1966-05-24

Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Hochelaga) moved: that the eighth report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts presented to the house on Friday, May 20, be concurred in.


Mr. Gregoire:: On division.

Motion agreed to on division.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a corporation for the administration of the national arts centre to operate and maintain the centre, to develop the performing arts in the national capital region and to assist the Canada Council in the development of the performing arts elsewhere in Canada; to provide for the remuneration of certain members of the board and the expenses of all members, for the appointment and salary of a director of the centre, for the employment of officers, employees, technical and professional advisers and their remuneration; and to provide also for certain other matters incidental to the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following
resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a corporation to be known as the Canadian film development corporation for the purpose of fostering and promoting the development of a feature film industry in Canada; to empower the corporation to invest in individual Canadian feature film production, to make loans to producers thereof, to make awards for outstanding accomplishments in the productions of Canadian feature films, to make grants to film makers and film technicians, to otherwise advise and assist the producers of Canadian feature films; to provide for the administration of the said corporation; also to appropriate for the purposes of the measure a sum of ten million dollars to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund from time to time and to establish in the consolidated revenue fund a special account to be known as the Canadian film development advance account to which amounts may be charged or credited as the case may be.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate whether a report by Mr. Stuart Keate on C.B.C. matters has come to his attention? Some reference has been made today to the effect that this report has been sent to him, to the producers and, I think, one other group. Would the Prime Minister also tell us whether it will be tabled in the house when it is received so that members of the house, having taken an interest in this matter, may have some idea as to the suggestions made by Mr. Keate.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the report. I telephoned Mr. Keate Sunday to ask when he would be likely to send it, and I was informed that he would be sending it to reach me, he hoped, tomorrow or the next day. I understand from more recent information that it is in the mail and I expect to receive it later this evening or tomorrow morning. As soon as I receive it I will then know what disposition to make of it.
5420	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the growing and somewhat belated interest on the part of cabinet ministers over the increasing control of the Canadian economy by foreign investors, may I ask the Minister of Finance when he expects to bring down the legislation to set up the Canada Development Corporation.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to forecast the time, but it will be during this session.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the legislation was ready for the last session and notice had been given of it, could I ask the minister what is the reason for the delay?


Mitchell William Sharp: There are questions of priority; and I have also said publicly that we are restudying the provisions of the legislation to put it in the form best suited to Canada's needs.



BANK ACT

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, there have been continuing exchanges with the two government leaders mentioned by my hon. friend, and other NATO governments, on the NATO situation arising out of the initiative taken by President de Gaulle some weeks ago, and this will be a major subject of discussion at the NATO ministerial meeting which will be held shortly.']
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance when the amendments to the Bank Act will be presented to the house.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question the other day. I have nothing further to add.


Mr. Winkler:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In regard to this question the minister's answer last week was "soon". Will it be this week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's question was asked and answered last week.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

DEBATES	May 24, 1966
In view of the rather confused or alarming situation which now exists in South Viet Nam, would the government or the minister have some report to make to the House of Commons about the role which Canada is playing to improve the present situation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada has always thought that the Control Commission should be entrusted with the task of promoting negotiations.
I can assure the hon. member that with the approval of the Secretary General of the United Nations, the President of the United States, the South Vietnamese government and, I hope, with the co-operation of the North Vietnamese government, I trust that those efforts will be successful. In any case, the government is doing all it can, with India and Poland, members of the commission, to find out if the commission can play a part in this matter.
LEnglish1 [Later:]


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonion-Siraih-cona):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve. I should preface my question by saying that I think something must have been lost in translation, because I was not able to hear the answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve.
Will the minister assure me that when I read the English translation of Hansard tomorrow I shall find an answer there to the question which has been asked?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell us whether there has been communication with the Chancellor of Germany and the Prime Minister of Great Britain with regard to their very important four point program respecting NATO which was announced over the week end, and particularly in relation to the ministerial council which will be meeting in just a week or two?
May 24, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there have been continuing exchanges with the two government leaders mentioned by my hon. friend, and other NATO governments, on the NATO situation arising out of the initiative taken by President de Gaulle some weeks ago, and this will be a major subject of discussion at the NATO ministerial meeting which will be held shortly.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: On Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport raised a point of privilege during his reply to my question, and you subsequently ruled it out of order. His point of privilege arose in connection with an explanation he gave concerning tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway.
In view of the confusion he left may I now direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that tomorrow is the last day on which submissions can be given to the Board of Transport Commissioners concerning the increase of tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway, and in view of the fact these increases may be granted, will the Prime Minister assure us the house will have a chance to debate these increases in tolls before they are granted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is the same as that which was asked last week, and cannot be put at this time.



MAINLAND CHINA-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Qu'Appelle):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the present indications from the United States administration that they are moving toward allowing United States citizens to trade with mainland China, is the government of Canada considering inviting China to set up an unofficial trade office in Canada similar to those which exist in other countries?


Hon. Roberi Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I think perhaps that question should be more appropriately directed to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I so direct it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Churchill:: You can't bring in the International Control Commission on this one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This question is obviously one that would have to be considered along with the primary question of the relationship between Canada and mainland China. It would have to be considered in the light of our policy about China's admission to the United Nations and the recognition by Canada of the regime in China.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcce East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and in his absence I direct it to his parliamentary secretary. I have given notice of this question which is based on the announcement made by the minister. Will the federal government be contributing on the basis of the national average cost or on the basis of the actual cost in each province?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: May I take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question which is most appropriate to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I expect a definitive answer. In view of the fact that Arnold C. Smith, who is Secretary General of the commonwealth secretariat is reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Monday, May 23 as saying in a speech delivered at Queen's University convocation that governing is more and more rooted in the expert adviser rather than the politician, can the minister inform the house if this statement implies that the functions of members of parliament will become of less and less importance in government?


Mr. Speaker:: I see a number of things that are wrong with this question, but I may say it appears to be hypothetical.
May 24, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA



INQUIRY AS TO THREATENED STRIKE OF EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Earlier today I sent the Minister of Transport notice of my question, but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary and he can take it as notice. Having in mind the threatened strike which may affect Air Canada as a result of the failure of the Canadian Airlines Employees Association and Air Canada management to settle the wage issue, is the minister or his assistant in touch with this situation? Can he make a statement outlining what is involved? It is a national question, I think, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Pariiameniary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given notice of this question. The question substantially answers itself, since the matter of wages is involved. However, the hon. member seems to require a more detailed answer, and I can assure him that this will be forthcoming tomorrow.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government house leader. It is not a question I can place on the order paper; therefore I will put it to the house leader.
In view of the fact that I had the honour to be on Parliament Hill on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, when the security staff handled some 25,000 visitors, 12,000 on the Sunday alone, would the government house leader advise me how I can express my own personal appreciation to the security staff, as well as, I am sure, the appreciation of all members of the house?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him whether, in view of reported

lay-offs in construction in the city of Ottawa and municipalities adjacent thereto, the government will consider restoring some of the deferred public works projects, and in particular the National Museum?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to deal with this question. The representatives of the industry, as appeared in the article in the paper on Saturday, had asked me for an interview and I advised them on Friday that I would be glad to see them. Only a few minutes ago they called and asked if the meeting could be postponed until next week.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I am happy to advise that the figures for the construction industry show that there is less unemployment than last year, but in any event I am following the situation very closely and am going to meet with the men who raised the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister giving consideration to the immediate reinstatement of the National Museum as a public works project, rather than having it deferred?


George James McIlraith: We are giving consideration, if necessary, to the reinstatement of any new buildings, but I do not want to single out one building from the others at the moment.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the importance of the National Museum to Canada's centennial celebrations, would the minister, in his discussions this afternoon with representatives of the Ottawa construction industry, not give priority to reinstatement of the museum project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if this is not essentially the same question asked some moments ago by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.



CANADA-WEST INDIES-STEPS TO BRING ABOUT IMPROVEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the strong indications that the federal government is ready to back maritime businessmen in their efforts to expand trade between the maritimes and the West Indies, would the
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
Prime Minister indicate the type of specific program he is planning to introduce which will improve Canadian and West Indies trade, and when we may expect legislation to be introduced which will foster more fruitful relations with the Caribbean?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is of very general nature and I do not think it can be asked in this way at this time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that a July top level meeting will be held between Canada and the West Indies governments? If so, when and where will such meetings be held, and what countries in the West Indies will be invited to participate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a meeting is to be held in the first week of July. I hope that as soon as the agenda is finally determined as a result of consultation among all the governments concerned, I shall be able to make a statement in the house regarding the conference and the agenda.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to strengthen this meeting, will the Prime Minister not say that this is to be a serious meeting, and one that will not result in the criticisms made in Halifax regarding the meeting attended by the trade and commerce-


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


Thomas Miller Bell: I just wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HIDES-REQUEST FOR EXPORT CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the already high prices of shoes and the predicted further increases in the prices of those articles to Canadian consumers, has the minister given any thought to the control of the export of hides?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper.
DEBATES	5423
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



QUEBEC-R.O.T.P. SERVICE BY STUDENT PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I want to ask the minister why the R.O.T.P. program is so inflexible that it cannot adapt itself to the fact that one of its officers has been elected president of U.G.E.Q. but has been told that he cannot complete his term of office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is argumentative.


Mr. Fairweather:: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Jean Wadds (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. As one who has always stressed the need for more planned and organized federal assistance to education, I would ask the minister whether the announcement in Saturday's Ottawa Citizen is correct, that without fanfare a federal office for aid to education has been formed; and what is meant by "thus making facilities and people available when programs require them?"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that she cannot ask whether a press report is correct. Certainly this matter is of very general nature, and the question cannot be asked now.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: A question for the Secretary of State relating to education, and supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas. Has a federal bureau of investigation been established and, if so, how is it staffed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If there is a federal bureau of investigation the Secretary of State has nothing to do with it.


Siegfried John Enns: I inadvertently used the word "investigation" instead of "education" when I addressed my question to the Secretary of State. My question should have been simply, is there a federal office of education and, if so, how is it staffed?
5424	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It appears we are having difficulty with questions relating to education this afternoon. I do not think the question is of such an urgent character as to be allowed at this time.


Siegfried John Enns: It is of general interest, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. R. W. Priiiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister inform the house whether responsibility for university grants comes under his department or under the Secretary of State.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have just confirmed that my colleague the Secretary of State has accepted the responsibility.



INQUIRY AS TO ABOLITION OF UNIVERSITY FEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made on Friday night in an address by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to the effect that in Canada we are getting closer to the abolition of tuition fees in universities, will the Prime Minister say what steps the government is taking in this direction?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question is closely related to the one which was asked by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Dundas, and I would feel very guilty if it were allowed while the other was refused.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is related it will also have to be dealt with at ten o'clock.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF INFORMATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The exploratory talks in\nMay 24, 1966\tCOMMONS\nLondon have concluded and the parties to the discussions have agreed that following a period of further reflection and consultation they may meet in another place.']
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the publicity and propaganda being made in the province of Quebec at this time to the effect that Ottawa is hurting the development of the province of Quebec and other provinces, and is encroaching upon

DEBATES	May 24, 1968
provincial rights, particularly upon those of the province of Quebec, is it the intention of the Prime Minister and of the government to set up an education board to enlighten the population of Quebec and that of the other provinces and counteract such anti-Canadian, anti-social publicity which is currently going on in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this is a question of very general interest and that he should have it placed on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: I shall bring up this question at ten o'clock.
[English1



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have representations been made to the government of France concerning the forthcoming nuclear tests by that country? Second, were representations made to the government of China concerning its recent tests? I realize how difficult such a representation would be, since we do not recognize that government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the last portion of the question, I have already indicated that the government of Canada had stated that it was regrettable that mainland China had not joined the nuclear test ban treaty, which prohibits tests in three of the environments. The same declaration, to which most nations have committed themselves in the nuclear test ban treaty, would apply, of course, to any other country that engages in tests which we believe should be barred.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) McIntosh: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister now report to the house on the discussions which have been taking place between officials from Rhodesia and officials from the United Kingdom with regard to the dispute between the two countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The exploratory talks in
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
London have concluded and the parties to the discussions have agreed that following a period of further reflection and consultation they may meet in another place.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the concern expressed during the week end by the Elizabeth Fry Society over the recent appointment of a male acting superintendent of the Kingston prison for women, will the minister not give consideration to the appointment of a female deputy commissioner within the penitentiary system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador in his capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. Perhaps he could take it as notice and have the minister reply on his return. My question is based partly upon the statement the Minister of Fisheries made on Friday last and partly upon a press release from the department itself.
The Minister of Fisheries stated as reported at page 5353 of Hansard:
At the same time I wish to make clear that the Canadian government has no intention of authorizing salmon net fishing on the high seas.
A press release emanating from Vancouver on the very same day indicated that Canada gave an assurance that unrestricted high seas Ashing by Canadian fishermen would not be permitted. Would the minister clear up these contradictions, including the fact that the word "unrestricted" is missing from the minister's statement in the house, which makes all the difference in the world?


Mr. C. R. Granger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: May I take that question as notice.
DEBATES	5425
Inquiries oj the Ministry INDUSTRY



BEAVERTON, ONT.-CLOSING OF AUTO PARTS PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria (Ont.)):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in connection with manpower. Would the minister inform the house whether he has received a telegram from a Mr. Benson, international representative of the United Automobile Workers, in respect to the shutdown of Lake Simcoe Industries at Beaverton, Ontario; and if so, what action will be taken to alleviate the serious situation set out in the telegram?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether this is a question of general interest. The hon. member might communicate directly with the minister or, if he thinks the matter is urgent, he might debate it at ten o'clock.


William C. Scott: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CONSIDERATION BY MEMBERS OF FURTHER SECURITY MEASURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the discussions which are taking place and press reports which are appearing in connection with added security in parliament. I ask the Prime Minister whether any measures taken in this regard should not first be considered by the members of parliament, because history has shown that a multiplicity of defensive or protective measures is often an incitement to violence. Instead of proceeding to build a lot of security around this place I would think through discussion members could come to a decision which would not place Canadian statesmen or politicians in the position of those in certain other countries, where the measures taken are an invitation to prospective wrongdoers.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I quite agree with what the right hon. gentleman has just said. I should hope that any measures which may be suggested would be discussed with the House of Commons before action is taken. I do not think there is any danger of the kind of precipitate and extravagant action being taken for our security which would interfere with the rights of the Canadian people to attend sittings of the
COMMONS DEBATES	May 24, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
House of Commons and visit the parliament buildings. I am sure any suggestions which might be made would take this into account, and that this matter would be discussed with the house.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
HULL, QUE.-REQUEST FOR RELAXATION OF RESTRICTIONS On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance?
Further to letters I have received, and those the Minister of Finance has doubtless received, to the effect that the housing industry in the Hull area has been severely affected by the recent restrictions on credit imposed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, does the minister intend to announce in the near future a change of policy with regard to C.M.H.C. loans or credit?
[English1


Mitchell William Sharp: The policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was set forth fully by my colleague the Minister of Labour. I really have nothing to add to what he said.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Would it be possible for the Minister of Finance to meet the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) so they could agree to let the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation be a little more generous in its dealings with those who need credit?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now putting forth an argument.
IEnglish]



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday was a holiday, Victoria day, and in the province of British Columbia at six major ports longshoremen did not work, regardless of a court injunction, because they maintained they were not required to work on that day under the labour standards legislation. May I ask 
whether the minister is conducting an investigation to try to prevent the recurrence of such circumstances?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether this is extremely urgent, I suggest the question be placed upon the order paper.

Mr. T, C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):
On Thursday and Friday last I asked questions of the Minister of Labour but unfortunately he was unable to be present. Those questions had to do with the inability of the longshoremen's union at Vancouver to get full benefit from the Canada labour code. I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to answer the questions or make any report on the case I raised last Thursday and Friday.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: I understood that an answer was given to the hon. gentleman by my office this morning. A telegram was received last week complaining against resort to the courts to compel people to work on Monday the 23rd which was a holiday. The answer to that telegram was that the Department of Labour does not intervene in disputes of that kind before the courts.
I may say that my department is giving consideration to the fact that such a circumstance has arisen and that a dispute of this nature has ended in the courts. I hope a solution will be found which will prevent a recurrence in the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister assure the house that he will take the necessary steps to see that the employers in question live up to the terms of the Canada labour code?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question cannot be accepted.


Mr. T. S. Barneft (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour with reference to his statement that consideration would be given to the taking of steps. I should like to ask the minister whether this consideration includes possible amendment to the present labour standards code which might make more easy a possible avoidance of this situation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I always try to abide by your ruling,
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
and I have no wish to take exception to it at the present time, but I really require some instruction from Your Honour. I asked the minister a simple question, whether he will assure the house that steps will be taken to see that certain employers comply with the law of the land. I cannot see why this question is not proper and why the minister cannot give that assurance to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: To my mind the question in the way it was asked is not an urgent question. The hon. member is suggesting that certain action should be taken by the minister. I assume he would bear that in mind, but to my mind the question is not an urgent one.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


Lester Bowles Pearson: the second reading of Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the right hon. gentleman would not mind, I should like to make the point, having in mind the provisions of the resolution, having in mind the provisions of the statute, and having in mind the provisions of the British North America Act, that there is some doubt as to whether all parts of this bill might be discussed because they are not included in toto in the resolution.
This is a point in respect of which the Minister of Justice indicated there was a legal opinion from the law officers of the crown stating that this is possible. I do not wish to raise the point and deal with it extensively at this time, but so far as I personally am concerned I feel that if we do not raise the point at this time we may be losing our right to take the proper position at a later stage. I should like to make this point now and reserve the right to suggest that parts of the bill may not properly be before us because of the form of the resolution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I may say I have been assured by our legal advisers that the resolution which has been accepted by the house makes it possible for the house to discuss every section and all items of the bill before it. The reason certain parts of the bill were not included in the
DEBATES	5427
Government Organization resolution is that inclusion of all parts was not necessary because certain changes were made which did not involve financial matters of any kind. Therefore it was not necessary to include them in the resolution, although it would have been quite possible to have done so. For that reason the exclusion of these items from the resolution dealing with Bill C-178 does not in any way prejudice the right of members of this House of Commons to discuss on second reading and subsequently all sections of the bill which is before us.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say, when he mentions law officers, whether they are the law officers of the Department of Justice; because the opinion I received, which was not from the law officers, was the very reverse.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, the view we received from the law officers was that the resolution in the form which was adopted would not in any way prejudice discussion of all items in the bill. The parts of the bill which were omitted were omitted for the reason that they did not involve any financial consideration and therefore were not required to be mentioned specifically in the resolution.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister assure the house that the advice he received was from the law officers of the Department of Justice or those who are responsible for the formation of the legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to check on that. I was informed that it was the law officers, I believe in the Department of Justice and the Privy Council, but I should like to confirm this information.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the question in respect of the point of order which intrigues me is that I cannot see why you would not have to mention each department in order to discuss this legislation. In this resolution the Prime Minister is asking that the Department of Forestry and ARDA be made legal. Does there not have to be another resolution, or another statute at least, naming this department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been informed that this is not necessary and that the resolution does adequately cover all the items in the bill which is before us.
5428	COMMONS
Government Organization


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he can assure us that the department or departments embodied in this legislation which were not mentioned in the resolution do not entail any additional expenditure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, and there are other matters in the bill which were not mentioned in the resolution for the same reason; that is, they do not entail any expenditure of public money by reason of the changes which are recommended in the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, having raised this matter, it was not my intention to ask for a ruling at this time. I simply wished to make certain that my right to discuss this particular aspect of it would be reserved, and that during the course of the discussion on second reading I could raise the point and be entitled to state why I think there may be some doubt as to the position of the government. However, I was not asking Your Honour to make a ruling at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: This was my understanding of the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River. I am very grateful that the hon. member is not asking for a ruling at this time.


Michael Starr: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, in order to substantiate the point of order which the hon. member for Peace River has in mind, I think we should hear his reasons at this time. If you make a ruling without hearing the arguments it may raise a doubt.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the hon. member may wish to raise the point of order at a later date, and when he does the matter will be considered; but he is not submitting an argument at this time. I suggest we should allow the right hon. the Prime Minister to continue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will not be out of order in repeating that although I have been informed by the law officers of the Department of Justice and the Privy Council that it was not necessary, I can understand the doubt which has been raised about the resolution seeming to exclude certain matters which are in the bill. These matters were not included, but I wish to state that there is no restriction on members in respect of discussion of all matters in the bill when we come to a detailed discussion of these items.

DEBATES	May 24, 1966
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In the discussion of the resolution certain points were raised with which perhaps I should deal. There was the question of whether we should not have proceeded with a number of bills rather than one composite bih, each bill dealing with the particular department with which it was concerned. It could have been done that way but, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) ventured to suggest, it might take a good deal longer if we had a debate on five or six resolutions, second reading on five or six separate bills and consideration of five or six bills at the committee stage. Be that as it may, the same kind of debate covering the same ground, and I think in less time, is possible when we consider a bill of this kind covering all the departments concerned.
In so far as the point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is concerned, which related to amendments to this legislation that may be required, I think it is just as simple and convenient, and perhaps even more so, to make amendments to a composite bill of this kind than to make amendments to four or five separate bills. Be that as it may, it will be possible under legislation dealt with in this way to make the amendments which may be required in the future either by legislation or, as may be the case more often in the future, by action under existing legislation which does not require new legislative measures.
There were certain references made in the previous discussion to the purpose of this bill, at which time I think the purposes were not accurately described in certain respects, particularly as to why we brought in this far reaching change in the executive structure of government. This was simply done for the purpose, as we have said, of making the government more effective and more adaptable to changing circumstances. I think this legislation, if parliament accepts it, will have that effect. It has been suggested that this legislation, if it is accepted by parliament, will add to the number of members of the cabinet and that this might be undesirable because the cabinet is already, in the minds of some people, too large. So far as this particular bill is concerned and the action which is to be taken under it, it will not have that effect and will not mean any enlargement of the membership of the cabinet at the present time.
May 24, 1966

I am not sure that I agree that the cabinet in its present form is too large. The numbers have been increasing over the years as government business has been increasing and we have now a membership of 26. My own feeling is, and I believe the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) shares this feeling, that as government business continues to increase, and there is no reason to believe that it will not do so in years ahead, it may be necessary to increase the number of ministers to deal with problems which cannot now be dealt with as effectively as they should because the ministers concerned already have too much to do. As the number of ministers for that purpose may increase, and the right hon. gentleman mentioned this, it will perhaps become necessary to introduce a system into our governmental structure by which we will have ministers in the cabinet and ministers who only attend cabinet meetings when subjects of direct responsibility and interest to them are being considered. This is not to suggest an inner cabinet within a cabinet, although that has developed almost automatically in perhaps a not too effective way. There are difficulties inherent to that kind of informal development.
This would mean that the cabinet itself would be smaller and that there would be a number of ministers who would not automatically be members of the cabinet but as Privy Councillors they could be summoned to cabinet meetings when matters of direct interest and importance to their departments were being considered. That is a practice which is now customary at Westminster.
During the May 9 discussion preceding the introduction of the bill the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) suggested that it would be helpful in dealing with this legislation for each of the ministers concerned and affected to take part in the debate and in turn deal with that part of the legislation which directly affects his or her responsibility. It is the government's intention to follow that procedure. The ministers who are concerned with this reorganization will be present to make statements and answer questions in respect of those matters which have been or are now being transferred to their responsibility. It may be that this could be done during second reading, but it may be found that it would be more effective to do it at the committee stage when the bill will be considered section by section, because each section will deal with particular ministerial responsibilities and the appropriate minister
Government Organization could handle that section. That will be for the house to decide.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding the matter he dealt with in the penultimate paragraph of his remarks. I suggested that acceptance of this bill would mean an increase in the number of members of the cabinet. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, he said a few minutes ago that there would be no increase in the membership of the cabinet at the present time. Do those words indicate that the result of this legislation would be that the number of ministers could increase although that is not the government's intention at the present time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the number could increase but such an increase is not contemplated by the government in this legislation. Perhaps I will be able to deal with that matter in detail or, if not in detail, at least mention how the cabinet will be organized if and when this legislation is adopted. Perhaps I should mention at once that there is a minister without portfolio who could be transferred to a new department of government if such were established. There are also other ways of dealing with this legislation which would not result in any increase, and I will make this clear as I go on.
In addition to the additional responsibility of ministers which will be discussed in this debate, there are certain general matters arising from the bill itself which are common to a number of departments. These matters relate to government organization generally, and I propose that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) will speak for the government as well as for his department in this regard, because he will be the minister responsible for the Treasury Board as well as for the Department of National Revenue. As the minister of the Treasury Board, in addition to his present functions he will have charge of matters of government organization, and I think this makes it appropriate for him to take charge of general questions as they arise during the course of the debate.
There are certain other aspects of the legislation, however, which I should like to deal with briefly as Prime Minister, and these are the ones relating to the authority of ministers in closely related fields of jurisdiction. While the exposition of the details of particular departmental jurisdiction during the course of this debate will no doubt be of principal interest to members, certain remarks
5430	COMMONS
Government Organization made on May 9 make it clear that in some cases it would be useful for me to say a word or two about where one department's responsibility ends and another begins.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
There are two groups which were of particular concern and which may have led to some confusion in the minds of hon. members. The first is the relationship between the Department of Justice, the Department of the Solicitor General and the department of the registrar general. Let me say immediately that of the three the first I have mentioned, the Department of Justice, remains the principal law department of the crown. I hasten to assure the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) on that point. I would go further and say that I entirely share his and other hon. member's great respect for and belief in what the hon. member for Greenwood called-and I quote from his statement the other day-"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." That remains the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. At the same time I would like to underline for hon. members what the hon. member for Greenwood also said that day. The first quotation was from page 4910 of Hansard, and the hon. member also said as reported at page 4911:
-they have been overburdened.
The hon. member was referring to previous ministers of justice. He went on:
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.
Knowing this, and valuing as highly as we do the function of the chief law officer of the crown as counsel and as legislative adviser, we have in this legislation sought to free him, for this fundamentally important function, from certain administrative and operational responsibilities. Certain of these, as was pointed out the other day, will now become the concern of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). It is, I believe, entirely in accord with good administrative procedure and good democratic practice that we should make these changes in this way, and in doing so we are here following a course pioneered many years ago in the United Kingdom in the Home Office.

