges' salaries.
Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that it is now 9.45?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Yes.


David Kilgour: Then may I claim the floor next time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Shame on you!


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS-INCLUSION AS APPENDIX TO [DOT]HANSARD"
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As hon. members are aware it is now appropriate to call for the deferred division. First, though, I would request the kindly co-operation of hon. members in the House in assisting me to clear up a technical and procedural problem. If I may have a moment of your time I will explain it. With the unanimous consent of hon. members it can then be disposed of.
Standing Order 41(1) and (2) provides that only a minister or parliamentary secretary may table documents with respect to the department for which they are responsible. Earlier in
December 1, 1980

the day, before private members' hour, arrangements were made through the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette), the House leader for the Conservative party, as well as the House leader for the New Democratic Party, to put through, in all remaining stages, bills S-13 and S-14. The arrangements provided for the tabling of certain documents related to those bills; they were to be tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Trade (Mr. Lachance) in due course, when they were available to him.
The difficulty, very simply, is that all the precedents of this House indicate that private members may not table documents. One could take the view that unanimous consent is adequate to overcome that problem. One could equally take the view that the Chair is responsible for upholding the precedents which have existed throughout the years. In order to avoid any confusion on that score, and in order to avoid creating difficulties for the future, perhaps the best way to proceed is to suggest that with the consent of those involved, including the already-given consent of the parliamentary secretary, rather than tabling the documents they would be appended to Hansard on the day on which the parliamenatry secretary is prepared to put these documents before the House.
If there is unanimous consent to this course, then we can proceed in that fashion and the procedural difficulty will be cleared up.


Walter David Baker: There was an arrangement made and some of us would be surprised tonight to learn about that long list of precedents. There are some of us who feel the House of Commons is empowered to declare a man to be a woman and a woman to be a man. But I guess that is not so.
The anxiety of the member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) was that there be a public record with respect to the undertakings given by the parliamentary secretary. I suspect that publication in the manner suggested, that is, by way of appendix to Hansard, would be appropriate. I think that was also in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), although he is not present now. If that is agreeable to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council we could agree on this now, leaving open the right of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to disagree at some later time, if he wishes. I think he will be agreeable.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to concur in the remarks just made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and with what Your Honour has proposed. I did discuss this point with the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), in the absence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I understand that the New Democratic Party members will agree. This is just a housekeeping matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is so agreed. So that there may be no difficulty in misinterpretation, when the
Petroleum Administration Act
parliamentary secretary has the documents ready, the Chair will accept them and have them appended to Hansard.


PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
PETITION TO REVOKE PROCLAMATION Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:
That the proclamation laid before the House on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, pursuant to subsection 52(3) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as proclaimed in PC 1980-2915, be revoked.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to order made Friday, November 21, 1980, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion (Mr. Waddell). Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The decision just rendered by the House also disposes of motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).
It being 10.15 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.16 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, December 2, 1980