1966-05-09

Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Hochelaga) moved: that the fifth report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, presented to the house on Thursday, May 5, 1966, be now concurred in.


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


Mr. Knowles:: On division, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say a few words on this motion.
We are asked to reduce the quorum from 13 to nine members. The committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts is made up of 25 members of parliament.
I feel that there is something wrong. If 13 members out of those 25 cannot be found to attend that committee's sittings, then I submit that the committee is not important and must cease its activities.
The first point I want to make is that the Ralliement Creditiste is not represented at all on eight committees because the Liberals refused to allow us a member on them. An attempt was made to divide the number of committee members according to the number of members in each party.
It is a fact that Liberal members are not interested in taking part in the work of committees. On the other hand, we are interested and, in spite of that, there are eight committees on which the creditistes are not represented at all. It is not surprising, therefore, that committees fall short of the quorum when interested members are not allowed to sit on them.
And on how many committees is the party of my hon. friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) not represented? And if I
asked the same question to the members of the New Democratic Party? They are also interested in sitting on committees where they are not represented. I am convinced that there would be many of them if they were invited to become members of those committees.
They cannot attend because they were denied that. There are members of the New Democratic Party and the Ralliement Creditiste who are not members of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts and who, in spite of that, attend its sittings. There is for instance, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I do not think he is a member of that committee and yet he attends its meetings although his attendance is not recorded. Why? Because there is no room for those who are interested. Members of the Liberal party are chosen even if they are not interested and do not show up. Then, there is no quorum. Those who are interested cannot make up the quorum. That is my first argument.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members who are interested, whatever their party, should be asked if they want to sit on committees and should be allowed to do so if they agree. Then we would have a quorum and the committees could hold their meetings. If at least members who are interested could have their names substituted for those who have given their names to be members of committees, but are not interested.
There are hon. members who are interested in being members of this committee, but are not. Why? Because there is no room for them. When I asked the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) the other day whether he would have liked to sit on the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, he said he would have accepted. At any rate, he attends the meetings, but he is not a member of the committee and his presence does not count for the quorum. There is a weakness in the establishment of committees. The Liberal whip has to run after his own members to get them together, to ask them to attend committee meetings, even when they are not interested. The situation is the same for the Conservative party.

Broadcasting Committee
Instead of leaving that to the whips, all members interested in being members of a given committee should be asked to give their names. Afterwards, the substitutions needed could be made. Thus, we would not be faced with the problem we have today.
The second reason why I object to the quorum being reduced from 13 to nine is that no committee is without Liberal members, none has less than 13 Liberal members. If the government is serious,-it is to the government that we owe the committee reform________
it should see to it that all members of its party attend committee meetings. There are 13 Liberals on each committee, but they are not interested in attending the meetings. That is why there is no quorum. The party in office wants to have too big a share in committee membership. Its members are not interested; they do not want to take part in committee meetings and that is why there is no quorum.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that if the members of the party in office were interested in attending committee meetings, then we would not face the problem we face today and there would be a quorum in committees.
As the motion is debatable and as we are entitled to 30 minutes each, I intend to use all my time or at least a good deal of it, because I believe that we are now debating a question of principle dealing not only with the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, but to any other committee. What is good for one committee is good for all the others.
The third reason why I strongly object to reducing the quorum is because I found that when a committee has a hard time getting a quorum, it is because more important work is being carried out in the house. For instance -and the chairman of the committee can bear me out on this point-Monday and Tuesday last, the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts found it hard to get a quorum for certain sittings. Why? Because important speeches were being delivered in the house, namely a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), which was awaited by everyone. Now, it was understandable to find all Liberal members present in the house. That same afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) made an important speech and Conservative members were present in great numbers in the house. In the evening a very important vote took place. That is why the committee on broadcasting, Aims and assistance to the arts did [Mr. Gregoire.l
May 9, 1986
not have a quorum all day long. This is entirely normal and I am convinced that the Prime Minister preferred making his statement when all members of his party were present in the house instead of making it in front of empty seats or when members of his party were scattered here, there, and everywhere in various committees.
It is quite understandable, Mr. Speaker, that members should be present in the house when important matters are being discussed here. But then, committees cannot get a quorum.
Mr. Speaker, the main reason is that committee members are selected by the whips, whereas all members, regardless of their party, interested in taking part in committee work should be able to do so.
The second reason is that counting the government members there would be enough for a quorum, but they are not interested.
In the third place, there is the fact that when something important is happening in the house, members prefer to sit in the house rather than in the committees, and that is perfectly normal. But reducing the quorum would not solve the problem because in that case, when members have to choose between a committee in which they are particularly interested and the house, where something important is happening, what would their decision be?
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
What should we, as members, choose? We are faced with a difficult alternative. The member should not be given such an alternative. He has to choose between being absent from committee meetings which are important and which, he feels, he ought to attend, and being absent from the house while something important is going on. A member should not be faced with such an alternative.
That is why the solution is not in reducing the quorum but in a better organization of the committees' work, in finding a system whereby members may be allowed to attend the house when it is important and also to attend the committee sittings when such committees, also of importance, are sitting.
Such a formula must be found instead of reducing the quorum.
We are asked to reduce the quorum to nine, which means that only nine members would submit reports and decide on some matters on behalf of all their colleagues. That is not proper.
May 9, 1966

Let me give an example. During the debate on the budget speech in the house, the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs was sitting. Now, the people most interested in the budget debate are necessarily the members of the finance committee. Yet, the finance committee was sitting during consideration of the budget in the House of Commons. That is not proper. Those who are interested in the financial administration of the country had to choose between taking part in the budget debate, which lasted six days and which is surely the most important debate of the session on financial matters, and attending the committee sittings where consideration was being given to the financial problems of the country.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the situation in which members interested in the problems and financial administration of the country found themselves. They could not be in both places at the same time while discussions were taking place on important matters concerning the finances of this country. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I claim that the solution is not in the reduction of committees' quorum but in finding time periods during which the committees could sit outside the sittings of the House of Commons. For instance let the house sit three weeks a month and let the committees sit one week while the house is not sitting.


Mr. Lewis:: Or three days a week.


Gilles Grégoire: Or yet, have the house sit three days per week and, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) suggests, allow the committees to sit two days a week while the house is not sitting.
Let the committees sit a week per month or two days per week, while the house is not sitting, and their work will be done more seriously. Besides, members could then attend the sittings of the House of Commons. The way things are being done at the present time we would have to be in both places at the same time and that is not possible.
We are still looking for the scientist who will discover a system allowing people to be in two places at the same time. Such a system has not yet been developed and it is not this government which will develop it either. We still do not possess the gift of ubiquity. For lack of this system for the time being, we cannot be forced to be in the house and in the committees at the same time.
Broadcasting Committee
I therefore ask the government and the leader of the house to devise another system, different from that which is offered to us at this time.
That is why we object to the motion before us today.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I can agree with many of the things the hon. member for Lapointe has said. However, I plan to support this motion because it is the only way out of our immediate difficulties. But I would suggest that a committee of representatives from each party should be formed to discuss these matters.


An hon. Member:: A committee on committees.


Robert William Prittie: A committee on committees, if you like.
I do not believe we are going to settle this matter on the floor of the house each time one of these motions comes before us.
I should like to make one suggestion, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the house might well consider a system of appointing alternate members to committees. Quite frequently a committee has to meet on Monday and a member has not returned from his riding. If his party were able to name an alternate, that member could be there to take his place and it might be possible to provide a quorum. There have been many times, as the hon. member for Lapointe has said, when there have been enough members at committee meetings but not members named to the committee. It seems to me that this is a suggestion which might help to provide quorums and get the committee sessions under way. I would like to suggest again that this matter is not going to be settled in the house, but that a committee dealing with committees should take this matter under advisement very soon.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to protest the suggestion that quorums of committees be reduced. I have found in any organization in which I have previously been involved that only a few people participate actively in the real work of the organization. However, I believe in this particular situation in the House of Commons we are only a few-265 representatives-of the 20 million people who elected us. I believe the people of Canada have the right to expect that their representatives will concern themselves with

May 9, 1966
Broadcasting Committee the business of the nation, and that concern should be a continuing one as long as this house is in session.
It might be a good idea to recall the situation which brought about the hearings of the committee on broadcasting. The intention was to debate the whole issue on the floor of this house, but rather than use the time of the house when we have so much other business to attend to the suggestion was that the matter should be turned over to the standing committee on broadcasting. It seems to me that those who favoured the plan to turn it over to committee and those who opposed this plan have a common interest in seeing that a quorum for the committee is maintained, and that we should take the committee work seriously. I will agree that it is not a good thing to see the press and witnesses waiting for hours for a quorum to develop, but I do not believe there would be any improvement if the membership of the committee is reduced to nine when the membership of the entire committee is 25. If we have to reduce it to as low as nine we will be throwing out the balance which a committee should have in hearing the important issues placed before it.
How can such a committee possibly have the temerity to ask witnesses to come from great distances and from important duties to present their case to such a small group of members of parliament? I cannot see any witness looking at us very favourably under such circumstances. I would suggest that we take our duties a little more seriously than we have been doing, and that the alternatives which have been suggested by previous speakers be considered and tried before we act on the easy suggestion of reducing the size of the quorum.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). All the members of the house know that the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts consists of 25 members, 13 of whom are Liberals.
Now we are asked to reduce the quorum from 13 to nine, that is four less than the number of Liberals assigned to that committee, the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.
Mr. Speaker, I said last week that it is no more important to reduce the quorum of

committees than to reduce the number of committees. We have some 23, 24 or perhaps 25 parliamentary committees, where members of the Liberal party and of the opposition parties make an appearance. Now, we of the Ralliement Creditiste have no members on eight of those committees. There are two points of view in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that the hon. member for Lapointe is right in asking that the quorum be left as it is. If the Liberals cannot take their responsibilities concerning the committee in question, they should not lay the blame on the others; let them attend the meetings and the other members will also attend, as they are doing now.
And, Mr. Speaker, to support my colleague from Lapointe, I say that we cannot agree to the quorum of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts being reduced. But we are ready to co-operate with the House of Commons as a whole to get results, not results to please the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), for instance, who is chairman of that committee. The hon. member for Hochelaga told us himself last Friday night on the television program Les couche-tard-I saw him then-that he did not know what was going on in Ottawa but that he was there just the same. So he is here, we see him here right now, however we cannot accept any suggestion from the hon. member for Hochelaga. We want results and we will get them if each member assumes his responsibilities, if each member-


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. First, I think that the hon. member for Villeneuve quoted me so freely that I failed to recognize the remarks he attributed to me. Second, we are discussing at this time the suggestion from the majority of the committee, not from a single member.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, was there really a point of order in what the hon. member for Hochelaga just said?


An hon. Member:: No, a question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Neither a question of privilege. I heard the hon. member for Hochelaga on the program Les couche-tard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to keep to the matter now before the house, that is the resolution in the name of the hon. member for Hochelaga.
May 9. 1966


David Réal Caouette: Then, Mr. Speaker, will you give a ruling about the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Hochelaga?


Mr. Speaker:: I will study the matter.


David Réal Caouette: May I expect an answer before next week, Mr. Speaker?
In any case, I think that even if the hon. member for Hochelaga is very active in the committee of which he is chairman, several of his fellow members from the Liberal party forget to attend its meetings.
Therefore, under the circumstances we cannot accept the suggestion that the quorum be reduced from 13 to nine. We ask that it be set at 13, that it remain at 13 and that the committee do its work in a constructive rather than a negative way. And the hon. member for Hochelaga is well versed in positive terms.
Now, I would ask him, through you Mr. Speaker, to call on his friends in the Liberal party to attend the committee sittings, and then we would not have to be concerned with reducing the quorum, but we would instead be concerned with increasing it to achieve tangible results, positive results concerning broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts as we are not discussing in parliament.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that it would be unseemly at this time to reduce the quorum of the committees for reasons obvious to all.
One of those reasons is that, not so long ago the house voted an increase in parliamentary indemnity, and the people would not look kindly upon an apparently unexplainable measure to reduce the quorum of the committees.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that the committee is truly overworked, because in my own personal case and in the case of some of my colleagues, I know that we are members of three committees that have been convened only twice in the past four months. We surely can handle more than that.
There may be another reason, deeper than that mentioned by some of my colleagues. Reading the newspapers and magazines, we have heard, we have read recently that there were in the house and in all parties, members called the "Young Turks" who are complaining that they are not kept sufficiently busy
Broadcasting Committee and are not carrying enough responsibility. I think it would be sound psychology to give them work to do and keep them occupied in committees.
Mr. Speaker, I think the crux of the matter is to find means to get members to attend the committees. There are several. I think the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned one worthy of consideration when he spoke of television. At these committee sittings, when members realize that the roll is called in front of television cameras and that their constituents will see they are absent without valid reason, they will then probably want to attend more often.
Accordingly, I shall second the proposal made by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is quite evident to the members of the committee which designed the rule changes that some modifications are necessary in these rules. I believe if we reduce the quorum of this committee now to nine we will have to reduce it again in a matter of a week or two to five. We are increasing the number of committees that are meeting, and I think this must be taken into consideration. The answer to the problem really is not a reduction of the quorum, but rather to persuade the members of committees that the committees are worth attending. Then arrangements should be made so they can attend those meetings.
I think this is a matter which concerns the house, and it certainly concerns the house leaders. There are 16 committees now constituted. The meetings of these committees have to be carefully arranged so they can get a quorum and the members will find it possible to attend meetings. The reduction in quorums might solve the problem for the government temporarily, but it really does not solve the problems of the committees and make it possible for them to work properly.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The question of consideration of the estimates is also affected. We agreed to give the committee procedure a fair shake for a year to see whether we could overcome the problems. We are not doing this now because we are asking for a reduction in quorums and this eliminates the government's responsibility in connection with this matter. I suggest this procedure does not give the new committee procedure a fair chance. It is up to the house leader to call a meeting of committee

May 9. 1968
Broadcasting Committee members and representatives of the other parties in order to reduce all quorums. If half the members is too much then let us reduce it to one third. I think it is unfair to the country, unfair to members of parliament, yes, and unfair to the operation of the committees themselves to reduce the quorums unless they are reduced for all other committees.
The actions of some committee members have strangled the committees. When members hedge-hop from one committee to another the proceedings have to be started over again, and I think it is the government's responsibility to make sure that the system works. However, to reduce this quorum, without reducing the quorums of other committees, is to continue a bad situation. I suggest that this type of motion ought not to be introduced now by the chairman of a committee. Instead, I think the government ought to consider revising the committee structure that does not seem to work. The number of members necessary for a quorum should be decided, but we should avoid doing it in the haphazard way that has developed.
The present system does not seem to work. It should therefore be overhauled. I think anything less is not fair to members of parliament, and would not be fair to the rule changes that were made to correct the way things were going.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I think nearly full attendance in the committees could be expected if it could be arranged that committees sit when debates on their reports are taking place in the house.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond to the effect that this motion be approved as an interim measure, but we ought not to lose sight of more important reforms of the committee structure that are necessary.
Also I wish to support some of the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Lapointe. However, I wish to take this opportunity to correct his eloquent and repetitious inaccuracies. He insists that the failure of the committee system in this case is to be laid at the door of the government members on the broadcasting committee, as this is the one we are discussing. My recollection is that the report of this committee was approved almost unanimously by that committee, but that the hon. member for Lapointe was not present at the time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on a question of privilege.
I took care, a few minutes ago, to mention that when I was not attending the committee it was because I was in the house. Last Tuesday when the committee sat I was in the house to listen to the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I believed that was more important to me than to attend the committee on broadcasting. I was not absent from parliament then; I was sitting elsewhere.
I would ask the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) to withdraw his remarks.
There are 25 members on the committee; I am the only representative of my party and I attend the meetings. However, 13 are colleagues of the hon. member, but so many are absent that there is no quorum.
I ask the hon. member to withdraw his remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe cannot insist that the hon. member for Scarborough withdraw his remarks; I do not see on what basis.


Gilles Grégoire: Nothing is requested of those who do not have any sense of responsibility-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I apologize for arousing the hon. member for Lapointe to such further eloquent inaccuracies. My recollection is that the statement of the Prime Minister was made at the time the committee was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I point out to the hon. member that this discussion is entirely out of order. I would ask the hon. member for York-Scarborough to limit his remarks to what is before the house at the moment.


Mr. Churchill:: Question.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I merely want to correct the record. The attendance of the Liberal members has been at least as faithful as that of any other members, and in that I include the hon. member for Lapointe.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Is it the wish of the house to adopt the said motion?

May 9, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder if there could be unanimous consent to having a count of the house without ringing the bells.


Mr. Graffiey:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A suggestion has been made by the Minister of Transport that, by unanimous agreement, there be a count rather than a ringing of the bells.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, may I say something in reference to what has just been said?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Call in the members.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Gérard Pelletier: that the sixth report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, presented to the house on Friday, May 6, 1966, be now concurred in.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, there is a motion on the order paper stating that the committee on

May 9, 1966
Broadcasting Committee broadcasting films and assistance to the arts begs leave to sit while the house is sitting every day, this week only.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
before the motion carries I should like to say a few words.
Personally, I would not object to it, nor vote against it, because this request is only made for a limited time, this week.
Since the committee will not sit before eight o'clock tonight, we shall only miss one sitting of the house.
Mr. Speaker, the request made this afternoon by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) shows that, once more, our whole committee system is poorly organized. We are asked to sit while the house is sitting. However, if we consider the business of the house for today and tomorrow only, we see for instance, that the house will be asked to vote on the setting up of the new Department of Manpower.
Thus, 50 or 60 members about will be called to sit on committees while the house is discussing matters as important as the setting up of a Department of Manpower, of a Department of the Solicitor General and the creation of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, as well as the setting up of a Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which will replace that of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
That is less important, Mr. Speaker; this would be the exception to the rule. While that department is being set up, very well, we can sit on the committees, but very important things will happen and, in spite of all that, some members will have to attend committee meetings.
That clearly shows, Mr. Speaker, that our committee structure is not up to date, that reforms are needed.
I think that the committee on the business of the house, which is under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, should convene to find a better procedure with regard to the creation and organization of committees.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) said a short while ago that the attendance of the members of his party, or at least his own party in the house, was relatively good compared to that of the other parties. I am glad he did not give any statistics, because he would have found that he 
was talking through his hat and was not too well aware of the situation, because I remember one day when our party, although allowed only one member on a committee, had two and sometimes three members attending meetings and asking questions, which means that our party had three times as many members as it was entitled to, whereas some of the hon. member's colleagues who had been appointed members of that committee were not there. The hon. member is young and he needs more experience. He will learn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the
member for Lapointe to put an end to a discussion with the member for York-Scarborough, which has already been ruled out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was only trying to clear matters up and set the record straight. I admit the discussion was out of order, but the member for York-Scarborough should learn to abide by the rules of this house. It is a bit hard, but with some goodwill, he will manage to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the request being submitted to us at this time proves that the whole organization system of committees should be changed, because when witnesses are called before the committee, we are asked to sit at the same time as the house, so that the witnesses are not summoned needlessly.
I would not object, were it only for a limited period.
But I feel that my earlier suggestion or perhaps the one made by the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) which is somewhat along the same lines, asking that certain days be exclusively devoted to committee work when the house is not sitting, would provide a solution and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, or rather the government house leader, to call together the business of the house committee in order to discuss the changes likely to be made in the operation and work of committees and to find a solution to the problem now facing us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ville-neuve.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks made by my colleague for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), T shall only say this. The motion presented by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) asking that the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts sit only this week seems to have been submitted
May 9, 1966



rather regularly over the past few weeks.
Each of these committees is always asking us to sit for a limited time only, but may repeat the same request the following week.
I do not believe we can logically accept this suggestion or these suggestions. I said earlier, as pointed out last week, that if there are too many committees, we should reduce their number so as to allow members to attend the meetings of these various parliamentary committees, which should not sit at the same time as the House of Commons but outside the regular hours of the house.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can accept this suggestion, because for the last two or three months we have accepted suggestions to allow the committees to sit during parliament sittings. Some members of the Ralliement Creditiste were accused earlier of not attending committee meetings held outside the sittings of the house precisely because it is impossible to be in the house and at the committee meeting at the same time. That is why we cannot accept the suggestion or request of the member for Hochelaga.
Let the government members attend these sittings of the parliamentary committees and there will be a quorum. If there are charges to be made against other members of the house, they can be made following these committee sittings.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept the suggestion of the member for Hochelaga for the same reasons that we could not earlier accept a similar suggestion with regard to the passing of his fifth report before the one which is now before us.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the cohesion, understanding and co-operation existing between the two old parties in the house; they fight one against the other but join forces when need be. We are not united with them, however, and we object to the passing of the sixth report as requested by the hon. member for Hochelaga.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a very few words in this regard. In view of the way the it. committees are constituted and the way the members have been organized I believe the committees should be allowed to determine their own course because of the fact that from time to time witnesses are called who must be dealt with as called.
Broadcasting Committee
It amazes me that in this connection the members of the Social Credit party are so quick to get up now to criticize the government concerning the committee system, when a few days ago when they had the opportunity to voice their criticism what did they do? We know what the answer is.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They ran away.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am very happy to say that I supported the previous motion, and I think this suggestion by the committee chairman also should be supported because of the circumstances. If this is the committee's right, I think it should be supported by the house. If changes must be made, then they should be made in such a manner that the committee can conform to what the house desires. I am very proud of the record of my party in respect of the committee system this session.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, accused us of having supported the government. I may say that we acted quite openly, while he and his party have acted like hypocrites concerning the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.


David Réal Caouette: Not on division. Ask for a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have
And five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could it be assumed that the members have now been called in? Could we not now take the vote?

May 9, 1966
Division


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any objection to it being assumed that the members have been called in, and the count of the house taken now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted in support of the motion.



INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMISSION


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-177, an act to authorize the government of Canada to enter into negotiations for the creation of an intergovernmental advisory commission.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, the point is to discuss with provincial governments the establishment of an intergovernmental advisory commission to be constituted like a similar commission existing in the United States about which I will have the opportunity to give some details later.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
LEnglish]



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Laprise: 1.	Among the projects which the Department of Public Works intends to carry out In 1965-66 in the county of Chapleau (a) which have been undertaken and completed (b) which are being carried out and when were they started (c) which have been postponed and when should they start, and (d) which have been abandoned?
2.	In the same county, what are the projects the department is planning to carry out in 1966-67, and when should each of them normally start?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: 1.-(a) Amos, Federal Building-Replacement of boilers, replacement of concrete steps; Chibougamau, Post Office Building- Concrete retaining wall; Eastmain, Supply and delivery of floating wharf units; Lac Turgeon,
May 9, 1966

Wharf construction; Laferte, Wharf repairs; Laferte (lac Lois), Lighting system; La Reine, Wharf reconstruction; LaSarre, Post Office Building-Interior painting of Caretaker's apartment, new sump pump; Macamic, Post Office Building-Improvement to lawn area, exterior painting; Normental, Post Office Building-Exterior and interior painting; Sen-neterre, Post Office Building-Fencing and landscaping, exterior painting.
(b)	Garden Island Lake, Launching ramp, October 20, 1965; Lac Matchi-Manitou, Wharf construction, December 1, 1965; Macamic (Lac Macamic), reconstruction of wharf and improvements, January 20, 1966.
(c)	Chapais, Post Office Building-Exterior painting, July (approx.); Chibougamau, Post Office Building-Interior painting, November (approx.); Parent, Post Office Building-Interior and exterior painting, August (approx.); Senneterre, Launching ramp, July (approx.).
(d)	Nil.
2.-Amos, Federal Building-Renovations, July (approx.); Beattyville, Launching ramp, August (approx.); Chapais, Post Office Building-Painting, paving and landscaping, August (approx.); Chibougamau, Post Office Building -Renovations, August (approx.); Clerval (Lac Abitibi) Wharf reconstruction, August (approx.); Lac Chicobi, Wharf reconstruction and ramp, August (approx.); Lac Simon (Abitibi Est), Reconstruction of wharf and approach, August (approx.); Laferte (Lac Lois), Wharf improvements, August (approx.); LaSarre, Post Office Building-Renovations, August approx.); Macamic, Post Office Building- Renovations, August (approx.); Parent, Post Office Building-Painting, September (approx.); Senneterre, Post Office Building- Renovations, August (approx.).


SUBSIDIES TO C.N.R. AND C.P.R.
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What annual subsidies are paid to (a) the Canadian Pacific Railway (b) the Canadian National Railway?
2.	For what purposes are these subsidies paid?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. If by subsidies is meant payments to the railways in respect of certain specific authorizations by parliament, the following payments are being made: Payments were made to companies subject to order No. 96300, dated November 17, 1958, of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, of an aggregate amount of $20,000,000
Questions
in respect of the period April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965, payable in instalments at such times as may be determined by the said board for the purpose of reimbursing the said companies for such diminution in their aggregate gross revenues during the said period as in the opinion of the said board is attributable to such companies maintaining the rate level for freight traffic at an 8 per cent increase instead of 17 per cent as authorized by the said order; and payments are also made to the said companies of an aggregate amount in respect of the calendar year 1964 of $50,000,000 payable in instalments at such times and in accordance with such methods of allocation as may be determined by the said board for the maintenance by such companies of the rates of freight traffic at the said reduced level.
Paid to Canadian Pacific Railway 1964-65, $26,575,186; paid to Canadian National Railways 1964-65, $39,296,841. Payments were made to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway Company, equal to the annual cost of maintaining the trackage between specified points in Ontario on the transcontinental lines of the said railways and of directing the application of the amounts paid to a reduction in freight rates on traffic moving over the said trackage.
Paid to Canadian Pacific Railway 1964-65, $3,734,073; paid to Canadian National Railways 1964-65,	$3,265,927. Payments were
made to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the Maritime Freight Rates Act of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls under approved tariffs on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1964.
Paid to Canadian Pacific Railway 1964-65, $856,032; paid to Canadian National Railways 1964-65, $12,515,000. Payments will be made to the railway companies subject to paragraph No. 2 of Order No. 103860, dated February 23, 1961, of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, which paragraph authorized the railways to increase freight rates on export grain moving between certain ports on Georgian bay, the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence river and the east coast, and which has been suspended by orders in council which have required the railways to continue in force the rates that were in effect on November 30, 1960, such payments to be based on the difference between the rates in force on November 30, 1960 and a compensatory level
4860

May 9. 1966
Questions
of rates as approved by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada.
It is estimated that total annual payments to all railways will amount to about $3,000,000 and will apply to grain moved after January 1, 1966.
In addition annual payments are made to Canadian National Railways related to operating deficits on ferry services for Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour, and on the Victoria bridge at Montreal.
Agreement in principle has also been reached to make a payment on account of the wage settlement in 1964, but the amount has not yet been finally determined.