DEBATES	May 24, 1966
Certain responsibilities which are also of an operational nature will go from the Department of Justice to the new department of the registrar general. I mentioned this in passing the other day. No member of the house conscious of the interplay between law and economics will fail to understand the significance of this new department and the important role it can play in areas such as patents, combines, bankruptcy and corporations, which have been left too long separated, almost in isolation. But in all these matters there is a common link of commercial interest, and legislation dealing with them will therefore have a strong economic foundation; it will contain vital elements of concern to the public interest.
I feel that bringing these matters together under one new department, with a single minister to have responsibility for them, will have effective results which could not be so easily or effectively achieved under the old, haphazard and virtually accidental arrangements by which these matters were split under two or three departments.
In this connection I have asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) to act also as registrar general. During the past few months he has already had responsibility for some of the pieces of legislation which will go now to the new department if this bill secures parliamentary approval. His previous experience as a member of the restrictive trade practices commission, a member of a royal commission looking into patents and copyrights, a civil servant, in private practice, and as a minister will, I believe, be of very great assistance in the formation and conduct of this department.
One of the matters which will have to be considered early in the establishment of the department of the registrar general is to what extent it can further assist and protect the Canadian consumer, which is a matter that was mentioned in the discussion on the resolution, especially by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). The Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture now have active consumer protection roles within their own departmental areas of responsibility, but there may be other areas in which the federal government can develop consumer protection programs and there may be a real need to co-ordinate what is being done now in a number of departments.
It is the government's intention to ask the Economic Council to look at the field of
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
consumer affairs, along with some of the other functions now to be undertaken by the registrar general under the legislation before us, with a view to providing advice as to the courses of action that seem best suited to meeting the needs of the Canadian people and the Canadian economy in the consumer field.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say in what particular the question of consumer credit comes within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, what portion of it is entirely within provincial responsibility and what representations, if any, are being made to the provinces to secure their co-operation in connection with this investigation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the important matters which will have to be considered, namely, the respective jurisdictions of the provincial and federal governments in the consumer field. It is on this matter as well as others that we are seeking advice from experts, including the Economic Council. It is impossible at this stage to say what the responsibility of the department of the registrar general might be in this field until we get a report in regard to the matters I have just mentioned. Our additional responsibility as a government in this field will be determined after we have examined the matter very carefully, especially in the light of the report which we hope to secure from the Economic Council.
While the division of the responsibilities among ministers is, I believe, made reasonably clear in the terms of the bill, I think I ought to clarify one aspect of the division of responsibilities between the minister of Indian affairs and northern development on the one hand and the minister of energy, mines and resources on the other. In my statement on May 9 I said:
The resource jurisdiction which has been connected with the development of the north will remain under the minister of northern development.
We all contemplate that at some time in the future we shall have in this country one or more provinces in the north. That situation will come, however, only after there has been substantial growth in population and in resource development. The encouragement of that resource development will be the responsibility of the minister of northern development. In a sense the minister will be acting in that, as in many other respects, as a trustee for provinces of the future.
DEBATES	5431
Government Organization The minister of energy, mines and resources, on the other hand, will be exercising responsibilities that are essentially, if I may use that word, national in their character. By that I mean he will be responsible for the kind of things that do not relate to any particular province but rather involve elements of jurisdiction that are federal in nature and aspects of policy that affect the country as a whole. I think that this basic concept of division of functions is sound. It should permit the establishment of arrangements that will remove to the greatest extent possible confusion and difficulty as developments and changes take place in this country over the coming years.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
One of the questions that had to be considered in this division of responsibility was how best to draw a geographical line for administrative purposes with regard to underwater areas off our coasts, which the federal government has been advised by its law officers come within federal jurisdiction. As hon. members know, some provinces have taken issue with the advice that resources underlying offshore waters are legally a federal responsibility. This is purely a constitutional question and it has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion. Until the advice of this court has been received, I naturally do not intend to go into the substance of the argument; indeed, it would be inappropriate and profitless to do so. I may say that until an opinion is given that such resources are not federal the federal government must have administrative arrangements to handle applications for rights to explore the resource possibilities under the waters off our coasts. If the Supreme Court of Canada should decide that these areas and resources are not federal, the jurisdictional problem will be altered and transfer arrangements will have to be made. This of course, can be done.
However, for the present at least the federal government must provide for the administration and proposes to do so. One solution would have been to have the minister of Indian affairs and northern development handle all mineral resource development under federal jurisdiction, whether in the north or on the continental shelf. This would, however, have involved that particular department in things that would relate in no way at all to its northern functions or to other things with which it deals such as Indians, national parks and wildlife. It might, thereby, have introduced a misunderstanding of the character of
5432	COMMONS
Government Organization the division of functions between these two departments.
In working out a division of resource work between the two departments, one possibility would have been to give the minister of northern development responsibility for resource areas on dry land, that is, land above sea level, and the minister of energy, mines and resources responsibility for resource areas under the water. This, Mr. Speaker, was not considered to be practical. In the far north areas of water interlace the many large islands and the thousands of small inslands of the Arctic archipelago, while in Hudson Bay hundreds of tiny islands that are a part of the Northwest Territories speckle immense water areas.
To have the jurisdiction divided between dry land on the one hand and, if I may use the expression, "wet land" on the other might well have created administrative chaos. The best arrangement, after considering a number of possibilities, appeared to be for the minister of Indian affairs and northern development to have administrative responsibility for all continental parts of the two territories and also for the Arctic archipelago, including the underwater areas there in the area of the archipelago. In Hudson Bay, James Bay and Ungava Bay we have exactly the opposite situation to that of the Arctic archipelago. We have an inland sea interspersed with hundreds of small islands. The sensible arrangement there seemed to be to have the minister of energy, mines and resources assume administrative responsibility for these water areas along with the responsibility he will have for the other large areas of the continental shelf. To avoid confusion the minister of energy, mines and resources will handle the administrative work for the islands in Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay, as well as for the underwater areas south of a certain line.
In other words, as a purely pragmatic administrative arrangement, the water areas have been placed with the land jurisdiction in the Arctic archipelago where the land is the most extensive and important element, and the land areas have been placed with the water in the Hudson Bay area where the water areas are very much larger than that of the islands. The dividing line, so far as the departments are concerned, will run substantially along the south coast of Southampton and Baffin Islands.
This division is not reflected in the present bill because it has no legal consequences or

DEBATES	May 24, 1966
significance. It is simply a division of federal administrative responsibility between two federal ministers about which I thought I should inform the house. This information has already gone out in the schedule to Order in Council P.C. 1965-2284, which was tabled in the house on January 18, 1966. I do not believe there are any other comments I wish to make at this time. As I have said, particular questions of organization and administration will be dealt with by the ministers concerned, if these are matters which are of concern only to these departments. If the matters are of wider than departmental concern they will be dealt with by the Minister of National Revenue who will be the minister responsible for the Treasury Board.
I was glad to note during the discussion of the resolution many expressions of approval for this measure as well as some very constructive suggestions for possible improvement of the ideas and principles underlying the bill. The comments throughout the country, both at the time when the changes were announced last December and since, have reflected not only an awareness of the problem these changes are designed to meet but in general have given approval to the purposes of the government in legislation of this kind, designed as it is to deal with the changes.
This legislation, if the house accepts it, Mr. Speaker, will contribute to the more efficient operation of government at a time when that is one of the major purposes of parliament, and by contributing to the efficiency of government will enable the country itself, I hope, to deal more effectively with the complex and changing problems of our national life.
As I said in concluding my remarks at the resolution stage, there will undoubtedly be further changes required as conditions change, and they are changing with bewildering rapidity these days. It will be possible to adapt the legislation to these changes in part by action under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. It may even be necessary in the future to come back to the house for amendments to the bill before us. This measure is to make executive government more efficient, and it is one step in that direction. As other steps seem to be required we will be privileged, I hope, to bring the changes that may be necessary before the house from time to time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister permit a question at this time dealing with the Privy Council? What arrangements will
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
be made, under the Prime Minister's jurisdiction tor the Privy Council, to look after the scientific secretariat? Will that be designated to a minister or will it stay under the Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure if I understood my hon. friend's question. To what was he referring?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is a secretariat that deals with scientific matters and handles reports from the new council on science and the National Research Council. I wonder if they will report to a committee of cabinet and from whom they will get directions in the Privy Council? We have been critical of this because it seemed to by-pass the house. Of whom shall we ask questions in the house? Will the jurisdiction remain with the Prime Minister or will it be given to a new minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The proposed science council but not the research council will report to the Prime Minister.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister mentioned that the Minister of National Revenue, in his capacity as president of the Treasury Board, would give a more complete picture of this reorganization. I wonder whether the Minister of National Revenue will rise now and augment the picture the Prime Minister gave a moment ago?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that what the Prime Minister said was that I will deal with questions of a general nature which will arise during the debate. Questions with respect to new departments which are raised by hon. members will be dealt with by the ministers involved either on second reading or at the committee stage. Personaly I believe committee stage will be more appropriate in that questions can be put and answers given, additional questions asked, and so on. Perhaps I should deal with questions of a general nature raised prior to second reading of the bill and its referral to committee of the whole after hon. members on the opposite side have had an opportunity to speak.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question? I do not see anything in the bill relating to this subject, but under the proposed reorganization will the traditional duty of the Minister of Justice to advise on constitutional problems be in
DEBATES	5433
Government Organization any way affected or is this duty being transferred to the President of the Privy Council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there will be no change. Indeed, I quoted with approval the remarks of my hon. friend on the resolution stage of the bill on that very point.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am sorry, I missed that.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to a great deal of verbiage from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) about what this legislation will mean in the reorganization of government departments and how effective this will be. All I can say at the present time is that the change is more an appearance than a result. Because it does not matter how much we try to reorganize or make the departments of government more effective; their effectiveness can only be brought about through the leadership of the government, depending in turn on the ministers who will head the departments and how effective they are in taking a leading role in the policymaking of their departments. Therefore, irrespective of the words I use we will have to wait with bated breath to see the results which are brought about by the changes being made through this legislation. If the performance of the present government since 1963 does not change within the next few years, then I am afraid we are spending a great deal of time on this legislation when the same thing could have been achieved by leadership in the departments which have existed up till now.
What I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is the effect that this legislation will have on certain departments of the government and the demoralizing effect it has already had in relation to the proposed new departments and their effectiveness. In some instances this legislation relegates certain departments, which have been doing a good job heretofore, to a very unimportant role. Others are raised in importance, depending on who is the minister designated to head them. I am not going to speak about who the ministers will be; rather, I should like to say a few words about the departments themselves, their significance and their effect upon the people who will staff them.
I should like to say a few words first about the Department of Labour over which I presided as minister for five and a half years. In 1957 the Department of Labour was considered a poor second cousin to all other
May 24. 1966

Government Organization departments in the administration of government, having under its jurisdiction only the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and a few other minor acts. Over the years, because of our activity in government, this department rose to a very important position and played a very important part in the government of the country, so much so that the personnel of the department felt they had now taken their rightful place in the administration of the country.
The Department of Labour plays a prominent part simply because labour is a very large and important segment of the Canadian population. Because of that the Department of Labour should and must play a significant role in the administration of the country, and it deserves recognition and attention.
When we were the government we built up the department through various programs and the administrative acts which were under the jurisdiction of the department. We activated and stimulated the "Do it Now" program. We activated the training and retraining of the unemployed in the country, which is something the new minister of manpower will be adding to because he has recognized its importance by raising the allowances of those who will be training under the program. We also activated to a tremendous degree training and retraining in industry. This is something which I hope will be continued, though it will be carried on not by the Department of Labour but by the new department of manpower.
We also instituted the municipal winter works incentive program, which is still in effect. Under this program municipalities right across the country can benefit each and every winter. In 1960 we instituted the technical and vocational assistance program, under which a tremendous number of schools were built across the country providing over 300,000 places for students to receive training in trades and skills. All this added to the prestige of the department and the department felt it was playing an important part with tremendous enthusiasm.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the year 1966 this government is dismembering the department. All of the programs instituted since 1957 are being taken away from the department and it is being relegated to a very insignificant role indeed in the affairs of government in this country. The morale of the personnel left in the department is low and all interest has been lost. In 1957 they felt they were second cousins but they now feel they are

third cousins to other departments in the government service.
As a result of this reorganization, Mr. Speaker, what is left to the Department of Labour? It still administers the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, under which it provides the services of mediation in disputes in this country. It still administers the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, a purely administrative measure, and the Government Annuities Act which is now dormant.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what has the Minister of Labour left for him now? What is the meaning now of the Department of Labour in relation to the tremendous labour force in this country? It has very little meaning. As a matter of fact, since 1963 the ministers of the present government have made no endeavour to bring about an end to any disputes which have occurred in the country during the past three years but have sat on the sidelines relying on mediators, conciliation boards or any other body on which they could lay their hands and throw into disputes, hoping and praying they would be successful. Such was not the case from 1957 till 1963 when there was an active interest on the part of the minister in endeavouring to bring parties together in order to bring an end to disputes instead of relying on somebody else.
Let me take as an example the present strike of longshoremen in Montreal and Trois-Rivieres. The government is not moving on this at all. All they are doing is hoping and praying that a judge they have appointed will bring about an end to the strike through conciliation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I bring up these matters, Mr. Speaker, only because I want to show that in the past three years the ministers have not accepted their administrative responsibilities. That is why I said at the beginning that it does not matter what changes are made through reorganization because the success of such reorganization will depend on leadership.
If the government and its ministers carry on in the same offhanded manner they have adopted until now, none of these proposed changes will mean anything. Reorganization is fine provided you have the leadership to put it into effect. The two ministers who have held the office of Minister of Labour over the past three years have not participated in disputes regardless of the disruption to the economy, regardless of the effects on the
May 24, 1966

economy as the result of strikes, yes, regardless even of the fact that some such disputes have resulted in strife. The ministers have taken the attitude that it is not their business to effect settlements. They would rather use the services of strangers, thereby hoping to bring about settlement of the disputes.
In the Department of Labour we endeavoured to set up in the past a committee which had to do with the bringing about of a better relationship between management, labour and government. This machinery was set up but it has now been dismembered. No effort is being made to use it. We want to know whether the proposed reorganization is going to bring about a better understanding between management, labour and government.
How will consultation between these bodies be possible under this new set-up? Surely the minister of manpower will agree that consultation is not only a major but a very important issue to the three bodies of Canadians I have mentioned. Consultation should be carried out on a continuing basis rather than haphazardly from time to time.
Under this proposal the Department of Labour is broken up and morale is low. There will be a department of manpower headed by a minister who, I must admit, has very great experience in dealing with labour matters. He has a good record of energy and accomplishment in the labour movement. Yet he is given half a department or perhaps less than half a department to deal with labour under the new set-up. Immigration is thrown in as compensation. We are doing away, as a matter of fact, with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
In the bill setting up the new ministry of manpower it is proposed that the new department will deal with the utilization of manpower resources in Canada as well as employment services and immigration. However, citizenship has gone by the board. There will be no department for that.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You should read the bill.


Michael Starr: Citizenship is going to one department and immigration to another. Both these subjects came under the function of one department. Citizenship and immigration have not changed. Now, however, the minister of manpower has part of the functions of the former Department of Labour but not 23033-344

Government Organization all of them. He also has only a part of the function to do with immigration.
Surely the question pops into one's mind, is immigration not important enough to warrant the full time attention of a minister? Are immigration criteria to be established purely and solely on the basis of the demands of the labour market? Is that what is intended under this reorganization? Are we going back to the days when immigrants were allowed in according to the demand for labour? Is this what the government has in mind? Surely in immigration other factors have to be considered. Surely the very important humanitarian factors must be considered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: After all, we are dealing with people. We are not dealing with so many ciphers on the labour market. One is led to believe that the new manpower policy will deal with members of the labour force and with immigrants as ciphers only. The humanitarian aspect of things seems to have gone out of style with this government.
In the application of manpower policies the minister of manpower will not have direct contact with the conciliation services of the Department of Labour. Those are to come under another minister. The minister of manpower will not have the benefit of the many years of experience of those officers left in the Department of Labour who have dealt with problems in the field of labour. After all, the minister of manpower has to do with labour, but that is under a different minister. The minister of manpower, despite all his experience in dealing with labour unions, will find that he is not operating from one side of the fence or the other but that he is walking on the fence. This is very different from his experiences as a union leader.
The minister will also be dealing with management but not in the way he did as a union leader. Yet the officers of the department having experience in these matters are not to be under his jurisdiction but under the Department of Labour. Under these circumstances one can only hope that here will be the most intimate consultation and exchange between himself and the Minister of Labour because in effect they are both administering different parts of the same department.
What bothers and worries some of us is how these divisions are going to be brought about. What sort of liaison will there be between the two departments in dealing with
May 24, 1966

Government Organization problems that will inevitably come up for decision?
The Minister of Labour is to preside over something that is less than the former Department of Labour. That has been taken away from him. I do not see why matters such as technical and vocational training and on-the-job training were taken away from the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour and put under that of the minister of manpower. One can only hope that the fragmentation of the Department of Labour will not inevitably lead to fragmented policies at a time, particularly in the days ahead, when a positive, consistent manpower policy is an economic necessity. That such a danger exists is recognized both by unions and by management.
I should like to quote from an article that appeared in the Monetary Times of February, 1966:
Training and retraining schemes quietly launched in the early 60's, are, in the national context, still little more than embryonic, yet their results are already startling.
I bring this to the attention of the government, Mr. Speaker. An injustice is being done to the Department of Labour. These things belong there, and were started there. The programs I refer to have been transferred from the Department of Labour where the personnel had knowledge of them to the department of manpower where the personnel are not familiar with them.
One can only hope that these proposed changes will carry on the effectiveness of the programs I have mentioned, and will ensure the effectiveness of future programs, if there are to be any. Of great importance is the leadership that will be given by the minister in the department. I only hope that the Department of Labour and its personnel will be given some sort of uplift so that the morale of that department, which has sunk to a new low at the present time, will be lifted up again.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr, David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), stated generally our view on this legislation during the resolution stage. I merely wish to emphasize one or two points and make some comments, if I may, on the remarks of the Prime Minister, particularly those of today.
First of all may I say that I always like to approach such changes in machinery as this

represents by asking the question: why are the changes necessary? Furthermore, and this probably applies equally to all hon. members, including the right hon. gentleman, machinery interests me a great deal less than the policy which the machinery is intended to carry out.
As an amateur student of policital science I would think that the reasons which enforce changes in the government set-up are four. First, there is the immense increase in government functions and responsibilities as well as in government expenditure. I remind myself that only 30 years ago our total budget was in the neighbourhood of half a billion dollars, if I remember correctly. Today I suppose federal government expenditures, budgetary and non-budgetary, are about 23 or 24 times as great. This is the first reason why the machinery we have had heretofore cannot possibly be effective today.
I assume the second reason which has moved the government to think of reorganization derives from the new problems our society faces, problems thrown up by the scientific revolution, by automation and cybernation, and the importance of manpower in such a situation. It seems to me we are approaching an age when we shall need to make fundamental changes in a social ethic which has to a great extent been built up on the idea of work but which may in the future have to be built on the notion of leisure. We have an entire compendium of phrases prising work per se. We admire the person who keeps his nose to the grindstone, though I have always thought this was more a measure of our sadism than of our morality. These new problems make it necessary to have new government machinery.
I suppose the third source of pressure for changes is the new federal-prov ncial relationship. Aside altogether from the conflicts and the difficulties, the fact is that many of the functions which the British North America Act gave to the provinces have gained in importance and impact. The result is that changes in the federal-provincial relationship are necessary. Aside from anything else, one need only mention education, welfare and road construction to understand the tremendous increase in the importance of the provincial part of our federal set-up. Since the provinces are now taking a much greater share in these developments, both in their own jurisdictions and possibly in Canada as a whole, a new situation arises requiring much
May 24. 1966	COMMONS
more co-ordination of policy than was needed some years ago.
Finally, there is a new factor in our lives, one which seems to have developed during the last couple of decades as a result of the tremendous influence of the mass media of information and propaganda. These are being used frighteningly by the huge corporations for the purpose of persuading us to buy what we do not need, to throw away what we really want, and to believe almost anything. In this situation there naturally emerges a broad social pressure for legislation and machinery to protect the consumer, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Mac-Innis) pointed out during the earlier debate on this subject.
I wish to emphasize that in this field we are dealing not only with advertising and prices, the more pressing and the more obvious parts of consumer protection, but also with the quality of life in North America, to use a very general phrase. We are dealing with the fact, both in this country and in the country to the south, that the affluence and the habits we are developing are producing respect for the quantity of goods one possesses rather than for the quality of one's life.
All these things create a need for the protection of the consumer. Nor is it necessary to protect him only against falsehood. We need agencies which will help the consumer decide on the kind of choice that will enrich his living rather than merely place him somewhat higher in this status-seeking society.
The first reason for change then is the immense increase in government functions. Then there are the new problems arising from the scientific revolution, the necessary and inevitable new relationship between the federal government and the provinces and, lastly, the increasing need to protect the consumer. These, in summary, are why government reorganization is needed. These are the changes which government reorganization must meet. If the government's plans fail to do so, I submit they are not adequate.
On this basis my first point is to ask the right hon. gentleman why this reorganization does not do precisely what he suggested, at least by implication, it should have done, namely, bring into being two classes of minister, one belonging to the cabinet and having the general responsibility of government and the other a class of junior minister not belonging to the cabinet but having responsibility for the administration of a department.
23033-344J
DEBATES	5437
Government Organization There are many areas in which this could have been done. I say this smilingly, but if the right hon. gentleman had in mind to bring about a reorganization why could he not, for once, have done it in a non-Liberal way, that is to say, why could he not have done the whole job at one time instead of doing only part of it and expressing the hope that later the rest would be accomplished?
Surely it would have made a tremendous improvement in administration if his cabinet were smaller. Surely it would be easier for his ministers to meet much more frequently than is possible now? Surely it would be an advantage if some of his ministers were freed from departmental responsibility so that they could look at the situation in Canada and in the world as a whole without the burdens of departmental detail.
How much better the administration would be if we had a cabinet of that sort, if the ministers were able to leave details to others who could have the job of looking after a department or part of a department or a division, such as housing. I do not say this with acerbity but it seems to me the Prime Minister has not approached making the kind of reorganization which a modern society requires, though there is a great deal of good in the proposal he has placed before us.
The same is true of what the right hon. gentleman said about consumer affairs. If I remember rightly, he said that in addition to what is now contained in the various departments, including the Department of Agriculture, there might be other areas where more action is needed and that there might be need for co-ordination. Surely there is need now for co-ordination. Surely it is obvious there are other areas where there is a need for consumer protection other than that now being afforded by the Department of Agriculture. Surely there is no need for an investigation to see that the way in which the consumer now is exploited by advertising and advertising propaganda is a scandalous distortion of decent commercial behaviour. Surely there does not need to be an inquiry to see that the consumer must be protected against unnecessary rises in prices which are not warranted by any increase in actual cost. We do not need an investigation to establish that. However, if I may again say this smilingly, the right hon. gentleman could not help being a Liberal so he said, in order to make sure that he knows what everybody else knows, that he will ask the Economic Council to study the entire question of consumer affairs.
May 24, 1966

Government Organization [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Some time ago the right hon. gentleman handed the Economic Council a job which some of us thought was to study price increases in this country and what might be done about them. I gather that is not quite what the Economic Council has been asked to do; it has been asked to do something else in the field of pricing. The important thing to note is that we have an Economic Council which has been given the job of making an annual survey normally done by economists, and which has been done exceedingly well by Dr. Deutsch and the members of his council. The same Economic Council has been given the job of looking into some aspects of pricing. I do not know exactly what aspects it now will be asked to look into in the field of consumer affairs generally.
If the Economic Council ever had any vestige of planning, the right hon. gentleman is making sure it will not have any in the future. It will have ad hoc jobs to do such as the economic survey, prices, and consumer affairs and it never will be able to do any planning whatever. If there may be some requirement later, why not now? One hon. member boasted about the fact that the former government had instituted a do-it-now campaign which this government also is carrying out. Why not now?
I urge, Mr. Speaker, that a department of consumer affairs is an essential part of modern living and is the only way in which we can meet the problems of the modern consumer which, as I have said, do not merely involve prices, important though they are. The entire problem concerns the way in which we live, the kinds of things we choose among the many things from which we may choose. It involves clean air to breath or clear unpolluted water or beautified cities. All these are things with regard to which the Canadian citizen as a consumer must have protection. A department of consumer affairs should have various agencies to cover these many fields. A prices review board is, of course, very essential. The right hon. gentleman simply does not meet the needs of the present day when he satisfies himself by saying that he has asked some body which is going to look into something related to the protection of the consumer.
I wish to say a word now about what I consider to be the most important lack in this re-organization. There is no ministry of planning or economic affairs, or whatever you wish to call it. Let me point out to hon.


members with the utmost seriousness that this is a lack which this government and this country will regret in the years to come. If you look at the various facets of our economy with which various departments of government deal, at least partially, you see the following picture; and I cannot give you the entire picture because I have not had the time to make the necessary study. You have the whole problem of manpower, placement and training in the hands of the ministry of manpower; you have the whole problem of disputes, harmony in labour-management relations, and the labour standards code in the hands of the Minister of Labour; you have the question of investment planning, which is basic to the economy, in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Economic Council and the war on poverty are under the Prime Minister. The various research councils, which again are basic to the modern economy and its development, also are directly under the Prime Minister.
With great respect to the right hon. gentleman, it is as obvious as anything can be that he is not in a position to give a direction to any of these agencies since he has to have overall supervision of all agencies of government. Yet these important instruments for an understanding of what is happening which are necessary for planning to meet what is happening, such as the Economic Council, the agencies for the war on poverty, the science council and the research council, are directly under the Prime Minister. I submit that this situation is not encouraging.
Then, if you go to such very important parts of the economic development in Canada as the designated area legislation, that is under the ministry of industry. Then, for some mysterious reason which perhaps is not so mysterious, the Atlantic Development Board comes under the Minister of Transport. I do not know what the Minister of Transport has to do with development of that sort except that the present minister comes from one of the Atlantic provinces; I suppose that explains it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He represents one of the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Lewis:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says that the minister represents one of the Atlantic provinces. That probably is a more accurate political way of describing it. The minister comes from one of the Atlantic provinces but that is a pretty poor reason for giving him something like the Atlantic Development
May 24, 1966