PRINTING CONTRACTS, HURON COUNTY, ONTARIO
Mr. McKinley: 1.	Are there any publishing firms in Huron county receiving contracts for federal government printing?
2.	If so, how many firms received such contracts and how much was each paid from the federal treasury in 1965?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production and Public Printing and Stationery as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


REPAIRS TO FEDERAL BUILDING, MONTMAGNY, QUE.
Mr. Berger: 1.	Was a letter carrier service recently established in the town of Montmagny and, if so (a) are repairs planned to the existing federal building (b) what kind of repairs are required (c) what is the approximate cost?
2.	Have complaints been received from people in the neighbourhood of the federal building in Montmagny and, if so, is consideration being given to changing the existing coal heating system to an oil heating system in the building?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Post Office and Public Works as follows:
1.	Yes. Letter carrier delivery service was placed in operation at Montmagny on March 7, 1966. (a) Yes; (b) General alterations to first and second floors, improvements to loading facilities, improvements to lighting and rewiring; (c) It is not customary to reveal the estimated cost before tenders are called.

2.	A complaint regarding a smoke and ash problem was received in 1963. Certain modifications to the heating plant were made and no further complaints have been received. Due to the need for repairs to the heating plant, a study is now being made regarding the existing heating system.


COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PAY FOR PILOTS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Was the question of pay for pilots in Canada's armed forces reviewed by a special committee?
2.	If so, what were the ranks and the aircrew trades of each member of the committee?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. A special study group was appointed by the defence staff to examine the question of pilot attrition in the Canadian armed forces. The study group's report, which included recommendations with respect to pay adjustments, was used as a basis for preparing a submission to treasury board recommending an increase in pay for pilots.
2. The study group was composed of four officers with pilot qualifications

three wing commanders and a flight lieutenant.


POSTGRADUATE SCHOLARSHIPS UNDER SPORTS COUNCIL
Mr. Hales: 1.	Does the federal government make funds available to the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport for postgraduate scholarships and, if so, how much?
2.	Are any persons now receiving grants in this regard and, if so (a) how many (b) how much is being paid to each person (e) how many of these have 0-5 years teaching experience (d) how many have 5-10 years teaching experience (e) how many are single (f) how many are married with no family (g) how many are married with family?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1.	Yes. $208,037 was made available during 1965-1966.
2.	Yes.
(a)	128 students
(b)	Doctoral scholarships-1965-1966 23 full year students received
$2,000 each or $ 46,000 21 of these students also received dependant's allowance of	$500 each or $ 10,500
A total sum for travelling expenses amounted to	$	2,085
May 9. 1966

17 short term students received
a total of	$	17,550
Master's scholarships-1965-1966		
44 full year students received		
$2,000 each or	$	88,000
A total sum for travelling ex-		
penses amounted to	$	3,622
43 short term students received a		
total of	$	37,2001 special fellowship was granted	$	3,080
Total funds made available $208,037
(c)	79. (d) 49. (e) 33. (f) 23 (g) 72.


TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT, ATOMIC ENERGY WHITESHELL ESTABLISHMENT
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has anyone in the employ of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Whiteshell Establishment been asked to resign at any time in the last four months or, was anyone in the employ of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Whiteshell Establishment terminated of his employment in the last four months?
2.	Was anyone at the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Whiteshell Establishment told by any of his superiors that he was a security risk?
3.	If anyone at the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Whiteshell Establishment has terminated his employment there in the last four-month period, what reasons were given for doing so?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	On the assumption that the word "terminated" relates to the substance of No. 1, the answer is that the services of two employees have been terminated in the last four months due to unsatisfactory performance of work.


PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING ESTATE TAX
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,317
Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: 1.	Since April 23, 1963, have any representations been made by any provincial governments to the effect that the federal government should vacate the field of estate tax?
2.	If so, from what provincial governments and on what date was each such representation made?
3.	What consideration has been given by the government to any such representations?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minisier of Finance):: 1. Yes.
Questions
2.	Quebec and British Columbia at the November 1963 federal-provincial conference; Quebec at the federal-provincial conference March 1964; and Alberta by letter of April 20, 1965 transmitting the resolution adopted by the provincial legislation on April 15, 1966.
3.	At the November 1963 federal-provincial conference Canada agreed to raise the provincial share of the federal estate tax from 50 per cent to 75 per cent for provinces that did not impose a provincial succession duty tax and to increase the federal tax credit from 50 per cent to 75 per cent on estates domiciled in provinces imposing a provincial succession duty.
At the October 1964 federal-provincial conference the federal and provincial governments adopted the terms of reference of the tax structure committee. Among other matters, the committee was directed to study and report on:
4.	The tax fields that should be used exclusively by the federal government and by the province and municipalities and the fields in which joint occupancy is desirable.


PAY PROMISES TO AIRCREW
Mr. Enns: 1.	Was it the policy of the Department of National Defence before April 1, 1966, when recruiting for aircrew candidates, to promise equal pay and career opportunities for all aircrew?
2.	If so, does an aircrew officer have the option to resign from the service at his convenience, without penalty of pension or other benefits, in the case of a breach of this promise?
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.
NEGOTIATIONS ON TROTS-RIVlfiRES GRAIN ELEVATORS

Question No. 1,330-Mr. Mongrain:
Did the National Harbours Board send Mr. John Lloyd to negotiate with the Trois-Rivieres' municipal council concerning the grain elevator in that city and, if so (a) when (b) what suggestions did the National Harbours Board representative make?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National
Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Negotiations were not conducted by board member J. E. Lloyd with the Trois-Rivieres municipal council as such.
2. Mr. Lloyd has had several meetings withi Mayor Gaston Dufresne of Trois-Rivieres and1

May 9, 1966
Questions
J. G. Cyr, president of the Trois-Rivieres Chamber of Commerce. The meetings took place on December 16, 1965 and February 24 and April 5, 1966 and were undertaken as a co-operative effort to identify steps that could be taken by the grain elevator company to minimize its local taxation and N.H.B. charges.
3.	The grain elevator company has appealed the local assessment valuation of its property. That is a matter entirely between the company and the city's assessment court of revi-tion and therefore not open to negotiation between the city and the N.H.B.
4.	In so far as N.H.B. is concerned, it has agreed to arrangements with regard to a lease of vacant land that will lessen the 1966 rental and tax costs of the grain elevator company.


AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM, H.M.C.S. &quot;BONAVENTURE&quot;
Mr. Forrestall: Is it now the intention of the government to install an adequate air conditioning system in H.M.C.S. Bonaventure during its half-life refit to serve the several mess decks, the main engine room, boiler rooms, etc.?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: During the design stages of the half life conversion of H.M.C.S. Bonaventure considerable attention was paid to improving the habitability of the vessel. As stated in reply to Starred Question 606, at page 1859 of Hansard on 28 February 1966, additional air conditioning and ventilation is being provided to electronic compartments as well as to dining halls and living space, together with other habitability improvements. The combined engine and boiler rooms are not being air conditioned. Due to weight and space limitations, habitability cannot be expected to reach the standard of ships of the latest designs.


HISTORIC SITE-HOME OF HON. JEAN-CHARLES CHAPAIS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Have any proposals been made to the government that the original home of Hon. Jean-Charles Chapais, a father of confederation and Canada's first minister of agriculture, at St. Denis in the county of Kamouraska, be made a national museum as a rural memorial to confederation?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the proposals, by whom were they made and what attitude has the government taken to them?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Yes.
[Mr. Byrne.)
2. The Canadian Historical Society so proposed in 1964. The matter was referred to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, who recommended that the building be declared of national historical importance. Consequently, in line with the policy governing the preservation of buildings of national historical importance, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is presently negotiating an agreement with the province of Quebec by which acquisition and restoration costs will be shared, and the house established as a national historic site open to the public.


SHIPPING ACT EXEMPTIONS
Mr. Bechard: 1.	From January 1. 1965, to date, how many exemptions pursuant to section 137 of the Canada Shipping Act have been granted to ships operating in Canadian home trade, inland and minor waters relieving them from the requirement to carry (a) duly certificated masters (b) duly certificated mates (c) duly certificated engineers?
2.	For what reason or reasons were these exemptions granted?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. A report of all exemptions granted during the calendar year 1965 has already been tabled in the house on April 26, 1966. From January 1, 1966 to April 22, 1966, 53 ships were exempted; (a) 36 of these exempting the ships from the requirement to be provided with a properly certificated master; (b) 23 exempting the ships from the requirement to be provided with properly certificated mates; and (c) 216 exemptions have been issued for engineers.
2. These exemptions were granted because no properly certificated persons were available for employment.


SAFETY RECORD, AGENCE MARITIME INC.
Mr. Bechard: What has been the safety record of ships operated by Agence Maritime Inc. to date?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No accidents have been reported as having happened on board or to vessels operated by Agence Maritime Inc., to date, April 22nd, 1966.
May 9, 196B


UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS-INVESTIGATION BY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has the Department of Transport ever undertaken an investigation of reported unidentified flying objects and, if so, during what period?
2.	Have results of such investigations been made public?
3.	Are such investigations being carried out at this time and, if not, is consideration being given to the institution of such investigations?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. A small group within the Department of Transport conducted spare time investigations between December 1950 and August 1954.
Questions
2.	No.
3.	No.


ARMED FORCES ENLISTMENTS AND DISCHARGES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What have been the total enlistments at the commissioned and non-commissioned levels during the months of January. February and March, 1966, by each branch of our armed services?
2.	By month, what have been the number of discharges and/or resignations at each level since January 1, 1966, by each branch of the armed services?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1.	Enlistments	January	February	March1966	1966	1966
Navy, Army, Air Force Navy, Army, Air Force Navy, Army, Air Force
Officers
including
cadets	5	10	39	2	53	15	7	38Other ranks 2. Releases Officers including	157	215	191	213	473	246	171	490	221cadets	40	96	73	51	73	103	29	68	97Other ranks	321	532	367	258	463	370	290	543	297


CARIBOU IN CAPE BRETON NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has the government's study of a proposal to re-establish caribou in the Cape Breton Highlands national park been completed and, if so, what is the final decision?


Arthur Laing: 1. The feasibility study has been completed, was satisfactory and the decision is to go ahead with the re-establishment pending specific evaluation of potential parasite problems by the Canadian wildlife service which is investigating the matter in consultation with provincial game officers.


EIGHT HOUR DAY FOR FIREFIGHTERS, POINT EDWARD BASE
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the Department of Transport to implement an 8 hour day with particular reference to the firefighters employed at the Point Edward Naval Base, Nova Scotia and, if so, how soon will this take place?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The department is studying the hours of work of all firefighters employed in the department at various locations across Canada which may result in a future change.


MANPOWER MOBILITY LOANS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1. Under the manpower mobility program, have any persons received grants or loans through the offices of the National Employment Service at (a) Sydney Mines (b) North Sydney (c) Sydney. Nova Scotia and, if so, how many?
2 Have any persons been refused in each of these offices and, if so (a) how many (b) for what reasons?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1.	Yes, (a) Sydney Mines: one person has received a grant; (b) North Sydney: none; (c) Sydney: 38 persons have received loans and 20 have received grants.

May 9. 1966
Questions
2.	Yes, (a) Sydney Mines: two applicants for grants; North Sydney: none; Sydney: seven applicants for loans and four applicants for grants; (b) Sydney Mines: of the two applications for grants which were not authorized one was not approved because the worker did not apply within three months of moving to his new area of employment and one because the employer in the area to which the worker wished to move did not confirm that he had a vacancy for the worker concerned; Sydney: of the seven applications for loans which were not authorized five were not approved because employment was available locally for the workers concerned, one because the worker left his last employment voluntarily and one because the employment to which the worker wished to move did not offer reasonable prospects of permanent re-establishment for him. Of the four applications for grants which were not authorized one was not approved because the employment to which the worker wished to move did not offer reasonable prospects for his permanent re-establishment; two applications were for transportation only and the employer authorized the payment of the transportation; one application was from a worker who was returning to his regular employment.


ABANDONMENT OF BURNED OUT TRAWLER
Mr. Crouse: Did H.M.C.S. Gatineau leave the burned out fishing trawler Karen B after the crew abandoned her on April 1, 1966, before the arrival of the Halifax-based tug Foundation Vigilant and. if so. for what reason?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The circumstances pertaining to the fishing trawler Karen B were as follows: On 1 April, 1966, fire broke out on board the Karen B, which was approximately 100 miles off Halifax. A distress message was sent and the crew of 14 took to a life raft. Two Sea King helicopters were promptly dispatched from Canadian forces base Shearwater and the crew of 14 and a dog were picked up and flown to Shearwater.
H.M.C.S. Gatineau, which was at sea, was diverted to the position of the Karen B. When she arrived, later in the day, the fire was out and the Karen B was out of danger. Having ascertained that the trawler was seaworthy, that a Canadian salvage vessel was on its way, and that there were no other ships within 20 miles of the Karen B, the Gatineau resumed operations.

As was demonstrated in this instance, the navy responds immediately to any emergency at sea and takes all possible action to save lives and property. The navy does not normally involve itself in salvage operations, however, leaving this to salvage companies who derive their revenue from this type of work and strongly object to the navy becoming involved in salvage operations thereby establishing claim by naval personnel to salvage entitlements.
POSTAL STATION "F'\ HAMILTON, ONT.


Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Does the government propose the establishment of postal station "F" in Hamilton, Ontario and, if so, what site, if any, has been chosen?
2.	Have tenders been called for the construction of a building to house postal station "F" and, if so, has any bid been accepted?
3.	What is the proposed date for the completion of these facilities?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes. A site has not been selected.
2.	Tenders have not been called.
3.	Not applicable.


BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, FUNDY NATIONAL PARK ENTRANCE
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Albert):
1.	Does the government intend to build a new bridge at the southeast entrance to Fundy National Park at the village of Alma in Albert county, New Brunswick and, if so (a) has work started on this new bridge (b) what is the completion date?
2.	Will the existing bridge at this point be repaired for the coming summer season and, if so
(a)	when (b) have alternative routes been considered?
3.	Was there a loss in number of tourists and dollars owing to the bridge restriction last summer and, if so, what is this estimated loss?


Arthur Laing: 1. The bridge in question is the property of the province of New Brunswick. As it is the prime entrance to a national park, and as a portion of the structure lies within the park, the federal government has held meetings with the province to negotiate a cost sharing agreement for a replacement structure. This agreement has been submitted to the provincial government for its consideration and this is where the matter stands at the present time, (a) No;
(b)	the tentative completion date is June 15, 1967.
May 9, 1966

2, The existing bridge underwent repairs last August which should suffice for the coming summer season, (a) N/A; (b) an alternate route to the park exists via highway No. 14 which joins the trans-Canada highway near Sussex, New Brunswick.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Slanbury: 1.	How many works of what artists are in storage at present in the National Gallery?
2.	What steps are being taken to display such works?
3.	What works of art in the National Gallery are available in reproduction?
4.	What consideration is being given to expansion of the number of works available in reproduction from the National Gallery?
Return tabled.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is a matter of great urgency concerning the question of whether a new resolution is to be brought before the security council by the African nations seeking further action against Rhodesia. Britain is trying to dissuade this group from so doing in order to continue the talks that are now going on in London between the British government and the Rhodesian government.
As 36 African states have this action in mind and as it was a result of Canada's action that many of these states found their way into the United Nations, what is Canada's stand on this question? Is it playing its part to try to bring about a postponement of any such resolution at this time? Has it communicated with the various African states, and has it joined with Britain in its request that action be not taken in the United Nations at this time but rather should await the conclusion of the discussions or such further action as Britain may take?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with some African countries in London, and in the special committee on
Inquiries of the Ministry colonialism at the United Nations. Canada strongly supports the view that an opportunity must be given to assess the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of the sanctions program. This is the position we have been taking in London and we have also made it clear in the United Nations that we think this course should be followed.
We have also pointed out that to resort to force in current circumstances could have serious implications for the multiracial character of the Commonwealth. Instead of meeting the objective which some countries have in mind such action could create a much more serious situation. We believe there is evidence that the course taken by the British government and by Canada and other counties both inside and outside the Commonwealth may be achieving results. In view of the exploratory talks that are now under way, it would be tragic if the opportunity were not taken to await the outcome of these discussions. I hope this will be the course that will be followed.


John George Diefenbaker: I give of course, complete support to what the minister has said. Now I ask him, has the Canadian government communicated with the African nations outside the Commonwealth and impressed upon them the seriousness of any action that might be taken at this time and the dangers inherent in precipitate action?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, in the discussions we have had at the United Nations-I will not say with all the African countries at the United Nations, but with some of those countries from inside as well as outside the Commonwealth-we have taken this position.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received a telegram from Mr. Stuart Armour, president of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association, protesting the fact that although the hearings regarding seaway tolls have not yet commenced and are not to begin until May 25, Mr. Delmer E. Taylor, a member of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, is quoted as saying, "There has already been considerable support for the toll increases proposed by the authority." I ask the minister whether he has received this protest, what action he is

May 9, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry taking with regard to it, and whether the opinion expressed by Mr. Delmer E. Taylor represents the government's policy with reference to an increase in tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have received Mr. Armour's telegram. I dictated a reply to it, which I do not think I have yet signed, in which I pointed out that this parliament decided that tolls should be levied which would over the years pay for the seaway and that I could not see any good reason why a member of the seaway authority should not advocate carrying out the law any more than I could see why Mr. Stuart Armour should not be quite free to advocate changing the law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If this matter has already been decided by the members of the seaway authority, may I ask the minister what is the purpose of the hearings commencing May 25?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not a matter for decision by the authority at all; it is a matter for decision by the government, and the government is going to await the hearings. But it does not seem to me that is any reason why a member of the authority should not point out what the law now is.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister or the government any intention of replacing the tolls on the Welland canal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the government's position-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question concerns general policy and is not so urgent that it should be allowed at the present time.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance?
Has the minister recently received representations from the Homebuilders Association of Hull and Ottawa concerning the present policy and, if so, is it the minister's intention to revert to a policy favouring the maintenance of residential construction?
(Mr. Douglas.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the housing policy of the government was enunciated by the Minister of Labour the other day, and I have nothing to add.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as the minister responsible for affairs relating to the national capital area. In view of remarks attributed to the minister over the week end regarding the need for the restructuring of the Ottawa city type of municipal government leading toward a federal district for the Ottawa area, would the minister inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation to this effect?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would have to point out that legislation restructuring the municipal government in Ottawa can only be passed by the provincial legislature and that this house does not have jurisdiction over this subject.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister, either directly or through the National Capital Commission, be prepared to attend meetings with municipal and provincial government officials with a view to seeing whether something can be worked out along these lines?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not urgent.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the new Canada-United States air agreement permits Canada to operate a second carrier on the Toronto-Chicago run, is it the intention of the government to permit Canadian Pacific Airlines to operate this second run in competition with Air Canada?
May 9, 1966	COMMONS


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, all that is intended at the present time is what has already been announced.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. I take it then that the answer is no, the government does not intend to allow any competition with Air Canada on the Toronto-Chicago run?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this is a fair interpretation of my answer.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council who is in charge of federal-provincial relations.
My question arises out of the statement, yesterday, by Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, Minister of Education in the province of Quebec.
Is the minister in a position to tell the house whether the question of amending our constitution will be discussed at the federal-provincial conference to be held next month?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I must first say that I have not had the opportunity to examine the statement made by Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, as mentioned by the hon. member. As concerns the questions to be discussed at the next federal-provincial conference, I believe the Prime Minister will be making a statement on the matter.
tEnglish]


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I just received from the President of the Privy Council the answer to my question, for which I thank him. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the desire of the federal government at the federal-provincial meeting next month to dismiss questions of constitutional reform in the broadest sense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that when replying to the first question the minister indicated that a statement would be made in due course. In view of this I do not believe the question should be accepted.
DEBATES	4867
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS


AMHERST, N.S.-LAY-OFFS AT ENAMEL AND HEATING PLANT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry of which I have given him notice. Has the minister been informed of lay-offs which have taken place at Enamel and Heating, Amherst, and can he inform the house what action he has taken through his department to counter this situation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed of production lay-offs at Enamel and Heating. This is a difficult situation. Enamel and Heating, aware of the fact that military overhaul and repair contracts were declining and were going to continue to decline, has been endeavouring to secure an additional work load through the production sharing program and, in relation to civil aircraft contracts, good progress has been made in getting additional work through production sharing with the United States. Unfortunately recent attempts to negotiate work for production of DC-9 components has not resulted in agreement between the Douglas Aircraft Corporation and Enamel and Heating.
It is hoped that we will be able to find some alternative form of work load in connection with the DC-9 program to what was originally proposed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the very humane Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any comment or emotions with respect to action taken by the premier of South Viet Nam's military regime yesterday to stifle any political agitation which might come from his pledge to stay in power for another year, and with respect to the premier's statement that he will fight any government elected by the people of South Viet Nam that does not receive his approval?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have only seen a press report of Premier Ky's alleged statement, and I note Mr. Rusk has said it was not an accurate report.

May 9, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
As far as the government are concerned, we have frequently made it clear that we hoped elections could be held as a basis on which a popularly supported and broadly based government in South Viet Nam could proceed to develop peaceful and stable conditions in that country.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is now in a position to answer the question I asked concerning the shipment of wheat by way of assistance to India. Will Canada pay the freight on the wheat shipped there? Otherwise it is the kind of gift which it is very difficult for a nation to accept, short as it is of foreign exchange.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to pay these costs. I may say that when Mr. Mehta, the minister of planning of India, was here last week he expressed very deep gratitude on behalf of the government of India for the assistance Canada has already announced it is going to give to India to meet the serious food situation. He also acknowledged with gratitude the fact that we proposed to cancel the some $10 million owing to Canada by India in respect of her food shipments in 1958.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, was Canada's $10 million to take the place of paying the freight on the wheat being shipped or about to be shipped in this connection?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: With regard to shipping costs we are, of course, following the same policy the previous government and all governments in Canada have followed in respect of this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I would not want my hon. friend's question to give the impression that the food assistance which Canada is giving this year to India is insignificant. Our total food assistance this year will be in the order of $75 million.


John George Diefenbaker: How much is the freight, though?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This permits a volume of assistance to India, which apart

from the assistance which the United States is giving, is the greatest measure of aid that is being given to India by any country.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister make a statement regarding the story in this morning's Free Press and tell us whether the Centralia Canadian armed forces base might be closed by this fall?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that it is not in order to ask a minister whether a press statement is correct or incorrect.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I will rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Centralia Canadian armed forces base in danger of being closed this fall?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend is aware one of the benefits to be derived from the integration of the armed forces is the reduction of overhead through eliminating duplication and triplication. Certainly so far as training command is concerned we anticipate there will be some base consolidation, and it is only in this way that we can achieve the savings which we expect to achieve from this process.
So far as the Centralia Canadian armed forces base in concerned, although the matter has been studied by training command no decision has yet been taken as to whether the base will be closed.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer by the Minister of National Defence in connection with Centralia a itew moments ago, I should like to ask him whether his policies in regard to the savings of manpower in defence forces have been so successful that he has now arrived at the point where he has only 22 naval ships in operation instead of the 60-odd which were there when he took over some two years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: May I ask a
supplementary question?
May 9. 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a supplementary question? The first one was not allowed. Perhaps this could be a new question by the hon. member for Ontario.


Michael Starr: How does the Minister of National Defence explain the increase of $11 million over the expenditure for last year when he has told us he has been trying to save-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These two questions are argumentative, and I suggest to the minister he has no authority to reply to them because they have not been accepted.
[Later :1


Robert Elgin McKinley: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Industry. If some Canadian forces bases are closed, will his department help to secure other employment for the people affected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is hypothetical.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Having in mind the minister's very welcome reply as reported in today's press to the effect that federal aid is possible to help improve what passes for the airport road in Ottawa, my question is can the minister indicate when such action can be expected?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a precise answer to the question at this time, but I hope it will be very soon.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On Saturday of last week the minister announced that there would be a reduction in rates on the C.P.R. Northumberland ferries, for which I thank him very much. However, I should like to know how soon we might expect an inquiry into the proposed ferry rate structures, where the inquiry will be held and something about the terms of reference of this inquiry.
DEBATES	4869
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question seems to be of a general nature. The hon. member has asked a number of questions with reference to a number of points. I suggest that he might place it on the order paper.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could confine myself to the first two points. I am primarily interested in when the inquiry will be held and where, because these are pressing and important matters in order that preparations can be made to make submissions to such an inquiry.
Hon. J. W. Pickers gill (Minister of Transport): It is the intention to have the chairman of the maritime commission go to Prince Edward Island to receive representations from any of the users who wish to make them. I anticipate that it will be Prince Edward Island only where the chairman will hear these representations. However, if there are some representations from people on the mainland we would endeavour to make arrangements for them as well, but I think the main interest is in Prince Edward Island.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: When?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As soon as can conveniently be done.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry, the minister responsible for the ARDA program, with regard to the studies which have been undertaken by the eastern Quebec planning board. Can the minister advise this house if the studies that are being made are based on the principle that poverty in the lower St. Lawrence is an accepted state of mind as stated by-


Mr. Speaker:: This question also is argumentative and cannot be accepted.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister yet in a position to indicate when the legislation providing for the regulation of
23033-309J

May 9, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry pension plans that come under federal jurisdiction, promised in December, 1964 will be introduced?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under discussion in the cabinet committee at the present time. We are not yet prepared to bring it before the house. We shall do so as soon as we have completed our consideration of this rather complicated matter.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a non-argumentative question for the Associative Minister of National Defence or possibly the Postmaster General. I should like to ask whether official action has been taken to rename post offices associated with defence establishments in line with the new designations of the Canadian forces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This non-argumentative question should be placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a non-argumentative but somewhat urgent question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the department yet made its decision with regard to a re-enlistment bonus for those with broken time in the armed services?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works, in his capacity as house leader, if he would call a meeting at an early date of those who are concerned in the matter to see if we cannot do something to improve the work of the committees of this House of Commons?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I should draw the attention of the house to the fact that the committee structure is operating much better than hon. members indicated in their remarks earlier today. For instance, in so far as the broadcasting committee is concerned it has had a wonderful record of attendance. I have the figures here for the meetings since that committee started, and I would be glad to place them on record if the house wished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister answer my question?


George James McIlraith: Not with the inference in the preamble to the question. If you ask the question without any inference I will be glad to answer it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the sensitive minister if he will call a meeting of those who are interested in looking at our committee structure.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I would be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the house leader?
Since the attendance at the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts has been so good, is he in a position to tell us why a reduction in the quorum was asked for?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is in the nature of an argument and is not in order.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the organization of the government of Canada to establish a Department of the Solicitor General, Department of Manpower, Department of the Registrar General, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; to establish the offices of the ministers of those departments and to provide for the respective powers, duties and functions of the ministers thereof; to establish the office of President of the Treasury Board; to provide for

May 9, 1966

the appointment of deputy heads of the new departments and for the appointment in the manner authorized by law of other officers and employees; to authorize the transfer of appropriations to the new departments and other departments to which the functions for which such appropriations were made are assigned; to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Salaries Act and generally to make such other consequential or incidental statutory amendments as are necessary to implement the changes to be effected by the said measure.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to move the adoption of this resolution, item No. 56 on the order paper, which stands in my name. In doing so I think I can say, with general agreement, that the legislation contemplated in this resolution will be very important indeed in the conduct of government. The purpose of the resolution as set out in its opening words is:
-to introduce a measure respecting the organization of the government of Canada-
In moving the motion for the adoption of the resolution, I want to talk primarily about the purpose and the need for reorganization of government as proposed in the resolution. Then, Mr. Chairman, if the resolution carries, I shall be pleased to go into the matter in much greater detail on second reading of the bill.
The reorganization of administrative responsibilities which the government has undertaken, which is referred to in this resolution and which will be reflected in the proposed bill if the resolution is adopted by the house, constitutes the most extensive change in the administrative organization of government that has ever been made in peacetime. I am afraid we have had a tendency to ignore or at least, if not to ignore, to under-estimate, the importance of the administrative organization in achieving the substantial results which we expect from policies, results which are vital at a time when government is far more concerned with and is far more important to the life of the citizen, the productivity of our economy and indeed the character of our society, than has ever been the case before.
I put alongside the desirability, indeed, the necessity of reorganizing our parliamentary procedures to make parliament a more effective instrument in agreeing on policies, the necessity for that change to adapt parliamentary institutions to the needs of our contemporary society, the parallel need of reform in
Establishment of New Departments the administrative organization of government so that government as such will be able to achieve the substantial results and maximum effectiveness which we expect when policies are adopted by parliament. Results both in policy and in administration are vital, as I say, at a time when the government is so concerned not only with making the national economy work but with protecting and advancing the interests of the individual.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We are well beyond the point where it is even a matter of debate whether government should assume any responsibility for economy planning, for social adjustment, for individual welfare and for the basic nature of our society. All countries now recognize that effective organization and administration in government are an essential part of the complex inter-relationships that are a feature of our technical and rather affluent society.
If the role of policy making is vital, and it is, it is equally vital that administration should be well conceived and efficiently directed. Indeed, effective administration and organization lie at the core of many of our political problems. The reorganization which is now being undertaken and which is referred to in this resolution will, I believe, contribute in an important way to the effectiveness of government administration in important areas of national activity in the years ahead.
The broad outlines of the measures contemplated in this resolution are already known. Many of the proposed bills' more immediate objectives have already been implemented, as has been done in the past in similar circumstances, by the use of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. Certain statutory changes are required to establish fully, formally and finally the new and the affected departments. The names of several departments have to be altered to reflect their new functions. It is interesting to note that while under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act it is possible, because parliament has given government this authority and power, to transfer duties in a very important way without further legislation, it is not possible, except by legislative change, to alter the name of a department. That is only one reason why, of course, legislation is required. Also, in some cases departmental structures have to be fitted to different roles and some legislation is required for this. The reorganization that I mention, Mr. Chairman, will, I
4872	COMMONS
Establishment of New Departments believe, facilitate more effective action in a number of important areas of government responsibility.
I have been glad to note that there has been widespread public approval of the changes that are being proposed. I believe this approval stems from public recognition of the changing needs of our times and the changing demands on government to meet those needs, and also that the structure of government be adapted to meet those needs.
The recent report of the Economic Council of Canada states in endorsing one important change, and I quote from the report:
The area of greatest need for urgent and effective action is that of manpower and labour market policies . . . whether an active manpower policy is to be successful hinges critically on effective administration.
And the report goes on:
It is essential that a proper administrative structure be established for co-ordinating labour market programs. This is an important initial step.
Along with the Economic Council, the government recognizes, in the words of the report, and I quote again:
That the development of strong initiatives and effective policies to promote adaptability and mobility of the labour force, to facilitate the matching of demand and supply of labour, and to generate timely and useful information about labour market conditions, will yield high rates of return in relation to the resources required to implement them.
That is one change that is being proposed, Mr. Chairman, the setting up of a ministry which will deal with manpower problems.
The government has also decided that it would be a wise course to place immigration under the same minister as the minister dealing with manpower generally. Immigration policy obviously must be administered in the interests of the country and of the immigrants themselves in a context that takes into account the entire position of employment, training and placement in Canada. The association of the various aspects of manpower policies under the same minister should make it easier to implement programs and to implement them more effectively.
As hon. members know, the department of manpower will be in addition to and not be a replacement for the Department of Labour. The latter will continue its traditional and important role in conciliation and labour relations, in the field of labour standards and labour conditions generally. These are very important functions, especially in times of remarkable economic activity such as the

DEBATES	May 9, 1966
present and of increasingly rapid change in the techniques of production that so affect, as they are affecting now, the position of labour. So there will be a very important role for the Department of Labour to continue to play.
It has become increasingly difficult for one minister to discharge fully both areas of responsibility at the present time. I speak of manpower on the one hand and labour relations on the other. With the attention of two ministers, one in the area of labour relations and the other in the area of manpower, placement and training, we will be in a better position than we were before to deal effectively with two of the most important aspects of our economy in the present climate of great domestic activity and high international competition.
A third department, Mr. Chairman, that bears directly on employment opportunity, productivity and the standard of living, is forestry, which the government organization bill seeks to have renamed and enlarged as the department of forestry and rural development. This change will recognize the increasing importance of the department's responsibilities for the government's program in agricultural rehabilitation and development. The program already extends well beyond agricultural matters to include a variety of instruments aimed at breaking what has been called in the Economic Council's report, from which I again quote:
-the vicious circle of low productivity, low incomes, low government revenues and low investments in growth-promoting services.
The government will continue to recognize the special regional development problems, not only the ones which I just mentioned concerning agricultural development-


John George Diefenbaker: Could I ask the Prime Minister where this is referred to in the resolution?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is forestry? Forestry is not in it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the organization of the government of Canada to establish a Department of the Solicitor General, Department of Manpower, Department of the Registrar General. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; to establish the offices of the ministers of those departments and to provide for the respective powers, duties and functions of the ministers thereof; to establish the office of President of the Treasury Board; to provide for the appointment of deputy heads of the new departments and for the appointment in the
May 9, 1966


John George Diefenbaker: I think the resolution will have to be redrawn.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I must confess to being a little disconcerted at the right hon. gentleman's intervention.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then perhaps I should say nothing further about that particular change, and I will not.


John George Diefenbaker: You will have to bring forward a resolution for it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before I apologize to the committee perhaps the right hon. gentleman will allow me to try to find out the reason for the omission. This is, I believe, in the resolution: the government will continue to recognize the special regional development problems of the Canadian north through a department of northern development. Under the government organization bill, however, Indian affairs replaces national resources as the companion responsibility of the minister of northern affairs.
As the royal commission on government organization pointed out, the joining together of Indian affairs and northern development is a natural step which cannot but strengthen both the well-being of Canada's indigenous peoples and the cause of northern expansion and development. The new organization will place under one minister federal responsibility for both the Indian and the Eskimo people. This change will result in more effective work than has hitherto been possible and will help to eliminate differences in standards and treatment which have been a cause of some criticism and discontent.
The resource jurisdiction which has been connected with the development of the north will remain under the minister of northern development. Other resource responsibilities once located in the department of northern affairs have now been transferred to the
Establishment of New Departments Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. There they have been joined by various resource an energy responsibilities from the ministries of industry and trade and commerce. In the government organization bill all these will be fashioned to form a single department of energy, mines and resources. There will be one minister who will have both the facilities to develop and the authority to implement national policies with regard to the resource and energy responsibilities of the federal government with the exception of resource development in northern territories.
Resources and energy are, of course, closely inter-related. Energy, on the one hand, is the product of resource use; it is on the other, a key to the full application and use of our resources generally and we believe it is wise to have the two handled together if policy is to be of the greatest effectiveness and to contribute to our long term economic growth and development. The new organization will greatly facilitate this.
A totally different but no less vital instrument in the order growth and development of the Canadian society is the law itself. In this connection the government organization bill is concerned with re-shaping the Department of Justice and the Department of the Secretary of State, with raising the office of the Solicitor General to departmental status and with the establishment of a department of government, the department of the registrar general, which will bring together legislation and policy concerning existing federal responsibility for certain aspects of business activity.
In recent years governments have been much concerned with social legislation which has involved the establishment of economic mechanisms to achieve national purposes. All of this has enormously increased the burdens upon our law officers and legal advisers. It has also caused us to think more readily in terms of economic rather than strictly legal techniques for encouraging social action. In administering these techniques, under the present set-up we have tended to overload our legal advisers. This has resulted in a tendency to obscure the creative social role which the law itself can perform. It is in the context of correcting both these failings that the government organization bill will propose the completion of a radical reform of the Crown's law offices.
On the one hand, the Department of Justice and the office of the Attorney General of
May 9. 1968

Establishment of New Departments Canada will be returned to the lull time discharge of their traditional functions: the drafting of legislation and documents; the conduct of litigation and prosecutions. The appointment and maintenance of courts and quasi-judicial tribunals will rest here, where principle of justice and the lessons of history show they should reside. The R.C.M.P., criminal investigations, detentions, paroles and pardons, on the other hand, will be the full time responsibility of the Solicitor General in a department which, like the Home Office in Britain, will be separate and distinct from that of the Attorney General.
In addition to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General the government organization bill will provide for a third department, the Department of the registrar general, which will have charge of that aspect of legislation dealing with what might be called business law. Patents, trade marks, companies, bankruptcy and restrictive trade practices are all matters which have important economic as well as legal aspects. Legislation in these areas must not merely record commercial rights but protect the national interest and the rights of individuals and act as an instrument in the promotion of social and economic goals.
Hon. members will have noted that some of the areas of business law which I mentioned will be taken from the Department of the Secretary of State. The work transferred from this department will certainly be replaced by the transfer to it of the citizenship branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The government organization bill will seek the repeal of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act after making provision for the transfer of citizenship responsibilities to the Secretary of State. I am sure that this change will commend itself.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Given the nature and meaning of citizenship-the legal summation, if you like, of all that our country, our history, our form of government and our society stand for-we believe it is clearly best to place this with other responsibilities that relate to the nonmaterial nature of our society such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board, the Canada Council and the like. So these matters will all be in the Secretary of State's department.
A further feature of the bill that is of no small importance is the implementation of

the recommendation of the Glassco commission to put the Treasury Board under a separate minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the Prime Minister gets too far away from a question he raised, would he mind stating the relationship between the department of the registrar general and the President of the Privy Council, because it seems to me something was taken out of the Privy Council and given to the Registrar General?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is true, as a temporary measure. There is no necessary relationship in this particular resolution. It might well be desirable, and I emphasize that this is a possibility but not a decision, to make the President of the Privy Council the Registrar General, in which case he would have the function to go into this new department which will be discussed later. It might cover anything that the President of the Privy Council has now, and he has one or two things which will go to the department of the registrar general. I am thinking of bankruptcy. But these things will be discussed when the bill is before the house and then my hon. friend will see what it is proposed to do. All I am stressing now is that there is no necessary connection between the President of the Privy Council and the minister of the new department, the department of the registrar general.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did I understand that combines investigations would come under the Registrar General?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend will have a look at the bill he will see that it is all laid out in detail, all the functions that are being transferred, and bankruptcy is included in these.


John George Diefenbaker: Who has that? The
President of the Privy Council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder


John George Diefenbaker: Mention was made of it. I would not have asked if the Prime Minister had not referred to it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This refers to the draft legislation, and I have said already-


John George Diefenbaker: But the Prime Minister said-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Dealing with the department of the registrar general I think I did outline
May 9, 1966	COMMONS
what that department would deal with, and I said that patents, trade marks, company matters, bankruptcy and restrictive trade prac-ices are all matters which have important economic as well as legal aspects and could be transferred to the new department of the registrar general. I think that is as clear as I can make it on the resolution stage.
I was beginning to mention an important and final feature of the bill, the implementation of the recommendation of the Glassco Commission to put the Treasury Board under a separate minister. The Treasury Board will have the added functions that the Glassco Commission contemplated for the improvement of administrative organization in the government service generally. It will be associated administratively with the Privy Council office to bring together the co-ordination of policy and administration in a manner which will add to the effectiveness of government at a time when the complexity and scope of its task are greater than ever before.
That, Mr. Chairman, is a short explanation of the changes proposed by the resolution which is before the committee. I do not for a minute suggest that with the steps included in this bill reorganization of government will have been completed or that we will have reached a place at which we can rest with the feeling that full adjustment has been accomplished, even adjustment to the problems of the present let alone those problems which will develop in the future. This is by no means the case and it would not be wise to consider that any reorganization, however extensive, and this is certainly an extensive one, is final.
The Royal Commission on Government Organization, the Glassco Commission, noted as found on page 26, volume 5 of its report:
The persistence of change and the need for adjustment to change are, in fact, the only future certainties known to any organization. The successful adaptation of the machinery of government to changing circumstances will require two things: within the public service itself there must be an awareness that adaptation is an inescapable part of the task of management: and, both within the public service and beyond it, there must be a continuous assessment of the role of the federal government in the life of Canada, to ensure that the machinery of government remains responsive to the ends it must serve.
As the circumstances of society change in this swift-changing, indeed, revolutionary age, the pattern of governmental organization and of administrative direction must also change if they are to be properly effective. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that in this resolution
DEBATES	4875
Establishment of New Departments and in the legislation visualized by it the government is asking parliament to make a major, important step forward. I am sure that additional steps will be required and I believe they should be taken as conditions continue to change. Meanwhile I am asking the committee to consider this resolution favourably so that we can, without delay, introduce a bill based upon it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak but shortly on this resolution. It is of unusual interest that after months of preparation, going back to December 17 of last year, the government produces a resolution dealing with this reorganization which has been spoken of as the most comprehensive of all time and has forgotten all about the minister of forestry and rural rehabilitation. It is a most unusual situation. I know that the Minister of Forestry has frequently been regarded as being of such a rebellious nature that his presence in the cabinet was not entirely welcomed by all, but I must speak in his defence now. I say that I feel for him-


Lester Bowles Pearson: So do I.


John George Diefenbaker: .-left out in the cold. Here is a man who was going to envelop agricultural rehabilitation, ARDA and the like, under his protecting wings but somebody has made a fearful mistake. The Prime Minister did not know that the department of forestry and rehabilitation was not included.
Surely the Minister of Forestry has not joined the record of missing persons, but that is his position. He comes into the chamber and finds himself absent without leave, missing from the document that is to preserve the parliamentary system for years to come. Lo and behold, here is the gentleman adventurer from the Magdalen Islands being traded by the government into non-existence.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt for a moment?


John George Diefenbaker: If it is a question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to say why this was done. It was to give my right hon. friend an opportunity to bring the minister back into the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think the government needs assistance because there have been times when we have wondered whether he was in fact in the government-of it or in it. This day represents one of the most unusual events that has taken place
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments in my time in the House of Commons. With fife and drum they bring in this resolution and then they forget the main thing, the piccoloist. What an oversight. Is this anti-Quebec? What would have happened if such a thing had taken place under our administration? It is disturbing; it is revealing. It is proof of what we on this side of the house have contended, that this government does not know where it is going. It produces a resolution and leaves out the reform element.
When the hon. member became a minister all of us had great hopes for him. I am trying to ensure that some of those hopes will be realized. The government will now have to bring in a new resolution, an addendum as it were, to ensure that that minister who represents the epitome of the new politics is not going to be left out in the cold. We are going to do everything we can to help him, this man who is forgotten by his comrades and remembered by his opponents. Greater love hath no man than this, that he ensure that the mistakes of the government shall not deprive this nation of the services of a reformer.
Speaking seriously, Mr. Chairman, is it not a terrible mess? The cornerstone of reform omitted. The powers of reaction apparently have become paramount in the government. I may make reference to this a little later, but I wish to assure you at once that anything we on this side of the house can do to preserve the Minister of Forestry from oblivion among his colleagues will be done. If the Prime Minister will bring in a resolution to include the unincluded, I think we could pass it pretty well unanimously without further discussion and thereby present more proof that an opposition can be beneficial.
The government has produced a resolution which, to say the least, shows that the Prime Minister has forgotten he has in his ranks a man of reform and vision. Indeed, he has been so far in advance of those with whom he serves that often there has been wonder how he got into that party at all. With reference to the resolution the Prime Minister dealt at some length with the necessity of improving the organization of government. No one disputes the necessity for that, but reforms based on experiment and not experience do not always work out very well. We had an example of that in connection with the committee system. Two years ago or a year and a half ago I said we were going much too far under our form of government in bringing about the United States idea of a
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I
committee system. What have we found? We have found that the government cannot get its members to attend. Committees are set up and they are not being attended. This is another example of what befalls a government which just tries to do something new regardless of how experimental the plan may be.
What is the situation today? There are 127 or 128 members on the government side of the house including 26 ministers and 16 parliamentary secretaries. Thirty per cent of the membership occupy positions of responsibility. But with all that horde, Mr. Chairman, they come up with a resolution which omits one of the major considerations, the assurance that agriculture shall receive a fair deal. It indicates that this government has forgotten agriculture. It is very obvious that this government no longer considers agriculture of any great consequence.
The government is increasing the number of ministers. It is shuffling the deck and adding a couple more deuces; that is what is happening. The trend today in parliamentary systems in other parts of the world is not to increase the number of ministers but to reduce them. I know how difficult that is, but today the cabinet is too large for the effective carrying out of the business of the nation. If he were to call together only certain members of the cabinet, the Prime Minister would have difficulty. Preferences naturally would be assumed.
I think one of the major reforms which must be brought about is to ensure a reduction in the number of ministers and to divide those ministers into two classifications, those of the cabinet and those of the ministry. It will be difficult to do, but if there is to be any effective reform of cabinet government, that is the first thing which must be done. I recognize all of the difficulties. As I look at this shuffling, I wonder what were the reasons.
I have here the original press conference statement made by the Prime Minister on December 17 in which he sets out the benefits which will flow from these changes. I am going to summarize it. He said that the changes were designed to adapt the machinery of the government to new and changing needs. He further said that the planned changes were designed to improve efficiency by increasing the attention given to the problems that have become more important. Those conditions become significant when we realize that agricultural rehabilitation has
May 9, 1966	COMMONS
been left out in the cold. In his press release the Prime Minister went on to say:
At present some of the most important problems of government are the concern of only one section of a department, while others are scattered among various departments and agencies. The effect of the administrative changes will be that one minister will have a specific responsibility for the Treasury Board-
I think that is a good move; I think it is necessary. On the basis of personal experience I think that one deserves implementation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Let us look at the others. Resources have been divided, part going to the minister of Indian affairs and northern development and part going to the minister of energy, mines and resources. Why should some of our resources be placed under one department and others under another? How does one obtain strength by division?
Labour has been divided with the Minister of Labour responsible for legislation on collective bargaining and other things in that field and the minister of manpower responsible for training, placement and immigration. The Prime Minister suggested that this was a forward step but I think it is a retrograde one which represents the antitheses of the recommendation, as I read it, of Woods, Gordon and Company which made a report on this subject in November, 1965. After all, this is one of the leading companies of chartered accountants and consultants in Canada, and no matter how you look at the situation the hon. member for Davenport, who was connected with this firm at one time, was a man with ideas. Sometimes I wonder how the "Gordon Highlanders" are going to be able to stand up to the "Sharpshooters".
In any event, this recommendation was ignored and I should like to know why it was ignored. The recommendation reads as follows;
The manpower and labour relations fields have in the past been regarded as being largely unrelated. However it is becoming increasingly evident that in the type of industrial society toward which we appear to be heading, manpower problems will, to a greater and greater extent, become labour relations problems as well. As the pace of technological change quickens, so must the adjustments to change quicken, and in this situation workers will look increasingly to the institution of collective bargaining to ensure that their interests are adequately protected. Management, on the other hand, will be seeking to negotiate the elimination or modification of contract provisions that are making it difficult to adapt to change or are standing in the way of rational solutions to manpower adjustment problems. The conclusion we draw from
DEBATES	4877
Establishment of New Departments this is that, although the manpower and labour relations fields are distinct, there are increasingly important interactions between them. This suggests that the development of policy and programs in these two fields must continue to be closely integrated.
Integrated policies do not result from divided responsibilities among ministers. I wonder why that recommendation was not carried into effect.
It is interesting to note how the changes took place. According to the press there was a great internal power dispute last November and December over the suggestion that members of the cabinet from the province of Quebec should be given prestige appointments. New oil was poured into old bottles. The three wise men were brought in and each one of them is ambitious. I do not criticize ambition, but what did this bring about? It brought about a hodgepodge.
The minister of energy, mines and resources, who carries on temporarily as the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, will take over the responsibility for atomic energy, oil, gas and water power, and water and coal. I have already dealt with the duties of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the authority that he is going to have as minister of manpower.
These men had to be given decorative authority. After all, they wanted them to have prestige. I read the French language press each day and it has been said there that the great weakness of the former cabinet resulted from the fact there were not enough prestige appointments for the province of Quebec. Prestige has now been created by giving these new decorative powers to these members from the province of Quebec. I am not going into the events that took place when the President of the Privy Council was minister of justice, but he is the one now who is going to be looking after the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. He had that responsibility when he was the minister of justice and bankruptcies multiplied three, four or fivefold. There is also a strange situation regarding combines legislation.
Apparently it was felt that everybody should have something added and the plan was to build people up in this way because they did not want to occupy small portfolios such as that of Secretary of State. Now these people will have more authority and greater new power. This is termed by the government a measure to strengthen administration
May 9, 19G6

Establishment of New Departments but I suggest the purpose behind this measure is to strengthen the present administration.
The situation with regard to the Department of Justice is the most interesting of all. All that minister now has is the name. I presume he will be very effective in carrying out his duties because the government has taken away the whole essence of the Department of Justice. How can one have a Department of Justice with authority spread out all over the place?
I am very much impressed with the way the Solicitor General answers questions in the house and accepts his responsibility, but what do we now find the situation to be in that department? The Solicitor General has practically appropriated the major powers of the Department of Justice. All the Minister of Justice is going to have left is the prestige of the name. Apparently he is to look after legal matters in the Department of Justice. That looks all right on the face of it, but what legal matters come to the attention of the Minister of Justice? He is not in the position of having such things come to his attention because the law officers of the Crown look after these various things: The government had to keep him in the cabinet so it continued his title, realizing no doubt that it might be better to place his authority elsewhere.
The administrative changes mean nothing. With one or two exceptions they seem in large measure to be designed to enable the Prime Minister to take care of his commitments. Instead of cabinet posts being created in accordance with departmental needs they seem to have been created in accordance with the political needs of the government. The divided and subdivided powers of the Department of Justice can only result in indifferent administration and confusion One can see today in Ottawa a lack of confidence on the part of professional civil servants who observe departments being splintered, severed and added to other departments for what has every appearance of being a political purpose on the part of the government. That is not good enough because administrative necessity is not met by conforming to political necessity.
Whenever questions are directed to the Minister of Labour answers are given, as is the case in respect of questions directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in keeping with the responsibilities of the government. However, certain

powers are to be taken from that hon. gentleman and I have already mentioned some of those in connection with the proposed changes in the Department of Labour.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
What about agriculture? We cannot discuss that because it is not even before us. But we were told in advance, months ago, what was going to be done. They had to give something to the Minister of Forestry. When we set up the Department of Forestry it was ridiculed and laughed at. They had to give the Minister of Forestry something to give him prestige. What is the use of being a reformer without prestige? But what a position for a minister to be in-forgotten, only remembered for what he has done. I hope this situation will be corrected at the earliest possible date so that our uncertainty and concern will be obliterated
May I say that if ARDA has been included in the responsibilities of the Minister of Forestry it would have meant and will mean that agriculture is being placed in a secondary position. When I mentioned this a while ago I noticed one of the ministers indicating disapproval, so I shall read from the Family Herald, a magazine nationally and internationally known, what is said on the question of the alteration in portfolio responsibilities:
We were disappointed that there has yet been no indication as to how these all-embracing portfolios will be dovetailed with the existing ministries which cover rural development and agriculture. For despite the reverse title there appears to be no apparent change in Mr. Sauve's responsibilities. And we cannot help but feel that the ministry of agriculture has been relegated to a secondary status, comprising the ill-defined policies under the direction of a little-known minister.
Agriculture is placed in a secondary position. Why? The Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition said, "We have to have two ministers of agriculture, a western minister and an eastern minister." One of the ministers had already appropriated to himself the position of eastern minister of agriculture but he never got the portfolio because it was not set up. Agriculture, as the Family Herald says, is relegated to a secondary position.
What reforms are there? There is a Treasury Board minister. That is a forward step and a necessary one. But you have agriculture placed in a tertiary position. It is not even included in the resolution. They have forgotten about it altogether in this resolution which took a long time for a government that was most careful in assuring that everything would be included to prepare.
May 9. 1966