Board. Rural development, which is part of the economic planning, comes under the minister of forestry and rural development. Housing, which is essential to any kind of planning for our consumers is under the Minister of Labour and naturally, of course, the Budget is under the Minister of Finance and other things which will concern expenditures are under the Treasury Board.
I am not objecting to the fact that these various fields are under different ministers or in different ministries, because obviously you cannot have them in one ministry. I do not wish anyone to think I am asking for that. What obviously emerges from this picture of the various fields and ministries is that there is an absolutely urgent need for some ministry whose specific and only job is to co-ordinate these various needs and co-ordinate the various objectives. Only thus can we have a complete picture of what is happening in the various departments and have a complete knowledge not only of the facts but of the policies from which the facts emerge, because often these are more important than the facts themselves.
Unless you have that you have exactly what you have now, a pretty planless situation. Nobody can persuade anybody who knows anything about planning that there is even an approach to planning now in this government and in this country. From the little I know of large corporations in Canada, one does not need to be a democratic socialist like myself to believe in planning. You do not have to be a democratic socialist to embrace this idea. Any large corporation which is well organized will have some department whose job is to co-ordinate the work of all the other departments. There will be a position, possibly that of vice president; there will be a vice president in charge of planning or a vice president in charge of co-ordination or a vice president in charge of expansion. Whatever name he may have, there will be someone responsible for co-ordinating the planning aspects of the various departments and of the whole corporation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The absence of any recognition of this need in a modern society seems to me to be the greatest possible condemnation of the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister, and his advisers and associates. It shows in my opinion a complete lack of appreciation for the kind of co-ordination and machinery which a modern, complicated and difficult society requires.
Government Organization
The same thing is obviously true with regard to the Treasury Board, as suggested in the comments of the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). The right hon. Prime Minister suggested today that it is intended that the president of the Treasury Board-I think that is his title under the bill-will be concerned with the day to day operations of that department. I hope that is true because we require the same thing in this regard as for general planning for the country. We need some central agency which will plan for actual personnel requirements and relate them and other requirements of other departments one to the other.
There are obvious misgivings about the way in which the law departments of the government are to be divided and we have some specific suggestions to make in this regard. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) will deal with that subject.
If I may use this adverb, I think that is all I can "usefully" say. There would be no purpose in merely using up the time of the house to repeat myself. I conclude by summarizing that if this government had, as in my opinion it should have had, an appreciation of the reasons which require government rearrangement and reorganization it would have done a great deal more than this bill proposes both as to the reorganization of the cabinet and the ministers and of the departments themselves. There would have been a definite step toward a department of economic affairs and planning and a department of consumer affairs for the protection of the consumer.
I sit down no more disillusioned than I have been before today because of the fact that when an approach has at last been taken toward the reorganization of our governing machinery the approach in this case, as in every other case, is timid, static, inadequate and barely starts the job of complete reorganization and even that in a halfhearted way.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-178, entitled, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, provides for changing the names of certain departments.
The Prime Minister has just stated that no new ministers will be appointed, that it is just a matter of transferring powers from one minister to another, and mostly a change in titles.
5440	COMMONS DEBATES	May 24, 1966
Government Organization
We can see, for instance, that the duties of the Solicitor General are listed as follows:
4. The duties, powers and functions of the Solicitor General of Canada extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada, relating to
(a)	reformatories, prisons and penitentiaries;
(b)	parole and remissions; and
(c)	the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Those will be the responsibilities of the new Solicitor General, once Bill C-178 has been passed.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we have had complaints about our penal institutions and prisons, especially penitentiaries, for several years, to the effect that the prisoners are ill-treated and cannot be trained while in detention, and that they cannot be rehabilitated after they have served their term.
With regard to pardon and release on parole we have also had distressing cases, which have been mentioned in the house, elsewhere, and in the newpapers, such as the Dion case in Quebec.
There are other cases where people have been freed under the provisions of the Parole Act and have returned to crime.
It is understood that more extensive studies in each of these cases should be undertaken beforehand.
I do not intend to dwell on this question. We do not object to the new Solicitor General being given responsibilities to this effect. As members of parliament, we want to have access to information that we might need in cases of release on parole and particularly as concerns the actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
As for the new department of registrar general, its duties are the following:
8. The duties, powers and functions of the Registrar General of Canada extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada, relating to
(a)	combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade;
(b)	patents, copyrights and trade marks;
(c)	bankruptcy and insolvency; and
(d)	corporate affairs.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As regards combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade, we have now, as we had in the past, concrete examples.
In my northern area for instance, there is an I.G.A. company. This I.G.A., which can be
[Mr. Caouette.l
found almost anywhere in the province of Quebec, is controlled and dominated by a certain Mr. Loeb, or the Loeb company here in Ottawa. It belongs to Mr. Loeb.
In my area agreements are signed for a year and a half or two years with retailers. Lately, this same Loeb company has been buying out wholesalers-wholesalers are now controlled by the same people who control retailers-and retailers under contract with the Loeb company have to come to terms with wholesalers, who keep another name, but are nevertheless dominated and controlled by the Loeb company that just bought them out.
Now there are hundreds of such cases throughout Canada. But Mr. Loeb seems immune from federal legislation on combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade.
While I was in Rouyn last week I met dealers from Amos, LaSarre, Val d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda. They complained that the Loeb company, or Mr. Loeb, had full control over wholesale as well as retail trade in our area.
The small independent dealer now finds himself in a position where he can no longer operate without resorting to one of the many branches owned by Mr. Loeb, either in Amos or Rouyn; there is complete control.
In that field it would be important, not only after the federal registrar is appointed, but for the present minister, who witnesses such things, to determine whether or not an investigation should be carried out. I suggest that the minister should have an investigation launched immediately as regards those combines and mergers, and particularly those monopolies and restrictive trade practices.
As far as I am concerned, I owe Mr. Loeb nothing and the small independent dealers in my riding do not owe him anything either. But when people have to be under Mr. Loeb's thumb in order to become independent dealers and retailers, generally known as I.G.A., who have to buy their supplies from Mr. Loeb who purchased for instance, the A. Gouin firm in Amos, the Lafortune & Gagne business in Rouyn-Noranda, and who would be ready to buy other firms so as to assume the full control of trade in our area, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is more than food for thought here. This matter should not only be considered by the House of Commons but also investigated by the department concerned.
I sincerely believe that the Registrar General, once appointed, will have a lot to do throughout the country with regard to trusts,
May 24. 1966

mergers, combines and restrictive trade practices.
It is the same thing with the Bankruptcy Act. Have we not witnessed, in the last several years, a staggering number of bankruptcies? The bankrupts are accused of having been insolvent before going into business, of having been too weak financially to operate a business. We have been hearing about those matters in the house for several months.
We are now faced with a large number of fraudulent bankruptcies. Some people rob manufacturers or honest people to go into business and then go into bankruptcy after having disposed of the goods they literally stole from manufacturers or workers or people who work honestly to increase the national productivity.
Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of the Registrar General is to see to it that the number of bankruptcies decreases, that insolvency is proven, not after the man is bankrupt but before he goes into business.
And there is also the business of corporations. These are not only Canadian corporations operating in Canada but, as I said to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) last Friday, there are also Canadian corporations which open subsidiaries in Japan or China to create some competition for themselves here in Canada. There is something abnormal there.
People are allowed to open subsidiaries in Japan or China where labour is 60, 75 and 80 per cent cheaper than in Canada. Then, they ship to Canada the products manufactured in Japan to compete with the Canadian products made by Canadians and controlled and dominated by the same people. The same people are competing against themselves. That is corporation business. The minister and the government should pay attention to such complaints. I am not making them up for parliament, they come from everywhere because it is felt that such competition is dishonest. Strangely enough, that same competition which is called dishonest is created by the same people who operate here in Canada. They go under a different name in China or in Japan, but in Canada the competition is against those people.
Mr. Speaker, let us consider now the department of manpower-whose duties and functions are as follows:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister of manpower extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department,
Government Organization branch or agency of the government of Canada, relating to
(a)	the development and utilization of manpower resources in Canada;
(b)	employment services; and
(c)	immigration.
Now, in the field of manpower, as concerns the utilization and development of manpower resources in Canada, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this matter does not come first under provincial jurisdiction.
Is it not rather to the province-in our case the province of Quebec-to settle the matter of development and utilization of manpower resources with the co-operation of the future minister of manpower (Mr. Marchand). As to the overall picture of the country, we might utilize Quebec manpower, Quebec students for instance, to help pick up the fruit in southwest Ontario. The future minister of manpower must know, through his national unemployment offices, that jobs are offered elsewhere in Canada. Then the minister might be of some use by co-operating with provincial authorities.
In item (b) of his duties, that is employment services, there is again duplication if you want to call it that. There is a provincial employment service, and a national employment service. Would it not be possible to organize that service so that we do not have to pay twice for the same services? Could we not come to an agreement so that the provincial employment services report their labour surplus to a federal central office where the federal authorities could be of some use to the provinces?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We see two bureaucracies. The National Employment Office and the Provincial Employment Office are not in the same building. Each one sees to its own expenditures; each one controls its administration.
Section 13 (c) reads as follows: "immigration". Last night, I was reading Section 92 of the British North America Act, where we can see that the provinces have something to do with immigration, as long as this does not affect legislation passed by the federal parliament; but the provinces have nevertheless a responsibility in the matter of immigration. But we, in the federal parliament, have never in the past recognized this responsibility or this power of the provinces concerning immigration.
The province of Quebec has been forced to take immigrants nobody else wanted. We realized afterwards that these people, after
May 24, 1966

Government Organization managing to come to Canada and having worked during six, seven or eight months in the province of Quebec, and especially in Rouyn, Val d'Or or Montreal, ran away to Toronto and Ontario where there is more economic growth.
If the authorities had then taken into consideration the cultural rights of the province of Quebec, we would undoubtedly have had immigrants who would have adjusted themselves more easily to the mentality of the province of Quebec. I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) in the house; I must tell him that I myself heard officials of the immigration office in Quebec city advise immigrants coming from Hungary and Yugoslavia that it would be preferable to learn English instead of French, if they wanted to earn a living more easily in Canada, and that right in the province of Quebec. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) knows that what I say is true.
The best proof of my allegation is that in Noranda, and more especially in Rouyn, where I live, 100 per cent of European immigrants come from Yugoslavia, Hungary, Poland-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Villeneuve, but I think that he is now speaking about immigration policy, while we have before us a bill to define the jurisdiction of the department of manpower and the responsibilities falling on the new minister in the matter of immigration. However, I do not think it is proper, at this time, to discuss the immigration policy of the federal government, even though it is well known that it will be incumbent on the minister of manpower. However, I believe that we should, at this stage, consider the bill before the house.


David Réal Caouette: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. This disturbs me a little, but I was convinced, and I still am, that I am not out of order.
Section 13 (c) concerning the appointment of a minister of manpower reads as follows: "immigration". It seems to me that I have the right to speak about immigration. I am not at all out of order, since the bill itself refers to immigration.
I realize that the immigration policy could be dealt with on another occasion, but nevertheless, we can discuss the present situation in the field of immigration while considering a bill to establish a department of manpower which will look after immigration in addition

to manpower, since it is agreed that immigration comes under manpower.
I said that we have Poles, Ukrainians and immigrants of other nationalities in our area where 88 per cent of the people are French Canadians. Those immigrants are compelled to learn English in order to work in our area. They cannot speak a word of French. In fact, very few know any French.
Mr. Speaker, new ministers or incumbents are being appointed without increasing the number of members in the cabinet. In my opinion, it would have been advisable to appoint another minister who might have been called the minister of federal-provincial relations, because we are experiencing some unrest in Canada.
Earlier this afternoon I tried to put a question to the Prime Minister and I asked permission to raise the matter at ten o'clock tonight. A great many people in the province of Quebec are going around making all kinds of statements derogatory to Ottawa. It is high time Ottawa woke up and spoke plainly in order to correct the facts, because the Liberals, especially in the province of Quebec, proclaim that they granted Quebec farmers a price of $4 per hundredweight of industrial milk. Mr. Speaker, this decision was not made in the province of Quebec; Ottawa is paying, but Quebec is now making petty politics out of this matter.
In other fields, the Leader of the Opposition is heard to favour separation in one place and independence in another; elsewhere, he is merely a Canadian. It is impossible to know where he stands. This is what is taking place at present and everybody is wondering where they are heading. A man by the name of Bourgault is campaigning for independence in the province of Quebec at present-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: members are no doubt interested in provincial politics, but the bill now before the house deals with the creation of four new departments with distinctive jurisdictions. I do not believe members of the house are so interested as all that in the election campaign going on in Quebec, even though they are not indifferent to it. However, we are now considering a bill to define the responsibilities of four new departments.


An hon. Member:: Raise the matter at ten o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I shall come back to this matter tonight at ten o'clock. At any rate, I should like to call
May 24, 1966

your attention to the fact that I do not wish to meddle in the election campaign now going on in Quebec. I wish to emphasize in this house, however, the need to entrust a department with the responsibility of informing the Canadian people not only in one area, but in the province of Quebec as everywhere else, about the importance of giving responsibilities to Ottawa and what belongs to the federal government, with no discrimination whatsoever.
I said earlier that the present bill does not provide for a new minister for Quebec independence. I heard one of the R.I.N. speakers state in Quebec that all those ministers and departments, in short, all federal laws should be done away with at all costs, that we should withdraw from confederation. The same person said that the withdrawal of Quebec from confederation was not a solution.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Villeneuve kindly to speak on the bill now before us, bearing on the organization of four departments which are to be organized now and on which the hon. members are asked to express their views.
I quite understand that the other problem is of importance but when we consider the problem of the RIN as regards the independence of Quebec in relation to the four new departments that have to be created, I hardly believe that such a problem can be of much interest to the hon. members, although it may be quite relevant in an election campaign.


David Réal Caouette: I was just coming to the organization of the fourth department, namely, Indian affairs and northern development.
Now, clause 17 reads as follows:
The duties, powers and functions of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
It seems that this is a close equivalent to the Indian Affairs division now operating in the province of Quebec, Northern Quebec-
-extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada, relating to
(a)	Indian affairs:
(b)	the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory and their resources and affairs;
(c)	Eskimo affairs;
Mr. Speaker, there is in the province of Quebec now, talk of Eskimo affairs. In fact, there is considerable talk about it. We have

Government Organization heard a Minister of Natural Resources of Quebec state that Eskimo affairs came under provincial jurisdiction, and I believe that it would be important at this stage to state that those who would liberate the Indians or the Eskimos from Ottawa are not more significant than those who cry for the independence of French Canadians from the Ottawa government. That is why I maintain that I should at least be entitled to refer to some statements made in Quebec and to say that I am not in agreement with those who claim that independence is not a solution but an instrument. Who among us, for instance, would give a razor to a child two or three years old because it is an instrument? It would surely be a dangerous instrument for him. I believe it is time for the federal government to take its responsibility, not get the jitters, and face the facts as they are.
Let us stop deceiving ourselves by saying empty words. Let us take the facts as they are, let us enlighten the population on their existence. That is why I am of the opinion, as I said earlier, that there should have been added a department of federal-provincial relations to those new departments, not a department which is fearful of facing young people, older people, those who are 18 or 21 and who will have the right to vote this year or next. It does not matter whether of not these young people have the right to vote, but we should explain to them clearly what is in their best interest and let them know the actual facts, in short, where we are going. But in order to know where they are going, we must teach and show them. There are people who will follow anywhere, without knowing where they are going. I have heard quite a few young people say: We do not know where we are going, but we are going anyway. And they go along.
Let us consider the situation. That is why it is important to create a department of federal-provincial relations, and this is getting more and more imperative. The government too must realize and recognize that it is high time for these new departments we are creating to take their responsibilities concerning the provinces.
As for the provinces, let us transfer back to them what belongs to them. Under cover of war, in 1939, 1940 or 1942, Ottawa asked for prerogatives, rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the hon. member for Villeneuve wants to put forward an argument from the constitutional point of
23033 -345
May 24, 1966

Government Organization view to delineate the federal and provincial jurisdictions, but I suggest that he should confine his remarks to the department of Indian affairs and northern development for the moment.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker; I really think I must be hard-headed, as they say.
I shall return to the department of manpower, because I sincerely believe this involves constitutional matters, and because the duties, powers and functions of the minister mentioned in section 13 conflict with the same powers given to the provincial legislatures.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I believe we can discuss the practicability of this clause which states the duties, powers and functions of the department of manpower concerning:
-the development and utilization of mapnower in Canada, employment services; and immigration, since all these subjects concern the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I think that from the constitutional point of view, it is about time Ottawa should withdraw from the fields coming under provincial jurisdiction. This was done too often in the past, and it is about to happen again in the future. The province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, will no longer accept dictates from Ottawa; however, I am sure it will co-operate with Ottawa 100 per cent on matters of general and national interest. Only, there is a right way to act, discuss or negotiate with Quebec just like there is a way to discuss with the other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the province of Quebec is ready for discussion, even if some of elements are prepared to discuss with no one except themselves, being people who have a high opinion of themselves and none at all about others.
Now, to continue the list of heads of new departments, we have also the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Here again, as I mentioned earlier-the new minister will be responsible for:
Eskimo affairs; national parks; national battlefields, historic sites and monuments; and migratory birds and other wild life.
The duties are provided in clause 18 as follows:
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shall be responsible for
(a)	co-ordinating the activities in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory of the several departments, branches and agencies of the Government of Canada;

(b)	undertaking, promoting and recommending policies and programs for the further economic and political development of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory; and
(c)	fostering, through scientific investigation and technology, knowledge of the Canadian north and of the means of dealing with conditions related to its further development.
As far as my area is concerned, we do not object to the federal government taking the necessary steps so as to authorize the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to help as much as possible those coming from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, but we are concerned about Indian affairs and Eskimo affairs. Eskimos are living in the vicinity of Hudson Bay, in northern Quebec in Ungava. The former Quebec Minister of National Resources stated many times that Eskimo affairs came under Quebec jurisdiction.
Now, the matter has not yet been settled, but it will probably be when a federal-provincial conference is called and several ministers, especially the provincial ministers of natural resources and the minister of Indian affairs and northern development come together. We feel that the federal authorities will then agree that provincial jurisdiction must be respected. The government should act as co-ordinator, as liaison officer among the various Canadion provinces, and induce all Canadians to agree on a policy which will enable the provinces to treat their Eskimos and Indians decently, in accordance with the ways and customs of the provinces concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else to say about Bill C-178 which, in fact, as stated by the Prime Minister, will not establish new departments, nor increase the number of ministers, but will merely change the titles of the ministers and give them somewhat different responsibilities from those they had up to now.
We are interested in all departments, in general, but more especially in the new department of manpower. We will keep close watch and we are willing to co-operate with it at all times, even during an election campaign, because the department is independent of the minister.
Mr. Speaker, we are ready to support the department of manpower in every possible way, so that it will be efficient and will co-operate with our provincial department while respecting provincial prerogatives and rights. That is where Ottawa can render its best services to the Canadian people as a
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
whole, and more especially to the people of the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the growth in absolute and relative terms of the involvement of the federal government in our economic and social affairs has been great indeed during the past decade. When the Prime Minister calls Bill C-178 a first step in making the executive of the government more efficient, I think members in all corners of the house will perhaps commend that statement and regard the aims of the bill as laudable.
Our leader stated on May 9 some of the principles that we think are required in the whole reorganization of the administration of our federal government. I will not go over many of the things that were stated at that time. I point out, however, as was stated on that occasion, that administrative improvement is no substitute for policy. When the requirements of a complex and growing society move ahead of policy a vacuum is created. That vacuum of necessity must temporarily be filled by ad hoc regulations. This has happened in almost every department of government during the last two or three years.
As an example may I point to the Department of Transport. We have no regional air policy and as a result many areas of Canada are suffering. The only reason I bring that up, and I hope I am not out of order, is that we must not delude ourselves into thinking that improvements in the administrative structure are a substitute for policy directives which have not been forthcoming recently.
I submit there are a number of glaring deficiencies, in Bill C-178 in tidying up some of the problems that have recently manifested themselves. The Prime Minister suggested that this bill was only one of the first steps in what was envisaged. I think there were serious deficiencies even in his statement because he did not inform the house whether the government had considered the matters I have raised.
For example, I hope that serious consideration has been given to improving the response by the whole government organization to parliamentary directives. The public accounts committee has brought in reports which have been concurred in by the house. Yet we sometimes find that several years 23033-3455
DEBATES	5445
Government Organization later there has been no response by government departments in keeping with such concurrence. Surely when a standing committee of the house makes a report containing several recommendations and that report is concurred in by this house, such recommendations become directives that the government is obliged to carry out.
I am not sure whether the Minister of National Revenue is shaking his head at that suggestion. If the government has become so arrogant that it finds it unnecessary to respond to the directives of the house, then I suggest that parliamentary democracy has degenerated to a great extent in this country. I hope that is not so. I am not on the public accounts committee this session. I do read some of its reports and I talk to some of its members. They are deeply disturbed that such recommendations have been ignored year after year. Without being unduly critical I therefore suggest that the government should have thought of ways and means of bringing about a better response and closer liaison between government departments and parliament so that such directives will not be ignored from session to session and from parliament to parliament.
In many areas I find myself to some degree in agreement with what was said by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I refer to the protection which it is suggested should be extended to consumers in order to protect them from the various abuses that have grown up. I may also say that in certain areas I disagree vigorously with the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for York South. For example, he complained vehemently and almost bitterly that the government had not set up a department of economic and social planning for Canada. If the government as a whole has any purpose at all it must be involved in the planning of our economic and social structure. If the hon. member is disappointed because there is not one department with super authority over all other departments to issue directives respecting planning, then, Mr. Speaker, I hope he remains disappointed for a long time to come.
We do not want, I think, any super authorities in the government structure with power to regulate certain departments and set certain courses. This is the function of cabinet or of such agencies or commissions and so on which have been set up by cabinet to study problems and to make recommendations. There are and have been sufficient commissions set up to study a large number
May 24, 1966

Government Organization of problems in this country. I think the final responsibility lies with the cabinet and I hope it will remain there. In fact, I hope we never get to the stage when we have a super authority giving directives to other departments. That power must remain with the cabinet which is responsible to parliament.
There is some contradiction in the suggestion by the hon. member for York South. He seems to build his argument on the basis that as modern society develops and becomes more complex it is difficult and perhaps impossible not only for the Prime Minister but even for other ministers to appreciate completely all that is required to cope with this development. Then the hon. member turns around and suggests that a certain department should be created to oversee such development. That, I think, is contradictory.
I am not drawing this parallel for derogatory purposes, but other nations have tried this kind of planning, this kind of centralized control, if you like, and they have failed. This system has not given the people the volume of goods and services necessary to raise standards of living.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This sort of planning fails because other levels in the economic structure object to it. This is one point on which we in this party completely disagree with the hon. member for York South.
There is one area where we feel there is real need for government concern. I have in mind the protection of consumers, and here we are in agreement with the attitude taken by the hon. member. Of the mail coming to me as a member of parliament the proportion concerned with consumer matters, price increases, credit problems and the like is larger than I have ever experienced. I presume this concern is similarly reflected in the mail received by hon. members representing constituencies in all parts of Canada. This being the case, the government should have been keenly aware of the situation and borne it in mind in its plans for reorganization. Nevertheless there is nothing in the bill to indicate that the matter has been even considered. There was little or nothing in the Prime Minister's statement to show that serious consideration was ever given to the introduction of legislation in the interest of consumers.
Whether a department of consumer affairs is necessary, I do not know. In one area, that of combines investigation, the administration


has not been satisfactory. Whenever there has been a significant rise in the cost of living there have been complaints in the house that the federal government through its agency has not looked closely enough at the reasons for these price increases in an attempt to find out whether or not they were justified. Looking at company reports we find there have been significant increases in profits recently. I am not against profits. But I am against agreements which remove competition between companies. If this has been going on or if there have been indications of this practice, the federal government should be doing something about it. But there is no indication either in the bill or in the statement which the Prime Minister made that the government has given the subject any attention.
A number of abuses have come to light in connection with consumer credit. I suggest that increasingly every year in all walks of life Canadians are getting into difficulty because of conditional sales and consumer credit. I did not expect that measures to deal with this situation would be set out in the bill, but I did hope that the government would have indicated concern. It is true that a joint committee has been set up with the Senate to inquire into this subject and I suppose that within a short time the committee will be making a report with recommendations to this house and to the other place. This bill does not indicate which department would have the responsibility for implementing any such recommendations. The matter is not one which should be ignored when a new government organization is considered. It is too serious for that; it has assumed crisis proportions.
I shall not continue much longer. One could examine each of the new ministries, criticize some of the transfers and so on. The Prime Minister has told us that this is only the first step, that there will be other changes under the act dealing with the transfer of duties. The leader of our party suggested on May 9 that one important change which could be made would be to appoint two categories of ministers. This has been done in other countries, certainly in the United Kingdom, and I believe the system is effective in dealing with the growing complexities of modern society. Here again we agree with the hon. member for York South.
I would point out that probably the largest department in government today, the Department of Transport, is not to be divided. If
May 24, 1966

there is not to be a division made in the responsibilities now assigned to it, I hope arrangements will at least be made to appoint an associate minister to undertake specific responsibilities in the department just as the Associate Minister of National Defence does in the Department of National Defence.
We all realize that air transport in Canada, both passengers and freight, is growing rapidly. Members from all parties have, I believe, expressed a desire that there should be some division of responsibility to take account of this increase since it is becoming impossible for one minister to be familiar with every aspect of the department as it is now organized. I realize that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) has been working very closely for some time with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) but it seems to me that when we are dealing with a bill intended to carry out government reorganization this is one department where provision should have been made officially at least for an associate minister if not for a clearcut division.
One other difficulty arises in connection with this measure. Schedule A includes a list of the various acts responsibility for which is assigned to the new departments. I suggest there should also be a complete list of acts indicating the departments to which they are assigned. I suppose that by a long process of deduction one could determine which of the acts are left within the purview of departments not superseded but it would be much more convenient to have such a list.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Finally, I simply say again that we do not regard a reorganization of the administrative responsibilities of the government as a substitute for policy. We still need leadership. We still need action by the government to bring in legislation on the basis of well-considered plans to meet the requirements of the future. We hope that in the days ahead there will be amendments to this legislation which will deal with the Department of Transport and, furthermore, which will deal also with some of the matters I have raised respecting consumers and their problems which have manifested themselves in very recent days.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Qu'Appelle.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Peace River wish to refer to the point of order he raised earlier today?

Government Organization


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Having raised it before, I thought that as a matter of courtesy the debate should proceed to the point that one member of each party would have had the opportunity to speak, but I also thought it would be improper for me not to pursue the point of order I raised earlier. Your Honour may wish to take it under advisement and give your decision at some other time or Your Honour may wish to deal with the matter now.
Quite honestly I feel there is a serious defect in the bill before us and I should like very briefly to put before you the detail of the defect. In my view it is not lawful for us, under the provisions of section 54 of the British North America Act, to adopt this bill which deals with the appropriation of part of the public revenue, because it has not been adequately preceded by the form of resolution which it should have had as a foundation so that this bill would be properly in the custody of this house for discussion. The point raised at the time of consideration of the resolution was that the resolution, which purported to permit the house to deal among other things with the establishment of a department of forestry and rural development and the establishment of a minister of that department, failed to make provision for this and therefore the bill, in my submission, is tainted with illegality and we cannot consider it.
I do not think I need quote the precedents; they are contained in citation 243 and following of Bourinot. I should like to refer Your Honour to Bill C-178 which purports to establish several new cabinet positions and in doing so abolishes in several instances the old positions through repeal of the pertinent sections of other legislation. With regard to the Department of Forestry I should like to point out that clause 26 of Bill C-178 sets out in some detail a number of purported amendments to the Forestry Act. In part there is created a new ministry, a new department and a new minister, the minister of forestry and rural development. At the same time and by the same means there are clauses which repeal the existing provisions of the Forestry Act pursuant to which the minister is established. My simple proposition to Your Honour is that once you have, by the repeal of those sections which created the minister, caused the office to be abolished it is essential to create a new minister and a new department. In doing so, in order to provide for the salaries and payment of costs in respect of
5448	COMMONS
Government Organization the department and in particular in respect of the minister, you must provide through a money bill for these salaries and costs.
This is quite apparent, because if Your Honour will examine clause 35 of Bill C-178 you will see that sections 4 and 5 of the Salaries Act are repealed and the following is substituted therefor; in other words, the position of the Minister of Forestry is repealed and the sections of the Salaries Act which provide for his salary as repealed. In order to establish a new minister we must have legislation to establish a salary for him, and I say that quite plainly this involves an appropriation by this house of a certain sum of money for the salary of this new minister.
I suggest that under those conditions it is absolutely necessary that the resolution contain as a vital part thereof a provision that there is to be a minister and there is to be a salary. I will go further than that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Surely.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask whether it is just these words pertaining to the Ministry of Forestry in the resolution to which he objects or are there others?


Gerald William Baldwin: I will develop that argument.
I will tell the hon. member for Medicine Hat that in my view it is quite possible that the difficulty in this instance probably taints the whole bill with illegality. This is not a picayune technical argument. I believe it is our duty to make sure that legislation which is passed by this house is in the proper form. The powers to be given to the new minister of forestry and rural development are very considerable and contain the right to interfere with individuals and property belonging to individuals. We well might say and officials of the Department of Justice might say at first blush that the bill is proper in its present form and should be passed. But anyone whose rights are affected surely has a right to challenge this legislation, and I think we would be derelict in our duty if we did not bring these matters to the attention of the house and Your Honour so that when this bill leaves this chamber it will be in proper form.
I was about to refer Your Honour to clause 6 on page 7 of the bill. There the new minister of forestry and rural development has given to him certain powers and authorities which by implication at least, and I

DEBATES	May 24, 1966
believe expressly, involve an expenditure of money. The minister may conduct economic studies relating to the forest resources, forest industries and marketing of forest products, make investigations designed to aid the forest industries and woodlot owners of Canada and assist external aid programs relating to forestry. If this section stands by itself as an amendment to the Forestry Act, I suggest that the government, under the terms of section 54 of the British North America Act, would be compelled to precede this bill by a financial resolution. So we have two counts; first, that there is established a new minister who was not in existence before and there is provision for his salary and, second, we have given that minister a power in respect of the expenditure of money which did not exist before. I submit that the resolution which we considered previously was defective, if it is to be used as a foundation for this bill. I think this is very significant.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Let me conclude by saying that six new ministerial positions are being created; yet the government has seen fit in respect of five new ministers with new titles to refer to them in the resolution but not to mention specifically the other new department and minister. In my opinion there is not the slightest distinction to be found between the five new departments and the department of forestry and rural development. If it is essential for the legality of this bill to include five in the resolution, why should it not be just as essential to include the department of forestry and rural development?
If it is correct that under the wording of section 54 of the B.N.A. Act it shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any bill of this kind there is a strong supposition that the whole bill may be tainted with illegality and that this house has no business at this time to adopt it.
I conclude on that note. I think there is a valid complaint in that the government's procedure is defective. I believe that the resolution was defective, and that the bill following cannot properly be placed before us in that it fails to provide a proper foundation for legislation because of the lack of reference to the ministry of forestry and rural development.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member I should like to state that I have again checked with a member of the Department of Justice and the House of Commons law clerk. I am advised
May 24, 1966

by both sources that the resolution was in proper form and was broad enough to cover the whole bill and the specific point raised by the hon. member. There is no new financial expenditure authorized by the bill in respect of the department of forestry. The minister has the power to operate under existing forestry legislation or under the ARDA legislation. Otherwise he must receive specific authority for expenditure under appropriation acts.
In general the forestry changes relate to a change in the name of the minister. Clause 35 describes the minister's salary as new but there is no increase in the ministerial salary. Only a change in the name of the minister is involved. Therefore I maintain that the resolution is in proper order and that we can proceed with a discussion of this legislation in the terms in which it has been presented to this house.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the minister a question? If he is relying on the argument he has just presented, would it not be proper to say that we did not need a resolution because that argument applies to other changes made in other ministerial positions?


Edgar John Benson: I do not think that is the case because in other cases new ministries are created rather than there being merely a change of names. The registrar general, for example, involves an entirely new department, as does the appointment of the president of the treasury board. These are entirely new appointments involving new expenditures of money and must, therefore, be included in the resolution.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with the Minister of National Revenue because the Solicitor General of Canada is named in the resolution and this does not involve the creation of a new department.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, this will involve a new department as there has never been a Solicitor General's department.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In so far as all of these departments are concerned, by using the argument advanced by the Minister of National Revenue one could interpret the resolution as being merely one to change names, as has been suggested in so far as the Minister of Forestry is concerned. Let me say this so that the hon. member for Peace River will understand the question I asked him. I do not regard this point of order as being picayune or niggling.

Government Organization
I think this is a very serious matter, and when I asked the hon. member for Peace River, whether the point he raised was the only point to which he took exception I was seeking information. I think we should be very careful in considering this resolution because I think there could be lengthy and involved discussion about the legality of this legislation if, as the hon. member for Peace River suggested, someone at a future date should challenge the legality of a minister's position. We must concern ourselves about the legality of future functions and actions of ministers under the authority of the proposed legislation.
I do not intend to repeat all or part of the case advanced by the hon. member for Peace River because I think he has examined the situation very carefully. In my view he has put forward a sound case which should be examined again very carefully to make sure that this proposed legislation will stand up in law. It may be that a minor amendment to the resolution is required in order to make certain that this legislation will be legal. If that is the case I hope we can find some simple way of correcting this small yet important omission in order to prevent any difficulty in the future.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be remembered, in view of the fact the minister referred to the law clerk of the House of Commons in this regard, that many private members' bills have been turned down for the very reason which has been brought forward in respect of this legislation.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might correct a misunderstanding. I meant to indicate that I had relied on the opinion of a law officer of the crown and that the law clerk was consulted in order to gain an extra opinion in support of our belief.


Edward Nasserden: That does not change the fact that a number of private members' bills have been turned down for the same reasons advanced in regard to the legislation now before us. A very minor change would bring the resolution into order and I cannot understand why the government should not propose such a change.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to indicate that I am speaking on the point of order and not on second reading. The aspect of this whole debate that bothers me relates to the fact that the government suggests that since there is no change in the
May 24. 1966

Government Organization duties of the Minister of Forestry these duties can be transferred under the Transfer of Duties Act from one department to another without involving any additional expenditure of money. It seems to me there was on the order paper at one time an order setting up a department of forestry and rural development and that it was not proceeded with because parliament was prorogued.
In this legislation a department of Indian affairs and northern d evelopment is described; yet there is not one single duty listed as being the responsibility of this department which was not formerly the responsibility of another department. Therefore all the duties of the new minister are duties which were listed and performed as responsibilities of a minister of another department. In spite of that fact, why was this department mentioned in the resolution?
The point taken by the hon. member for Peace River, that we should not rush ahead and discuss this bill and put it into law without being sure as to its legality, is a good one. In future the courts of this country, including the Supreme Court of Canada, may decide that we were not competent to deal with this matter because we failed to deal adequately with a money resolution and make it legal. In that event we would all look kind of silly.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I hope that in your consideration of this matter, Mr. Speaker, the two points I have raised will be kept in mind. First, was there a resolution on the order paper in a previous parliament setting up a department of forestry and rural development and, if so, for what reason? The second is the question I have just raised about the department of Indian affairs and northern development. What duties does the new department have that were not included in those of the previous department? Also, if it was necessary to mention the department of Indian affairs and northern development in the resolution, was it not necessary to mention the department of forestry and rural development? Those are the two points I wish to raise.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I just say one thing more to make certain that my points are quite clear. Under clause 26 of the bill we will in effect be repealing those sections of the Forestry Act which created the Minister of Forestry and gave him his title. He ceases to exist when this bill is passed. It is then essential for us to create a

new minister with the title of minister of forestry and rural development. It may be that there is a certain similarity in the titles but there is no doubt that there is here a completely additional function. When we create this new minister we must provide for his salary and to provide for his salary I submit that we must have a money resolution.


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think that we must ask ourselves what part of this bill concerns the Department of Forestry.
What we are faced with here is simply a deliberate battle of words about an amendment to the Department of Forestry Act which is neither of a fundamental nor of an essential character.
That is so true that if you refer to clause 26, paragraph 1, it will be obvious that the objective is to change the long title as well as the short title of the department to that of Department of Forestry Development and Research. As far as clause 35 is concerned, it is true that it repeals or seems to repeal sections 4 and 5 of the Salaries Act. But, it must be kept in mind that this legislation does not create any additional department, such as a federal department which entails an expenditure for a possible additional salary, if there is a minister outside that department, and which will also entail the required expenditure for a deputy minister's salary, if this legislation, I repeat, did not create any additional department, but dealt only with the amendment to the Forestry Department Act, clause 35 would not have been included.
Clause 35 is there not to create a salary for a man who is now Minister of Forestry and whose title will change, but only to include that salary in the list which includes the salaries of new ministers.
Consequently, I think that the criterion is this: if the amendment to the Forestry Department Act was not included in this bill and was introduced in the house through a separate bill, there would have been no need, when this bill was introduced, for an amendment through a resolution.
I think that, under the circumstances, even if the procedure is different, we are in fact dealing only with an amendment to the title and possibly to a certain definition of the responsibilities, but without any additional expenditure already provided for by an act of parliament.
May 24, 1966

Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no further contributions to the point of order perhaps the Chair might be given an opportunity to survey the situation and study the very learned arguments advanced by the hon. members. This might be done during the private members' hour. If hon. members are in agreement, we might at this point announce the business for the adjournment debate and then go on to private members' hour.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows:

The hon. member for Chapleau, destination of butter stored in shed.

The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-dismissal of producer of Columbia River film.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke, Industry-Assembly of Russian automobiles in Canada.

It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-ll, to incorporate Income Life Insurance Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-ll is an act to incorporate Income Life Insurance Company of Canada. For the information of members of the house, this bill is in the standard form. This is a Canadian owned and operated company which was incorporated under the Corporations Act of Ontario by letters patent dated December 9, 1963, with
an authorized capital of $10 million. A public underwriting of the shares of this company was completed during the spring of 1964, raising approximately $2,750,000. The company was licensed to carry on business by the province of Ontario in January, 1964, and at the present time is licensed also in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The present directors of the company are the persons listed in the bill as petitioners for the new federal company bearing the same name. The head office of the company is at 75 James Street South in the city of Hamilton, province of Ontario, where a full time administrative staff is maintained for the purposes of underwriting claims, accounting, actuarial and other required services. The management and staff of Income Life consist of full time employees each of whom is fully experienced in the insurance field.
The following remarks apply not only to Bill No. S-ll but to the following Bill, No. S-12. I make them now so they need not be made when Bill No. S-12 comes before the house for consideration. The prime purpose of Income Disability and Reinsurance Company of Canada, which is the subject matter of Bill No. S-12, is to underwrite accident and sickness insurance while the prime purpose of Income Life is to underwrite life insurance. The federal acts of incorporation request that each company be empowered to underwrite life, accident and sickness insurance. These two companies, which are incorporated under the Corporations Act of the province of Ontario, operate in conjunction with each other and the requested powers are required to enable each of the companies to be able to reinsure coverages written by the other.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The two companies share office space at head office and have certain sole employees and certain joint employees. They employ in total 62 people on a full time basis. In addition, Income Disability is at the present time represented by 70 agents holding accident and health licences and Income Life is represented by 87 agents holding life licences. It is the intention of Income Life Insurance Company of Canada to release its provincial charter and operate only under the federal charter if the bill is approved by this house. These are the facts as they apply to the Income Life Insurance Company of Canada. There is also the provision of a French name for the company. I shall try to give hon.

May 24, 1966
Private Bills
members any other information they may desire.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, while the sponsor of the bill was making his introductory remarks I was following the words of the sponsor of the bill in the other place as they appear in the Senate debates for February 9. With one or two exceptions with which I should like to deal Senator McDonald, who was the sponsor of the bill in the other place, said almost exactly the same thing as the sponsor of the bill here. I should like to pose this question to the hon. member now because I followed what he said rather carefully. I took down his words and I believe he said that Income Life Insurance Company was incorporated under the Corporations Act of Canada. I noticed in the remarks of Senator McDonald that he said the company was incorporated under the Corporations Act of Ontario.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: If the hon. member for Skeena will permit, my intention was to say that Income Life Insurance Company of Canada-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: The statement is correct, the Corporations Act of Ontario.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I point out to the hon. member that if he wishes to ask a question he may do so. However, if the hon. member for Hamilton West makes a speech he closes the debate.


Frank Howard: We certainly would not want the hon. gentleman to close the debate at this stage. There is one other extremely minor point with which I shall not bother to deal because it is not an inconsistency in itself but merely a difference in the manner of wording as between the sponsor of the bill here and the sponsor in the Senate.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing here with one company but with four companies. Two of these companies are incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act and two of them are involved in the bill with which we are now dealing and Bill No. S-12. This is a rather unusual situation in that we have to concern ourselves with the intricate operations of these companies. Incidentally, these companies have their offices in the same place and have the same employees, and presumably these employees will be employed by both companies if and when the

bill before us passes and if and when Bill No. S-12 is passed.
I do not raise this point by way of criticism, but the uniqueness of the situation makes me wonder why the Senate, when the bill was referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, did not keep minutes of the proceedings of the committee. This, would have enabled the public and members of this house to make some determination as to the correctness or otherwise of passing a bill as unique as this one. I did not look through the various proceedings of the other place to ascertain whether or not such a report existed. I made inquiry of a reliable source and the person, who I am sure would have known of this had it happened, informed me that there were no minutes of proceedings available of what took place in that committee. We are left in the dark. We have before us only the rather brief statement of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) who is sponsoring the bill here.
I submit when these companies desire to petition parliament for incorporation it is not good enough to say simply that a similar company was incorporated in Ontario a couple of years ago and now they want to incorporate another company with the same name presumably in order to do business throughout Canada. At the same time we have an indication there is a connection betweeen Income Life Insurance Company and a company called Income Disability and Reinsurance Company of Canada. This connection is so intimate that the companies share the same office building, have the same employees and simply scratch each other's back in the insurance field. One company is underwriting-this term is not familiar to me and I do not really know what it means from an insurance company's point of view-policies and the other company is perhaps reinsuring the business written by the first company. Perhaps this matter will be cleared up when the sponsor of the bill closes the debate, as he has the right to do at second reading stage. Perhaps he will allay the fears some of us have about the manner in which insurance companies, whether they be life insurance, accident, sickness or any other kind, operate in this nation.
Here is a company which was incorporated in December, 1963, a little more than two years ago and received its licence to carry on business in January, 1964. Public subscription of shares was completed in the spring of 1964
May 24, 1966

when the company raised exactly $2.75 million. Presumably the company was incorporated under Ontario law because at that time it wanted to operate solely in the province of Ontario. It has extended its activities to the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan and now believes the insurance field is so lucrative, as a result of the connection it has with Income Disability and Reinsurance Company, that it wants to extend its operations to all of Canada. This is the understanding I have of the legal position of the company. If it is incorporated by the parliament of Canada, then presumably it has a charter to do business across the nation. If it is incorporated under the laws of one province, then it only has legal authority to do business in that province unless another province grants it a licence to do business.
On more than one occasion I have referred to the terrific drain of the savings of Canadians through approaches by all insurance companies for one purpose or another. Every time another insurance company comes into existence it has to use its income from premiums or from share capital subscriptions to pay its employees, its agents, its officers, rent, telephone and all the other costs of doing business. As each new company comes into existence, the more insurance that is sold the greater the percentage of the individual's premiums which goes toward not insuring himself or his property or whatever it is he seeks to insure but toward the operation of the particular company with which he is insured and to pay for whatever friendly financial relationships exist between the company with which he is insured and some other company.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I do not know how this works, but surely if there is a degree of friendliness between the company currently seeking incorporation, Income Life Insurance Company of Canada, and the company known as Income Disability and Reinsurance Company of Canada, a friendliness which was disclosed to us by the sponsor of the bill, then presumably there is some transfer of funds back and forth. That may or may not be the case but it is something with which I am concerned and I should like to have the matter cleared up.
As I read the remarks of Senator McDonald, which were the same as those made by the hon. member for Hamilton West, he said that the prime purpose of Income Disability and Reinsurance Company was-
Private Bills


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has allowed some laxity in regard to references to debates in the other house but it is the wish of the Chair that this procedure not be carried too far.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue the point at this time but it has been the persistent practice in this house to refer to debates in the other place and in committees of the Senate in making arguments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In that case I shall have to read to the hon. member citation 149(b) of Beauchesne which reads as follows:
Besides the prohibitions contained in Standing Order 35, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking must not: . . .
(b) refer to any debate in the Senate-
I might add that, while I do not have at my fingertips at the moment the number of cases where this point has been brought up in the House of Commons in the last two or three years, there have been a number of them. I would ask the hon. member to abide as closely as possible by this regulation.


Frank Howard: With due respect and deference to Your Honour, I followed your reading of citation 149(b) and, in speaking to the point of order you have raised, if my memory serves me correctly this is the precise reference which has been brought into question on a number of occasions in the past. While the cases have differed one from the other in a descriptive way, I submit it has been held that the following is the case.
Let me refer once again to the citation to which Your Honour referred which says that a member, while speaking, must not:
(b) refer to any debate In the Senate, but he may refer to the official printed records of the upper house-
I have always understood it to be the case that the upper house to which reference is made in citation 149(b), and the Senate are synonymous. I do not understand the use of two descriptive phrases, but I had understood that reference to the official printed records of the upper house was permissible and that is what I am doing. I am quoting from the official printed record of the debates of the Senate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the
difficulty the hon. member is having in reading citation 149 (b). However, I am sure I am

May 24. 1966
Private Bills
correct in saying that when Beauchesne refers to the official printed records of the upper house, or of this house in fact, the official printed records refer to the minutes in the Journals, not to the reports of the debates.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that simply has not been the ruling of successive Speakers over the years. We were involved in lengthy discussions in the past in which we made references to and quotation from the official printed records of the Senate and its committees. In the conduct of our business in this house when considering private bills such as the one before us now it has regularly been the practice to look at, refer to and quote from the proceedings both of the Senate and its committees in their dealings with matters with which this house also deals. After many years of following one course I submit that to embark now upon another course and to say that it is not permissible to do that which we have been doing for as long as I have been a member is not a correct ruling. I do not want to argue the point with Your Honour or to persist unduly in causing some altercation or disagreement between Your Honour and myself, but I do submit that the practice of the past in this chamber is the one which we should follow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could come back to my original statement to the hon. member and say that there has been some laxity in this regard. I have allowed him to make such reference today, though I have requested him not to carry it too far. However, in view of what the hon. member has just said perhaps he would want me to get an official ruling on this point. I shall undertake to do that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this matter is going to be taken under consideration, might I raise a question which has always been in my mind in connection with your ruling? My understanding has always been that the rules prevented us from making any comment on or reference to a debate which was in progress in the other place. In other words, if we in this chamber were to carry on a running debate with hon. gentlemen in the other place, that understandably would be a contravention of the rules which establish the relationship between the two houses. However, I thought that reference to a debate which had been concluded and was part of the record of the other place, being something which had already transpired,
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.1
could properly be made in the course of discussing issues and by way of illustration or argument in this chamber.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before you
raised the point of order in connection with what I was doing I had been dealing with the relationship between Income Life Insurance Company of Canada and Income Disability and Reinsurance Company of Canada and statements to the effect that the prime purpose of Income Disability and Reinsurance Company was to underwrite accident and sickness insurance while the prime purpose of Income Life Insurance Company was to underwrite life insurance.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The proposed federal acts of incorporation require that the companies referred to in Bills S-ll and S-12 be empowered to underwrite life, accident and sickness insurance. The two existing companies operate in conjunction with each other. The powers requested are to enable each of the companies to be able to reinsure coverages written by the other.
I wish to pose this question. In the course of one company's reinsuring coverages written by the other, what happens to the insurance charges, premiums and commissions to the agent of the reinsuring company? If these are extracted from anybody they must be extracted eventually from the premium payer, if there is one. There may not be one. This sort of thing may be a straight friendly relationship between one company and the other.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: It is business.


Frank Howard: I am glad that the hon. member distinguishes between a friendly relationship and a business relationship. This, to me, is a straight business arrangement. No money passes hands. There is no income respecting agents' fees. There is no reflection in the reinsurance premium of staff salaries or salaries paid to the board of directors of the reinsuring company. There is nothing like that. If there is I should like to know about it in as much detail as possible before we proceed to give second reading to either of these bills.
We normally deal with bills incorporating one company. Nobody has disclosed to us the ramifications and interests of other insurance companies. Here we have a direct statement that there is a connection, that one company helps the other by engaging in reinsurance
May 24, 1966

programs. I certainly want a lengthy explanation of that before we proceed to do anything else.
I cannot refer to the debates of the other place in this regard. However, as I read the remarks of the senator who sponsored the bill he did not mention anything about this particular aspect. He just talked about one company being incorporated under provincial law and the other one being incorporated under federal law.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: You should read what it says on page 143 about reinsurance.


Frank Howard: Perhaps my hon. friend
would be kind enough to pose his remark in the form of a question so that I can understand it.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: My hon. friend should read the second column, half way down on page 143, just before the translation where it says:
-the requested powers are required so as to enable each oi the companies to be able to reinsure coverages written by the other.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend has transgressed the rules. He has referred to a debate in the other place. Good heavens! Had the hon. member been listening he would have heard me say that I could not refer to the debates of the other place. I could not refer to the point I have raised even if I wished to. The debates are silent on this matter. The matter I am talking about is the extinguishing of the operation of the so-called provincial company. The debates in the other place do not cover that at all. They do not even mention that situation.
The sponsor of the bill stated that it was the intention of Income Life Insurance Company, incorporated under the Ontario law, to cease operation, relinquish its charter and conduct all its business under a company to be incorporated by Bill No. S-ll. This raises an extremely interesting point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was not here when the hon. member introduced his bill and therefore I am not aware whether he read the remarks in the debates of the other place credited to Senator McDonald. I am of the opinion that this is one bill on which there should have been a great deal more detail than has been provided with regard to some other bills which have been recently introduced in this house.
Private Bills
We have seen bills recently introduced for church purposes which have gone into extensive detail in 70 or 80 clauses, the effect being to allow the bodies incorporated to engage in a wide diversity of businesses and interests. The purposes of this company have been encompassed in ten sections, two or three of which are stock clauses taken from the form that insurance company bills are advised to follow.
I understand this company is a provincial company already in operation but which wishes to extend its operations into the national field through a federal charter. It will be seen that the provincial company has acquired considerable capital. I presume such capital will be transferred or in some other way brought into the company before us in this bill. As soon as $1,750 is subscribed with Income Life Insurance Company a general meeting can be held and a board of directors can be elected. There is also a provision for a capitalization of $1,736,800, which amount must be subscribed and paid.
I am not sure whether this company will continue operating in the field previously covered by the provincial charter. A large amount of money obviously has to be put up by the provincial company. It obviously will be put up, making this company self-owned. It will be no different except that it will operate under a federal charter as well as under a provincial charter.
A number of things strike me as being odd about this company. One is that incorporation is being sought by two insurance executives and a trust executive. These three men, I presume, are the senior executives of the company proposed to be incorporated. They are also the same individuals who are connected with the second incorporation which is for a company to work in close association with this one.
We are asked to incorporate Income Life Insurance Company of Canada. I do not know whether they are running out of names. There are thousands of these companies established and it may be there are no names left. I wish the sponsor had indicated why this company wants to be called the Income Life Insurance Company. At first glance the name would indicate that this company is going into a new field, that of providing protection for income. Yet nowhere in the bill do I find an indication that the company does intend to offer this type of insurance.
Private Bills