Yet they forgot about agriculture. You have a minister of manpower to be. He has a wide knowledge of labour problems, and in regard to his manner of approach in the House of Commons I say to him that I like the way in which he places his views before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: But what do we see? Labour problems are handed to one minister and then another. How can this minister be effective? Surely we have not arrived at the point where the government contends that to make this important department effective it has to be divided and subdivided by spreading out responsibility. Certainly labour problems are of major importance, but why the subdivision? I come back to the reason. They wanted everybody to have something so that one minister and another could say, "He got this but I got that." But in it all the Minister of Forestry became the forgotten man. I would not allow that. That is why I would draw this matter to the attention of the house, because we will not have a minister removed by governmental forgetfulness. It cannot be permitted. I hope the Prime Minister will seize on this problem and without delay remove the fear that fills our hearts that this minister, so necessary in the new politics is to be left out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We cannot have it; we shall not have it. Speaking seriously now, Mr. Chairman, I will have more to say regarding reformation in administration when the bill is before us for second reading. At that time we will be able to bring together the resolution that is and the one that was forgotten.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, as the Prime Minister has said, this resolution forecasts legislation which will constitute a fairly extensive reorganization of the various departments of government. Some of the reorganization proposed in the resolution we believe is advisable and indeed long overdue. Other parts of the reorganization we would want to reserve judgment on until we have had an opportunity to see the legislation itself.
I am somewhat surprised that the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister would seem to indicate that there is to be a single measure covering all the various items which he outlined. The government knows its own course of action best, but it seems to me that a single piece of legislation including all these
Establishment of New Departments various measures will cause a great deal of confusion in the future. It is much tidier for a department to have an act setting out those matters with which it may deal and the powers of the minister, those things he may do by ministerial discretion, by regulation through the governor in council and so on. Then, if the new department finds, as it will find, that certain of its powers need to be amended, altered or extended, the act can be amended from time to time. If the department goes into a hodgepodge with a number of other departments for which there is a single piece of legislation, the government will find itself in some difficulty. Perhaps the government has in mind that this will be an interim measure and individual acts will be introduced separately at a later date. But I do suggest to the government that unless later they separate the legislation in respect of these departments they will find themselves in a great deal of departmental difficulty.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I agree with what the Prime Minister said about the importance of giving thought to this question of government reorganization. Too often members of parliament and the public generally think that administration is not really important and that it does not make much difference what kind of departments we have. As a matter of fact, clearcut allocations of responsibility, a clear line of authority for the discharge of that responsibility and clearly defined lines of communication are absolutely essential in the complex society in which we live if government policies are to be carried out effectively and efficiently.
I should like to deal briefly with a few of the matters which the Prime Minister has suggested the legislation will implement. The first is the setting up of a department of manpower. In addition to its role for the training and allocation of manpower and job placement, it will also have some of the functions now pertaining to immigration. I believe this is an excellent combination. It seems to me that the body which is responsible for keeping its finger on the economic pulse and being fully aware of the manpower needs of the country is in the best position to deal with immigration, to know what number of people we can allow into Canada at any one time, to know what skills they should have or, if they do not have any skills, what training they will need after they come to Canada. Therefore I think the combination of immigration and manpower is excellent.
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments
The Economic Council of Canada recommended, of course, that this combination be carried out and I am very glad that the government has seen fit to do so. If I may say so to the Prime Minister, I believe that both the minister and the deputy minister who have been selected for this department are admirable choices. I believe they are both equipped in terms of training and temperament to take on what will be a very difficult task which will involve blazing new trails and working out new programs. However, I want to say to the Prime Minister that if this manpower department, which our party has been recommending for years, is to be modelled on the Swedish labour market board and is really to have the kind of function which a manpower department should have in a technological society, it will require a great deal of support in terms of money and trained personnel. If the manpower program is to be more than a paper program there will have to be a very large sum of money spent on the training and retraining of workers as well as on the upgrading of their education.
I had some opportunity to see at first hand the work of the labour market board in Sweden. Of course, they have been at it for a long time, but they spend tremendous sums of money in training and retraining workers and as a result they are making full utilization of all their available manpower. This is something which we are not doing in Canada. The Economic Council of Canada has stated that we have now come within 97 per cent of our productive capacity. We are not using men and women in Canada who are often unskilled and unemployed and who will have to be retrained. Many of them will have to have their educational qualifications upgraded. There is no sense in giving the minister and his department, with all their enthusiasm, this heavy responsibility unless the government is also prepared to give them the very large sums of money necessary to carry out an effective program.
All I want to say about the responsibility given to the Solicitor General is that I believe it is a good thing to have the minister charged with the responsibility for penitentiaries. There has been a great deal of talk about penal reform in this House of Commons but very little has ever been done about it.
I believe that there should be a minister charged with the responsibility for looking into law reform, and the overhaul of the Criminal Code, and these other matters can


very well be given to the Solicitor General. However, whether the R.C.M.P. should be separated from the department charged with the responsibility for law enforcement is something about which I have some doubts. My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, will probably discuss this in more detail later.
I congratulate the government for combining the Indian affairs branch with northern development; I believe this is a natural affinity. I have complained for years that Indian affairs have usually been under the jurisdiction of civil servants who have never seen an Indian in broad daylight and have never seen an Eskimo except on television. I know that with the combination now being proposed the Indians will be served by people who are much more familiar with their problems and the solutions for these problems.
With reference to the proposed department of the registrar general which the Prime Minister suggested is to deal with business law and those things which affect the protection of the nation and individuals, I think this is a very helpful move. We in the New Democratic Party have been advocating for years the setting up of a department of consumer affairs. We are still hopeful that the government will see its way clear to set up such a department. We would like to see the department charged with the responsibility for administering combines investigation legislation and restrictive trade practices legislation greatly strengthened with some teeth in that legislation.
We would like to see provision for the standardization of weights and packaging, with legislation to prevent misleading advertising. We would like, as we have said on many occasions, to see such a department have a price review board with full authority to look into price increases to see whether or not they are fully justified by increases in costs. We are convinced that such an investigation would show in some cases that increases in prices are warranted but in other cases it would show that they are not warranted.
Action by any company or combination of companies to raise prices merely to take advantage of a situation would receive a good deal of public criticism and if the criticism became widespread enough, of course, the federal and provincial governments would find it necessary to pass concurrent legislation to deal' with these price increases. My own opinion is that no such legislation would
May 9, 1966

become necessary because the exposure to public gaze of unconscionable profiteering would be enough to correct the situation. If the government is not going to set up a department of consumer affairs, then certainly the kind of department the Prime Minister proposed today could be the nucleus around which a department of consumer affairs could be built. I hope that if time permits my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, will elaborate on this question because it is something to which she has given a great deal of thought and about which she is very enthusiastic.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Finally, I want to say a word or two about the proposed president of the Treasury Board. Again, I agree with this proposal. I hope that in the not too distant future the Prime Minister will appoint a minister to give his full time to the responsibilities of being president of the Treasury Board. I should like to see the Treasury Board working on two functions which are not assigned to it at the present time. First, I think the Treasury Board ought to have a branch which would act as a budget bureau. At the present time, we have a Treasury Board which allocates funds according to departments and subdivides them according to branches. We have an Auditor General who audits the expenditures of these agencies. However, there is no agency for auditing the performance of departments and branches; there is no agency to examine the programs to see whether they still fill a useful function or whether they should be curtailed or even eliminated.
Every member knows that Parkinson's law operates in every government. Consequently, from time to time we set up commissions like the Glassco Commission which report to the government on whatever extravagance, duplication, overstaffing and unnecessary procedures are found. The tragedy is that by the time a government, not necessarily this government but any government, gets around to dealing with the situation which has been described by the commission the situation itself has altered. The only effective way that a government can deal with the problem of the proliferation of staff, extravagance and waste is to have a continuing agency constantly examining departments, constantly going over their programs to see whether or not those programs are still useful and whether or not the department is still using
Establishment of New Departments its staff efficiently or is asking for more money than the service which they render warrants. Every member knows that no program, once having started, is ever voluntarilj curtailed by those who are running it.
Every minister and every deputy minister is told by his branch head that a program is absolutely necessary. A program may have been started 30 years ago to meet a certain situation and the situation may have changed, but the program has to be kept going. If the government is really going to do an effective job of eliminating waste and extravagance. I think they need something resembling the United States budget bureau. I can remember an instance when I was associated with a provincial administration. A certain department was asking for more money, more staff and more space. This meant putting up new buildings. The department alleged it was so crowded, so understaffed and working in quarters so congested they were not doing effective work. They made a marvellous case for a lot more money, a lot more space and a lot more people. When the budget bureau had investigated the case for over six months they found that by a simplification of procedures, by amending the filing systems, they could move some of the staff to other departments. Then, by microfilming their records, we were able to get rid of hundreds of file cabinets which resulted in more floor space.
Unless you have an agency to do this the staff keeps growing, the space required keeps increasing, the demands for larger and larger estimates keep rolling in to the Treasury Board. It seems to me one of the functions that ought to be given to this Treasury Board branch would be the assignment of teams to any department that is asking for more money to conduct an investigation. Even if the department is not asking for more money, perhaps it is getting too much money now. A team of experts could be sent to examine the procedures, to analyse the program and make a report to the Treasury Board whether or not this department was getting enough money or too much money, whether it could reduce staff and get along with a smaller allocation of funds.
The other function I should like to see given to the president of the Treasury Board is related to the whole basis of economic planning. I am trying to fit within the government's framework something I had hoped the government would do. Personally I would prefer to see a department of economic affairs and planning, an agency which could
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments work closely with the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since the government has not set up a department of economics affairs and planning, it seems to me that the Treasury Board could form the nucleus for the beginning of a genuine economic planning agency.
So far as I can see at the moment, there is no real economic planning in the government's set-up. The Economic Council, which I understand has been moved now from the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister's office, is purely an advisory body and does not concern itself with day to day planning. It is doing long term projections and is doing excellent work. I want to congratulate the chairman and members of the Economic Council on the two reviews they have published. They are amongst the best things that have been put out in Canada and the council should be encouraged to continue.
However, the council works in one office and the Treasury Board works in another office. The Department of Industry works separately, as does the Department of Trade and Commerce. I know the Prime Minister will tell me there is a cabinet committee that co-ordinates the work of these various departments. I do not believe cabinet committees can do this. I think the members of such committees are too busy. I am sure they do not meet often enough. I am sure when they do meet they have even greater trouble in getting a quorum than have the committees of the House of Commons because these men are very busy and are called all over the country.
If there is going to be any real economic planning, any real co-ordination of economic activities, it has to start at a lower level. It is not going to be done or to be very effective if it is not, and for that reason it seems to be some thought should be given-


The Deputy Chairman:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have only a few sentences to complete my remarks and I do thank the house for allowing me to finish.


Mr. Fairweather:: What happened to the economic planning?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That was not bad economic planning; that is just poor timing. It seems to me some thought ought to be given to having in the Treasury Board the Economic Council of Canada and representatives from the Department of Industry as well as Trade and Commerce co-ordinated so that within the Treasury Board itself there could be the nucleus of a genuine economic planning agency. This group could plan closely in relation to the fiscal needs of Canada, make an assessment of the wealth of the country and the revenues that would be available to the government and could establish an order of priorities as to how those revenues should be allocated to the various departments and to the various programs.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It seems to me that until this kind of economic planning is done we are going to continue to have what we now have, namely, a lot of competing departments all asking treasury for money, with the Minister of Finance and members of the Treasury Board having to slash requests each year when making up the budget. Often the estimates have to be reduced not by any order of priority but because the departments are told to take their estimates back and cut off 15 per cent in order to bring expenditure into line with revenue. This is a most unscientific way to reduce estimates. Some departments may have more money than they need. Others do not have enough. The sort of thing I contemplate can only be done if we build the kind of fiscal and economic planning agency that will enable the cabinet to make the kind of informed decisions which will help this country to grow and prosper.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we are glad that the government is bringing in some of these measures for reorganization. We may have doubts about some of the details. We shall be able to discuss those more intelligently when we see the legislation. In the meantime we commend the government for taking several very important forward steps in the resolution which has been presented today.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of clarifying what I thought was a misunderstanding of the form of the resolution. I will not speak in detail about the substance of it. Earlier in the afternoon, and regrettably I was not here at the time, some question arose as to the adequacy of the
May 9, 1966	COMMONS
resolution. It was suggested that there was no reference in the resolution to the department of forestry and rural development. There was no such reference in the resolution because, I am told, it is unnecessary. I am advised by the law officers-


An hon. Member:: That was quick.


George James McIlraith: I wanted quickly to find out quickly.


An hon. Member:: You certainly moved quickly.


George James McIlraith: I admit acting quickly, but I was alarmed about what I had heard had taken place here. In any event, no such reference is required in the resolution, the reason being that there is a Department of Forestry now.


Michael Starr: May I ask the minister a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Michael Starr: Is the government house leader trying to lead us to believe that the Minister of Forestry is hidden in this resolution?


George James McIlraith: No, he is fully exposed. There is no need to refer to him or to the department as there is the case when a new department is created where none had existed before. The new department of forestry and rural development is a new department in the sense of having the name of the department changed and its functions redelineated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: We are dealing with a new department which will affect directly employment opportunities, productivity and the standard of living arising out of existing forestry and rural development legislation.


Michael Starr: I see.


George James McIlraith: These powers of the new department are set out-


Michael Starr: I want to see the minister peeking out of that resolution.


George James McIlraith: The Minister of Forestry is already carrying on duties in this field in an extensive way, his duties being found under the provisions of the Forestry Act and in legislation in the rural development field. What I intended to indicate was that it was the opinion of the law officers who drafted
DEBATES	4883
Establishment of New Departments the bill, and they persist in this view which I believe to be the correct one, that it is not necessary to have any specific reference in the resolution to the department, as there would be in the case of a new department.


Michael Starr: You are satisfied, I take it?


George James McIlraith: That is because there are no money implications.


Michael Starr: The government is satisfied? If the government is satisfied, we are.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will my hon. friends now apologize?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would it not have taken much less time just to say "we goofed"?


Michael Starr: With reference to the explanation that has been given to us by the Minister of Public Works, if he says that he sees the Minister of Forestry among the trees that are in this resolution, then we have no objection.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You should go back to Magna Carta.


George James McIlraith: If hon. members will wait until they see the bill they will have no difficulty in finding the trees.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. May I ask the consent of members of the committee to inform them of the adjournment proceedings at ten o'clock tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), Education- conditions governing free university training; the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), Health and Welfare-request for statement on control of drug LSD; the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), Agriculture-inquiry as to dairy subsidy policy.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can really make full and complete comment on this measure until we see the legislation. Therefore my remarks at this time will be limited to a few basic principles that are involved which I believe to be important.
I disagree with the Prime Minister if the final conclusion to be drawn from his initial
May 9. 1966

Establishment of New Departments premise is that there must be increasing control by government in every aspect of our social and economic activities. It seems to me that one of the problems we face today is that we are yielding to the pressures by following the path of least resistance, which too often results in things being taken over by the authority of the government. I am concerned, therefore, that at the present time we have the prospect of even greater control through federal government adminidministra-tion. However, if the object of this government reorganization is to decrease government interference and government control over Canadians while at the same time facilitating greater efficiency and effectiveness of government, then we completely support the resolution.
I think it is high time that more recommendations of the Glassco Commission were instituted. I am concerned that we have already waited far too long to implement many of the obvious recommendations. As a result, if I sense correctly what is happening within the civil service at the present time, there is a general state of confusion and uncertainty which has resulted from these now very rapid and extensive changes in the structure of the federal government.
I believe it is vital, Mr. Chairman, that there be very well defined and clearcut areas of responsibility so far as governmental departments are concerned and that in this connection there be a complete flow of information to facilitate communication between governmental departments. None of these changes that are now contemplated will reach their desired objectives unless this is so. We trust that when the legislation comes before us there will be evidence that this is the intention of the government as the reorganization is brought to reality.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Let me comment briefly on a few aspects of the proposal which the Prime Minister has put before us this afternoon. It seems to me that the transfer of certain responsibilities from the Minister of Justice to the Solicitor General might be very useful and increase the efficiency as well as the effectiveness of the administration of justice. It is also my opinion that it is a very sound idea to set up ministry of manpower. One of the greatest problems we face in Canada today concerns the question of manpower. We boast about a booming economy; yet this very month there are 340,000 people who are unemployed. This emphasizes the fact that re-education is vital 
if we are to make best use of our work force. It is a paradox that so many people should be unemployed in an economy which is in some areas looking for skilled labour.
It is important that the government should recognize immigration as an important factor in any manpower policy. I do not believe we have the right to claim the vast areas of Canada we do today unless we occupy those areas and seek to develop them. The greatest eras of prosperity in our history have come in times when we have received the greatesl influx of new immigrants. A complete overhaul of the department of immigration is necessary and it is logical that this should be combined with a vocational training program of wide scope so as to develop essential additional sources of skilled labour.
The effects of automation in Canada are proving to be different from those which had been anticipated. For a number of years we are unlikely to be faced with any real problem so far as automation is concerned because of the tremendous scope which exists for the development of our resources. Nevertheless there is need for a continuing assessment of this situation and a department of manpower appears to be the logical answer so far as government organization is concerned.
I am somewhat concerned to find that the Department of Labour is being emasculated, as it were, by the setting up of the proposed department of manpower. However, I would assume there will be an opportunity for greater emphasis on industrial relations and a more harmonious labour situation across Canada so far as the federal administration is concerned, particularly in the field of co-ordination between federal and provincial departments of labour. The importance of this question will continue to increase. From information I have it seems to me that co-operation between the various departments of labour will become more feasible under the arrangement proposed.
The establishment of a new department responsible for energy, mines and resources is a sound basis for reorganization, and we look forward to the legislation which will make this possible. Herein lies the potential for the development and administration of the tremendous natural resources which fall under federal jurisdiction.
The position of registrar general as outlined by the Prime Minister is not completely clear. We have noted the areas which will be assigned to the new minister. We assume he will be the President of the Privy Council
May 9, 196S	COMMONS
acting in a dual capacity. I noted with interest that, according to the Prime Minister, the registrar general would have responsibility for the protection of the rights of individuals. However, it was most disappointing to find that the government had failed to establish the office of ombudsman. For a number of years this question has been the subject of various private bills. In addition, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has studied the matter and reported favourably to parliament. The response of the administration has been evasive. In the Speech from the Throne of the previous session it was suggested that a royal commission would be set up to look into the desira-ity of appointing an ombudsman. I use the word "evasive" because I do not think it is necessary to establish a royal commission to look into this question. We have the example of those countries which have already adopted a procedure of this kind. In addition, it seems to me there is clearly a need for an ombudsman to help protect civil liberties and rights in this country.
I still urge the government to establish such a post. A parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman, as he is better known, would provide a means whereby the people of Canada would have an officer of this parliament to defend their rights and liberties. I urge the President of the Privy Council, as he assumes the responsibilities of registrar general, to bring forward legislation to establish this important office. Bearing in mind the growth of government and the tendency for bureaucracy to increase, I believe this is the only way of affording protection to the rights of individual citizens.
I am disappointed too that in the course of this reorganization the Prime Minister has failed to provide for a department of federal-provincial affairs. This country's greatest single need is the co-ordination in an effective way of the various jurisdictions at the several levels of government. There was a period after the war when the federal government tended to dominate the national scene. Today the provincial governments are very strong, and it seems to me that in order to ensure a strong federal government, without detracting from the strength and vitality of the provinces, more concern must be paid to continuing liaison and co-operation in this area.
We have heard a lot about co-operative federalism, but co-operative federalism can
DEBATES	4885
Establishment of New Departments never become a reality unless there is machinery to provide continuing liaison. The democratic process in Canada is in danger at the present time because the federal government, in calling a continuing series of federal-provincial conferences at which it places certain policies before the provinces, is using a process which tends to by-pass not only parliament but the legislatures of the provinces as well. A most effective way of dealing with this situation would be to set up a special department of government, not just a secretariat, where the work done at federal and provincial levels could be co-ordinated on a continuing basis to produce results more effective than in the past.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
May I say a word now about the proposal to make the Treasury Board a new department of government charged with the implementation of the recommendations of the Glassco Commission. This could be a useful thing but I am disturbed that it will mean an addition to the cabinet. Again we can only make intelligent comment when we see the legislation itself.
In relation to citizenship in its narrowest sense, the fact that it is being assigned to the Secretary of State is also logical. There should be greater emphasis on citizenship. The other day one of my constituents suggested as a centennial project that we should undertake the issuance of citizenship certificates to all Canadians on the occasion of our centennial birthday on July 1, 1967. This would be a highly practical project emphasizing Canadian citizenship. I mention it only because I believe we ought to give greater emphasis to the value of citizenship and make that value known to all our citizens.
Without unduly extending my remarks on the resolution, again I would say that unless there are clearly defined areas of responsibility, unless there are open channels of communication between government departments, unless there is a determined effort to increase the efficiency of government, a reorganization such as is proposed by this measure will mean nothing. I trust that the government will place the correct emphasis on this important subject. Otherwise this reorganization will not have the effect that it should.
There is only one other point that might be considered as we are dealing with this resolution, namely, the need to set up an inner cabinet within a wider structure embracing
COMMONS DEBATES	May 9, 1966
Establishment of New Departments
junior ministers. With the cabinet at its present size there is a danger of lack of co-ordination and imprecise definition of government policy.
It is interesting to note that in Great Britain the ministry consists of more than 100 members of the house. This means that approximately 20 per cent of the membership of the house is in the ministry, with the whole area of routine responsibility shared with junior ministers. The junior ministers do not form part of the central cabinet in Great Britain.
If the government is to formulate policy and present it in an effective way, if inefficiency in government is to be improved, then along with this proposed reorganization provision should be made for a hard core central cabinet concerned more with government policy in the over-all structure in order to provide the Prime Minister, who holds a job that is extremely difficult, with the basic policy advice and consultation that he needs. This would ease the central cabinet of much of the load of administrative detail which would be taken care of by others not so responsible for policy and who would be occupied with routines administrative duties.
So, Mr. Chairman, we in this party reserve further comment until we see the bill. It is good to see this reorganization being proposed, and along with it I hope consideration will be given to the several points I have mentioned. I hope we will all receive the assurance that as a result of this reorganization there will be increased efficiency, and more effective government without necessarily a greater degree of interference with and control of individual citizens by government.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, resolution No. 56 concerns a government project to establish five new government departments.
The resolution stipulates that:
It is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the organization of the government of Canada_
Does this mean that the government is disorganized? The question is obvious.
-to establish a Department of the Solicitor General, Department of Manpower, Department of the Registrar General. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Department of Energy, Mines and Resources;-
And, of course, to establish at the same time the bureaucracy and the bunch of bureaucrats necessary to all these departments.

The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has just mentioned that, under the circumstances, it would have been quite expedient to establish a Department of Federal-Provincial Affairs, because anyone who sees this list of new departments can tell that three of them will undoubtedly be directly concerned with questions under the jurisdiction of the provinces. For example, there will be a department of manpower. The provinces, whether Quebec or British Columbia, do not want their course of action or their policy to be dictated by the federal government.
The provincial authorities rightly believe that the matter of manpower comes under their jurisdiction and, in Quebec, we believe this sincerely and deeply.
With regard to Indian affairs and northern development, we witnessed in this house negotiations which took place between the present Minister of Northern Affairs of the province of Quebec, then Minister of Natural Resources, and the federal Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
The minister of the provincial government maintained that the administration of Indian affairs belonged to Quebec, as far as northern Quebec was concerned, and the federal minister held the opposite view.
Today, the government is asking the house to pass the resolution to establish a department of Indian affairs and northern development. That will create conflicts between the provinces and the Canadian government.
The establishment of a department of energy, mines and resources is also proposed. We saw the government of British Columbia and the federal government, then headed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Die-fenbaker), engaged in a rather fierce struggle which lasted four, five, even six years. When the federal government of the day toppled, we saw the same struggle continue between the government of British Columbia and the present federal government; finally a compromise was reached under which the claims of the government of British Columbia to the effect that mines, resources and energy come under provincial jurisdiction were recognized.
In the present circumstances, Mr. Chairman, forever increasing the number of ministers, or appointing five more, does not seem to me the way to solve the problems which are now facing the Canadian economy and which the Canadian people must now overcome.
May 9, 1966	COMMONS
The government can appoint as many ministers as it wants to, in short, it can appoint a dozen or more il it so chooses, but that will not change anything. I feel that there are too many ministers already for the results we are getting in any field of economic activity whatsoever.
Of the present ministers, several seem ineffective; one wonders why they exist at all. They do not get results. And we are now asked to create five new departments, excluding the main ones. For instance, since the beginning of this session, we are told practically every day about the new department of manpower.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said this afternoon that this department will have to study new production techniques, as well as the problem of automation and management-labour relations in Canada. Strikes are looming up in Quebec like never before in any other province in Canada. Professors' strike, teachers' strike, students' strike, government-employed professionals' strike, strike on the left-yes, the Coca-Cola strike in Montreal, in the riding of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote)-all kinds of strikes, and none of them is settled to the advantage of the strikers. In fact, if we consider closely what is happening anywhere in Canada, we find that the end of one strike is merely the beginning of another. What is the new minister of manpower going to do about all this? The Prime Minister this afternoon mentioned automation. What does automation mean, Mr. Chairman? It means that man is being displaced by machine; this means that production will stem from the work performed by a machine instead of man.
And what is being proposed as a solution? Absolutely nothing, except the setting up of a department of manpower. When we see a strike break out anywhere in Canada due to automation-and more of them will be occurring within the next few years-what are the unions and the labour leaders asking for? They ask the industrialists, the employers to absorb the wages of employees displaced by machines, by progress, by automation. This automatically increases the cost of goods, hence the retail prices that the consumers of Canada will have to pay.
Increased prices means inflation. Such are the solution currently being suggested to automation which is growing always more important in Canada, like in most countries of the world.
DEBATES	4887
Establishment of New Departments
Mr. Chairman, the solution advanced by certain labour leaders that the employers must continue to pay wages to employees displaced by machines-
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether there is a quorum present in the chamber?


The Chairman:: Order. May I read to the house citation 60(2) of Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 49:
If notice is taken by a member that there is not a quorum present in committee of the whole, the chairman follows the course pursued by the Speaker in the house. If he ascertains that twenty members are not present, he leaves the chair, the house is resumed, and, on his report, the Speaker counts the house, and if there is not then a quorum, he must adjourn the house forthwith.
I would therefore ask the Clerk to count the house.


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, do you include those who have just walked in?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. At the top of page 49 of Beauchesne it says:
While the house is being counted the doors remain open-


Mr. Deachman:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, will those who are present in the chamber now be recorded or what is the procedure in this regard?