May 24. 1966
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The house should be cautious about allowing a company to use words such as "Income Life" if they do not describe the type of insurance it intends to sell. If this company proposes to engage in the insurance or protection of income the name is be appropriate. If it is to be a life insurance company I doubt whether that is so; in fact, I think it would be altogether inappropriate. Obviously anyone who takes out a life insurance policy is not protecting his income. The only way to collect is by dying and then, of course, he has no income.
It is foolish to allow names to be used when they do not mean what they say. If this company were to be called the Brunning Life Insurance Company it would make sense because it is Mr. Brunning who is asking for incorporation and it would be his company if he could get enough people to join him in raising the $1,750 for incorporation, which might not be difficult.
We have been told that there is a similarity between the two bills, but in the case of the second bill $2,500 has to be raised in connection with incorporation and the appointment of a provisional board of directors. I wish it had been explained to us why a company which indicates it will have a capitalization of at least $1,736,800 is required to have only $1,750 before electing directors. I presume some members of parliament could start a finance company. By the time we had paid the parliamentary fees and other expenses we could have an insurance company of some description at a cost of not much more than $1,000. Then we need only find enough people to subscribe and increase the treasury to the tune of close to $2 million and we would be in operation. This would probably be very easy to do. Once you had a charter for $2,000 it would be easy to get assistance by reinsurance in raising the necessary capitalization.
This sort of thing is not in the interests of the Canadian public or of the individual clients. These insurance companies do not necessarily provide the type of insurance one should expect from their names. They are often general insurance companies. This company says it will be happy to carry out reinsurance. The initial company would be able to issue insurance, the second company would be able to reinsure and the money would be used in a third company, exactly the same money in each case.
I do not know whether this is a bona fide company. It sounds to me a little like a 
fly-by-night finance corporation which has half a dozen businesses in one office, selling one thing and another, and at the bottom you see it is also a collection agency for the bad debts which may be incurred and when the company goes out of business someone else takes it over. I am not suggesting this company is about to go out of business or anything of that nature but I do not think it is serving any purpose.
This is another role which the government itself must consider, the creation of a new company to preserve this sort of wealth. The $2 million involved here might just as well be added to the capital of one of the existing companies. If it is not to be used for the general good it merely means that this money is drained away from productive use, money which might have been used for national purposes in other fields. We should carefully consider the amount of money which these insurance companies reinvest in the nation. In my opinion they are more interested in second or even third mortgages earning a fantastically high rate of interest than they are in providing life insurance which is only incidental in the accumulation of a large sum to be used perhaps against the same people who put up the money in the first place and made possible the collection of such a large sum.
I believe there is a role for income insurance companies in Canada. Everyone is taking part in a "switcheroo" as the provinces begin to cover sickness and accident by their own insurance policies and those companies which had attached life insurance to such policies are finding that the coverage is no longer desirable or necessary in the eyes of subscribers. Consequently they are changing to new forms of insurance coverage.
For this reason the word "Income" should not be used by this company as part of its title and the sponsor should be prepared to substitute something else. I am opposed to using the word "Income" in this instance because it may be used by other companies; it is a misnomer and will lead to confusion. It amounts to misrepresentation when this type of insurance is not provided.
I suppose it is possible to have income life insurance which would mean that income was protected for life. But this is not what we normally consider life insurance to be. If this is the case, however, the present bill does not meet my requirements because the operation of a project of this kind is not explained.
I have read the legislation covering insurance
May 24, 1966

companies in both Britain and Canada. I would suggest that the particular piece of Canadian legislation which was introduced in 1956 and amended in following years does not contain sections which correct the situation we are likely to encounter in connection with the proposal before us. Unless particular provision is made in the bill before us, income insurance is not the type of insurance which this company will provide.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I have looked at the bill and I am aware of the fact that one clause indicates the type of insurance the company wishes to provide and it is not income insurance. To cover his life a person has life insurance and sickness insurance. Income is not one of the things which the company intends to insure. I may be alone in thinking that a company with the name "Income Life Insurance" provides coverage of income for life. I would think that the use of this name is just about as misrep-resentative as in the case of companies which have appeared before us and asked to use the name "royal life insurance company". In those cases they wished to use a name which we believe should not be used in that manner because it conveys a certain prerogative of royalty that the company does not have. We always have disallowed this type of misrepresentation and misuse. I think we have another instance here of the same thing.
This raises the matter of amendment and whether or not it would be the desire of the sponsor to suggest an amendment rather than have us suggest it at another stage of the bill. I think consideration should be given in committee to this matter. I really am not one of those who believe that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet. I think, after learning the language, we have decided that roses are roses, and that to call a rose a petunia is not to convey the same meaning, nor does it convey the same smell. For that reason I do not think putting the word "Income" in the name is legitimate. "Income" means a particular thing. In my opinion "income" is not the name of a company; income is not a proper noun in that sense. In the dictionary meaning I would think "income" would be something that you receive on a regular basis for a specific purpose. I realize there can be an argument to the effect that life insurance will provide an income to the dependants and beneficiaries under the policy, but I think it is impossible through life insurance to insure for income. I do not
Private Bills
think the sponsor or anyone else could place such a connotation on it.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, income insurance is a new field into which I know some companies have gone. I know that sickness and accident companies sometimes write in an income disability clause; I am aware of that. Term insurance sometimes contains a clause to provide a lifetime income if certain disabilities occur or if a certain circumstance arises. I am aware of the fact that some companies-and in this case there may be some justification for the name-will allow their employees to have the benefit of income life insurance which reallly means that if the company severs its connection with an employee whose services they have obtained with considerable difficulty, they will provide him with a lifetime income. This is provided in the event that the business fails or if for some reason the contract is discontinued. In this instance there is a provision for the individual.
I think the best example of income life insurance is the case of the gentleman who was known throughout the world of radio for saying the words "call for Phillip Morris". I understand that his voice when used for that particular program was covered by an insurance policy which provided him with a lifetime income no matter whether or not he ever worked for that company again or did any other type of work. For his lifetime that slogan and his voice saying "call for Phillip Morris" were insured. This was probably one of the first income for life policies written by an American or any other corporation.
I say it is a very interesting and highly specialized field. Frankly I do not think this company is going into that field. If it is not I would strongly suggest that the house should be prepared to accept an amendment at another stage which would remove the word "Income" from the title of this company. My suggestion would be that the name of the person who wants this company be substituted. The name would then be "Brunning Life Insurance Company of Canada." I presume this could be translated just about as simply as the proposed name; I presume there is no great problem in the change.
I should think that the sponsor of the bill in this place should be prepared to accept that type of amendment and I believe he should consult with his principals about doing so. I would suggest also that the house should give consideration to this point because it involves something which the house should

May 24. 1966
Private Bills
jealously guard, namely, the type of insurance which may be covered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I realize there has been some discussion in respect of this bill but there are some remarks I should like to make concerning it. As has been pointed out already, in some respects the bill before us is similar to its companion bill, No. S-12, which we still have to consider. There seem to be many points of similarity in these two bills. I notice that in both bills it is proposed that the capital stock of the company, $5 million, be divided into shares of $5 each and that the company in both bills is not to commence business until at least $1,736,800 of its capital stock has been subscribed. In this connection there is one interesting difference. In Bill S-ll it is suggested that before a general meeting for the election of directors can take place there must be $1,750 subscribed and fully paid, whereas in Bill S-12 the amount which has to be subscribed and fully paid before a general meeting for the election of directors can be held is $2,500. Just why Income Disability and Reinsurance Company of Canada has to have that much more money in the kitty before it can hold a directors' meeting I find puzzling in a minor way.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) raised some question about the proposed name of this company which is seeking incorporation through Bill S-ll. I agree with his sentiments so far as the use of the word "Income" is concerned. Immediately a question arises in my mind about this name and I think we should have some clarification as to whom the income is for. I am inclined to think it is probably income for directors and shareholders rather than primarily for customers of the company. These points should be given serious consideration.
There have been what I would describe as a rash of bills coming before us for the incorporation of insurance companies. The one now before us asks for a federal charter to change the governing legislation from the provincial to the federal level. One immediately wonders why this is necessary. The provisions of the British North America Act divide jurisdiction in this regard between the federal and provincial governments. As far as I am able to determine there is no direct

reference in section 91(2) as to jurisdiction in respect of the establishment of insurance companies.
I can only surmise that jurisdiction in respect of insurance companies is developed in the federal field under section 91(2) of the B.N.A. Act which provides authority for the regulation of trade and commerce. On the other hand, as we all know a great many companies have provincial charters. This may be the result of section 9203) which places property and civil rights within the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures.
As I understand it, this company could go to each provincial legislature to seek incorporation and authority to operate within the province. Because of that fact I wonder whether or not this bill is in fact an attempt to circumvent the will of the legislature of a province. I know of cases in British Columbia where groups have applied for incorporation but have been turned down. They have then turned to the federal authority for incorporation in order to circumvent that refusal. It appears that one of the issues we must consider in relation to this application is whether or not this is in effect an application to circumvent that part of the jurisdiction for the incorporation of companies which falls within the provincial field.
During discussions on previous occasions in respect of bills of this kind the question has arisen whether or not the time of parliament shoud be occupied in examining the applications of individual companies of this kind or whether or not it would be more appropriate to deal with them through some change in the existing legislation. As long as we have this responsibility it is one which we should accept seriously. We should not lightly agree to the passage of bills which seek to switch jurisdiction from provincial legislatures to the federal government without asking questions of this kind.
I note that the type of insurance coverage this company seeks to provide is not quite as extensive as that referred to in a previous bill, No. S-4. The type of insurance referred to in that bill ran all the way through the alphabet from A to Z. Apparently this company is a little more modest in asking to be allowed to provide coverage for types of insurance from A to C. There are many other matters which one could discuss in the consideration of this bill, but in view of the questions raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming regarding the name let me conclude by suggesting that this company might
May 24, 1966

well be named the "Tweedledum" insurance company and that the company proposed by Bill S-12 might well be named the "Tweed-ledee" insurance company.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should point out that if the hon. member for Hamilton West speaks now he will close the debate.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for bringing to my attention the error I made in reference to the manner of incorporation. This company was formerly incorporated under authority of letters patent from the province of Ontario. With regard to the questions raised about the name of the company, I am afraid I do not have time to answer them all. I suggest to hon. members that they allow this bill to be sent to the committee so that these questions can be answered properly.
As to the use of the word "Income" in the suggested name, I am sure hon. members will realize that it is difficult to obtain an acceptable name because of the number of applications being made to the authorities for the use of various names. I can assure the hon. member that this name must have met with the approval of the authorities before this bill was allowed to be placed before this house.


Michael Starr: It is seven o'clock.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the consent of this house to send Bill S-ll to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, at which time I would be prepared to answer all hon. members' questions and at which time the officials of the company will be in attendance to answer questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that this bill be given second reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson for the second reading of Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
Government Organization
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Shortly before six o'clock hon. members on both sides of this house made contributions on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River respecting the matter now before the house. I indicated to hon. members that I would study the arguments raised and that I proposed to read the arguments advanced by hon. members. These proceedings have not reached me in toto yet, and I seek the indulgence of hon. members to allow me sufficient time to consider all the arguments. A number of members have indicated that they wish to make contributions to this debate and I suggest they be allowed to do so now.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks in this debate on second reading of the government reorganization bill I have a sense of disappointment. I was one of those who, when the announcement was made in December last about the massive reorganization of government, had a wild surge of hope that at long last we would get at some of the difficulties that exist for any government trying to carry on the affairs of this country.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) today and must say again I am very sorry that each of these departments was not introduced with a separate resolution and a separate bill. We have clear-cut precedents for this approach. In 1953 Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent introduced the bill that set up the department called the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In his speech he outlined precisely, carefully and logically why the department included in its title "national resources".
Successive ministers were able to read that speech, read the bill setting up the department and know precisely where parliament had directed the attention of the minister as to the way in which he should proceed. This precedent was not followed in the bill now before us or in the Prime Minister's speech. The second precedent was more recent, occurring in 1959 when the Department of Forestry was set up. Once again we had the Prime Minister outlining the need for the legislation and one of his ministers took the bill through its various stages in the house. The Minister of Forestry, through that debate and particularly statements of the government of the day, had a clear-cut indication of
May 24, 1966

Government Organization what was expected from the Department of Forestry.
We now have six new departments before us, five introduced by way of resolution and one some place in limbo. We will have a chance to hear statements from the prospective ministers some time during the committee stage, but there will be no clear-cut statement in one place outlining the duties of these departments; there will be no debate in one place which will provide the new minister and his staff with readily accessible terms of reference for running the department. Therefore at the outset I would express disappointment that this traditional concept was not followed and that therefore we find ourselves in this doubtful situation.
The second reason for my being disappointed, and I might say alarmed, was the speech of the Prime Minister today. As I said, Mr. Speaker, some of us hoped when the announcement of the reorganization was made last December that we were going to see an end to the chaos and confusion that has characterized this government since 1963. We thought there would now be some hard thinking and direction which would enable ministers to make coherent plans of action in order to get at the problems that face this country today, which have been with us for many years and will probably be with us for many years to come.
We expected from our government at least some form of co-ordinated attack on these problems and this, I am afraid to say, is not the case when one considers the Prime Minister's speech. He dealt primarily with two sets of departments, those dealing with justice and the split-up of the Department of Justice into three component parts, and then with Indian affairs and northern development and its responsibilities as opposed to the delineation of responsibilities of energy, mines and resources. Then the Prime Minister mentioned that under the Privy Council we were to have the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) speak for Treasury Board and answer general questions concerning policy, if I understood his statement correctly.


Edgar John Benson: Under the Privy Council?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will repeat what I understood the Prime Minister to say, that matters relating to Treasury Board and general questions relating to the over-all conduct of government would be answered in the house by the Minister of National Revenue, and I

assumed that general matters affecting the government would be those which come under the direction of the Privy Council. At the end of the Prime Minister's speech I asked who was going to speak for the secretariat of the Privy Council dealing with scientific matters. On May 5 in this house I asked the same sort of question of another member of the government. I pointed out to him that the history of science over the last 20 years in Canada affected several departments of government and that naturally the reporting of these matters to the house fell within the responsibility of the Privy Council because several departments were concerned. I pointed out that Prime Ministers were so busy that they did not have time to give the push to the scientific work of all these departments, and consequently it suffered.
As a matter of fact, under the National Research Council Act the council takes its direction from a committee of cabinet which refers items to it for action and decision. If the committee of cabinet does not meet for seven years, as was the case once in the last 20 years, you can see that the National Research Council has to carry out its work without the direction of the committee of cabinet. Then a new government comes in, gets all excited and intends to deal with this question of science and a new impetus is given to this subject. Then when the routine starts, because there is no one at whom the finger of the house can be pointed, the matter drifts off into apathy once again. The Prime Minister's answer today indicated that he would still be charged with reporting to the house on scientific matters, which means a continuation of the situation which has existed in regard to science for the last 20 years. We have been unable to get leadership and direction in this regard.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I was not only disappointed at the way the Prime Minister handled this matter on second reading, but I was frightened because it means that the confusion and chaos of the last three years will not be ended. There is still no leadership; there is still no way of co-ordinating not only the question of the scientific council, and Treasury Board, which matter is now being looked after by the Minister of National Revenue, but there are important matters concerning consumers all across Canada. Members of all parties in the house have expressed concern in this regard. No one can be held responsible in this house, so there is
May 24, 1966

no co-ordination and no direction. I think the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) dealt with this matter earlier in the debate.
It is not just a matter of opposition from the Conservative party. It is the fact that many of us who have sat on the treasury benches, and probably will again, wonder whether any progress is possible unless the key question is met in trying to give some chain of communication down through the departments, and back through the departments to this house. This chain is not strong in one place, and that is the Privy Council. Too many things are gathered in the Privy Council under the theory that everything depends on the Prime Minister, who reports to the house and accepts questions in the house. But because he is a busy man, no one asks the questions and as a result these things suffer. There is no clear-cut channel of communication with regard to science. On May 5 the Minister of Industry said the Privy Council would be appointing a minister to report for science, and it would not necessarily be the Prime Minister. We heard nothing of that today, so you can understand why those of us who have been interested in trying to streamline the operations of government as outlined in this reorganization, say improvement is needed. In our opinion it is a mere shuffling of assorted Grits into assorted portfolios. It looks as though the government simply made up these portfolios in order to find places for people.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Now for the next question. In my remarks at the resolution stage, I pointed out I thought there would be some improvement if groups of ministers could be collected around clear headings. Those dealing with human resources do have occasion to meet often to try to resolve things which are facing their departments. Those dealing with material resources should have an opportunity to meet also. I listed three or four headings around which groups of ministers could be collected, and there should be a place in the Privy Council to bring together these three or four groups of ministers who would be working toward co-ordinated approaches of policy and action. This is the sort of thing we wanted to hear during the discussion of the principle of this bill at second reading stage, but we heard nothing about it.
A classic example of the confusion and chaos which is going to result was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he dealt with the department of Indian affairs
Government Organization and northern development. He defined the boundaries between that department and the so-called new department of energy, mines and resources. The Prime Minister made it clear that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is now to be relegated to a person who is only an acting provisional provincial minister. In the Prime Minister's words, all his duties are in trust for the future provinces. He is therefore relegated from a position of federal minister to one who temporarily carries out the duties of the provincial minister until the northern provinces of the future have assumed responsibility.
When you look at his junior position, and then go on to the next step, which is related to the handling of the division of powers related to the continental shelf, you see how confused the minds of those who drafted this legislation must have been. I cannot quote the Prime Minister's words directly, but I think I can accurately paraphrase them. As I understood him this afternoon he said the continental shelf would be divided roughly north and south on the basis that the minister of Indian affairs and northern development would have responsibility for that part of the continental shelf which was north of a southern boundary formed by the southern boundary of Southampton island and Baffin island. The minister of energy, mines and resources, would have responsibility south of that line. He got mixed up in the phrases, wet lands and dry lands.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is this: One of the most vital issues before this federal state is the question of the continental shelf. First of all, I question the knowledge of the ministers on the treasury benches as to the meaning of the continental shelf. I do not believe there is a single minister in the government who could stand up in this house and define the continental shelf, or this type of statement would not have been put in the Prime Minister's hands today. Normally the continental shelf is a part of the federal responsibility. If anyone looks at the boundary act of Manitoba, the boundary act of Ontario, the boundary act of Quebec, one finds there is no question about who owns the lands underneath Hudson bay, James bay and Hudson strait. It is written in the statute, and even an elementary school child could understand it.
This matter has been put before the courts, and they have been asked to make a decision. When you put a matter before the courts, one assumes that there is one side contending for
May 24. 1966


of us who visualize the maintenance of our national sovereignty, not only from the crushing cultural pressure from the south but from the encroaching financial hold on our resources, energy and secondary industries. I do not believe in acting by negative restrictions. I believe in doing things ourselves, in a system of positive expansionism to match this giant to the south step by step, and then get ahead because we have the resources to do it. One of the keys to give the country bargaining power and to protect the provinces from the encroachment of the United States, since they have no power to deal with the United States, to give us strength and unity when people want to take our resources, energy and minerals in a package deal, would be a strong federal minister. What do we get from the minister? We get a speech about the future of the French-English relationship.
Those things are important, Mr. Speaker. However, I hate to see somebody up on the roof spouting about the relationship of the man and wife in the house below when all the time the furniture is being moved out. It is time the people of Canada, French, English, Dutch, German or any other racial origin, realized that we have all the bargaining power on our side. The high cards are ours. We should use the possibilities that lie in the federal power to give leadership to the provinces to make them realize that, alone, they are like a ship without a rudder, but together they are powerful.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
This is why I express my deep concern. The continental shelf is the key to the struggle over the encroaching powers of the provinces upon the federal government, and we have had no indications from the minister that he will be defending the position of the federal government against larcenous hands which reach out to take what belongs to all people of Canada, not just to the people of a single province. This position must be made known.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, the continental shelf north of Hudson bay will come under the jurisdiction of one minister, and that part of it south of that line in Hudson bay will come under the jurisdiction of another minister. In this regard we know where the new minister of northern development stands, because he has stated his position. However, when we look at the islands of the Nas-tapoka, or the Belcher islands, or Akimiski island, and we realize what these boys are playing with, then this is a very serious
May 24, 1966

matter for the future generations of this country.
I say that the minister in charge of the continental shelf who will deal with the Russians, or the British, or the Japanese, or the Americans, or the French in France -because this is what his responsibilities will entail-must be a federal minister, not a junior minister in charge of one of the regions in the Northwest Territories. The continental shelf is not three miles off our coast, or six miles, or 60 miles, or is not 300 feet or 600 feet deep. The continental shelf goes half way across the Atlantic, half way across the Arctic and half way across the Pacific.
The land underneath those three oceans belongs to the countries which front those oceans. Therefore Canada has potential resources in a great part of the world lying at the bottom of the sea which are just as valuable as any on dry land. That has been agreed upon, through action taken by the government of which I was a member, by the unanimous decision of 105 nations meeting at Geneva in 1958. Those of us who fought for so long as a government to get recognition of claims upon these resources at the bottom of the sea now see the possiblity of them being frittered away, with one minister looking after those resources above a line which has been drawn, those below that line being subjected to another type of policy.
I want to know from the minister who has charge of the area south of Southampton and Baffin islands how tough he is going to be with Premier Roblin of Manitoba, the premier of Ontario and the premier of Quebec. These men will naturally fight for their provinces to acquire everything they want from the federal government; I suppose they would be kicked out of office if they did not do so. But the minister in charge of this land on behalf of the federal government must fight for all people in Canada. The Hudson bay property belongs as much to the people of Newfoundland as to the people of Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario. That is one of the issues I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker. I see an abdication of federal leadership.
I should like to conclude by referring to a matter to which I will have to return on committee stage. In the old act which set up the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the prime minister of the day, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, in introducing the bill to the house, used the expression that apparently we have been administering the north with a complete absence of minds. He

Government Organization outlined an act which would not only bring the north under the direct public responsibility of one minister, but went on to emphasize that this new minister was to be not only in charge of the north but was going to be in charge of the national resources of Canada. Then he deliberately explained why he chose the expression "national resources" instead of "natural resources". To him natural resources meant only the trees, the energy, the minerals, the natural things. He said that to him Canada was composed of people, human resources, and that he wanted some minister in his government-quoting, in effect, the terms of the act-who would be responsible for formulating plans in co-operation with other governments, other dapartments, private and public agencies, not only for the development and maximum use of our natural resources but also our human resources.
Where has this fundamental and primary purpose of the old resources department gone, Mr. Speaker? Which one of these departments is in charge of it now? It has been said that it was not necessary to bring in a resolution in respect to the department of forestry and development because no money was involved. Here we have taken one of the best means for initiative and leadership by the federal government and thrown it up into the air, having it disappear into the upper atmosphere. Where it has gone no one knows. The power to plan on the part of the federal government for the best use of our natural resources and human resources is now dispersed, and no one knows where it has gone.
I agree with what many people have written, that this is the day of a weak federal government and ten strong provincial governments. Perhaps with a minister of a new provincial government in the north there will be 11 strong provincial governments, all of which are overwhelming this federal government. Therefore I think it behooves us in all parties to remember that our basic job when we come to Ottawa is not to speak for our parishes, our municipalities, or even on occasion for our provinces. Our fundamental job here is to speak for all the people of Canada.
I believe the people of Canada are being sold down the river. Not deliberately; I could not accuse anyone of doing that bad a thing. But I fear that all this confusion and chaos of the last three years has become a way of life with this government. People rush in with ideas which look good, and the government announce them. But no one thinks them through. If someone had really thought
May 24, 1966

Government Organization through that resolution, Mr. Speaker, there would have been six departments included therein. Somobody boobed, and tremendous efforts have been made to explain away that boob.
With regard to-the continental shelf, can you expect a minister who really only has provincial status in the federal government to deal with Russia on such a matter? We must have a strong minister who believes in a strong federal government. We must have a minister who believes in protecting the rights of the provinces within their own jurisdictions. Yet we have not seen any sign in this struggle between these two ministers, one federal and the other provincial, that the strong minister is being put into the federal portfolio; he found himself slid into a provincial status, and I am a little worried about this.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Many people in Canada believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is either the Liberal party or the Conservative party which is the governing party of this country. Many people in the United States believe that it is the Democrats or the Republicans which lays down the legislative basis for the government of that great republic. I think many people feel the same sort of way in France and in the United Kingdom with regard to their political parties. These four great powers of the North Atlantic must all be realizing that really the bid issue in this type of democracy, with governments so involved in the business of running the country, is just how much say the elected representatives do have. We must wonder, in this move toward having the experienced expert running the show, whether there is still not a place for the reasonable common sense of the layman who is elected to parliament. Surely when he becomes parliamentary secretary to a minister or a minister, there must be some little segment of power that he could exert.
After reading what has been happening here this last little while, I realize that we have not won the battle on behalf of the elected representatives, in this particular bill.
In the last speech he made in Canada, I think to the senior civil servants of Ottawa, Viscount Amery pleaded with the senior civil servants to leave some small segment of power to the elected representatives. He said he had carried out five portfolios in the Sir Winston Churchill administration in the United Kingdom. The same thing was happening over there, he said. Civil servants

were so able, so sincere and so likable that it was difficult for a minister to go his own way. He said, "I ask that you senior civil servants give your poor minister some head, so that he can use his ordinary common sense".
In this legislation, I think, very few ministers will have the chance of using their common sense. What we are faced with here, I think, is a shuffling of portfolios to meet the needs of personnel available. We have no genuine reorganization, because there is no clearcut philosophy or principle of action apparent in the Prime Minister's statement on this bill.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, looking over Bill C-178, I note that it concerns the organization of the government. That is the avowed purpose. But there is surely an implied or a secondary purpose which should be to insure a greater efficiency of government.
I believe this to be a step in the right direction. After listening to what was said this afternoon, I should not agree with all the criticism uttered. I wonder if some of the criticism was in order. Some ministers were personally taken to account. The question is simply whether the principle of reform is valid. It is good. It is not bad.
I believe that public opinion, parliament and some ministers of experience would have expected a basic, more drastic and revolutionary reform. That was expected by public opinion. It should be remembered that for some months, for some years now, Canadians on the whole have had a strange opinion of parliament and of government. I would not want to discredit parliament, nor cast the blame on Liberals or Conservatives, or on anyone else. Let us say that is the situation.
Canadians tell themselves:	The Ottawa
government is a heavy, cumbersome machine to operate; it is not very efficient, there is a lot of red tape. Sometimes, people are harsher and comments are more unfavourable.
In order to restore the prestige of the government, it would have been imperative to take the opportunity to carry out a basic, fundamental reform. Something drastic. As for efficiency, a study should have been made on the operation of large companies with thousands of employees and a budget as large as the Canadian budget, where responsibilities are delegated.
I would like to express, very briefly, my own idea as a newcomer, and that of the
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
Canadians with whom I had the opportunity to discuss the reorganization of the government, to keep pace with the needs of the atomic age in which we live in 1966. First and foremost, means shoud have been provided to relieve the Prime Minister. Regardless of his party, his health or his talents, it is impossible for any prime minister to cope with his task.
A trained personnel should then have been provided to relieve him of some responsibilities, to give him time to think, observe, meet people, get to know better the senior officials of the government and consult experts. Provision should have been taken to relieve him from attending all the sittings of the House of Commons, as it is done in other countries. This becomes a tedious task for a prime minister and takes up valuable time which he could devote to the general administration of the country.
The suggestion made by some members of the house concerning the creation of senior and junior ministers, should have been carried out at least in part. I do not maintain that my formula is perfect; I submit it merely as a suggestion. It is a perfectible formula. For the sake of discussion, I will explain it as briefly as possible.
There should be, standing by the Prime Minister, a group of senior ministers, let us say five, six or seven of them-it matters little how many-but senior ministers with perhaps more experience than the others, one of whom, at least, would be Acting Prime Minister on a permanent basis. The Prime Minister would then be replaced not only when he is away for a week or two on a trip by a minister who may not have the required experience to do so. There could then be a permanent, a statutory Acting Prime Minister, and the four or five other ministers could in turn fill this position.
These senior ministers would become so to speak, the board of directors of the government which, naturally, the twenty or so other ministers would join. They would plan the over-all policy in various fields. But these five or more senior ministers would constitute the board of directors, they would meet regularly with the Prime Minister and share his responsibilities.
Each of them could supervise and direct four or five different departments, or even six for that matter, which could be grouped, taking into account the similarity of responsibilities in each department. This would be
DEBATES	5465
Government Organization easy enough to determine, Mr. Speaker. Let us say, for instance, one group of departments dealt specifically with economic matters, another with, let us say, matters of control and administration, others with legal affairs, others with protection and defence, others with matters that might be called external affairs questions.
Finally, all these ministers or departments could be gathered around five or six various themes, and a senior minister could be given the responsibility. That is to say that five or six junior ministers would be responsible to a senior minister. And all those senior ministers would, of course, see to it that the Prime Minister is freed from all these responsibilities.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, let us say the departments that have to do with the Canadian economy would be grouped. Under economy one would find the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Forestry, the Department of Industry, the Department of Manpower and the Department of Fisheries. All those departments seek to condition, to stimulate and to plan the economy of the country. Now, these departments are homogeneous. They have the same responsibilities.
It would be profitable if all these ministers met at a given time to deal more specifically with the economy of Canada. Then, there could be a senior minister in charge of this sector of the Canadian economy responsible to the Prime Minister and the Canadian people.
There could also be, let us say, legal affairs. Under this heading, might be grouped the Departments of Justice, the Registrar General, perhaps the Solicitor General and the Secretary of State. They might possibly be grouped around these things, even though sometimes common characteristics are not so close. As long as there is a similarity, they could perhaps be grouped. This distribution would not necessarily be followed, Mr. Speaker. It could be adjusted, but it is the principle which I wish to point out.
There could also be some matters concerning defence which would make up another group of departments. For example, National Defence, Defence Production, External Affairs which up to a point are related with matters of defence. It is at least a preventive defence in many cases; the Department of Veterans Affairs perhaps. And nobody would object if in those large departments, there were some associate ministers as at present.
May 24. 1966