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that you make the count because I have counted and there are now two over the quorum.


Michael Starr: That happened only in the last half minute. There were only 16 when the hon. member drew it to our attention.


Mr. Kindt:: About eight walked in.
And on the count being made, more than 20 members were declared to be present.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I declare the committee properly formed. The hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. member raised the matter of a quorum, because I thought he was listening to me closely; as a matter of fact, I felt I was giving him rather valuable information on labour matters in Canada. At any rate, he was-
4888	COMMONS
Establishment of New Departments


An hon. Member:: Spying.


David Réal Caouette: -spying.
I shall proceed with my remarks, pointing out that I am not displeased with the appointment of a minister of manpower, but this does not provide a solution to the problem now facing us.
I maintain that the minister will have to come up with other solutions than the ones he offered when he was a very well known labour leader in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that the increase in prices meant inflation. I maintained that including in the price of goods the salaries paid to workers replaced by machines did not provide any solution at all to the problem. But we, members of the Ral-liement Creditiste, and we, supporters of the Social Credit doctrine, believe that there is a way to correct the situation, and that is to increase personal incomes without increased prices being included in the cost of goods.
How? By using the Bank of Canada and by distributing a general dividend to every Canadian citizen. This new credit, based on Canadian production, would not be included in the price of goods but would increase the purchasing power of Canadians and restore economic order in Canada.
However, when we speak of this alternative, we hear good Liberals, good Conservatives retort that it is utopia, that it would be utopian to use the Bank of Canada and that it would be dangerous for inflation. But we are now in the midst of inflation. Not one Conservative, not one Liberal dares raise his voice against that system.
Mr. Chairman, in matters of labour-management relations, we see many union leaders now in Canada-I will name none-going all across Canada to rouse workers, labourers, their members against bad employers. That is why wherever I go, in the province of Quebec and outside Quebec, I say to workers, to labourers, to farmers: Instead of striking against those who pay you, strike against those who tax you. Those who levy taxes are here, in the federal parliament and in the Quebec parliament, in the political organizations of their respective provinces. They are the ones who are responsible for the misunderstandings between employees and employers. And certain union leaders, instead of trying to extol conciliation between employers and employees, try by all means to distribute boxing gloves to both sides in order to create conflicts, so that they may devour one
[Mr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	May 9, 196$
another, they tear one another to pieces. That is the vile role pursued by certain union leaders throughout Canada. The government says nothing about that.
We are informed that a manpower department will be created. We will soon hear the new minister of manpower preach to us that employers and industrialists will henceforth have to pay workers replaced by machines and science, salaries which they will pay for their replacement. This is entirely illogical and unthinkable in a so-called sovereign and civilized country. I repeat: civilized.
Mr. Chairman, there is only one way to help and respect automation. We should ask ourselves as members of parliament, as federal members, whether machine was invented and created to punish man or whether it was invented and created to serve man?
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
If it was invented as a punishment, let us continue as we are going; we are following the right direction. If machines were invented to serve man, however, we who are responsible to the people must find ways to give men replaced by machines the financial means to buy products made by machines in Canada. Then, we will be able to say that we have worked to balance the Canadian economy, to give the consumers buying power and access to their products.
Mr. Chairman, we may establish as many departments as we like. This will not deal with the situation which is more serious. The solution lies deeper than the appointment of new ministers or the creation of new departments. We must go deeper to reach the source of the economic, political and social ills with which we are afflicted today.
There is talk of separatism in Quebec. There is talk of separatism in British Columbia, in Toronto and in Ontario. Why? Because these people are dissatisfied with the turn of events in parliament.
We are going to appoint new ministers and establish new departments on the pretext that this will conform to the wishes of the people. Let us not delude ourselves, Mr. Chairman; this is not the way to deal with Canadian problems nor to promote understanding between the provinces.
The member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) rightly said earlier that a department of federal-provincial affairs should have been established first, to assess the causes of dissatisfaction or disagreement between Canadians. This is not restricted to the province of Quebec. It also exists in British
May 9, 1966	COMMONS
Columbia, in regions where Canadians do not think as we do; we find the same feelings in Ottawa and in Toronto, as well as in Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, there are serious problems needing solutions, problems which we must face not as politicians but as Canadians. This is what the Ralliement Creditiste is working for: the greatness of Canada. This is what the Ralliement Creditiste is working for in the house.
We will not object to the appointment of these ministers, but we will object if they do not give the Canadian people the results they are waiting for in the administration of their national and economic affairs.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to all members of all political parties and all regions of Canada to take a stand so that the ministers, the government and the cabinet may give the Canadian people results which will ensure their security and their freedom.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, this resolution represents only a piecemeal, ad hoc approach to the very major problem of achieving an efficient, effective departmental structure. Nothing that the Prime Minister has said this afternoon changes my conviction that the bill or bills to be founded upon this resolution would set back rather than advance the cause of rationalizing ministerial responsibilities for departments of government. This resolution, in my submission, is exclusively a political solution; it bears no resemblance to genuine administrative or departmental reform. I want to make some very specific submissions in relation to it at the resolution stage in the hope that I may induce the Prime Minister to reconsider the bill or bills to be based upon the resolution.
As long ago as 1912 Sir George Murray, in his report on the public service of Canada, made a statement which has been quoted many times since:
Nothing has impressed me so much in the course of my inquiry as the almost intolerable burden which the present system of transacting business imposes on ministers themselves. They both have too much to do and do too much.
In the intervening years I fear that has remained a law of ministerial life, and may indeed have intensified. But as well, the distribution of duties among ministers and departments has been uneven and inequitable. The Prime Minister's attempt to grapple with the problem in this resolution is in my
DEBATES	4889
Establishment of New Departments submission just a tinkering with a major problem. It is not an attempt to achieve an over-all solution. My basic complaint is that the Prime Minister has taken a subjective rather than an objective approach to governmental reorganization.
The Prime Minister has sought to tailor the portfolios to the ministers rather than to establish the portfolios on a rational basis and then seek to find the best men and women to fill them. I suggest that he has really worked in reverse, creating new caps to fit heads, rather than choosing heads to fill pretailored caps. He has said: I must find something to fit the hon. member for Quebec West. So he tailored him a cap, one quite different from that which would have been tailored if either the hon. member for Mount Royal or the hon. member for Hochelaga had been the member of the triumvirate to be preferred.
My respectful submission is that this is the wrong approach both to governmental reorganization and to cabinet making, and it can only lead to further confusion and uncertainty at future cabinet reorganizations and changes of government.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
If the Prime Minister should persist in his apparent intention to have only a single bill based upon this resolution, I suggest that administrative confusion will be the result. With great respect, I submit that each department should have its own establishing legislation. Separate bills can be enacted as expeditiously as a composite bill and the result would be not merely legislative tidiness but greater economy and efficiency in administration for years ahead.
Now, sir, may I state certain conclusions to which I personally have come. The first is that the Canadian cabinet has become much too large for effective administration. I should like to emphasize the submission so vigorously made this afternoon by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. In my view, the number of ministers should be reduced below 20 instead of the present 26 and the departments of government should be consolidated and rationalized. For this reason the trifurcation of the Department of Justice is the very reverse of what ought to be done.
Second, coincidental with the reduction in the ministry, and indeed whether this is achieved or not, the status and role of parliamentary secretaries should be greatly enhanced. Originally parliamentary assistants
May 9. 1966

Establishment of New Departments were designed to be junior ministers but they have been reduced to a status which is both equivocal and frustrating. I believe parliamentary secretaries should be raised to the status of junior ministers, given tenure during pleasure such as ministers enjoy, and be invited to sit in cabinet when matters relating to the department to which they are assigned are under consideration in cabinet.
Third, the dangers of appointing so-called specialists or experts to portfolios are, I would submit, very great. This is the real evil of tailoring portfolios to men. The Norman Ward revision of Dawson's, "The Government of Canada", deals in detail with this at page 211, and after outlining the dangers of appointing third or fourth class experts to cabinet portfolios concludes with this statement:
But even a specialist who is first-class is likely to make a poor minister. Practice has given this an unequivocal double confirmation. Not only has the use of the amateur minister been vindicated by long experience; the expert minister-the one who has presumably a profound technical knowledge of his department's work-has proved time and again to be a failure. The exception that proves the rule in Canadian history-
I am glad to be able to read this.
-is Mr. Pearson's undoubted success as Secretary of State for External Affairs from 1948 to 1957, after 20 years service within the department as an expert.
May I put it in this way, that I believe in the supremacy of political acumen and intelligence in ministerial choice, particularly in opposition to expertise.
Finally in this phase of my remarks I should like to say that a major rationalization of departmental structure is urgently needed. Much of the present structure has only historical justification. Branches are included with others without semblance of reason except historical aberration. There are some departments and certainly some branches of departments which could operate more effectively and with greater viability as crown corporations. Rather than this piecemeal approach, this ad hoc mending which the Prime Minister is attempting in this resolution this afternoon, I submit he should be proposing a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to study and review the whole structure and fabric of departmental organization with a view to simplification and systemization.
Now, sir, may I state certain specific objections to the haphazard and retrograde proposals now before us. The first is that the emasculation of the Department of Justice and its division into three separate ministries


will defeat rather than advance the administration of justice. If there were problems of lack of co-ordination in the old department-and I think we all know that there were

they will be intensified now at least threefold under the new proposals. Nothing the Prime Minister said this afternoon has altered my firm view that one ministry of justice, presided over by a competent, knowledgeable counsel, can administer justice in Canada more expeditiously, more efficiently, than the proposed three departments which have no base of uniformity among them. I say that rather than elevate the role of Solicitor General it should be abandoned as a ministerial portfolio and should only be filled as a non-ministerial role when there is in this house a counsel of outstanding talent who might plead crown causes in the courts, as is done in the United Kingdom and some other countries.
The creation of the new portfolio of registrar general is, in my respectful submission, wholly unnecessary. Its evident purpose is to create a portfolio suitable for one man, who happens to be a member that I like very much personally, but that is not sufficient excuse to upset the established balance of the Department of Justice and the Department of the Secretary of State. I predict that we will have a compartmentalized, nook-and-cranny brand of administration of justice, with the public interest suffering.
I want to put this test sincerely and without any malice or guile whatever. Is there a member of this committee who believes that this proposal to divide the Department of Justice into three would ever have been proposed if my hon. friend from Papineau had not encountered what I shall describe in a kindly way-and I mean to be kindly-as misfortunes. Surely everyone knows that to be the truth. Had he not had these misfortunes there would be no proposal for the division of the Department of Justice. Then why are we now engaged in wrecking that department?
I suggest that this is just an unfortunate by-product of the Dorion inquiry. Even at this late date I urge the Prime Minister to turn back, to re-examine the proposal, for I fear that the abridgement and, yes, the truncation of the status and authority of the senior law officer of the Crown, will have a most undesirable aftermath. I submit to the Prime Minister that with one ministry, one minister and an experienced, able counsel in that role such as the hon. member for
May 9. 1966

Brant-Haldimand, we can restore fully public respect for the administration of justice in this country.
I have equally strong feelings about the dispersal of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the creation of the new department of manpower. In the first place, I do not think citizenship should be divorced from immigration, certainly not the citizenship registration branch. Citizenship registration must necessarily use immigration files as its basic records, and I believe the whole balance of convenience is in retaining them in the same department. In many ways the citizenship branch has not had sufficient attention. Successive ministers-and I admit my own fault-have inclined to become so immersed in the detailed problems of immigration and of Indian affairs as to have insufficient time for citizenship problems.
Implementation of some of the best features of the Sedgwick report would relieve the minister somewhat to enable him to give more time to citizenship problems. In the Department of the Secretary of State I fear the citizenship branch will be just another orphan, unwanted, unattended and unheard. All this will indicate my definite view that the citizenship branch must have much greater attention, more money, more staff, more parliamentary support. We have done much less in this field, and what we have done has been less effective, than other democratic countries.
The transfer of Indian affairs is probably logical but it cannot be realistic without the appointment of a separate deputy minister of Indian affairs. Many members of this house do not, I think, realize that we have rushing upon us-I was going to say"creeping upon us" but really it is rushing upon us-the major problems of the 1970's in the field of Indian affairs. This parliament must make soon some very basic decisions or we shall have among our original citizens the most urgent problems of the next decade. At the very least a separate deputy minister is needed. Very soon after I assumed the portfolio of citizenship and immigration I became convinced of this and I think I can say that had there been no change of government we would have had already a separate deputy minister.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
However, what troubles me is that the new department of manpower is a marriage of immigration and parts of the public service formerly in the Department of Labour.

Establishment of New Departments Personally I believe in proper, selected, continuous immigration as a stimulus to the economy even in periods of recession, but that has never been the opinion in the old Department of Labour.
During consideration of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration I have already stated my strongly held opinion that the submerging of immigration into what is basically a labour portfolio is a grave error of national policy. I repeat it and I assert my confidence that a sensible, continuous, long range immigration policy will suffer.
When I assumed the portfolio of immigration, I soon learned that it was the very branches of the Department of Labour now sought to be integrated with it that consistently and persistently brought pressures to bear to reduce immigration, to cut it back, to hold it down, and this at the very time when in my opinion the Canadian economy badly needed the stimulus, the shot in the arm, if you will, of expanded immigration.
The department of manpower will be a department warring within itself, and because of the orientation of the proposed minister of manpower I have no doubt which contestant will win. As a matter of fact, I submit that the net effect of the proposed changes will be to deprive this country of a consistent, long range immigration policy.
I believe I could give the committee evidence of what I assert. In my travels I have visited other countries and their various departments of immigration. I will not mention the countries; I do not want to be invidious in mentioning them. But I believe those which have a separate immigration portfolio are much ahead, in relation to immigration policy, of those that combine immigration with labour. Without hesitation, I assert that immigration as an instrument of national policy is subdued wherever there is this marriage of immigration and labour.
Regretfully I predict that this will be the result of the Prime Minister's proposals here.
In other portfolios the changes have been tailored to a new minister. In the department of manpower they have been tailored not only to the proposed minister but to the deputy minister as well. With great respect and equal firmness, I ask the Prime Minister to re-examine his proposals. It is not too late to change, particularly when a change would be in the interest of more effective administration.
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments
One of the results of the proposals is to leave the Department of Labour, now presided over by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, so emaciated as not really to be a department at all. Except for the addition to the hon. gentleman's responsibility of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, one of the most effective ministers in this government would be virtually unemployed. So basically what I urge the Prime Minister to do at this resolution stage is to refer his proposals to a joint Senate and House of Commons committee for detailed analysis of the whole structure of departmental administration and ministerial portfolios.
I believe that hon. Senators and hon. members can advance new and simplified proposals which will accrue to public advantage generally. The present resolution will defeat effective and realistic ministerial responsibility; it is retrogressive and ought to be reconsidered.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, in discussing the proposal concerning the organization of the government of Canada I believe it is important that we try to get a perspective of the situation in which the government find itself today. In very broad terms something like 20 million people have sent 265 others here to Ottawa to do what we can to see that the government, its departments and its agencies handle the federal business of the country as efficiently, effectively and economically as possible.
The proportions of this federal business can be very briefly described in these terms. We take in and spend every year something over $7 billion. We have at the latest count some 345,000 civilian employees working in the federal field. The figures I have cited, Mr. Chairman, reflect an enormous expansion in governmental activities over the last 15 or 20 years. It is natural that this has been the case because in the last two decades Canada has moved toward the status of a modern industrial state with the collective type of life and living which that entails.
Both the federal and provincial governments in their departments have certainly stepped up their efforts and their spending toward economic and social development. But this has been going on, Mr. Chairman, under outmoded constitutional provisions with few clear demarcations of the responsibility between the federal and provincial departments. With both stepping up activities there is duplication which is costly to the taxpayer who supports these governmental agencies. I

believe the overlapping of federal and provincial authorities is a subject related to the legislation before us, but I will not go into that. I will confine myself entirely to a discussion of the federal governmental need of reorganization, except to say in passing that there are at least 160 federal and provincial agencies involved in water management in Canada, a situation giving rise to a great deal of overlapping and duplication.
There is no doubt at all in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that for many years federal ministers and departments and supporting agencies have been involved in related and fragmented responsibilities. As one who believes that public enterprise must continue to increase its worth and play a growing role in our way of life in Canada, I mean to do what I can to try to make public enterprise, which is represented by the federal government at the federal level, work efficiently and to improve its administrative functions.
I want to quote briefly from the findings of the Royal Commission on Government Organization, a report which we should remember was made some two or three years ago. I think this report is particularly pertinent to the resolution which is before us. It states:
It is a wasteful use of ministerial talent to have several ministers concerning themselves unnecessarily with common or closely related problems, just as it may cause a wasteful use of resources to have similar or related operations conducted by a number of separate units throughout the public service.
In addition to the proposals for consolidation of supporting services, a number of recommendations submitted in other reports for the regrouping of duties will have the effect of simplifying ministerial tasks. This can be seen, for example, in the proposal for consolidation of maritime patrol operations in the coastguard service, the transfer of the wild life service to the Minister of Fisheries, the transfer of the Canadian government travel bureau to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the assumption by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources of responsibilities relating to northern Indians now held by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
So, Mr. Chairman, I take it that the measure before us represents at least a first step toward a regrouping of these federal functions in line with the principles which were enunciated as the result of the royal commission studies made during the years 1960 to 1963. It is proposed now to establish some new departments, to take from others some services which are now performed in them, and to try to bring out of the whole reorganization a more efficient piece of machinery with which to carry on the business of the
May 9. 1966	COMMONS
country. I personally approve, generally speaking, of what is being done and I am certainly in favour of the principle involved of better planning, co-operation and co-ordination at the federal level.
I do not know that we can judge exactly at this point how efficiently some of these new departments or new groupings will work. I feel that we will have to withhold our judgment until we see the new machinery in operation.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
The other proposals commend themselves to me immediately, particularly those concerned with citizenship and manpower, the grouping of energy and mines and so on in one department. I want to say, though, that while I approve of the objective I do believe it has taken a long time to make this attempt. We are seeing an effort to reform something which has been in need of reform for many, many years. All of us have had the experience of dealing with two or three or more departments of this government, in addition to having provincial agencies involved and realizing that the matter could be settled very quickly if there were a co-ordinating agency.
I note that the Auditor General of Canada, in his recent report, was at pains I thought to underline the need for further reforms in organization procedures of the federal government. He said this, Mr. Chairman:
We selected 32 departments or agencies of government whose operations had been studied by the royal commission three years ago and where the conditions giving rise to some 450 findings existed.
I break off the quotation there to explain that these findings represented items which the royal commission listed as being defective or, wasteful procedures and practices by the federal government. The Auditor General states that his survey involved seeking answers to over 900 questions at the appropriate levels of government departments and agencies, questions which could be summed up briefly by saying that he was seeking to find out from them what they had done about the many recommendations for reforms made by the royal commission. The results of these questions, the Auditor General says, brought forward this sorry state of affairs, one which I believe still exists to this day. In brief, three quarters of the recommendations by this royal commission, which incidentally cost the country $3 million, had been ignored to date by the different levels of government or agencies.
DEBATES	4893
Establishment of New Departments
I think it is incumbent upon every member of the house, Mr. Chairman, to do what he can to encourage the government to go further than they have toward streamlining government operations and making more efficient the operations of the departments. As a social democrat, I have been long acquainted with the overlapping and duplication which is evident in private industry. As a social democrat, I am very much concerned also that public enterprise, as represented by the federal government at least, should seek to eliminate wasteful procedures and present an efficient, competent operation.
The cost of that royal commission, as I said, was $3 million. In my view it did excellent work. The Auditor General states that the task the commission undertook is far from complete. He found no lack of awareness in the departments of government which he questioned as to the need for the many reforms dealt with in the report of the commission. In many instances he found that there was a lack of action in the top management bracket to have these reforms undertaken. This is what interested me, Mr. Chairman: He found that top management itself, in many cases, said that they could do very little to change the practices and procedures which were under criticism in their departments because they had their beginning in actions by the Canadian parliament itself.
I feel therefore it comes back pretty well to us, certainly to the government and to the members of this house, to do whatever we can to continue to eliminate or reduce waste and duplication in the service. With this in mind, while I favour the general proposals which have been put forward by the government, I regret that I have not heard of the government's intention of continuing with this reorganization. We have had no indication from the government that it intends to do what any private industry would do, that is conduct a continuing survey on an annual basis to ascertain how and where more efficiency can be introduced. I support the remarks made earlier today by my leader who said he thought there should be a federal agency which would concern itself solely with improving the efficiency of the government. For many years, Mr. Chairman, in the field of municipalities we have had a municipal manager. It may be the time will come when we will have something in the nature of a federal manager.
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments
I want to conclude by saying I support generally the proposal of the government, which I believe is heading in the right direction. I deplore the fact that no time has been set for a continuation of the same type of work to give us more reforms.


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, we now have before us a rather meaty piece of legislation, since it provides for the establishment of a department of the solicitor general, a department of manpower, a department of the registrar general, a department of Indian affairs and northern development, department of energy, mines and resources, for the establishment of the office of president of the Treasury Board and provides finally for such other consequential or incidental statutory amendments as are necessary to implement the changes to be effected by the said measure.
Mr. Chairman, this is quite substantial for a single piece of legislation and we do not have time, in the few minutes at our disposal to analyse in detail all the new trends brought about within the federal administration.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
At the outset, I want to point out that the suggestion made a while ago by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), was justified, because it would be important not to act quickly with regard to that measure but to allow parliament, through a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, to study all its possible changes.
Tonight, however, Mr. Chairman,-I reserve the right to speak when the bills are introduced for each of the objectives of that resolution-I want to deal mainly with the proposed creation of a department of manpower, subject of capital importance in Canada because it must allow us to approach effectively the country's major economic problems.
We know that a great effort must be made to develop our production capacity, whether in the field of productivity, manpower qualification, training or mobility. Economic and social problems change very rapidly. It is urgent that the governments of our country co-operate to our economic growth and the qualification of our labour force.
For some years now-not only here in Canada but in every country-the repercussions of that phenomenon called automation have been felt in various areas, namely unemployment, manpower displacement

training of workers, financial help to workers and today, there is talk of the need for a department of manpower.
But, before giving our blessing to the creation of that new department, it would be important to know, and we will know it only when the bill is introduced, what responsibilities exactly that new department will assume in the field of federal jurisdiction and probably with regard to the provincial jurisdiction. Besides, the question has been raised sharply and is already quite controversial.
We have, on one side, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) who has been saying for some months that to be effective the manpower policy must be carried out at the national level. His argument is based on the fact that the central government is responsible for the economic life of Canada and that, since manpower is an essential element, the central government must be able to establish itself an effective national policy.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not object at times, in the speeches he makes outside this house, to the provinces administering their own problems of reclassification of manpower. Outside the house, and sometimes in the house, in answer to questions, he repeated the same assertion to the effect that he would not object to the provinces administering their reclassification of manpower, except on two points: the employment office and the financing of a manpower policy.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we have the opposite attitude, controverted by the premier of Quebec who, in Sherbrooke, on May 2 last, stated:
Action in this field, to be efficient, should come under the government closer the people. This government, said Mr. Lesage, is the government of Quebec. This is a field of provincial jurisdiction, considering its close relationship to education, and the connections of such a policy with area development, social security, schools, educational establishments.
If Quebec did not want to do anything in that respect, said the premier, it would be difficult to blame the federal government. The latter, however, would hardly be able to adapt its means of action to the concrete needs of the people of various areas in the province of Quebec.
The Quebec minister of labour, who comes from Sherbrooke, has also been asserting for some months, in various speeches, and this is probably the reflection of the attitude he had to take when he met the responsible minister in Ottawa at the end of 1965 or at the
May 9, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	4895
beginning of 1966, that the provinces have a responsibility in the economic development.
For that reason, the province must look after the organization of industry, labour and manpower. There should be co-operation with Ottawa, but the latter must not take direct action on manpower in a province, without co-operation with the province. Ottawa should be a kind of clearing house whose director would be in touch with the provincial minister of labour.
A little farther than the province of Quebec, we are aware of statements and attitudes on the part of representatives of British Columbia; for some months, the British Columbia minister of labour has been asserting that the province intends to stay master of its manpower policy.
If we look at the statements of persons who are not involved in political activity, we notice, for instance, that Mr. Roland Pa-renteau, director of the Quebec council for economic orientation, during the 21st convention on industrial relations, maintained that action in the field of manpower should be restricted to the province without, however, closing the door against the necessary cooperation with other levels of government.
Mr. Andre Raynaud, of the Economic Science Department of the University of Montreal, also stated at this 21st conference, on April 19, 1966, that an adequate manpower policy comes as much under provincial as under federal jurisdiction, and that manpower mobility was merely an intermediate step in the adjustment process of supply and demand.
Mr. Claude Ryan, editorial writer of Le Devoir, had this to say on February 24, 1966:
Political leaders are dealing here neither with words nor slogans, but with the livelihood of workers. It is essential to become very aware of the problems peculiar to Quebec and to prevent Ottawa from entering alone in a field of great concern to the provincial government. But the common good requires that the true aspects of the problem be first looked into, as realistically as possible, and that care be taken from the very start to prevent the whole study from becoming a jurisdictional dispute.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Here are opinions on manpower policy which are at variance in certain respects and consider matters in a different light. Is the federal government well advised to introduce a piece of legislation designed to set forth a manpower policy without giving us the assurance that all Canadian provinces have agreed on a formula which meets everyone's approval and which would be essentially beneficial to the working class?
Establishment of New Departments
To this question of manpower are connected matters coming under different jurisdictions. The matters involved include labour, unemployment, immigration, economic responsibilities, social aspects, educational training and even, in certain respects, civil rights and freedom. Thus it seems that the meaning of the word manpower, which is to become a national policy, comprises responsibilities which are recognized at times as being under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
This shows that the refusal of the central government to undertake a revision and constitutional reforms in a 1966 context continues to stir up and maintain in this country pressures and tensions which are neither good nor favourable to understanding and national unity.
As for this department of manpower, like in the case of the Science Council and other matters which I pointed out since the beginning of the session, the central government is going about the problem in the wrong way. These fields did not exist explicitly in 1867, they are not defined in the Canadian constitution-the question of manpower did not arise in 1867-it was not then an acute economic problem. Today, however, we are in 1966 and we must respect our constitution. If the governments no longer respect the constitution there will be complete chaos from the constitutional and even political point of view.
In spite of many requests from various members of the house and from all parties for the creation of an urgently needed parliamentary committee, so that federal legislators of both houses may state their ideas clearly on federal policy and responsibility in the economic, social and national context of 1966, the central government refuses and continually puts off the creation of such a committee which would be a first step-while for example the province of Quebec has already established a constitutional committee with the same objective in view-toward a national conference precisely in order to establish and define responsibilities. I am convinced that, from coast to coast, from Halifax to Vancouver, Canadians, even those who do not meet often, feel more like brothers and much closer when they do meet, in spite of the geographic distance between them. But instead of defining responsibilities, the central government continues to increase the constitutional chaos and to maintain tension and pressures on all sides.
Mar 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments
Our attitude on this question of manpower is clear, precise and even seems categorically opposed to the new manpower policy announced, not only on the part of the province of Quebec but of British Columbia and probably other provinces, for I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with all the ministers of labour of the other provinces.
Thus the central government decides, by itself and perhaps before the end of its last meeting or before holding another meeting with the ministers of labour of the ten provinces, to define a national manpower policy comprising regional and provincial economic policies. Unfortunately, as in many other fields, the central government is acting unilaterally. It asserts itself, and when it has had its way there will still be pressures and dissatisfaction in the country and nothing leading to the national understanding wanted by all. The steps leading to it are not taken in this house.
Here again, certain initiatives are taken without the consent of the provincial representatives in order to establish Canadian policies which will please everyone.
Mr. Chairman, this is another example of intervention, centralization and bullying with regard to the aspirations of the provinces. I hope that before presenting a bill, those responsible for the new legislation-and today I speak of manpower only-will, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) suggested, refer the question to a joint parliamentary committee, even if this delays by a few months the application of a bill.
When a bill is introduced here, it should take into account the aspirations of the provinces and the particular characteristics of a certain province. There is no iron curtain, there is no problem. It is only a matter of reaching an agreement first and not always imposing policies or upsetting whose who have special problems. That gives rise to tensions, dissatisfaction and creates islands of separatism, dislocation, balkanization, whatever you call it.
Do we want a united country, a united Canada, not only on the cultural level but on the economic level? Well, it is time, with regard to that bill on manpower, not to proceed quickly but to refer the question to a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons and to consult representatives of the provinces-particularly those which show some reservations about some areas of national manpower and which could create about that repercussions in all the fields

where there is misunderstanding and incomprehension-in order to create a mosaic or intelligent policies, accepted not only by one provincial capital up to the third provincial capital, but from Halifax to Vancouver, in order to make our country a united country, to put an end to the disputes, discussions and struggles on constitutional matters.
It is very simple, Mr. Chairman, let us proceed to a necessary reform of a constitution which is only an old piece of paper dating from 1867 and which, probably as far as three quarters of its provisions are concerned, has no meaning whatsoever in 1966.
That is what has been refused here for three months to a great number of members of the Social Credit, the Ralliement Creditiste, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative party, and to some members of the party in office. Some ministers go to Toronto and elsewhere and say what we are now openly saying in this house.
To smooth over the difficulties, it is essential to unite Canadians on the cultural as well as the economic level. A bill dealing with the creation of a company of young Canadians will be introduced shortly. Well, once again we will see interference in fields of provincial jurisdiction.
[English1