Government Organization
Another groups of departments could deal with domestic issues, strictly administrative matters, let say, for example, the Post Office, National Health and Welfare, Transport, Labour and Public Works. Perhaps another special department could be added. The department of federal-provincial relations has been mentioned this afternoon. Those relations bring up urgent problems, problems that must be solved every day and it would be advisable to entrust those matters to a special department or minister.
You understand my point, namely that all those departments should be grouped according to homogeneity and entrusted to an assistant of the prime minister who could be called a senior minister.
This would enable the Prime Minister, and even each minister, to enjoy life like everyone else, to take a breather, to go to bed at night and, from time to time, to go and see their family on Saturday or Sunday. This would already be worthwhile. Otherwise, we will tire out our ministers too fast and it could be presumed that if they are allowed to lead a normal life, perhaps they will also have more time to reflect on general policies, on general planning within their department. Perhaps they will have more time to spend in their departments and meet their assistants, even those of the lower echelons, thus improving administration.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
The Prime Minister, the senior ministers and all the other ministers may then have more time to receive visitors. We are living in an era of democracy and, Mr. Chairman, I should like to illustrate this particular point.
During the weekend, an event to which I attach a special significance happened in my riding. A convention of the Knights of Columbus of the province of Quebec was held there. They invited the premier to meet them. It is obvious that the premier could not, in the present circumstances, comply with that request.
I understand that the premier delegated one of his ministers to meet them. It so happened that the minister in question was unable to attend the meeting. He expressed his regrets and the Knights of Columbus of the province of Quebec, an organization of prime importance which probably includes the elite from all parts of the province, were sent as a government representative a charming member of parliament who discharged his duty beautifully, lest not my

remarks seem to reflect on him. His performance was first rate, and I wish to congratulate him on his dignity and eloquence.
But the Knights of Columbus expected to meet a minister. Already disappointed at not having met the premier, they did not see any of his ministers either. They returned home feeling frustrated. They feel that, in a way, a minister belongs to them; not only do they enjoy meeting one, but it also gives them the opportunity of hearing him explain the government policies.
In the present situation, Mr. Speaker, it is known that ministers cannot always accept such invitations. They are overworked. I gave this example, Mr. Speaker-while realizing' you were about to call me to order-so as to prove my point. For greater efficiency in government, a framework should be devised to lighten the load on the Prime Minister. Assistants could be given to him to share his responsibilities. Each minister should also be freed to concentrate more fully on his own area.
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I read the results of the inquiry ordered by the government at one time into the reorganization of the government for greater efficiency. I was surprised that more insistence was not given to the reorganization of the cabinet.
I repeat what I said a moment ago: I believe that, in the present circumstances, public opinion is convinced that our system of government is obsolete and that we are still running the country according to methods used when people went about on foot, on horseback or in ox-carts, whereas nowadays travelling is by airplane at speeds over 1,000 miles per hour, and telegraph and all sorts of communications are available. Now, I claim that administration methods should be much faster than 100 years ago at the time of confederation or a few centuries ago when parliament as we know it was born in England.
It is absolutely necessary that such basic and fundamental reform, from the cabinet down through the whole administration, and the operations of parliament, be carried out drastically right now.
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, and that it may not have been sufficiently emphasized. Public opinion is disappointed that this reform in depth, this radical reform has not yet been carried out.
I believe this is urgent-and I make the recommendation to both parties, the party in
May 24. 1966

power and the official opposition party, because the prestige of parliament as a whole is at stake-for Canadians now have such a poor opinion of parliament that it is a reflection on the government.
Those who see the men responsible for government at work here know that this is undeserved, but it is probably the system which is wrong. Now, it is urgent to carry out reorganization in this direction from the psychological point of view, so that the prestige of parliament may be restored and so that public opinion may regain some esteem for its government.
By relieving the pressure on each of the men responsible, you will give them time to lead a normal life, to meet Canadians in all circumstances, to think and meditate a bit more and to consult people who are experts in their fields in order to establish a general planning of the whole administration of Canada, which they have difficulty in doing at this time, unless they work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with no holidays. As things now stand, they must necessarily expedite too many things, which is not a good thing.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have understood the spirit in which I make these remarks. My intention is not to blame anybody, but to point out to the house as a whole -besides I know that my colleagues have noticed it themselves-that is urgent for some kind of co-operation in a gesture of good will, and all members of the house could support the government, if it should decide, one of these days, to carry out this radical reform on the basis of business principles which must prevail in the year 1966 in which we live, and put aside for a while this sort of conservatism-not in the political sense of the word-which requires us to keep this old system, this old method and these old frameworks which came into existence elsewhere centuries ago and which save for a few months, were put into practice here a century ago.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: had intended to direct my attention during this debate to the department of manpower but something has happened which has caused me to change the tenor of my remarks. The idea of a department of manpower makes sense to me. The idea that you have within the same department the administration of all which is concerned with
Government Organization recruitment of manpower outside the country, as well as those who are concerned with technical and vocational assistance which has to do with manpower within Canada, and with meeting the manpower demands of the country, also makes sense to me. I had intended to suggest that a system of education should be established within the department of manpower. However, as a result of a newspaper report of Saturday, May 21, I find I have to change my approach. This afternoon in the house some members asked some questions of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) as to whether an office of education had been formed within her department. This article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday written by Joan Cohen I should like to quote in order to make more clearly my point. This article has not appeared in other newspapers and I am sure many members of this house are not aware of this latest development, if the article is correct. It states:
Without fanfare, the federal government has located a home for education within its administration.
Gearing itself for sharp escalations in its support of post-secondary education, it has acted on a central recommendation of the universities-spon-sored Bladen Commission on Financing Higher Education and charged the secretary of state with responsibility for co-ordinating its spending programs.
It is now looking for a person who, as adviser to State Undersecretary G.G.E. Steele, can tenderly take the reins in a variety of tasks ranging from policy formulation to program administration.
So far, the government has taken only interim action on this massive assistance program called for by the Bladen report, and its temporizing formula for boosting aid has had its critics.
A clearer picture of where the governments are headed should emerge in Victoria next month when a federal-provincial conference gets down to hard-nosed discussion of the commission's findings, such as the estimated doubling-to $1,314,000,000 annually-of university costs by the start of the 1970s.
Mr. Steele, in an interview this week, was clearly sensitive about the entrance of the word "education" into a department of the federal government. Until now, university grant programs have been administered on a part-time basis by officers in the finance department.
"At the federal level of government, this move will cause regular co-ordinated discussions to take place, as well as close liaison with people in provincial jurisdictions."
He stressed that responsibility for federal programs will remain in the hands of the authorities now administering them.
The planning will bring in the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Canada Council. It will involve the manpower programs and administrators in the department of health and welfare of the $500,000,000 health resources fund.
5468	COMMONS
Government Organization
It will enable the government to do its planning in the round-so facilities and people will be available when programs requiring them are launched.
It will be concerned with the whole field of postsecondary training, including the emerging community colleges, the technological colleges.
Mr. Steele indicated there will be a place for bold, if careful, initiatives in dealing with the provinces.
"The problems facing all levels of government are so enormous that they can only be solved by working things out on a national basis and by providing opportunities on a national scale."
Mr. Steele acknowledges that education was assigned to the department as a deliberate decision to round out the functions of the ministry, which is shaping up as the department of cultural affairs. Other recently-established planning bodies, the science secretariat and the poverty-planning secretariat, have been set up within the prime minister's office.
But, the undersecretary urges, don't call it the department of education and cultural affairs. Call it social affairs or better, interior affairs.
The administrator now being sought-with a salary of up to $20,000-should be, Mr, Steele said, "someone who knows the problems of education in Canada, somebody with a sensitivity for federal-provincial relations, and who can organize research," quite possibly a university administrator.
This is quite a large order if they want such a person.
"I hope this position will attract a lot of attention."
I am quite sure it will.
In the new planning section now are two fulltime workers, Jean-Marc Hamel, a member of the department previously, and Christopher Gill, formerly on the staff of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the sponsor of the Bladen report.
The department has been heavily involved in an advisory capacity in planning for the June conference. Mr. Steele says he has no soundings yet on the provinces' preparations, but he hopes they will attend in a mood to deal imaginatively with the job at hand.
"We recognize that there is no area more regarded as a provincial prerogative. We'll keep that before us-while making very sure that in doing so we don't fall behind as a nation."


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: One of the best
speeches made today.


Robert William Prittie: As I said earlier there were some questions asked this afternoon of the Secretary of State on this subject. The questions were all ruled out of order by the chair. I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) whether it was a fact that the subject of university grants had been transferred from his department to the Secretary of State and, after some consultation with the Secretary of State, he replied in the affirmative. I take it from that that the article substantially is

DEBATES	May 24, 1966
correct. I agree with the idea, but in my view it might have been better had such an office been established within the department of manpower. At the present time this is the department which is spending the greatest amount of money on education. In the estimates for 1966-67 there is an amount of $186 million under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. It seemed to me that this would be the logical place for it. However, I am pleased there has been a recognition by the federal government of the need to establish such an office and that they have taken the first step.
In the re-organization bill which the government has presented to us I had hoped they would have established an office to administer all its activities in the field of education. Instead of that, according to the article in the Citizen, the new office will be only a coordinating one. The various departments which now are involved in education will continue to operate entirely on their own. Just to what extent is the federal government involved in education? I should like to give you a brief review of the present involvement; it really is quite considerable. The provision of schools for Indian and Eskimo children amounts to about $38 million. In the next fiscal year the Department of National Defence is spending for service colleges about $7,800,000, and for the operation of elementary and secondary schools for children of members of the armed forces there is a budget item of about $9,900,000. As I mentioned earlier, under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act $186 million has been budgeted. In the next year the grants to universities will amount to about $100 million. In addition to that I note in the estimates an amount of $9 million for the Canadian student loan fund. A running total of these figures comes to about $351 million.
In addition to that there are other functions of the federal government in the field of education which I have not mentioned and for which I cannot give figures. There is the external aid office of the Department of External Affairs which is involved in recruiting student teachers to send to underdeveloped countries; there are the various grants from the Department of National Health and Welfare to research organizations, and there are a great many grants from the Department of Agriculture, not to mention the work of the National Research Council and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The latter, by the way, it seems to me does most
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
of the statistical work in respect of education in Canada at the present time. However, the more or less direct spending of the federal government amounts to better than $350 million.
It is only an academic question whether the federal government should be involved in education. When you are spending $350 million you are involved. As I said earlier, it would have seemed more sensible to me to bring these functions together under one office, but they have chosen not to do that.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
At this point I want to mention briefly the constitutional question of federal involvement in the field of education, and that involvement is in fact taking place and is an aspect of this constitutional question. We are often reminded that section 93 of the B.N.A. Act gives the provinces exclusive control over education. Everybody else in the country has had a turn at interpreting the act and what the Fathers of Confederation probably meant when they drafted it. I should like to take my turn in doing so now.
It seems to me that the fathers of confederation when they referred to education were speaking of childhood education of the kind that existed in 1864 and 1865 which was provided by the village elementary school, and there were not too many of them at that time. I see no reference at all that would make me think they were thinking of universities and other forms of advanced education.
The word "exclusive" does not mean very much because the federal government does quite properly have educational functions. Under the constitution it was given responsibility for Indians and Eskimos, and it operates schools at the present time for Indian and Eskimo children. I have mentioned the Department of National Defence and its educational function.
Technical and vocational assistance which is now taking place is a form of assistance to schools which operate under provincial jurisdiction, admittedly, but this is taking place with the approval of the provinces. If they did not approve I am sure the federal government would withdraw; but there is no great resistance to this assistance which they are receiving.
The question regarding universities is not at all clear, but if you accept my interpretation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please, I regret to interrupt the hon. member, 23033-3461
DEBATES	5469
Government Organization but I should like to ask him whether his remarks can be related to the bill now before us, which in turn relates to the responsibilities of four new ministries.


Robert William Prittie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with a re-organization bill and it is our duty in the opposition to praise or criticize government action. If we criticize we should advocate alternative policies. It is quite in order to suggest what we think should have been included in the bill. Originally I suggested that an office of education should have been provided for under the department of manpower. Apparently one is to be established under the offices of the Secretary of State. I am merely pointing out that I think the government should have gone further in its re-organization of some of the duties which should have been allocated to such an office. Therefore my remarks do relate to government re-organization and the manner in which I think it should take place.
As I was saying, if you accept my interpretation of the definition of education which the Fathers of Confederation had in mind, then you will come to the conclusion that university education is not exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. In any case, with the apparent approval of the provinces the federal government is involved in this field as well. The federal government does carry on various functions in the field of education at the present time. I think an office of education should co-ordinate and plan the present involvement of the federal government, and that it should go one step further. At the present time in Canada there is a great lack of research in the field of education, although some is carried out in universities. Some provinces have separate research organizations and there is in existence the Canadian Council for Research Education, but most of our ideas in this field come from the United States. We are not doing our share, and I believe the office which is being established should give its attention to this particular field. Unless we have an office with the prestige and the funds which only the federal government can give, we are going to lag very far behind the United States and other countries. I should like to mention briefly that in the United States they have such an office of education.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member again, but I really believe he is going beyond the terms of this bill and that he is applying
May 24, 1966

Government Organization the principle of education and the federal government's responsibility in the field of education in a way that is not relevant. I suggest that he confine his remarks to the re-organization of the four new federal ministries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order may I draw attention to a clause of the bill which is so wide that the remarks of my colleague fall squarely within its four corners. I refer to clause 34 which begins on page 11 of the bill and which proposes amendments to the functions of the Department of the Secretary of State. In other words, my hon. friend is perfectly within the terms of the bill in talking about the Department of the Secretary of State. I should like to go further and draw your attention to one of the functions of the Department of the Secretary of State as contained in clause 34(4) (l)(d) at the bottom of page 11, which reads as follows:
(d) the encouragement of the literary, visual and performing arts, learning and culutral activities; and-
Surely if this bill is ascribing to the Department of the Secretary of State responsibilities in the field of learning, my hon. friend is a lot more in order than some other hon. members who have spoken today. I believe Your Honour should take note of that part of the bill before you rule out of order this discussion on learning, which I suggest is synonymous with education.


Robert William Prittie: In any case, Mr. Speaker, I will not take up very much more time as I wish to attend a meeting of the broadcasting committee tonight, which is another form of education in which we are involved at the present time.
The point I was trying to make here is that this office, which is apparently being established within the Department of the Secretary of State to deal with education, should administer the present federal responsibilities in this field and take the initiative in encouraging educational research in Canada.
I do not look upon such action as a threat to provincial autonomy. A great deal of research needs to be done and I envisage such an office as a centre where the results of education research in Canada could be gathered and distributed to provinces. Much can be learned about the technology of learning, teaching methods and many other things which would be useful to the provinces. I suggest this will not be learned in Canada unless a federal agency, which will have
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]

prestige and funds, is given stimulation to do this type of research. This could be of great assistance to the provinces. I see no interference at all on the part of a federal office of education in the operation of elementary and secondary schools. The province of Quebec is not the only province which would object to such interference. I believe the federal government will have quite enough to do in giving aid to universities and technical and vocational schools without getting into other fields of education.
Finally I want to say something about the United States. In that country they have a U.S. office of education which operates as a federal agency. I believe the constitutional position in respect of education in the United States is the same as in Canada, education being a matter under state jurisdiction. However as long ago as 100 years, in 1867 to be exact, this office of education was formed. It runs schools, such as Indian schools, for the federal government. It is a centre for research and for stimulating educational research. It also carries out the international functions of education for the federal government, the sort of thing that the external aid office of this country does.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I am very pleased that this first step has been taken. I regret only that while this re-organization was taking place the government did not go further and give this office more functions. Earlier the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) mentioned the fact that ministers of the government did not have very much responsibility because the civil servants were not allowing them to do very much. I would think that in the field in which I have been speaking the reluctance is on the part of the politicians and not the civil servants. I realize that in Canada this question of federal involvement in education has been a touchy, political one. Nevertheless we are involved at least to the extent of $350 million, and we will be involved more in the future. Therefore we should make more successful arrangements to carry out that involvement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, we have heard some pretty able speeches tonight. I was quite impressed with the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton).


An hon. Member:: We hope there is a good one coming up.
May 24, 1966


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone said, "We hope there is a good one coming up." I will try not to disappoint my colleague. We have heard some excellent speeches in this debate. I suppose that on second reading we should be debating the spirit of the bill and I will try to stay within the terms of reference in that regard. I think that in a general way any Prime Minister of this country has great difficulty in forming a cabinet, for two reasons. One is our parliamentary system and the other is that we have always adhered to- or appear to have done, although no one wants to admit it-the three R's. One of these is to choose the right man-that is not always the greatest concern-the man from the right region, and often there is the question of religion. This practice has sort of shaped and framed many of the cabinets of this nation. You have only to read some of our history as outlined by Dawson in his "Government of Canada" to find this to be correct.
If we have a prime minister from one section of the country, we will probably have a minister of justice from another section. So what the Prime Minister and this government have tried to do-I do not say this in a critical way, but more in a philosophical way-is fit the job to the men available. That is what the Prime Minister has done. This bill was introduced as a reorganization measure. This sounds very good and I am sure the people who will read about it in the press will think, "Now they are reorganizing government and this really means reorganization of parliament". But that may be very far from the truth.
First of all I want to deal with the Department of Justice. However, before dealing with one particular item let us consider what the bill is really about. The Department of Justice is now being divided into three departments. It will be carved up something like the Christmas turkey; we will have the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and the registrar general of Canada. This is the first department to be reorganized. Then you have the department of manpower, which as I see it will take over immigration and combine labour with it. There is some merit in this. Then you have the department of Indian affairs and northern development. This department is being shaped from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am somewhat sceptical about this change and will have something to say about it in a few minutes. Then we find that the Minister of Public Works has been given
Government Organization control of and jurisdiction over crown lands. Anyone who has made any study of the Glassco report hopes that if the Minister of Public Works is to have jurisdiction over crown lands he will accept the recommendation of the Glassco report and unload a lot of that land which is not really used by the crown, but has been held at the crown's expense. You will find this in the Glassco report.
Added to the Department of Forestry we have the rural redevelopment program started by a Conservative government. I refer to ARDA. Then last but not least you have the department of energy, mines and resources. I think having a department of energy, mines and resources is probably an excellent idea because resources, when harnessed, are energy for our nation. There may be some merit in this regard. The Prime Minister said these changes are necessary to assist the executive in getting on with the job. If this is true, I am sure that members in every part of the house welcome the changes, because every member of parliament when he has gone back to his riding or has made a speech in somebody else's riding must have learned that the people of Canada think, rightly or wrongly, that nothing has been done by parliament.
Speaking as a member on this side of the house, I think the first thing we should make clear to the people is that it is the government's job to get things done in parliament, and if nothing is being done it is because of the failure of the government to provide leadership. This is a government reorganization bill. This government is selling reorganization to the nation and saying, "When we get these things reorganized, we will get on with the job." If this government had produced certain kinds of legislation, had put them on the order paper and they had remained on the order paper for a considerable length of time, and the reason the legislation was not passed was that the opposition were obstructing it, the opposition would have had to take a good look at itself and find out whether they were actually obstructing the government's program. But the facts are-you can dish it up as you like-that the reorganization under this bill will do nothing in particular to improve this parliament.
This is because we have had no leadership whatsoever; because we have had no legislation of any importance before parliament. Let me hit the nail on the head now. There has been no obstruction by the opposition. This
May 24, 1966

Government Organization government cannot lay the charge of obstructing against us. This is an old, worn-out piece of salesmanship on the part of this government, because there has not been any legislation placed on the order paper except the controversial matter of the abolition of capital punishment. I am thinking of matters such as amendments to the Bank Act. In reference to the question of reorganization and getting on with the job of government in parliament, today I asked when the new Bank Act would be introduced. What was the answer? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said, "I answered that question last week." I was away from the house last week and I make no apologies for my sin. However, I thought perhaps I had missed the answer and so I went to my office and looked up the minister's answer. His answer was very intellectual; he said, "We will bring it in soon."
This government knows the reason we are not getting on with the business and important matters such as the Bank Act. It is because they are so super-sensitive about the political trend in this country that they are frightened to bring in important legislation. Therefore they charge the opposition with obstruction. This government is not getting on with the job. I congratulate them on many phases of this reorganization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate the response from the other side of the house in this regard, and I appreciate their agreeing with me. They are reorganizing the departments, but unless the government shows leadership they can reorganize the departments to death and will still not do anything. You have to get the legislation on the order paper whether it is embarrassing to you or not. You went out and electioneered on these issues. I congratulate you tonight. You are the government. We wanted to be the government. The Canadian people said, "We are not accepting your platform, particularly at this time." Therefore you are the government and it is your responsibility. You have failed in that responsibility.
If parliament is not getting on with the job, the responsibility is on the shoulders of this government. This is the very reason why in my opinion we now have this bill dealing with reorganization; it is to bluff the public in some regard. There are some changes in it that are good. Wherever you go in this nation you hear from the people that the only thing
[Mr. Woolliams.}
we are discussing in parliament is a commission for this or that matter-the Munsinger case, for example. I come to grips with the subject immediately; this inquiry is being held in another area and the only thing I know about it is what I read in the newspapers and I am not very interested. But the fact is that parliament has not done very much. The fact is that we have had the Speech from the Throne and have dealt with the question of the abolition of capital punishment. Then we had the Budget. But the main things the Liberal party promised to do, and the things waiting to be done, have been neglected and they are trying to hide under the cloak of that old propaganda of the opposition being obstructionists.
Let me say at once that we have not been obstructing in this parliament. I am not speaking about other parliaments or 1963, when the then opposition obstructed us to death. Neither am I speaking about the first Liberal government, when there may have been some obstruction on our part. But the fact is that we are talking about this parliament in 1966, and the onus is on the government to get down to the job and do the business. If the people of this country are fed up in this regard, they are fed up immediately after the election because the government has not done its job. That is the first point I want to make about reorganization.


Mr. Choquelte:: Perhaps you will be the leader of your party next week.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to hear that interjection, Mr. Speaker. Certainly if I was, or became leader, I would endeavour to assume the responsibilities of leadership, which the hon. member's party and his leader have failed to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They are in agreement over there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, they are getting ready for their caucus on Wednesday. The reorganization of departments as suggested in this bill will not make for efficient government until leadership is given. This government lacks leadership and has lacked leadership for a long time.
There are some changes which would be welcome, and I have welcomed them, such as the placement of energy and mines under the same roof. However, when you analyse the bill carefully, you find it really has no value.
May 24, 1966

There are two reasons tor this, and the first one I have covered. I have referred to the lack of leadership. This government has introduced a controversial issue when they could have been legislating and developing sound economic policies. For example I have given one illustration when I referred to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).
As I said at the beginning, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has been fitting the job to the man. He studied the three R's very carefully when he did not get the right men for the jobs. We are talking about reorganization, for example; but never in the history of this parliament has the Wheat Board been under the Minister of Finance. I am not taking anything from the minister's intellectual capacity or his intelligence or knowledge so far as the Wheat Board is concerned. After Harry Hays was defeated in Calgary, or perhaps even before he was defeated, since the Wheat Board was not under him, the Prime Minister realized he had to take an eastern Minister of Agriculture, a lawyer, who might not understand anything about the western farm economy. He therefore took a man who had been deputy minister of trade and commerce, a man who knew about the Wheat Board, and said: I will move that job over to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are agreeing with me again; it is wonderful to have the Grits in agreement. It is a great feeling, but I will come to the point. The Wheat Board was placed under the Minister of Finance. In other words, the government has said they are going to reorganize the executive, but all they have really done has been to fit the job to the man.
Now, let us come to the question of the Department of Justice itself. We now have the Department of Justice divided into three. I gather that the Department of Justice is being carved up like a Christmas turkey, but the minister is not here. You have to analyse this situation carefully. The Prime Minister turned to the Solicitor General because, not only was he a very popular lawyer in his community and a likeable member of parliament, but he was good at public relations. The Prime Minister realized he had had nothing but trouble with his ministers of justice. He had to fire one when he did not really want to fire him. Then he got another man who gave him further trouble. It was decided to carve up this department and give
Government Organization the greater part of it to the Solicitor General, a man who was good at public relations, and in this way try to get out of the mess.
Let us not disguise the true merit of this bill. It is not as great as it looks. You are not really reorganizing the executive; but if I may digress for a few moments, there is something else with which you are dealing. I have talked about the three R's. In addition to that, whenever a senator has been brought into the cabinet, there has generally been no more than one. When a prime minister chooses his cabinet, he has to choose from amongst the elected members of his party. The situation in the United States is different. I am glad to see one member here who is always advocating a republic, and I hope he will listen to this. In the United States the President is elected, but he chooses his cabinet from the various walks of life. He can go outside of Congress to choose men of experience in the various fields. He does not seem to be so concerned with the three R's. He gets a man who can do the job. The Prime Minister, however, has had to concern himself with the three R's.
This bill is the direct result of one thing, and that is that the Prime Minister had to fit the job to the man. Let us take a look at what has happened in the Department of Justice. I want to say something now in a very serious vein with regard to the Minister of Justice. His job is one of the most important jobs, in my opinion. Under his department we have the legal officers of the government who advise all the departments of government on the law. The job of Minister of Justice, therefore, is extremely important. He has to administer the law of the land fairly and fearlessly, without discrimination. In order to do that, he must have a respectable administrative police officer. If I never make another point tonight in this speech, I want to make this point. Throughout the years in Canada the R.C.M.P. has been the most respected police group in this country. The force has been built on sound tradition and we have attempted to make certain that the R.C.M.P. and its commissioners were kept out of politics. If the Minister of Justice is going to administer the law, then in order to do that fearlessly, without discrimination, the R.C.M.P. should be under the administration of the Minister of Justice. There has been trouble in that regard.
The Prime Minister, under the guise of the reorganization bill, has transferred the
May 24, 1966

Government Organization R.C.M.P. from the Minister of Justice, who he said would always be the Attorney General of Canada and always be responsible for the administration of law, and would always be the chief legal officer, to the Solicitor General. I ask you a simple question. How can the Minister of Justice perform his functions with the R.C.M.P. under the jurisdiction of another department? The only way you can have a successful Department of Justice is to have the complete co-ordination and working together of all groups. Now we have the R.C.M.P. under the Solicitor General.


Mr. Bigg:: Maybe they asked to go.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps they asked to go, I do not know. Recently the image of the R.C.M.P. has reached a new low. Why has it reached a new low? The commissioner of the R.C.M.P., who had nothing to gain, because he had reached the highest post as a police officer in this country, gave evidence at a certain commission hearing and gave it fearlessly. I suggest he gave the evidence honestly because he was one man who had nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Then along comes the man who is the head man in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister of Canada, and completely contradicts the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. on some of the evidence given to that commission. I am not going to discuss anything but the contradiction itself. We have not heard from the commissioner, he has been silent. We had a new version from the Prime Minister of what he had said. Somebody might suggest he is again suffering from selective amnesia. However, it is not for me to suggest that. When the Prime Minister, the leading officer of this House of Commons, the head of the government, takes the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. and throws him into the ash can, then you have taken a police force which was built on tradition and trust and reduced their image to a very low point. It is high time the members of this government stood up for the R.C.M.P. instead of criticizing them. I know the Solicitor General will do this; I have trust in his integrity. When hon. members criticize in this house, they should check to ascertain the facts. I believe the reason responsibility for the R.C.M.P. was given to the Solicitor General was that the man the Prime Minister had chosen to be Minister of Justice could not have worked with the R.C.M.P. Yet he is still holding that post.


Mr. Regimbal:: He will be resigning soon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone says he will resign soon, but that is up to him.
I think the placing of the National Parole Eoard and the Canadian Penitentiaries Service under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General is a good idea. Men like George Street, who is head of the National Parole Board, has done a tremendous job. The board has administered paroles according to law to the best of their ability, and done an excellent job not only under the former government but also under this one. I believe that this is one job of which the Minister of Justice could be relieved, because political problems arise to which the parole board chairman is always subject. For example, everybody is subject to human behaviour. A thousand men may be paroled, one of whom goes wrong; yet he is the one the whole country hears about.
The same can be said of the administration of justice in the courts. One hundred cases may be properly administered, yet one which looks a little difficult or is not quite in order is the one which is publicized. The National Parole Board of this country is doing a tremendous job, and I am glad it is coming within the purview of the Solicitor General. I have the feeling that there will be no political interference as long as its administration comes under his department. I could not say the same if it remained where it was.
With regard to the Canadian Penitentiaries Service, I have attended some of the meetings the Solicitor General has attended, and I believe it is a good idea to transfer it to his department. Also we might bring about some reform of our penitentiaries.
One question I have raised over and over again, and which I will repeat, concerns juvenile offenders who are incarcerated in our penitentiaries. Our penitentiaries need reforming; they are outdated and are archaic. They have been dealing with the punitive aspects rather than the rehabilitative aspects, which makes the job of the parole board even more difficult.
However, when we come to look at the new Department of Justice, we find it is being carved up. The combines investigation branch, the litigation branch and the other branches of the department have been split up, which means there will be no co-ordination and that the law will not be properly administered. I see ahead of us something which may also occur in other departments,
May 24. 1966

and that is divisive confusion, to which I referred before when I spoke on this subject. There will be confusion and division. It would have been far better had the Department of Justice, with the exception of the two branches I have mentioned, remained as it was.
With regard to the new duties of the President of the Privy Council, I have this to say, and I say it with the greatest respect to him, there being nothing personal in my remarks. Whether he declined the offer or a change was made at the time, he did not seem to fit into the portfolio of Minister of Justice. He either had a problem with his leader or it was an administrative problem, but whatever the problem was he became President of the Privy Council. Then in order perhaps to satisfy his ego a little he was given one of the minor responsibilities of the Department of Justice. If that is called reorganization of government, then it is not good enough for me, Mr. Speaker.
Then another branch of the department, I think the fourth branch, that which administers our patent law, is to be administered by the registrar general. I am glad to see that taken out of the department. If I can discuss this matter under reorganization of departments, the patent law of this country is a disgrace. Only recently a man in western Canada who had invented a new kind of plough which would crush rocks, roots and similar substances wanted to patent his invention so that it would not fall into the hands of the United States, and in order to do so first had to register it in the patent office in Great Britain and then reregister it in Canada to protect his invention in the United States.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not a patent solicitor but I was advised by the experts in Toronto that it had to be done in that way in order to safeguard the patent. Therefore I suggest to the minister who is taking over responsibility for our patent law that some arrangement should be made, with the United States particularly, so that when patents are registered in Canada they are recognized both in that country and throughout the world, otherwise our office will just be a rubber stamp as far as patents are concerned. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Prime Minister for this reorganization, which has been neglected in the past probably because our ministers of justice have been busy with the administration of the law and their other duties.
Government Organization
When new portfolios are created you also create new departments, which means taking on additional employees. Two years ago-I have not made inquiries since-I asked the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to work out for me the amount of the budget which is devoted to the salaries of civil servants in this country-not that they are overpaid by any means in many of the categories-and I was told that $1.57 billion goes for salaries.
There is a feeling across the nation today that the government are building up large bureaucracies. Whether this has been brought about by the new pension plan or by the reorganization of various departments, appointing new deputy ministers and taking on more staff, it means we have more bureaucrats, which will have to be paid for through more taxes. If efficiency is the result, then in light of our growing population we might say it is good organization. But if it really means that we are fitting the job to the man because the Prime Minister has not got the right man for the job, then this means additional cost to the taxpayers of this nation. I should like to repeat that two years ago-and the figure must be higher today-$1.57 billion of our budget went toward civil servants' salaries. That is a lot of money spent on running the nation.
On top of this, Mr. Speaker, we must remember when talking of reorganization of government that there are ten provincial governments. Therefore we can see how much it is costing to govern this country. If Canada has one problem which is gnawing away at its ribs, it is the problem that as a nation we are over-governed. I regret to say it, but every time I hear speakers in the House of Commons trying to whittle away the powers of the central government which were laid down by the constitution in order to decentralize the nation, it seems to me that this means more bureaucracy, because we are really setting up ten distinct nations.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) said, the problems of the nation demand more than having the minister of resources running across the nation making speeches. He made a speech in Calgary, if I may quote this as an illustration, and was supposed to speak about resources. We feel we are sitting, Mr. Speaker, on great pools of oil out there, with large contracts being made with Japan and other nations. Yet this minister devotes two thirds of his speech to the B. and B. Commission. We all know about the B. and B. Commission.
May 24, 1966

Government Organization


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, may I tell the hon. gentleman that I will send him a copy of the speech I made in Calgary on the subject of petroleum.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have already read his speech, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin), I would ask him to listen to me, to allow me to say just a few words.
This afternoon, you called me to order because I was straying away from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is the
hon. member rising on a question of privilege or is he raising a point of order?


David Réal Caouette: I am on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for Villeneuve on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you called me to order at least a dozen times because I was straying away from Bill No. C-178 that is now before us.
I notice the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) does not wander, but he is straying away totally from the subject matter that deals with the act respecting the organization of the government.
I understand that the government is disorganized, Mr. Speaker, but at any rate my point of order is the following: As Your Honour called me to order this afternoon, I think it would be in order to also remind the hon. member for Bow River that he must limit himself to the principle of the bill. It is not that I do not want to hear him, on the contrary I want to hear him, but in due course.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I thank the hon. member for Villeneuve for having enlightened the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am always glad to have little interruptions like this in the middle of

one of my speeches. If I post a copy of my speech to the people back home they will realize that I had a good audience, and that the leader of the Ralliement Creditistes was listening to me.
To go back to what I was talking about before, that subject comes under the minister's jurisdiction. I congratulate the Prime Minister who organized this set-up, for having these resources under one department. I hope that the minister is carrying out his function. I hope he will get on with his job. That was the wish expressed by the people in Calgary. They were members of the Chamber of Commerce. I do not know their politics, but I wondered whether some of them had heard the talk by the minister. We heard a speech, but we did not hear any talk.
If the minister did talk about resources, let me say that we were most impressed. We have very important resources. We hope that the minister's department and other government departments are as interested in promoting the kind of trade and attention that the province of Alberta deserves, and that the premier of that province thinks are warranted. In connection with that, may I say that the premier has just returned from Japan.
Coming back to one last point that I wish to touch on, I still say that this bill is not really a bill to do with reorganization. There was a problem in the cabinet. In order to satisfy the problem the government set up certain jobs, and then it said that certain men probably could do those jobs. In other words, the government said: "We will take certain functions of that department and this department, and give it to somebody else, because another man will probably handle it better than the present man in charge of that department, and there will be fewer political repercussions.
When in the near future we talk about the R.C.M.P., which now comes under the department of the Solicitor General, I hope that the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet and of his party will stand up and defend that force, because without a police force such as the R.C.M.P., without the tradition that it has built up, we could not administer law properly in this nation.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). What struck me most was
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
his thundering peroration in which he insisted upon the respect we should show the officers of the R.C.M.P. On that score, Mr. Speaker, I can but share the opinion of the hon. member. On the other hand, I also believe we should bear, not only the R.C.M.P. and its officers, but also the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and all other judges, equal if not even greater respect.
Mr. Speaker, now that we are studying the clauses of Bill C-178, and after hearing the short but eloquent speech made by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), which I found most interesting, I have come to the following conclusion: an over-all reform is required.
I fully agree. Not only an administrative reform, but also a reform of our parliamentary system. Nothing proves to date that we have the most perfect, the best system in the world. It might be timely to ask ourselves questions and to see what reforms might be brought in.
I know some are anxious to respect traditions; they always plead that argument, dreading what changes are required.
The British system has brought multiple bounties; but, Mr. Speaker, we are living in North America, and we must face the North American realities. In view of those realities, we must be able to adapt our institutions, both governmental and parliamentary.
Since we are dealing with the reorganization of the departments, I would like to make a few remarks and I would be happy if the members of the cabinet and the members of the house studied them very attentively. To pursue the same line of thinking, namely that we are living in a North American environment, I would be very anxious to see the Canadian authorities study the American system and learn from it.
As mentioned a little earlier by the hon. member for Bow River, I think that in the United States the ministers are appointed instead of elected. There is no evidence that that it is not a good system which could be very effective in Canada, Mr. Speaker.
"What is the position of our ministers today? They must have three fundamental qualities. First of all, they must be administrators because they are heads of departments and, as such, they must know how to administer. Second, they must be parliamentarians, and then God knows how much precious time they lose here in this house, especially when they must face an opposition which is fundamentally obstructionist.
DEBATES	5477
Government Organization
Mr. Speaker, the ministers must first of all be administrators. Second, they must be parliamentarians, but nothing tells us that a good administrator is also, as a corollary, a good parliamentarian. The contrary is often true; those who have the least to say, who do not have any ability in a parliamentary world, make the best administrators.
Under our system, in Canada, to be head of a department, to be chief administrator or to head a department, one must also be a parliamentarian.
And third, the third quality just as fundamental which the man who is called upon to head a department must also possess is that of being good at election time because whomsoever may be called upon to assume such responsibilities, he must face the electorate, he must get elected; then, he must spend a lot of energy to reach the position for which he would be highly qualified, without having to go through the whole process which constitutes, in several cases, an obstacle which is hard to overcome.
Administrators on one hand, members of parliament, elected men on the other. We have seen in this house ministers of superior calibre who could have played an extraordinary part, rendered immeasurable services to their country, their native land, but precisely they did not have parliamentary ability, they have not been able to devote all their energies, all their talents to the development of our country.
It is for this reason that we must take the situation in serious consideration so that the major reform mentioned by the member for Trois-Rivieres be looked into and implemented in the near future because we, of the young generation, are very sceptical about the quality, the merit and the efficiency of our institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that certain reservations can be made to the bill before us; this proves that there are no fanatics on this side of the house, even sitting on the government side. For instance, I read this in Section 13:
The duties, powers and functions of the Minister of Manpower extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada, relating to
(a)	the development and utilization of manpower resources in Canada;
(b)	employment services; and
(c)	immigration.
May 24, 1966

Government Organization
Mr. Speaker, this is where I raise the objection I wanted to put before the house. It is that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) is seen as an assistant to the Minister of Manpower. Immigrants who arrive here are considered as values, tremendous resources that must be placed and utilized. There is a situation to which I take strong exception. I would want a Department of Immigration not established on the basis of manpower utilization, but on the basis of demographic balance, for herein lies a greater threat for Canada and Canadian unity.
There is much talk about separatism in the province of Quebec. Sometimes federal members of parliament have their heads buzzing with the cries of alarm from the province of Quebec. At times, I feel that we, French speaking Canadians, should try to understand the majority. We are very negligent. I hear certain candidates, in the current election campaign in Quebec, speaking of two nations in Canada. There are no two nations in Canada. There are two societies: one English speaking, the other French speaking.
It may be that French Canadians, because of their common language, their culture, their traditions, their religion, form a nation, but the English speaking community is not a nation. When Messrs. Daniel Johnson and Jean-Noel Tremblay refer to two nations, they are mistaken: there are not two nations, but rather two societies.
Why does the English speaking society increase faster than the French speaking one? Because of immigration. It is my duty to say so. Since confederation, federal authorities never thought about immigration in terms of bi-racialism. It is the major grievance of French speaking Canadians. They say: We have been taken in by confederation. They are not entirely right, but there is some truth in what they say. Naturally, immigrants assimilated the English culture. I find very regrettable that our leaders, since confederation, never said: We are going to consider this bi-racialism in Canada.
I find it unfortunate that the federal government could not have cared less; it has been apathetic and indifferent since confederation. It serves the Canadian society badly. A true Canadian government should serve all the regions of Canada, respect the characteristics of every corner of the country. That is why violent complaints are heard in the province of Quebec.
[Mr. Choquette.l
Mr. Speaker, the independence party is not a danger in the province of Quebec. The theoretical separatist in the province of Quebec is not dangerous. The dangerous ones are the separatists indeed who show themselves-
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member for Lotbiniere would not wish to stray too far from the principle of the bill.


An hon. Member:: Playing politics; that's all he knows.


Auguste Choquette: I am not playing politics. I am giving the facts, and you know it.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Will
the hon. member allow me a question?


Auguste Choquette: Certainly.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere if he does not think that the situation he is pointing out to the house is due to the fact that the Quebec government is responsible for the lack of French immigrants?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in part. Under section-


David Réal Caouette: Absolutely right.


Auguste Choquette: Right in part. If the hon. member wants to hold a public debate in Rouyn-Noranda, I will attend.
[English1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Again I shall have to ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere to adhere as closely as possible to the principle of the bill.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a question of
privilege. The member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) has just challenged me to hold a public debate in my riding. Any time he wishes, I am not afraid. I could tackle 24 at a time of the same calibre as the member for Lotbiniere. This afternoon-and on this point, I agree with what the member for Lotbiniere has just said-while dealing with the same matters, I was called to order a dozen times. I am wondering whether a member is allowed to do tonight what was forbidden another member this afternoon around four or five o'clock. Even though the solutions he suggests may be sound and the facts he is trying
May 24, 1966

to prove to the house may be true, let him stick to Bill C-178. A rule for Peter and another for Paul is quite uncalled for in this parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve was well taken and I hope the hon. member for Lotbiniere will comply with the ruling of the Chair without having to be called to order ten or 12 times.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Auguste Choquette: Certainly. With pleasure.


Eric Alfred Winkler: This should be good.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: The hon. member for Lotbiniere said he was opposed to immigration being combined with manpower. Will he tell us whether he is opposed to immigration

[DOT] whether, when he speaks of separatism in Quebec it is because he believes in immigration-


An hon. Member:: Take it up tomorrow in caucus, Joe.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member is excellent. If I agreed to answer, the hon. member would lead me to another subject and I would be called to order. I am ready to answer him, but my reply would obviously be quite elaborate. Then, you would have to apply the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Lotbiniere is well aware of the difference between immigration and the reorganization of the department. I hope the hon. member will use the remainder of his time to discuss the principle of the bill now before the house.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, with the information you have given, may I be permitted, in accordance with your decisions, to note this: It is that with the proposed reorganization, it is perfectly clear that the department of immigration is eliminated. It is
Government Organization perfectly clear that the department of immigration is becoming a subdivision of the manpower department and that the present thinking, the thinking laid down in this bill, immigration is henceforth connected with manpower and the development of natural resources.
Now, I am opposed to that. I am violently opposed to that, because I maintain that we should have a separate department of immigration. A department of immigration and manpower that does not preclude full co-operation, that does not preclude interdepartmental correlation but I believe that we have a right-and not only the right but the imperative duty to state this-in view of the fact that the population balance is constantly disturbed by immigration. These are not demagogic recriminations, Mr. Speaker. These are facts that have been proven since 1867. The French group is constantly being drowned out and whose fault is it? I am not denouncing anyone, nor making any accusations. I say that, at the time, the concept was such that the country could not be thought of as essentially biethnical.
It was thought: The immigrants are coming, let them go anywhere. The federal government was unconcerned. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) said: There is a weakness. Yes, there is a weakness in the provincial government. Here, I want to congratulate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) who was one of the first to go to Quebec and to call the attention of the government to this delicate question, and he did not hesitate to take them to task for having remained inactive, as the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres so aptly put it, in the field of immigration and it is at the urging of the President of the Privy Council that consulates were finally opened at Bordeaux and Marseilles, together with immigration offices and for this, I congratulate him.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, this does not give the results expected by these offices because, first of all, there is in France a certain resistance to the immigration of French citizens.
Therefore, I should like us, first, to have our own separate Department of Immigration. Second, I should like us to hold a national conference on immigration problems, because if the demographic balance continues to be upset, ideological revolutionaries and extremists will rise even more, and we wonder what we will do with those problems in 25 or 30 years, when the two
May 24, 1966

Government Organization great Quebec parties will solicit votes, one for a stronger Quebec and the other for Quebec first.
It is no longer a question of Canada. It is Quebec first. Twenty years from now, they will say: out with Canada. That is what will happen if nothing is done to correct the situation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I want a department of immigration separate from the department of manpower.
Second, I suggest a national conference on immigration problems in order, first, to strengthen the French minorities in provinces outside Quebec and, second, to take steps so that all immigrants to this country take an interest in the two cultures.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was in St. Celestin, in the county of Nicolet. I shall conclude my remarks with this. I was in Saint-Celestin, in the county of Nicolet, where a former Conservative member of parliament is candidate. This is a French Canadian who has left Ottawa. French Canadians are becoming less and less interested in Ottawa. The problem is much more serious than you think. I met there an immigrant who only spoke French. I asked him: Why do you not learn English to be bilingual?
CEnglish1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. gentleman is well aware that the remarks he is now making have no relation at all to the principle of the bill which is before us.


Auguste Choquette: Thank you for your remarks; I will conclude with this. Yesterday I met an immigrant who spoke only French. This reminded me that we need a separate department of immigration, not only to strengthen the French minorities outside Quebec but also to initiate all immigrants to this new mentality in the province of Quebec and in Canada, that our country is truly bicultural, bilingual and biethnical and that all immigrants, English speaking people, say: You want to integrate the English culture, but take also some interest in the French language, because there are six million inhabitants here who speak French.
I met yesterday this immigrant who spoke only French. I said: You should take some interest in the English language because there are many English speaking people in Canada. We like the English speaking and we respect English speaking Canadians. We want a truly
[Mr. Choquette.l
Canadian Canada where both cultures, both languages and both races have the same rights, the same respect, the same privileges. But we will defeat, crush and repudiate forever this false and heretic doctrine of separatism.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt to follow the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) into the turbulent channels into which he has led the debate. I propose to return to the more prosaic subject of the bill which is before the house.


Auguste Choquette: You have always been quiet in this house.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I can assure the hon. member that on another occasion I would be delighted to discuss the topic with him.
Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this particular bill I am reminded of the old story about how an assistant curate was faced at the breakfast table with an egg of dubious quality and when the rector's wife asked him if we was enjoying it he replied it was good in parts. Mr. Speaker, I propose to discuss some of the dubious parts of this legislation, without denying that some parts of it are good and without attempting to give an over-all assessment of the legislation. I also am able to discuss this bill without entering into a discussion of the personalities of the ministers who either now, in the future, or in the immediate past have occupied or are likely to occupy the various ministries involved in the re-organization. I do this because I think the merits or the demerits of the organization may outlast the particular qualities, or lack of qualities if that is possible, of the particular ministers involved.
The test in respect of any re-organization bill surely should be whether it is likely to contribute to the effectiveness of the government in dealing with the urgent tasks which face it. That they are urgent and changing tasks certainly is very clear. I continue to believe that the assignment to the department of the Solicitor General of the jurisdiction relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a very grave mistake. The bill leaves with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, which is the same individual, full responsibility for the enforcement of law. This responsibility is a broad one which
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
involves working in as close as possible cooperation with the police force which is responsible for law enforcement and for the detection of crime. This problem increases in its difficulty and complexity as one develops a highly organized criminal operation which carries on across both provincial and international boundaries. It seems to me that without an efficient and well trained police force acting in close co-operation with the officials of the crown who are responsible for law enforcement, it would be impossible to deal adequately with this menace, and it certainly is a menace.
One of the most important features of law enforcement at the present time is the ability to co-operate with the departments of justice in other parts of the world, for example in the United States, the provincial law enforcement departments, the attorneys general of the various provinces, and indeed with the municipal law enforcement officers. How can a department, the other functions of which under this particular bill are restricted to such matters as parole, penitentiaries and matters of that nature, be in charge of the extremely delicate and important responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The whole issue of security is one which falls on the shoulders, I suggest, of the Minister of Justice, and yet the police force which is responsible for reporting on matters of security is put under the jurisdiction, for training, organization and for all matters concerning its welfare and discipline, as a separate government department or a separate minister of the crown, namely the Solicitor General.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
My remarks have nothing whatever to do with the present Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) or the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin). It does seem to me to be totally wrong in these days when security is important, and when the battle against organized crime is important, to handicap the efficient dealing with these matters by taking the very force that should be the spearhead of enforcement out of immediate association with the department responsible for law enforcement.
I did not hear all that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said today, but I believe that he did suggest that this change would make the situation equivalent to the British system where the home secretary has some responsibility for the police, and under
DEBATES	5481
Government Organisation which system there are different departments administering justice. I suggest that the situation in Britain is totally different. They have a homogeneous population with very different sorts of problems, different traditions and a different background. I do not know how well that division works there, but I suggest that if it works well that is no reason to assume it will work well here.
There is one other feature of this bill which again suggests a sort of haphazard allocation of functions. As has been suggested, in order to balance the different ministries and to give each minister and his department something, or enough, to do, problems in relation to bankruptcy and insolvency have been assigned to the new department called the department of the registrar general. Again one can discuss this without relation to any other personalities involved.
I do not think the government has yet appreciated what is involved in the battle against bankruptcy frauds. It has overlooked the fact that reputable newspapers have described conditions in the bankruptcy field as being equivalent to twentieth century highway robbery on a grand scale. They have referred to the breaking down of law enforcement and $500 million lost to small businessmen throughout this country, largely through the inefficient administration of bankruptcy laws. Or, they have suggested that a good portion of the $500 million has been lost in that way.
In this house the Minister of Justice told us at one time that there was to be a re-organization of and amendments to the Bankruptcy Act which would permit the government of Canada to take a new and much needed responsibility in the field of investigation of bankruptcy frauds. What sense does it make to do that when the responsibility is to be handed to a department which is totally outside the channels of law enforcement? That department will have to develop a new channel of communication with the provinces or operate through the offices of another department.
If this government is seriously worried about bankruptcies it should not put bankruptcies and insolvencies into an entirely different department which has certain important responsibilities in regard to combines, which in itself is a large subject and ought to encourage activity far beyond what is taking place. That department also has responsibility for patents, copyrights, trade marks and corporate affairs. The new registrar general of
May 24, 1966

Government Organization Canada will have plenty of responsibility without having partial responsibility for law enforcement.
I give warning to any member of the government who happens to be within earshot of my voice, that at the committee stage of this bill we propose to bring in amendments which, if accepted by the house, will remove these anomalies and dangerous changes which, instead of adding to more effective enforcement of the law, may very well have the effect of frustrating this enforcement in these very important fields. I hope that when that time arrives the house will consider seriously whether this bill requires amendment in this regard.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Sneaker, I would like to take a few minutes this evening to discuss Bill C-178 introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister.
During the debate which followed the introduction of the bill, we heard a lot about the reorganization of the Canadian government and related or incidental questions. However, the bill deals with organization and not reorganization. I cannot imagine how something which is not organized could be reorganized.
I think today is the 82nd day of this session and if we consider the work performed and the legislation passed in those 82 days, we realize that not much has been done. Therefore, I believe that if we have not made more progress in those 82 days, it is precisely because of a lack of organization on the part of the government.
I think that the Prime Minister is justified in introducing a bill on the organization of the Canadian government and on related or incidental matters.
Mr. Speaker, as mentioned by previous speakers, we must hope that this bill will give satisfactory results.
I think, as previous speakers, that amendments will be moved when we will consider the bill section after section.
There is one think I should like to mention to the house; I have noticed it myself for a number of years and many people with whom I have talked about it, have mentioned it also; at a given time, when those in charge of departments seem to become acquainted with their department, and take in hand its operation, what do we see? The Prime Minister announces a cabinet shuffle.
[Mr. Brewin.i
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
What does this mean, what does the Prime Minister try to prove? I understand that, at a certain time, when the incumbent of a department does not have the necessary qualifications to be in charge of some departments, the right hon. Prime Minister then tries to find for him a department where he could test his skill.
But, in my opinion, the ministers in charge of departments are moved too often for them to achieve the expected results. This is why, in my opinion, when the Prime Minister selects the minister for various departments, he should study more closely the qualifications of the candidates for those positions, so that they might stay as long as possible in charge of those various departments, and show there a maximum of efficiency.
I am willing to admit that when the government changes, when the voters decide to change government, well, then, those ministers must change.
Now, then, Mr. Speaker, what I want to point out in that connection is that we should find better men, more competent men, to take over as ministers, and especially in the new departments we are planning.
One department is of special interest to me, that of Mines and Technical Surveys. I hope the present minister (Mr. Pepin) will head the new department of energy, mines and resources.
I wish to point out to him that among the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys publications, few are to be found in French. I feel that the French Canadian people are really not favoured in that respect.


David Réal Caouette: That is because the hon. member is English.