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Having spent many years of my life working with corporations in order to improve the efficiency of their operations, and having worked in a similiar capacity with government organizations, perhaps I might be pardoned for speaking on the resolution before us. This resolution is, I believe, of a type which is important and which could be made productive, as far as the smooth working of the government of Canada is concerned.
I was especially interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Carleton. It was mentioned by him, and by other speakers earlier, that some 26 departments of government are now contemplated.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
There is no question of doubt in the mind of any sound thinking administrator that 26 departments are too many. I do not intend to reiterate the words used by others to describe the overlapping and slitting up, but the
May 9. 1966

departments have become so split up that the average man having a problem and wishing to bring it to the attention of his government is faced with the additional problem of knowing where to write, and to whom he may direct his questions.
The Minister of Labour, who is sitting opposite me, is one of the most efficient ministers in the government, and I am certain that he could handle the portfolio of manpower as well as of labour. The two fit nicely together. When you are talking of one you are talking of the other, and the policies of one affect the policies of the other. If we are going to get the maximum benefit in this country it is necessary to have both those portfolios combined under the supervision of one good man.
The hon. member for Carleton mentioned immigration and citizenship. I shall not dwell on them, but I do wish to mention the Department of Agriculture which at present is split three ways. The marketing of wheat, which is one of the principal functions in agriculture, is just about a full time job for one man, working in co-operation with the Wheat Board and with all other agencies of government concerned with the marketing and the finding of markets for wheat, in order to keep a balance between supply and demand and give the farmers the maximum return for their product. But no one man, be it the present minister or anyone else, can handle the heavy work of the Department of Finance and also the marketing of wheat. The two do not fit together. Marketing of wheat, a part of agriculture, is tailored to fit one particular individual who is responsible for the agricultural portfolio.
Dealing with the other splits in the Department of Agriculture, I notice the Minister of Forestry is also in the chamber. He has responsibility for ARDA, and for feed grain for eastern farmers. I submit that a minister of agriculture could be assigned those functions. I can understand why he was given them, in order to give an eastern connotation or flavour to actions which might be taken. I submit that the responsibilities for ARDA, feed grain and so on, rest primarily and most efficiently under a minister of agriculture, as does also the marketing of wheat.
The present Minister of Agriculture is responsible for certain scientific branches. He also controls the pricing of certain products such as butter and eggs, but at the same time he is concerned with production. I would like to see any corporation that could operate efficiently if it had production in one centre
Establishment of New Departments and the marketing away off somewhere else. These have to be co-ordinated under one individual.
The production of wheat and other agricultural products, as well as the marketing of them, should be the responsibility of one man, who would also look after pricing,-instead of being scattered all over the map as they are at present, one in finance, one in forestry and one in agriculture.
The Department of Agriculture was split up in order to accommodate the former minister of agriculture. There is no doubt about that. Now it is split up to help accommodate the demand for someone who can look after Quebec. We all want Quebec looked after, just as we want all other provinces looked after. One department should be sufficient for agriculture, and one should be sufficient for manpower and labour.
If I were to repeat what other hon. members have said I could show where we can do away with no less than six ministers, which would bring the number of departments down to about 20.
If we had only 20 ministers, then to make the house operate efficiently I suggest that a committee of members be set up behind each minister, and stipulate that each minister attend all the meetings of his respective committee. At the present time we have a committee structure under which we cannot get quorums. I ask why? It ties into this whole set-up of governmental organization, and when you talk about one part you are also talking about the other. It is like a number of balls in a bowl: When you move one ball every other ball shifts to a new position. The same thing is true when you delve into the question of the proper organization to make parliament click.
Parliament is not clicking now, and a lot of people are saying that we should do this or that in order to make it more effective. I suggest that if parliament were organized in terms of a number of committees, one behind each department, and made it obligatory for the respective minister to attend all committee meetings, the system would work. A committee chairman could ask a particular minister, well in advance, what dates he could attend.
We all know ministers are busy but they are not such big shots that they cannot attend committees when members of the house are present. When I want to get some point across on the estimates of a particular minister, I can do it in committee if the minister is
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments there. He is the man I want to talk to, not some parliamentary secretary. If the minister is not present then the committee should adjourn. What is the point of meeting and just talking to the four walls? It is the minister who is responsible for the work of his department and it is to him members want to talk.
In addition, at committee meetings certain officials on the administrative staffs of branches should be present. If that were done, then all three branches of government would be concentrated in a committee and a subject could be discussed meaningfully. The order of business would be worked out ahead of time.
* (7:40 p.m.)
Each particular member would know well in advance what subjects would be discussed and the work would be divided up logically. Different persons would be responsible to lead off in discussion, and they would be prepared, whether it was in respect of estimates or any other subject. However, there now is no such organization back of committee. The member receives a notice to attend at a certain time; you go and there is not a quorum. I went to a committee the other day and sat there for half an hour; there still was not a quorum and we had to go out and shanghai another representative in order to make up a quorum.
It is clear to anyone that the problem of making these committees work is one which involves giving to the members of parliament who are sent here an opportunity to get their ideas across to the minister who is responsible and to the administrative officials in the various departments; in other words, the members wish to get together with the ministers and their officials to hear what is being done in their particular departments. They also want the opportunity to discuss with the minister the financing and so on of the particular department, rather than with somebody else, because the minister is responsible.
I should like to say that any minister who is running a department of government should welcome the opportunity to have 10 or 15 members of parliament meet with him and with certain members of his executive where they could have an opportunity to sit around together and talk. Of course, it all would be taken down and so on; but out of that discussion the minister would receive a tremendous benefit. I say to the Minister of Forestry and the Minister of Labour, as the ministers who are here now and who may be

leading in the discussion on this, that if they are going to make this parliament work, and satisfy the members, they must get down to the fundamentals of what will retain the interest of individual members. The 60,000 people who sent me down here did not send me here to talk to four walls in a committee room without the minister being there; not on your life. The minister too does not have enough time at any other period to listen to my words on this, that or any other thing. If I or any other of the 15 members who might be on the committee have any contribution to make on the subject of his department, the time to do so would be when they are called together and the minister is there in front of them.
I would suggest that if this type of organization was set up, it would be the obligation of the minister to be present whenever a committee meeting is held. If that were done, it would solve the problem of attendance, of a quorum, and every other thing. I would go one step further. I would give the members a couple of chances and then if they did not attend, except in cases of illness or something like that, they would be taken off the committee and somebody else put on in their place; you have to be a little more strict and a little more tough. It is a little like the sap in the tree: It flows both ways, from the cabinet minister to the members and back. The executive also benefits, and everyone is stimulated. If you harmonize those people and being them together under one committee set-up, you will receive the best co-operation from members of parliament and, in addition, you will get the various parts of government fitting properly together.
In respect of the suggestion that this matter be submitted to the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, I should like to say that I do not think that is the place to submit it. I think it should be sent to some special committee composed of members of this house who have had some experience at least in making committees work; it should consist of representatives of the various parties. They could then bring in a suggestion to the government containing changes which would improve the order of business and the type of business.
I am certain-with all due respect-that if the ministers who are in the front benches were to take this up and seriously consider it, they would find that the members of this parliament would be more behind what they are doing, would be more cognizant of the action they are taking, more appreciative of
May 9. 1966

it, and that it would all work out in the best interest of the people and the government of Canada. The work of parliament could be handled in six months.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, the approach in principle to resolution No. 56 which now is before us already has been presented by our house leader, the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam and the hon. member for New Westminster. I am not going to repeat what they have said. I do wish to speak, however, for a little while on this most important resolution because of two aspects contained therein, and also because I have been intrigued somewhat by the statement of the hon. member for Carleton, and just now by the hon. member for Macleod. It appears to me that the major attitude of the hon. member for Carleton toward this resolution was the fact that if it is passed and the bills which are to follow it were passed, it would mean the establishment of 26 departments and 26 cabinet ministers.
I should like to emphasize that personally I do not give a hoot whether the number of cabinet ministers is 15, 20 or 26; the number of cabinet ministers is not the important factor. The important issue is that whatever number is required in respect of cabinet appointments they shall be such that there is no overlapping, that there shall be efficiency and that the responsibility of each and every cabinet minister shall be such that he will be in a position to know his department, know his responsibilities, do his job, and do it effectively.
The ultimate question is not the number; it is the efficiency of the operation. Therefore I cannot accept, in opposition to this resolution, a debate with regard to whether there should be 15, 20 or 26 cabinet ministers. I was of course most intrigued by the remarks made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Macleod. When it comes to labour, he wants everything put together; but when it comes to the matter of selling our wheat, that is the problem for one man.
It was most interesting when the hon. member for Macleod stated that manpower should be within the ministry of labour. Originally I felt the same way, but I had to change my mind. Why did I change my mind? When considering the history of events in the last few years we find that when the Conservatives were in office the hon. member
Establishment of New Departments for Ontario was the minister of labour. I remember that hon. member in answer to a question in this house telling us that the government had established an interdepartmental committee to deal with problems associated with automation. However, I cannot place my hands on any report received by the House of Commons on the work of that interdepartmental committee dealing with automation, nor can I place my hands on any legislation based on the studies of that committee.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
The Conservative party was then replaced by the Liberals as the party in power. I remember the minister of labour in the Liberal government also telling this house about an interdepartmental committee which was set up to deal with the problems created by automation. I cannot place my hands on any report from that interdepartmental committee or legislation based on any studies it may have made.
For these reasons it appears to me that under both the Conservatives and the Liberals no department of labour or departmental committee under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour was able to come up with recommendations dealing with one of the greatest problems which faces the Canadian economy. Let it not be forgotten that perhaps the greatest problem facing our economy is related to matters of technological development, modernization and automation.
Over the years these problems have fallen within the purview of the Department of Labour, but no effective action has been taken by that department. I think the present government is doing the right thing by establishing a manpower department, because this whole matter is of such vital importance it requires special and intensive study on a basis separate and apart from the other responsibilities the Minister of Labour must accept.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: As soon as I have completed my remarks I shall be glad to answer the hon. member's question.
The importance of this whole question was brought forcibly to my attention last fall when I was a member of a conciliation board sitting in British Columbia. This board sat for some eight weeks listening to evidence and formulating conclusions. One of the greatest
4900
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments problems it had to consider and report upon was the matter of technological advance, modernization and automation. I am proud that this three-man board, representative of employers and employees, with a government appointed chairman, was able to bring forward a unanimous report. Top priority was given to the question of automation. The board recommended that within 60 days there should be a joint committee appointed with certain objectives and powers to work with departments of government and committees on this question of manpower and automation.
We made that recommendation in that way because we felt there had to be co-ordination and co-operation among employers, employees and the government before this problem of advancing technology and automation could be tackled effectively. Unless the three bodies in question work together our Canadian economy will be completely stymied. That is why, although I originally thought manpower should come under the Department of Labour, I now support completely the suggestion that there should be a separate manpower division.
Not only must there be co-operation among these three bodies, but there has to be direction and co-ordination on policy matters. Undoubtedly only the government can undertake to provide this direction in bringing the government, employers and employees together. One of my greatest hopes in supporting this suggestion for the establishment of a manpower department with its own minister is that there will be that type of priority given to direction and co-ordination.
There is no need to emphasize the interest and worry on the part of workers regarding this matter. They have taken the initiative in this directon, but success can only come as a result of co-operation. The leadership should come from the government. There are some employers who buck progress, modernization, and labour's attaining its fair share of the benefits that follow advances in technology and automation.
Here again we see a need for government interest, because in order that the Canadian economy be maintained, so that we can take our proper place in the national economy and international competition, the government must bring in legislation to make employers play ball. There is no other answer to this problem. For the reasons I have expressed, I welcome this recommendation on the part of

the government to establish a manpower department with its own minister.
I said there were two phases of the resolution in which I was very greatly interested and with which I was concerned. The second relates to the transfer from the Department of Justice to the department of the solicitor general of authority and responsibility in relation to our penitentiaries, and the ramifications connected with the granting of parole. I have had a great interest in this matter for many years and I think this transfer is an important step in the right direction. Perhaps now we will see some action; perhaps now we will have a department and a minister which will have time to study and understand these important matters. I realize the terrifically fantastic responsibilities the ministers of justice had under the past administrative set-up, and this is the only reason I can think of why this whole field has been neglected so much in the past. Ministers of justice have not had the time or the interest to deal properly with questions of modern penology. As a result the taxpayers of Canada have been paying millions of dollars unnecessarily because of government stupidity and the fact that their policies were so archaic.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Hon. members know that the Department of Justice had a plan of penitentiary construction over the period of seven to ten years. This was going to cost the taxpayers God knows how many millions of dollars. The Elizabeth Fry organization, the John Howard Society, the parole association and every similar body were completely opposed to this plan, but the Minister of Justice said, "Phooey; you don't know what you are talking about. I am going to call the tenders."
As soon as this matter was turned over to the Solicitor General the same representations were made by the same organizations, and within two hours he said, "I cannot stop the development at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary; it is 75 per cent completed. But I will hold off in regard to every other new tender until this matter can be studied." This illustrates the difference of attitude and approach on the part of a minister who is perhaps going to have the time to make the necessary studies.
We have spent millions of dollars on a narcotics institute in British Columbia. It was opened only last Friday. I was in the Kingston penitentiary for women-I can get in and out-and found there are 20 narcotics addicts
May 9. 1966	COMMONS
in that penitentiary who are to be moved in June or July to the new Matsqui institute in British Columbia. Nineteen of the 20 women do not want to go there. Why? Because they will be released right back into the same environment and among the same people who made them addicts. Nineteen out of 20 women in the women's institution at Kingston want to be held there and released from there, not taken to an institution 3,000 miles away from which, upon release, they will drift back into the same environment.
The decision was to transfer them to Matsqui, but now that decision is being reconsidered by the Solicitor General. Three days after I and the member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway drew this matter to the attention of the Solicitor General he was at the women's penitentiary looking into the question. He showed an entirely different approach. He is one who can and will give of his time. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of this change. I hope it will result in a different approach than we have seen in the past.
I have just mentioned the women's penitentiary at Kingston. This government spent thousands of dollars equipping a hairdressing establishment there to teach those women a trade. After a long time permission was received from the provincial authorities in Toronto and the plan was that after 1,600 hours instruction under personal supervision these women would be given an official Ontario certificate as hairdressers, and upon their release would have a trade.
This hairdressing establishment has not yet been opened. Do you know why? Because it was under the Department of Justice, which spent the money to equip an establishment inside the prison to teach hairdressing, but it has not yet been used because they will not supply the money to pay an instructor. These are the kinds of stupid things that have gone on in the penitentiaries system, which falls under the Department of Justice. I presume these things have happened because the minister has not the time to deal with everything and leaves it to the bureaucrats, who do not give a hoot anyway. I give the committee just those two examples, the transfer of narcotics addicts to a place they should never go to, and spending a great deal of money to train people, and then leaving the plan to gather dust because they do not supply an instructor. We hope that upon a transfer of responsibility to the Solicitor General this sort of thing will change.
23033-311i
DEBATES	4901
Establishment of New Departments


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to ask the hon. member a question?


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee give its unanimous consent to the hon. member's asking a question of the hon. member for Vancouver East?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I listened attentively to the hon. member's contribution; I heard his words of approbation, and so on. He was denigrating this government and the previous government for lack of action in meeting the technological advances and advances in automation in today's society. I would ask the hon. member-and I ask my question in all seriousness-if he does not consider that the contribution made by the previous minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario, for the vocational schools training program and in the field of university expansion was a valuable one?


Harold Edward Winch: Of course it was a valuable contribution; but that does not solve the problem, and it did not require a special committee, departmental or otherwise, to bring in that legislation.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is quite right.


Harold Edward Winch: The major problem is still to be resolved.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It will never be resolved.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks, and they will be critical, on the matter of the setting up of the energy, mines and resources department. When I say my remarks will be critical, they will not be critical of the fact that the department is to be set up, because I think it is necessary. However, I will be critical of the actions, of lack of action, of the minister who holds the portfolio of Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys at the present time. I will not stray from the subject before the committee, but I think this question is important to the subject.
1 agree completely that a department of energy, mines and resources is a logical department of government. In my opinion the duties assigned to this department are the
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments most important in the whole area of government at this time. Several problems are critical and others are urgent on a long-range basis. In the critical stage I place the matters of water pollution and power transmission. In the urgent stage I place the matters of water resources and minerals development. The setting up of a department does not of itself accomplish anything. Neither does the shuffling of responsibilities among the ministers, because this is an administrative act. Nothing is accomplished until results are obtained.
I submit that reorganization should be a tool to strengthen and co-ordinate policies in energy and resources.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Some strong policy direction should come from such a department. However, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys already has his responsibilities assigned under order in council. In effect the passage of this measure will not add anything to the department, except to change its name.
During the past three or four months we have had an opportunity to observe the minister's conduct of the department and the effectiveness which the combination of these various responsibilities has had on the energy and resource field. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that we have waited in vain for some policy statement in connection with water pollution and water resources. I have read the numerous speeches made by the present minister, all across this country, and he has made many, but I have not managed to read any which refer to the department of which he is the minister.
His speeches have been directed toward English-French relations, constitutional readjustments and everything else except the department for which he is supposed to be responsible. Therefore the burden on my point is that some reorganization of the department will not produce results.
I am sorry the minister is not there tonight. I am not normally critical. I make no apologies, however, because his department is under consideration. The resolution certainly includes a reorganization affecting energy, mines and resources. I believe it is my responsibility to point out that, regardless of the fact that the reorganization of this department has been in effect for several months, nothing has come of it. For example, we tried to get statements of policy on pollution. Many questions were asked, and the minister's reply was: "A statement is coming;


we are working on it; give us time"-and so forth. We were led to believe that eventually we would receive a statement on this very urgent and serious problem of water pollution, particularly as it affects the Great Lakes. Then within the past week the minister, when pressed as to when he was going to make a statement, said he was working on it. He then said, in effect: When you do get it there will not be anything in it; we are only going to explain what we are doing, and in some general sort of way pacify the public and try to prevent them from getting too upset.
It is true that a solution to the problems of water pollution is not quick, and it is not easy. The problem on lake Erie is one which will take years to solve. However, as we all know, there has to be a beginning, there has to be a first step. Not only that, there has to be the appearance of a first step. However, we have had nothing along these lines. I regret that nothing has been done about this critical matter. In spite of the fact that the responsibilities have now been transferred into the minister's hands, what we are discussing will do nothing more than give a name to the department of which he is the minister.
Therefore, while I do support the creation of this department and the idea of energy resources, minerals, atomic energy, water resources, and so forth being placed into one department and under one minister, this action should be a tool to assist the minister in doing the job which he is supposed to be doing; it should be a tool which he can use to co-ordinate the policies in connection with water.
We know and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who is in the house, knows the terrible mess water problems have got into under the administration of the government. I am not blaming anybody at this moment at all, but we had one facet of water in one department and another facet in another department. This has been spread all over the map. Those of us who have been interested in water levels, water resources and water pollution have had to skip from minister to minister to find out which one has the particular authority in this situation. This is an intolerable situation. I had hoped when I read the original announcement about the combination of these departments, and of water resources under one minister, that here at last we were going to have under one minister the responsibility
May 9, 1966	COMMONS
for these related problems. I thought this idea was good, but only the results will show whether it is good or not.
In supporting the resolution in connection with this particular department, I say that there is no use whatsoever in making these administrative changes unless the ministers who are in charge of the departments take hold of them, and make use of the tool the government has created for them.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad, along with other members in this group, to welcome this resolution and the changes it is bringing about in general, because we approve very much of the principle underlying the reorganization of necessary government services at this time. This does not mean that we are necessarily going to believe that everything will work out as planned. There may be a great many reasons why parliament should continue to develop the reorganization. I believe what the Prime Minister said this afternoon was very true, that there will have to be continuous changes and that in these times of rapidly moving events we are far from having reached a final form of reorganization or effectiveness in governmental departments. There are several departments where I believe there is real hope for great improvement through the new set-up. One I believe will be in combining the Indian affairs branch with northern development. One finds out at every turn from people who are working with the Indians that the only hope is to deal with them in conjunction with their surroundings, and not try to pull them out of those surroundings.
I believe that the combining of these two branches will be a benefit to the Indian people and to Canada as a whole, because they are citizens of this country.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Now, in looking over some of the changes in the departments, it seems to me that the improvement lies in the fact there is an attempt in reorganizing these departments to fit the people concerned into the services in a much closer way than has been the case in the past, and to have ministers deal with a more limited range of services and a more limited sector of the population.
Another department, in which I think many of us are perhaps more interested than any other, is the new department of manpower. I am interested in it from an angle that has not been mentioned, I believe, during this
DEBATES	4903
Establishment of New Departments debate. I refer to the fact that I want to hear what is going to happen not only with regard to manpower but with regard to womanpow-er. I find over and over again illustrations of the survival of an economy where women were expected to remain in the home and men were outside. The outside life was directed mostly toward men and their work. Even the term "manpower" indicates that such is still the case in the mind of the government.
I know it is very easy to brush off this argument in a gallant way by saying that man embraces woman, and that sort of thing. However, this is not the case when it comes to the organization of labour. I should like very much to have the new minister of manpower make a statement some time about the plans of his department for dealing with this large proportion of workers who will be married women gainfully employed outside their homes, as well as single women. I think that in any discussion of manpower there are additional facets that must be discussed, in view of the fact that women, particularly married women, have now moved out into industry in very large numbers.
In so far as vocational training is concerned, I think the department of manpower will have a great many new things to consider, which perhaps they do not even realize now. As the problem of training for women comes more and more to the fore, consideration will have to be given to the provision of facilities which will allow married women with children, even older children, to work in industry without neglecting those children. Perhaps we might like to have women with children remain inside the home, but this is not the case today and we have to deal with conditions as they are. I hope that the newly constituted department of manpower will be considering such matters as vocational training for women including the training, perhaps on an apprenticeship basis, of helpers for nursery schools and supervisors for nursery schools. Perhaps this training could be given in conjunction with universities. Nursery schools are going to be an essential part of the machinery to make it possible for married women with children, who are now out in industry, to continue their work without neglecting their children. These are the things the department of manpower will have to consider.
Far from wanting to leave the department of manpower combined with the Department
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments of Labour, I think myself that if the present minister of manpower is going to hope to do the job that is laid out for him, along with immigration and other classes of work, he will have to be triplets. I should like to underline, just for a moment, what my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East said about the desirability of the Solicitor General, whose work now includes the penitentiaries and parole boards, paying some heed to the demands of prison officials and the people in penology before these women drug addicts are moved out to that new prison at Matsqui. These people have made a study of the problem and have had something to say about the extreme foolishness-perhaps an even stronger word could be used-of sending these women back to Vancouver after their release. There is only one place they can go, and that is 30 miles back into the metropolis of Vancouver where they originally got into trouble. Vancouver is the worst drug centre in the whole of Canada, and these people will only resume those associations and those habits which got them into this trouble in the first place.
I would hope the Solicitor General would take a long second look at this matter. I am convinced he would be far more inclined to follow the advice of those in the east who have made a study of this thing and who have successfully released some of these women into Ontario centres, which are not so dangerous for drug addicts.
I want now to turn to the other point I wish to mention tonight. If it were possible to introduce an amendment to this resolution, I would do so. While it is an excellent thing to have these new departments created, and I think in the main we shall find they will work out satisfactorily, I am going to suggest that the one which has been left out is probably more important than any one of the changes that has been made. We have a government department for nearly every sector of the population we can mention, except the big one which covers all of us in our capacity as consumers. We have no government department today to look after the affairs of the millions of men and women who do the buying in this country. There is no government department to advise them, to protect them or to look after their interests in the consumer field.
Consumers are big business in Canada. They spend about $29 billion annually. By far the greatest part of our spending in this country is done by consumers, yet they have
(Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
no department of government solely charged with looking after their interests. I know there are bits and pieces of consumer legislation and consumer facilities scattered throughout the various government departments. For instance, Trade and Commerce has its division of weights and measures. Agriculture has its consumer information service, and the inspection of meats and other products. Fisheries has its consumer branch and its public information branch. Health and Welfare has its food and drug directorate. Justice has the combines legislation. Undoubtedly there are other departments of government which have, as I say, bits of consumer legislation in operation; but there is no single department charged with the responsibility of looking after the interests of consumers as a whole. This department is long overdue.
Outside this department the Canadian Association of Consumers has for six years now been demanding over and over again that we should have consumer affairs in charge of a single minister. They urged specifically in their brief, which was presented just three weeks ago, that before this legislation is passed there should be a review of the necessity for having a department of consumer affairs set up. I do not intend to cover the whole field of what should be included in a department of consumer affairs, because that will be done during discussion of my resolution, which will be up for discussion shortly. However, I should like to quote from the brief of the Canadian Association of Consumers:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Consumer problems concerning several departments are sometimes referred to interdepartmental committees. If the chairman has no definite responsibility for the effect of government policy on consumers, the problems are apt to become "bogged down'' in these committees.
For example-in December 1963 the recommendations on pesticides made by the committee of the House of Commons on food and drugs were tabled in the house and were later referred to an interdepartmental committee. C.A.C. is still waiting for action on the recommendations concerning the labelling of pesticides.
There, Mr. Chairman, is just one example of what happens when everybody's business is nobody's business. That happens when you have got consumer affairs matters being scattered throughout various government departments.
The Canadian Association of Consumers is very anxious that any department of consumer affairs should have included in it (a) the
May 9, 1966