Gérard Laprise: I do not blame the hon. minister. A remark has just been made, but please note, Mr. Speaker, that I do not blame the present minister, for he has been in charge of that department for a short while. But I must say that nothing has been done to date to improve publications on Canadian mining. I therefore hope that the hon. minister will take my remarks into consideration and act on them, seeing the present Liberal government claims continually that it wants to do justice to the two main races in Canada today.
Now, in connection with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, I would like to draw the attention of the minister on
May 24, 196G	COMMONS
the fact that the constituency which I represent, that of Chapleau, is very extensive and rich in mining resources of all kinds. I think that the minister knows it, because he has surely received requests and has been in a position to consider them before taking over that department.
He knows that northwestern Quebec has a huge and varied mining potential. I wish to point out more especially the iron deposits which have been discovered recently in the Val d'Or, Miquelon and Cadillac areas.
Surveys were made which indicate that there are at least 6 million tons of iron ore lying there and waiting to be developed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should look into the matter and have those natural resources developed and turned into production and consumer goods and put to use for Canadians who are asking for them to fill their immeasurable needs.
These iron deposits are close to the roads, railways, communications of all kinds. We have the manpower who would be delighted to work at it. Then I think therefore that in reorganizing this department some consideration should be given this matter.
There is something else I would like to mention. On many occasions especially during this session the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) my colleague for the neighbouring riding has called the attention of the minister to the development of gold mines in the area. Each time, the minister answered that he would defer to the province of Quebec. Then, if the minister has nothing to do with mining operations particularly with regard to gold mines, I am wondering why this is mentioned in paragraph (a), clause 29, of Bill No. 178 on reorganization. And I quote:
(a) energy, mines and minerals, water and other resources:
In my opinion, the minister should at least make suggestions to the province of Quebec on measures meant to assist gold mines, if he cannot act himself, not so much for gold mines as for the miners working there.
Today, mines in operation are bound to close down because they show no profit. Now, it is needless to say that the new projects will not be carried out, that new mines will not be opened, because I believe that in the reorganization of this department they should think about making gold mines profitable, so that the miners working there can
DEBATES	5483
Government Organization find what they expect, namely an income comparable to that found in any other mining industry in northern regions or elsewhere in Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while we are still considering the reorganization of the department of energy, mines and resources, I see in clause 29 that among the functions of the department, the latter will have to see that-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that on second reading of a bill, he cannot refer to a particular clause; he can only deal with the principle of the bill.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for calling me to order in the terms you have just explained to me. I always thought that when considering clause 1 of Bill C-178, one could deal with all parts of the bill generally.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that we are not considering clause 1 of the bill, we are considering a motion for concurrence in second reading of the bill.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are we discussing Bill C-178 in general or only part of it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve is raising a point of order. I am quite sure he knows as well as I do that we are now considering a motion concerning the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
It is an elementary rule of this house to refrain from referring to particular sections of a bill at this stage.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully
submit that since this afternoon every single member has referred to some section or other concerning a department proposed in Bill C-178.
I would not want the member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) to be subject to discrimination any more than other members who spoke on Bill C-178 and who were allowed to say almost anything they wanted on any section of Bill C-178.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot change the standing orders. The hon. member knows the rules as much as I do. I am sure he will want to abide by the rules in the course of his remarks.
May 24, 1966

Government Organization


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, at any rate, I was about to conclude my remarks. When we study the bill section by section, we will then be able to consider in detail the matters we wish to raise. At that time, if we want to make suggestions to the Prime Minister who introduced this resolution and this bill, I think it will be proper for us to tell him what we expect from this government reorganization.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude here my remarks on the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Other hon. members have talked today about immigration, bankruptcies, etc., I wanted to draw attention to the organization of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources so that more consideration would be given to that field of the Canadian economy in order to get the results which the mining operators and the miners are expecting from that organization, from that Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on Bill No. C-178. I think two things are clear from listening to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this afternoon, reading the bill and listening to other members who have spoken. One is that the brave words uttered two or three years ago of "exciting the daring and testing the strong" could be paraphrased into "dividing departments and confusing the throng". The one other thing that is quite clear from the remarks of hon. members this afternoon and evening is that they want a change of the cabinet to conform to the practices and pressures of a modern society.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was quite correct when he said that members would welcome a change which he said would give effective executive action. However, the problem here, and the great fear amongst many members on this side of the house when they contemplate the changes, is that the bill will not give effective executive action. Instead, the bill is just going to defuse, dissect and divide whatever action we have had thus far. I question the Prime Minister's statement that it is a first step. If this is a first step, Mr. Speaker, then the infant is not going to survive the muddle of misunderstanding and confusion to which this bill gives rise.

In explaining the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) referred to a shuffle. I believe that is the best thing that could be said about this bill, that it is a shuffle. It is a shuffle from a government looking for some direction to counter the conditions that have been so prevalent these past few years. The members do want a change. I can agree in many respects with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) on some of those changes.
There are some members who may laugh about the type of change suggested because there is a need for having an effective cabinet, an effective government, trying to organize the business of this house and the business of the country. How can you effectively organize the business of this country when you, in effect, draw and quarter some of the departments we have here today. I am not going to deal with them all because many speakers have already dealt with the departments with which I was going to deal.
In so far as justice is concerned, you have a troika in that department. We all recall what happened in the United Nations when Khrushchev suggested a troika for that organization. This raised problems of the delegation of responsibility, problems of the implementation of policy. I suggest with the greatest respect that these men who are going to be part of the troika administering justice, are not going to increase the efficiency of this department. It is going to be confused by a lack of co-ordination and direction as between the ministers who are going to handle justice problems.
You have already had the problem of agriculture discussed, and that is important in my riding. This situation is particularly close to me because you have the Department of Agriculture and agriculture problems divided among the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). We have again, Mr. Speaker, a divided delegation of power when one minister, with the proper delegation under that minister, could solve many of the problems of the farm.
The third problem has already been ably discussed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) tonight. I refer to the conflicts between the proposed minister of Indians affairs and northern development and the minister of resources and energy. One of the reasons I was prompted to speak tonight, for
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
whatever it is worth, was the Prime Minister's attempt to define the division of responsibility between the minister of resources and the minister of northern development in the north, on the basis of wet land and dry land.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say I was somewhat amazed and somewhat surprised at this specious reasoning to justify a government bill which obviously has been drawn by some professional man in an ivory tower and without any knowledge of the realties of life. It is just as specious for the Prime Minister to divide that wide country on the basis of wet land and dry land as it would be for me to divide a cup of tea on the basis of whether one wanted lemon or one wanted it black. It is still a cup of tea and the north is still the north. Whether it is wet land or dry land, the winter is still cold and the problems are the same so far as the Eskimos are concerned. How are you going to solve these problems with more bureaucracy and a further increase in the cabinet without the actual implementation of policy or by having two ministers where one would do? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is the best example of dereliction, this drifting between dry land and wet land. If anyone else but the Prime Minister had made this statement, Mr. Speaker, he would have been laughed out of the house.
The other matter, also, involves the minister of northern affairs and the minister of energy and concerns this question of water. It is somewhat of a paradox that this question of water in the only area where the federal government has absolute control, that is in the north, is going to be taken out of the hands of the minister of energy and is going to be left with the minister of Indian affairs and northern development. This anomaly and paradox again indicates the expanded number of questions with regard to the present formation of government, and indicates they did not look at cabinet reformation on the basis of policy.
How can you have direction and leadership on policy when you have 26 ministers, as this bill is going to provide? Let us take the country to the south as an example, and this is where I can agree with my republican friend from across the way. I appreciate the special problems of the United States, and their history of republican government. They may think we are confused and muddled up here, but we are going to be more muddled and confused if this bill goes through, and it is realized that the great country to the south
DEBATES	5485
Government Organization has only 12 ministers while we in this country will have 26.
Now, I grant you that they have their republican system and the ministers are not responsible to the legislature. But the fact is that there is this vast space in the United States and they have this fundamental civil rights question. We have a problem between two great races. They have a problem of area, a problem of people, a problem of cities, they have all the problems we have 20 times over, and yet they can rule their country with one half the number of ministers that we have in this country. 1 think the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) would find a lot of support, and I think a lot of members opposite would give their support, to a compromise between the republican system and the English system across the water, of getting a small inner core of cabinet and a larger outer core who could administer the departments.
When you compare what is proposed in this bill with what is done in the United States, and compare it with any board of directors of a large corporation like General Motors, you find that no company would have more than 26 directors. If they do have 26 directors, then they have an executive committee to do the daily administrative work or carry out policy. You cannot run a company with 26 directors.
The only other point I should like to draw to your attention is that I should like to hear from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). I should like him to tell us just how he accepts this bill on government organization when he is the great advocate of integration. He speaks of integrating the services, but they are disintegrating the government. In effect, Mr. Speaker, that is just what they are doing. I should like to hear the Minister of National Defence try to relate this bill to what he is trying to do with the three services which were here long before he was minister and which I suspect are going to be here long after him. There is a basic flaw in his fundamental belief if he can accept this bill because he has told us that in order to have an efficient organization with direction you are supposed to have integration.
However, he is the member of a cabinet that is trying to propound a bill that is going to increase the number of cabinet members. At least, according to the Prime Minister, it is not going to decrease the number of speakers-not speakers, sir, we do not need any
5486	COMMONS
Government Organization more, Mr. Speaker. I think the Prime Minister can take comfort from the number of people who have spoken on this bill, because if he has any problems with the cabinet he will have lots of help from the members who have made suggestions. We are not worried tonight about the personality of the cabinet, we are worrying about the principle of the government reorganization bill. If the Prime Minister is sincere in his new politics, and if it is a time to excite the daring, why have we not got a bill which has a principle behind it rather than the political expediency of trying to make a bill conform to the present members of the cabinet? I think there is unanimity in this house on the necessity for changes in government reorganization, but that is in relation to changes in policy. I suggest that leadership would be shown if a bill came forward on the basis of policy. You do not step forward when you have a shuffle and you are not stepping forward when you have a shuffle such as the Minister of National Revenue mentioned earlier.
The hon. member for York South mentioned four reasons why he believes there should be a cabinet reorganization. This thought carries me back to the analogy with the United States. We have problems with dominion-provincial relations, and this bill is not going to help further those at all. I have suggested in these few remarks that there should be more work on re-organization. I think there is general unanimity about reorganization, but a reorganization on the basis of some plan and policy, rather than leaving the gaping anomalies that we have in this bill and which have been pointed out more effectively by other speakers than I have been able to do.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before I call on the next hon. member to speak I should like to refer to the point of order which was raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He made the suggestion that the resolution preceding Bill No. C-178, which is now being considered by the house, was insufficient and that there should be a further resolution to precede the bill, or that the existing resolution should be amended to make specific reference to the establishment of the new department of forestry and rural development.
During the last few hours I have had the opportunity to consider the arguments advanced by members on both sides of the house, and I can assure hon. members that it

DEBATES	May 24, 1966
was not an easy decision to reach because the arguments submitted by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), and, in opposition to these, the suggestions and propositions advanced by members on the treasury benches did not make it easy for the Chair to decide which way to rule.
I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members, as they know, that the rule respecting the introduction of a bill imposing a charge upon public revenues is standing order 61, namely:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
As pointed out by the hon member for Peace River, standing order 61 must be read in light of section 54 of the British north America Act, 1867. This section is important when considering this question at large. It says:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose-
-and I underline those words-
-that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.
Hon. members will note that it is the "purpose" of the resolution that is recommended to the house by His Excellency. When asking His Excellency for his recommendation we refer to the purpose of the proposed legislation in the words of the resolution, and his recommendation is given accordingly. There is no written rule nor any established practice with the force of law determining the form, the extent or the limitations applicable to a resolution preceding a bill. Such being the case resort must be had to the meaning of the words of the rule as we find it in our standing orders.
Ordinarily a bill may be introduced without a resolution. The impelling factor requiring a resolution is a provision of the bill imposing a charge on the revenue, but a charge which is new and distinct. It would therefore seem that the resolution meets the requirement of the rule where it, in precise language, points to the fact that the proposed
May 24, 19G6	COMMONS
bill contains a provision or provisions that may impose a charge on the revenue.
There is no doubt that a resolution preceding a bill is not designed for the purpose of explaining the contents of the bill in any detail but solely for the purpose of giving notice to the house that the government intends to introduce a measure which involves a tax on the people or a charge on public funds.
Some hon. members have argued that the establishment of the new department of forestry and rural development implies a charge on the treasury. In opposition to this view other members have argued that there is no such charge. It should be stressed that the relevant consideration here is that there should be, to necessitate a prior resolution, a new and distinct charge.
I should like to refer hon. members to May's Parliamentary Practice, seventeenth edition, page 780. At that page, under the heading "Tests to determine whether expenditure involves a 'charge' ", the author says:
A charge must be new and distinct. The question often arises whether a proposal for expenditure or for increased expenditure is not already covered by some general authorization. The test for determining this question in the case of a substantive proposal, i.e., a provision in a bill, as introduced, is a comparison with existing law.
In this instance, in so far as the Department of Forestry is concerned, I cannot convince myself that there is a new and distinct charge separate from what is already authorized by existing legislation. However, even if this interpretation of the new measure were too limited, even if it were erroneous, I believe that the resolution in its general terms covers the whole general subject of the reorganization of departments of government. In other words, there is a resolution pointing to the purpose of the bill before the house.
For these reasons, I suggest to hon. members that the resolution introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) before first reading of this bill satisfies the requirements of the standing orders and of section 54 of the British North America Act.
In the course of his arguments the hon. member for Peace River suggested that extreme caution should be exercised in this matter since the validity of this statute as passed by parliament might be questioned later on in the courts on the ground that the required procedure has not been followed. He suggests, in other words, that the inadequacy of the resolution might invalidate the statute.
DEBATES	5487
Government Organization
May I quote the case of the King v. Irwin as reported in 1926, Vol. 25, Exchequer Court Reports, page 127, at page 128. The headnote is to the following effect:
Held, that when a statute appears on its face to have been duly passed by a competent legislature, the courts must assume that all things have been rightly done in respect of its passage, and cannot entertain any argument that there is a defect of parliamentary procedure lying behind the act.
I thought I should bring this case to the attention of the house, because not only the hon. member for Peace River but I believe other hon. members have referred to the fact that there might be some difficulty later on if a procedural mistake was made in the consideration of this bill.
For all these reasons, and with great respect, I cannot accept the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief remarks on this bill. As I have said before, as a pragmatic socialist I think all of us would agree that there is need for a reorganization of the departments of the government. I think that opinion has been expressed by members on all sides of the house during this debate. I personally have not sufficient information or enough knowledge of all the subjects to say whether the organization proposed by the government is the correct one or is not. I suppose this again can only be proven as the result of experience. If this reorganization does not prove satisfactory, so long as this parliament retains control of the government of this country amendments can be made to this proposed reorganization.
However, I wish to say that I cannot agree with the argument that we can adopt the practice that is customary in Great Britain, which has an inner cabinet and an outer cabinet, or an inner cabinet and ministers. They work under different circumstances there. The country is very much smaller than ours; it has unitary government, with a completely different set of circumstances from those facing this parliament when it comes to the passage of laws and their administration.
Personally I am one of those who care little for humbug, and I run into it a lot nowadays. We all know humbug exists, whether governments admit it or not, whether the present government admits it or whether the former government admitted it. I am not objecting to the number of cabinet ministers, but they have a different function in this country.
5488	COMMONS
Government Organization
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We all know that cabinet ministers have to be appointed in a democratic country so that all provinces are represented in the cabinet. Consideration has to be given to other interests, other religions and to other factors in this country. Whether we say so or not, we know that is the way cabinets are appointed in this country, and rightly so in a democracy, where consideration has to be given to the people's opinions, the people's prejudices and the people's wishes.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask the hon. member a question? May I ask what cabinet minister from Saskatchewan was appointed?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I adopt what you have said on other occasions. That is a theoretical and argumentative question. But I think we can face the fact that a cabinet is appointed in Canada bearing all those factors in mind. No matter whether Liberals or Conservatives form the government, they adopt the same principles in appointing the cabinet in this country. Were we to form a government we should do the same if we were going to reflect the wishes of the people in the provinces, and all their interests.
I do suggest, with the increased, shall I say, complications of government, that ministers should have more opportunity to travel in the country, not just to deal with policy but to study questions of policy, and to consult with their senior civil servants on these questions. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that the government should give some consideration to the training of parliamentary secretaries, so that parliamentary secretaries might at least remove some of the administrative burden now carried by ministers. That sort of thing could be done if there were a determined attempt on the part of the government to build what in effect would be a system of junior ministers, in the form of parliamentary secretaries, who would be paid for their responsibilities, who could be given extra training and extra work in order to relieve the ministers, shall I say, of quite a lot of the burden of day to day administration.
I think all hon. members of the house will agree with me that it is the responsibility of this government to govern in Canada. In connection with that I should like to quote a question that I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs on orders of the day. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, at that time you cut my political cords. I asked this question: "In view of the fact that Arnold C. Smith,

DEBATES	May 24. 1966
who is Secretary General of the Commonwealth Secretariat is reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail on Monday, May 23, as saying in a speech delivered at Queen's University Convocation that: 'Governing, is more and more rooted in the expert adviser, rather than in the politician'"-I will not finish the question, Mr. Speaker. You know, Mr. Speaker, I was honestly taken aback when I read that. This is something that must be fought against in this country. When we admit that the government of this country is rooted in paid civil servants rather than in the Parliament of Canada, we are marching toward an authoritarian form of government.
I have had a little experience in life. I have always been in the habit of dividing people into two groups, the producers, and the other group which chooses to live on other people's human weaknesses and ignorance. I have found, as a result of experience in a good many organizations, that I would rather trust the wisdom and common sense of the average man when any particular question is brought to his attention, no matter whether this is on the municipal, provincial or federal level, than I would the sort of narrow wisdom of experts. Their wisdom is narrow because they are trained in a very narrow and particular field.
In concluding my few remarks, I want to emphasize that whatever we do, whatever our views are in this house-and I think it is only right that those views that are held conscientiously should be respected-we must maintain that this parliament govern Canada, and that the roots of government are not more and more to be found in the senior civil service of this country.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compfon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, like all other hon. members I would like to make my contribution and say what I think about the present organization and the various departments concerned.
We have before us Bill C-178, an Act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto. It says:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts-
And there follows a series of clauses in which the various functions of various departments, which would operate satisfactorily if the economy were better organized, are
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
more clearly enunciated. Since the economy does not favour them, those departments do not serve their purpose. To do that, Mr. Speaker, and to do it well, what goes well must be left alone and what goes wrong must be corrected. Everything that goes well in those various departments must be left alone and everything that goes wrong must be corrected.
There are many departments where things are not going well. They are going badly in the Department of Justice, the Department of Finance, the Department of National Health and Welfare and in all departments more or less.
To remedy the situation, to improve it, departments and responsibilities are increased, and the officials of those departments are asked to become farmers, workers, financiers, administrators of private property. That is not the way to solve the problem.
Departments must be in a position to operate and set up the necessary regulations and citizens must be able to live and comply with them. When the citizens cannot abide by those regulations, instead of trying to cope with unsatisfactory economic conditions, the departments are asked to become distributors, buyers, economists in every field.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?
[English1


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Do hon. members wish to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Would the house leader indicate the business for tomorrow?


Edgar John Benson: May I have the indulgence of the house, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we intend to proceed with second reading of this bill, and with the committee stage of the bill. Assuming that we have finished all that tomorrow, we shall proceed with the collective bargaining bill and then to the public service employment act; then to the amendments to the Financial Administration Act. If we finish all that we would proceed with debate on the resolution preceding the omnibus bill to amend the various pension plans in the civil service.


Richard Albert Bell: What about Thursday?


Edgar John Benson: If we finish all this tomorrow we would hope to find some other business for Thursday.
DEBATES	5489
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the question I should like to raise tonight stems from an article in a well-known farm paper La Terre de Chez Nous. Indeed, the following article which was published on May 11 last goes with comments.
Fire recently razed some sheds in Montreal harbour. According to an unofficial but most reliable source, one of the sheds contained approximately
3.000	tons of butter imported from Denmark a few days previously, that is 6,000,000 pounds. Yet, no one had heard anything about it before, even though butter imports have been mentioned often enough during the past few months.
The authorities have the duty to supply exact and up-to-date information in that connection. It would be utterly intolerable if a game of hide and seek were to be played in such cases. Yes or no, has the recent fire in Montreal Harbour destroyed
3.000	tons of Danish butter? Apart from those
3.000	tons, what was the total quantity of butter imported in the past few weeks? How much is it proposed to import in the forthcoming months?
Are more fires of that kind required to lift the veil of secrecy on recent imports of eggs, which are purported to be the cause of a grave uneasiness on the Quebec market?
And how can one determine the dire consequences of certain large scale purchases of eggs from other provinces, which are purported to have been made very recently, always in order to bring down the price of eggs in the province of Quebec?
The hide-and-seek tactics of some dealers in such areas cannot be tolerated. Government authorities have at least the duty to make such information public as it is uncovered. If Quebec products are to be competed against and their prices brought down, by bringing in products from the outside, the responsible parties should be at least decent enough and courageous enough to make it known.
Things should not come to the point where the only way to find out the truth is through fire ... in such case, some people are sure to be really burned up.
In view of the fact that this news item about 6,000,000 pounds of butter from Denmark has not been denied, I have tried to find out from the minister what was the destination of that imported butter.
That news worried me because I know that dairy producers have to agitate and fight against incomes that are much too low.
I know that for the last year or two, butter consumption in Canada has exceeded production, about 23 million in 1965, but that does
May 24, 1SE6
5490	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion not mean that we cannot produce all the butter we can eat.
I believe, as La Terre de Chez Nous, that dairy producers should be informed of imports and exports of agricultural products.
The government tells us it wants to find a way of raising the income of dairy producers, but if it opens the door to butter imports Canadian producers may suffer.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister or his representative what was the destination of that butter imported from Denmark; how much was imported; does the government intend to import more.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), I should like to give the following explanation. I am sorry I cannot answer all parts of the question put by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise).
The 6,000,000 pounds of butter-I am told that is the figure-which melted in the harbour of Montreal fire were part of a series of imports authorized over the past nine months by the Department of Trade and Commerce, under the Export and Import Permits Act and with the consent of the Department of Agriculture.
That butter is imported for processing on the spot and immediate or nearly immediate reshipment.
In the case of the six millions pounds of butter in question, they were supposed to be reshipped for June 18, 1966.
Why those imports? Well, it seems that their purpose is not to compete with local industries, but on the contrary, to help the local factories specialized in butter processing.
Because of the situation mentioned by the hon. member it happens that certain processing plants are not sufficiently busy at the present time. That butter is imported to give them work, and the butter is then reshipped.
In the circumstances, three plants in the province of Quebec and one in the province of Ontario are involved. Among the three Quebec plants, there is the co-operative of Granby, the most important.
Where did that butter come from? From Europe. The hon. member mentioned Denmark. I am told also that some of it came from the Netherlands.
Where was it to be exported? To the United States and South America.


I hope this answers most of the questions raised by the hon. member.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- DISMISSAL OF PRODUCER OF COLUMBIA RIVER FILM

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on May 19 I asked the following question:
I wish to direct a question to the minister who will be acting for the Secretary of State today. In view of the fact that Mr. Tom Conochie, producer of the very interesting Columbia river television film for the C.B.C., has been informed that he will no longer be producer of this film, and in view of the fact that residents of British Columbia consider this a magnificent film and some say that Mr. Tom Conochie can show the Ottawa bunch a thing or two about how to film a river story-
And so on. In view of the circumstances surrounding this further unfortunate incident concerning producers employed by the C.B.C., and in view of my information with regard to the possibility of the cancellation of Wing Commander Tom Conochie's contract, which information has come from persons inside the C.B.C. in Vancouver but not from Mr. Tom Conochie himself, I am concerned about the completion of the work this producer has been doing in British Columbia.
He has had a great deal of experience. He was in charge of this type of work for the present government during the second world war and, since being a producer for the C.B.C., has produced a number of excellent films which have been recognized not only in Canada but also in other countries. Quite recently he undertook to make a film called "Columbia River and Tributaries of Power". This was a 60 minute film documentary of one of the great rivers of the world. It has been shown in British Columbia, but to date has not been shown in Ottawa.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have seen it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister says he has seen it. I hope that other members of this house will have the opportunity to see it, because it does present a very beautiful part of the district and records a very excellent story in respect of developments in that area at this time.
I hope the minister will use his influence with the Secretary of State to see that members of the house have an opportunity to see this most interesting documentary film. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this man was well liked by all the people in the Kootenay area. Not only is he a good producer, but also
May 24, 1966	COMMONS
he is bilingual and an artist in several respects. He has a certain common touch which makes him at home with the type of people with whom he is in contact. People are very concerned that this producer's contract may be cancelled and that he will not have an opportunity to conclude his work. Apparently this is quite fairly well known in British Columbia and particularly in the Kootenays.
I am rising this evening to bring the matter to the attention of the parliamentary secretary and ask him to bring it to the attention of the minister, so that he will have an opportunity to obtain the facts and see what can be done to retain the services of this first rate producer who has served the C.B.C. for quite a long period.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State : Mr. Speaker, no member who knows well the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is surprised at his interest in this film on the Columbia and, consequently, we are putting ourselves in the present atmosphere created by what we are agreed to call the "Seven Days" affair, the not less marked interest in the lot of the producer of this film on the Columbia, Mr. Tom Conochie. That is why it seemed unavoidable, under these circumstances, that the case of Mr. Conochie be not raised.
Being most sensitive to anything dealing with the Columbia river, those who followed the vicissitudes of the signing of the Columbia river treaty, will recall the numerous interventions of the hon member for Kootenay West. It was the intention of the hon. member to intervene as a result of what he calls the firing of the producer of the film on the Columbia river. In this case, as in
DEBATES	5491
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion others of the same kind, it is well to point out, in my opinion, that C.B.C. producers are employed on a contract basis and work regularly under contract with the corporation. In the case of Mr. Conochie, his contract was for 12 months and expired in January, 1966. On that date, that is in January, 1966, the C.B.C. which had signed with this producer a contract containing clauses stipulating that the corporation could, with or without reason, renew or not renew a contract, decided that Mr. Tom Conochie's contract expiring in January was not to be renewed. However, another contract was offered to him, but for a shorter term, that is 14 weeks, and Mr. Conochie turned it down. From January to May 14, 1966, Mr. Conochie worked for the C.B.C. as a producer on a monthly basis.
What has more interest for the hon. member for Kootenay West is the showing of the film on the Columbia river. In July, 1965, the producer, Mr. Conochie, was asked to produce black and white and colour films on the Columbia river for March 1, 1966.
Now, on March 1, 1966, the work was not completed. It is perhaps one of the reasons why the contract was not renewed.
In reply to the question which seems to interest the hon. member for Kootenay West, namely, if the film produced by Mr. Conochie, which he saw himself could be shown to members of this house, I must tell him, after inquiring from the C.B.C., that corporation authorities are making every possible effort to enable members of this house to take advantage of the fine work done by Mr. Tom Conochie in this very interesting film on the Columbia river and which is of great interest to the hon. member for Kootenay West.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.16 p.m.



Wednesday# May 25, 1966