food and drug directorate; (b) the combines investigation branch, (c) an economic research branch, responsible for research into such items as matters arising out of the combines legislation, legislation on patents, companies, consumer credit and other economic questions; (d) administration of legislation on consumer credit; and (e) administration of any other legislation related primarily to the consumer interest.
The association is most anxious that this committee should be set up with a minimum of delay. I would point out that this afternoon the Prime Minister stated: "I am sure that additional steps will be required." He was, of course, referring to additional steps in government reorganization, and in the reassessing of the work of the departments.
I am sure that millions of consumers in this country tonight are convinced not only that additional steps will be required, but that this particular step of setting up a department of consumer affairs is long overdue. I would urge upon the government the necessity for including in this particular reorganization the beginnings of a full fledged department of consumer affairs, with a minister whose whole time will be devoted to it.
The urgency is great. From month to month we find the cost of living rising. Complaints are coming from consumers about labelling, deceptive packaging, about their being kept in ignorance as to the cost of credit, and about many other things. When these complaints have been brought up in the house on a number of past occasions since the beginning of the year, no one on the government side of the house has been in a position to answer with respect to them. I urge that if the government is serious about representing the interests of the people of this country, that it should not stop after representing only the sectional interests of industrial workers, farmers and people in various occupations in this country, but that it should take time to look at the Canadian people as a whole in that activity which concerns all of us, namely the buying of the things in this country that we all need from day to day.
I think we ought to set up without delay a department of consumer affairs as part of the reconstituted set-up of government.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, when I saw the resolution on the order paper last Monday grouping five departments together, I immediately recognized the astuteness of the move. Instead of having a single resolution, and a single piece of legislation covering each
Establishment of New Departments department, which would be the regular and orthodox way of handling the matter, the government has attempted to cut down debate by grouping the five departments under one resolution.
As does everyone who tries to outmanoeuvre the House of Commons, the government has fallen into a trap that only it could fall into. It has left out one of the key departments, the department of forestry and rural development. I mention that, Mr. Chairman, because my remarks-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did he hear the remarks made by the house leader late this afternoon on this very subject? Have those remarks been reported to him, if he did not hear them?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I did not hear the remarks of the house leader, but they were reported to me. I did not want to embarrass anybody by taking his statement too seriously. I simply point out that in the effort to try to reduce debate, the government is going to make debate chaotic. Several members in all parties would like to deal at some length with several of these departments. We still have hope of course for some sort of answer from each of the ministers involved, as to what his policies are.
Since December, when the announcement was made, we have been waiting and waiting for the minister to bring some statement before the house, so that we would have a chance of considering constructively policy suggestions, which the minister could work into his new department.
Having said all this in the way of introduction, I should now like to get down to the points in the resolution at hand. One of the statements made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition was that the best reason for change was experience, as opposed to the concept of change for experimental purposes. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka I think got the kernel of the debate correctly when he said that it does not make any difference how many departments you create, it is what you do with the departments that counts. Therefore on the basis of the admittedly limited experience I have had, I am going to discuss the question of the reorganization of departments.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that from his experience he thought there should be two levels of cabinet. He inferred that there should be the senior ministers and,
May 9. 1966

Establishment of New Departments in effect, junior ministers to handle those operations and divisions of government that were not in the mainstreams of general policy.
I do not think there is any question that, with the tremendous increase in the involvement of government in running the country, the multitude of things that have to be handled by cabinet is much greater now than it was 10 years ago. Certainly it is much greater now than it was before the war. Therefore I am going to propose that in addition to the two cabinet levels-and to set this up would not require any legislation in the house because that could be set up as a matter of custom-there could also be a grouping of cabinet ministers.
I suggest that the cabinet could be grouped into four groups. The three main groups are, first, human resources; second, material resources; third, trade, finance and all those things dealing with the monetary and fiscal side of government, and, fourth, the grouping of those ministers who do not fit into those particular categories.
I do not think there is any question about it, and any of my colleagues on this side of the house who have served in cabinet, as well as the ministers on the other side, will agree that a natural grouping takes place between matters dealing with justice, Indian affairs, citizenship, labour matters and education. Those things always seem to have similar characteristics that naturally make the ministers in charge of these departments colleagues in similar groupings of cabinet.
Next I deal with material resources. Into that grouping come headings such as energy, resources in the form of mines-or any other form of energy utilizing land, air or water -agriculture, fisheries and forestry. All these ministers are interested not only in the development of the production of the items under these headings, but also in the movement forward of these items into the productive machinery. Of course there is a relationship between them because they are all competing for the some things, namely land, water and air.
The third grouping of trade and finance would naturally include the headings of national revenue, the Treasury Board, trade, and departments of industry, and naturally all those matters under the supervision of the Bank of Canada.
I have not tried to be all inclusive in these groupings. I am simply saying that if, once a month there were meetings of these groups, in the organization of cabinet work, where

problems of particular departments were correlated, a great deal of the overlapping and a
great deal of the clash that occurs in cabinet could be reduced.
In some of the provincial governments across Canada I know that the premiers of those provinces periodically call in their ministers and asks them to report to them what they are doing, what they have been doing and what they hope to do. The premier himself takes on the job of correlating the work going on in the different departments. This is possible in a provincial government because the work there has not yet multiplied to the degree of being beyond a single man. The premier can have a grasp of the general directions and operations of each department.
At the federal level it is almost impossible for a minister to have full knowledge of his own department. Many ministers make the mistake of spending so much time in trying to learn about it in detail that they cannot see the relationship between the department and the general good of the whole government, or of the country.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I would think that, without the necessity for additional legislation, one could add to this legislation the understanding that not only should cabinet be grouped into the senior ministers of each of these sections-and one or two others if you want to add them for the particular experience which they might have to help develop general matters of policy and direction-but you should have these meetings of groups of cabinet ministers to try to eliminate the situation which seems to go on in increasing measure-20 odd departments going in 20 different directions.
In many cases I think we can demonstrate the schizophrenia which has developed in our cabinet for, without any attempt on the part of particular ministers, we have ministers going in different directions without realizing it; we find Treasury Board making one decision when cabinet is making another and it takes months before it becomes apparent that there is schizophrenia in government.
I suggest this is a useful proposal to add to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say this afternoon. He suggested that two levels of cabinet had to come now, because cabinet had grown to such complexity. I have added an amplification to that idea, and suggested that there should be groupings of ministers and that the whole cabinet should not be required to discuss something which is of
May 9, 1966	COMMONS
interest only to the particular ministers involved in a particular phase of government.
The second proposal I want to put forward based, again, on experience is one doubly needed by the present government. It is clear to me that what is killing the efficiency of government in Canada as well as in the United States and, I believe, in Great Britain and France, is the fact that with this division into departments and the fact that no minister or deputy minister has the time or the strength to learn all about his department, we have this departmentalized effect going on and there is a tremendous loss of efficiency due to the fact that there is no co-ordination between the departments or between groups of departments.
My second suggestion is similar to what I was talking about last Thursday on the bill to amend the Research Council Act, namely that someone has to be in the Privy Council who can report back to this house. At the present time under our rules the Prime Minister is the person who speaks in the House of Commons for all matters looked after by the Privy Council. The Privy Council tends to collect in its orbit matters which cover several departments. That is why scientific affairs, for example, are dealt with in the Privy Council, as they have been for many years.
We understand from the Prime Minister this afternoon that Treasury Board is coming under the Privy Council. Common sense tells us that the Prime Minister is too busy with the tremendous load of other government policy and the social pressures placed on him to attend to all this work in detail and the house does not wish to bother him with questions which ought to be asked.
We have seen many fine things done in the various departments, things which are supposed to be brought to life and pushed by the Privy Council, but they have become dormant because there is no one there to watch over these enterprises. I suggest that someone other than the Prime Minister should be responsible to the house for all the affairs of the Privy Council about which hon. members have a right to know, and upon which action should be taken.
I do not care who this person is. Under our system we can give to the parliamentary secretaries more power than they now have. We can say to the two parliamentary secretaries to the Prime Minister: We hold you responsible for the action or lack of action on these various administrative things that are going on in the Privy Council.
DEBATES	4907
Establishment of New Departments
This would mean no loss of prestige to the Prime Minister because the whole house accepts the fact that you cannot ask the Prime Minister to look into all the details of Treasury Board transactions. That is a fulltime job for any one man, and even then he would have only a partial grasp of it.
If we had someone here we know we could approach when certain things happened or did not happen in Treasury Board, if we knew we could ask questions and this person would be empowered by the government to answer, it would be an improvement. If the government or the Prime Minister do not like the idea of giving this extra power or normal power to the parliamentary secretaries, maybe they would appoint a deputy leader who would have the responsibility of handling the administration. If you like, he would be a junior minister to the Prime Minister. And if that seems a threatening proposal to a leader-if it is felt you are building up a rival-maybe you could empower a junior minister to answer for the affairs of the Privy Council. A position of this kind would be tremendously important, not necessarily in the field of policy. I think this minister would be the one to call the ministers concerned together every two weeks and ask them: What have you done about this cabinet decision; what is ahead that you should be doing? There is need for a correlation and co-ordination of this group of individual ministers.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
This would mean no loss of prestige to ministers. I believe most of them would be glad to know what was happening in other departments, but in many cases ministers have to read in the press what is happening. Certainly I know that many of the members of the present cabinet must be convinced that this statement is true, because the variety of statements we get in the press from various members of the cabinet indicates that there has not been any correlation, and indicates that no one has co-ordinated their proposals. They are all riding off in different directions, each in his own right absolutely sound; but when we ask the Prime Minister if what they say is government policy, we all know the type of answer we get. I would suggest it is in the interest of all parties if we could have one minister or parliamentary secretary as a co-ordinator. Which one is immaterial to me, but there has to be co-ordination and correlation of the work.
4908	COMMONS
Establishment of New Departments
This system would work two ways. First, all the directions could go down through it, from the Prime Minister and the cabinet to the ministers. All ministers would get directions flowing the same way and they would be working on the same wavelength. Vice versa, a flow of information and ideas could go back up through it, covering suggestions coming from one group of ministers, or from an individual minister if the group agreed to his suggestions, and then these could be fitted into the over-all policies. It would also obviate long debates in cabinet to explain a very technical matter to a group of people who have not had time to learn about it in their own departments.
The second reason for suggesting this person to co-ordinate and correlate the work is a simple, single word, and that word is dynamics. I am sure ministers know what I am talking about. One minister works hard at producing an idea. He gets it to the stage where it can receive cabinet discussion and direction. It is then put in the hands of the Privy Council, or some other department, but the idea drops there, and stays dormant because the person who has direction of the idea is not the one who is pushing if forward.
Without trying to single out any particular minister, I quote the legislation called ARDA. This legislation took a long time to develop, a long time to sell not only across the country but to one's colleagues, because the legislation is a very technical type of approach to a problem. Then when the government changes there is a long hiatus before one catches any indication that any minister in the new government is beginning to understand what one has been trying to do.
I want to pay my respects to the present minister because, after a long year of waiting,
I was glad to see the intellectual power he turned loose on this legislation, and I helped to do whatever I could, not because I am a supporter of his but because I thought it was an idea that was worth pushing. But I know there was a gap of a year or two before a decision was made as to who was going to take it over. I could not tell whether it was going to be under agriculture or under the new Department of Forestry. To people at the low level of income that gap was a period of long, painful waiting. Therefore we missed about two years of forward motion, something which is not fatal, but to the people engaged in that wait it was a desperately long time.

DEBATES	May 9, 1966
So, the word is dynamics. You have to know, to understand and want something to make it work. This can only be when you have someone correlating your work, when you know someone is not cutting it off, and stymieing it, because of lack of understanding or appreciation. Once you have cleared the idea with a group of ministers, once the cabinet has accepted it and you know that there is somebody pushing it, then you can expect progress.
I think I have made my points clear enough. I had hoped to speak on manpower. I had hoped to suggest that manpower should really be one department with an associate minister. I wanted to speak on energy, mines and resources, because these were my first interest. I had many things I thought I would say. I also wanted to speak on forestry. I may get the opportunity to do so during discussion at later stages of the legislation to be brought forward.
In closing I want to support the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka in his plea that some time during debate on second reading, when the duties of the ministers are before the house, the ministers who are going to take over these departments will give the house and the country some indication of where they stand and what they are going to do so that we, to make our criticism helpful, can concentrate it on a definite proposal. It can only be concentrated, successful and positive if we have statements from the ministers. I appeal to the government, when second reading is reached, to have the ministers concerned give us clear statements on what their duties will be and what their philosophies are, so that we can concentrate our criticism on those subjects.
I know it was a politically smart idea to bring all these departments into one resolution, but the only chance we shall have to put our best ideas forward is to have the new ministers make statements, so that we can focus our attention on those statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to suggest that this afternoon the Prime Minister said Treasury Board was to be under the Privy Council Office?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, I said that because I heard the Prime Minister say it, and my understanding of the resolution was that there was going to be a sort of president, or almost a minister. When I heard the Prime Minister's statement I was waiting for amplification of it.
May 9, 1966	COMMONS


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not present to hear the Prime Minister, but if the hon. gentleman will look at the resolution he will see it says, "to establish the office of President of the Treasury Board." I do know it is contemplated that that office would be held, not by the Prime Minister, or normally by the President of the Privy Council, but by another minister. In so far as that part of the hon. gentleman's argument is concerned, I thought it well to make that point clear at once.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to thank the minister for making that clear, because I did write down what the Prime Minister said about it and it bolstered the strength of the argument I was making last Thursday vis-a-vis the National Research Council. I think the minister will agree that, periodically, scientific research has been pushed forward for a few years, and then interest is lost in it. Later it is pushed forward again. There is an up and down in the pushing behind it, and one of the reasons is that the Prime Minister's office is so busy that it cannot push the idea forward dynamically. When I heard the Prime Minister say today that Treasury Board would be under the Privy Council, I was quite surprised.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think if the Prime Minister did say that it was a slip, and he would want to have it corrected. If one reads the resolution, that is not the intention.


Mr. Walker:: Would the hon. member permit another question? His were very interesting and constructive suggestions, but I just want to be clear. Was he the spokesman for his party tonight? Do these suggestions have the support of the rest of his party?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, if ever I said they had the support of my party my remarks would be in great doubt; but I can say this, that I have discussed this matter with a good many of my colleagues who served in the cabinet, and they agree that these suggestions have great merit. They are not party policy, however, or anything like that.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and other speakers from this party have already made it clear that in general this party approves the resolution and the proposed reorganization it contemplates. But I must admit personally that I rather tend to underemphasize and underestimate the importance of structure. My sentiments could be summed up in the
DEBATES	4909
Establishment of New Departments proposition that the shape of the bottle is of less importance than the contents.
Notwithstanding that, and although I feel that the quality and energy of a minister and his colleagues are of much more importance than the precise definition of their duties and responsibilities, I recognize I may be wrong and the formal division of responsibilities is perhaps important in facilitating or frustrating the efforts of a minister and the efficiency of his department.
Tonight I would like to discuss the proposed changes affecting the Department of Justice and to express my fears about some aspects of the proposed changes.
[DOT] (9.00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, there can be very little argument but that the minister of justice in past years has been greatly overburdened and that some adjustment was overdue. I think we urgently need a new quality, new energy and power in this most important department. There are however some other key matters which face a minister of justice. I should like to suggest that the inroads and the threat of organized crime on this continent present a very real challenge to governments, and that this challenge cannot be met without a new concept of co-operation among the different levels of government, new coordination among the different governments and new training of those who are required to deal with this problem.
I do not have his words in front of me, but recently the President of the United States declared a war on organized crime as being necessary in that country. I think we have seen enough evidence of the reality of this problem to realize that it is important here. I suggest that the Department of Justice and the police force which it directs are in key positions in any war on, or in any effort to combat, the inroads of organized crime.
We must recognize that organized crime is a serious phenomenon and not just something which was thought up. It has tremendous resources; it has scientific skills; it has a concentrated international organization; it has the ability to hire skilled lawyers and even to corrupt police and other officials. In order to combat this menace the law enforcement officers must be efficient, well trained, and must be able to co-ordinate their operations across political boundaries.
I am disturbed that in the proposed reorganization of the Solicitor General's department as separate from the Department of
May 9, 1966

Establishment of New Departments Justice, it apparently is the intention to bring the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the Solicitor General, while on the other hand the law enforcement and the prosecution of the criminal law and the determination of when there shall be prosecution is to remain with the Department of Justice. I fail to see how this can work. Which department will be in charge of co-ordinating activities, say, with the F.B.I. or state, or provincial, police in various provinces, or the municipal police in certain areas? Who will be responsible for the continued training of the R.C.M.P.? Will it be the Solicitor General, whose other main responsibilities are in the correctional field, or will it come within the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, who retains control over the problems of law enforcement?
We are not discussing the personalities of individual ministers; ministers come and go, and even governments come and go. However we are setting up a sort of organization which I suppose is to have some degree of permanence. In this situation I ask quite seriously whether it makes sense to give the responsibility for training of the police who are responsible for law enforcement in various fields and who are responsible for security, to the Solicitor General, and take it away from the Department of Justice.
I am not sure at the present time whether it is contemplated that some of the other responsibilities which come under the Department of Justice are to be taken away from the Minister of Justice and his department. I refer to the fundamentally important function of the Minister of Justice, as the chief law officer of the crown, to give advice on constitutional matters, and to have responsibility for defending the federal rights in the courts-not only in the courts, but in all the discussions which go on with the provinces, and perhaps even the discussions in this parliament. It has seemed to me that sometimes ministers of justice and departments of justice in late years have forgotten that one of their major responsibilities is to protect the federal domain against encroachment from the outside.
Is it contemplated that the registrar general, which I think the title is, should have the responsibility in this field; I hope not. We have heard that the President of the Privy Council-and I do not know whether this is intended as a temporary or a permanent arrangement-is to be given special authority in constitutional matters. I suggest that the

traditional responsibility of the Minister of Justice, to be the main adviser in constitutional matters, the main protector of constitutional rights or federal authority, be not taken away from that particular officer and perhaps dissipated in some shape or form.
Again, in the field of responsibility, it has seemed to me that there ought to be a division of the Department of Justice similar to the constitutional rights division of the department of justice in the United States, and I know the situation is different in the two countries. Certainly that is a fairly new department; but if we are going to expand the constitutional rights of individual Canadians, the Department of Justice in my view will have to take far, far more active a role than it ever has played in the past in defending the individual rights of Canadians.
Without adequate enforcement the pronouncement of rights, such as are contained in the Bill of Rights, can turn out to be virtually meaningless. There are many fields, such as in the field of criminal procedure, in which I believe in the future a department of justice should have a division to deal with these matters, in order to be sure that the constitutional protection of these rights is properly enforced. I entirely agree with my colleague from Vancouver East that it is a step forward to have correctional matters assigned to the Solicitor General; it is a very important step forward and I welcome it. I do not quite understand, however, why this could not have been done under the existing procedure by setting up a division on correctional matters and by having the Solicitor General still in a position where his work could be co-ordinated under the general umbrella of the Department of Justice; because I think there is a serious danger in setting up a distinctly separate department in this field.
I hear my colleague from Vancouver East saying "oh, oh". I agree with him that there is a necessity for separate responsibility, and I already have said so. Perhaps he was engaged in conversation and did not hear my statement. I agree with him entirely, that there is a need for a separate responsibility or separate minister in this field.
I do not see however why the position of this minister should not be closer to that of the Minister of Justice as is the case in respect of the Associate Minister of National Defence. By virtue of his office he would hold cabinet position and rank, but at the same time by the very nature of his work, he
May 9. 196S	COMMONS
would be working in close co-operation with the Department of Justice. I believe that would be useful.
There is one other field in which I think a very careful look ought to be taken, and in respect of which I am not too happy. I understand it is proposed to assign the field of bankruptcy law to a new department or to the registrar general. The weakness in the past of the bankruptcy administration is that there has not been adequate staff; there has not been adequate enforcement and the legislation itself has been totally inadequate. The suggested change does not seem to me to entirely make sense, because the breakdown has been largely in two fields-inadequate enforcement and inadequate legislation. In view of this it does not seem to make sense to say that we will solve the problem by lifting something that is now inadequately enforced out of the field of responsibility of law enforcement generally. It seems to me that this could very properly be left where it is, where it seems to me with an adequately staffed Department of Justice and with adequate legislation it could be properly administered.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Solicitors general in the past seem to have had something of a sinecure. This seems to have resulted from the fact that the responsibility for assigning tasks has not been accepted. No clearcut responsibility was ever assigned to the office of solicitor general.
The proposed changes in the Department of Justice should be carefully reconsidered before we reach a decision, and before we encounter a situation, as was referred to by an earlier speaker during this debate in which we are in danger of tearing away from the first law officer of the crown, the minister of justice, some of the functions that ought to be performed under his supervision. I hope this will be very carefully considered in the light of the legislation to be placed before us.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to ask him on what he based the premise with which he commenced his remarks, that the ministry of justice is overburdened and overworked. Does he not think that in relation to such portfolios as finance, transport, agriculture and national defence, justice is a relatively leisurely portfolio?
DEBATES	4911
Establishment of New Departments


Francis Andrew Brewin: No. I simply pointed out that it has not been a leisurely portfolio because there are very great responsibilities which exist in this field. One need only look at some of our ministers of justice to realize that they have been overburdened. They were responsible for advising on all sorts of legal matters. They were responsible for constitutional issues and for law reform. They were responsible to some extent for correctional institutions, and all sorts of other subjects. One need only remember that the present President of the Privy Council when he was minister of justice, and I know the hon. member was not here at that time, was given the burden of being house leader in addition to other responsibilities. He was clearly overburdened.


Thomas Miller Bell: Perhaps he was overworked as a result of added tasks.


Francis Andrew Brewin: So far as taking responsibility for correctional institutions away from the minister of justice and giving them to the solicitor general is concerned, I think this is a sound move. The minister of justice may well be required to accept responsibility in some of the other fields I have mentioned, such as civil rights, in respect of which an adequate job has not been done in the past.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Pearson) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, can we obtain some assurance from the minister that the bill will be available tonight?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are some copies
available and I will endeavour to see that as many as possible are distributed as soon as possible.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is there only one bill to be based on this resolution? Surely the government intends to introduce a separate bill for each department?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is only one bill, which has several parts.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
May 9, 1966
4912	COMMONS
Financial Assistance to Newfoundland FAIR WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING HOURS OF WORK, RATES OF PAY, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson for the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to amend the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when I moved second reading of this bill approximately a month ago I made a very brief statement as to the purposes of the bill. I am afraid that I was a little too brief in omitting to say that the amendments are being proposed in order to carry out a promise made by my predecessor, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). This promise was made in the name of the government and related to bringing the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act into line with the labour standards code.
Since those opening remarks, representations have been made to a number of hon. members in this house, including myself, which would indicate that there has been some misunderstanding or lack of understanding. At the suggestion of members from all sides of the house, I have agreed that in the interests of making sure that everybody does understand the purpose of this bill, following second reading, if it is given tonight, I will immediately ask that it be referred to the Committee on Labour and Employment for clause by clause study.


Michael Starr: Agreed.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to give effect to term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada and to pay to the province out of the consolidated revenue fund, in the fiscal year commencing on the first day of April, 1967 and in each and every fiscal year thereafter, an annual amount, by way of additional financial assistance as contemplated by term 29, of $8 million.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is to obtain the approval of the house for the introduction of a bill which would have the effect of making the award of the royal commission established under term 29 of the Terms of Union with Newfoundland a separate statute, which would continue indefinitely unless the governments of Newfoundland and Canada mutually agree that there should be a change.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It will be recalled that after the royal commission made its original report, the previous government asked parliament, and parliament agreed, to make provision for the payment of this award first for the period ending March 31, 1962, and subsequently as a part of the legislation respecting tax sharing and other fiscal arrangements with the provinces for the period which will end on March 31, 1967. The position which was taken by those of us who were in opposition at that time was that this was the completion of the Terms of Union bringing about confederation; that it should not be in the same statute as the tax sharing arrangements, which were subject to change from time to time after discussion with the provincial governments, but that it should stand on its own feet as a part of the Terms of Union, and the award of the royal commission should be paid annually until such time as both governments felt that it was no longer required for the purpose set out in term 29 of the Terms of Union.
I could, of course, go into a great deal of detail about this matter if any hon. member wished me to do so; but I have no desire to stir up the controversies of other days. The policy which we are now seeking to translate into legislation was set out by the leader of this party in 1962, 1963 and again in 1965 as one of those things which a Liberal government would propose to parliament and ask parliament to approve. We feel that, in Newfoundland and in the rest of Canada, we have a mandate to do this, and we are seeking at this stage to carry out that mandate and complete the terms of this union with Newfoundland, which I think all hon. members, however much we may differ on other things, would agree has been a harmonious union, beneficial to all Canadians and to Canada itself.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, while I might agree entirely with the Minister of Transport, who is a member from Newfoundland, as to
May 9. 1966

the mutual advantages to both Newfoundland and the other provinces of Canada in the accession to Canada of Newfoundland, I must say that at the present time I must differ from him as to the irrevocable nature of what is one interpretation of the Terms of Union with Canada of Newfoundland.
If we approve the resolution and the bill comes before us for discussion, there can be on that basis no commitment as to the passage of the bill because, to put it quite frankly, the interpretation of this term does not depend entirely upon the view that is put on it by the people from Newfoundland and the government of Newfoundland. In view of the fact that the government of Newfoundland is trying to, shall we say, acquire vested interests in a certain annual grant from the rest of Canada, I am sure everybody will agree that the rest of Canada has also a point of view to express.
I think there is an honest difference of opinion here. I remember the discussions in 1962. They were based, frankly, on the so-called interpretation, if you want, and whether or not it should be irrevocable. There are demands or, shall we say, legitimate needs -because I will not put it on the basis of demands-of the provinces from the government of Canada under a federal constitution, and this will always be so. It has been for years in the past. As long as this country exists under a federal constitution it will always be a condition that there shall be negotiation between the government of Canada and the provinces as to their legitimate fiscal requirements and fiscal provisions.
Surely no one is going to insist that they are absolutely right today. I remember the debates of the past, particularly in 1961 and 1962. At that time the Minister of Transport was a very ardent advocate of the Terms of Union as expressed by the government of the province of Newfoundland.


Mr. Monieith:: According to their interpretation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: According to their own interpretation, of course. I think It was quite as legitimate for representatives from other provinces in the parliament of Canada, who had just as legitimate an interest, to put forward their views. As a representative of the province of Alberta, I have just as much a legitimate interest in determining whether term 29 shall be irrevocable; because any provincial premier or provincial treasurer, if he could get a few extra million dollars
DEBATES	4913
Financial Assistance to Newfoundland determined as being irrevocable, would be some sort of a fool, would he not, if he turned down the interpretation that this was irrevocable?
Certainly we would like to see the province of Newfoundland-which I have had the pleasure of visiting-get as much money as they can. But are the remaining provinces and the government of Canada to determine that this shall be, on the basis of the Terms of Union, irrevocable? Shall not there be an interpretation of this question in a hypothetical sense? Is there not just as much justice in determining that Newfoundland in joining the other provinces of Canada is equal, in a fiscal sense, with the rest of the provinces? This is the view of my province. As a member of parliament from another part of Canada I believe that in so far as fiscal relationships are concerned we are all equals, regardless of other considerations. The Minister of Transport may have some comments to make in this regard, but in so far as we in the rest of Canada are concerned, in the matter of fiscal relations we are equals. This is the fundamental question. Should this grant not be considered as part of our fiscal relations one with another, regardless of the economic advantages of our provinces?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
My own province is attributed to be one of the wealthy provinces. That is fine; we are prepared to pay our share of the load, and I am sure the province of Ontario is also, as well as the province of Manitoba. But why should there be enshrined in perpetuity an additional advantage? This is a question which is posed by a lot of people.
The people of Newfoundland may have another view, and I do not deny them the right to have this other view. The minister may be smug and say: Well, all right; this guarantees us political support. But I am not too sure about that. In the long run we are dealing here with a union of Canada. We are all in on this on a partnership basis and we would naturally like to see the terms of the bill, which I assume will be fairly short and fairly clear. However, I put these considerations before hon. members here who are from all parts of Canada, not from one part or any other part of Canada.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: There is nobody here from Newfoundland.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As I said, I have very grave reservations about incorporating this into an
4914	COMMONS
Financial Assistance to Newfoundland irrevocable grant on the basis of an interpretation of the agreement of 1949. Albeit the rest of Canada was most grateful to the people of Newfoundland for agreeing to come into Canada, after all this was a decision of their own; it was a mature decision. On the other hand, even though they may have that right of a mature decision, surely to goodness the rest of Canada also has a right to a mature decision. In my province and the rest of Canada, who may have to assume the burden of this grant, there is also the right to discuss and to agree on the basis of the allocation of whatever dollars and cents may be represented in the minds of the people of Newfoundland with regard to term 29.
We are quite prepared to pass this resolution so that we can see the bill, and we will then be prepared to discuss this matter on the basis of the government's proposal. It is not an undertaking from an election campaign which is going to bind the parliament of Canada. It is not binding, whether it is by a man who is seeking the prime ministership of this country or whether it shall be by representations of a minister or a member who comes from that province. It is what this house says and what the other house says, in so far as any of these points are concerned.
I have repeated several times now that this is a determination to be made by representatives of the people of the rest of Canada. If it is their desire that they shall grant unto the province of Newfoundland the amount, fixed in perpetuity-and here I am not trying to second-guess the bill-then that shall be the fiscal price of accession to confederation within Canada. Leaving aside all other considerations, I am sure all other parts of Canada welcome the people of Newfoundland into Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon.
gentleman will permit me to ask him one question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was the hon. member
speaking for his party?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, I am speaking here as-


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister started to play politics with this bill and he still is. If he would quit playing politics he would get farther.


Michael Starr: Why does the minister play politics with all of these things? That is the business of the country.

DEBATES	May 9, 1966


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the minister speaking for
every member of his party?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking for the government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Are you speaking for every member of your party and the representatives of my province?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this is a very illuminating approach by the minister. He has no representatives within my province; he has no representatives within my neighbouring province of Saskatchewan. Are many other provinces to be brushed aside? I point out to the minister that perhaps the reason he has no representatives in these provinces is because they have no mandate within those provinces. If this requires a third repetition, I will say again that notwithstanding the repeated elections, he has no mandate within those provinces, and those provinces are just as much a part of Canada as any other part. This is a factor which seems to be forgotten in too many instances.
I would underline to the minister: Let him come out to those provinces and find out, instead of sitting here in a sort of ivory tower, or listening to the advice from certain provinces as to what Canada should be. This is a partnership.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. A partnership if made up of views which are expressed openly and freely, and are never imposed. I am quite prepared to discuss this with the people concerned, but I will not have them imposed on me. In this connection I believe I express the views of my party.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, the concern which I have in connection with this legislation is why the minister has not sought to have it enshrined in an amendment to the British North America Act. It seems to me that if, as he told us and as some others believe, it is as sacrosanct as he suggests, then it ought to be by way of an amendment to the British North America Act. What basis is there for putting it in a single statute, rather than a statute which has some other legislation in it? Where is the minister improving the situation?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
If he really believes, and I think he does, that something should be done, then it seems
May 9, 1966	COMMONS
to me that what he ought to do and what he ought to be seeking in the house tonight is an opportunity to put it in the British North America Act-to consult the other provinces, and get it into that statute so that the people of Newfoundland would know the word of the people of Canada had been put behind this. He knows that a statute of this kind is subject to amendment at a future date. If it is subject to amendment, he has not achieved the purpose which he has in mind. Why does he not go the full distance? Why does he not do what he ought to do, make it an amendment to the British North America Act and put the word of all the people of all the provinces of Canada behind it?


Michael Starr: Because he is only playing politics with it.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the minister not going to answer?


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to get into an argument over the interpretation of term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. I may say that I have term 29 before me. I have read it once again to refresh my memory. Although a royal commission had to come into the picture, I think there was an element of irrevocability in the wording of term 29 as it was drafted. In case there is any doubt I, for one, would be prepared to give Newfoundland the benefit of that doubt.
I confess nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, that I was concerned, and perhaps I am expressing the same concern that has been just voiced by the hon. member for Carleton, when the Minister of Transport says that the bill to be based on this resolution will contain a section which would make it impossible for that legislation to be amended except by consent of the legislature of Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: Mutual consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The consent of Newfoundland and the federal parliament. This takes the legislation out of the category of ordinary statutes. Most of the statutes of the parliament of Canada are the property of the parliament of Canada and can be amended from time to time. I know we have departed from this principle on occasion. We did it in the Canada Pension Plan, but I objected to the special constitutional formula put into the Canada Pension Plan. It seems to me that is
DEBATES	4915
Financial Assistance to Newfoundland what the Minister of Transport says we are going to do on this occasion. We are going to have an ordinary statute of parliament and we are going to say in that statute, this money shall be paid in perpetuity. I am not objecting to that because, as I say, I think there is an element of irrevocability in term 29, no matter how one reads it. The minister says that act, once it has been passed, cannot be altered except by consent of Newfoumd-land and Canada.
It seems to me if we do that we will have arrived at one more stage in the development of a formula for amending our constitution. We have a constitution now, parts of which can be amended only by going to Westminster, parts of which can be amended by the parliament of Canada. Then, we did have around here for a year or two what was known as the Fulton-Favreau formula, under which amendments could be achieved in various other ways. Here we will be establishing that with respect to term 29 the basic constitution of Canada can be amended by the consent of one province and the parliament of Canada.
Now, if that is the case, would it not be neater to do something along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Carleton, namely to amend one of our basic constitutional statutes? As I say, I do not want the Minister of Transport or any other Newfoundlander to misinterpret my remarks. I am not quarrelling with the way in which Joey seems to have won his point. I go along with the liberal interpretation of term 29, but I still think there is cause for concern in the statement the minister made that this statute of this parliament of Canada, which we will freely pass, will have in it what amounts to a constitutional provision that it cannot be altered unless there is consent by one province.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was wondering if the hon. member could indicate to the Minister of Transport whether or not he is speaking on behalf of his party?


Stanley Howard Knowles: All the members of my party who are here tonight are saying to me, "Yes, you are".


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Why couldn't the member for Edmonton West say that?


Michael Starr: Why couldn't the Minister of Transport say that?
May 9, 1966
4916	COMMONS
Financial Assistance to Newfoundland


Mr.   Pailerson@: Unfortunately we do not have before us at the moment the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. We are not therefore in a position to make any statement with regard to this particular point that has been raised. However, we are concerned about the nature of this provision which, as has been pointed out, is going to be in perpetuity. This is something that raises a real reservation in our minds. I do not think there is any question but that the provinces of Canada are prepared to share in programs to assist the less favoured areas of this great nation of ours. However, I question very much whether the other provinces of Canada would be prepared to state that forever and a day we are going to be prepared to support a measure to contribute to this particular part of Canada the sum of $8 million, in addition to the other types of grants that are made under our fiscal arrangements.
It seems to me therefore, Mr. Chairman, that unless it is definitely a provision of the Terms of Union that this must be the situation, then I suggest there should be an expiry date established. I do not care what it is, whether it is 10 years or even 20 years. I do not believe it is a very satisfactory arrangement to say that this payment is going to be made forever. I doubt if that will be satisfactory so far as the rest of Canada is concerned.
We will look forward'-I suppose this resolution is going to pass-to the bill when it is introduced. It may be short, but we will want to ascertain just exactly what the bill does contain. At the moment, in so far as the resolution is concerned, I would say there are serious reservations about whether or not this is a desirable arrangement.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made a very valid point. He pointed out that this will be a statute of the parliament of Canada. The minister pointed out in his opening remarks that the statute would remain until such time as both governments felt it was not longer necessary. Now, there is no question of a unilateral decision here today. It is for this reason I feel the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is valid. If we put this measure through in this fashion, all we are doing is multiplying the constitutional difficulties which may arise in the future. I hope that when the minister replies he will attempt to answer this particular point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of sympathy with the view taken by the hon. member for Carleton. I think perhaps I would be even happier if we did have an amendment to the British North America Act to carry out this purpose. I believe all hon. members will realize that an amendment purporting to be an amendment to the British North America Act passed by the parliament of Canada would be ultra vires because it would go beyond the scope of the amendment to the British North America Act made in 1949 which permitted this parliament to make amendments respecting exclusively federal matters. The only way we could make an amendment to the British North America Act which would be valid in a matter which obviously concerns a province, would be to go to Westminster. As I say, there might be some argument for doing that.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I also think that what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said is quite important to consider, namely that this will be a statute of the parliament of Canada. Under any strict interpretation of the constitution it will be amendable or repealable by the parliament of Canada without the consent of the legislature of Newfoundland, just as the British North America Act is amendable or repealable by the British parliament without the consent of the parliament of Canada, in strict legal theory.
However, it is my opinion as a constitutional historian, that if a future parliament thought we had done something wrong, and was going to disregard utterly the feelings of one part of the country, that this might be perfectly legal according to the present view of the constitution, and the act might be repealed by another parliament.
I do not believe that it ever would be repealed. I do not believe, once parliament has made the declaration that we are going to ask the house to make if this resolution is adopted, and put it into the laws of Canada, that it would ever be changed, This does not, of course, mean to say that this would be in perpetuity. The bill is going to say that it would be the arrangement until the two governments agreed that it was no longer necessary.
I would point out that when I was young-


An hon. Member:: When was that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the 1920's-we had a long agitation in the three prairie provinces where
May 9, 1966	COMMONS
I grew up, whatever my mandate may now be, to get back our natural resources which, up to that time, had been controlled by parliament. A few people at that time said that we did not have the right to have them back; that we could not get them back because they were vested in Canada as compensation for something or other-it does not matter what.
I think the argument made by the hon. member for Edmonton West about the measure we are proposing now will be regarded in Newfoundland in exactly the same way as in Manitoba, or Saskatchewan, or Alberta an argument would have been regarded that after a five year period their resources could be taken back from Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta.
To reinforce what I say, I think I should put on record the actual term 29 itself. It does seem to me that, if it is on the record, most of us will feel, whatever views we entertained a few years ago, that this really was intended to be part of the Terms of Union, and to be carried out as, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre very fairly stated, in that spirit. This is the way it reads:
In view of the difficulty of predicting with sufficient accuracy the financial consequences to Newfoundland of becoming a province of Canada, the government of Canada will appoint a royal commission within eight years from the date of union to review the financial position of the province of Newfoundland and to recommend the form and scale of additional financial assistance, if any, that may be required by the government of the province of Newfoundland to enable it to continue public services at the levels and standard reached subsequent to the date of union, without resorting to taxation more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.
What was intended by those who negotiated the Terms of Union on both sides of Cabot strait, was a later determination of the statutory subsidies. It was not meant to be a determination of taxing arrangements or taxsharing payments. To suggest that, once this royal commission had made a determination, and once the government and parliament had accepted that determination, that the determination could be changed or altered without the consent of that province is, in my opinion, in the opinion of the cabinet and in the opinion expressed by my leader at the time, equivalent to suggesting that the statutory subsidies in the British North America Act provided to Nova Scotia or British Columbia or
DEBATES	4917
Financial Assistance to Newfoundland any other province could be taken away after a period of years. We know that in 1945 there was some suggestion that the statutory subsidy should be englobed in the general payments to the provinces. It was a regrettable suggestion and hastily withdrawn.
Not only Newfoundlanders, but all those who have really studied the matter I think, were entitled to believe-unless the royal commission made an absolutely silly recommendation-that once it had made a recommendation and once the government had accepted it, the payment was to be assimilated, not to taxing arrangements but was similar to the statutory subsidies that are provided for in the Terms of Union with the other provinces. The opening words suggest that-
-in view of the difficulty of predicting with sufficient accuracy the financial consequences to Newfoundland becoming a province-
That is why there was to be a royal commission. The royal commission at that time recommended that $8 million be paid and that there be no limit upon that payment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What are the terms in the royal commission recommendation respecting the $8 million?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The recommendation was that $8 million should be paid indefinitely.
The royal commissioners say:
Accordingly we recommend additional financial assistance as follows:-
(d)	for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1960, $8,000,000 less the transitional grant of $350,000-
(e)	thereafter $8,000,000 per annum.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
It is on this basis, and because it is our belief that this was intended to be the equivalent of the constitutional subsidies, that the government is recommending the adoption of this resolution and the first reading of the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask the minister a question? Does he not feel there is some danger that acceptance of the term of recommendation of the commission of $8 million may become, shall we say, enshrined in the terms of confederation and that subsequent parliaments, provided Newfoundland were entitled to an increase in this sum, might regard it as a payment in perpetuity, regardless of the value of the dollar, and that an undesirable degree of inflexibility would be introduced.
This is an argument on the other side. This is one of the difficulties that I find in interpretation-that for all time, regardless of the
May 9. 1966
4918	COMMONS DEBATES
Financial Assistance to Newfoundland good will of the people of Canada with regard to this particular term, it will be $8 million from now until, say, the year 2100, regardless of whether the dollar goes down to a relative value, say, of 10 cents, in which case Newfoundland would, of course, be the loser.
My primary concern is to introduce into this arrangement a sufficient degree of flexibility. With all possible respect to the people of Newfoundland and the minister in advocating this, I fear he is introducing a negative degree of inflexibility, something which the government of the day, a previous administration, was unwilling to recognize. This is what bothers me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can answer that very simply. I would have been happier, of course, had a higher sum been recommended or if escalation had been recommended, but the royal commission did not recommend that. We appointed a competent commission, that is, the St. Laurent government did. The finding in this respect was not happily received. Mr. Smallwood thought the amount was much too small. But this is what the commission said, and this is what the Terms of Union said.
The statutory sums of all the other provinces are stated in dollars. There is no escalation for them. I am asking only justice for Newfoundland; I am not asking a special escalation for their constitutional subsidies which other provinces do not have. It seems to me that beyond this $8 million they should take their chance with tax arrangements, just as all the other provinces do.
This is regarded by every Newfoundlander as part of the constitution. It is part of the constitution-term 29 of the Terms of the Union, which are part of the British North America Act-and it is on this basis we are recommending it in this way.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the resolution carry?


Harold Edward Winch: I desire to speak on this resolution and I would call it ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the resolution and the bill are so very similar, would hon. members consider passing the resolution, which only says it is expedient to introduce a bill and does not commit anyone to the principle of the bill, and have the rest of the debate on the bill itself, so that we would have the bill in front of us?
[Mr. Lambert.}


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think the hon. member for Edmonton West gave a very reasoned statement as far as he was concerned.


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of order. Before the
hon. member rose I said I desired to speak on the resolution and called it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we will bring forward for the consideration of the house item 5 on today's order paper, second reading of a bill to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas. Then, from the budget resolutions, we will take the one relating to tariffs-but only that one. We would then turn to item 47 on today's order paper, second reading of the collective bargaining bill for the public service; and item 51, the resolution dealing with the measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, and the various other superannuation acts.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) the following question:
In view of the minister's statement within the last day or so in Halifax that lack of education is the most important of the causes of poverty and that free university education may become necessary, will the minister say how the government proposes to determine the extent of poverty necessary before a policy to make free university education possible can be provided?
My question was rejected by Mr. Speaker as being argumentative. I am sorry, indeed, if this is the case because I know the minister is deeply interested in education. He comes from a part of Canada and a stock of people who have always been deeply interested in education, even to the point of sacrificing practically everything else in order to get it.
May 9, 1966

I would point out today that this matter of education and of poverty can no longer be solved by individuals on an individual basis, and that it has got to be dealt with by government action. We hear a great deal about the brain drain after university, with our students going down to the United States, but the brain drain after university is as nothing compared with the brain wastage because students cannot get to university in the first place.
I think it is a twofold wastage, Mr. Speaker. It is a wastage for the individual and for our society. For the individual it is a matter of wasted talents. Many young people are condemned to a lifetime of frustration. They are condemned to much less than they could have, than their native ability would make possible with university education. They are condemned to a bread and tea existence instead of a full, modern, all-round diet that would be possible if education could be given to them fully. Wasted talents are the first thing I bring up as a loss for the individual.
There is also the definite matter of much lower income. The Second Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada points out that those with a university degree have an average income of more than two and a half times that of those with only elementary education, and more than twice the average of those who have only one to three years of high school.
To put it another way, the average male who gets to grade 8 will earn in later life an income of $3,526. If he gets a university degree he will earn $9,188. In addition, the higher the level of education the greater are the earnings differences between younger and older age groups. Those with university degrees get higher earnings all their lives and the higher standards of living that such earnings bring. That is the individual side of it.
In connection with our society, as far back as Adam Smith it was recognized that education is an investment in human capital. This continent realized early in its history that public schooling must be made universal. Now we are realizing slowly that horse-and-buggy education is not good enough for the atomic age. We need to make university education available today on the same free basis as public and high school education.
Those in poverty are simply not getting to university now. The Canadian Union of Students on March 16 of this year gave figures to show that less than one quarter of
DEBATES	4919
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the Canadian population, 23.3 per cent to be exact, sends nearly one half of all students to Canadian universities. Some 48 per cent of the students contacted gave their fathers' occupations as professional, proprietary or managerial. Families with salaries of over $10,000 provide 25 per cent of all university students, whereas families with salaries of less than $3,000 provide- only 9 per cent of all university students. '
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
No wonder that Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, analyst for the Canada Student Means Survey commented that Canadian students by and large are not representative of Canadians generally, but rather bear the characteristics of the middle and upper income classes of Canadian society. Professor Porter, of Carleton University when speaking to a seminar of the Canadian Teachers Federation yesterday made the statement-
-that only the granting of equality in the education system can make possible equality of opportunity. The key is university attendance, he added.
He flatly rejected statements by some education officials that no qualified student is denied a university education through lack of money. "I just don't believe that," Prof. Porter declared, citing the case of a bright graduate student who was forced to leave Carleton this year. "He was so deeply in debt he just couldn't risk staying any longer."
Government loans to students are not the answer and are in fact a backward step, Prof. Porter asserted. "The federal student loan program is an invitation to a student to get into debt to acquire a university education. It may seem rational to a middle-class mind but it will not be an incentive for low-income families to keep their sons in college."
He said he could not understand why the nation's politicians moved so slowly in expanding educational opportunity. "Maybe it doesn't get votes like medicare or even roads."
I am going to say I think there should be sufficient poverty now. A quarter of the population live in poverty, according to the government's own statistics. That ought to be a high enough percentage for the government to take steps so that the people in the poverty group can get free education if they have the mental ability to do so? Again I ask the minister, what degree of poverty must we have before action is taken?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am speaking tonight for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to whom this question was directed in the first instance, but I should like to say by way of a brief response
May 9. 1966
4920	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to what the hon. lady has said that as one of those who had some difficulty in obtaining an education, I sympathize entirely both with the views expressed by my hon. colleague and the hon. lady who has just spoken.
This government has taken some major steps forward to assist students in obtaining university education, both through the payment of youth allowances and through student loans. As I see the problem it is not only a question of providing free university education. It is a much deeper problem than that, as I am sure the hon. lady herself would be the first to recognize. One of the most serious problems standing in the way of ensuring that people receive an education is ensuring that students reach the point where they can enter university.
I should like to say to the hon. lady that I believe it should be the aim of government at all levels to increase the opportunities available to our young people to receive an adequate education, including a university education. I think there is a legitimate difference of view in respect of whether one should begin by providing free university education. These different views are to be found not only among members in this house but also among educational authorities in the provinces.
University education is a provincial responsibility. The federal government can assist to make university education more available only through our help to the universities and through the loans themselves. Perhaps the day will come when free university education will be available, but there are a great many things to be done as well as that. I should like to say that I share the hon. lady's interest in this subject, and that I think that she has made a contribution by bringing it before the house at this time.



AGRICULTURE-QUEBEC-FAILURE TO PAY FULL MILK SUBSIDY

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) who was patient enough to wait until now to hear the question I want to discuss tonight.
On May 5 last, I asked the Minister of Agriculture, on the orders of the day, if he was aware that his efforts to raise to $4 per cwt. the price of milk containing 3.5 per cent butterfat, as paid to producers, had failed to give the results he expected.


I raised this question so as to call his attention to the fact that dairy producers will not accept anything less than the price they requested and which was promised by the minister.
It will be recalled that last year, the then minister had promised $3.50 per cwt. for industrial milk. This price was never reached; I warn the minister that we will not accept the same situation this year.
According to reports I have received from two agricultural co-operatives in Abitibi and many dairy producers, the first half of April this year yielded $3.67 per cwt. at most. This is far from the promised price. The farmers need-and the minister knows it-this minimum of $4 per cwt. of milk to meet their obligations.
The government can, even if it is not advisable, make good the deficits by increasing taxes and borrowing, but the farmer cannot do so, and indebtedness has certain limits.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture to increase the present subsidy which is inadequate. Otherwise, the factories will have, to reach the price of $4, to increase the price of butter, casein and other dairy products, and consumers cannot withstand another increase in the cost of living.
The minister must take immediate action in order that the promise he made to Canadian farmers may come true as from April 1 of this year.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: In reply to question asked by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) concerning the results of the new dairy policy, may I point out that the payments received by the producers from the processing plants during April apply to March deliveries and that such payments were made under last year's support program. Payments on milk delivered later than April 1 under the new support program are just starting to be paid by several processing plants.
May I further point out that the basic price of $3.25 per hundredweight is an average price applicable to milk with 3.5 per cent butterfat content. Should the milk indicate a lower content, the payments will necessarily be less.
I should, however, point out to the hon. member that, as I indicated when I announced the support program of the current milk year, the federal government is not empowered to set the prices paid to the
May S, 1966

producers by the processing plants. This question comes under provincial jurisdiction as concerns milk, and I insisted in my statement on the fact that producers associations and marketing boards should do everything in their power to secure a fair price.
When the dairy commission is instituted, it is expected that each province will set up its own milk control, responsible for setting the price of milk. For instance, the Ontario Dairy Board has already set a price of $3.25 per
DEBATES	4921
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion hundredweight which, combined with the federal subsidy of 75 cents, gives the producer a price of $4 per hundredweight of milk.
In the casein producing areas, I am given to understand that low prices on world markets are creating difficulties. The Agricultural Stabilization Board is currently considering this situation in order to remedy the problem.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Tuesday, May 10. 1968